Deputy John Geoghegan reported progress.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 20: Office of the Minister for Justice (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That a sum not exceeding £292,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1969, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice, and of certain other Services administered by that Office, including a Grantin-Aid; and of the Public Record Office, and of the Keeper of State Papers and for the purchase of Historical Documents, etc.
—(Minister for Justice).
A Cheann Comhairle, I submit that it is only right that we, on this side of the House, should give credit to the excellent and efficient Garda Force that we have had in this country since the foundation of the State. It is only right to say that, as an unarmed force, they have done wonderful work through difficult times— even at times when they were not getting the support of the Government of the country—in protecting the lives, interests and property of the people. Special praise is certainly due to them. Their pay and living conditions should be as attractive as the State can possibly make them.
At the present time many people are inclined to refer to the Department of Justice as the "Department of Injustice." I believe that there is far too much interference with the police force in this country at present. In the conscientious discharge of their duties they should be free from political or any other type of interference. Unfortunately, in this country, today, I am sorry to say there is far too much political interference with an excellent Force that is being hampered in the exercise of its duties. Indeed, many people are disturbed about this. There is grave suspicion abroad that in Ireland today there are two laws. There is one law for the rich and for those with connections in high places, for those in the Fianna Fáil Party, and for those who can work or "pull strings" through Taca or other similar organisations. There is another law for the poor. Unfortunately, many people can point to actual cases, both in the Courts and where prosecutions have been deliberately stopped, stalled and stymied. These cases certainly seem to lend credence to these suspicions. It is very hard for the ordinary people not to be disturbed when evidence seems to confirm these suspicions. Today many people are inclined to say "It is not what you do but who happens to do it." It is said that if you are "well enough in," and if you can "pull strings," you can almost get away with murder. There are particular cases where, if they cannot be stopped before they get to court, then we find that through deliberate bungling, either by the prosecution or by somebody concerned with the prosecution, people who should be serving long terms of imprisonment in Mountjoy Jail get off scot free. You can refer to the Singer case and I know also of a case in Roscommon where political influence was used to try and stop the case. It certainly could not be stopped because it was a glaring case where a man was killed, unfortunately, and the man who was driving did not even stop at the scene of the accident. There was so much bungling by the prosecution afterwards that the body was not even identified in the court and the man got off scot free.
There are many other cases which I could mention. Many people in high places are not very pleased with the recent case about the Cork housing affair. They claim that there was bungling in that case by the prosecution and that, if there was not bungling, other people should have been convicted. In my part of the country if a man is in an accident or involved in a serious court case, there are even particular "contact men" in certain places of whom it is said that they have the power to settle the case. It is a wellknown fact that in one particular case in Rooskey there was a "contact man" and the cars were regularly seen at his house. I know of people going down to see this particular man to get cases settled or prosecutions stopped. Unfortunately, I have come across it myself, where people came to me and I told them that, so far as the law of the land was concerned, I was not prepared to interfere in any of those cases. They went to this particular man and they could come back afterwards and tell me to my face that they got the case stopped. I know in many cases they were stopped and prosecutions were not taken.
I also want to refer to the sentences. I think it is only right to say that the sentences in certain cases of convictions at present are anything but uniform. Recently, I read that at Coachford village in Cork a publican was fined 50s for a breach of the licensing laws. Two men were found on the premises 15 minutes after closing time. They were fined £1 each. They had been playing at a ballad session and the publican swore that he brought them in and gave them a drink after the ballad session. The justice remarked that people were fortunate in that area to get so much free drink. He fined the publican £2 10s and the two men £1 each.
It was a dear drink on them.
It was. Shortly afterwards a prosecution was heard against a local publican and he was charged with a breach at 3.5 a.m., almost four hours after closing time. Fifteen people were found on the premises and that many more got away. The superintendent was pressing the case as strongly as he could and before the prosecution was finished the justice with a wave of his hand, said "Case dismissed".
Give the names.
(Interruptions.)
It is not in order for the Deputy to criticise decisions of district justices. It is not usual in this House nor is it in order.
I am talking about uniformity of sentences. Deputy Meaney asked me a question and I wanted to show that there was political interference because in the latter case the Taoiseach had been there that night making a presentation to Deputy Meaney's father and in this case where there were 16 men on the premises the justice would not even allow it to continue to the end but threw it out.
The Deputy may not proceed along those lines. The Deputy is making a serious charge.
It is a very serious charge.
He always uses this House for slander.
I could say the time a certain publican closed the other night during a Fine Gael dance in Millstreet. It was after hours and he is one of yours, Mr. Mud-slinger.
Look, this is a ruling of a district justice that I got from the newspapers. If there is anything wrong contradict me. I am only saying what I read in the papers.
(Interruptions.)
Order. This cannot be discussed in the House.
I challenge the Deputy to repeat it outside the House.
I object to political interference and I am claiming here that in certain cases this happens.
In August, 1964, a County Donegal farmer had a child of 13 years of age employed as a tractor driver. The boy was killed when the tractor overturned on the public road. Nobody has ever heard of any proceedings taken against the owner because two or three of his family are members of the Donegal Mafia and they are to be found at every by-election and they supply cars for every by-election. That is quite true.
You have stayed on this slander for four years. Who are they?
I got that information a week ago.
It is festering with you for four years, since 1964.
It is festering with me for one week. When I get information I bring it up here. I got it one week ago.
If you keep it another while it will hatch out.
Did you ask for their names? I will give the name. The name is Sweeney from Milford in County Donegal.
Under this Government we have one law for one section of the people and another law for other sections. We have one law for the farmers. When they marched here a few years ago the full rigour of the law was applied as far as they were concerned. They were not allowed to parade outside Leinster House. They were arrested and thrown into Mountjoy Prison. Yet, when the Tenants' Association marched, what happened? Because it was before the referendum and the Minister for Local Government wanted to get votes out of it, he informed RTE and he had RTE down at the gates of Leinster House to meet them and to get himself on television that night and to get all the publicity he could. Recently the students marched. I have no objection to peaceful marching and people demanding their rights so long as they keep within the law.
This was after the referendum.
It was before the general election.
Yes, there are two by-elections pending and a general election and the Government are in chaos and there is a crisis in the Government and we know that no two Ministers are speaking or agreeing among themselves at present.
Like yourself and your leader.
When the students marched they were allowed to have a meeting outside the gates of Leinster House. There is one law for the farmers of this country. When they marched they were thrown into Black Marias and hawked to Mountjoy Jail and others were allowed to demonstrate. We are entitled to get an answer to that. We should refer also to the fact that universal direction was given by this Government to district justices when they were dealing with the farmers two years or a year and a half ago and I think that is completely wrong.
It is time a statement was made by the Minister for Justice that when a garda does his duty he will have the full backing of his superiors, his sergeant, his superintendent, his chief superintendent, right up to the Minister for Justice. We know that certain people in the Fianna Fáil organisation can tell guards and sergeants to their faces: "If you prosecute me I will have you sent to the far end of Mayo or Donegal".
Or to Westmeath.
I would not send my worst enemy there. That would be real punishment.
The Minister sent his brother to the best bit of land in County Dublin.
When you sold yours to the foreigner we could not send anyone to it.
He was entitled to do it.
I sold my farm and I bought another one equally as good, thanks be to God.
That does not arise.
I am entitled to reply.
The Deputy is not entitled to reply to anything except to relate his remarks to the Estimate.
If the people who bought my land were foreigners, why were they not made pay the 25 per cent duty that farmers were supposed to pay at that time?
You fixed it for them with Forum Ltd. I know how it was done.
Whatever was done was the responsibility of the Fianna Fáil Government because they were in government.
It was a conspiracy. It was done by you and your pals.
If that is so it is the Minister's duty to get after it with the full rigours of the law.
The Deputy should be silent about land after that.
It was sold to an Irish firm and I bought another equally as good. I am entitled to do it. I did not rob a bank to get the money.
Will the Deputy please come to the Estimate before the House?
I know men who have resigned from the Garda because of the amount of political pressure and political interference with them in the discharge of their duties.
The Garda programme on RTE is very good. It plays its part in detecting crime and also in the prevention of crime. It would be a good idea if it could be extended or even if it could be on for five minutes each night. Perhaps it would help to apprehend criminals.
I should like to refer briefly to death on our roads. Unfortunately, it still continues. One of the reasons I think it is continuing is that enough has not been done to put the drunken driver off the road. When I refer to political interference I want to say that the majority of it is in relation to cases in which drunken drivers have killed and maimed people and have used their influence to get off scot free. The time has come for the Department of Justice to put down their foot in this direction.
That is what is happening. The drunken drivers are putting down their feet.
Only one of them.
When you put them back on their feet take their driving licences away and make them walk.
I should like to say a few words about the bankruptcy laws. They are completely out of date and lead to gross dishonesty. Many of us know many very prominent and even some prosperous business people, contractors and cattle dealers, who are mixed up in deals which result in people being hungry or ending up in a very bad way. It is wrong that people should deliberately go to marts, buy cattle, and then when the cattle are exported to England, after sums of £15,000 or £20,000 have been paid over many cheques returned marked RD. When action is taken against such people it is found that they have gone to England leaving everything in the names of their wives. They pocket everything but only pay a shilling or two to the people they defrauded. The Bankruptcy Act needs to be brought up to date immediately so that those people will be caught.
I raised a question in relation to juries the other day. Certain sections of the community, such as farmers and business people, when they have to attend court, lose perhaps one day, two days, three days and in some cases a week of their time. Those people are complete slaves to jury service. It is very hard that those sections of the community should be obliged to give their time and labour free and something should be done for them.
I always understood that a traffic warden in a city—at least this is the case in England—was there to assist strangers, to help to ease traffic and to direct people where to go but, unfortunately, the majority of them here spend all their time putting stickers on cars. Instead of being a social asset, they seem to be operating punitive measures against the public.
I should also like to refer briefly to the squad cars which pester lorry owners. Many lorry owners are small farmers; some may be labourers who saved their money and bought a lorry. They are held up on the roads for, perhaps, an hour or two. In some cases they may, perhaps, be breaking the law of the land carrying livestock or some other merchandise. It would be much better if the squad cars were more employed trying to apprehend the criminals in our midst. I want to refer to a case I mentioned in the House last March, a case in which the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice tried to hide under my skirts.
Have you changed sex?
I gave full information to the House in regard to this case immediately I heard it. I did not sleep on it for a week. I certainly did not sleep on it for four years as the Minister tried to infer in relation to a case about five months ago. I want to compare this with what happened when the Taoiseach got information in regard to the house building case in Cork. Is it not true that the Taoiseach had that information for six months and that the people concerned were coming to him every week asking: "Are you getting anywhere? What have you done about it so far?" His reply every weekend was: "I am doing my best. It is hard to do anything about it. I doubt if we will get anywhere." I challenge him to say whether that is true.
There is a charge being made against the Taoiseach in his absence by the Deputy. I suggest this matter should be raised with the Taoiseach on his Estimate or in some other way.
I refer to this because the charge has been made that I did nothing about this other case. I went after it in the only legal way I could and I did not go away from it as happened in the other case. The Taoiseach had particulars about the Cork housing case for six months and did nothing about it. It was only when the people gave the case to Deputy Stephen Barrett and the late Deputy Casey that the Taoiseach moved and did something about it. I want to go back to the other case I mentioned because I believe it is only right that it should be raised on the Estimate for the Department of Justice. I want to give all the evidence and the Minister for Justice should take action in this case. So far he has refused to do this. The reference number of this case is 1967, No. 94 OP and it is Kelly, national teacher from Donegal versus Dundrum Enterprises.
Is this the case in which Mr. Cooney BL gave you his brief?
No, it is not. He did not give me his brief. I do not need briefs from Mr. Cooney or anyone else. There are plenty of briefless barristers over there.
He gave you his brief.
He did not. The last time the Minister said it was my brother-in-law, now it happens to be Mr. Cooney. It was neither. I have not got a brother-in-law.
I say the Deputy got a copy of Mr. Cooney's brief.
I got a copy of nobody's brief.
The Deputy is quoting from something. The Deputy had the brief and showed it to his friends.
I have here what I quoted from on the 13th March.
May I point out to Deputy L'Estrange that this matter has already been debated in the House and it would be totally out of order to have repetition of it now?
I asked the Minister a question about it and the Minister made certain allegations against me. I claim this refers to the Department of Justice and I am entitled to defend myself here and reply to the allegations made by the Minister against me. This definitely is a case in which the Department of Justice should take action. I am not satisfied with what the Department of Justice have done so far in this case. I believe there is too much being swept under the mat and that it is time there was a full investigation of this case or that the papers concerned were laid before the House. I want to make that case. I believe I am entitled to make that case because it is the Department of Justice who are now dealing with it. When I raised it before, it was on the Planning Bill and I addressed myself to the Department of Local Government, but it can also be raised here, with due respect to you, Sir.
You refused to make a statement to the Garda when they went to you.
Everything I said is here.
Why did you not make a statement to the Garda?
I want to quote it again. It is here now and it will be down in black and white. Mr. Kelly said he had friends in the right place, in high places, that he could get planning permission for a consideration— shades of Taca. The amount agreed on was £3,000. Five hundred pounds was paid over to Mr. Kelly, and post-dated cheques were given for the remainder —a cheque for £1,000, a second cheque for £1,000 and a third cheque for £500. That was in January, 1966. The cheques were dated for March, 1966. The defendant got his planning permission through the intercession of Mr. Kelly. However, we know that gratitude can be a heavy burden, so what did Dundrum Enterprises do? They stopped the three cheques.
The plaintiff, Mr. Kelly, sued for £2,500 representing the stopped cheques and the court case was held on Thursday, 7th March, 1968. The first defence entered was a denial that planning permission had been obtained through the good offices of Mr. Kelly or that the site had been sold at an enhanced price. Mr. Kelly replied to that and stated that he had been responsible for getting the planning permission and that this money was due to him. The defendants entered a second defence that it was contrary to public policy.
We all know that the case was to have been heard on Thursday, 7th March. When both the defendant and the plaintiff arrived in court they saw that the court was filled with journalists and photographers. Neither could afford to wash his dirty linen in open court, so a settlement was reached for a considerable part of the sum claimed. The sum claimed was £2,500 and the settlement reached was for £1,500.
You got that from Cooney, did you not?
I did not get it from Cooney.
Where did you find out about the settlement? You seem to know all about it. You were mixed up with these scruffy people.
The Minister knows as much about it as I do, but because too much dirt would come out in the washing the Minister put his foot down.
The Minister had not got anything to do with it. The Deputy withdrew these charges in this House against the then Minister for Local Government. Did the Deputy not withdraw the charge of corruption in connection with it in this House?
I am dealing with a particular case——
Did you withdraw in this case——
I am dealing with a case of corruption.
You are running away again.
I am running away from nothing. I am dealing with a case where a man got £2,500——
Through your friend, Cooney. You said it was settled for £1,500. You seem to know all about it.
I am coming to what the Minister for Justice said to me.
Why did you not make a statement to the Garda?
I am making it here.
Be a man and make it outside the House.
I am putting it in black and white. The case would have gone ahead but it was stopped by the Government——
That is a lie. It is completely untrue.
Is it in order for the Minister to call the Deputy a liar?
It is utterly untrue.
Is it in order for the Minister——
When Deputy L'Estrange is consistently and continually making lying allegations I am entitled to describe what he said as untrue.
I am making statements which are quite true. He got £2,000.
A minute ago you said it was £1,500. You had it from your pal, the barrister Cooney.
There was a settlement for £1,500 and he had cashed the first cheque for £500.
Were you and Cooney in on the settlement?
I have never been in on any settlement. I can get up in the House and swear it. I have been in public life 13 years and I have never got a halfpenny. I hope I will die the same.
You and your friend Cooney seemed to have made money.
A fortnight ago you said it was a brother-in-law——
What is the connection between yourself and Cooney, the barrister?
Which barrister?
You do not even know. He is Cooney, the same as Locke's Distillery. You were quoting from his brief.
I was quoting from nobody's brief but my own.
At this stage the Chair suggests to the Deputy that if he is repeating what he has said, if he has not got some additional information, it must be regarded as repetition.
I am not repeating what has been said on any past Vote for the Department of Justice. Certainly not. I am doing no such thing. I am giving here a blatant case of corruption that has occurred where a man got a cheque for £500 and a settlement for £1,500, making a sum of £2,000. We are entitled to know why he got that sum and why the Government did not do anything about it. I shall come to 24th October, 1968, when a question was put down in the House about this case. Deputy Moran, the Minister for Justice, admitted it and asked why he had not come forward to give the evidence. I have put this down in black and white and I am putting it down again. The Minister's answer was that the defendant alleged that the plaintiff had held himself out as being able to use such influence. The Minister continued:
His claim was that he had assisted in the making of the case for the appeal.
Does the Minister believe that if he had assisted in the making of the case he would have got £2,000? This person is a national teacher. He is not an architect and he is not a quantity surveyor who can draw up plans or do any of that type of work. If you admit that he said—this is supposed to have been got from the chief superintendent's files and it was admitted by yourself in the House that he had assisted in the making of the case——
I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that the Chair has not assisted anybody. Remarks must be addressed to the Chair.
The Minister is trying to whitewash.
I whitewash nobody, least of all those concerned, you or Mr. Cooney.
At this stage might we inquire who Cooney is? Deputy L'Estrange has never mentioned anybody by the name.
He is very backward in coming forward where Cooney is concerned.
I came forward when I got this information. The Minister for Justice continued at column 1354 of the Official Report:
His claim was that he had assisted in the making of the case for the appeal. Both the context in which this appears and other documents go to show that the reference by the plaintiff was a reference to legitimate assistance...
In the name of God, what do you mean by "legitimate assistance"? You tried to whitewash this to such an extent that you called it "legitimate assistance."
I quoted from the documents before me in this case.
Was £2,000 just peanuts in your eyes?
They are friends of your friend, Deputy L'Estrange.
They are no friends of mine.
You seem to know all about them.
The man concerned was a Fianna Fáil man. His brother ran for the Seanad as a Fianna Fáil candidate. He has helped Fianna Fáil and worked for Fianna Fáil.
You say you were in on the settlement.
I was in on no settlement. Do not try to get out of it in that way. Do your business as Minister for Justice.
The gardaí wanted a statement from you.
The Chair will have to insist that remarks be addressed to the Chair.
The Minister continued, at column 1355:
The Garda enquiries lasted from 12th March to 8th April and the results were communicated to the Attorney General on 11th April. The Attorney General's decision was that there was no evidence on which to base a charge against any person.
If the allegations finally made in the amended defence filed in this case are true I deplore the sordid transaction to which directors of this company were a party whereby they thought they could secure their objectives by improper means.
What, in the name of God, does he mean by that?
That is what the Deputy calls whitewashing.
Surely it is a sordid action by Kelly to take the £2,000?
By the lot of them.
Certainly. You admit now that it is a sordid action by the lot of them. If it is a sordid action, why can you not take action against these people?
Because there is no evidence and the Deputy refused to help with the evidence.
You have got the pleadings. All you want is there in them; but you are not prepared to go ahead because you know quite well that too much dirt would come out in the washing.
There is no question of dirt. They refused to make statements, the same as the Deputy refused, and we could get no evidence, and well you know it.
Surely you could go ahead and set up a tribunal to inquire into this?
For what?
Why not?
The Deputy withdrew his charges of corruption in this case against the then Minister for Local Government, Deputy Blaney. Is he going back on that now?
You are the only person who mentioned his name.
You are the only person who mentioned his name.
It was debated in this House and the Minister, Deputy Blaney, mentioned the case here in the House.
I want to say that I have not run away from anything. I am putting it again on the record of the House. The information is there for you now as Minister for Justice. If you believe in justice, here is a case of a man who has got £2,000, who had no qualification as an architect, as a quantity surveyor, as a solicitor, but held himself out as one who could use his influence in high places to get permission. When it was got—as I have told you and do not want to go back over it—the company refused to honour the cheques. You have the information. It is over to you.
It is you who had the information about him getting £1,500 in the settlement and you would not give a statement to the guards. Why would you not help the guards?
The whole thing is there in black and white for you.
Why would you not help the guards? You ran away from it, as you always do.
I want to charge that as far as the police are concerned they were prepared to go ahead with it—they would—but because of the politics and politicians involved in it, the Minister for Justice——
That is untrue.
——refused to do his duty.
The Deputy ran away from this, the same as he ran away from every charge made in this House.
It is your duty to take action in this case or resign the important folio you hold because you are not fit to hold the position you hold today if you are not prepared, in this sordid transaction——
That comes well—a sordid transaction amongst your own friends.
——to show, as Minister of an Irish Government that you stand for justice and want to see justice in this country.
You do not understand the meaning of justice.
I know the meaning of it.
You are not fit to be a Deputy in this House. You would not make a statement to the guards.
I am giving the truth here to the people.
You make a statement when you are privileged in this House but you ran away with your tail between your legs.
I ran away from nothing.
He always does.
I will run away from nothing. I will come in here——
Will both Deputy L'Estrange and Deputy O'Leary restrain themselves?
Is it not rather odd that the Minister and Deputy O'Leary from Kerry are allowed to interrupt Deputy L'Estrange like this?
Deputy L'Estrange knows he is completely out of order and withdrew these charges against the Minister for Local Government. He made them and withdrew them and he is regurgitating them here this evening.
Surely, this is an example of sheer ignorance on the part of the Minister that, when I address a question to the Chair, he interrupts?
There has been so much of this interruption. Deputies ought to remember that Parliament is a place where matters ought to be debated calmly, without shouting across the House. The Chair would point out to Deputy L'Estrange that, unless there is any new matter further to what he has said there should be no repetition on a matter such as this in the House.
I want to conclude by saying that at column 1357 the Minister stated:
Deputy L'Estrange's brother-in-law was counsel and it was from him he quoted in his pleadings to this House. Go to the guards and give them a statement.
I want to say that I have no brother-in-law a counsel that I know of. I certainly have no brother-in-law. Does the Minister know what he is talking about? He is a Minister who makes that statement. I want to tell you that I have no brother-in-law to get this information from. I want to say again that the Minister has the full facts now. I challenge him to set up a tribunal to investigate this sordid transaction or to put all the papers and the evidence concerning this case before the House. I challenge him to do it. I know he will not because too much dirt would come out in the washing, too many people closely associated with the Fianna Fáil Party would be named in it. I know he will refuse to do it.
Deputy Moore rose.
After listening to Deputy L'Estrange wallowing in dirt, I want to get back to the serious aspects of this debate.
Did Deputy Moore offer?
I am giving way to the Minister.
If Deputy Moore is not speaking, I want to speak. Is the Minister concluding?
Yes. If the Minister starts, he is concluding. That is quite clear.
I wished to speak but Deputy Moore rose.
He gave way to the Minister.
Deputy Moore can give way if he wants to.
I understand that this arrangement was made between the Whips.
If there is an arrangement, that is all right.
Deputies will appreciate, I am sure, that I cannot be expected to deal with all the points raised in the course of this long debate. We have been some days debating this Estimate. I hope to cover the points made by Deputies as best I can but because of the multiplicity of points raised it would be impossible in the time at my disposal to deal with them all.
Deputy Michael O'Higgins raised the question of the operation of the Ground Rents Act and also the question of costs under that Act. It is difficult to assess the extent, generally, to which the Act is being availed of. However, it is clear that the Act is by no means a dead letter as Deputy O'Higgins would appear to suggest. In Dublin alone, since the Act came into operation, only in March of last year, some 70 applications have been made to the county registrar for arbitration. These cases might be regarded as the tip of the iceberg since the Act was framed so that agreement between the parties was facilitated in every way, that is, by the provision of a maximum purchase price in all ordinary cases, and 18 awards have been made in Dublin. I am sure that there have been very many other cases in which settlement has been reached.
This has been a very useful piece of legislation. As in the case of other Acts that went before it, it has now been discovered in practice that perhaps the Act might be more widespread and certain weaknesses in the Act's application have come to light. It is now felt that the Act should be more comprehensive and I am asking the Commission to examine the matters that have come to light with a view to extending the scope of the Act and broadening it, if necessary.
The position as regards costs under the Act is that the purchasing tenant is liable for the costs of both parties but only for those reasonably and necessarily incurred. The question of costs is one which can be referred to the arbitration of a county registrar under the Act and the county registrar is empowered to tax the costs of the arbitration proceedings. The Act also provides for the legality of giving or accepting a shorter title than open title, or the old 30 years title, so as to reduce costs. Naturally the costs in these matters vary and in the simplest case, that is where there are no intervening interests between the fee simple owner and the tenant, the costs in relation to a purchase price of £200 have been estimated at approximately £12 10s for each party. That would be going on the basis of the charges in conveyancing, but no estimate can be given of a maximum because they vary depending on the case and the amount involved.
While there have been a number of general complaints about the possible inhibiting effect of costs on the operation of the Act, no complaint has been received which established that the costs sought actually had that effect or, indeed, that such costs were exorbitant. I have received no complaint in a specific case.
Considerable thought has been given to having a system of simple statutory title which would reduce costs to a minimum. Possible lines for examination are compulsory registration on special terms or a statutory declaration of title related to a receipt for the purchase money. This is a question which will fall to be examined by the Landlord and Tenant Commission when they come to review the 1967 Act as part of their general examination of landlord and tenant law. They will also review the other weaknesses in the scope of the Act to which I have already referred. Where groups of tenants wish to buy out the fee simple, arrangements can be made which reduce costs considerably. Instances of this have already come to notice. For example, where there are a number of ground tenants of the one estate, the costs of making the landlord's title should be divided amongst the tenants, so that each tenant will not have to pay the full amount. After all, there is only one title to be established and when it has been established for one it is equally established for the others on the same conditions.
Several Deputies have referred to delays in the Land Registry. I agree that the service which the Registry is able to give is not satisfactory in certain respects and I have made its improvement one of my top priorities. The unsatisfactory service can be attributed almost entirely to the persistent difficulty for some years now of recruiting and maintaining an adequate staff at all levels. The difficulty of recruiting and maintaining staff has applied, of course, to the Civil Service generally but is more acutely felt in an office such as the Land Registry which has to deal with an everincreasing volume of business. This is a pattern that will continue. The work of the Land Registry will continue to expand as more and more holdings and farms are vested and more and more titles are registered. We will soon be coming to the stage of further compulsory registration, taking the country county by county, so that we can expect the pace of the growth of Land Registry business will continue. Indeed, the pace of growth of Land Registry business can be gauged from the fact that the intake in the present year is running at 20 per cent to 25 per cent above last year's intake.
I have been considering ways and means of overcoming the difficulty and now have firm grounds for hoping that most of the vacancies will be filled quickly.
The question of staff shortages has been most acute in the mapping branch, upon which depends to a large extent the speed at which business can be discharged. I have now filled all the mapping draftsman vacancies by the recruitment of temporary draftsmen pending assignments from an open competition. Looking to the future, I hope to introduce into the office a new grade of trainee draftsman so as to ensure that we will have at all times an adequate supply of trained staff. An important feature of the trainee draftsman scheme is that we will no longer be restricting ourselves to looking for people with a knowledge of and training in draftsmanship, but will be seeking boys and girls with a suitable standard of education and an aptitude for the work, and training them ourselves. This has been a chronic weakness not alone in the organisation of the Land Registry but, indeed, in the mapping sections of many other Government Departments. I had the same difficulty in the Department in which I was previously, the Land Commission. There was a certain amount of grabbing going on between the different Departments in regard to the limited supply of draftsmen forthcoming from the Ordnance Survey Office and other places. We have now got down to the practical method of taking in men and training them. I believe that this will not alone be a shortterm but a long-term solution. I am fully conscious of the grave inconvenience caused by delays in the Land Registry to the general public in particular. Very many people are concerned in these times trying to get Land Commission consent for subdivision for the purposes of building urgently-needed cottages on small plots, and this entails the obtaining of maps from the Land Registry and the marking of these maps in accordance with the directions of the subdivision forms in the Land Commission. If there is a bottleneck in the Land Registry, particularly in the mapping section, whereby these people cannot get their maps there is a long delay which affects the young man who is building the house, the contractor and people waiting for grants depending on title and so on. When I found on a visit I made to this office what the position was, that it was a matter of urgency, then in conference with the staff we set about trying to solve the problem. I am glad to inform the House that measures have been taken and are producing results.
A good deal of work has been done in recent years to improve the efficiency of the Land Registry by providing additional accommodation and by introducing improved procedures and working methods. The improved procedures and methods were, however, introduced into the existing overall organisational structure of the office. I have become convinced that the time has come to have a good hard look at the overall internal structure itself, to see whether and how it could be reorganised on more efficient lines. I have, therefore, set up a special study group to go into all aspects of the matter and to let me have their recommendations as quickly as possible. The group have already studied the Northern Ireland Land Registry and two Registries in Britain. I expect to have their recommendations before me shortly.
I hope, in so far as mechanising that office is concerned, particularly now with new accommodation and a speeding-up of the work of the Land Registry, that practitioners and the public generally will soon see the effects of this reorganisation. Practically every Deputy mentioned the delays, but they paid tribute to the staff and placed it on record that the staff there were always helpful to Deputies and that they were not attributing these delays to the staff. Of course, I accept that and I know it well. The position was that the registrar could not get the staff for which he was looking and the bottlenecks which had occurred were due to no fault of the registrar or the existing staff. At all events, I am satisfied that we will get a more streamlined procedure there and I hope that by the time this Estimate comes around again Deputies will not have to complain about the delays that occur in the Land Registry, particularly in regard to obtaining maps and getting subdivisions. While I admit that there were delays due to shortage of staff let me also say, and some Deputies stated this, that in all cases the delay was not due to the officials of the Land Registry. Deputies have found, and I have found on receiving complaints from different parts of the country, that in some instances the delay was due to the solicitors concerned.
It is an easy matter for a busy practitioner, if one of his clients is importuning him about delay, to say there is a delay in the Land Registry, and sometimes it transpires that the delay is on the solicitor's part. I do not say that is general, but it does occur from time to time. Indeed, some Deputies have found this out for themselves. So far as the overall position in the Land Registry is concerned, with the steps that have been taken in regard to reorganisation and as a result of the report I hope to get, and with the necessary mechanisation I hope to install there to deal with the problems of this day and age, I expect that when this Estimate comes around again, we shall not have complaints about delays in the Land Registry.
Deputy de Valera referred to what he called the "patchwork" nature of law reforms in the past. I do not accept that what has been done in the past could be described as completely patchwork. The policy has been to produce modern comprehensive statutes for each branch of the law. This policy is stated at paragraph 3 of the White Paper "Programme of Law Reform" which was approved by the Government and presented to both Houses of the Oireachtas in 1962. Examples of this comprehensive approach are: the Civil Liability Act, 1961; the Registration of Title Act, 1964; the Succession Act, 1965; the Extradition Act, 1965, and the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) Act, 1967.
So far as these and other measures go, they are excellent examples of law reforms, and I am sure that Deputy de Valera, from his former legal days, will be the first to appreciate what tedious work law reform is, going back several hundreds of years and modernising the law. It is a meticulous, difficult job, and reasonable progress has been and is being made in connection with the programme of law reform which was set out in 1962.
The specific provision about which the Deputy appears to be critical is section 17 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967. This is the provision which restricts the publication of evidence in preliminary hearings in the district court. Indeed, this Act is itself a good example of the comprehensive approach to law reform. It abolished the old procedure of depositions and established a complete set of new provisions for conducting preliminary hearings in the district court. Doubts have been raised as to the interpretation of section 17, but this can in no way be taken as suggesting that the other provisions in question amount to "patchwork" legislation. The particular Act in itself is an excellent one and has proved its value as a time saver and in modernising court procedure, and has been welcomed in the main by all and sundry connected with the administration of the law.
Deputy Fitzpatrick of Cavan referred to the position of the district probate registries. He used some ingenious arguments, suggesting that the district probate registrars were not properly constituted as officers under the law. There are fourteen such registries and they were established under section 129 of the Succession Act, 1965, which is a re-enactment of statutory provisions contained in sections 16 and 17 of the Irish Probate and Letters of Administration Act, 1857, and in section 56 of the Court Officers Act, 1926.
Prior to the Succession Act, 1965, district probate registrars had not been appointed for many years, and there was, in fact, no authority to appoint them in any statute enacted by the Oireachtas of Saorstát Éireann or by the present Oireachtas. What happened was that, when an existing district probate registrar (who was an independent officer and not a court officer within the meaning of the 1926 Court Officers Act to which I have referred) resigned or ceased to hold office, the duties of district probate registrar were carried out by the county registrar. This is provided for by section 9 of the Court Officers Act, 1945, as amended by section 5 of the Court Officers Act, 1951. Section 5 of the 1951 Act makes a district probate registry an office attached to the High Court for the purposes of section 9 of the 1945 Act. The continued operation of these sections in the 1945 and 1951 Acts is clearly provided for and recognised in section 131 of the Succession Act, 1965, which section I commend to Deputy Fitzpatrick's attention and I suggest he studies it.
I do not propose to go into all the technicalities of the history of this rather complex matter here and now. I should say, however, that I am quite satisfied about two matters, first, that the arrangements in regard to the performance by county registrars of the duties of the old district probate officers or the old district probate registrars are in accordance with law, and secondly, that the Succession Act has made no change whatever in the previous position, which I may say was never queried. I am also satisfied that the issue now raised by the Deputy was specifically considered by my Department and by the draftsman when the Bill of the Succession Act was being prepared. Indeed, it would be more than passing strange if it was not, seeing that the Department of Justice had been operating the Court Officers Acts for years and had prepared the amendments made in the Acts of 1945, 1951 and the 1959 Act that I have already mentioned.
Perhaps, I could put this whole matter shortly as follows. The establishment of the district probate registries and the duties of the district probate registrar are provided for in the Succession Act, 1965. The officer who is to perform these duties is spelled out in Section 9 of the Court Officers Act of 1945 as amended by Section 5 of the Court Officers Act, 1951. He is the officer required and authorised by the Minister to perform the duties. Fourteen registries have been established and fourteen county registrars have been required and authorised to perform, in addition to their own duties, the duties of district probate registrar or district probate officer. From time to time during the temporary absence or temporary incapacity of a county registrar, an officer of the Circuit Court office is authorised under section 131 of the Succession Act to perform the duties. It is as simple as that.
Many Deputies, including Deputies O'Higgins, Coogan, Millar and Dillon, have referred to the closing of rural Garda stations and are worried about the trend in this connection. The closing of Garda stations has been the subject of critical examination for many years, and during the past ten years 26 stations have been closed and 40 have been reduced to one-man units. The cases in which the complement has been reduced to one-man units would appear to meet with the wishes of some Deputies who spoke here on this issue. They have a very sound belief in what they call in England the country bobby, and many Deputies here feel—and I share their view—where possible, a single Garda officer should be left in an area and that he would be the guide, philosopher and friend of the local people. He should, in conjunction with the men who would come from time to time in the squad car, be of great benefit both to the community and to the Force, as a whole.
Of course, the question is becoming more and more urgent for a number of reasons. First, the crime position at the larger centres of population has worsened to the point where existing strengths are utterly inadequate to cope with it. Secondly, the mounting problem of road traffic bears with special severity on the larger cities and centres of population. Thirdly, many areas in the country districts are virtually free of serious crime. Many Deputies are inclined to argue that these districts are practically free from crime simply because of the existence of the Garda barracks in the areas. I do not accept this view, certainly not to its fullest extent. There are many other reasons for this.
One of the reasons why there is less crime in country areas is, in my view, because there is much less poverty in country areas than what one would find amongst slum dwellers in cities or towns. Consequently, the same urge to commit crime is not there. There is also the fact, too, that the social structure is far better in country areas and it is easier to bring up children in rural areas. At all events, because of the build-up of the crime rate in the larger centres of population, there is need for an urgent look at the distribution of the Force so that the number of gardaí at a particular centre will be related to the current urgent requirements in connection with the basic duty of the gardaí, that is, the prevention and detection of crime. The need for additional strength at certain centres is so great that there must be sizeable reductions elsewhere. The closing of a good many stations and the reduction of strength in others will simply be unavoidable.
The fact of the matter is that the retention in some areas of gardaí in excess of actual police requirements cannot be justified when they are urgently required elsewhere. There is no question, let me say, of withdrawing men from any place where they are really required. The measures to be taken will, as heretofore, include greater use of transport, telephones and radios. During the past ten years, the number of Garda vehicles has been increased from 190 to 490. At the same time, the radio service, which in 1958 was confined to Dublin, has been extended to 16 of the 20 Garda divisions and more intensive coverage in these divisions is intended.
Contrary to what Deputies appear to think, I find that chief superintendents are quite reluctant to recommend the closing down of barracks in their areas. It must have come to the notice of Deputies that there are some barracks scattered throughout the country for which there is no necessity. They belong to the horse and buggy days. Many of them were put there originally for the purpose of keeping down our population under an alien power and they were scattered throughout the country accordingly. For instance, I know of a barracks beside Beltra Lake in my own constituency. What it is there for I have never understood. There is nothing beside it but water. There is only one pub within three miles of it. Up to recent times it was manned by a fine healthy sergeant and two good men, but what they were doing there was completely beyond my comprehension. I am sure there are others like it here and there throughout the country but, as I have said, they belong to the horse and buggy days. Nobody knows why they were put there. They are being maintained at considerable expense while many of the men are urgently required to keep track of crime in the larger centres of population.
It is barracks like these which are, in the main, being considered in the reorganisation that is now taking place. I wish to say that, in so far as I can ensure it, I will see that where there is a genuine need for a barracks it will be left and I will, in so far as I can, direct policy to the effect that at least one man would be left and two others taken to relieve the position elsewhere. That is a policy I should like to adopt.
I wish to say that experience has shown that, in relation to the stations that have been closed during the past ten years, the forebodings expressed so strongly by local groups and public representatives at the time of closing have proved groundless. In every case, the decision to close the station has been justified by events. There are some 6,560 in the Force at a cost of more than £10 million. Each additional garda would cost more that £1,000 per annum. It is clear that before an additional load is placed on the taxpayer to provide extra gardaí steps must be taken to ensure that the Force is organised as economically and efficiently as possible.
I am trying to have clerical assistance —to have some of the work done by girls in so far as it is practicable so that more men may be released for urgent police work. In view of the demand in the larger centres of population it is essential that we make full use of the Force and it is inevitable that in the process of reorganising some barracks must go or, at least, some of them must be reduced in staff. Those areas from which gardaí are transferred will have the full attention of the mobile Force and, as I have informed the House, the Force is becoming more mobile day by day. In a very short time I hope that it will be fully equipped mechanically and otherwise to give more efficient service to the community.
Would the Minister mind if I asked him at this stage to indicate how many more Garda stations it is proposed to close?
I have the matter under consideration. I cannot really give a figure but we are working on it and there are some cases which have not yet been finally decided on.
I was particularly glad to notice that several Deputies, including Deputy M. J. O'Higgins, Deputy James Tully and Deputy Coogan, drew attention to the problem of public demonstrations that are used by a small group in a deliberate plan to provide trouble with the police. These are people whose true aims and motives are carefully concealed from the general body of those taking part. They set out to provoke a situation in which the police are forced to intervene and then they shout "police brutality" and make charges of that kind.
It would be wrong, of course, to pretend that this is something peculiar to this country. Anybody taking even the most casual interest in happenings abroad must be struck by the astonishing similarity of the tactics used by agitators of this kind in various cities throughout the world.
The comments of the Deputies I have mentioned are particularly valuable because, if I as Minister for Justice had said the same thing, there are some who would say that I was engaged in a whitewashing operation.
I should like to make it quite clear that my remarks are not directed in any way at the general body of those who legitimately take part in protest meetings. If people have a protest to make on their own behalf or on behalf of somebody else, they have a right to express it, in a peaceful and orderly way, so long as they do not interfere with the rights of others. But it is those very people who are genuinely interested in making a genuine protest who, in the long run, will suffer if they do not take care to see that they are not misled, for there is a real danger, here as elsewhere, that public opinion will ultimately turn very sharply against those who try to bring violence into our streets and that, in the process, those who believe in moderation will find themselves ignored. We do not want that to happen here. It behoves all of us—people in public life and people who are in a position to influence others—to do our part to ensure that the voice of moderation is heard now.
I have made it clear that I am all for people protesting if they want to protest publicly in a normal way. I have stated—perhaps, it is no harm for me to repeat it in this connection—that the organisers of these demonstrations have a grave duty and responsibility to ensure that their demonstrations are not used by other people who want to fish in troubled waters and who want to try to provoke trouble and disorder. It is simply not good enough—I was told this quite recently about one demonstration—to inform the Garda that no guarantee can be given about being able to control those who join in. People who organise public demonstrations have a duty to ensure that they will be able to take care of their own followers and that they will not allow their protest to be used by others of evil intent with the sole intention of creating public disorder, of attacking police officers. There is that duty on those who are organising these protests which they are fully and legally entitled to do.
A number of Deputies have referred to the organisation of sittings of the district court in Dublin City and County. As I have already indicated, the position is that the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure, which was set up away back in 1962 to consider matters relating to the courts, have furnished me with their recommendations in regard to the venues for sittings of the district court throughout the city and county of Dublin. I have sent copies of the committee's recommendations to interested bodies on the question to enable me to decide what changes, if any, should be made in existing arrangements.
Deputy Dockrell referred to the position in Dún Laoghaire. The question of district court sittings at this venue will, of course, be examined in the general examination of the committee's recommendations for the city and county. I propose to leave consideration of the question of circuit court sittings in Dún Laoghaire aside until I have reached a decision in relation to sittings of the district court.
With regard to Deputy Burke's remarks regarding district court sittings in North County Dublin I would emphasise that no changes have been made so far in the arrangements which have obtained up to now. Here again, the position is that the report of the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure, to which I have already referred, contains certain recommendations regarding district court sittings in this area, and I will consider these in conjunction with the views of all interested parties.
As I have received many letters from different people complaining about what they have misunderstood to be decisions of mine in connection with this matter—in connection with these proposals—let me make quite clear, again, that these are not proposals of mine nor has any decision been made on these proposals. These are proposals that have come from this Committee on Court Practice and Procedure. No decisions have been taken on them by me. I do not propose to take any decisions on them until I receive the studied comments from the various bodies, including Bar Associations, concerned with this matter. Therefore, those who have been complaining about these recommendations have misunderstood the position and those who think that these recommendations have the force of law are mistaken because it is simply not the case. No decisions have yet been taken on them.
Deputy O'Malley referred to the lengthy weekly district court sittings in Limerick on Fridays. I have made inquiries—indeed, I have made representations—on this matter in recent times.
I accept that a number of Friday sittings in Limerick this year have been unduly long. However, in accordance with normal practice, these lengthy sittings could have been avoided by the adjournment of cases not reached at the normal finishingtime either to special sittings on the justice's free days or to some other day, say a Monday civil sitting at Limerick at which the business is relatively light. Indeed, another way would be for the practitioners concerned—as is sometimes done in circuit courts—to get a list beforehand and put in only a reasonable amount to be dealt with.
However, the permanent solution appeared to me to lie in the conversion of the two monthly civil courts at Limerick to take criminal and civil business, or, alternatively, to have an additional criminal sitting on one of the justice's free days.
This was put to both the justice concerned and the local Bar Association for consideration in May last. I have now been informed by the justice that the local Bar Association, with whom he has been in consulta-tion, consider that an additional criminal sitting each month is necessary, and by agreement with all interests involved, the third Wednesday in the month, which is at present a free day, has been proposed for this purpose.
I am accepting this proposal and am making the necessary arrangements to bring it into effect as soon as possible. No doubt they will find out in Limerick that this arrangement is satisfactory when they have worked it for a while. If they are not satisfied, they can come back to me again with an alternative proposal that would appear to meet the local situation there.
Deputy O'Malley raised the question of the cost to rate payers of malicious injuries compensation.
It is no harm to mention that the existing law provides an extremely cheap form of property insurance for ratepayers; it is less than 1d in the £ on the rates over the whole country. Over the five years from 1963-64 to 1967-68 the ratepayers of Limerick city had to pay only an average of 3½d in the £ to cover charges for malicious injuries while during that period the average total rate was 70s in the £. The total cost has never exceeded £3,500 in any year.
From these figures it would appear that the actual imposition of malicious injuries charges on the rates in Limerick city is not of any great consequence, as it is over the whole country. The Deputy was concerned at claims for £144,000 against the corporation which had been discussed. However, figures for claims received are very often misleading. A number of these claims may not be proceeded with or may not succeed. The claims in question were, I understand, dismissed. In this connection it is interesting to note that, when the city solicitor for Limerick gave evidence before the interdepartmental committee on malicious injuries in 1962, he was concerned that a claim against Limerick Corporation for £146,000 would result in an addition on the rates of 17s 6d in the £. The actual figures now show that this, too, never materialised. I give these instances to show that it is a practice—I think insurance companies do it where they are concerned—to instruct those concerned immediately to put in a claim for malicious injuries. Speaking from recollection, I think there has to be an appeal within seven days and, on investigation, they find it is not a matter for a malicious injury claim at all. That is why claims for malicious injury do not, in fact, materialise at all in many instances.
The interdepartmental committee on malicious injuries recommended that the system of compensation should remain a local responsibility because: (1) the charge on the rates of the present system of compensation is insignificant and the cost of the system under the proposed new law would be even less; and (2) to transfer the responsibility to the State would necessitate the establishment of a new and expensive organisation which would greatly increase the cost of compensating malicious injuries. On the other hand, the removal of the responsibility from the local authorities would not result in any tangible saving by them by way of staff or accommodation.
The committee, therefore, has recommended the retention of the local levy. This, of course, could be achieved only in the context of payment from the rates. These recommendations are set out in the published summary of the interdepartmental committee's report. Following a meeting with the County Council's General Council in November last, a press statement was issued. This statement made it clear that the Government had decided to retain the system of compensation out of the rates. Compensation for malicious damage involving personal injury will be payable by the Exchequer and not out of the local rates.
Deputy Dr. O'Connell raised the question of telephone tapping and its intrusion on private life. Of course, the public supervision of postal and telephone communications would be an unwarranted intrusion if it were not limited to absolutely essential purposes. In reply to a Parliamentary question on 16th May, I informed the Deputy that the power to intercept telephone communications is exercised pursuant to warrants issued under the hand and seal of the Minister for Justice and such warrants are issued only for security purposes or for the prevention and detection of serious crime, information about which could be got in no other way. We must fight armed conspiracies and organised crime with every weapon we have got. That is the position and I make no apology for it.
I must confess I find some of the Deputy's suggestions unreal, to say the least of it, and unreasonable. His suggestion, for example, that we should use helicopters to unravel traffic jams and use closed television circuits on our highways indicates that he has a completely exaggerated idea of both our problems and our resources. I do not know if he is familiar with the colossal cost of maintaining helicopters. It is only on the very odd occasion, indeed, that we would experience traffic problems like those in New York and other USA cities or in London.
I was glad Deputy Dillon welcomed the traffic warden system. The system is still in its infancy, but it is being developed, I think, on the proper lines, with experienced ex-gardaí who can be depended on to apply the law moderately, firmly and with equity to all. There were some criticisms about confining this work to ex-gardaí. Of course, these are trained men who can be relied on to work in conjunction with the Garda Síochána. It would take considerable time and expense to train ordinary civilians in this work. These ex-gardaí are, if you like, senior citizens, with long experience of dealing with the public, and they were considered the more suitable for jobs as traffic wardens. I believe they will be found the most suitable to operate this particular service.
(Cavan): Did the Minister deal with my point about probate registrars?
I dealt with it extensively. If any matters arise out of what I have said the Deputy can write to me and I will be only too happy to elaborate on any points on which he wishes to have further information.
(Cavan): That is all right.
I believe the position in St. Patrick's will be very substantially improved when Shanganagh is in full operation. There will be ample room in Shanganagh to provide all the necessary facilities for dealing with these young people. There will be room for recreation and for occupational therapy. The congestion in St. Patrick's will be relieved and that relief will enable those in control to sift the wheat from the chaff. The boys in Shanganagh will have an excellent chance of being rehabilitated because they will no longer be in contact with hardened criminals. I believe the system should show good results. Work will be made much easier for the staffs in both institutions. They will not be hamstrung because of lack of space. We are lucky in having dedicated staffs.
Deputy Dillon referred to a number of institutions which he suggested I should visit. I have no responsibility for these institutions. They are the responsibility of the Minister for Education and his Department. However, I shall be very happy to visit, if I can find the time, some of the institutions Deputy Dillon mentioned. Once young offenders are committed neither I nor my Department has anything more to do with them. They are, as I said, the responsibility of the Minister for Education, but I understand, as a result of inquiries I have made, that there have been considerable improvements in these institutions and there seems to be general satisfaction with regard to the work being done in them. While I have no specific responsibility, as I said, I hope to visit the particular institution Deputy Dillon mentioned. The short answer, however, to the Deputy is that he should address his remarks on the subject to the Minister for Education when he is dealing here with the Estimate for his Department.
I have, I think, covered most of the points raised in the debate. All that has been said will be fully studied. Let me say here and now with reference to the wild allegations made in the House by the last speaker, Deputy L'Estrange, that there is utterly no truth whatsoever in the charges of political interference by me, or by anyone with whom I am concerned, with the Garda Síochána in the execution of their duties. It is an utter fairy tale to state, as he has alleged here, that prosecutions have been stopped, that garda who wanted to go ahead with prosecutions have been interfered with by me or by anyone on my behalf.
These wild charges are typical of Deputy L'Estrange and his friends. It is significant that when Fine Gael are in the doldrums there are wild charges of corruption and of interference with the police, trying to suggest to all and sundry that the police are being interfered with and prosecutions stifled. It is also significant that when those wild charges are made, including the one he has resurrected, the one that has been hatching for the past four years and which he has discovered, names are not named. Wild charges are made without being substantiated by the Deputy. There is absolutely no foundation of any kind for these wild charges by Deputy L'Estrange. I am sure the public are sufficiently used to wild charges being made by Deputy L'Estrange to evaluate them. He makes them week after week.
The people of Letterkenny know all about the MacManus case.
Wild charges were made on the eve of elections and on the eve of the referendum. Now he is talking about the eve of some byelection. During the referendum he made some unfounded charges in this House when there was not sufficient time for them to be denied. That is typical of him. As I say, everyone is used to him now and no one pays any attention to his wild charges.
He made a charge against Deputy Blaney who was Minister for Local Government at the time, and when the Minister came in here and asked him to put up or shut up he ran away from the charges, and told him there was no reference that he personally was involved in corruption. Deputy L'Estrange has to come back again and regurgitate the vomit he has swallowed. These charges have been gone into fully. He was briefed by Mr. Cooney, the barrister in the case, before the case came to court. He was able to tell the House about it before the case came into court. He was briefed by Mr. Cooney and he thought he had all the "gen" and that this was something he could bring in here to try to besmirch the reputations of Ministers of State. Recently charges of speculation in land were made in this House against my colleagues. They make charges of corruption but they will get their answer from the public when the time comes.
Is it in order for the Minister to state that a barrister released a confidential file to someone in the House when that person's name had not been mentioned before?
He was named when this matter was debated before. It is the duty of the Bar Council to deal with it and if they do he will deserve all he gets. It is typical of his history.
Does the Minister know who Mr. Kamorov is? He was mentioned on television by Major Bunting. Is he in the country?
I do not know who Mr. Kamorov is. I will inquire whether he has bought any land in this country. The Deputy may have done a deal with him.
Is he in Taca?
Vote put and agreed to.