asked the Minister for Justice if his attention has been drawn to an editorial in the Garda Review criticising the recruitment and retraining of members of the Garda force and the steps he proposes to take to remedy the position.

Comments made in the editorial in question have already provoked criticism from a number of members of the Garda themselves. Moreover, the editor of the magazine, who of course was not necessarily the writer of the editorial, has since been at pains to point out that it was not intended to mean what at first sight it seemed to mean. I would, however, add a few additional points to help to keep matters in perspective.

First, the Garda Review is not an official organ of the Garda Síochána but is, for all practical purposes, the organ of the Representative Associations which are in effect staff associations. Its editorial content must also be read in that light and in the light of the fact that these associations have a duty to serve their member's interests, and I have no doubt that they would not themselves claim to be impartial any more than any sensible person would expect them to be so. However, making all allowances for that, I think that some of the language in the editorial was unfortunate.

Secondly, some published commentary arising from the editorial has tended to confuse two quite distinct matters, one being character or personality defects or the like and the other the matter of the educational attainments of candidates.

Any detailed consideration of those two issues would be beyond the reasonable compass of a reply to a parliamentary question but, on the comments that attracted so much attention with their references to "sorry base characters" and "rejects" from other organisations, the Commissioner has assured me that, both in his own judgment and in that of several senior officers whom he has consulted, today's recruits are at least as good as those of former years—that in all probability they are better. That is the central issue.

As to educational attainments, an issue which has arisen from the editorial is a suggestion that candidates should be required to have the leaving certificate. The facts are, firstly, that over 80 per cent of those coming into the force nowadays have the leaving certificate and, of those who have not, every single one is a candidate who has successfully competed in an open competitive written examination against people with the leaving certificate. What is perhaps even more to the point is that the standard of that examination and of the marking of the papers is high enough to produce the result that on the last occasion, namely, the examination from which we are now recruiting, over 300 candidates with leaving certificate actually failed.

It may also be of interest to note that while some—apparently a small minority—of foreign police forces have an entry requirement corresponding roughly to our leaving certificate, the standard applied here compares favourably with that applied for entry to many European police forces—for example, police forces in England, Scotland, Wales, Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Norway and Denmark. Many of those countries operate a higher level entry system as well—in other words a two-level entry system—but when a proposal for a system of this nature was, on my initiative, considered by the Ryan Committee it was strongly opposed by the Representative Associations. I am afraid that I do not accept the implied proposition that every single entrant to the basic grade of Garda must have a level of formal educational attainment higher than what is considered sufficient in the major European countries that I have mentioned. Still less could I agree when, as I have said, those without the leaving certificate—less than 20 per cent of current intake—have got better results in an open competitive examination than more than 300 candidates with leaving certificate.

Nothing in what I have said is meant to suggest that there is no need to keep both recruitment and training systems under constant review. There is such a need and it is in fact being done. In that connection I have already announced an important decision by the Government to set up a Garda College for higher training, which will be linked with the existing training institution in Templemore. I intend that, associated with that college, there will be an advisory council with both Garda and civilian participation to assist in ensuring that high standards will prevail in that new college both in terms of facilities such as text books, audio-visual aids and so on and in terms of programme content. Various aspects of the existing training scheme in Templemore are also under review at present with a view to securing improvements where such are feasible.

In all those areas I am prepared to give the most careful consideration to the views of the Representative Associations, who have facilities to give their views in complete detail through established machinery. They, for their part, I am sure appreciate that at the end of the day the responsibility for major policy decisions rests with me as Minister for Justice and with the Government and that those decisions must take account of many factors.

I welcome the Minister's decision to set up a Garda College. Will the structures of this college be in keeping with the recommendation of the Ryan Report regarding 14 months' postenlistment training for gardaí?

There may be some confusion here. The Ryan Committee advised on a training scheme for recruits, not on courses for higher officers which I mentioned in my reply.

I thought the Minister was referring to a training college for new recruits.

No. There is a training college for recruits in Templemore but in addition I have received permission from the Government to establish in the Templemore complex a training college for senior officers. It would provide intraining courses for officers, not for recruits.

Is it the Minister's intention to increase the training period for recruits from 20 weeks to 14 months as recommended by the Ryan Committee?

The recommendations of the Ryan Committee—and there are many—are at present being discussed at the Garda Conciliation Council where the Department of Justice, the Commissioner and the force membership are represented. Discussions on the recommendations and how they might be implemented are going on.

Without taking sides as to whether the remarks in the Garda Review are accurate or otherwise, surely it is an indication of unrest in the Garda that recruiting is not what it should be to combat the modern criminal. People have a constitutional right to protection. Many rural Garda barracks are unattended and people cannot gain access to make complaints. We need a substantial increase in the number of gardaí.

This is a long statement.

I am asking whether the Minister recognises the need for a substantial increase in the number of gardaí and the need to assist young men who wish to make a career in the Garda to become good officers.

Without wishing to be in any way disrespectful, I think the Deputy missed out on the main thrust of my reply. It must be recognised that every effort is being made by the Government to bring more people into the Garda. The House would agree that we have been successful to date in that regard and aware of the intention of the Government to see to it that more recruits are trained, thus making more gardaí available for duty. Due to the fact that the reply to the question was fairly lengthy, I suggest the Deputy is at a disadvantage in that he may not have clearly understood or kept up with what I was saying.

I acknowledge that the Minister has increased numbers but he is talking about increasing by dozens and I am talking about an increase of literally a couple of thousand. There is no point in increasing Garda numbers by a couple of dozen and hoping that all rural stations will be properly manned. When does the Minister intend to increase the number substantially to meet existing needs? What is the Minister doing to give young gardaí an opportunity to become good Garda officers?

With all due respect to the Deputy, he is trying to broaden the substance of the question to encompass a lot of different areas not catered for in the question. I believe the Deputy is confused, as he was when he misunderstood what I said about a training college, which was announced some months ago, for Garda officers and not for recruits. If the Deputy wishes to get information on plans for recruitment he should place a question on the Order Paper and I will deal with it.

Has the Minister not considered the fact that all the organisations representing the Garda continually refer to items in the Conroy Report which the Minister has not implemented. The survey commissioned by the National Coalition has not been implemented. In fact, the Minister has not even knocked the dust off that report. The editorial is indicative of the unrest in the Garda force and the Minister should recognise that.

The Deputy is making a statement rather than asking a question. This is a growing problem at Question Time.

I do not accept the criticism in Deputy Harte's supplementary.

And the Minister does not propose to do anything, or as little as he has been doing for the past three years.

There is no need for the Deputy to go on like that.

The Minister is operating on the same stop-go basis; appointing a couple of dozen.

I should like to tell the Deputy that in the first two years of my ministry more than 1,000 Garda recruits were taken on. In the two years prior to that the Deputy and his party had about 80 new recruits from Templemore. We should be honest about this matter. If the Deputy is anxious to get information and facts I will give them to him.

In 1969 the Fianna Fáil Government did not have two dozen gardaí to send on Border duty. It was the Fianna Fáil Government that allowed the Garda force to run down, not the National Coalition.

If the Deputy is serious about the questions he is putting to me I will answer him, but if he wishes to play politics with me I will oblige him some other time.

I am serious.

2.