Court Officers Bill, 1972 [Seanad]: Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mr. O'Malley)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This very short Bill is designed to allow time for consideration by the Government, and by both Houses of the Oireachtas, of comprehensive recommendations made by the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure in their sixteenth interim report. The recommendations, if implemented, will confer a substantially increased jurisdiction on the Master of the High Court. The committee are firmly of opinion that their proposals, if adopted, will result in a significant saving of the time of High Court judges. At the same time, the hearing of actions would be expedited, the procedure considerably improved and the cost of litigation reduced. Previous efforts to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Master of the High Court under rules of court met with little or no success, and the Master has now very little work to do. The view of the committee is that the office of Master of the High Court could be a most useful and valuable one in the administration of justice and that it should now be given proper statutory foundation.

Discussions with the various interests concerned on a scheme for a comprehensive Courts and Court Officers Bill are now almost completed. In addition to dealing with the jurisdiction of the Master of the High Court, the scheme contains a number of other provisions affecting the jurisdiction of the High Court and certain of the offices attached thereto.

In regard to the provision in the Bill now before the House, I should explain that the office of Master of the High Court fell vacant early in January. In the normal course of events the Government would have made an appointment to fill the vacancy. However, in anticipation of the vacancy arising in the office I had requested the committee to advise on the duties that ought to be assigned to the Master of the High Court and, with commendable speed, the committee furnished me with their report on the 13th January. Because of the extensive and detailed nature of the recommendations made I asked the Government to postpone the making of a fresh appointment pending consideration by them of the committee's recommendations and the preparation of legislation to implement them. If a new appointment were to be made now on the basis of the existing jurisdiction there might well be difficulties in having the proposed wider duties discharged by the new Master. The Government approved of this course, and the duties of the vacant office are being discharged, as occasion requires, by a Deputy Master appointed under section 27 of the Court Officers Act, 1926. However, a difficulty arises in that, under subsection (3) of the section, a vacant office to which the section applies may not be executed by a deputy for any period or periods exceeding in all three months in any year. Because of this restriction it appears that the appointment of a Deputy Master cannot be continued beyond the end of this month. Because of the comprehensive nature of the Courts and Court Officers Bill, it would not be possible to have the Bill enacted in time. In consequence the Government have approved of the introduction of this short measure to repeal subsection (3) of section 27 of the 1926 Act.

The sixteenth interim report of the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure has been formally laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. In addition, I have arranged that neostyled copies are available in the Library for the convenience of Members of both Houses. While the recommendations of the committee are unanimous in regard to the retention of the office of Master of the High Court, with greatly extended jurisdiction, an addendum to the report by one member favours the abolition of the office and the appointment instead of an additional High Court judge. This latter recommendation will, of course, be considered and can be debated fully when the comprehensive legislation to which I have referred comes before the House. Personally, I see a number of difficulties in the proposal in the addendum.

I trust that the present short Bill will meet with the approval of the House. Before concluding, I should like to thank the members of the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure for their excellent report, which will be of invaluable help to the House in considering the forthcoming Courts and Court Officers Bill.

Mr. Cooney

I endorse the Minister's expression of thanks to the committee in question particularly in view of the fact that they reported, as the Minister has said, with commendable speed. I hope that the Minister will act on their recommendations with equally commendable speed.

This office has been vacant for some months and it is necessary when the vacancy is caused by a reason other than illness to amend the law so that the office can be continued in its present form. Consequently, the Minister has postponed making a permanent appointment to the office. I do not know whether it is entirely logical to have to postpone the making of the appointment until the recommendations of the committee have been implemented in legislation. One would imagine that the appointee would have to be a lawyer of some standing and considerable experience and that the appointment could be made on that basis because personnel are now available.

In addition, under the Court Officers Act, 1926, the rules of court could confer on him vastly increased powers of a semi-judicial nature, of the type which would enable him to perform many duties now carried out by the courts and which are to some extent delaying progress in the courts. However, these are only minor details. One cannot complain as to the general theme of the Minister's speech—that the office should be used to expedite and make the business of the courts more efficient. If this Bill is necessary to enable prompt consideration to be given to the changes, this side of the House has no objection to it.

Mr. O'Malley

I should like to thank Deputy Cooney for what he has said. He made the point that, notwithstanding the fact that these changes are proposed by legislation, he thought it might be possible to go ahead and appoint now somebody of sufficient experience and standing who would take over the new duties when these are defined. However, it would be unwise to do that because an appointee would come in now under the terms that his duties were the existing duties of the office which, of course, are very limited. It could be unfortunate if this happened because an appointee might refuse to fulfil the wider and more important functions that will be conferred subsequently by statute in the course of the next few months. For that reason we have considered it wiser to seek to continue the appointment of the Deputy Master and not to make a permanent appointment until the duties are set out in statute in some detail.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 27 Apr 1972