Committee on Finance. - Vote 20: Office of the Minister for Justice (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (20th Dáil) – Thursday, 7 Mar 1974

Committee on Finance. - Vote 20: Office of the Minister for Justice (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1974, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice, and of certain other services administered by that Office, including a grant-in-aid; and of the Public Record Office, and of the Keeper of State Papers and for the purchase of historical documents, etc.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.)

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): When I reported progress a fortnight ago I was speaking about the crime rate in Dublin and the phenomenal rise that has taken place in the past ten years. I was pointing out that over that period crime had increased from 16,203 in 1963 to 39,237 in 1972. These are figures from the report of the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána. Anybody living in the city can see this development and we are naturally worried about it. The Minister said he expected there would be a downward trend this year. We all hope this will take place but the visible signs do not indicate this at the moment.

I had also dealt with the role of the police and the very difficult task they have especially in Dublin. I had spoken about the role of the liaison officer in the liaison section of the police force which can play a very useful part in getting young people channelled into the proper youth organisations and clubs. If we encourage this role of the police force it would be one step in the right direction of keeping young people out of crime. Having lived in parts of the city where in many cases there was bad housing and no proper amenities I can easily imagine how young people can fall into crime.

This applies in many parts of the world and the situation in Dublin is no different. We must do our very best to reduce this crime rate. One way of doing this is by increasing the police force. Over the past 12 months, as well as through the years, the police force has been increased but, unfortunately the majority of the police have been deployed on Border work and taken away from city work where they are as urgently needed as anywhere else. The people of this city must be guaranteed safety in walking the streets irrespective of the cost to the State. I believe the role of the police has been overshadowed by that of the Army in the past two or three years. We must ensure that the police play their proper role in our community and retain its respect. In Dublin, at any rate, they are understaffed. There are four or five police stations in my constituency including Mountjoy, Kevin Street and the Bridewell, areas where there is a considerable crime rate. Additional gardaí on patrol is undoubtedly one solution.

I was looking at the value of property stolen in the past 12 months, as indicated in this report, and I was surprised to see how little of it has been recovered. In 1972, £1,796,069 worth of property was stolen. The value of the property recovered in 1972 was £289,384. There is an enormous amount of property yet to be recovered. What is happening to this stolen property? If the thieves could not dispose of it, much of it would not be stolen.

It has been pointed out by people in the police that a number of people awaiting trial often commit more crimes. In the Commissioner's report it was stated that in 1972 1,784 crimes were committed by 462 persons on bail awaiting trial. This represented between three and four crimes per person. If a person awaiting trial is under the impression that he will get only five or six months sentence in jail he will take the view that he might as well take his chance and commit petty crimes while he is still free. It is obvious from these figures that while he is on bail he seems to think he is being given a licence to commit crime. Something should be done to bring people to trial as quickly as possible after they have been charged. This delay probably stems from the backlog in our courts.

When we speak of crime and the police we automatically move on to prisons. This is a section which has come in for criticism over the past few years. I have a fair knowledge of prisons because I visit them every month. I have read articles by ex-prisoners and others and in my opinion the majority of these articles are without foundation. I have read articles criticising prison officers. Anybody with knowledge of a prison officer's job will realise how difficult it is. These articles have shown the officers in a bad light and this can have a demoralising effect on them. Many parts of our society are not perfect and the same applies to our prisons.

Many improvements have been carried out in Mountjoy. Deputy O'Malley undertook a major project there after a riot which we all remember. On that occasion the kitchens and other parts of the prison were destroyed. Major reconstruction work has taken place there. Anybody with a knowledge of Mountjoy today will agree that it has one of the finest kitchens in the country. The dental unit was destroved also. Today there is a modern dental unit there.

It has many drawbacks too. The units are too large. Too many people group together, especially during leisure hours, between 5.30 and 7 p.m. when they are not engaged in their respective duties. If these groups had been broken into smaller units we would not have had the problems we had over the past few years. This is a big problem in Mountjoy. If there are 300 or 400 prisoners who can congregate at any time it is easy for a few agitators to start a riot. A corrective training unit will be completed shortly and this should help a little.

There is a problem concerning people on temporary release or working parole. This system has worked well and served its purpose within the prison. It has always been my opinion that a person on working parole, going out during the day and returning at night and at week-ends, should not be allowed back into the prison proper. This has raised many problems, including intimidation. A prisoner going out to work might be requested to do certain things. When he came back in the evening he was often treated with hostility because of this latitude. Therefore the first step should be to remove the prisoners on working parole out of the prison and into the corrective training unit. That unit will accommodate roughly 100 prisoners. We should not be too anxious to put in the 100 prisoners just to fill it. If this is done the scheme will be a failure. These people should be properly selected and processed. If 20 bad prisoners are put in just for the sake of filling the unit it could undermine the whole section. We must ensure that the prisoners in this unit will be rehabilitated and sent into the world to take up their respective jobs as soon as possible.

The Minister said in his brief that he was undecided whether to build a new prison but obviously he decided to retain a prison there. I always thought that it would be better if an alternative site to Mountjoy could be obtained. There is no proper exercise space there. We should have acquired a site of 300 or 400 acres and built a new prison with its own factories and given the prisoners work on the farm or in the factories. But we have not a proper factory type of work in Mountjoy. For an able-bodied man it can be frustrating to sit around in a confined place in Mountjoy. This is how frustration builds up.

Another aspect of the system that needs to be looked at is the visiting committees. They have been criticised and it has often been stated by prisoners, and others, that they are only another arm of the Department of Justice; that they are only a rubber stamp of that Department. The role of the visiting committee is a difficult one. I have often wondered what their role should be. I had presumed that they acted as a buffer between the Department of Justice and the prisoners and looked after the interests of the prisoners.

This is not all so simple and one finds after a short time that such committees are positioned into the role of representing another arm of the Department. They should be there to listen to the complaints of prisoners and make representations to the Department of Justice on their behalf. If they were there in such a welfare capacity they would play the role better. However, visiting committees must also take upon themselves the duty of punishment within the prison. They must hand out punishment to prisoners who commit offences in the prison. Prisoners who lose remission or suffer dietary punishment at the hands of the visiting committee lose confidence in that committee. Four or five prisoners could do a lot of harm after they have been punished by the visiting committee when they move among the other prison occupants.

This role undermines confidence in the visiting committee. The visiting committee should hear complaints from prisoners and fight with the Department of Justice to ensure that the prisoners get their rights. I am not saying that the prisoners do not get their rights but if we want to present the right image the role of the visiting committee should be altered. The visiting committees of which I have had knowledge always performed their duties but half the time of their meetings was spent hearing about breaches of the prison regulations by prisoners. This presents a serious problem. There are many ways this system could be improved and the Minister should endeavour to bring about some change in this regard.

Prisoners feel they have not the freedom to approach the visiting committee independently because they must make their complaint to their prison officers who in turn convey it to the governor and from there the complaint is transmitted to the visiting committee. It is usual that the complaint of a prisoner is brought up by the prison officer in the presence of the governor. There should be a situation which permits a prisoner to go independently to the visiting committee.

This is probably why prisoners feel they have not proper recourse to the visiting committee. They have no independence to say what they wish in front of the visiting committee and in the absence of the prison officers and the governor. There are various things like that in which I see weakness, a weakness that could be easily rectified. By and large the visiting committees are doing a reasonable job and it must be accepted that their job is a difficult one, particularly in the last few years. Anyone attached to the prisons knows the difficult role visiting committees have to play.

The prison officers are one of the finest groups I know. They are performing a job which, particularly in the past few years, has become very difficult. Very few people realise how difficult their job is. The officers have not the glare or publicity of the Army or the Garda but the role they are playing is of equal importance. Any facilities or help that can be given by the Department of Justice would be going to a worthwhile section of the community.

There is not a proper training course for the prison officers for the task they are asked to perform today. They need more training and more skill because a prison officer's job should be to rehabilitate. His first function should be to help the prisoner and to understand his problems. There is nobody closer to the prisoner than the prison officer. It is not enough that they should be simply jailers or the ones responsible for keeping an offender in prison. The prison officer should be able to help the prisoner with his problems. Anybody who visits our prisons knows of the great problems many of the prisoners have. They have social and mental problems and for this reason as time goes on the qualifications of the prison officer will have to be improved greatly. I hope the Minister will establish a course whereby prison officers will get additional training.

The prison welfare officers have the job of rehabilitating and finding jobs for prisoners when they leave the prison. A number of them are attached to prisons but this is another aspect of the prison service that could be developed. When a prisoner leaves a prison quite often he has no job or home to go to and has very little money. It is difficult for such a person to obtain a position because the fact that he has served a term in prison is always held against him. The State has lectured to people that they should give better facilities to ex-prisoners and not hold their past record against them. I agree with those sentiments but I wonder what the State is doing in this regard. What is the State doing in regard to employing ex-prisoners in the Board of Works and in Departments in a labouring capacity? How many ex-prisoners have been taken on?

I was often startled to see the impertinence of some of the Departments lecturing to outsiders about this matter when nothing was being done by the State to employ ex-prisoners. There is plenty of scope in these Departments to employ such people. The State should give good example by employing ex-prisoners.

A new section for the prison officers at Mountjoy is badly needed. I welcome the announcement that this addition is to be provided because the married quarters there are very drab. They have much the same type of paint work as that in the prison. The Minister should see if those living quarters can be brightened up because it is of vital importance that when a prison officer leaves the prison he should go into a home which bears no resemblance to a prison.

We see too much violence on television. The majority of the films shown portray violence and young people today seem to take it for granted that it is a way of life. I know it is difficult to cut it out completely but it is desirable to show less violence on television especially up to 9.30 p.m. when children up to ten years of age are looking at it.

The Minister mentioned free legal aid. In a city like Dublin and in other large towns legal costs are a major problem to people in bad circumstances. There are problems in the city such as deserted wives, broken homes and various other problems with which these people have to contend. They have nobody to turn to and do not know what they are entitled to. FLAC are doing an excellent job but it is very difficult for them to keep going on a large scale in a place like Dublin because they have only very limited resources. They have centres in Ballyfermot and other places throughout the city but many people are not aware they are there. If they were I doubt if FLAC would be able to cater for everybody out of their limited resources. I would like to compliment them for the work they are doing. I would like to see them receiving extra money to enable them to carry on.

The Minister referred to the payment of compensation under the personal injuries scheme. The Minister is referring here to the bombing in Dublin in December, 1972. I agree it is desirable that compensation should be paid but I hope at some later stage he will take this further and deal with malicious damages in general. It is totally unfair that the damage done in Dublin in December, 1972, by people who are not residents of Dublin should be paid for by the ratepayers of this city. It is an unjust imposition to ask the Dublin ratepayers to pay for that damage. We know the background of why payments of that type were imposed on the local ratepayers. That is when people within that particular community caused the damage and the authorities thought it was right that that community should pay for it. That day has long gone. With the advent of the car and the movement of people throughout the country it is impossible to say where the person or persons who caused the damage come from. We will have to remove payment for malicious damages from the rates. I do not know what the attitude of other Members on this side of the House is in regard to this matter but I certainly think something should be done about it. Not so long ago there was a big fire in Dockrells of George's Street. I know the person who committed that crime was from Dublin. However, I think it is wrong to ask the ratepayers of Dublin to carry this burden. If Fianna Fáil were in office we would have derated private houses and that burden would automatically go. I hope the Minister will transfer payment for malicious damages to the Exchequer.

I wish the Minister well in his office in the Department of Justice, which is one of the most responsible Departments in the country. It looks after the welfare and the protection of the people. We must ensure that proper protection is given to the ordinary individual, that he is satisfied he can walk the streets in safety, that our property is protected and that when one is away from one's property there are sufficient gardaí patrolling the district where one lives. The Minister needs to recruit more people to the Garda because confidence has been undermined as regards the safety of women and children in Dublin. We can ensure that does not continue by increasing the Garda force.

We need more gardaí to integrate with the people especially where crime is most prevalent. The officers who are doing it at the moment are doing an excellent job. We need extra gardaí to call to schools and speak to the young people. When I was young it was a special occasion when a garda called to the school. Liaison officers should also call to the schools to give lectures on the dangers of drugs, the dangers of alcohol and on road safety. The Garda officers thus win the respect of young people. We must get away from the day when people were afraid of police officers. We must show they are there to protect people. If we do this we will have less crime.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Kelly)

I would like to begin by saying that although I did not hear the speech made by the Opposition spokesman on this Estimate I have read it and although I have often had cross words with him here, I would like to say that I thought his speech was very careful and constructive. I agree with a very large amount of what he said on the three occasions on which he spoke. I agree with his views about the necessity for family law reform. I agree with his views about free legal aid and the necessity for extending it although he will realise that the financial implications of a completely free legal aid system comparable with what they have in Britain are very large and whether that can be afforded this year or next year is a big question. I agree with him also about what he had to say about raising the age of criminal responsibility and substituting for the penal approach to what I might call infanttile delinquency some system of proper care.

This morning I listened to Deputy Fitzpatrick and I agree with a great deal of what he said. If you will allow me to add my voice I would like to do so in regard to a couple of matters which he particularly mentioned. One of these was the fact, to which he very rightly drew attention, that a large proporion of offences are committed by people who are, in fact, on bail awaiting trial on other charges. Deputy Fitzpatrick gave what he thought was a reason for that—certainly it is what the police believe— that many such persons, thinking they will be sent down when their trial comes conclude they might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb and that if a few more offences are taken into consideration it will not make much difference to them. That may be an unscientific layman's guess, it may or may not be what is in the delinquent's mind, but Deputy Fitzpatrick was quite right in saying that an intolerably large proportion of offences are committed by people who are at liberty while awaiting trial on other charges.

What the Deputy did not say is that the degree to which bail can be refused by the courts has been very heavily restricted by a Supreme Court judgment a few years ago which was an extremely liberal judgment. It took the view that remand in custody could only be granted within very narrow limits, that to remand a prisoner in custody on a charge for which he had not been tried could not be used except in extreme cases. That had the effect of ensuring that a large number of people who would have been remanded in custody before this judgment and, accordingly would not have had an opportunity of committing an offence, are now at liberty.

I do not wish to criticise the Supreme Court for this. In recent years the Supreme Court has shown an amazing burst of liberal, innovating energy and of intellectual vigour. I hope I will not be taken to be patronising these distinguished law-years; they have my admiration and so have some judges in the High Court. I say that nothwithstanding the bitter disagreements we have sometimes about the mode of judicial appointments and the political background of some of the judges. Whatever their backgrounds, in recent years they have shown this burst of intellectual vigour that makes me very proud of the legal profession.

I mention it in this context because it seems to me that the police view would be that in this case the Supreme Court, with the best intentions, has over-reached itself. On balance—and there must be a balance between individual private rights and the common good—most people whose job it is to fight crime would say that the good achieved by leaving accused persons at liberty is more than undone by the number of extra offences the Garda are called on to deal with.

With all respect to the Supreme Court, I would be in favour, when the time comes for a general review of the Constitution, to amend those parts of Article 40 on which the Supreme Court relied in such a way as to make it possible to remand in custody persons accused of offences within less narrow limits than the courts are called on to work within at the moment. I hope I will not be taken as being illiberal or an enemy of civil liberty when I say that. That is not the case. It necessarily follows from the conclusion I am drawing that trials should be accelerated. It is absolutely intolerable that a man who is innocent in the eye of the law should spend unnecessary time waiting for trial.

Even in democracies it is very easy for the system of custodial remand to become a gross affront to civil liberty. In western Germany, for example, it is not uncommon for men to wait in prison for a year, 18 months or two years for trial and then to be acquitted of the charge originally brought against them. Similar conditions exist in other European countries. I should not want to see that happen here. If the bail situation is tightened up, as it should be, it follows as a corollary that there must be no delay in bringing prisoners to trial. It would be quite intolerable to keep them sitting in prison, out of the way, when in the eye of the law they are innocent.

I endorse what Deputy Fitzpatrick has said and I add to it that I should like the Constitution amended in such a way as to remove this justified grievance of people whose job it is to enforce the law. It follows as a result of that that if civil liberty is to be respected a trial must be brought immediately after a charge.

I should like to see in all criminal business the same kind of despatch shown by the Special Criminal Court in the last few years where not more than a few days elapse between charge and trial. I realise the Special Criminal Court is dealing with statutory sections, some of which are deliberately designed to eliminate difficulties of proof. I am not overlooking that factor and I realise there are many kinds of charges that will not respond to that kind of drumhead treatment and where an injustice would be done if that kind of treatment were applied. However, I should like to see the administration of ordinary criminal justice accelerated. It must be done if we are to justify any tightening up of the system which now results in so many people being left at liberty while awaiting trial.

Deputy Fitzpatrick referred to a favourite topic of mine, namely, the question of malicious injuries and compensation being levied on the rates. Without giving the House a lecture on this, it is no harm to state that the whole system of compensation for criminal injuries levied on inhabitants of a particular locality goes back to a time when liability or responsibility was imputed to them for the crime having taken place in their area. It was an indirect form of punishment for having allowed Rapparees, Tories, highwaymen and so on to flourish in their midst. Whatever justification there may have been for an antique system of law in which there was no proper police to force people to be their own police by charging them the value of the damage done, we have no excuse for it in the present day. I should like to draw the attention of the Dáil to the fact that in 1962 the Government in which Deputy Haughey was Minister for Justice announced a programme of law reform but I am sorry to say that 12 years later very little has been put into effect. One of the headings of that programme was the question of considering amendment of the criminal injury law. At that time an inter-departmental committee from the Departments of Justice, Finance and Local Government were sitting and they reported in 1964. They reported against changing the law but the reasons seem to me to be most inadequate. One of the reasons they thought the law should not be changed was that it exercised a wholesome effect on the inhabitants of a locality and made them alert to keeping down crime in the area.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): It has not that effect today.

Mr. Kelly

That is true. If it has an effect it is only within the most narrow limits. I can imagine that an outbreak of burning ricks of turf in a remote country townland might be kept down by the realisation that the people would have to pay for it themselves if the award were levied on their own parish. In the name of reason, how could the kind of activity of which the Deputy complained, the horrible case of arson in the Dublin area in the last few years, the bombings, the incidents in the Border counties, have been prevented by the ordinary inhabitants, let alone the ratepayers, of these areas? It is against all reason.

The inter-departmental committee also said that, if the charge for malicious injury were made a central charge, it would mean more expense because there would have to be a new Department somewhere in Dublin dealing with these claims. That is not so, with respect to the committee. There is absolutely no reason why criminal injury claims might not be litigated in exactly the same way as heretofore, in other words, with the county or the county borough named as the nominal respondent and the apparatus of the county solicitor or the county borough solicitor, instructing counsel if necessary, and so on, defending, but in which the award although nominally made against the county or county borough would be discharged from a central source.

I am not entirely in agreement with what seemed to be Deputy Fitzpatrick's view that the Exchequer or the Central Fund should bear this because that necessarily means more central taxation. I see no objection to its being made a charge which would be recovered from the rates, but it ought to be a charge recovered from the rates proportionate to the rate levied in each county. It is an outrage that an innocent ratepayer in County Cavan should have to bear the cost of an explosion in Belturbet, which was the result of political difficulties which, if you like, in some respects, arose 300 or nearly 400 years ago, but for which, for all he knows, a man living in Belfast or in Cork might have been responsible. To that extent it is the product of a national difficulty for which the inhabitants of Offaly and Sligo must equally be responsible, if anybody is responsible. That is against all reason.

I do not know the Minister's mind on this, but I urge on him very strongly that he should look again at this problem and see if he can bring some reason into it. I must say I find the present system impossible to defend except on grounds of crude convenience. Even that is not a very strong ground when, as occasionally happens with a particularly bad outrage, the Government have to step in and pay the bill. If I am not mistaken —if I am Deputies opposite will correct me—that happened in the case of the Nelson Pillar explosion. In the case of the spectacular outrages the Government step in and pay the bill, but why should one outrage be distinguished from another? They are all outrages. They are all unlawful injuries. They are all, or nearly all, ones which the local inhabitants, let alone the local ratepayers, are absolutely powerless to prevent. I consider that they should be made a national charge. Whether the national charge should come directly from the central fund, or whether it should be spread around via the rates, is a separate issue. I have no very strong feelings about it. I appeal to the Minister to try to bring some reason into the system which, so far as I know, exists nowhere else in the civilised world and which the English themselves, who wished it on us, have not got.

Several Deputies spoke about the wave of crime we have been having particularly in the urban areas over the past few years. I think it was at Question Time the other day the matter of vandalism was raised and Deputy Haughey said it was one of the conundrums of the modern world that, as people got more affluent, vandalism tended to get worse instead of better and was by no means something which disappeared according as people got better off. The Deputy was right. Unfortunately, that has been the experience, but it is not a conundrum at all. Criminologists are agreed that the affluent society contains factors, and very evident ones, which conduce to vandalism and other forms of delinquency. One of these is ordinary material greed and envy and frustration at seeing people conspicuously enjoying wealth which others have not got.

The ones who have not got it have a roof over their heads and they are not hungry or anything like that, but they are living in a society in which more and more value is attached to physical possessions, and in which they have only to look at a newspaper to see advertisements for heated swimming pools and so forth, and in which the wealth of other people is flashed under their noses on television, in the newspapers, and where-ever they go. The lack of self-restraint by the better off Irish people in this regard, their failure to conform their habits of life to what is seemly in a small republic is, in my opinion, no small factor in the disorders which are generated in what I might call the lower brackets of society from which most, but not all, delinquency comes.

That is only a theory and, like all theories in this field, it is very hard to prove it in one way or the other, but I feel there is a good deal to be said for it. In connection with this whole matter I should like to draw the Minister's attention and the attention of the House to the fact that the scientific study of the roots of crime has not really begun here. If you were to put on a shelf the entire literature of criminology in Ireland it would barely occupy as much space as a single volume of the Official Report. I doubt that it would occupy that much space.

Notwithstanding the fact that there are conditions in Ireland which are quite special, and which are not reproduced in England, and which to the social scientist or criminologist may be relevant to the way in which crime shows itself here, it would seem to be an open field for research and that research has not been done. I am willing to lay some of the blame for that, so far as I represent them, on the law faculties of the universities whose job it might have been thought to be in the first instance. We have, in our own way, done as much as we could with limited resources in UCD to have criminology taught as a subject to students, which never was the case before. There is a course in penal method in Trinity College and I believe also in Cork. These are fairly new developments and, between the introduction of an under-graduate course and the building up of a respectable research team, a generation or two can elapse unless somebody takes the problem by the scruff of the neck and puts money into it.

I should like the Minister to consider whether his Department might not feel themselves able to endow a couple of professorships or senior lectureships in this subject in one or other Irish university college. I am far from being under the illusion that merely to create a professorship in a subject solves all the problems connected with the subject. It does not but, until you have a man of standing and of training of a kind which I am afraid does not exist here yet, who is able to build up a department and a research team underneath him, and willing to take an interest in the place in which he is living, you simply will not get research—unless an extraordinary genius with a passion for this kind of social inquiry, and entirely unsupported by any university department or anybody else, comes to light. That can happen, but we are doing very little to encourage it.

While I am willing to place some of the blame for this on the university faculties in the past, do not forget that every university department fighting for funds for any kind of research whether socially useful or not, is having its claims balanced against the claims of many other departments. There is no real tariff or system of equivalence which will enable you to read off the entitlement of one department as being better than another. If University College, Dublin, were to look for a full professorship of criminology, which is what I would like to see, we would be weighed in the balance against other departments who want a professorship in assyriology or a professorship in business management or something of that kind. Who is to say which is the more important or the more valuable?

It is an impossible task really—it has to be a finance committee—but what is not impossible is for the Government Department or institution concerned with the problem to say: "Look, if the university funds or the funds provided by the Government in the ordinary way for the university will not meet this charge, we will indulge out of our Vote." I do not know whether there are administrative problems—probably there are—but I just do not believe it is beyond the wit of man to overcome them. I do not see that it should be beyond the power of the Department of Justice to take under their wing financially—I do not mean academics are in favour of interference with how academics do their job once they are appointed—a job like this and make sure that a proper research team is built up. There are features many of which spring to the mind of even the ordinary intelligent layman: the problem which might be thought relevant to this kind of inquiry are the degree of rural inbreeding, the effects of four generations of immigration which has been, I sometimes think, something that could be described as the operation of natural selection in reverse, because it is not a question of the survival of the fittest; it is a question of the breeding behind those who in harder times did not have what it took to get out and make a living for themselves somewhere else.

There is a whole complex of problems associated with the heavily Catholic atmosphere of Irish life. I use this phrase in no pejorative way; it is what might be described as moral authoritarianism. It is in no sense badly meant. It is natural to a pastoral church that that should be so but the moral authoritarianism of the Catholic Church, and perhaps other Christian Churches, may possibly tend to deprive the individual of a degree of self-discipline or judgment on his own account and tend to concentrate his mind on what is right and wrong on things he hears most about from the pulpit. I hope no one will do me the injustice of taking that as in any sense an attack on the Catholic Church or on anything it does. But the Catholic Church does naturally influence—it would be foolish to deny it—the kind of society we are and any kind of inquiry as to what goes wrong in a society like this must take account of what may be relevant factors and that may be one of them.

Then there are late marriages. That is something from which this country used suffer but the marriage age is now coming down very, very fast—I would think far too fast. The late marriages from which the country used suffer may be a factor because the late marriage means that there may be children whose parents no longer have enough vigour, time or willpower to look after their children properly. That, again, is not to be taken as a general reflection on the progeny of late marriages because, if it were, the whole population now adult would tend to be delinquent. That, of course, is not the truth. It is nothing like the truth, but late marriages being so common here until very recently may be a relevant factor peculiar to the Irish condition. It is certainly not found in the neighbouring islands and Irish research into criminality must take it into account.

There are also the questions of our national and racial attitudes towards law and order. These have been conditioned in the past, as we all know, by identification with foreign law and order. These things die very hard. I remember Deputy Blaney saying here before Christmas that there were men on both sides of this House who delighted in the Mountjoy jailbreak. I notice that since that time someone has made a record about that break and somebody—I do not mind telling the House—found it amusing apparently to send me a Christmas present of the record. That kind of attitude is lighthearted enough and I can understand what Deputy Blaney means. The small boy in Deputies on both sides of the House may be momentarily excited by a thrilling helicopter rescue. The trouble is that we are not small boys and we have many responsibilities. That is the line which separates Deputy Blaney, I am afraid, from the rest of us. I am sorry to say that in his absence. I would not be afraid to say it if he were here. Deputy Blaney is, in his own curious way, a small boy at heart and he thinks the rest of us are as well. Naturally we all have a bit of the small boy in us, but we are grown men with many responsibilities and this small boy attitude towards law and order, which has been heavily supported by the events of our history and the course our history has taken, would be another factor which research into the roots of crime would have to take into account. I am not a criminologist and I do not set up to be an expert in this, but these are all factors which appear to me not to be duplicated in the neighbouring island and the results of research, therefore, in Britain are not necessarily of any use to us.

I strongly urge the Minister to see whether a scientific study of this social phenomenon—it can never be rooted out, but it can, perhaps, be contained and reduced—may not be furthered by his helping to establish research teams headed by people of experience. These will have to be imported, I am afraid, because they do not exist here. The results which such a research inquiry would show would not be seen for a long time, but it might well be that our successors here would thank the Minister for that degree of foresight on his part.

Another matter which falls within the potential scope of the Minister is the question of law reporting. I am entering on a somewhat dry topic here, but I will try to make it as interesting as I can. Law reporting is in the hands of a council. The council produce the official report. There is another set of law reports in the Irish Law Times. It is a very good set. The trouble is that these reports are very often very late. They are published at erratic intervals and there is no correlation between the time a judgment is pronounced and the time ordinary people or specialists get access to that judgment in print. I have it in mind when I lose my seat or my job here, or both, to go back to the university to do some work on constitutional and administrative law. I try to keep track of what is going on, though I have not been able to give it the same attention over the last year, and the best way I can help myself to make sure I do not miss things is to take clippings out of the papers when judgments are published in the daily Press. If I do not do that and I rely merely on what happens to be published in the Irish Reports and the Irish Law Times I will miss a great deal of law.

Within the last week there were at least four very important judgments, full of constitutional or administrative law. There was Mr. Boland's case. There was the case about the Bula mining interests. There was the decision of Mr. Justice Finlay concerning the problems of the Killiney Residents' Association. There was a case reported this morning in which the Minister for Transport and Power was held entitled as against TWA to impose an increased landing charge. These are cases of very high constitutional interest. The first one I listed is particularly important. I do not recall a more interesting one from both the academic and the practical point of view in years. The other three are ones of very high administrative law interest. I do not mind betting a pound with anyone here that this time 12 months we will not see all these cases reported. We will be lucky indeed if this time 12 months we see one of them reported. I am sorry to say that is the kind of time lag we have been having. There are good reasons for it in the sense of reasons which exonerate individuals and each individual concerned must be given a free pardon.

The reasons may be good but the service to the legal profession and to those interested in the law is poor and contrasts very badly with the service to practitioners and academics in the neighbouring island and, of course, the public because they are entitled to have access to what judges hand down.

In the neighbouring island there are weekly law reports and not more than a matter of days would go by before you would have in print what the Supreme Court had said in the Boland case, in the Minister for Transport and Power's case, in the Bula mining case and what Mr. Justice Finlay had said in the Killiney case. Not more than a matter of days would go by before I would be able to have an official report on which I could rely absolutely. But here, not only months, but years may go by before these reports are available. There are reasons why this is so and I shall not detain the House with them. They are reasons which reflect no discredit on any individual but, collectively, they represent an inefficient and poor service. I know the Minister is interested in the matter but I would urge him to bring the situation about which the legal profession has been complaining for generations to an end.

The note I want to end on will be a little more contentious and I shall give the Opposition as little reason to complain of exaggeration or misrepresentation as I can. I want to say a few words on the question of security for which the Minister is primarily responsible. In conditions such as this State now has to face the problem of security is not insurmountable but there is a degree beyond which security cannot be guaranteed. That goes for Border security as well as every other kind. Incidentally, I notice that no matter what the Minister, the guards or the security force undertake, they never seem to win. They never seem to be right. When the Mountjoy escape took place the Minister was under fire for not having more armed guards present in the prison. But I noticed, when Mr. Heath came to Baldonnel to see the Taoiseach last autumn, there was criticism of the security over-kill, if you please. There were too many soldiers, tanks, police and so on in sight around the airfield; the whole thing was in some way laughable. It would not have been such a laugh had there been an incident there—I shall not particularise in imagination what sort of an incident there might have been. If the Minister with us today and the Minister for Defence involved had taken their responsibilities less seriously, had assumed that everything was going to be all right and had not taken any special precautions about the meeting in Baldonnel, they would have been under very heavy fire for not having done so. The security forces, both police and army, are subject, at all times, to the exercise of discretion in their duties. Watching events over the last few months, it seems to me that no matter what they do, they are in the wrong. I do not necessarily mean Fianna Fáil but according to Fianna Fáil on occasion, outside commentators and journalists on other occasions. There are bound to be failures in any system of security. What I dislike very much about what has happened here in the last few months is that, when there have been failures—they have been failures of a stunt type on some occasions—they have been maximised by the media and by the Opposition.

I am sorry to say this about Deputy Andrews when he is not here but, for example, he raised yesterday or tried to raise something which was not exactly a question of a security failure. It was a question of a security failure to this extent. Apparently he was implying it should not have been physically possible for British soldiers who had crossed the Border to have done so. In other words, they should have been physically prevented some 200 yards before they encountered the Garda patrol. There are a couple of things that need to be said about that kind of reaction. It is not at all a laughing or trivial matter if British soldiers come over the Border and threaten to shoot a garda. It is not a trivial matter if anybody behaves like that to the guards, whether in or out of uniform and whatever may be the uniform. There have been instances of the guards being threatened and blackguarded here and I have not noticed Deputies on the other side of the House all that fast on their feet to try to raise the matter or make a fuss about it when they know they are out of order at 4 o'clock. As it seems to me, it is only when there is a possibility of making out that the Government are, in some way, making a special case for the English that we hear much about infringements of this kind. If, as seems to be the case, British soldiers cross the Border and threaten to shoot a guard and certainly, behave themselves extremely badly by the only accounts I have read —if they be true—that certainly is a matter for protest. But I do not like it when the Opposition selectively raise matters of this kind for protest in connection with our security forces, with protecting the guards, and carefully avoid raising matters which they well could raise if their hearts were in the right place.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair feels that, perhaps, if this matter is sub judice or matters being dealt with at this moment are sub judice they ought not be referred to.

Mr. Kelly

Naturally, I shall obey the Chair's ruling.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Minister——

Mr. Cooney

If it might be of assistance, if matters arising out of this are likely to be the subject of criminal proceedings. Consequently, while not at the moment, very shortly there will be a sub judice element about the incident.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In those circumstances, perhaps it would be much better that they would not be referred to.

Mr. Kelly

I will leave that matter behind though I hope Deputy Tunney, whom I see across the way, will understand that I had nothing like finished my exposition and I hope I will not be answered on the basis of what I have succeeded in saying only. There was a lot more to come but, in deference to the Chair, naturally I will not say it.

The last thing I want to say is also controversial but I wanted to get it on the record, for what the record is worth, in reply to something said here a few months ago by Deputy O'Malley. It was in the context of justice and of criminal law. He chose a moment when I had just left the House to say it. I believe he deliberately chose that moment to say— because I believe he knew that had I been there—even in defiance of the rules of order—I would have contradicted him across the floor of the House—it was not possible, until the passage of his amendment to the Offences Against the State Act of December, 1972 to deal with people who were picketing courthouses. Naturally, like any legal proposition, that statement is neither open nor shut until the Supreme Court has ruled finally on it. I do not want to be represented as giving a lecture to Deputy O'Malley. He had access, when Minister, to the best legal brains in his Department and even in Opposition he has a think tank there—lachtachán mór—in which there are legal brains. Certainly to judge by the amount of State work put in their way under the last Government, they must be in the first rank. He said that until his Bill was passed picketing outside courthouses could not be dealt with by criminal law. He said—and I think this was probably sincerely meant—that he often wished district justices would use a bit more widely their power to commit for contempt in respect of offences committed in the face of the court by extending the expression "in the face of the court" to include the steps of the courthouse. He is quite right in saying that a judge of one of the lower courts has power of instant committal instead of sending somebody away for seven days only when his court is insulted in front of his eyes. He may also be right in saying that perhaps the judges were prudent in not trying to stretch that power too far by committing people who were brandishing placards outside the doors of their court, but what he did not say was that the powers of the law in regard to contempt of court were not exhausted by the rules in regard to contempt in the face of the court. As his Department well knew, there is such a thing as indictable contempt, that is contempt which can be made the subject of a charge and trial before a jury.

That offence is committed when somebody does something which tends to interfere with or obstruct the course of justice or to determine the direction in which the course of justice will go. There have been indictments for contempt in this State since its inception. I hope that the gentlemen on the far side of the House will not think me unduly badminded and anxious to irritate them when I say there was one very distinguished offender who was charged with indictable contempt. If my memory does not fail me it was the late President O'Kelly in 1929. I may be wrong about that, but to the best of my recollection he was once tried for contempt committed, not in the face of the court, but for an alleged reflection on the probity or standing of members of a court.

I believe that people who parade up and down outside a courthouse with placards on any reasonable construction of what they are doing are in contempt of that court. It is true that the justice inside cannot commit them. I am prepared to take Deputy O'Malley's view on that as being correct. It is not true that they are committing no offence and that the law cannot deal with them. I believe that once these people are identified they should be charged with contempt of court, tried for it and heavily penalised.

It was my complaint all during the years when the last Government were pussy-footing, as it seemed to me, that this possibility was open to them but they never bothered about it. Not only was that possibility open to them and not only is the Deputy's claim that picketing could not have been dealt with until 1972 with his Bill invalidated by reference to indictable contempt but there is another statute— one of the Deputy's own statutes, a Fianna Fáil statute, the Offences Against the State Act, 1939—for dealing with this. Section 7 (1) of that Act reads:

Every person who prevents or obstructs, or attempts or is concerned in an attempt to prevent or obstruct, by force of arms or other violent means or by any form of intimidation the carrying on of the government of the State or any branch (whether legislative, judicial, or executive) of the government of the State or the exercise or performance by any member of the legislature, the judiciary, or the executive or by any officer or employee whether civil (including police)... shall be guilty of felony and shall be liable on conviction thereof to suffer penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

If the brandishing of placards outside a courthouse is not an attempt to intimidate justice I do not know what is. I should like to know whether the Attorney General's office in the last administration ever activated that sub-section, or could it be that they were told not to look at it too carefully or too closely?

When I hear an answer to that—and Deputy O'Malley has not yet spoken in this debate and if he wants to refer to these matters I am quite prepared to be contradicted because I am not an expert on criminal law—I will be interested. It seemed to me and it still seems to me that these possibilities were clearly open to the State. To that extent to say that nothing could have been done about the picketing of courthouses until the Bill was passed in 1972 is wrong. The Deputy may have believed that, but I believe it is wrong.

The specific offence of picketing a courthouse is created by that Act and that was not the case previously. Deputy O'Malley's Act provides a more convenient means for dealing with this offence, but I do not admit that the Government were powerless to deal with it before. I charge the Deputy's Government for not having done their duty in this regard. The picketing of courthouses went in some cases further than merely intimidating witness or trying to suggest to them that they would be better off to stay at home. Suggestions were made to justices that they would be better advised not to convict. There were cases of gentlemen with loud-hailers addressing police cordons asking the gardaí not to do their job. That is an offence under section 9 (2) of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939. I do not recall any of these gentlemen, although they were within the hearing of dozens of gardaí whom they were addressing, being charged with the offence and being arrested. I do not want to be captious about this. I may be thought of as overdoing this and of making charges against the previous Government in regard to their duty to preserve the peace and have the law respected. However, I cannot abandon this point of view that there were legal powers available to them which they did not use.

I know it is hard for Deputy O'Malley to hear this said. He himself showed considerable courage at a time when he and his family were under every possible kind of insult and intimidation. He showed great personal guts. As a man I have found it difficult to get on with him in the House, but I will say that of him. It must be hard for him to hear this charge made against his Government. For his part he did what he considered to be his best, but I cannot allow his Government and his party to escape comment or the public to have the impression that their hearts and souls were behind the job of maintaining the institutions of the State and maintaining respect for them over the last years they were in Government. I do not believe that, and I believe the record of the instances I have given fully demonstrate the contrary.

In conclusion. I will come back to the general question of the attitude of the Opposition. I am going to keep off discussion of matters which may be sub judice. It would be no concern of mine to try to chalk up scores against a Government which have gone. The attitude of the Opposition at present is of importance. When I hear matters being raised by the spokesman on Justice or anybody else acting for him off the cuff I have to look very carefully to see what matter is being raised.

The Minister is being pressed to tighten up security. That is only being done when it is possible to make out that he is being slack or neglectful or that there has been a slip-up somewhere. I have never heard the Minister being pressed to invoke hidden corners of the law against abuses which may still be going on. I do not mind giving it as my own personal view—and I do not wish to embarrass the Minister—that there is still a good deal too much liberty in this country for opinions of people who do not deserve free speech. I will probably be thought a terrible illiberal for saying such a thing. Free speech, like all other freedoms, has got limits. There is still too much liberty, and too much liberty is taken by the Press in reporting the activities of persons—and their statements—whom we are all supposed to be out against. That may not be the view of the Minister or the Government. I may be alone in the House in thinking that, but I never hear anybody on the Opposition side saying to the Minister "Why do you not do something about the fact that the newspapers, the radio or the television carry statements emanating from this front or that illegal organisation?" I am glad to see Deputy Davern here. I remember that not long ago he wanted English Sunday newspapers banned in this country with the single exception of The Sunday Times because The Sunday Times carried the interpretation of events in Northern Ireland which suited Deputy Davern, but the other ones he wanted banned.

Mr. Davern

It was the gutter type.

Mr. Kelly

We could be at one about many English Sunday newspapers. I do not care for them either, but between not liking them and calling for having them banned, there is a big difference.

Mr. Davern

Not to have them banned but to have them boycotted by any decent person in this country because events in Northern Ireland were not interpreted as they should be, all the wrong being on one side and not on the other.

Mr. Kelly

I will not fall out with the Deputy about it. I took it he wanted to have them banned. If he did not mean that, naturally I accept it. But it could be argued that there is too much freedom and that too much space is given to people who would be very slow to provide the same liberty if they were in power and whose own respect for the principles of legality in even the humblest sense of that term is zero.

However, I never hear the Minister being asked from the far side if he is aware that this or that is happening and does he propose to invoke this or that power, except when there is a failure of the security forces of a kind that might be calculated to bring the Minister or the Government into ridicule. I do not mind about that: it is of no concern to me particularly. The Government and the Minister are big enough to take it. It is the effect in Northern Ireland that is important. I do not want to be throwing wild charges around, but the kind of attitude displayed by the Opposition— and not only by the Opposition but by other people as well—which selects incidents and selects things to make a fuss about while carefully saying nothing about other matters, has an immense impact on the North of Ireland. I am afraid—and I do not want to put too heavy a charge at the door of Deputy Tunney or Deputy Davern—the fact that there are 11 hardliners returned in the North of Ireland to Westminster last week is in no small measure due to the suspicions entertained in the North that people down here—perhaps they do not distinguish too clearly between Government and Opposition—are not willing to put their foot down about lawlessness and about savagery. That feeling on the part of the hardline Unionist or even the moderate Unionist is fed and foddered every time a nit-picking question is raised about an English patrol putting its nose over the Border.

It was all right in the days when we had no helicopters. In the days when we had no helicopters Fianna Fáil Ministers for Defence were telling us day in and day out that we did not need them. It was all right then when an Irish fisherman got into difficulties for a British helicopter to come from Ballykelly and pull him out of the water; and it was all right for British naval units to take part in dredging up the remains of the Aer Lingus plane that went into the sea off the Tuskar. There was no complaint then about people in uniform being in our national territory, but let something like this happen in a context where it is possible for the Opposition to appeal to the far-out, stone-age republicans and they are in like a flock of hawks immediately.

I do not take a Border incursion lightly. I do not think it is trivial, and I do not think a threat offered to a garda is trivial, but it is important not to be selective about this and not to be picking out particular incidents, particular things about which it may be possible to embarrass the Government, if, when you do so, you are leaving the interpretation open in the North that you are only interested in bashing the British or the Unionists. That is the kind of thing which has left Gerry Fitt the only man representing the Northern minority in the British House of Commons today.

What I have said in the last 20 minutes has been, perhaps, a bit rasping. I am sorry about that, but I feel I have to get these things on the record. I want to close by saying again that, in spite of what I have said in the last while, I do think that the contributions made both by Deputy Andrews and Deputy Fitzpatrick were careful and constructive. I do not necessarily exclude the other Opposition Deputies, but I did not hear or read all of the debate. However, I hope the Minister will give every consideration to the points that have been raised.

Mr. Tunney

Ba mhaith liom comhgháirdeachas a dhéanamh leis an Teachta Cooney as ucht a cheapacháin mar Aire Dlí agus Cirt. Sílim go nglacfar ar chuile thaobh go mbeidh sé in ann chuige. Tá a fhios agam go nglacfaidh sé uainne leis na clamhsáin agus na casaoidí agus an íde béil a chleacht sé féin nuair a bhí sé ar an dtaobh seo.

Thagair an Rúnaí Parlaminte do shaoirse an duine. Nuair a bheidh an tAire ag tabhairt freagra ar na poinntí go léir, ba mhaith liom go dtabharfadh sé míniú ar cén fáth, nuair a tugadh duine isteach i mbeairic na ngardaí agus nuair a tugadh níos déanaí é ós comhair na cúirte, nach raibh cead aige, de réir na dtuarascáil a chuala mé, é féin a chur in aithne i nGaeilge.

Mr. Kelly

An bhfuil freagra á éleamh ag an Teachta láithreach?

Mr. Tunney

Má tá sé ag an Rúnaí Parlaiminte.

Mr. Kelly

Chuala mé scéal faoin a leithéid ó dhuine as Doire Choilm Cille agus chuir mé in iúl do Coimisinéir an Gharda é.

Mr. Tunney

We have been reading much of late of a man who has guaranteed for himself that any book written by him to date or that will be written by him in the future will register top sales. I am not saying that the publicity he has got so guarantees, but when I think about Solzhenitsyn and all the sounds we have heard even as to how his name should be pronounced, and when I think of the world sympathy that goes to him because apparently he was prevented from exercising mental and intellectual freedom, I wonder why a share of such sympathy does not go to the masses of Irish people who at the moment are imprisoned under a legal system about which they know very little, where the exercise of mental or intellectual freedom is not allowed to them. Here, the same antiquated and archaic system which obtained centuries ago is still in existence.

What I have been saying may be unwelcome to the Incorporated Law Society and to the Bar Council. I appreciate that and I accept it because these institutions are the remnants of, or, perhaps, a refinement of what the Parliamentary Secretary described a few moments ago as the inbreeding in Ireland. I suggest there is very definite and objectionable inbreeding in the legal profession in this country.

Mr. Kelly

Is the same not true of nearly all professions, if it is true at all?

Mr. Tunney

I think it is a fair equation. I am not concerned about the political affiliations of judges. If they have the necessary qualifications I am happy. Listening to judges over the years and looking for what I think should be a consistency in the matter of how they treat certain cases—I have been viewing this problem solely as a layman and not as a legal man—I get the impression that some judges, as is natural, can in certain circumstances be influenced by considerations which are not entirely legal. I accept that a judge can feel in better form today than he did yesterday. I understand that judges suffer from the same complaints as anybody else. I am not mentioning any names but——

An Ceann Comhairle

It is a convention of this House, especially when dealing with the Estimate under discussion, that Members do not reflect in any way on the Judiciary or members thereof and I ask the Deputy to bear that in mind.

Mr. Tunney

I am conceding to them and excusing any weakness they might be accused of having but——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair prefers that neither blame nor praise be attached to them.

Mr. Tunney

I am wondering if charges which we hear made against them might not arise if before appointment judges were subjected to a medical examination which applies in many other cases. The personal fitness and physical wellbeing of a judge is an essential qualification. That was the point I wished to make. This is a matter which warrants some consideration by the Minister for Justice. If we must have a medical examination for a warder in Mountjoy or a civic guard, I cannot see why a judge should not have a medical examination before he is appointed.

I will not repeat what I have already said but I will add the name of Deputy Bruton to those mentioned above. He made the same point at that time. I was alarmed when one of them—I do not remember who— suggested that there should be a special Garda force to make sure that all those people who were walking the streets of Dublin protesting about this, that and the other would not be impeded because this was their right. I do not know if they still hold that view. I am not saying that any of them suggested that people had the right to protest on the steps of a courthouse but later they took part in protests.

The Parliamentary Secretary is not unmindful of the use of exaggeration or hyperbole if one wants to make a point. If I indicate what might be regarded as an extreme and impossible measure I am sure it will be taken not so much as my desire to remove every wandering horse, every one of the 300 to 400 horses wandering from the Finglas area to Coolock, but as an indication of the need to update the legislation which controls this offence.

The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that the legislation controlling this is as old as the Magna Carta. Owners are prosecuted under the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1851 which allows a fine of £1 or £2 on the owner of the horse, if he can be found and if it can be proved that the horse was wandering without his knowledge. Were it not for the fact that the Garda, in their efforts to curb this, are charging these people under the Road Traffic Act which allows for a fine up to a maximum of £50, the situation would be worse than it is.

The Minister should bear in mind that what is occurring in Finglas will occur all around the city according as land becomes available to the owners of such horses for a few years until development has been completed. The Minister should indicate if any headway has been made in this regard.

I should like to remind the Minister that in 1967-68 a deputation from Dublin Corporation met the officials of the Minister's Department to indicate their concern in this regard. They conveyed the views of the members of the corporation on this matter and asked that it would have the then Minister's attention. It is possible that it had and that something is being done but I am anxious that the Minister should indicate the present position in his reply.

I should like to associate myself with the compliments, and commendations which have been paid to the Garda, particularly those in my constituency. I welcome the changes which have occurred where gardaí are integrating with the people to a greater extent than they did in the past I should like to repeat a suggestion I make annually, and one which was made by Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick earlier in the debate, that gardaí should visit the schools. When I was at school as a pupil, and a teacher, invariably when we saw a garda coming we knew he was coming to make inquiries about some problem. He was not coming to chat with the boys and girls or the teachers as to how best he might co-operate with them, and them with him, for the purpose of peace and harmony in the district.

When hours of duty are being prepared for members of the Garda they should be arranged so that at least once a week some member would be free to visit the local school to talk to the children about the law and about the Garda to let the children see and be absolutely convinced that the Garda are their friends and not their enemies.

Mr. Leonard

I should like to congratulate the Minister on his first Estimate. The aspect that pleased me most about the Minister's speech was his clear statement on the position regarding the state of our prisons and the development works in them. The Minister made it clear, without mentioning any names, that his predecessor did a good job in this regard. It is good to see him giving credit to his predecessor.

I should like to speak on the Garda. I accept that as a force they are doing an excellent job under particularly difficult circumstances but it behoves us to ensure that they have an opportunity of doing the best possible job and that they have the proper equipment to carry out their work. To achieve the best results it is essential that the best young men and women are recruited to the force. While we must remember that the money is an important factor it is far from the only one to be considered. Living conditions, recreation facilities, working hours, promotional prospects, modern crime detection techniques, and the uniform, are all vital factors to be considered. The Northern troubles have created their own particular difficulties for the Garda.

These difficulties are particularly apparent in my constituency. The position is so bad that a substantial sum of money is needed to increase the Garda in that area. For historical reasons the forces of law and order did not receive much support from the people in the past. The unfortunate events surrounding the setting up of the State did not help to prepare the ground for good relationships. The position has greatly changed in the intervening years particularly as a result of the excellent performance of the Garda. If even now on occasions the general high standard is not maintained by individuals in the force this is the exception rather than the rule.

The gardaí in the border areas have a particularly difficult job to perform. This area at any time is a potential flash point which requires the highest level of policing coupled with a high degree of diplomacy and common sense. It is very important that the most suitable type of officials be employed on Border duties. In order to compensate for the problems and difficulties of the Border situation the accommodation and recreational facilities of the men serving in that area should be of a high order. The position in that regard should be examined. Take, for example, the headquarters for the Monaghan/Cavan district: the Garda station in Monaghan is in a deplorable condition. The walls are peeling. There is dampness, no central heating, no recreational facilities and the cells are reminiscent of the last century. That building is the headquarters of a force who have responsibility for a stretch of the Border that extends almost from the Irish Sea to the Atlantic Ocean. Therefore, that station needs immediate attention.

We will continue to demand a high standard from the Garda. They are, therefore, entitled to proper working conditions. It was rather disturbing in the Minister's speech, while he conceded much needs to be done about housing the Garda, that he made no mention of the particular problem in the Border areas. He seemed to think that providing £2.5 million over a period of five years is sufficient. As I mentioned here last week at Question Time a new Garda station is needed for Monaghan. The Minister agreed that it was needed and said that preliminary work in providing it is on the way. He said that an assessment had been made of the accommodation needed and drawings would now be proceeded with. He said that in the meantime all that can be done to meet the difficulties is to carry out fairly substantial repairs to the present station. While I concede that repairs are very essential, I hope they will not delay the provision of a new station in Monaghan.

Because of the troubles the Garda strength in Monaghan has been almost doubled. We have now in the region of 80 personnel in that area. The Castleblayney barracks is in very poor condition. Last week the Minister listed ten stations completed in 1973 and only one of them, Belturbet, is in a Border area. He also said that seven were in the course of erection but only one of them is in a Border area. Has the Minister a proper grasp of the problem faced by the Garda in that area? He should look into the position to see what can be done.

Check points are of necessity a feature of the more difficult Border areas such as Drummully and Culloville. Drummully near Clones is a striking example of the injustice of the Border. This area cannot be reached by road without going through the Six Counties along the concession road. In peace time this caused petty discomfort in the movement of stock and goods but since the recent outbreak of violence in the Six Counties and, more particularly over the past 12 months, the people of that area are now living in a sort of "no man's land". They are under regular violent attack without any real measure of protection. The Garda or Army personnel cannot approach the area by road if they are in uniform. The official Garda cars or Army vehicles cannot be used on that concession road. They must approach the area over the fields. As the House will appreciate, that type of patrol affords little protection.

A number of houses have been burned in that area recently and there has also been a spate of hijackings. The people are now living in terror without any semblance of protection. The people of the Drummully area are entitled to whatever protection the Garda and Army can give them but that is not given to them at the present time. I agree it can be argued that the Army and Garda are doing the best they possibly can in the circumstances but I am sure they are not unmindful of the difficulties of the people of that area. I am not faulting either the Army or Garda. I hope the Minister, together with the Minister for Defence, will take the necessary action to provide adequate protection for the people of that area. A permanent Garda presence is needed in the area because that locality presents certain problems. There are Garda stations in many small villages where the need is not so great. There are a number of houses in good condition that would be available for rental so that the question of accommodation should not cause any problems. I would ask the Minister to provide at least a temporary Garda station.

In his speech the Minister referred to difficulties in the Land Registry as a result of a strike earlier in the year. I think the problem is deeper. The records in the office should be up-to-date but that is not the position; in many instances the name of the present owner is not shown on the records; neither are the names of previous owners. I am not blaming the staff but I would ask the Minister to investigate the matter.

I would appeal to the Minister to keep open the small Garda stations. Formerly when crimes were committed in rural areas it was usually the fault of a black sheep in that area but now many of the crimes committed in rural areas are caused by groups of youths from urban areas who drive into the countryside in stolen cars. Consequently, a police presence in rural areas is essential. The Minister visited the Rockcorry area where the people have been hoping to have a police presence. Since the Minister's visit there has been much vandalism in the area with a consequent charge on the rates in respect of damages.

Some Deputies referred to the fact that gardaí should have more contact with youth clubs. This is essential, particularly in an area such as mine where there are many young gardaí drafted for Border duty. When one thinks of youth clubs one immediately thinks of the importance of a gymnasium and recreational facilities. Recently the Minister for Education was asked to provide a gymnasium at the new technical school in Monaghan. Not alone would this help the pupils, but it would also be of value to the many young gardaí who are working in that area. In my area the gardaí have integrated very well with the local people. They have been a valuable addition to our football teams many of which would find it difficult to field teams were it not for the gardaí. I should like to pay a tribute to them for the efforts they have made. I would ask the Minister to consider the matters I have mentioned, especially that in connection with Drummully.

Mr. Timmons

I should like to support the plea made by Deputy Fitzpatrick in connection with malicious damages. As he has rightly pointed out, it is a burden the citizens should not be asked to bear. Dublin Corporation are faced with claims of up to £8 million which will impose an intolerable burden on the citizens. I do not know if the Minister has accurate figures for malicious damages throughout the country, but it has been suggested to me that, excluding Dublin, it is in the region of £25 to £30 million. There is a growing volume of public opinion that these charges should be met by the Exchequer. I should like the Minister to deal with this question which is a sensitive matter in relation to Dublin.

I note the Minister referred to the detection rate in relation to crime. It is an unfortunate aspect of the crime problem that not alone has there been an increase in crime but there has been a decline in the detection rate. I understand that ten years ago the Garda had a detection rate of 67-70 per cent but during the years it has dropped to a new low in Dublin of 34 per cent. This situation calls for immediate investigation and action. As the Minister pointed out, it may be due to lack of personnel and equipment.

With regard to road traffic offences, the Minister has rightly pointed out that much of the time of the Garda is occupied in dealing with what are mainly trivial offences and they are also obliged to attend at courts. I am glad that the Minister is going to take some action in relation to the report regarding extension of on-the-spot fines. It is unfair to the Garda Síochána they are occupied in dealing with trivialities of that nature when their services are required for other important duties. It is humiliating to find a garda stopping cars and asking the drivers if they have paid their tax. I have witnessed that happening in busy streets. Not only is he exposing himself to a traffic risk, but he is also impeding the flow of traffic in some of our city streets. Perhaps the Minister would consider transferring that type of work to the local authorities.

I want to refer to the question of jury service and join with other speakers who pleaded that the panel system should be widened to include all citizens. I understand there is a rateable valuation qualification for jury service. This discriminates against citizens who are anxious to give this type of service to the community. I should also like to see adequate compensation being paid to jurors who attend at the courts for service. Many of them are called back and their jobs or their businesses are interfered with and they get no compensation. This is an area which should be investigated and the whole system should be updated.

I want to refer to a constituency matter which is related to the Minister's proposal to site a women's prison in the Kilbarrack district. There is strong local opinion against the siting of a prison in that area. Recently in a written reply the Minister informed me that there are only 26 female prisoners in Irish jails. The public are concerned about the vast expenditure envisaged in providing this prison. One newspaper report suggested that it will cost £500,000. The site is 12 acres in extent. We do not understand the thinking behind this proposal.

The Department made great strides in providing centres outside the city for offenders, mainly adults and youths. Surely it is within the competence of the Department to get a suitably large house for conversion to accommodate these prisoners who have to be transferred from Mountjoy. At present there are only 14 female prisoners in Mountjoy. I fail to see how the Department can justify spending over £500,000 to provide an alternative centre. With building costs rising steadily it may cost £750,000 or £1 million before it is completed. If the Minister has funds of that magnitude he should seek alternative ways of spending them while at the same time fulfilling the social need of providing a modern prison for a relatively small number of prisoners.

On the question of the additional number of garda who are needed, the public in general welcomed the recent announcement that there were 500 new recruits in the force. I hope the Minister will pay particular attention to providing patrols in our city particularly at night time and at week-ends. Unfortunately every week-end violence is a feature in the city. Citizens have told me there are certain streets they cannot walk along at night after 10 o'clock without running the risk of being assaulted or beaten up and robbed. I will not specifically mention those areas but they are known to the Garda authorities. The public would like to see an extension of the patrol system not only in the city areas but also in suburban areas. If at all possible arrangements should be made whereby the Garda would be more closely identified with those areas so that they could get to know the people and their presence would be reassuring. They would be welcome and they would help to prevent vandalism and crimes of violence of all kinds.

Mr. Davern

I should like to compliment the Minister on his appointment. This is the first opportunity I have had of doing so. I should also like to commiserate with him on his first Estimate. I want to thank his officials. I had reason to call on them over a week-end recently and I found them not only helpful and friendly but very efficient. They co-operated in helping somebody whose passport was in the Department. This was an emergency case where an alien had to go to visit his mother who was dying and has since died. I should like to thank everybody who co-operated in ensuring that he could get away over the week-end. I hope the Minister will take note of the fact that he has a good and efficient staff under his command.

The first matter I want to raise is the question of trespassing gun clubs and lamping at night. I did not know that you could own a farm and not necessarily own the shooting rights. I was not aware of that until I attended a meeting of the Ballyneale gun club. I was told that a person whose family owned a farm for generations did not own the shooting rights. I understand that in the local registrar's office you can be told whether you own the shooting rights.

In that connection many points were brought up by the local farmers. One was the lamping of rabbits at night. I understand that the existing law does not cover electric batteries and so on and that much damage has been done to animals by groups of people going out lamping at night time. They have frightened valuable stock such as thoroughbred horses and cows—cows which we hope will soon make the same price as they were making. The Minister should up-date the law on that. I understand that many farmers have no objection to people crossing their land during the day hunting rabbits or whatever they want to do provided they conduct themselves and behave properly. They asked us to press the Minister to up-date the legislation on lamping at night and to ensure that the law was enforced. They also mentioned stray dogs. Deputy Tunney mentioned the right of a farmer to shoot any dog he sees attacking his own animals but I am not clear whether that is the law.

There was a court case recently arising out of the shooting of a dog by a farmer. Fortunately for the farmer the appellant lost the case. This is the sort of thing with which the Department of Justice should not be concerned. The Garda Síochána have enough to do preventing crime and protecting the citizens without having to run around after stray dogs and stray horses. There was a roundup of horses recently in Limerick. It was like a posse.

The Department of Local Government in conjunction with local authorities should be responsible for things like stray dogs and stray horses. I think there is a question down about legislation to that effect. Stray horses do a great deal of damage as well as creating traffic hazards. When they are rounded up by the gardaí they are put into a pound and the owners, mainly itinerants, can come along and redeem the animals on payment of £2, £3 or £4 each. These horses should be sold by public auction to reputable dealers who would send them to the factories. It is no solution to fine the itinerants small sums for the damage done by these straying animals. There is not enough law enforcement where such animals are concerned. There is a shortage of grass and animals are breaking down hedges and ditches looking for grass. If an animal creates a hazard for a motorist and the motorist hits the animal he is deemed responsible and he will pay later by having his insurance increased yet again.

The Garda Síochána have done tremendous work all down the years. There are certain grievances, particularly where overtime is concerned. Someone issues an order that overtime is to be cut down. In some instances I think the superintendent decides to cut down on overtime. The gardaí have become used to a certain way of life because of overtime. They have adjusted their living standards, invested in better houses and so on. There are many stations in the country which are understaffed and, naturally, there is a greater need for overtime in these areas. I believe all officers right up to superintendent should be in receipt of overtime; they would then have a better understanding of the whole position.

Would it be possible to introduce PAYE in the Garda Síochána? I saw a pay cheque issued to a sergeant recently totalling £21. He has seven or eight children. Normally he would get £30 a week. Surely it should be possible to equalise income tax payments over the year thereby obviating any disruption of living standards.

The traffic corps should have a different uniform from that of the ordinary members of the Garda Síochána. I do not think the present traffic corps will do any good for the image of the Garda Síochána. In many instances they are far too severe. A traffic corps is something new in the Irish way of life. Having these traffic corps in mountainous areas will pay no dividend because the people are quite unused to this kind of innovation. People should be gradually acclimatised to a thing like this. There should be a separate section with a different uniform. Traffic wardens wear a different uniform from that of the Garda Síochána. That means that the gardaí are not blamed when traffic wardens issue summonses. The gardaí depend a great deal on the goodwill and co-operation of ordinary people and it would be a pity if anything were done to damage the present relationship.

A traffic corps is essential on main highways, but even there, there should be an easement of the attitude towards drivers. Consider the case of a farmer who goes to the creamery once a day and suddenly finds himself told that his tail light is not working or his number plate is dirty. He is brought to court and fined £3 or £4. He should be warned. He is an ordinary, decent citizen and that kind of experience may get his back up against those in authority.

I had a question down recently about there being no Garda station open from Cahir to Abbeyleix from 5 o'clock onwards. I addressed a similar question to the Minister's predecessor. The local unit has been motorised. There is now a squad car. It does need a base from which to operate, particularly at night time. It is a town through which over 3,000 cars pass each day. It is one of the central areas for breaking off to Limerick, Waterford, Kilkenny and many other routes on the main Dublin/Cork road and should be considered worthy of at least having a Garda station open until 12 o'clock midnight.

Not only have we suffered the indignity of not having the station open from 5 o'clock onwards, but we have been continually subjected in the town to this temporary transfer system where one or two gardaí are always on temporary—which turns out to be permanent—transfers to Border areas. One man was promoted recently and he has never been replaced. I would ask the Minister to look into that matter and ensure that, if he is not going to allow adequate opening hours to the Garda Síochána station in the area, at least they will have adequate staff to deal with any situations arising. After all, there is one of the highest accident rates on the main Dublin/ Cork road within ten miles either side of that town.

Again, you have the county hospital where accident cases from all over the country are coming in; there is the need for the Garda Síochána there for inquests and so on. I would ask the Minister to reconsider his attitude and to ensure that the station there would be open until at least 12 midnight and also ensure that we have an adequate number of Garda Síochána there.

I told the Minister that it was Clonmel Circuit Court. It is annoying to the man trying to earn his livelihood and, I am sure also, to the judge because he cannot hear what is going on. I fail to see why that man should be fined for contempt of court because he pursues his livelihood 30 days or so of the month.

I should like to make one small point in regard to local bye-laws. If an urban council in any particular area in the country want to put up a pedestrian crossing, erect traffic lights or one of those "willy-winky" crossings—whatever they are called—they cannot do so because it is a matter for the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána. This has been going on in some urban district councils for up to two or three years. They are prepared to erect a crossing but there seems to be this anonymous person in the background, the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána. In fact, it is not the Commissioner who decides but some other authority within the Garda Síochána or the Department of Justice in conjunction with the Department of Local Government. If the Minister could ensure that this power, from his end of it, were left to the local superintendent or sergeant, in consultation with the local urban authority, it would speed it up and help the Garda Síochána to build a better image.

In regard to the Landlord and Tenant Bill, I was glad to hear the Minister mention the Cappoquin case because the people there have been subject to harassment, tremendous tension and strain from their landlord. I am sorry to say it seems to have taken a resort to methods of violence in regard to the place involved to bring some rationalisation to the position. Last week I came across a complaint by a woman in regard to another estate which I thought was defunct but which has been resurrected. Both a solicitor and the landlord of the estate hit this woman across the face with the notice to quit. She is a woman of over 80 years of age. Luckily enough there were people there who came to her assistance. I understand now that there are 19 houses in the estate the leases of which will expire in 1975 and about which the tenants are particularly worried. Therefore, the quicker the Bill is produced— in fact the quicker some indication is given of what is in the Bill—the better it will be for the easement of those people. It is their lifetime's investment and it is not good enough that they should be threatened by some absentee landlord, in some far away place who suddenly comes out of nowhere, demands his money, then refuses it and serves notice to quit upon them.

The only other point I want to raise is in regard to the Land Registry. I know that the mapping section there have a problem. The staff are very courteous and helpful and it is very easy to understand their problem. Deputy O'Malley, as Minister for Justice, did try to solve it by recruiting a tremendous amount of trainees for the mapping section but, unfortunately, that failed because most of them left immediately they had been trained. I do not know what is the solution to the problem. From conversations I have had with one or two people, I understand it is not possible to set up a local area office in each area. In my simplicity I thought it might have been easier to have, say, a registration office in County Mayo, to have one in Galway for, say, all of the west, one in Cork for the Munster area and one in Dublin for the Leinster area. I understand this cannot be done. However, I wonder if the Minister could reconsider the position and see if it could not be done. Perhaps each county, under the county registrar, could have its own mapping section. Again, the demand would not be that great; it would be in the hands of local people or, at least, local knowledge would be available which might speed up matters. Any local inquiries would involve the local legal people who are the people delayed most by the present system here in Dublin.

Outside the Department of Justice, it is causing tremendous trouble to those people applying for house loans. At the moment I know of several people who have applied for housing loans being charged 17 per cent and 18 per cent because the terms of their bridging loans from the banks have expired. If the Minister could consider decentralising the registration office, if feasible, it would be much welcomed. I hope he will try to do something within the next couple of months to reduce the long delays occurring and ease the tremendous physical and financial stress on those concerned.

Mr. O'Malley

I do not want to range over all the activities of the Department. Being out of the Department for less than 12 months I do not think it would be appropriate. But there are a number of specific things about which I want to talk briefly. One of them is a current topic which got some attention in recent days, namely the Nineteenth Interim Report of the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure, being the report on desertion and maintenance. It received a slightly ecstatic reception, as do all these types of reports nowadays. The Minister, in whatever statement he issued when publishing the report, said that the Government had not made up their minds with regard to the recommendations in it. However, because the matter is urgent, one would anticipate that the Government would make decisions on it quite soon. We might well hear from the Minister, when replying to this debate, what are the proposals of the Government in relation to these recommendations. In the belief that a decision may not have been reached yet, I should like to make some observations on the recommendations which I hope may be taken into account. The first of these is that, in a general way, I am sorry to say that in my view the Nineteenth Interim Report of this very excellent committee is not one of their better reports. They may have been under some pressure to produce it quickly and it may have suffered as a result from the defects of something produced against a timetable. One of their first recommendations is to make what they describe as the defaulting spouse liable for the payment of maintenance. It makes it quite clear that this could include the wife. As a theory this is all right. It seems to me to be unrealistic to expect in almost any case, even the most exceptional one, that a court should make an order against a wife to support her husband. I know that the sort of case probably envisaged is one where the husband is ill or unable to earn money for some reason, and where it had been the practice of the wife during the marriage to support at least the whole family at least partially. It is carrying the equality of women a bit too far to think that courts should now be expected to make an order in any circumstances, no matter what the family circumstances, against a wife for the support of her husband.

Secondly, I should like to refer to paragraph 49 of the committee's recommendation on page 15 of the report, in particular the first sentence of that paragraph. It reads:

The limits of £15 and £5 imposed by the Courts Act, 1971, in respect of a deserted wife and each child should be removed in so far as the District Court is concerned.

That is a misleading statement, to say the least of it. It is so close to being untrue that I think it is only right that I should draw attention to what the position is. The limits of £15 and £5 referred to were not imposed by the Courts Act, 1971. Section 18 of that Act removed, for the first time ever, all limitation of any description on the amount that might be awarded by a court for maintenance of a deserted wife, and for the first time it brought in the right to a separate payment for each deserted, dependent child.

Because I was advised by the Attorney General at the time that to give an unlimited jurisdiction to the District Court would in his view be unconstitutional—and I think he was perfectly right—the method whereby we dealt with the District Court jurisdiction was to declare that the High Court had unlimited jurisdiction so far as these matters were concerned and that application could be made in private to the High Court in a summary fashion which would cost very little to any applicant, but that if the applicant wanted to apply to the District Court the limit on the amount that could be awarded there would be £15 in respect of the wife and £5 in respect of each child.

The great bulk of cases at that time, and perhaps still, would clearly fall within those limits anyway. If there were instances where a wife felt because of the earnings of her husband that she might be justified in seeking a higher award it was open to her to go to the High Court privately in a summary fashion. I believe a number of them did so with success. The sentence I have quoted is misleading. It seems to imply that there was unlimited jurisdiction before, because it reads "The limits... imposed by the Courts Act, 1971". The fact is that the direct opposite was the case. Up to the time that Act was passed the maximum amount which a deserted wife and her children—and she might have as many as 12 children dependent on her husband who had left her—was £4 per week for all of them together. It was a ludicrous sum of money.

The proposal in paragraph 49 of this report is to increase the jurisdiction of the District Court in this matter to £40 per week in respect of the wife and £10 per week in respect of each dependent child. The committee say they would favour an unlimited jurisdiction, but that they were advised because of a possible constitutional problem that they should recommend some sort of limit on the jurisdiction of the District Court. Do they appreciate the consequences of the limit they recommend? To take the wife alone, if she were the wife of a man whose salary was sufficient to warrant an award of maintenance approaching the maximum figure prescribed here for the District Court that figure would amount to £2,080 per annum.

You have an amazing situation then that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in civil case claims is £2,000 capital sum, but the jurisdiction of the District Court in a matter such as this where a wife alone is concerned would be £2,080 per annum. If you were to capitalise the annual payment which the District Court could award, assuming the wife was a reasonably young woman, as most of them in these circumstances are, you might reasonably capitalise that figure at four or five times the annual payment, which could amount to as much as £10,000. If there are dependent children—and there are dependent children in most of these cases—and if £10 per week or £520 per annum is to be added for each one of these, you will have a situation where, in a very summary fashion, possibly in circumstances without even the presence of the defendant, the District Court can make orders for payment of money which are umpteen times beyond the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, which is the court next highest in the hierarchy of courts above the District Court. It seems to me to be quite anomalous that that should be so and the consequences of this are something which the Minister and the Government should take into account before they commit themselves to any blanket enactment of what is recommended here.

It may not be popular, if you like, to suggest that a strict limit be kept on the District Court in these matters but these matters can be of considerable importance to the parties concerned. The District Court is not a court which is geared from any point of view to decide matters that are of very considerable importance, and, in my view, it is not a court that is fitted to decide matters the capital value of which may well be £10,000 or more and which will be five or more times beyond the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, which is the court above it.

The next recommendation of this committee—and this particular one is contained in paragraph 45—which, to my mind, needs a good deal of thought before it is implemented is the recommendation that, where the husband for one reason or another, is not available for service of documents on him or for the purpose of obtaining money from him, the application for maintenance may be served on the local authority, that the order for the payment of maintenance which would be granted by the court may, instead of being served on the husband, be served on the local authority, and that the local authority be called on to pay the wife weekly whatever figure is laid down in the order of the court.

That situation deserves a great deal of thought. Again, I may be accused of not being sufficiently sympathetic to deserted wives but I think I have a sufficiently practical approach to realise that, with all the sympathy in the world, this proposal is open to the gravest abuse. There is a considerable body of opinion in this country and in this House which holds that the rates are too high, that, in particular, the rates are overburdened by awards of the court for malicious damage being added to them. There have been examples given here over the last 12 months by Deputy Briscoe and a big number of other Deputies on both sides of the House of the hardships that are falling on ratepayers in particular counties and in particular cities as a result of this malicious damage system.

There is strong pressure to abolish that system altogether and some people will suggest that it should be left entirely to insurance. I do not think that is feasible because a lot of people who are affected by this damage would not be able to get insurance and are not able to get it currently. The other volume of opinion is that the charge for this should be transferred to the Exchequer and accordingly made a national charge. I have a great deal of sympathy for those views, because I have seen the hardship that has been and is being caused, and unquestionably will be caused in the coming years, to ratepayers in Dublin and Limerick cities, to name but two cities, and in Cavan, Leitrim, Donegal, Louth, to name a number of counties.

It has been suggested to us here in this report which was published in the last few days that something extra of this nature, broadly speaking, should be added to the rates. It is my opinion that the cost of implementing this proposal to have a deserted wife paid by the ratepayers of the particular local authority in which she lives will not be less costly than all this malicious damage that we complain so bitterly about and that costs the ratepayers £1 million pounds or more per annum on top of the ordinary rates.

I do not think that anybody has ever been able precisely to quantify the number of deserted wives, because at times the borderline between what is desertion and what is not desertion is very narrow. There are many cases where a wife is constructively deserted but, for reasons of family pride and honour and for other good and valid reasons, she does not want to publicise or advert to that fact. However, in view of the fact that the Department of Social Welfare are paying deserted wife's allowance to something in excess of 2,500 women at the moment, it could well be that the total number of deserted wives is as high as 7,000, 8,000 or 9,000. Indeed, I think one of the organisations that concerns itself with problems of this kind made an estimation which was even higher than that figure.

Even assuming that there were 8,000 or 9,000 women in that situation, and bearing in mind that it is only the least well off of them get the deserted wife's allowance from the Department of Social Welfare, because that allowance is for the most part subject to a means test, the situation might well be that, apart from having to pay fairly considerable sums of money to the 2,500 that we know of definitely at the moment, you might have to pay even higher sums of money to the better off 5,000 or 6,000 deserted wives who also exist but who are not at present in receipt of an allowance from the Department.

It is a well-known fact that more than 90 per cent of husbands in this country who desert their wives go to Britain. Occasionally one comes across cases where a wife living in a provincial town or in a country area is deserted by her husband who takes off for Dublin. It is frequently very hard to trace him in Dublin. Sometimes it is done. It can be taken as a fact that the great majority of cases of desertion by husbands entail the husbands going to Britain.

It is notoriously difficult to trace those husbands in Britain because for all sorts of reasons they often change their names several times in the course of the year. I know strenuous efforts have been made through the Ministry of Social Security in Britain to trace them without any great success. Voluntary organisations like the Salvation Army also do their best to try to trace defaulting husbands in Britain but the success rate is very small.

Therefore, there will be the situation that because the husband is not available to have an order served on him or to have an order executed against him, in the great majority of cases in this country where a wife has been deserted, it is the local ratepayers of her city or county who have to pay. I do not think that if the local ratepayers understood the implications of paragraph 45 of this report, they would be at all enamoured of it, and that is why I say to the Minister that presumably before the Government have made a decision on it, the financial and other implications of this particular proposal are so fundamental and far reaching that it deserves considerable thought before there is any commitment to fulfil or to enact the recommendation in this report.

I may have spoken somewhat critically of this particular report, the 19th interim one. In many ways I was sorry to have to do so. I have read all 18 previous reports and I have found that the committee, which have been sitting for a long time and which have produced 18 excellent reports, are a most dedicated and realistic body of men in the recommendations they have made. One of my regrets when I left the Department about this time last year was that so little of what they recommended had been implemented in legislation. I was going through the list of these interim reports a few weeks ago and I discovered that only about five of them had been implemented in full by way of legislation or rules of court, as appropriate, and that parts of two or three others had been. There are a great many fields where recommendations, detailed and useful, have been made by this committee which, unfortunately, have not been touched.

One of those recommendations that I feel is urgently in need of enactment includes the detailed report made by the committee in relation to the reorganisation of the courts, in particular the Circuit Court. I read with some care, at the time they gave me that report, what they suggested in relation to the Circuit Court and I found then and still believe their recommendations to be absolutely correct to suit the needs of this country. One of the important recommendations is that there would be a new form of circuit and that civil and criminal work would be divided and that criminal work in the country outside Dublin would be done for a period of two years by two judges, doing crime only. I find that suggestion to be an excellent one, one worthy of the speediest implementation. Unfortunately, it needs legislation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I was about to suggest that the Deputy should appreciate that he would be advocating legislation.

Mr. O'Malley

I do.

Mr. Cooney

Point made.

Mr. O'Malley

We have had instances in all of these debates of points made by Deputies—not just on these Estimates—on the disparity between judges in different areas on their attitudes to particular offences. Indeed, Deputy Davern who spoke before me referred to this problem in Tipperary. Tipperary is not the only place where the difficulty arises and it would be an excellent way of overcoming the problem of disparity in penalties if two judges were established for a two-year period on a national basis to do the whole country apart from Dublin for criminal trials and criminal appeals.

There was a recent instance of one judge having been on a particular circuit for 29½ years. While happily that judge was a most able and learned man, he could have been a less able man, a less acceptable man, and three counties could have been afflicted with a man who was unsatisfactory for some reason or another for 29½ years. The fact that it did not arise in that particular case because of the nature of the man does not get away from the principle involved that no one area should have a judge and no other judge for such a period. Therefore, the recommendations of Mr. Justice Walsh's committee in relation to that need speedy implementation to avoid the possibility that one area would have a particular judge for an abnormally long time.

It struck me that with the exception of the field of patronage, which I will come to in a moment, no new broom has swept through the Department in the past 12 months. One would have expected from speeches made on this side of the House by the Deputy who is now Minister for Justice and by other Deputies, now his colleagues in Government, that a new broom would sweep through that Department. When it was delivered some weeks ago I read the Minister's speech and to say the least of it I did not find anything very new in it. Its tone seemed to be to a great extent a progress report on the past 12 months in relation to what had been initiated in the Department in the previous several years. I feel justifiably satisfied almost that no new initiatives of any great significance have been shown in the Department of Justice by my successor. It justifies what I did and what I was criticised for doing by inter alia, the Minister.

Security is not a matter which I think properly should be debated in this House and I certainly will not debate it in any detail but it is no harm to observe in general terms that no new initiatives have been forthcoming in the field of internal security in the past 12 months. There has been no new legislation on the valid grounds that the existing legislation is adequate and that the existing legislation is proper. I do not think there even have been statutory instruments of any great significance.

I do not propose in this debate at this time to quote, as I could do at length, from speeches made in the years between 1970 and the beginning of 1973 from this side of the House but, no doubt, all who are interested in comparing attitudes have already seen the strange but—in my view— fortunate change of opinions and views on the part of many of those who made speeches of a particular kind from this side of the House in those three years. Apart from the fact that there has been no new legislation in relation to these matters, what is, perhaps, more significant is that there has been no repeal of existing legislation on any of them. If one were to take even a faintly serious view of some of those statements made on this side of the House during those three years and if one were to attribute even 10 per cent validity to them, one would have expected that the present Government would have fallen over themselves at the very beginning of their term of office to repeal certain legislation passed here in recent years after a great deal of difficulty and delay—much more, I might add, than is being experienced by the Minister for Local Government at present with certain other legislation.

I now come to deal with a matter which I thought, when Deputy Cooney became Minister for Justice, would never have to be dealt with or mentioned in this House. I confess I am disappointed that it is necessary to do so. That is the question of patronage, some of it extremely petty but of a kind which is, apparently, appreciated by the recipients even if it is not of great significance in itself. It is disappointing that a man for whose integrity I had—and have— considerable respect should now find himself reduced to doing some of the things he has done or allowed to be done in the past 12 months. I believe he is the type of man who should be above that and it is a pity that he allowed it to happen.

In the issue of 1st March, 1974 of the magazine Hibernia there are some interesting articles not the least of them being that which appears on the back page, page 32, in relation to the devaluation which has taken place in the past 12 months in the admittedly not very high office of peace commissioner. Last Thursday, 28th February, Deputy Andrews in this House elicited information, as reported in the Official Report, vol. 270 beginning at column 1963, regarding the number of peace commissioners appointed in the period from April, 1973 to February, 1974, about 10½ months. We were all rather startled to find that the number was 423. Deputy Haughey inquired if this was an all time high to which the Minister very fairly replied that it could very well be. I think the Minister is quite right; I have no doubt that is so.

It was my practice when I was in office to ensure that no additional peace commissioners were appointed over and above the vacancies that arose through death or resignation and I think the figures will bear out my ability to stick to that principle adopted when I went into the Department. In December, 1972 I recall being asked a question by Deputy Desmond as to how many peace commissioners there were in the country and I answered about 4,300— to the best of my recollection. Deputy Desmond almost went into orbit with horror at the excessive number and he made the point, which was valid enough that there were nearly as many peace commissioners as gardaí because at the time I think there were about 6,500 gardaí. Just then I increased that number by 1,100 to some 7,700 about the time I left office.

It is rather startling to find if that was the view—and probably still is the view—of a prominent member of the Parliamentary Labour Party, like Deputy Desmond who is the Whip of that party, that the head office of the same political party should issue a circular to its members in January, 1974 of which we have a photostat copy in the issue of the magazine to which I refer which reads as follows: "Peace Commissioners. Branches of councils wishing to suggest names for the position of peace commissioner should contact their local Deputy or Senator or else get in touch with Head Office." It seems that the office of peace commissioner is now one that is automatically processed through the office of at least one political party; it may well be that another political party is doing the same thing. It appears that the present Minister exercises little or no control over who is appointed.

Presumably the views of the gardaí on this matter are no longer sought because one ventures to think, having studied this list which ran to 26 foolscap pages and runs to eight-and-a-half pages of the Official Report, that if the views of the gardaí were taken into account in relation to some of those appointees a small number of those appointments might not, perhaps, have been made. It is very strange that among those who should compete for this now devalued honour of peace commissioner should be Members of this House. One would have thought they would not wish to seek such a title or such a position. In addition to at least three Members of this House, whose names I came across in my perusal of this very extensive list— and there may be some that I missed —I found some names of Members of the other House, a great many names of members of county councils and corporations, most of them being members of the Labour Party, again presumably due to the fact that the head office of the Labour Party, according to this extract from the head office "Newsletter" of January, 1974—now processes applications for the post of peace commissioner.

In the light of the views expressed by Deputy Desmond in December, 1972, I am sure he will have interesting views on the present situation so far as peace commissioners are concerned. He might also have interesting views to express on the circular sent out by the head office of the Labour Party. One might legitimately ask: would the next highest branch of the judiciary over and above peace commissioners who are at the bottom of the rung, namely district justices and potential district justices, now make application to the head office of a political party? Perhaps Fine Gael will be the appropriate party for those applications. It would not seem illogical for that to take place.

When I spoke on the Estimate for the Department of Taoiseach shortly before Christmas I referred to blatant patronage by the Government in relation to a wide variety of Civil Service posts. I thought that some changes might come about as a result of what I said. But, unhappily, none have. I cannot range in this debate as widely on that question as I could on the Taoiseach's Estimate, but I can make some reference to this situation in so far as it affects the Department of Justice.

The Minister in reply to Deputy Dowling last November set out a list of people appointed to unestablished posts in the Department of Justice otherwise than through the normal Civil Service Commission channels since the advent of the present Government. The bulk of the names were messengers, cleaners and analagous grades. One gentleman was, of course, named in the reply. I do not propose to refer to him by name now. He was described as holding the post of personal assistant to the Minister. The Minister is entitled to a personal assistant. I did not have one myself because I had a succession of able private secretaries who could do what I felt needed to be done and did it very adequately. I do not deny the present or any other Minister the right to employ in his Department a personal assistant if he sees fit. However I deny him or any other Minister the right to nominally employ a personal assistant in his Department and then not let, it would appear, the same gentlemen inside the doors of the Department. I pointed out some of the activities of the gentleman in question over a period of three weeks at the Monaghan by-election. I was at Carrickmacross and that civil servant was there also for most if not all of that period.

In the Minister's reply to Deputy Dowling in November, 1973, he said that this man was paid by the taxpayers the sum of £35.91 per week. I have no objection to that civil servant or any other being paid that or any greater sum provided he works for the taxpayer and provided he is a bona fide personal assistant of the Minister, as stated in the reply to a parliamentary question. From my own observations in the precincts of this House I have been able to satisfy myself that no change has taken place regarding that particular civil servant since last December, when I spoke of the matter. He still continues to perform functions in this House, and in this House only, for a political party. He does not work, in any sense of the word, in the Department of Justice.

One would expect in the normal way that a Minister would have reacted to the gentle and civilised way in which I pointed out these facts to him. But there has been no reaction and no change. We can only assume that there has been a conscious political decision by the Minister, and possibly by the Government, that the situation in relation to this civil servant should continue. I am speaking only of this one civil servant because we are debating the Department of Justice Estimate only. A great deal more could be said in relation to other people in other Departments but that will have to wait until another day.

The decision was made by the Minister that no change should be made in the general conditions relating to the employment of that civil servant and that he should not be obliged to perform any work for the taxpayer, even though the taxpayer pays him £35.91 per week. Having failed to get anything done at political level I should now like to avail of this opportunity on the Estimate to point out to the accounting officer for the Department of Justice that this is a matter which should properly be looked into by him.

Mr. Tully

Did the Deputy say he was getting £100,000?

Mr. O'Malley

Perhaps the Committee of Public Accounts would wish, when the time comes to consider the Estimates for this year, to look into this and to make inquiries if they see fit.

Unhappily the two topics about which I have spoken so far under the heading of patronage in this Department do not by any means exhaust the list. Indeed it is scarcely an introduction to what comes afterwards. I should like to move from page 32 of the magazine in question to pages 4 and 5. Here one finds an even sorrier tale because it is in direct conflict with the views expressed so often and so vehemently on this side of the House by the present Government when they were in Opposition. I read the article on those two pages with some interest. The writer was good enough to say that this research was by no means all-embracing and that there might be many instances of improper patronage of this kind which he had not covered. I am happy to tell him he was right in that statement because while the article was basically correct, as I see it so far as it goes, there is almost as much again which is not covered at all.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 7 Mar 1974

Committee on Finance. - Vote 20: Office of the Minister for Justice (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 7 Mar 1974