I was rather disappointed when the Minister introduced his Estimate in July last that he did not seem to appreciate the urgency of implementing as soon as possible the report of the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure dealing with the jury system. The Minister told us on 5th of July last that he had three reports on the jury system before him and he used terms which to the ordinary person, have a rather sinister meaning. He said that he had at present these reports under consideration and he went on to say: "I shall in due course be introducing legislative proposals to deal with all these matters." When you are dealing with a Department of State and they tell you they have something under consideration and that something is going to be done in due course, you have a fair suspicion that there is going to be a long delay before the thing which is to be done in due course will be done.
There is an urgency about this matter which I think does not entirely escape the Minister. He will recall that one of the reports of the Committee advocated the extension of the classes from which juries are drawn. It is a fact that more citizens are exempt from jury service than are liable for it and this has resulted in dreadful hardship on those who are liable for jury service. In Cork in the last year, almost 600 jurors were summoned from a small area immediately surrounding the city and they were held at the Cork Courthouse — despite every effort of the presiding judge to facilitate them in every way — over a long period. These people were largely drawn from shopkeepers, farmers, self-employed people and people who would lose a day's pay if they were away from work, but they did not include categories which the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure suggest should be brought within the ambit of jury service, namely, civil servants and local government employees. The fact that a man who is self-employed may be called for jury service over a long period could be a very crippling blow to him. I know of men who were called for jury service and had to appear at the courthouse each morning and suffered grave financial hardship as a result. This could not be said about the civil servant or local government officer who no doubt would be left off in his employer's time and who would be able to relieve from jury service those sections and categories to which I have referred.
The hardships involved for jurors could be ameliorated if the suggestions of the Committee that they should be given reasonable remuneration for the time they spent on jury service were adopted. The figure of £2 was suggested in one of the reports. The unfortunate situation of the juryman who is summoned at the moment to serve on a criminal jury is that no matter how long he may serve, he gets not one brass farthing for giving his services to his fellow citizens. The position of the man who is called for a civil jury is not much better. No matter how long he may sit, at the end of the case the jury are given in silver 60 shillings to distribute between the 12 of them, that is, 5/- a man. In one civil case in Dublin not so long ago, which lasted for 21 days, the jurors were remunerated for their 21 days by getting 5/-each. These are grave and immediate problems and the fact that nothing has been done in regard to them over the years does not mean that the Minister should tarry over them.
I trust that he may be able to explain his reference to having at present under consideration the contents of the reports of the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure and that he may be able to tell us what "in due course" means in regard to the introduction of legislation. The Minister will understand that anything I say is not capricious or anything like that. It is a matter of serious import to a considerable section of the community and I am sure they would like to know the Minister's mind on this matter.
Whilst on court problems, there is another matter which I should like to draw to the Minister's attention and which does not appear to have commanded the attention either of the Minister or any of his predecessors in any Government. I refer to the growing practice of manufacturers to give with their goods an alleged warranty or guarantee which almost completely nullifies the sections of the Sale of Goods Act which were enacted many years ago to give assistance to the purchaser of goods which were not of a merchantable quality or not fit for the purpose for which they were purchased. As the Minister knows, the old common law was caveat emptor, let the purchaser beware. The Sale of Goods Act nullified that in many ways. Now when people buy something which is the output of a highly technical process, such as a motor car, an electric iron, a television set, a washing machine, or one of the many expensive things that people bring into their houses nowadays—some of those people, indeed, not being in a position to afford bringing them in but nevertheless they bring them in — they are given a most impressive document which indicates that they will be given certain things if the machine does not work; if they return parts at their own expense, they will be given new parts, but they have to put them in at their own expense. What a man does by accepting that is that he does away with the Sale of Goods Act rights.
It is difficult for a person who buys one of the articles I refer to, to know, without technical knowledge, whether the thing is fitted for the purpose for which it is purchased or if it is of merchantable quality. Indeed, I understate it when I say it is difficult; it is well-nigh impossible. These goods are produced by firms with much expertise and technical knowledge at their disposal. It would be equitable, right and fair — it certainly would be highly popular and very welcome — if some legislation were introduced to nullify in turn the alleged warranties and guarantees given by the manufacturers or the sellers of these goods when they hand them on to the unfortunate purchaser. It is a thought I would like the Minister to keep in mind.
I have for some time been questioning the Minister here on a local matter regarding pound fees in Cork city. The matter has a serious local import at the moment inasmuch as the people of the constituency I represent, Cork city, particularly in the north central section of it, suffer greatly from the depredations of wandering horses allowed to roam at will day and night by itinerants One young man has already been killed without any hope for his relatives of recovering any damages from the owners of the horse; first, because it is hard to know who was the owner and secondly, even if you did, you would find he was not a man of substance. In addition, gardens are destroyed and children menaced by these wandering horses. At the moment the situation is that, apart from any action taken by way of summons by the local authority or the gardaí, the horse is taken and put into the local pound. By the simple expedient of going up the next morning and offering 6/- the itinerant can recover his horse.
I have suggested to the Minister on a number of occasions that he might consider increasing that pound fee to, say, £2 in the hope that it would discourage the itinerant class from allowing their horses to wander in this way and doing damage not alone to personal property but to life and limb in the manner in which they have done on previous occasions. In reply to a question of mine, the Minister did undertake to consult with the interests concerned. I think that in the press of official business, he must have overlooked doing this. I asked the City Manager at the Corporation last week if the Minister had yet consulted with him and I was told he has not done so. I agree this is purely a local parish pump matter, but it is an important matter to a large section of the community in Cork city to the extent of maybe 12,000 persons, young and old. It is a matter of growing urgency because tempers are rising among those who suffer from the depredations of these horses.
While on the Garda Vote, I am sorry the Minister could not afford the sum of about £5,000 requested of him by some of the Garda pensioners in respect of their pensions. I understand his predecessor informed the Garda pensioners —the Minister will find the reference in an editorial in the Garda Review in either this or last month — that the State at the moment could not afford £5,000 to meet the rather reasonable requests of the pensioners.
There is another matter I want to deal with which I meant to deal with when the Minister's previous Estimate was before the House, but owing to circumstances outside my control, I had to leave the House. I was requested to do so by you, Sir, before I could participate in the debate. The Minister had stated he had under consideration the setting up of eight new district probate registries in this State. I want to say to him: "I do not think it is worth while; I do not think the expense involved will give the value that it should give." Due to the circumstances I mentioned, I could not deal with it then; and what I say now may lead to recrimination. It arose out of the remark made by the Minister introducing his Estimate in which he said that the setting up of these new registries would provide a convenient local service throughout the country for persons wishing to take out grants of representation in respect of the estates of deceased persons.
I do not know how much convenience will be effected by the setting up of these new district probate registries. I do know that the Minister at some stage estimated it would cost about £6,500 per annum to keep these registries going. I do not know whether that includes the allowances made to the county registrars in the areas concerned. I know that the six county registrars who at the moment act as district probate registrars get between them over £750 a year. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that the extra eight will cost about £1,000 a year, but whether that is included in the £6,500 to which the Minister referred, I do not know.
The new district probate registries were established in Clonmel, Donegal, Dundalk, Galway, Mullingar, Sligo, Tralee and Wexford. They were added to those already existing in Castlebar, Cavan, Cork, Kilkenny, Limerick and Waterford and, of course, the principal probate registry in Dublin. Is the expenditure in question worth the money? If it did provide what the Minister says —a more convenient local service — I would welcome its introduction into the House. There are two sections of the community involved in this. There is the person who wants personally to take out a grant of representation to a deceased. Then there is the solicitor who on behalf of his client wants to take out a grant of representation. Let us take the case of the person who wants to take out the grant himself. A few years ago, up to the passing of the Succession Act, in the case of small estates up to £500 or £600, he could go to the local customs and excise officer in the area and he could do the work for him. This was a very easy way in which a person taking out a personal grant of a small estate could get the work done. This was taken away by the Succession Act.
In regard to the Minister's proposal, which came into force on 1st January last, to introduce eight new district probate registries, it does not assist much in the case of the person who wishes to take out a grant to a small estate and who wants to take out a personal grant. Take the person in Castle-townbere in Cork. Up to the passing of the Succession Act, he could go to the nearest town, Bantry, to the local customs officer and get his work done. Under the new provision he has to go up to the district probate registry in Cork. Take his counterpart in Kerry, somewhere down in the Dingle peninsula. Instead of going to the local customs officer as in the past, that person would now have to come as far as Tralee to the local district registry if he wanted to do the work himself. I do not see how the Minister can possibly suggest that it is a more convenient means of obtaining grants of representation than what previously existed.
Take even the case of solicitors. The only people who will possibly find their business made easier in this respect are the practitioners in the towns in which the new registries have been set up. Take the case of the practitioners in Kerry. Up to now they were served by district probate registries in Cork and Limerick. They posted their business to these places and got their business back in due time. What happens now is that the local practitioner in Kerry, outside Tralee, has to post his business to Tralee instead of Cork and Limerick, which costs him the same postage, and therefore there is no advantage whatsoever unless he is going to drive from the town in which he practises into Tralee to carry out his business. The provisions to which the Minister referred have not in any way produced a system which is as cheap or as expeditious as the system, especially in respect of small grants, which existed in the past.
I do not intend to keep the House much longer except to point out one little thing, that since the free and convenient service given by the custom and excise officers is gone, now when a person applies to a district registry, the State charges fees over and above the probate fees they would have to pay if they employed a solicitor. I understand the fees paid to the State are much higher than if they employed a solicitor. The value of the service given by the customs and excise officers, whose function in this matter was abolished by the Minister and replaced evidently by this £6,500 scheme, is shown by some of the statistics for 1965. The year 1965 shows that only 64 personal applications for grants of representation were made, and that the services of the customs and excise officers were availed of on 88 occasions. As regards the person who makes a personal application for a grant, the statistics to which the Minister had access prior to introducing the system do not show that there was any need, much less an immediate need, for the provisions which he has now made.
Over the three years prior to 1965, there was no personal application for a grant made in Kerry. The Minister may say: "Yes, but now that the new local residence has been set up, they will always be dashing in to get their personal grant." I do not think this will be so, because the person who wishes to make a personal application will still have to travel to Tralee from the borders of Kerry, wherever he may exist, instead of, as in the past, getting, free, gratis and for nothing, the assistance of the customs and excise officer. In Sligo-Leitrim the system was always the same; there was one application in the three years prior to 1965.
Therefore, I think the Minister was quite wrong when he tried to suggest to the House — and I am sorry I have to say this after rather than before he brought this scheme into operation —that this was a more convenient system. It may be a convenient system but it is certainly not more convenient than the system that was available to practitioners and to other persons. It is neither more convenient nor as cheap as the system operated before 1965 when the Minister's Department started messing around with the provisions relating to the taking out of grants. In fact it has been, in many cases, made more difficult and more expensive.