Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 5 Nov 1981

Vol. 330 No. 8

Supplementary Estimates, 1981. - Vote 23: Office of the Minister for Justice.

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,215,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1981 for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice, and of certain other services administered by that Office, and of the Public Record Office, and of the Keeper of State Papers and for the purchase of historical documents, etc., and for payment of a grant-in-aid.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I would propose to discuss the Supplementary Estimates for the Office of the Minister for Justice, the Garda Síochána and Prisons together on this Vote.

The Supplementary Estimate for the Office of the Minister for Justice is required to meet additional expenditure on seven subheads of the Vote — salaries, wages and allowances, travelling and incidental expenses, office machinery and other office supplies, Post Office services, commissions and special inquiries, criminal legal aid and compensation for personal injuries criminally inflicted.

The total estimated additional expenditure amounts to £1,314,000 but £99,000 approximately of this can be met from savings elsewhere on the Vote. The net additional sum now sought in this Supplementary Estimate is accordingly £1,125,000.

An additional sum of £134,000 is required in respect of Subhead A.1. — Salaries, Wages and Expenses. The additional amount required is almost entirely due to pay increases authorised since the 1981 Estimates were approved.

A sum of £92,000 is required in respect of Subhead B.1. — Travelling and Incidental Expenses. Most of this amount arises on travelling expenses because of increases in travelling and subsistence costs and to some extent because insufficient provision was made for the travelling expenses.

There will be additional expenditure of £4,000 in respect of Subhead B.2. — Office machinery and other office supplies. The additional amount required is due to increased costs.

An additional expenditure of £38,000 is likely to be incurred in respect of Subhead C. — Post Office Services, because of the increases in telephone and teleprinter charges from 1 April 1981.

An additional £2,000 is required in respect of Subhead E. —Commissions and Special Inquiries — in the light of current expenditure levels on this heading. The bulk of this expenditure is in respect of fees paid to members of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal for cases decided by them. It is not possible to predict what claims will be received or dealt with in any year but the indications are that the number of cases which will be disposed of this year will be higher than average.

The original provision under Subhead F.1. — Legal Aid (Criminal) was £770,000. The additional amount now estimated to be required is £160,000. Deputies will be aware that the criminal legal aid scheme has developed considerably over the years since it was introduced in 1965. Initially there was some dissatisfaction with the way in which it was operating and, in 1975, a committee was established by the then Minister for Justice under the chairmanship of District Justice Tormey with the task or reviewing the operation of the scheme and making recommendations as to the manner in which it might be improved.

The implementations of recommendations made by the Tormey Committee in their first and second interim reports has resulted in improvements in the operation of the scheme. There has, however, been a very sizeable increase in the cost of criminal legal aid which has arisen from £54,000 in 1975 to £773,000 in 1980 and now to an estimated £930,000 in 1981.

An important aspect of this scheme is that I have very little effective control over the principal determinants of expenditure on criminal legal aid. These are, first, the decision by the court to grant legal aid and second, the cost arising from the grant of it in any particular case. Deputies will be aware that the courts alone have discretion to grant criminal legal aid and it would simply not be feasible to limit that discretion without changing the statutory — perhaps even the constitutional — position.

One of the reasons for the increased recourse to legal aid in this and recent years was the Supreme Court judgment of 1976 in the case of the State (Healy) v. Donoghue. Very briefly, the effect of this judgments is that accused persons have a constitutional right to legal aid in certain criminal cases and that, in addition, this right must be brought to an accused person's notice by the district justice before whom he appears initially.

A number of factors have contributed to the high rate of expenditure this year. These include increased recourse generally to legal aid by the courts in disposing of criminal business coming before them and the speedier processing of claims submitted to solicitors and counsel under the scheme. There have also been additional sittings of the Central Criminal Court to deal with a build-up of cases this year which has resulted in an increase in the granting of legal aid by that court in particular. There has also been an increase this year in the fees payable to solicitors for criminal legal aid work in the District Court.

Because of the escalating cost of providing criminal legal aid the Criminal Legal Aid Review Committee, in their final report which was published in September this year, have among their recommendations some suggestions for controlling costs or for providing legal aid through less expensive methods — for example, through the possible introduction of a limited duty solicitor scheme in the busiest District Court areas.

The recommendations in the report are currently under examination in my Department but it has to be mentioned that negotiations and discussions with other interested parties will be necessary before these suggestions can be evaluated and — if warranted — concrete proposals made for amendment of the law.

The original estimate for Subhead G. — Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted was £940,000. This amount has now been expended and from an examination of the claims on hand it is obvious that a further sum of approximately £810,000 will be required before the end of the year.

Claims are processed by an independent tribunal and my Department have no control over the number of applications, the number of cases decided by the tribunal or the amounts of awards made. A further factor is that the size of awards is directly related to awards made in civil cases in the courts and that the size of these awards is constantly increasing.

I now turn to the Supplementary Estimate on the Vote of the Garda Síochána. In summary, a net additional sum of £31,311,000 is needed to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31 December 1981 for the salaries and other expenses of the Garda Síochána.

At the outset, as there are a number of new Deputies in the House, I would like to explain that it is traditional and in accordance with Standing Orders relating to the business of the House, to confine discussion of a supplementary estimate to the items constituting the Estimate. I mention this at this point to explain why it is that the statement I am about to make does not include any general policy statements in relation to the Garda Síochána. However, I expect to avail myself of the opportunity to cover general policy matters when I introduce the Garda Estimates for 1982.

The additional funds required this year are needed to meet extra expenditure arising on the Garda Vote over and above the funds provided in the original Estimate. Before giving the House a detailed break-down of the additional funds required I have first of all to explain that the original Estimate for the Garda Síochána in 1981 was, in one respect at least, not adequate to meet commitments this year.

The public is aware that one of the first takes of the present Government was to conduct an urgent examinations of the country's finances. Following that, the public was told, by means of the Taoiseach's broadcasts on television and radio and by other pronouncements, of the extremely serious condition in which the finances of the State had been left by the outgoing Government. In case some people may not have grasped the full significance of what was happening, I would like just to focus on one aspect of the financial position which I have found in my Department.

One of the principal responsibilities of the Minister for Justice is to make the necessary financial provision to maintain the Garda Síochána and, under that heading, the first and most obvious need is to make the provision necessary to pay the salaries and allowances of the force. I found that realistic estimates which had been prepared of the cost of maintaining the Garda Síochána had been cut and cut again by direction of the then Government until the stage was reached where the money provided was simply not sufficient to meet expected expenditure. I realise that it is easy, in all good faith, to make an error or misjudgment in estimating what will be needed to meet outgoings under various headings but that is not what happened here. What happened was that the figures in the Estimate were not enough to pay the salaries and allowances of the numbers already on the payroll, even on the basis of the pay rates obtaining at the time. The shortfall amounted to over £4 million. It must be remembered that this decision not to provide enough money to pay current salaries was made after an announcement had been made that the numbers on the payroll were to be increased by another 2,000. Far from making any provision to pay for any increase in numbers, the Estimate was, quite simply not enough to cover the basic pay and allowances of the numbers already serving.

That is a load of rubbish. The Minister should stick to the facts.

Deputy Collins will have an opportunity of taking issue with these points later on. The Minister to proceed without interruption.

If the former Minister continues in this vein, I will personally recommended to the Government that we should have a public inquiry into the books of the Department of Justice. Is he accusing me of telling lies?

The Minister can make any inquiry he wishes.

The Deputy will be exposed for cooking the books. I was left in a position that the choices left to me were as follows: (1) Not to pay the Garda their basic wages for the last few weeks of the year; or (2) Sack a huge number of gardaí so as to reduce the basic payroll to that provided in January or (3) Introduce this Supplementary Estimate. The choice, notwithstanding the financial crisis left by the last Government was obvious.

The real significance of all this is that the publication of Estimates that were known to be inadequate meant that, at budget time, the then Minister for Finance was able to evade the responsibility of increasing taxes to meet the bills that he knew would be coming in. This did not of course stop the bills coming in and I now have to ask the House to make supplementary funds available, totalling approximately £31 million to meet the cost of the Garda Síochána this year.

Notwithstanding the financial abyss to which this country was led by the last Government, I have got authority from my Government to increase expenditure on the Garda under several headings.

Apart from the required basic pay and as a firm indication of this Government's commitment to security and defeating crime among the increased provisions are the following: First, the January 1981 provision for Garda overtime is to be increased by approximately 75 per cent to £21.5 million. I sincerely hope and expect that this high level of overtime will be considerably reduced in 1982 consequent on the recruitment of additional gardaí. The present level of overtime is also of concern to me because continuous overtime of this level is generally acknowledged to be detrimental to the welfare and indeed efficiency of the personnel concerned.

The expenditure of an additional £300,000 for anti-vandalism patrols in the Dublin Metropolitan Area has been authorised.

Let the word go out from this House that the Government will take every step to stop criminals in their tracks because we are conscious that for many thousands of decent people, especially in parts of Dublin, life has become intolerable.

In summary, the additional funds required are as follows: £26.911 million for salaries, wages and allowances, including overtime; £1.987 million to meet increased costs under the heading of travelling and incidental expenses; £492,000 for Post Office services; £360,000 for clothing; £294,000 for station services; £215,000 for transport; £87,000 for equipment and £1.2 million for superannuation. these extra sums add up to a total of £31.546 million but the net amount required is only £31.311 million as there are anticipated savings of £94,000 on office equipment and an expected increase of £141,000 in Appropriations-in-Aid, in the form of contributions by members towards the Garda Síochána widows' and children's pension scheme.

Under the heading of salaries, wages and allowances, the main increases involved are increases in basic pay granted with effect from 1 April 1981, in accordance with agreements reached under the Garda Síochána Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme. The cost of these increases in the present year is £11,342,000.

Increases were also granted in uniform, plain clothes, boot and rent allowances. In the case of the uniform, plain clothes and boot allowances, the increases were effective from 1 April 1981, and the cost in the present year is £975,000. In the case of the rent allowances, the increase was effective from 1 March 1981, and the cost this year is £958,000.

As I have said, included in the additional amount required for salaries and allowances, is a sum of £9.04 million for overtime. This provision is made so that the Garda have available to them as many men as possible to defeat subversion and crime. This very high amount of overtime is necessary this year because the Garda recruitment process, under way for several months, is not expected to be completed until early in 1982 due to the huge number of applicants. However, again notwithstanding the severe financial crisis which we have inherited, the Government have decided to recruit 300 new gardaí—the maximum number possible that the Templemore Training Centre can cope with—as soon as possible after the Civil Service Commissioners provide me with their completed list of successful applicants. This list is now expected in January next and actually training is expected to commence in February.

The additional funds for travelling and incidental expenses are required to meet a shortfall in the original allocation under this heading, increases in travelling and subsistence rates granted to the Garda Síochána in common with other public servants and compensation awards under the Garda Síochána Compensation Acts in excess of the provision made in the original Estimate.

The additional sum under the heading of Post Office services is required to meet the increases in telephone and teleprinter charges which came into effect on 1 April 1981 and a higher level of expenditure generally than was anticipated when the Estimate was prepared.

The original allocation for the purchase of clothing and accessories was not sufficient and the additional amount now being sought is required to meet accounts for uniform cloth, the making up of uniforms and the purchase of accessories that are expected to fall due for payment this year.

The sum required under the heading of station services is to provide for higher expenditure than was anticipated at the beginning of the year on the purchase of such items as furniture and bedding and to meet substantial increases in the cost of cleaning, fuel, light and water.

The expected shortfall under the heading of transport is attributable to the substantial increase in the price of petrol since the original Estimate was prepared. Extra funds are required for equipment because it was necessary to purchase additional it protective equipment for the Garda Síochána, the cost of which could not be met from the original allocation.

Under the heading of superannuation, additional funds are required to meet consequential increases in pensions and gratuities arising from the special pay increase granted to serving members of the force from 1 April 1981 and increases in the garda widow's ordinary pension to bring it into line with increases in social welfare benefits granted in both the January and July budgets this year.

I commend this Supplementary Estimate to the House. In doing so, I am sure all Deputies would wish to join with me in thanking the members of the Garda Síochána for the loyal and efficient manner in which they continue to serve the community.

In relation to the Supplementary Estimate on the Prisons Vote an additional sum of £3,622,000 will be required during the year ending on 31 December 1981 for the salaries and expenses of the prison service.

The greater proportion —£2,946,000 — of the total excess in the Prisons' Vote is required to service salaries, wages and allowances and, in particular, overtime. £758,000 of the excess relates to salaries and £2,188,000 to overtime.

A provision of £14,290,000 in respect of salaries of prison service personnel was made in the 1981 Estimate. An additional £203,000 is required to meet the cost of pay increases which had not come into effect when the Estimates were being finalised. The remaining £555,000 of the excess in salaries is the consequence of a series of cuts which were made in the pay provision prior to finalising the Estimate.

Provision was made in the 1981 Estimates for expenditure of £4,182,000 on overtime in the prison service during the year. This provision is inadequate, as total expenditure on overtime will be £6,370,000, an excess of £2,188,000.

This excess contains £1,183,000 for overtime worked in providing manning for post which, because of the small intake of recruit prison officers during the year, would otherwise remain vacant. Because of the nature of the service being provided, there is a need to ensure that security posts are manned as required, on an overtime basis if necessary, and this is done by recalling officers who are on rest days to man the vacant posts. The total number of staff serving in prison service grades is 1,491, an increase of 47 on the number serving on 31 December last. Seventy four officers were recruited during the year.

The excess also contains £621,000 which is the cost of recalling staff on an overtime basis in place of staff whose sick absences in the course of the year exceeded the level which was anticipated when the Estimate was being framed.

It became necessary in May of this year to provide accommodation at Limerick Prison for a number of male subversive prisoners. The overtime cost in 1981 of providing the higher level of security required to contain this category of prisoners is £219,000.

Payment of arrears of overtime arising from pay settlements will cost the prison service £468,000 during 1981. This is £131,000 greater than the sum provided for in the Estimate.

In the course of the year it was necessary on various occasions to deal with problems which arose and which had implications for the security of the prisons and for the welfare of the staff and the inmates. These problems include periods of heightened tension which occurred during parts of June and July last at Mountjoy Prison, special security measures required from time to time at Portlaoise Prison and the fire which destroyed the administration block at Portlaoise on the night of 25 July last. The additional cost of dealing with these and similar problems during 1981 was £34,000.

I would like to avail of this opportunity to express my gratitude to the staff of Portlaoise Prison for the way in which they respond to the alert on the night of the fire and for the effective and courageous manner in which they dealt with the blaze. I have no doubt that but for their efforts, the damage caused by the fire would have been much greater. I would also wish to express my appreciation of the successful manner in which the staff of Portlaoise Prison are coping with the containment of subversive prisoners.

An additional sum of £235,000 is required for subhead B.1. which covers the cost of escorting prisoners, both by the Garda and by prison officers, to and from courts, hospitals etc., and from prison to prison. It also covers other travelling and subsistence costs of prison officers, for example temporary transfers, and staff training, uniforms and other incidental expenses.

On subhead C. — Post Office Services — an additional sum of £35,000 is required due to insufficient provision having been made for telephones in the original Estimate — £30,000 — and increased telephone charges — £5,000 — with effect from 1 April 1981.

For subhead E.—Prison Services—I am seeking an additional sum of £410,000. Of this amount, £90,000 is required to pay for clothing and furniture supplied by the Post Office Store and the Office of Public Works in 1980 and for which invoices were not received until 1981.

A further £245,000 is required to meet the cost of fuel, light and cleaning in the prisons. This increase is due mainly to the increase in energy prices since the original Estimate was prepared in mid-1980 — approximately 30 per cent. Only 5 per cent was allowed in the Estimate to cover expected price increases.

An additional £10,000 on subhead G.— Probation and Welfare services — is required. This subhead mainly covers the payment of grants to voluntary bodies who, in association with the probation and welfare service operate hostels, workshops or day centres for persons on probation or on release from custody.

The additional sum is necessary because of a special grant of £10,000 to Sarsfield House, Ballyfermot, in order to alleviate its financial difficulties. This centre provides a very valuable service and caters for a large number of boys on probation who require accommodation and it has become clear to me that the existing system of funding by payment of capitation grants is no longer suitable. My Department are at present discussing with the hostel committee an alternative system of meeting their financial needs.

An additional sum of £65,000 will be required because of an expected deficiency on Subhead I. —Appropriations-in-aid. This subhead covers receipts for goods manufactured in prisons and other miscellaneous receipts. An expected shortfall of £95,000 will arise on manufacturing receipts, mainly because industrial relations problems caused a reduction in the production of goods during part of the year. This shortfall is offset by an increase of £30,000 in miscellaneous receipts.

In summary, the funds required are as follows: £2,946,000 for salaries, wages and allowances, including overtime; £235,000 for travelling and incidental expenses; £35,000 for Post Office services; £401,000 for prison services and £10,000 for probation and welfare services. There is also an expected deficiency of £65,000 in respect of Appropriations-in-aid. These extra sums add up to a total of £3,692,000 but the net amount required is only £3,622,000 as there are anticipated savings of £60,000 on equipment and materials for the manufacturing department and farm and £10,000 on equipment and materials for educational services.

I look forward to hearing the comments of Deputies on this Supplementary Estimate. As it is a Supplementary Estimate the debate will inevitably be confined to issues in it but I promise to give a comprehensive reply to all the points raised.

I should like to remind Deputy Collins that as the first speaker for the main Opposition group he has a time limit of one hour and 30 minutes.

I should like to welcome the Minister for justice to the Dáil on the occasion of his moving this Supplementary Estimate. It is the first opportunity I have had in the House since his appointment to wish him good luck in his Ministry. I should like to tell him that any help or assistance my party feel we should give him to fulfil the very difficult and onerous task he has we will give willingly. Having been in charge of that Ministry for a number of years I have a certain amount of sympathy for him, a sympathy which is justified because it is probably one of the most difficult Ministries in Government. I hope the Minister does well; I am sure he will.

The Minister is in charge of a very small Department in numbers on which to lean on for help and advice. He has extremely dedicated and able officials and I hope the effort and energy they put into advising and helping me when I was Minister will be maintained and, if necessary, improved on with him. I have often felt that perhaps more would have been achieved by me if I had more advisers of the calibre I had in the Department. If the Minister inquires he will learn that I was able to convince the Department of the Public Service— that took some convincing—that there was a need for a greater number of personnel at the appropriate level to do the many things which were expected of us and for which we had responsibility. I hope the Minister will continue on that line because in the Department of Justice it is seemingly one crisis after another, day by day and, perhaps, hour by hour. With a very small number of senior officials it is easy to lose out on some of the matters that one should not lose out on.

I had hoped to be able to provide a deputy secretary in the Department because there was need for such an official and the Minister, having examined the situation, may make some progress in this area, if he considers it appropriate. I am slighly perturbed that there is a vacancy at a very senior level, the level of assistant secretary, in the Department and that this position has been vacant since last July. Unfortunately, because of the embargo on public service promotions brought in by the Government this vacancy has not been filled. I am sure the Minister would like to agree with me, if he could, when I say that it is a great pity that this situation exists. It is sad that the people who form part of his senior team are so over-stretched that they can ill-afford the loss of one of their colleagues who retired. I hope the Minister — I am sure he is interested in maintaining a high level of efficiency in the Department because so many things depend on it, the security front and the relations between the staff of the Department — will do his utmost to have the vacancy filled. The post was involved in the area of staff relations and personnel and that is of such importance that the Minister might make a special case to the Government that the embargo be removed in this instance. If he did so he would be doing something very valuable.

I welcome the Minister to the House with his Supplementary Estimate but I should like to inform him that it is not the first time we have had a Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Justice. I can recall that this time last year I was delayed in the House for up to six weeks by the Minister's colleagues, particularly those in the Fine Gael Party, when I introduced a Supplementary Estimate for that Department. The reason for the delay of six weeks was none other than that every time there was a robbery of a bank, a post office or a payroll hike his party, if the Minister can recall — he did not have any particular interest in the Department of Justice at that time — held me personally responsible for the breakdowns that were happening at the time. We had a Supplementary Estimate last year and if I am wrong in saying that the Minister's advisers will inform him. There is nothing new in Supplementary Estimates for the Department of Justice. The reason I make that point is because listening to the Minister one would think that this was the first time a Supplementary Estimate was required in the Department of Justice. There had been a shortfall in Estimates before today. Seemingly we did not always forecast accurately the amounts required under the different headings and sub-headings in the Votes for the Department. Having said that, the Minister will understand why there is a certain amount of regret on my part at the political content of his speech. It is something we could have done without. The Minister should leave discussion on the nation's finances to those who have specific responsibility in Government and Opposition to deal with that matter. The Minister is trying to get the impression across that there was a shortfall of £31 million in the Department. This is grossly untrue. Indeed, the Minister when he had the opportunity — I am not saying that I blame him for this — managed to slip in an extra £10,000 for Sarsfield House in Ballyfermot which is in his constituency.

It was the Deputy who approved of that when he was Minister and I cannot claim it. I was going to give the Deputy credit for it in my speech but I did not.

I will give the Minister all the time he likes to reply. I am not holding that against the Minister but I hold it against him from a political angle that he said he was left a shortfall of £31 million. That is wrong and the Minister knows it. If he still believes it I suggest he discuss the matter with his advisers because they know — I know they know — that is wrong. With regard to the allegation by the Minister that the books were cooked I will leave that for what it is, a political allegation; I will not even bother to deal with it. The Minister is starting off in an exceptionally difficult Ministry and if he is asking for advice — I know he is not — I would tell him that if he starts to play political football in his Department he will be in a very serious difficulty in a very short time. I resisted the temptation to do it, but what the Minister does is his own business. He will get all the help he needs at all times from this side of the House in dealing with the problems he will have to deal with, and he has had a fairly rough passage since he was appointed and has been exceptionally busy. But he will get every help from this side of the House, particularly in dealing with subversives and those engaged in crime. If at times it is necessary to comment on what the Minister is doing, it will only be in an effort to put him on the right road. The Minister should clearly understand that. But if he starts to play political football in this Department, he will still get the help that has been promised but he will have to be taken on head front.

I am glad that the Minister and the Government are providing an extra £9 million for Garda overtime. I am subject to correction but I understand that the figure provided in the Estimates for the current year is £12 million. I know that overtime in the Garda is running at about £1 million per month. That is a lot of money and it was because of this that I was able to persuade the Government to train many more gardaí to take up the fight against crime and that the Government agreed to introduce a new ranks order which allowed the Minister for Justice to increase the strength of the Garda by 2,000. As a result of that I immediately got under way a scheme to send 1,000 additional young people to the training college in Templemore. The Minister referred to that and said that no money had been provided for it. That is a very weak political point that does not warrant much attention from me because the forecast given to me at the time by the officials in the Department, by the Garda Commissioner and his advisers and by the Civil Service Commission who are also involved was that there would not be recruits ready until October or early November and that they would just be going into the training college four to six weeks before Christmas.

I am slightly perturbed to hear from the Minister that nobody from the batch recruited last May will be in the training college until next February. That is a very long time. If the Minister is doing this for political reasons to push expenditure from this year over to next year that is fair enough and I accept that. But if the reason is that the Civil Service Commission and all those involved in the processing of the applicants have to take eight months to decide who is eligible for admission to the training college in Templemore then something will have to be done about it. We have heard criticisms on various occasions that the Civil Service Commission are very slow and ponderous. Perhaps there is reason for this. I would not like to see it taking short cuts that might harm the system because it is seen to be extremely fair and above board. But the House and the general public would agree with me that, if it requires nine months to process applicants for admission to Templomore, something needs to be done about it. quickly because, if the day ever came when we needed additional manpower in the force, I do not know how we would do it if we had to wait nine months and then wait for 22 weeks for training before we had people on the street. I am somewhat taken aback by the extra delay of four or five months because the advice given to me by the various people involved in this campaign was that we would have people available by October and early November.

The Minister also mentioned that he is going ahead with the recruitment of 300 gardaí. The recent competition was to have 1,000 applicants ready to go to Templomore to train so that when the first 300 were trained the next batch could be trained immediately. Perhaps that is what the Minister still proposes to do. If it is not I would like to comment on it when he is replying to this Estimate. He says Templemore can cater for only 300. That is so, despite my efforts to increase the facilities by trying to get from the Army the last remaining piece of property which they have in Templemore. But, despite many meetings and much talk, I did not succeed in getting the Army to hand over this property. The services the Army are providing from Templemore could still be provided because there is another small building there which could easily be adopted for their use.

I mention that because of the question of overtime. The Minister says he hopes that when the additional 3000 recruits are trained there will be a decrease in overtime. I know the Minister is not right in that, because if the additional 3000 recruits all came into Dublin there would be only one-fifth of that number on duty at any particular time because of the three eight-hour shifts system that operates. In other words, only 60 additional gardaí would be on the street at any one time and that is only a fraction of the beat tolerances that we want. We all want a higher beat tolerance to combat vandals and to protect innocent people and their property, particularly old people. I am not taking the Minister to task in any way. I am just pointing out the reality of the situation to him. Even with 1,000 extra gardaí, which I hope are still to be trained, the position would still need improving because those additional gardaí were all promised for the Dublin metropolitan area where 57 per cent of the crime reported in the Commissioner's report happened. I hope the decision to allocate those extra 1,000 gardaí to Dublin still stands. I know there will be pressure on the Minister from all over the country to send additional gardaí to other areas. I hope the Minister will resist the temptation to try to be all things to all men and see to it that that number of 1,000 additional gardaí are brought to Dublin straight away and allocated to the areas where they are needed. It is a fact that 57 per cent of the crime committed has been committed in the greater Dublin area. If one looks at the crime scene in Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford one can see that a staggering total of 70 per cent of all crime committed occurred in those areas. This shows the increase in urban crime and the problem which this Minister, the previous Minister and the next Minister has in providing enough manpower for the Garda to deal with the situation.

There are interesting statistics to be studied in the commission's report. The report shows that the Roscommon and east Galway divisions had the lowest level of crime in the country. It is encouraging to see that as a result of improved Garda presence on the beat in the Dún Laoghaire division which is quite a big one — the centre of Dún Laoghaire has always been extremely difficult to police from a Garda point of view — that the 1980 report shows a great improvement in the situation there. This shows the value of increased Garda presence.

The Minister has an extra £9 million for overtime which is a lot of money. I believe it will do a lot of good and I congratulate the Minister on getting it. A sum of £12 million was already budgeted for in the Estimate. I do not know how much of that money was eaten up in providing the police presence for all the H Block protests during May and June. The figure was not available to me in the Department because the accounts were not in. The claims had not been made for overtime, travel and subsistence. The public should know what those protests cost the taxpayers. We know that gardaí had to be brought to Dublin and other centres from as far away as Donegal, Kerry and Wexford. We should be told how much of the extra £9 million has to be provided to maintain the level of police presence which has to be maintained as a result of the H Block protests which took place.

The Minister is on record as saying on radio about a fortnight ago that the increased Garda activity which had to take place as a result of the Ben Dunne kidnapping cost the taxpayers £500,000. I do not know where the Minister got that figure but I accept that somebody in authority advised him of the amount involved. Thank God that activity turned out so well and the man's life was spared. I understand that investigation is still continuing into the case and I hope the Garda can bring someone to justice for it. If that particular activity over a short time and in a very limited area cost £500,000 it would be interesting to see what the cost of the other incidents I have already mentioned is.

The Minister has a difficult task in trying with limited resources to give as good a coverage as he can through the Garda Commissioner of Garda activities in different places. The Minister has asked in this Supplementary Estimate for an additional £300,000 to maintain the street patrols which were in operation for the last 12 months and which have been very effective. The patrols, district by district, by the Garda officers in those areas, were very successful. The Minister is looking for more money to maintain and improve those patrols. He only mentioned Dublin. I know the high level of crime is in Dublin but I am sure the Minister will not forget that there are other areas where there is a high level of crime. There are enough Deputies in his party from the other centres where those patrols have been operating successfully, to remind him of how successful they have been. The Minister should not forget that it was also necessary to introduce those patrols into Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford. He should have a look at the situation and if he is satisfied that enough is being done. I will accept that. If enough is not being done there are people who will be able to comment on it and bring the matter to the attention of the Minister. This has worked well during the past year and I hope it will continue to do so.

The July budget with the increases in VAT, the increase in the price of petrol and the increase in the price of goods generally has a bearing on the expenditure in the Department of Justice whether it is petrol, furniture or bedding. I see a heading in relation to bedding. Will the Minister please tell me where he is buying the beds for because it is in the Garda Vote rather than the Prison Vote. A lot of the money the Minister has asked for today has to be provided for supperannuation. In the Garda Vote this is £1.2 million. I understand the need for equipment is because of a decision by the Commissioner that the type of defensive equipment which the Garda have to use during riots is not good enough and they have to get better equipment.

With regard to the question of transport we all know that cars cost more and the Minister and his party had a lot to do with that when they brought in the budget last July. The price of petrol and cars were increased. The Minister is asking for an extra £1.9 million for travelling and salaries, wages and allowances add up to the remainder of the money he is asking for.

I hope the Minister sees merit in what I was trying to do before I left the Department of Justice and he might take an interest in the particular matter as I did. I refer to the frightening increase in the drug scene in Dublin and other cities. I am sure the Minister knows, after four months in the Department of Justice, what frustrations are like. One particular frustration I had was that I could not get an exact picture of the extent of the drug scene in the country. The Department of Justice, the Garda, the Department of Health or the hospitals could not give me an exact picture. There was nobody I could go to or the present Minister can go to and say: "Let us see the extent of the drug problem as it exists at the moment". I had many discussions with the people involved at the Garda level about how we could be more efficient and how we could deal more competently with the drug situation because of the immense damage it is doing. I know this did not start when this Minister for Justice came into office.

From early 1980 all the indications are that the usage of drugs, and heroin in particular, has grown at an alarming rate. Some sort of glamour appears to be attached to the use of heroin by some of our younger people. Anybody who does not believe that the usage of heroin is growing has his head in the sand. Some time ago the drug squad in Dublin was strengthened. I suggested that the squad should be doubled, and I wondered at the time would doubling it be sufficient. About last January a special drug unit was set up in Limerick and the one in Cork was strengthened.

The Minister announced that the commissioner has allocated an additional six men to the drug squad in Dublin. There are two Ban-Ghardaí in the squad. Up to five or six years ago there were two in it but they were taken out of it for some reason. It was felt that the presence of a Ban-Gharda was not appropriate. That has now been proved to be wrong. There are 19 garda in the squad and four sergeants. Unfortunately there are only two at the moment because appointments are being held up due to the promotion embargo. There is one detective inspector. That gives us a total of 26 people in a city with a population of one million plus to try to handle the drug scene.

We must look at the realities. This was the recommendations of the Garda Commissioner but having regard, as he always does, to the resources available to him. There should be many more people in the drug squad. It can be augmented by ordinary members of the force who have been given more intensive training in recent times on the drug problem. This is a good and effective course. I hope it will be very successful. We need more than 26 people in a drug squad which has to provide round the clock coverage to cope with those involved in the drug scene. We have to divide the membership. of the squad by four because of shift work, and we have about six people available at any one time to deal with drug offences and drug abuse. That is not enough. I am not trying to score any point against the Minister when I say I am convinced it is not enough. I ask him to take a personal interest in it and to try to do something more about it.

We must also take into account the fact that one, two or three members of a working shift might be required in the courts. This morning an important case on the drug scene is before one of our courts. A lady is being charged with possession of 17 grammes of pure heroin. When broken down, that would provide enough fixes for 1,000 people. That quantity of heroin can be purchased for £600. It can be broken down and sold on the street in small packages at £10 a fix and will show a profit of £9,400 on an investment of £600. The profit margin for criminals in this area is so great that many are now being attracted into it.

There has been a series of newspaper articles, reports and speeches, and concern has been shown by many people. There is a graph in the Medical Monthly produced by Dr. Michael G. Kelly, the medical director of the Drug Advisory and Treatment Centre in Jervis Street Hospital, which shows that within the past 12 months the number of patients abusing heroin and cocaine went out through the roof. We must come to grips with this problem. There is no disagreement between us in the House in that regard. We must have a strong united effort if we are to protect our young people. We must do something different from what we have been doing to date. I mean that quite sincerely.

Before we can do anything about it, we must know the extent of the problem. At present we do not know that. If the Minister asked his advisers the extent of the problem they would have to tell him they do not know it. That information was not available up to a couple of months ago. I should like the Minister and the Government to consider the establishment of a judicial committee or a committee of this House to collate all the information available on drug abuse. Then we could decide what we should do to solve the problem and deal with it effectively.

Large numbers of people care about this matter. Parents are worried. Parents have approached Deputies to ask what can be done about it. Concern was expressed as a result of a series of articles in The Irish Times by Mr. Murtagh who did investigative reporting into this scene. He proved that a family in this city have become multi-millionaires based on the misery and suffering they have caused for unfortunate people. I hope the Garda will be able to deal with those people. Changes in legislation may be necessary to help the Garda. Recently I spoke to a garda who is involved in this area and he told me he went to a house where he knew there were drugs. There were so many bolts on the doors and so many peepholes that, by the time he got into the house, the drugs had been flushed down the toilet. That was a fair comment by him. That can be done. Nothing was found when the building was searched. Perhaps changes in our laws are necessary and perhaps new methods can be found to deal with the problem.

The use of cannabis has been the order of the day for some time amongst our youth particularly in the Dublin area. That is sad. I hope that if pressures to legalise it are brought to bear on the Minister by any group he will resist that pressure and tell people thinking along those lines that we will not give them any help or encouragement.

There is a need for a big educational programme to educate parents on the extent of the drug problem. We would then hope that the parents would educate the young people. I spoke to a parent recently, a Dublin man in his late forties. He has seven children and the eldest is still a teenager. I asked him if he ever discussed the usage of drugs with his children and he said he did not. I was shocked. It appears that the young people know far more about the drug scene than the parents.

We are dependent on the information available to us from the Jervis Street Hospital Drug Advisory and Treatment Centre as to what the extent of the problem is. That is not an accurate picture. Doctors in Jervis Street will tell you there is an influx of patients looking for treatment after a big drugs haul and the supply of hard drugs is cut off. At Jervis Street Hospital they could not have an accurate picture of people who are abusing heroin unless those people came to them, and they do not all come to them. We must set up some mechanism to monitor the problem and see how bad it is and what it is necessary to do about it. Incidentally, the size of a packet costing ten pounds of heroin is very small. This is being offered quite openly on the streets of Dublin. I am not blaming the Minister for that but it is a problem that must be dealt with. I do not believe that the resources of the State are properly geared to deal with the matter.

There was a haul of drugs in Dublin recently and the newspapers valued the drugs at £5 million. All of us were very pleased that the Garda Síochána were successful in recovering the drugs. A few years ago there was a drugs haul on the Naas Road and I remember that none of us could believe the decision of the court in that case. The value of the drugs in that haul was estimated in the region of £2 million to £3 million. In Knocklong, County Limerick, there was a huge find of drugs. The haul was so enormous that the Garda Síochána could not give a proper estimate but the value was estimated between £3 million and £9 million.

We know about the drugs the police capture but we know nothing about the drugs that are not detected. I should like to see an efficient police unit dealing solely with this problem. Having heard the breakdown I have given to the House of the availability of persons on a full-time basis to deal with this matter, the House will agree that the problem is very great. Prosecuting those involved in the drug trade will not put them out of business. An educational programme would be most effective if we had full-time officers available to talk to children, parents and teachers in the schools. In this instance prevention is better than cure. The cure is locking people away and putting them out of circulation for a period. I do not think that is good enough. All of us resent the fact that people in the crime world who are known as big spenders were able, according to a journalist in The Irish Times, to order between 20 and 30 bottles of champagne at £20 or £30 a bottle on a night out in a restaurant in Baggot Street. If champagne should burn certainly that champagne should burn and I do not think anybody would feel sorry for the people involved.

When the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Justice was before the House last year 80 or 90 per cent of the contributions made by colleagues of the Minister dealt with bank robberies and armed robberies. All of us are pleased that for the early part of the year there was a sharp decrease in successful armed robberies and attempted robberies. I wish to make clear that I do not claim credit for that decrease. It would be wrong to do so. Equally, it was wrong for those people to castigate me last year for the increase in crime. I do not want credit for the decrease in successful armed robberies. It was a job for the Garda Commissioner and the Garda Síochána to deal with that area of operations.

I am not going to say anything in a personal way to the Minister for Justice regarding the increase in armed robberies in the past three months. I put down a question to him for information, certainly not to score any political points, asking him the number of armed robberies that had taken place in the past three months and asking also for details. The Minister told us that in the three months to 30 September there were 85 armed robberies. There were quite a few during the month of October, including one robbery in Limerick yesterday where a pregnant woman was tied up and left in that condition during the night without any regard for what might happen to her, while her husband was thrown out of a car on the side of the road in County Clare. If there were 85 robberies in three months and if we multiply that number by four, the total will be more than 300 armed robberies on an annual basis. That assumption may be incorrect and I hope it will be.

My point is that I would not like the Minister or the Government to think that armed robberies are not still the main source of supply particularly for paramilitaries and subversives and ordinary criminals. Every effort must be made by the Garda Commissioner and his force to ensure that there is no slacking off by them or by anybody else in carrying the fight to the armed criminal at all times. The value of property taken was approximately £300,000 but unfortunately the amount recovered is always very small. Of the 85 armed robberies, 70 took place in the Dublin metropolitan area. That goes to show the need for a stronger police presence in Dublin. Seemingly the criminal prefers to operate here. There is a greater chance for him to escape in that he can easily dodge about streets and traffic and make good his escape. I am satisfied the Garda are doing everything they can to deal with the situation. If they come up with new methods or approaches I am confident the Minister will help them.

There was considerable progress made by members of the Garda Síochána, by officials of the Department of Justice and by others in trying to put together a modern and sophisticated radio network system for the Garda Síochána. It was hoped that part of that system would be operational last July or August. I accept that things can go wrong, particularly when we are dealing with a highly technical matter, but I hope that the progress made in this area will be maintained and improved. It is accepted that it is vital for the Garda to have this new radio network system. Nowadays criminals are extremely sophisticated, frequently well educated, intelligent and are trying to outwit the Garda Síochána all the time. Members of this House would be most anxious to ensure that the large sums of money obtained in armed robberies would not be used for subversive purposes. I am quite sure that Members would not condone that in any way.

I would like to refer briefly to the drugs situation. I want to mention what is known as the recent £5 million drugs haul in Dublin. There was a great deal of publicity given to this find, with the result that a great deal of public interest was aroused. Like a bolt from the blue we heard that no charges were preferred. I know the Minister has no responsibility for preferring charges and did not have the responsibility to answer a question I put down recently as to why no prosecutions had taken place because it is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether there was a case against those people. Those people were caught in the act, with the goods and, as the countryman would say, with pictures to prove it. When nothing happened it is only natural that a lot of questions remain to be answered. It was alleged that nothing happened because of a lack of professionalism by the Garda. I cannot say if that is true, but I hope it is not. The public had their appetites whetted by the media as to the real significance of the find and somebody in authority should have been informed why there were no prosecutions.

One question is being left unanswered which I think is damaging to the Garda Síochána. It is alleged that because so much money was involved there may have been some sleight of hand. I accept nothing could be further from the truth and reject the insinuation, but when there is a vacuum and questions are left unanswered, people will wonder. We often have off-the-cuff briefings for people in the media and sometimes they report things they should not report and it might be necessary to take corrective action later. Even if the Minister does not have responsibility to the House for what happens the general public have a right to know what happened.

Crime is one of our biggest problems and unfortunately it is increasing. There is no short answer to it. It is important that the Garda be given the additional men they are looking for. Right now they need a further 2,000. I hope they are given those numbers and if it is necessary that they need an extra 3,000 I hope the Minister will approve those extra men. I do not believe the taxpayers would object. If it is necessary we should change our laws to help the police do their jobs properly. A certain amount of progress was made in this area by the Minister's predecessor.

Modesty prevents the Deputy from saying so.

I was thinking of what stopped it coming to fruition. Two Supreme Court decisions blew everything sky high. A lot of very valuable work had gone into it. Despite the fact that the Minister is short-staffed as a result of a Government decision, the resources available to him should be working more in this area rather than bringing forth legislation for which there is no demand. I am talking about a Bill we hope to see here within the next two or three weeks.

I might be forgiven if I score a political point here, although I do not want to score in a personal way off the Minister, but in my view the public would prefer to see the efforts and energies of public servants being channelled into producing legislation which would help the police to do their difficult job rather than having those energies channelled into dealing with matters for which there is no great demand—perhaps giving into political blackmail because thumbs are being screwed by Members of this House, Deputy Kemmy and Deputy Browne.

The Minister has a very grave responsibility for prisons. I know he did not mean to single out the staff of one prison only and forget the others. All prison staffs do a very good job. I know many of the staff at Mountjoy Prison personally. They do great work but so do the staffs in other prisons. In case anybody outside the House might read something into the Ministers omission, I am deliberately drawing his attention to this so that in his reply he will have an opportunity of putting the record right.

Management in prisons, other than Portlaoise, have their difficulties compounded because they have to do without the facilities which were available for the ordinary prison population up to the time Portlaoise was set aside for subversive and paramilitary prisoners. In Mountjoy we have a very overcrowded situation. One senior official in the Department used to say it was bursting at the seams. He would be pleased if another prison was available to which to transfer some of those prisoners. Management, staffs and prisoners too, would be happy if other facilities were available to ease the overcrowded situation

Because Portlaoise has so many long-term prisoners many of them still have the greater part of their sentences to serve and space there is very scarce. Last April or May a decision had to be made to try to accommodate a number of Portlaoise prisoners somewhere else. Ten Official IRA prisoners were brought to a particular wing in Limerick Prison. Portlaoise is still overcrowded. In a way this is a good thing because it shows the Garda are catching people engaged in subversive activities and bringing them to the courts. This shows the success of the Garda. One of the problems about their success is that facilities have to be provided for prisoners.

Recently there were a number of press reports about more prisoners being shifted to Limerick. If the Minister has to do that, that will be all right because that decision has to be made and I will do my best to help him effect that change.

These are high risk prisoners and must be contained. It will give rise to problems. There are ten prisoners there for about three months and it is costing £219,000 in additional overtime. This is due to additional surveillance of these prisoners. It shows taxpayers the cost of containing people in high security prisons. Many prisoners in Limerick prison which caters for 110 or 115 ordinary prisoners, are to be transferred if what we read in the newspapers is correct. I do not know where the Minister will put them. The Minister should comment on this because of the amount of speculation in the newspapers. If 80 or 90 prisoners in Limerick are to be brought to Mountjoy what will happen in Mountjoy? Does the Minister propose, to use a departmental phrase, to shed a large number of prisoners, that means release them before they have completed their terms in prison? I am sure the Minister will be glad of an opportunity to say what he proposes to do.

I read with interest a few weeks ago that a junior Minister, one of the lucky ones who was brought to the front on her first day in the House, made great virtue out of the fact that Loughan House would be closed when the detention centre at Lusk was opened. Of course it will be. That was always the intention. Somebody should fill her in and tell her what was arranged and agreed. The only regret we have is that it has taken so long to build the centre. The problems which arose between builders, architects, the Board of Works and so on slowed it down. I was advised that it would have been provided in three years. I know that this is not the Minister's area of responsibility but rather that of the Minister for Education. However, the Minister might tell us how far we are from this coming into being.

The Minister is under political pressure to stop the building of the new prison complex in Wheatfield, Clondalkin. This complex would provide a new detention centre which would replace the St. Patrick's institution in the Mountjoy complex for 100 or more young offenders. It would also provide a new female prison for the type of person we have to accommodate in the female wing, which is a basement in Mountjoy at present. I appreciate the pressures he is under because the same pressures were on me. I had many a group on my back trying to prevent the building of this new prison. The Minister knows that he has a grave responsibility to go ahead with the provision of proper prison facilities for those committed to prison by the courts.

It is extremely difficult to get money for prison building because it is always something that can be left over until the next year. The Minister's three immediate predecessors, Deputies Collins, Cooney and O'Malley, fought very successfully at Government tables to remind different Governments of their responsibilities with regard to the provision of proper prison facilities and a prison building programme was put under way. This must be continued. I do not care where the pressure comes from, the Minister's first responsibility is dealing with prisoners. They must be provided for and must be given humane and decent facilities. That is what my predecessors and I set about doing. I know that is what the staff of the Department will advise the Minister to do. The Minister should be strong enough to resist the pressures put on him whether from his own constituents or others. There should be no reneging in this area. If there is we will have to have much discussion about it. I do not say that to threaten the Minister or intimidate him because that is not my form. It is a serious matter that I feel deeply about.

For too long we were content to forget the conditions under which our prisoners lived. The Minister should allow nothing to come in his way that would impede progress on building the new high security prison in Portlaoise. That prison is intended to take the prisoners who are currently in the Curragh prison so that it can be returned to the Army and civilian prisoners no longer kept there. That is the reason why I was able to go to our Government and, despite the fact that money was scarce, get money from them to strengthen the building programme which was started before my time.

There are a group who argue that we should not have prisons at all. Good luck to them. There is need for prisons. Perhaps we should have more open prisons such as those in operation at Shelton Abbey and Shanganagh Castle. I pay tribute to my predecessors for helping to develop this open prison system and also to the forward thinking of officials in the Department who helped me to go along with this concept. It is extremely successful and humane. It is dignified. None of us, Minister or not — I will be across in that seat soon again — has the right to interfere with the dignity of a person who has lost his freedom as a result of a court decision. Open prisons cost more than closed prisons. The Minister will have my support in maintaining the impetus of the prison building programme. However, he will have a lot of discussion here and elsewhere if he fails to maintain the momentum which was built up over nine or ten years by those of us who were Ministers at that time to get where we are at present.

In June a Government White Paper was authorised in regard to community service orders. I would like the Minister to interest himself personally in this area. It had to do with the welfare of prisoners. We invited comment on this from interested persons and we asked for the comments on the proposed scheme by the end of August. I trust people were sufficiently interested to comment. There are many demands on the Minister but I would appeal to him to make this a priority and get this community service order under way. A great deal of good could emanate from it. I know how happy prisoners were building a scout hall out in Tallaght. I know how happy they were building a centre for old folk out in Dun Laoghaire. This is something we should encourage. We must, of course, hasten slowly. Naturally mistakes will be made and the Minister runs the risk of flak from certain people but I can assure him that 90 per cent of the people will be behind him. They may not be vocal but they will be with him. This scheme would relieve overcrowding. That is very important. We have a very dedicated prison staff and a wonderful management. I had many disagreements with them over the years but I appreciate the fact that they are very fine people, an extremely dedicated people. There will always be some who kick over the traces now and again but, if they are pulled back on to the right road, there will be no problems.

The legal aid board is operating successfully, though not apparently to the satisfaction of some who want a different kind of scheme. The Minister and his party are on record as saying they would change the scheme and introduce a scheme of their own. Does the Minister propose to make any fundamental changes? I doubt that he does so propose. I am not trying to score off the Minister but I was convinced, as were those advising me, that the scheme we introduced was operating satisfactorily. It was planned to extend the scheme. Is there a proposed extension and is it intended to provide more centres? There is the problem of lack of finance but I would ask the Minister to ensure that this scheme is extended. One of the best ways to defeat the scheme would be to prevent its extension and there are some who would welcome that defeat but the result would be that control would be taken out of the hands of the Minister. If the Minister does not extend the scheme he will run the risk of wrecking it and so he has an obligation to extend the scheme. Or is it intended to change the scheme and make it a free for all, something which was advocated by the Minister's party in opposition to ensure the right solicitor would be available at all times. I trust the Minister appreciates the danger and will take whatever action is necessary to avoid it.

Shortly we will be discussing a Bill which is in the Seanad at the moment in regard to the provision of additional High Court judges. Is an embargo being placed on the provision of staff in the courts? There have been reports that vacancies have not been filled. I would like the Minister to give us in detail the present situation. I mention these matters in the hope that the Minister will follow them up and that some progress will be made in the areas I have mentioned.

I take it the Minister has the best interests of the Garda Síochána at heart. I hope he has and that consequently he will do everything possible to help them in regard to the many new schemes and to the various ideas they have. Some of these schemes are so new that we do not have available to us within the Government service sufficient expertise to advise us on the merits or otherwise of any situation. In saying this I am thinking in particular of the work that went into trying to reach a decision about what was necessary for the Garda in order to make them more mobile and more agile in dealing with criminals. I am thinking in particular of helicopters and light aircraft. There are some who believe that all the work should be done by helicopters but there are others who think differently. However, I am confident that a mix of the two would be helpful. I found it confusing on visiting places outside the country to find that while the chief of police in one city considered the use of a small plane to be as good as the use of a helicopter in a number of instances, the chief of police in another city was completely opposed to that kind of thinking.

There is no professional expertise in the Department of Justice to advise on such matters but it is the responsibility of the Minister to find the expertise and to bring the scheme in question to fruition with the least possible delay. A chief superintendent was appointed specifically to head a Garda investigating unit in this area with the purpose of deciding finally on this matter. While I was Minister I realised that I was not in a position to make a decision on the use of a specific type of aircraft. A lay man is not in a position to make such a decision though I made whatever input I could into the scheme. The decision must not be delayed further.

I should hope also that the college which was opened some time ago at Templemore for the purpose of providing refresher courses for senior members of the Garda will have the full support of the Minister. I had a deep commitment to that project. Perhaps it will be found possible to replace the temporary college there with a more permanent one in the not too distant future. There were plans on those lines and, while there was a certain amount of agreement, some problems arose when some people wanted changes in the plans. That has put the project back somewhat. Unfortunately, I did not have enough time in which to have the whole matter signed and sealed before leaving office. There is no political reason why we should not agree on this matter. The service being provided is very valuable. It is essential. It provides senior members of the force with an opportunity to meet and to discuss the various problems that affect them. In addition they are brought up to date on changes in the law, on techniques and so on. One superintendent who completed a course there told me that he was pleasantly surprised with the value he got from it. The college is regarded as temporary because of its being located in a temporary building but the intention was that these refresher courses would be on a permanent basis and that the college would form part of the whole training college complex at Templemore. I hope there will not be any question of changing that decision.

I understand that another member of my party will be talking during the debate about the whole area of law reform. This is the area with which the Minister of State, Deputy Spring is involved. There is a strong need for more activity in the area of law reform despite the fact that we have achieved much in this sphere. However, we had hoped for more. I congratulate the Minister of State on his appointment. He was one of the lucky ones, another favourite who, on his first day here was given his stripes so to speak. I wish him well and I have no doubt that as a southerner he will do well. Incidentally, I am not sure that the Harvey Smith sign which I am getting from Deputy Kemmy in the gallery is appropriate to the House. Perhaps at an opportune time somebody would explain the courtesies of the House to the Deputy but I regret that he finds it necessary to try to interrupt me in this way. However, I shall ignore the matter and leave it at that.

There are very difficult problems to be solved in the area of law reform. One area in which the former Minister of State in this Department was involved was the area of the licensing laws. Deputy Doherty had brought the preparation of legislation to an advanced stage but there remained many decision to be made. We shall welcome any proposals that emanate from that section of the Department and shall help the Minister to put whatever reforms are considered necessary through the House.

Again, on a personal note, I wish the Minister every success in his office. So far as I am concerned I assure him that I will refrain from engaging in politics in respect of any of the issues with which he must deal. He shall have nothing but help and encouragement from this side of the House in regard to his work especially on the question of supporting the forces of law and order. We will help him in every way possible in regard to whatever help he considers it necessary to give to the Garda or to members of the prison service in the extremely difficult area in which they must work.

Ambitious programmes had commenced in the Department before my time as Minister. Indeed, they had commenced before the time of my predecessor there so it is hardly necessary for me to assure the Minister of our support in bringing these programmes to fruition. One such programme that comes to mind relates to the prison system. If that programme were to be interrupted now it would put us back 30 or 40 years so far as that area is concerned. I was concerned recently on hearing that one of the architects involved in the work told one of the builders involved to slow down and to start tidying up his operations. If this is true we will have a lot more to say about it here. I wish the Minister the best of luck for whatever length of time he remains in office.

On a point of order, I did not wish to interrupt the Deputy but he has engaged in a wide-ranging debate. I checked with the Ceann Comhairle's office as to what might be relevant to this Estimate and I was given to understand that I could refer only to those items embodied in the Estimate. Deputy Collins has indicated that a Deputy on his side is to speak about law reform. At this stage for the guidance of other Deputies I would be grateful if you would make a ruling on how wide-ranging this debate can be.

Limerick West): The Chair is the best judge of that. As far as the Chair is concerned Deputy Collins has kept within the scope of the Supplementary Estimate.

There are ample precedents which are the guidance given to me by the Ceann Comhairle's office.

On the Minister's point of order, I apologise if I did go outside the scope of the Supplementary Estimate, although I do not think I did.

I know the Minister did not.

I apologise for it if I did, but I was going on what I know from experience here in the last 15 years. If the Minister had been spokesman for his party on Justice and security matters this time last year he would have known that I was sitting here in this House for six weeks on a Supplementary Estimate where everything from the colour of a peak of a cap to the polish on an officer's shoes was brought in. Everything was raised. If I have spoken outside the scope of this debate I apologise. I did not mean to be disorderly.

Acting Chairman

I would not say the Deputy was being disorderly.

I have guidance to the effect that I can speak only on certain matters and that I must confine myself to them. I would not wish it to be construed that I was being discourteous in not dealing with all the matters with which I would like to have dealt. Matters are being raised now which are not part of my brief here today. I wonder if I am correct in saying that the statement must be confined to those matters which are included in the Supplementary Estimate.

Acting Chairman

Are you saying that items may be raised?

I am seeking your guidance as to whether the debate may be widened so that those matter may be included in the debate on the Supplementary Estimate.

Acting Chairman

No.

They already have.

Acting Chairman

The Chair is the best judge of that and if Deputy Collins was going outside the guidelines——

If I go outside the scope of the debate, cannot the Minister reply to that? If we are out of order, in a nice way he can call us to order.

That is right.

The only thing out of order was Deputy Kemmy's Harvey Smith to the Garda.

The first thing I want to refer to is the comment made by the previous speaker regarding the pressures which he understands have been building up on the Minister for Justice about the proposed new prison in Clondalkin, County Dublin. I want to add to those pressures and to urge on the Minister that he discontinue the building of that project. I do not think that too much pressure will be required on the Minister towards that end. He himself said in this House on 13 June 1980 as recorded in the Official Report of that date, column 659, volume 322; referring to that prison in Clondalkin:

How can the Minister justify the building of that prison——

Literature was circulated by a member of the Minister's party before the last election indicating that commitment had been given that the Taoiseach, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, would abandon the building of that prison in the event of Fine Gael being returned to office, which has happened. That prison is not required at all in that area. There are other means for the rehabilitation of prisoners who are in mind for that institute. It is not wanted and a commitment was given not to proceed with it by the Minister himself. I urge the Department strongly to abandon that project.

I want to make a few brief remarks on the legal aid question. The criminal legal aid system as it has been operating over the last few years operates reasonably well. It provides a valuable service to persons accused of crime at different levels. However, the cost of it has escalated by reason of increase in legal fees and various other considerations, and some regard will have to be had to arrangements to improve the system and to achieve better value for money for the State in the provision of that service. In particular the report of the Criminal Legal Aid Review Committee makes reference to a number of suggested improvements at least some of which I urge should be looked at favourably in the Department of Justice and by the Minister. There is an incredible waste of time on the part of practitioners, solicitors, barristers and gardaí which also relates to what we are talking about here today. In many of the district courts in the country at 10.30 in the morning one can find 15, 20 or even more solicitors and a courtroom full of gardaí the majority of whom are compelled to wait there until two, three or four o'clock in the afternoon and very often the matter for which they have come will not be raised at all. It would appear that their entire day would have been wasted and they are compelled at public expense, in the case of legal people on the legal aid panel, and at the expense of the Department in the case of the Gardaí, to come back another day for the same purpose. Enough attention has not been given to the allocation of time in the courts and to the division of types of work in the courts that could be fixed at varying hours instead of listing all matters for 10.30 a.m. or whatever time applies. I know that there would be difficulties in doing that and that it is difficult to forecast exactly how long any one case will take, but inquiries can be made and there is room for work in that regard. Any improvement that would be achieved there would represent a tremendous saving. The people who staff the criminal legal aid system are providing a very valuable service and contribution.

I am not at all happy, however, about the civil side of legal aid. The position is totally unsatisfactory and inadequate. It is quite likely that unless substantial alterations and improvements are achieved in the civil legal aid scheme this country will find itself once again in the humiliating position in which it found itself following and as a result of the decision of the Human Rights Commission in the Airey case which, as we know, decided that constitutional and basic human rights were not being maintained for members of the public. Therefore, the Government of the day were compelled, as it were, to bring in legislation providing for some measure of civil legal aid, which they did. In the event, the number of centres is entirely inadequate. The new towns in particular are very large centres of population and no centres are provided there, although this is the kind of location where the primary need for that kind of service would be. The tendency seems to be to locate the centres in the inner-city areas, places which have become increasingly bereft of population, from where the population have moved to the outlying areas. It is in those new towns in the outlying areas that those centres or additional centres ought to be located. In any case, even the centres which are there find themselves now at this early stage of their establishment quite unable to cope with the burden of work coming their way. My information is that in many cases a member of the public seeking assistance has to wait for a considerable time, months in some cases, before being granted the facility of even a preliminary appointment or interview for the purpose of obtaining necessary advice. The extent of the scheme is inadequate too, not only by reason of the number of centres but also because of the limited type of cases which the centres are prepared to undertake. They confine themselves to family law problems and while that is a very important measure on which spouses require legal aid it is far from the only subject requiring attention.

People of insufficient means who wish to undertake legal proceedings in the High Court, which description would apply to the overwhelmingly majority of people, who are involved in road accidents or injured at work on building sites, factories and so on — and these accidents are increasing — find themselves in a very difficult position when they set about trying to get compensation for injuries which they have sustained. The problems involved in undertaking a law case against one's employer for negligence or against negligent drivers and so on requires a degree of expertise not only by lawyers but also by general practitioners, specialists, surgeons, engineers, surveyors, architects, planners and people in many other specialised fields. Without being able to call on those experts a person can be, and many are, deprived of justice. The cost of those experts is very expensive. All too often it has been left to the haphazard, voluntary and, in many cases, charitable efforts of experts in these various fields to determine whether an injured party has a remedy or not. That is as much a denial of a basic human right as that suffered by Mrs. Airey.

The opposing side in claims of this nature are the insurance companies. They can call upon all the degrees of expertise they require, and they do. They know the tricks of the trade and they play cat and mouse with unfortunate members of the public who are not in a position to have the very expensive expertise needed to prosecute many of these claims. With regard to accidents at work involving defects in very complex machinery and equipment, without the services of an engineer who is an expert in that field a person has little hope of success in a dispute claim with a large factory owner backed by and conducted by the insurance company.

The law centres as at present constituted would not be able to cope with the volume of work that would be required to service the members of the public in their needs for a free legal aid scheme. At present I can see no way out of this, but a comprehensive free legal aid scheme using solicitors in private practice should be set up. I suppose I should declare my interest as a solicitor in private practice. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the services of that group will be required in the initial stages at least unless and until a widely based and staffed number of centres can be provided with the expertise backup that is required to give them the teeth they need in complicated legal actions. A scheme of that nature was advocated and called for in the Pringle Report in 1977. It called for a comprehensive legal aid scheme covering all civil legal problems and it was described at that time as being of urgent necessity. The urgency of that necessity has not decreased since 1977. On the contrary, it has very much increased. The need for legal aid and advice is not confined to matters of cases in courts. The rights, liabilities and status of people is very much affected in modern society by the decisions of other tribunals which are not courts — the Employment Appeals Tribunal, the various social welfare tribunals and An Bord Pleanála. Legal aid and assistance to those in need is required and should be provided by the State as a matter of basic human rights for people who have to go before tribunals of that nature.

I want to comment on some of the institutions, for want of a better word, which come under the aegis of the Department of Justice. The Land Registry is one of them and the workings of the Land Registry in recent times——

My recollection is that there is nothing specific in this Supplementary Estimate relative to the Land Registry. Accordingly, will you make a very brief comment on it but do not set a headline which would allow other people to stray too far from the present debate?

You were not here this morning when Deputy Collins ranged far and wide over a variety of matters. He spent at least half-an-hour on the question of drugs, which has even less relevance to the debate and he was permitted to do that.

In so far as he related the drug problem to the provision here for the gardaí who are involved in it, it could be relevant. If the Deputy can relate his intended references to the Land Registry then it would be in order.

I can because Item A.1. on the Supplementary Estimate refers to salaries, wages and allowances in the Department. I was about to say that the degree of service being provided in the Land Registry in one respect, namely, the completion of papers and dealings that are lodged there, leaves a lot to be desired. In many cases delays in that office are running to three, six, nine or even 12 months. I do not know if that unacceptable situation is due to the deployment of staff, the adjustment of staff, the need for additional staff or some other reason. As this comes under the aegis of the Minister's Department he should have a look at the situation.

Unacceptable delays are taking place in very many courts. The old saying goes: "Justice delayed is justice denied". In the High Court, particularly, the situation is quite incredible, with time lags of from two to four years occurring from the time of a case being got under way to the actual hearing. That is entirely unacceptable.

The premises of the Registry of Deeds in Henrietta Street also come within the Minister's ambit, forming as they do part of the King's Inns premises. The procedure adopted in the Registry of Deeds are so antiquated that it is high time that the administration of that Department was reviewed. The present system was brought in by an Act passed in the reign of Queen Anne, if I remember rightly, and the procedures followed there have changed very little since. Some slight improvements have been introduced by permitting the memorials of the documents filed there to be typed rather than handwritten, but very many major improvements could be provided with the use of modern techniques. The Minister might look at the question of permitting photocopies of documents in lieu of preparing a separate memorial document for lodgment there. The premises themselves leave much to be desired. They are very old, incommodious and inadequate. I wonder that the staff working there have not complained bitterly about their conditions; perhaps they have. It is desirable that the Registry of Deeds should move inwards somewhere towards the Four Courts building and that a more modern building be provided in place of the present draughty, old and inadequate building.

I congratulate the Minister, in his absence, on his appointment and wish him every success in his post which, as the former Minister pointed out, is a very difficult one. We on this side of the House will try to be contructive in every respect.

We were dealing this morning with the Supplementary Estimates for the Office of the Minister for Justice. Those of us who have been previously in the House are aware that Supplementary Estimates are not unusual. I think I am correct in saying that practically every Department submits Supplementary Estimates around this time of the year. The Minister tried to make some capital out of the fact that he felt it necessary to introduce now a Supplementary Estimate and alleged that the previous Government had not estimated correctly or accurately and had completely under-financed the Department. As we all know, that is not so. It is, however, relevant to make this point and to remind the Minister of it.

Recently, we were circularised with a report on crime for the year 1980. The facts which emerged from that report make very distasteful reading. The serious rise in crime in this country and particularly in Dublin city engenders many fears and anxieties. Late last year and early in 1981 the number of armed robberies, for instance, had decreased but these are once more on the increase. The figures for the past three months were given here this morning and must cause concern to all those involved, the Department of Justice, the garda and, particularly, the public.

During 1970, for example, according to figures released some time ago, there were approximately 31,000 indictable offences but in ten years that figure has increased to 73,000—a staggering increase of something like of 135 per cent to 140 per cent. During the same period the number of murder offences increased by a further 122 per cent. These figures can only make staggering reading and cause us tremendous concern. This report indicates a reduction in the detection rate. In 1970 the detection rate was 50 per cent and in 1980 that dropped to 40 per cent. In calculating percentages one must take into consideration the very large increase in the number of offences between 1970 and 1980. While the number of offences detected during that period increased very sharply, unfortunatley the percentage for the overall figure decreased.

During the period from 1977 to 1981, the strength of the Garda force increased from something in the region of 8,000 to 10,500. There is not a Member in this House who will not concede that a very substantial further increase is absolutely necessary, by reason of the rise in crime about which we read daily in the newspapers and which we see happening on our streets. It is obvious that if the forces of law and order are to combat crime with any degree of success, the number of Gardaí must be increased substantially. Financial considerations are very important but should be secondary as far as keeping law and order is concerned.

The previous Government gave a very serious commitment to increase the manpower of the Garda Síochána. I hope the new Government will keep that commitment. It would be a very shortsighted measure to do otherwise. It is therefore rather disappointing to note from the Minister's speech today that the Government have decided to recruit only 300 new gardaí. We gave a commitment to increase the force by up to 2,000 members, 1,000 within a very short time with a total of 2,000 over a longer period. I am sorry to note that the Minister has decided that an urgent increase of 1,000 members is not necessary. Statistics should convince him otherwise.

The Minister, who is a Dublin Deputy, should be well aware of the high rate of crime in this city and the shortage of gardaí in many areas. We have only to pick up the evening newspapers any day to see what is happening. The Evening Press yesterday evening had several headings on the front page such as “Man Hurt In City Payroll Van Robbery” and “Mother-to-be tied-up In Raid.” Inside the same paper there is a headline “Garda Overtime Cut Urged.” The article under this heading indicates that the garda have been informed that due to the economic measures taken by the Government certain cutbacks will have to take place in the Garda Síochána. It also states that in some city districts individual officers have already implemented cutbacks in overtime and some rank and file members have alleged that the crime detection rate has suffered. The new Government do not seem to appreciate that it is absolutely vital to give the Garda every support to ensure that the level of crime is reduced substantially.

The Minister told us today about a slowing down in the training process at the Templemore centre. Apparently it will not be possible to take in new people for training until next February. There is very little excuse for such a long delay. People engaged in any type of administration know that it does not take up to six months to recruit new people for training in the Garda force or elsewhere. When we were in Government it took a much shorter time to bring 300 recruits into Templemore.

Dublin is particularly bad as far as crime and law-breaking are concerned. In 1980, 58 per cent of the crimes committed took place in the Dublin area. The number of assaults on gardaí is rising each year. It is unfortunate that the courts do not support the Garda when serious crimes like this come before them. The public are very concerned about the growth in the number of assaults on gardaí

Reference has also been made this morning to the drug problem. This is a very serious situation. The statistics for 1979-80 show that there has been an increase of 67 per cent in the number of charges in relation to drugs. The previous Minister for Justice referred today to the fact that we have only 25 members in the Drug Squad. This is the total number involved over a 24-hour period. When we make allowance for the fact that those people operate on a shift basis and that during the day members of the squad must be present in the courts to give evidence in the case of drug offences we realise how few are left on the streets. If we divide 25 by three we get eight plus one and after we make allowance for the matters I have mentioned this reduces the squad to about three members on duty at a particular time. This is not adequate and does not indicate that the drug problem is being taken seriously by the authorities.

War should be declared on drug abuse and drug crimes especially in Dublin where the problem has escalated in recent years. Drug abuse has spread all around us in colleges, schools, clubs and on the streets. If a person goes down particular streets in Dublin between 7 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. any night pushers can be seen quite openly pushing drugs. What is happening? Our young people who are victims of this type of traffic do not see any member of the Drug Squad because the squad is inadequate to deal with the problem. The population of Dublin is almost one million people. People in their right senses understand that it is totally unrealistic to expect that the small number of Gardaí who are specialising in drugs can curtail or control the problem to any significant degree.

I appeal to the Minister to give priority to this problem. As Deputy Birmingham will agree, we discussed this matter very recently at a Dublin Corporation city council meeting. Some of the experiences related to members of the council by experts at that meeting showed in depth how serious the problem is. Unless some strong definite action is taken, not in the near future but now, we will have a problem on our hands which we will not be able to solve.

Another aspect of this problem is the absence of any knowledge on the part of many adults, and parents in particular, about drugs. An education programme is required. Perhaps it could be organised by the Drugs Squad through schools and colleges for the pupils and through residential associations for parents and adults, or through parents' groups in schools. It is vital for parents to understand exactly the difference between different types of drugs. The terms "hard drugs" and "soft drugs" are used very frequently. To many adults these are only words. They have not the remotest idea of the difference between one drug and another. I am not suggesting that any drug is better than another. I condemn totally the use of all drugs. Education is vitally necessary for parents so that they will be able to communicate with their teenage children, understand how serious the problem can be, and talk to their offspring about drug abuse. In that way it might be easier to find some solution in some cases in a family context.

I should like to see greater security in regard to the smuggling of drugs at our seaports and airports. The checking procedures are not strong enough. There are no visible signs of any thorough check at the ports. As we all know, it is very simple for people to carry a very large volume of valuable drugs on their persons. We must find some more sophisticated means of detecting persons carrying any type of drugs. I advocated previously that we should look at the experience in some of the continental countries where they use sniffer dogs for this purpose. The authorities must look at some new methods of detection.

It is very obvious that drug peddling between countries is now a major form of traffic. Ireland is no exception. We will not escape from this type of dealing. We are new to the market for many dealers. They look upon us as a growing market, and a market in which they have become very interested. That is precisely what is happening today. As a country we can never spend too much money to protect our young people against drugs. Anybody who has witnessed the effects and the traumatic experience of those who have taken drugs, and of the parents of children who have been involved, will agree that no matter how tight our financial resources might be, this is an area in which we should not cut back in any way. We should invest as much as possible for the good of our community and our young people.

The Estimate includes a specified amount for protective equipment for the Garda. Recent events have shown us how important it is that the right type of equipment and clothing should be used by the Garda, particularly during riots and civil commotion. During the most recent and serious riots in Ballsbridge some months ago, we saw that the batons used by the Garda to defend themselves were totally inadequate against the weapons of the rioters. Subsequently I saw a report that longer batons were being purchased for the Garda to use in such circumstances. Obviously this is just one aspect of what is badly required in the context of proper equipment and clothing for our forces.

There has been greater experience of civil riots in other countries including one not very far from here. We should learn from the experience of the forces of those countries. For example, the RUC in Northern Ireland have discarded certain types of equipment which they used initially in the early parts of the seventies. They found this equipment dangerous and cumbersome and inclined to make the forces using it immobile in certain circumstances. Therefore they were in greater danger in riots and so on.

Fire proof clothing is an absolute necessity in the times we are living in. I know the Minister will be pursuing this line and looking at all the possibilities to ensure that our Garda are adequately protected in the event of future civil commotion arising. Naturally we all have a tremendous pride in our police force. They have served the country extremely well over the years. They have acted very impartially in every respect. The ordinary citizen has a very high respect and a very high regard for the members of our Garda. Therefore it is disappointing — perhaps it is an Irish trait — that a garda may find himself in difficulties in a street brawl or something like that and members of the public ignore what is taking place, pass on and mind their own business. That is happening much more frequently now in attacks on ordinary citizens.

Inner city violence is one of our major problems. Daily we have muggings. We have an increasing number of assaults and robberies in our own city. There are not enough garda on duty on the beat. It is very difficult for any sophisticated methods to equal the effect of gardaí walking about. In other countries they are now reverting to putting more and more of their police on the beat. This can be much more effective. It instils greater confidence in citizens and in the event of a robbery or assault it is easier for the Garda to apprehend the persons concerned.

In this city there are a number of districts that have been described as "no go" areas. We should not tolerate this kind of situation in any circumstances. It is absolutely vital that we take steps to end it and no effort should be spared. If these "no go" areas were to spread throughout the city we would have a serious problem on our hands and it would make life unbearable for the citizens who must go about their daily business.

There has been a considerable increase in the number of road accidents and we know that a major cause is excessive alcohol. We have many laws regarding the drunken driver, the condition of vehicles and the wearing of seat belts about which legislation was enacted not long ago. Yet, many of our laws are being broken day after day. For example, how many times have we seen motorists practically footless getting into cars outside pubs and lounges and driving away? This kind of crime is as bad as that of the persons who goes out deliberately to cause injury to another party. I do not think sufficient control is being exercised with regard to drunken drivers. There is the breathalyser but its use in many areas is more exceptional than normal. I should like greater efforts to be made in this area and greater vigilance exercised by the Garda so far as drunken driving is concerned. It is a major contributory factor to most road accidents that occur, particularly at weekends. One has only to take up the newspapers on Sunday to read of the many accidents that occurred on the previous night, usually between 11.00 p.m. and 3.00 a.m. Most of these accidents involved persons who were under the influence of alcohol.

In the debate this morning Deputy Mervyn Taylor referred to free legal aid. Legislation was passed some time ago with regard to this matter but the position is not completely satisfactory. The service must be extended considerably. In my constituency there is the Coolock Legal Aid Centre. The centre has been doing excellent work for a number of years but it has financial problems at the moment. I know the people concerned have been in consultation with the Minister and his officials and that representations have been made by local Deputies. I should like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister to give serious consideration to their application for a grant.

The Deputy may not be aware that a grant of £22,000 has been paid to the centre.

A grant was paid that had been passed by the former Government. As Deputy Birmingham will be aware, the centre made representations recently to the Minister but without success — unless, of course, there has been some success in the past 24 hours of which Deputy Birmingham may be aware but I am not. Again, this comes back to the political situation.

I should prefer that we avoid the political situation and proceed with consideration of the Supplementary Estimate, as the Deputy has been doing.

I thought it relevant to make a passing reference to the centre without getting involved in any political point. I am sure that in future circumstances Deputy Birmingham and I will combine our efforts very successfully.

I regard the figure of 300 new gardaí as totally inadequate and I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter. In Dublin city we need many more than that. I presume the number involved will be for the purpose of filling vacancies throughout the country but we need more than that in Dublin. The figure proposed by the previous Government was much closer to requirements. I urge the Minister to reconsider his decision.

I should like to make particular reference to the question of equipment and clothing. Obviously the budget has affected that matter considerably, particularly with regard to VAT. The cost of transport has been increased substantially. In this instance the Garda Sióchána are no exception. It will cost the Department of Justice much more to furnish the Garda with the equipment that is so badly needed to continue the fight against crime in this city and in the country.

On the question of transport, unfortunately there have been a number of accidents involving Garda cars. I refer to the problem that exists when gardaí chase a car thief. There are mixed feelings about what should be done in those circumstances. The garda on the spot is faced with the decision whether to pursue the thief or vandal. If he decides to take positive action, this will place citizens in a certain amount of jeopardy.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn