I agree it is a matter for the Minister for Health and I do not propose to develop this point. However, I would point out that many drugs are quite indistinguishable from normal tablets. I consider there is a basic obligation on the Minister for Justice to consult with the Minister for Health and make sure the regulations in relation to drugs are not just those operable by the members of the Garda but also relate to the drug manufacturing firms, the importation of drugs and, above all, the distribution of drugs.
I wish now to deal with the personnel problems of the Garda. The House must initially pay tribute to the members of the force who, particularly during the past four to five months, have had to work under considerable strain in conditions which were far from satisfactory. I would suggest, having regard to the fact that the Minister, and certainly his departmental staff, have a regular 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. day, that there is a general lack of public appreciation of the Garda.
I welcome the statement by the Minister that he will have the Conroy Commission's report before the House as soon as possible. I would strongly urge the Minister to be more explicit in his reply about the date of publication of this report. It is not just good enough, in respect of a report of such major national importance, that the Minister should come before this House and indicate that "in a very few months"—whatever that means—he will be in a position to place the report before the House. I know difficult circumstances have surrounded the issue of this report but I express the hope that the Minister will issue it as soon as he receives it, even if it is in stencilled form only. Otherwise, I can assure him that when the House resumes on 8th February, or whenever we resume, there will be another question on the Order Paper asking him when publication will be. Although we had been given to believe that it would be published before Christmas, it now appears that it will be mid-February before we get it.
On the question of recruitment to the Garda, I must confess I am rather concerned about the lack of concern, Department-wise, ministerial-wise and Cabinet-wise about the inadequate, the ineffective, the quasi-militaristic style of training given to the gardaí. There should be a full review of the whole system of Garda recruitment and training in consultation with the members of the executive of the Garda Representative Body. This is overdue and there have been valuable suggestions from the Representative Body in that respect. We do not have to await the Conroy Commission report to start that exercise.
I suggest that the general system of 18 weeks training—22 weeks if necessary—in Templemore, followed by a further 18 months probation period in Garda stations is not enough. Very often during the latter period, young gardaí are shunted out to do ordinary work, so shorthanded are Garda stations of personnel. I feel sure that this period, this work, is most frustrating to young men who have just joined the force.
I am disappointed that the method of evaluating the system of recruitment of gardaí does not include in the interview boards people who have specialised training in the matter of finding out whether applicants are, temperamentally, personally suitable for recruitment. Particularly in the early days of training in Templemore, in the first month or two, there should be what I would call group evaluation or, shall we say, training therapy to make sure that there is a filter process so that there will not slip through the net into full Garda work those unstable personalities which naturally are in all walks of life, particularly in the Garda. They can have a most destructive effect on their fellow workers in the Garda Síochána. Inevitably some of them slip through the training net into full Garda work.
Therefore, there must be criticism of the Minister that there is not available within the training system job evaluators, personality assessors, call them what you will. By this I do not mean that a garda is put through the battery of intelligence tests and so on that one sees operated in many areas of employment, but in respect of recruitment of members of the Garda this is one aspect which has been completely overlooked and a matter to which the Minister should give greater attention. It would result in raising the calibre, the ability and training capacity of a large number of members of the force.
Another common complaint, and one I am satisfied is as true in Wexford, in Dublin North East or in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, is a major and justifiable one in respect of the conditions of service of members of the force, namely the absence of adequate negotiated conditions of employment instead of the system where they are handed down by departmental edict, with the ministerial imprimatur. There is need for specific provision for overtime payment and special allowances for authorised extended duty in the force.
I appreciate that there are complex organisational problems involved in payment for work done in excess of a 48-hour week, but I suggest that there is every possibility that within the competence of the Garda Representative Body and the competence of the Department there should be means by which in certain cases a payment system of direct plus-payments should be made in respect of extended hours of work. This has been particularly applicable in respect of the arduous tours of duty in recent months, which would not have been tolerated by the vast majority of industrial and public service employees throughout the country.
I specifically ask the Minister—or the Parliamentary Secretary if I may intrude on his discussion with the Deputy from Wexford, in view of the Minister's absence at the moment— to indicate his view on the question of overtime payment and cash allowances therefor.
Another very thorny and difficult problem is the internal promotional appointments system within the Garda Síochána. I am equally critical of this aspect in the operation of the force. I am not unduly critical or unhappy about the double interview system plus examination in respect of the appointment of sergeants. Not being a specialist in this field, I would find it difficult to say how the interviews system could be broadened to make sure that no sergeant or prospective sergeant was "done" in terms of appointment. However, I have reservations about the system as regards the appointment of the higher grades, such as superintendents, divisional superintendents and inspectors.
In respect of the appointment of senior Garda officers there does not seem to be even elementary job evaluation in respect of those who offer themselves for appointments. The procedure in relation to these appointments is completely hidebound. In this matter a great obligation devolves on the Minister to ensure that temperamental and administrative capacities are considered and that personnel completely beyond reproach are appointed.
There is urgent need, therefore, to get rid of the idea that because a sergeant going up the line may get two-or three-or fifty-minute interviews with senior officers of superior status he is automatically suitable for general appointment. Therefore, we need the introduction of, I would say, personnel specialists into this area. I am also concerned that from time to time very serious allegations have been made, very persistent rumours have arisen and strong assertions have been made in public life that the political influence of members of the Garda, their lineage or their parenthood or party sympathy or local county connection, plays a role in excess of any normal importance in respect of Garda promotions and selective transfers. Some appointments which I have observed—and, indeed, one senior appointment recently—have not allayed my fears in that regard. Therefore, there is a very positive obligation on the Minister to take action. Seeing that he is so much immersed in attending the High Court in Galway and so much concerned about continuing his own practice as a solicitor, I am not so hopeful that he will accept my proposition which is to broaden the personnel of various interview boards or, if necessary, bring in public appointments specialists from outside for the appointment of senior Garda officers.
I would not suggest that the situation is as bad as it is in the Army which stinks to Heaven in terms of promotions, transfers and political bureaucracy. We are all familiar with many aspects of that matter which will come up in relation to the Estimate for the Department of Defence. There is an urgent need for more effective ministerial intervention in regard to that aspect of Garda organisation. I am equally concerned that where officers are transferred from one division to another there should be forward planning and consultation. Although there may be emergency situations as, for instance, in the case of Border patrols, the urgent setting up of road blocks and so on, or urgent divisional requirements, there should generally be sufficient forward planning to avoid the family disruption and general distress and excessively short notice very often given to gardaí with a blasé dismissal of their rights and family obligations. Many of the transfers and changes that have taken place have not been carried out with adequate prior notice and consultation of those concerned.
Where special duty is required as in the emergency Border situation or prolonged searches arising from serious crime incidents, or continuous road blocks, I suggest that adequate facilities be provided for hot meals and snacks for gardaí. This is not special pleading on my part for the gardaí: if we can give it to the Army the gardaí should also be entitled to it. I strongly recommend and fully support the statement that in no circumstances should the Garda be armed even if there is a rash of armed robberies. I am opposed to the arming of the Garda and I have no doubt that the Garda Representative Body would not wish to see this function devolving on themselves because, as we know, the disadvantages very much outweigh the general advantages.
Finally, in relation to the police force, I come down to two aspects which I consider controversial aspects, the first being the operation of the Special Branch internally in the Garda Síochána, a particular section with which I have had contact from time to time. The contact was on their part with me in relation to demonstrations et cetera. There is a total absence in the Minister's speech of reference to the existence of this force and I want to distinguish very sharply between the existence of this force and the operation of the gardaí themselves. I suggest that the complete ignorance on the part of the House of the fact that there is a special security force, both in relation to crime and in relation to political affairs, in existence within the police force is not something that we can shrug off with a nominal Estimate.
I remember the late Deputy Everett telling me that when he became Minister for Justice he found four-fifths of the filing cabinets in his rooms empty when he took over and that he often wondered what reports they contained from the Special Branch to the Minister who inhabited the premises prior to his occupancy. It is extraordinary that in a democracy such as we claim to have, there should exist a body of men who are completely faceless, allegedly of a quasi-military structure in terms of organisation, of completely unknown strength. If you put down a Dáil question you will be told that under no circumstances will you get any information from any Minister about them. They are free to spend public funds to get any information they want with no public accountability beyond the Minister who will not disclose to the House his actions in that regard. There exists a situation in which I have on many occasions met members of the Garda Síochána who are themselves unhappy at being policed by other policemen in a private capacity. The precise functions of this Special Branch are in no way specified by Statute in relation to this House.
I know there is a dividing line in respect of police operations between crime prevention where it is very necessary that police should not operate in the full glare of publicity generally associated with their work and their normal duties but I suggest that not only are many members of this force directly concerned with the secret prevention and detection of crime, for example in the case of drugs, but are also concerned in many respects with political activities. It is here that I tend to take issue with them. I see no reason why members of our police cannot act in confidence in full obscurity in terms of crime detection but I object to the existence of a political section within the Special Branch. I challenge the Minister to deny this exists. I take exception to the fact that when I was not a Member of the House and went on picket lines or joined demonstrations, I could recognise these gentlemen almost on a daily basis, be it either anti-apartheid demonstrations or any other political demonstration or, say, the Vietnam war. Long before it was fashionable, some of us in this House had a conscience in that matter. I, therefore, suggest that there is need for much more disclosure on the Minister's part in relation to the political activities of a particular section of the Special Branch. It is a vital, necessary and elementary aspect of public interest in respect of public discussion, that the House should be told how many men operate in the Special Branch, how they are recruited, and how they are trained. We should have some information on that matter.
It was a matter of disquiet that an RTE programme which was prepared by the staff of Seven Days on the Special Branch was suppressed without any explanation by the Minister and, indeed, without any explanation from the RTE authority. I recall when that programme was being taped some years ago, I was interviewed as a trade union officer and my views were sought on the operation of the Special Branch. The kind of questions which were put to me were: “Do you think members of the Special Branch should visit places of employment and warn employers that Johnny So-and-So is a republican agitator and should be got rid of? Is that a fair type of question for a police officer to ask in terms of the political preoccupations of a member of the public?”
I answered the questions. The answers were taped but not one of them ever appeared on the programme because the whole programme was scrapped. It was found to be not politically desirable that the work of certain persons should be discussed. I make that point although I am conscious of the need in any democratic State for what I might call public service security operations on the part of the police force. I do not think that a police force can do everything within the full glare of publicity. I have had strong reservations over the years about many of the allegations which were made, whether they were true or false. At least they were worthy of general public explanation.
There is another aspect with which it is equally difficult to come to grips. I have an open mind on this. I think we should consider the setting up of some form of independent special review body of a double kind, first of all internally in respect of discipline and, secondly, externally in respect of public complaints made against members of the Garda. It is a national scandal and it is unworthy of any democratic State that any Garda officer should be denied —as he is currently denied—an opportunity to defend himself when charges are preferred against him in the station and when he is tried, shot, hanged, drawn and quartered by his superiors. He has no opportunity of seeing the charge, seeing the basis of the charge, seeing the brief behind the charge and examining the file on that charge and putting up as good a defence as possible.
How can we possibly expect in this age, when we are supposed to live in an enlightened democratic society, members of the Garda to do their work when they are not given even such elementary protection? It is a national scandal that this kind of situation should be tolerated by the Minister. I would strongly recommend that the Minister should ensure that no garda should suffer the kind of injustice which occurred in relation to Crumlin station, for example, and that no garda should be openly reprimanded and disciplined without having an opportunity to defend himself.
I come now to the public aspect. What happens if a member of the public alleges, for the sake of argument, that he was assaulted by a members of the Garda? To whom does he complain? Who investigates the matter—the Minister, the superintendent of the area? There are questions before this House for which the Minister disclaims responsibility? I would also suggest that there is an urgent need to have a public independent special review body to which members of the community who believe themselves to be grievously wronged by members of the Garda would have access for redress.
I fully accept that there should be considerable difficulty in gaining access to this body. Otherwise we would have every crank with every kind of complaint from a parking ticket to an alleged assault, hauling members of the Garda before that body. No sane democratic society can tolerate a situation in which complaints against members of the Garda are dealt with by the force itself being its own judge and jury and arbiter. Therefore, there should be very considerable difficulty in gaining access to this body. I do not think that the members of the force would give a harsh welcome to that approach.
I regret having to delay the other Deputies who wish to come in on this debate but I want to deal with some aspects of adoption. I have had an interest in this matter for some considerable time. I want to make a special plea to the Minister to get rid of the obnoxious, discriminatory, sectarian regulation of the Adoption Board whereby it is impossible for a couple with different religions to adopt a child. They are effectively prevented from doing so. It is an absolute disgrace that this kind of regulation should exist in this country. There is need for a considerable change of attitude on the part of the Adoption Board towards this discriminatory and anomalous regulation. We need immediate reassurance from the Minister that no bar will be placed on a couple with different religions adopting a child. I accept that there are difficulties but I do not think it is a function of the State to prevent married people from adopting a child by virtue of the fact that they are practising different religions. It is not the function of the State to intervene in that kind of situation.
I want to refer the Minister to some of the very disquieting court cases which we heard about during the past year. I want to make a strong plea to the Minister to ensure that, in respect of adoption under the Children (Amendment) Act, 1957, which was incorporated in the 1964 Act, there is some elementary form of supervisory protection for children during the probationary adoption period. I am extremely concerned that notwithstanding television programmes—Seven Days again — and notwithstanding many approaches to the Minister by responsible public organisations, there has been an obdurate rejection of this approach.
I do not think it is good enough that any society should be in a position to hand out a child—to use an undesirable term—to people for adoption for a period of 12 months probation and that there should be no supervision, and I would suggest local authority supervision, of what happens to that child during the probationary period. I have no desire to interfere in any way with the parents after the probationary period but I strongly suggest to the Minister that this approach should be considered. I reject completely the ridiculous idea: "Ah, sure, the parish priest will look after the child. You need not worry. He will be in good hands." We have an obligation to every citizen and when children are being adopted we have an obligation to them. We had a tragic case in Waterford and, if this kind of supervision had been in operation, it would never have happened.
The Minister should take a look at the exceptionally good child welfare adoption protection service in Cork city. There is an extremely good system in operation there, one which is well worthy of general support.
I want to refer now to ground rents, a subject which the Minister ignored in his speech, although it is something for which he has direct responsibility. I want to refer now to the Labour Party policy on the abolition of ground rents. I know of no social, no moral, no defensible reason why there should be a continuation and a perpetuation by, for example, members of the Fianna Fáil Party or of the Fine Gael Party, of ground rents, whereby they literally get a gross income of an exploitatory kind from ground rents.
I am completely unimpressed by the idea of buying out ground rents. I am utterly unimpressed by the reasons advanced for continuing the ground rents system as contained in the report on ground rents, for instance, that it ground rents were abolished the development of building sites would become more difficult and more expensive. Did you ever hear such rubbish written into a Government report? Did you ever hear such rubbish as that the system of ground rents is a device which keeps down the initial capital cost by spreading the development costs over a longer period? Whoever wrote that about ground rents—I will be polite and will not recommend what he should do with it.
I would suggest that another reason given for the continuation of ground rents, that it is a matter of public policy to provide houses at as cheap a rate as possible—paragraph 157 of the Ground Rent Commission's Report —is not tenable. Another reason given is that the relationship of landlord and tenant enables the landlord to exert control over the user and the condition of the property. Most certainly it does, but these are all valid social reasons why ground rents should be abolished.
There is also the suggestion that in the absence of ground rents the materials and workmanship of buildings would tend to deteriorate. What an amazing deduction for an official Government report! Then there is the most amazing confession of all published under the seal of the Government, that it would be very difficult to frame legislation which would prevent the charging of ground rents— in other words, a confession of incapacity and impotence on the part of the Minister, Deputy Moran, and of those who conceived this report.
The Minister should take his courage in his hands and live up to the oft-repeated republican ideals of his party, the men of no property who went around this country allegedly abolishing landlordism, who in the 1920s and 1930s expressed abhorrence at the manipulative income measures of the former ground landlords of this country. Today what do we see? As obdurate and as emphatic a defence as one could find, because the Fianna Fáil Party is no longer the party of republicanism, no longer the party socially concerned about the operation of ground rents. In strict honesty one should also say that so inbred are ground rents in the Fine Gael Party that one could not expect that conscience would be stirred in that direction.
I would make a plea to the Minister that he should introduce legislation in respect of charitable collections. I live in a suburban constituency where housewives are at times driven quite frantic by the obnoxious approaches of fraudulent charitable collectors. I refer to those who collect for cancer relief, particularly the National Cancer Relief Fund. I appreciate that this case is sub judice and that I cannot discuss the matter, but I would urge the Minister that he would provide safeguards in relation to charitable collections and that the proliferation of charitable collectors, collecting for themselves and nobody else, would be stringently dealt with.
I have a strong complaint to make in regard to the courts, a complaint which could implicate politicians as well as the courts, namely, the excessively long vacations of the courts. I appreciate that the Fine Gael Party, in which there are morning lawyers and afternoon politicians, will not give much support to what I have to say. In America there is a situation where it takes about four years to ensure that an ordinary road accident is dealt with. If you take a libel action in America against somebody, it is unlikely to be heard during your lifetime, so bad are the legal delays in that country. However, more than anything else, more than the unifying of barristers and solicitors, more than any restructuring, there should be shorter vacations for the courts here. Thus we would have a much more effective judicial system in operation. I would also suggest that there should be a statutory time limit on the issuing of judgments. It is appalling that responsible judges, as soon as vacation approaches, will decide to adjourn a judgment, so that we might not get it until October, or if they are unduly preoccupied then, we might have to wait until after Christmas. Six or eight months can elapse, or as I remember in one case in which an action was taken against CIE by a worker in relation to trade union regulations and so on, it took something like 14 months to get a judgment made available. There should be a considerable change of attitude in that respect.
The Minister should ensure that, where censorship takes place, the reasons for the changes made are stated. There should be a common code of practice in the censorship of books, in the censorship of films, that a statement will be given as to why censorship was done.
I would equally suggest that in respect of court decisions, there should be some explanation either from the Office of the Minister for Justice or from the Attorney-General, but certainly from the responsible bodies, as to why, for example, in the middle of this year there was a flagrant withdrawal by the State of charges in the Cork case.