Having listened to the two previous speakers and having attempted to interpret the various submissions that we have all received from the interested bodies during the past few weeks, it is my intention, as a non-legal person, to deal with the Bill only in its broadest terms.
I recognise the need for a new Criminal Justice Bill but in introducing such legislation we must not ignore the underlying reasons for the increase in crime in recent years. I do not agree with the easy response that public opinion is in favour of a crackdown on crime and that consequently these new measures must be welcomed. Public opinion is very fickle so that while a Government may be applauded at one stage for the introduction of certain measures they can be condemned later for having introduced those same measures. Therefore, it is silly to take advantage of the increase in the rate of crime in order to give a free hand to the Government to put the Bill through the House. I do not wish to be taken as saying that there is no need for the Bill but I am making the point that I have reservations about certain sections in it.
The Bill has been introduced against the background of a steady increase in crime. I recall speaking at the Speakers Club in Cork more than 12 months ago when the theme of the debate was the triumph of crime. For the purposes of my contribution I had to rely on the figures that had been released for the previous year, 1981. These figures showed that there was a 23 per cent increase in crime compared with the 1980 figures and that the biggest increase, 27 per cent, was in respect of larcenies. As the Bill was introduced here we received the report of the Garda Commissioner concerning the crime figures for 1982. This showed a further 10 per cent increase in the figures. What was most disturbing was that it showed that 5.7 per cent of the population in Dublin as against 3 per cent in Cork were involved in crime. Unfortunately, the increase is greater in the urban areas and Cork is no exception in that respect.
In examining the statistics we find that many of the crimes committed were against the least protected and the least well off, against the aged and the young. In the urban areas car stealing and drug pushing are now major problems but many of these crimes can be attributed to social problems. A previous speaker said that we were one of the most policed states in the world. He gave figures to indicate that we have three policemen per 1,000 of the population as against a figure of 1.8 in the US.
In stemming the increase in crime we must find a solution for some of the social problems that lead to crime. I take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation to the Minister for Justice for granting us permission, after many years, for two further Garda stations in the Gurranabraher and Mayfield areas of Cork.
There are many factors that are said to lead to crime. It can be said that crime results either from personal, environmental or economic stress. I find that a good deal of crime resulting from personal stress is committed because of a breakdown in family units and very much because of a breakdown in parental control. Some of the cases that I have come across resulted from drink problems within the family. On the question of environmental stress, I am amazed at the cutbacks at local authority level in spending on recreational facilities. Any such cutback is shortsighted because it has been proved that the availability of these facilities is a major factor in keeping young people on the straight and narrow. The major problem of unemployment is the biggest contributing factor so far as economic stress is concerned. Lack of employment is the cause of so many young people engaging in crime. Talking of young people, I think we must all agree that drug abuse is one of the major sources of concern. This is a problem that has been increasing in recent years. The figures in respect of the seizure of drugs is a good barometer of the demand for them. In 1981 there were 1,200 seizures and in 1982 the corresponding figure was 1,900. The recent seizure of drugs in Dublin and in the south-east prove that there is a huge demand for drugs.
I am glad that the Government are facing up to this very serious drugs problem. The setting up of the Special Task Force and the issuing of their findings are to be welcomed. In regard to preventing the importation and sale of drugs, we could fall into the trap of spending vast amounts of money in this way while avoiding tackling the underlying factors that contribute to drug abuse. However, the task force are placing a high reliance on health education in this whole area. They are in favour of health education being added to all school curricula. The underlying principle when dealing with drugs is that we must eliminate the need for and reduce the number of people using drugs. There must be no future for the drug pusher.
I know that I have deviated slightly from the reasons for the increase in crime. In getting back to the main point we must divide crime into categories: offences against property and offences against the person. More often than not the person who commits a crime against the person has graduated from less serious crime against property. Offences against property are usually in the form of vandalism and petty theft such as shoplifting. I came across some very interesting figures recently when talking to some people involved in shop security. The major incidence of shoplifting occurs among young people from 12 to 16 years of age on their way home from school. That statement indicates ever-decreasing parental control. It must be obvious to parents that goods coming into the home cannot be purchased by the children who bring them in. After the age of 16 the incidence of shoplifting decreases. Another interesting point was that the incidence of shoplifting increases in females over the age of 36 for some reason or other. Perhaps somebody will do a thesis on the reasons for these figures at some stage.
In dealing with offences against the person we are dealing with robbery with violence and personal assaults. This type of offence is increasing alarmingly in both urban and rural areas and our present system is not successful in preventing this type of crime, though we must give due credit to the Garda: the detection rate is high, the figure given to me is something like 70 per cent detection.
Why is crime increasing and what can be done? One of the reasons crime is on the increase is that the State is becoming more divided between the advantaged and disadvantaged. I have said that before now and I have no hesitation in saying it again. Real poverty is becoming far more widespread than it was previously. Poverty is not just the lack of money. It must be defined and it was defined very well in a thesis put forward by Townsend in 1979 when he dealt with poverty in the UK. He said that poverty was a lack of command of resources, including cash, income, material assets and publicly organised services such as housing and education, so extreme that the individual, family or person involved is excluded from minimum acceptable ordinary living patterns, customs and activities. That is dealing with poverty in the widest sense. Poverty in the form of lack of job opportunities, unemployment, and poverty in the form of lack of recreational facilities must be behind the increase in crime.
Unless persons committing the less serious types of offences are weaned off crime at an early stage they will graduate quickly to more serious crime and will eventually graduate to serious crime against the individual or person. Crime can be prevented only by tackling the social, environmental and recreational conditions that encourage crime in the first place. A report from the NESC in 1981 on the problems of urbanisation stated that, if cities do not begin to deal constructively with crime, crime will deal destructively with cities. We must all agree with that. Therefore, the basic causes of poverty must be eliminated. As long as people are deprived of basic job opportunities and basic recreational facilities the temptation to indulge in minor crime and then far more serious crime will be too great to overcome. To date, unfortunately, the factors underlying poverty have not been successfully tackled, and with the increase in unemployment and the neglect shown by local authorities in the provision of basic facilities it seems that this country is destined to see an ever-increasing rise in the crime rate.
It also seems that successive Governments have not been prepared to deal in a humane way with the causes of criminality as our present courts system is geared to a more punitive solution, and to me as a lay person it does not seem to have a great awareness of why people revert time and time again to crime. Also it is accepted that the experience gained at an early stage in crime means that a person becomes more and more involved in it. The legal and judicial systems as we have seen them in operation in recent times are not helping the situation. We need a courts system that will deal swiftly with hardened criminals, sentences should be served fully and, as the previous speaker, Deputy O'Dea, said, this is not happening at present, and he put forward his own solutions for that.
The system of bail is totally unsatisfactory. Figures show that many crimes are committed by individuals on bail. I welcome the measure in the Bill which relates to this matter and I will deal with it later when dealing with the sections.
Before dealing with the Bill itself I must say that a number of unusual and inconsistent judicial decisions recently do not inspire public confidence in the administration of justice or in the Judiciary's determination to stamp out crime. We all must demand that a greater discipline be present within the structure of the legal profession. Greater use must be made by the courts of professional services, such as psychologists and welfare officers. This is beginning to happen. Unfortunately, there is a belief among the public at present that we operate a two-tier system of justice and, even though high standards are expected in high places, the public are saying to me—and I as a public representative must listen—that they are not getting these high standards they are expecting.
Dealing with the judicial system, which must be looked at in dealing with the overall problem of crime, the archaic ways of Irish justice are now notorious. There is a belief among the public that they are enjoyed by those who are part of the system and detested by those who are denied justice because they cannot afford the costs or have not the resources or knowledge to use the system. Unfortunately, calls for reform of the system are made from time to time but these calls are quickly swallowed up and have been stonewalled by the legal system itself and — shame on us — killed by the indifference of political parties who tend to treat law reform as a technical issue of no great electoral appeal. Not being an expert in the legal profession and having no legal knowledge, I am not trying to wash my hands of this but I am greatly handicapped in attempting to grasp this problem. One finds it hard to get advice on how to approach it and one meets also great resentment from the profession.
However, it is obvious that certain action must be taken. There must be a section within the Department of Justice to look at legal services in general, especially legal costs, and the manner in which barristers and solicitors operate the system. I should like to know what is the real role of the Law Reform Commission. They seem to have inadequate resources and my impression — the impression of a layman who happens to be a politician — is that they are just fiddling around with minor issues. They are not tackling the real problems of the legal system. They will only tackle controversial issues when they are dumped upon them because of the weight of public opinion.
In my short time as a public representative — three years, of which I have spent two years in this House — I have had many complaints in relation to the administration of justice. In the last session when I spoke here about the performance of judges I was told there is a tradition that we do not criticise the Judiciary. There is a fear that by being critical we may undermine the whole system. I can see the dangers inherent in this and I accept that point but it must not prevent us from having a critical look at the matter.
I cannot understand the traditions of this House with regard to the Judiciary. Members of the judiciary are not doing a job that is different to that done by most other people. To me they are the distributors of justice, as the bread delivery man is the distributor of bread. Justice is a public service and it must be administered fairly and consistently. The public must be informed of what monitoring takes place with regard to the performance of judges and if no monitoring takes place they must be told the reason. Such monitoring is carried out in other countries. I should like the Minister in his reply to deal with this problem. It is part of the reason there is disrespect for the law and, as a result, an increase in the crime rate. I should also like to know what formal training justices are given before they are appointed, in addition to their qualification as barrister or solicitor.
My own impression is that a big mistake was made when the State was founded when we took on the British judicial system instead of looking at the American and continental systems. In my brief examination of the different systems I found there was much in other systems that would be attractive to our way of life. However, I know there are other aspects of continental justice that would be alien to us and this point was mentioned earlier by Deputy Molony. The system in Britain was a throw-back to the 17th century, but in fairness to that country they have set out to streamline the system. However, we have taken very little action in this area. A total review of civil procedures is long overdue. As was pointed out by my colleagues from Cork, the symptoms of the problems have surfaced. There have been long delays in the High Court and in the Circuit Courts, especially in the Cork region. Such delays are intolerable and are causing severe hardship to people.
The position as it affects Cork has been clearly set out already. Much poverty and hardship has been caused to certain families, especially where the bread-winner has been affected by an accident. It is tragic and is a reflection on everyone that the way of life of a family can be affected for years because we cannot streamline the administration of justice. There has been a failure on the part of State agencies to provide an adequate service and I am asking that this be dealt with as soon as possible. I have had discussions with the Minister for Justice and there has been an indication from him that he is committed to improving the situation as soon as possible. However, every month that goes by increases the suffering of people throughout the country, and especially in my city, Cork.
I should like to support fully the statement made by Deputy Lenihan in this House on 16 November when he said that, however welcome the principle of the Criminal Justice Bill, it acts only as an umbrella. I echo his sentiments that the real work will have to be in the area of administrative performance. In other words, the work methods of the Garda Síochána must be more effective, the prisons must be able to cater adequately for those convicted and the courts and the judicial system must work in an efficient manner. This means better training, more sophisticated equipment, greater manpower and a more sophisticated approach by the Garda.
In the area of the courts we need more court sittings, more judges and more courtrooms. Cases must be brought to trial more speedily. The time is long overdue for the reform of our legal and judicial systems. This can only be achieved by the efforts of all concerned, including the Incorporated Law Society and the body representing the barristers. Avoidable delays and unnecessary expense must be identified and there must be consultations between lawyers and other users of the system. I cannot understand why people who may be affected by the system are not consulted and brought into the decision-making process. I see a role for a body such as the Confederation of Irish Industry who are affected by outmoded legal practices and I cannot understand why they are not brought into the consultation process.
Law reform should be an ongoing process, but at the moment it is hardly moving. Although complaints abound, there is no momentum for reform from industry, politicians or those utilising the system. There is a responsibility on all concerned, including industry, to indicate clearly their requirements. There is an onus on politicians to provide the procedures that will enable legislation to be passed quickly. I know from statements made this week by the President of the Incorporated Law Society that at long last they are committed — in theory at least, I have yet to see what they will do in practice — to law reform and to look into the working procedures of their members. I hope everyone involved will tackle this serious problem. Otherwise the confidence of the public in our legal structures will evaporate.
I have dealt at length with the question of examining the underlying reasons for the increase in the crime rate. It was strange to hear a previous speaker, a member of my party, state that the unemployment problem is one which no Government can successfully tackle, but the problem of law and order is one which should and must be resolved. Despite the new Criminal Justice Bill and the increases in the Garda force, there will be no resolution of our crime situation until our social problems are dealt with.
Since the publication of this Bill every Deputy has been lobbied by various opinions. People have expressed their fear and mistrust and are of the opinion that the trust which has been slowly built up between the community and the Garda will be eroded because of this Bill. Deputy O'Dea mentioned community policing, a suggestion put forward by one of the Garda representative bodies earlier this year. This whole area must be looked at and I hope the Minister will deal with it and give his views sometime.
There was a debate in Cork last year where it was said that crime was triumphing. I must agree with that. It is against that background and the background that our laws are not effective and were not designed to deal with the present problem that this Bill was introduced. However, in drafting new laws we must ensure that we do not impinge on the rights of individuals. We must deal with the problems facing us by bringing about social justice and not by narrowing people's personal liberties.
As a lay person I will attempt to deal with this Bill. I have studied the briefs given to me and have tried to put in written form what I believe to be correct. In dealing with this Bill, in case an impression is given to the contrary, I must express my admiration for our Garda force who are unarmed and have won the admiration of the world because of their commitment to the implementation of law. Many gardaí have lost their lives because of that commitment. The Garda have insufficient manpower and technology and have been doing a very good job. There have been exceptions, but there are bad members in every profession and organisation. Despite all the drawbacks, the Garda have served the country well and have behaved admirably in carrying out their duties.
The Minister introduced this Bill some weeks ago and all Members must compliment him for his application to the job to which he was appointed. We have heard a great deal of talk about the need for a new Criminal Justice Bill. Each of the Minister's predecessors has been either unwilling or did not apply himself to bring a Bill before the House. I am also pleased to note that the Minister is committed to tackling this problem of crime. He put forward his views in his speech but he said he was prepared to listen to proposals and amendments from the House. I hope he is.
First, I will deal with the sections of the Bill which I welcome. I have already dealt with sections 9 to 11 which deal with offences committed while the accused is on bail. I welcome them because they were long overdue. Sections 12 and 13 deal with the theft of motor cars and offences involving firearms. These measures are long overdue because the incidence of armed robbery with violence involving stolen cars is on the increase. This pastime which is indulged in by so many young people in our urban areas has to be stopped. Therefore an increase in penalties may be a deterrent. I cannot understand how car manufacturers have failed to lessen the incidence of car thefts. It is beyond belief that we can put people on the moon but we cannot solve this problem. We are told that the micro-chip and new technology have brought new inventions but we are still left with the problem of car thefts. Even new cars coming on the market have the old fashioned steering lock appliances which are useless. We must look at the standards of car assembly and either the Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism or the Minister for Justice must insist that the new technology at our disposal be applied to this very serious problem.
Section 19 deals with trial procedures and covers the situation where an accused puts forward an alibi. Under this Bill he must give notice of his intention to do so. This is a welcome departure from the present practice because the introduction of last minute alibis was undesirable and had to be stopped.
Section 24 deals with the proposal to adopt majority verdicts in criminal jury trials. This too is welcome but the safeguard is still there because we require ten out of 12 jury members to convict. Section 26 deals with the introduction of tape recording and video recording of interviews in Garda stations. I find that hard to understand. I acknowledge that there must be safeguards to protect the individual, but in the case of most minor crimes now, the Garda will find it very difficult to get even an admission of guilt because we will have a very formalised situation.
A point I overlooked but which Deputy Molony made me aware of, is that this proposal will be introduced later; it is not to be introduced in this part of the Bill. I would like the Minister to clarify that point further and to go into it in more detail in his reply.
Now I will deal with the sections which caused me some problems. Before I deal with section 3 I would like to quote Sergeant John O'Brien who wrote in the recent Garda Review:
Compounding all the difficulties faced by the Gardaí was the lack of any powers of detention except those included in the Offences Against the State Act, 1939 for a narrow schedule of offences which, incidentally, did not include murder. So Gardaí found themselves in the situation where there was very little power of detention and no power to put leading questions to a suspected person and require a response to be given. All this while being subject to the most microscopic scrutiny in the Courts of Law and all against the background of a steadily increasing crime rate and falling detection rate. In consequence of this situation criminals were able to go free simply by refusing to answer any questions or offer explanation and slowly but surely this strategy was adopted by all leading criminals. In short, the criminal had to be caught red-handed before there was a likelihood of conviction. Evidence gathered as a result of interview by the garda was badly hampered and evidence procured in this way was usually contested vigorously and often outrageously at the subsequent trial.
This statement by Sergeant O'Brien gives the impression that at present gardaí have no powers of detention. The statement may have been made in all sincerity but it gives the wrong impression. My information is that in 70 per cent of cases brought to court there is either a signed statement or a verbal admission. Another statistic is that 15 per cent of criminals are caught red-handed and 20 per cent of professional criminals cannot be convicted due to other factors. The statement in the Garda Review that the Garda need to be able to detain people in order to question them is not borne out by these facts.
Criminal cases may be divided into three categories — minor offences, non-minor offences and offences against the State. The latter cases are tried in the Special Criminal Court and minor offences are tried in the District Court. All non-minor offences except murder and treason are tried in the Circuit Criminal Court or, at the option of the Director of Public Prosecutions, in the Central Criminal Court. In non-minor offences the procedure consists of a preliminary examination in the District Court and if the justice is satisfied that a sufficient case has been made by the DPP he returns the accused to the appropriate Circuit Criminal Court or the Central Criminal Court for trial, except in the extremely rare cases where the accused pleads guilty in the District Court. In this case the DPP is obliged to prepare and serve on the accused and the District Court a book of evidence. This contains statements of evidence by the various witnesses and any written or verbal confession by the accused.
The Garda argue that at present they have no opportunity to question the suspect once he has been arrested, but it appears that 70 per cent of books of evidence contain either written or verbal confessions. I find it hard to understand the reasons for increased powers of detention. I would ask the Minister to say how many books of evidence produced by the DPP since the establishment of this office in 1974 contain written or verbal confessions. Would the Minister be prepared to obtain this information from the office of the DPP through the auspices of the Attorney General's office? I should also like to know what percentage of books of evidence contain direct evidence of criminals being caught red-handed by the Garda. Could the Minister give information on the other books of evidence produced and the type of evidence put forward in these cases? I want to find out whether my information is correct and to reconcile the contradictory statement that the Garda need these powers in order to get written or verbal admissions while 70 per cent of books of evidence already contain written or verbal confessions.
The Minister might also state how many cases of trial by jury in the Central Criminal Court since the establishment of the office of DPP in 1974 where an alleged confession, either written or verbal, has been challenged on the grounds of oppression or violence have the jury acquitted or disagreed on the verdict. Has the Minister given careful consideration to the effects of the proposed changes on the jury who will be determining a case? If under present laws there are more acquittals and disagreements, does it not naturally follow that the problems raised by the carrying out of the new proposals will be greater unless we have satisfactory or acceptable corroborative evidence? I am trying to put the matter in the best way I can. If some of the terminology used is inaccurate, the questions are still valid.
This leads to the question of access to a solicitor under a section 3 detention. The presence of a solicitor is necessary and the use of electronic equipment is essential, despite some reservations I have about it. The presence of such equipment may at times make the whole procedure so formalised that it will be impossible to get the simplest statement on a minor matter. The primary concern in a criminal trial will be to satisfy the requirements of a jury, having regard to the principle of fairness and fair procedures. The intention of all of us is to enhance the prospect of securing convictions and we must take special care to consider the real requirements of juries. The evidence offered to a jury will be written or verbal confessions or the conclusions reached by different people from the facts established in the case. If under the present system juries are reluctant to rely on confessions, it follows that their apprehension will increase proportionately because of the increased powers of the Garda. The procedure will be counter-productive in dealing with serious crime, especially when one remembers that the jury must be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt of the guilt of the person before them. We must remove such doubt because failure to do so could precipitate an even greater crisis in the criminal justice system.
When a citizen is detained the garda in charge has to inform him of his right to consult a solicitor. I may be going into some detail which would be more appropriate on Committee Stage, but it is important to air this at an early stage. The accused has to be informed of his right to consult a solicitor. If a prisoner requests the garda to contact Mr. X who is a solicitor, there is an onus on the garda to contact that solicitor as soon as possible. In recent weeks I have spoken to gardaí and lawyers and people who have been involved with the law, and the impression I got was that many arrests are made late in the evening, or outside the business hours of solicitors. My impression may be mistaken but I think I am correct.
What does "as soon as possible" mean in those circumstances? Does it mean the solicitor is notified after the period of detention has expired? If so, the safeguard in section 4 becomes meaningless. If the prisoner is informed of his right to consult a solicitor and makes no such request to the garda, he is free at his trial to allege that he was not informed of his right, or that he requested a consultation and the garda refused to comply with his request. I presume that, in a situation like that, the statement of the accused would be contradicted and the garda would be supported by other members of the Garda. The jury would have difficulty in coming to a conclusion. Therefore, it is important that a very critical appraisal should be carried out on the operation of the proposed system.
As a result of the question marks over the application of the section, we have a responsibility to make sure that it is modified. The solicitor requested may be unavailable, and I suggest that a panel of solicitors should be available on a 24-hour basis. A solicitor would then have access to the prisoner and he could ensure that the prisoner was not placed at a disadvantage in relation to the Garda. If this were done the Garda would have a stronger hand in trying to convince the jury that everything that needed to be done was done, and the rights of the individual were protected. Before the Bill is passed, the Incorporated Law Society should indicate that they will ask their members to be available to serve on such a panel.
Deputy Molony dealt at length with the whole question of detention. I am surprised that the Ó Briain Report has been ignored and that no safeguard has been introduced to protect gardaí and the people detained against subsequent allegations of abuse. Deputy Molony mentioned the question of custodial guardians. That suggestion in the Ó Briain Report has to be looked at by the Minister, and the Minister has to give some reasons why he has ignored that recommendation.
In relation to the procedures for bringing hardened criminals before the courts, I am worried about the fact that in practice people can be held for 20 hours in a Garda station even though the initial holding period is six hours. I will not detain the House by going through all the procedures. The legal profession have made a number of submissions on this Bill and I ask them to address themselves to the problems in those sections.
Section 16 has been dealt with adequately by Deputy Molony. I consider it a somewhat frightening measure which must be thought out a bit better than it has been to date. On my reading, it abolishes a fundamental right which exists at present and changes totally a basic principle in our present law. Deputy Molony raised certain serious questions which need to be answered.
To sum up my feelings on the Bill, some of the powers contemplated in it would not have been tolerated some years ago. Under the Bill people can be brought into Garda stations on suspicion and photographed and finger-printed. This is a very retrograde step, but unfortunately it is a sign of the times. People opposing this Bill must remember the ugliness which has prevailed in this country in recent years. We must not allow this ugliness to stampede us into taking steps we may regret later.
The public are demanding more effectiveness in the apprehending of criminals. The prevention of crime should be the operative words. Preventing crime by apprehending criminals and their organisations is very important, but it is also important to prevent crime by doing more work with people who commit crimes and with their victims. We must make sure that the parole and probation systems are such that a person is less likely to commit a crime again.
It has been said that prisons can be a university of crime where people learn more about crime while serving their sentences rather than how to avoid it. All members of the public are interested in making sure that their neighbourhoods are crime free. When we see a criminal being apprehended, we are not so much interested in what he will experience as punishment, as in whether he will get out and steal or injure people again. The Garda Force must be given help and support, and their educational standards and qualifications must be constantly improved as they have been in other countries. They must be seen to be part of the community and identified with it.
Deputy O'Keeffe dealt with that aspect in speaking about community policing, but more important is the prevention of the sources of crime — those factors operating in society which lead to families being disrupted or split up. What we require is a more professional approach to the prevention of crime, not talking off the tops of our heads. We must give the subject more thought than just the introduction of punitive measures. Steps must be taken which are based on fact and we must look at the lessons learned by other countries. We must turn our attention to families at risk where repeated episodes of crime take place and the Department of Justice must pay heed to the provision of services to all the children of such families if we are not to have crime continuing from generation to generation.
There is urgent need for the constant up-grading of the Garda and prison officers so that they are working on a prevention programme and not fighting society's more basic instincts by punitive measures. There is a grave need for the Minister to outline in detail his proposals for the introduction of a procedure for handling complaints against the Garda Síochána. This is in the interests of everybody including the Garda, because at times I get the impression that an effort is being made by a section of our community to undermine our confidence in the Garda. In fairness to the Garda force, to whom I have paid tribute earlier, these proposals must be spelt out in detail. More important, they have to be spelt out to every Member of this House so that we can come to a conclusion about this Bill.
I was glad to see, in one of the Garda magazines recently, that the Garda are on record as saying that they welcome the proposals and the procedures put forward for the handling of complaints against the Garda force by the Association of Civil Liberties and that they will accept the proposals put forward, with a few minor changes. It is most important, therefore, that the Minister spell out in detail his proposals.
