(Cavan): When I reported progress I had almost completed what I had to say about one aspect of the Department. I was pointing out that there must be a reason for the lack of respect for authority and law disclosed in the Minister's speech and in the Garda Commissioner's report. I was endeavouring to point out as clearly as I could that the responsibility for that state of affairs must rest fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Government whose behaviour during the period covered by this report did very little to encourage respect for the law but which, on the contrary, had very damaging effects on it. In certain respects and on certain occasions and for political reasons I believe the Government panicked. An example of this was at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis when the Minister for Justice at the behest of the Taoiseach announced the proposal to resort to section 62 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936. We know that the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice complained about certain cases in which district justices had refused informations in cases of persons charged with subversive activities. I wonder whether the Taoiseach and the Minister were being fair to justices in all cases. In respect of one case I know from those who were in court that the State solicitor did not even ask the justice to receive informations because there was not a scintilla of evidence in the book of evidence on which the district justice could be justified in returning the person for trial. Yet, that district justice was held up to ridicule by the Taoiseach and the Minister at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis and elsewhere. The fault lay in the investigation of these cases. It lay in direction from the top as to how these cases should be investigated. It is well known that officers of the Garda who are not free agents in these cases are supposed to act under remote control from the Minister for Justice. In my opinion that handicaps the investigation of the cases and makes it difficult to procure evidence while it is still fresh and to present it. These district justices are knocked on the knuckles. I do not pretend to know all the cases involved but I know of one where the State solicitor did not ask that informations be received because it was obvious that there could not be evidence.
There is a time and a place for everything and there is a way of doing everything. I want to complain now about the Minister and the Taoiseach panicking at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis for political reasons. Section 62 of the Courts of Justice Act has been on the Statute Book since 1936. It is a section which enables the Attorney General to send forward for trial on indictment accused persons whom he thinks should have been returned for trial but it is a section that should be used with great discretion. Certainly, it is a section that should be used in a way that would not prejudice the courts of justice. In my opinion the speech made by the Minister for Justice at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis was contempt of court. If a newspaper editor had written a leading article on the same lines, he would be up for contempt of court because in effect what the Minister was saying was that these district justices should have returned for trial identifiable persons, that they failed in their duty in not doing so, that he would see to it that they were sent forward for trial pursuant to section 62 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, and he was implying that he was satisfied they should be convicted. He made this speech in public to be read by jurors who would be invited later to try these persons on indictment.
Surely that was prejudging these cases. It should not have been done in this way. I am not saying for one moment that the Attorney General has not the right and, indeed, the obligation in certain cases to send forward people for trial under section 62 of the Courts of Justice Act, but it should not be done with a fanfare of trumpets and with an exhortation to everybody that justice had not been done but would be done. That was never the intention of section 62 of that Act. That section was intended to be used in exceptional cases. It is a section which if it was not to bring about a miscarriage of justice would have to be used without publicity. It could be argued that if the defence did not make it known to the judge and jury who were trying the case that the person had been sent forward under section 62, the State certainly should not make it known.
That, then, is an example of Government panic, of a lack of direction from the top and a lack of appreciation of what is at stake and the way it should be handled. The happenings since May, 1970, happenings which were disclosed then but which had been simmering under the surface before then and which by various instalments since then, have done more to undermine confidence in the Government of this country and to undermine respect for law and order and for the administration of justice than anything that has happened since the foundation of the State. Not until such time as the Taoiseach seeks a mandate from the people will any Government enjoy the respect that a Government should enjoy if they are to carry out their functions. That is the only way that the damage can be undone.
I would like to turn now to the report of the Garda Síochana on crime. I have mentioned this already on a few occasions. The last copy available to me is for the year ended September 30th, 1970. I do not wish to go into the matter in detail except to say that it discloses an alarming state of affairs. In his brief the Minister stated that the number of indictable offences has increased from 25,972 in 1969 to 30,756 in 1970, an increase of 18 per cent. Detection has dropped from 61 per cent in 1969 to 50 per cent in 1970. In the Dublin Metropolitan District the detection rate is as low as 37 per cent. That is an alarming state of affairs according to any standards. It compares very unfavourably with the figures in Great Britain. The Commissioner in his report does not analyse it. He does not give any reasons for it. He considers it the duty of the political head of his Department to give explanations. It would be a good thing if the figures were analysed.
Housebreaking and burglary increased from 3,992 in 1965 to 9,042 in 1970. That is an appalling state of affairs. Crimes of violence of one sort or another such as robberies with violence increased from 147 in 1969 to 215 in 1970. All this has happened within the last few years. It happened at a time when there was considerable unrest within the Garda Síochána for one reason or another. It coincided with the introduction of nominal overtime payments to members of the Garda Síochána. It is felt that the Minister and those in charge of the purse were really more interested in seeing that overtime was not earned than in having criminal offences properly investigated. This report proves two things to my satisfaction. It proves that Dublin is a city where serious crimes of violence, offences against the person and violence to people's homes are on the increase to a considerable extent and also that Dublin is a city that is grossly underpoliced. We have to tackle this problem. The Minister must tackle it. The citizens of Dublin will demand that their persons and their property be given adequate protection. I am glad to know that the Minister has strengthened the Garda force under the Bill which came before us. This is absolutely necessary. It is doubtful whether the proposals introduced by the Minister are sufficient to ensure that Dublin is properly policed. There is no substitute for a garda on the beat, or for constant vigilance.
When we last discussed this Estimate in this House we were told that there are parts of huge housing estates in this city which had only a patrol. A patrol operates on eight-hour shifts, three shifts a day. Parts of this city had only the attention of a garda on patrol once in a while. I want to call on the Minister to see that crime is prevented in Dublin and throughout the country. It is not fair to the law-abiding citizens or to the potential criminal if the potential criminal feels that the city is inadequately policed and that his criminal activities are likely to go undetected. He will be encouraged to pursue them.
I would like to take this opportunity of joining with the Minister in complimenting the Garda Síochána on the job they are doing, on the duties they are carrying on and have carried on. These duties were never intended for an unarmed police force. They have been called upon during this time to guard the banks of this country against armed attacks. They have been called upon to do Border duty under difficult circumstances. Deputy Fox was blamed here for raising the matter of protective appliances, such as gas masks, and proper clothing. If the Garda are to be asked to continue in this line of duty these things will have to be provided for.
The burning of the British Embassy was an indication of how ill-equipped the Garda are to deal with the emergency which presented itself that day. They had no helmets or crash barriers. We are not doing our duty unless we anticipate such incidents. We certainly had every right here to anticipate such an incident in the situation which has existed over the last few years. I spoke for a long time on the Bill to increase the strength of the Garda Síochána and in dealing with the force in general. I dealt with the rights of the force and I do not intend to go back over it all now. I would be guilty of unnecessary duplication. I am glad that the Minister has done something to remedy in some respects complaints which I put forward on behalf of the force at that time. Overtime was a source of continual irritation. A person who was entitled to overtime did not know whether he was going to be paid for three months. He could be offered time off within three months and then he did not qualify for overtime payment. I am glad that the period has been reduced from three months to one month, and that the rest days have been increased from seven days in 28 to eight days in 28. That is a move in the right direction.
I understand that another source of irritation in the force is housing. There are many young men in the force, and nowadays more of them are getting married young. Housing is a problem. The other day I came across the sale of a plot of land that had originally been bought as a site for a Garda house. Admittedly it was in a small town, but it is not being used for that purpose; it has been sold. If there are young members of the force with domestic problems because they are not properly housed or because they are inadequately housed, the Minister cannot expect the best from them.
There should be more flexibility in regard to transfers of gardaí. The Minister should avail of this opportunity, the opportunity of an influx into the force now of some hundreds of young men, to grant transfers to men who are not happy where they are, for one reason or another, and who have applied for transfers. This may have presented problems in the past but if it has it can now be dealt with.
I wish to join with the Minister in deploring any effort made to encourage gardaí to be disloyal to the force or to refuse to carry out their duties. That has appeared for the first time in the last few days. I do not believe this appeal will succeed but it is significant that it was made in a part of the country, the south, where there has been unrest within the force. For some time past there has been unrest; meetings have been held in various places. This, to me, suggests the necessity for preserving a contented force.
We have to look at the situation of the Department of Justice and of law and order in the context of this island as a whole. It is up to the Taoiseach and the other members of the Government, by leadership and example, so as to avoid jackboot methods, to demonstrate to the people that substantial progress has been made in Northern Ireland in the form of the Heath initiatives. Ordinarily this might not be relevant to this debate, but there is bound to be an overspill from that in here. I want to re-echo the words of Mr. Gerry Fitt, MP, who said he never thought he would live to see the day when a Tory Government would go as far as they have in righting wrongs and bringing the people of Northern Ireland, Catholic and Protestant, together so that they can ultimately find a solution to the Northern Ireland problem which has blistered the country for 50 years. Irrespective of what other people say, I think it vindicates once and for all the words of Michael Collins, the 50th anniversary of whose death we are commemorating this year, that the Treaty was a stepping stone towards the ultimate freedom of this country. All of us here who have been elected as leaders and who represent public opinion should plead that these initiatives be given a chance and that nothing be done either in Northern Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland that would prevent them getting a reasonable opportunity to work and come to fruition.
The Minister referred to the jurisdiction of the High Court and to proposals he has in regard to the Master of the High Court. We received a one-or two-section Bill recently which is to be introduced in the Seanad and which proposes to give authority to the Minister to continue the appointment of a temporary master for more than three months. I do not know what the Minister has in mind, but I hope that instead of taking away the powers of the Master of the High Court, he will do something to extend those powers. While I have nothing against civil servants, I sincerely hope that the proposals to hand over the jurisdiction of the Master of the High Court to the Taxing Master, or any similar proposal, will be forgotten. We have an opportunity here for bringing in a worthwhile reform. Instead of abolishing the position of Master of the High Court we should enlarge the jurisdiction of the office and perhaps appoint two masters and entrust them with some pre-trial duties, so as to reduce the time involved in hearing actions in the High Court. They could be entrusted with the duty of agreeing maps, agreeing medical or other professional evidence in respect of which there is usually not much difference of opinion, and in that way reduce the expensive trials in the High Court, reduce the inconvenience of bringing witnesses form all over the country. That is what I recommend to the Minister instead of abolishing or downgrading this office. It is an office that has been there for a long time but it is an office that has not been worked to the fullest extent or availed of to do the work that it could have done.
The Minister dealt with law reform. I think the Minister and his Department are a bit behind with law reform. His predecessor introduced a Landlord and Tenant Bill in 1970 and it has not got a Second Reading yet. The explanation given for that is that it needs tidying up and sections need to be redrafted and looked at again but it is long overdue. There has been nothing worthwhile done in respect of law reform in the last couple of years. Admittedly, the increase in the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court and District Court was worthwhile but it did not take any great imagination to do that. The Minister spoke here about a lot of rules that he had sanctioned and approved of by various rules-making committees but he did not yet approve of rules to implement the increase in the jurisdiction of either the District Court or the Circuit Court. I would appeal to him to do that immediately. There is at least one set of those rules before him for some considerable time. I do not know offhand whether it is the draft rules of the Circuit Court or the draft rules of the District Court but there is one of them before him. I understand it has been cleared by the rules-making committee and that the Minister was waiting until he got the other one.
For some time past the relationship between the Minister's Department and the professional bodies representing the legal profession has not been what it should be. That is a pity because if we are to streamline the administration of justice at working level, that is through the courts, we can only do it if we have come and go between the Minister, on the one hand, the Benchers of Kings Inns on the other and the Incorporated Law Society. You will not get the desired net result if you are to have the Minister and the Department proceeding on the basis that "We are the boss and what we say must go" and resenting approaches, resenting consultation. I believe that if the Minister is prepared to consult, prepared to sit down and talk on a man to man basis and if necessary without any prior conditions he will get a good reception, he will get proper consultation from the Incorporated Law Society and the representatives of the Bar. For some reason or another civil servants are not too well disposed towards the legal profession. They regard them as potential invaders of their rights. I think that we will only get an efficient modern machine to serve the citizens of the country if there is a good relationship between the Minister for Justice, whoever he is, and the bodies about which I have been speaking. I am asking the Minister to think about that. I am afraid he has got off on the wrong foot, but I am asking him to think about it again. He is flexible enough, I am sure, to be able to do that.
The Minister dealt at some length with the Adoption Board. At the end of his brief he took the opportunity of thanking sincerely all the voluntary bodies and commissions and, I am sure, persons who have rendered valuable service during the last couple of years. If I were to deal in detail with the Adoption Board I could go on for a very long time and I do not propose to do that. I believe that when a board is set up and a number of citizens are asked to serve on it, selected by the Minister or appointed by one interest or another, these people should be treated seriously and they should have the respect of the Minister and the Minister's Department and their views should be respected. That has not been the case in respect of the Adoption Board. I regret to have so say that bureaucracy has been seen at its worst on the Adoption Board. We have a chairman, who is a district justice, and we have a registrar. As far as I see, over the last number of years the registrar has regarded himself as the Adoption Board and regarded his duties there as the implementation of Departmental policy on the board. He has treated the lay and voluntary members of that board in a disgraceful way. The fourth board was appointed by the Government in January, 1968. It consisted of the chairman and six other people, people who had an interest in adoption, people who had an interest in serving their fellow citizens on a voluntary basis, people who had given good service in other voluntary spheres. Yet we find that on 11th November, 1970, three of those members resigned because they were being bullied about and ignored by the registrar and to some extent by the chairman. The registrar considered that only himself and the chairman counted and that the other members of the board had no say. That is a deplorable state of affairs. The Minister knows that letters passed between members of the board and his predecessor and between the members of the board and himself and all these people wanted was to be taken seriously, given some say in decisions that were being made and that recommendations they made about amendments in the adoption laws would be given a hearing. They became so frustrated that after a short time they resigned. They were appointed in January, 1968, and they resigned in November, 1970, and it is very significant that when the board's annual report for the year ended 31st December, 1970, was published and presented to both Houses of the Oireachtas for the first time, the format of the report was changed. In that critical year the format would appear to have been designed deliberately to omit the names of the three members who resigned on 11th November, having served for 11 months of the year under review. Their names were never mentioned in the report presented for 31st December, 1970. On the information before me that was in keeping with the way these three voluntary members were treated during their time on that board. Roughly their complaints were that the registrar and chairman ran the board without reference to the members. The chairman and the registrar compiled adoption standards without reference to the ordinary members of the board. Would it not have been a good thing to have consulted with them and to have taken them into their confidence? The registrar on one occasion left the hearing of a case and telephoned the Department——
