Vol. 282 No. 6
I move:
That a sum not exceeding £2,175,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1975, for such of the salaries and expenses of the Supreme Court, the High Court, the Circuit Court and the District Court, as are not charged on the Central Fund.
On the question of the courts, when I was in the Department of Justice a contract was, as far as I recall, signed for the purchase of a site at Smithfield for the erection of a complex of district courts on that site. As well as that, we got temporary possession of vacant spaces close to the major site at Smithfield for the purpose of erecting temporary courts to alleviate the overcrowding in the district and circuit courts and in particular to provide two new temporary buildings for the Children's Court which, at the moment is in Dublin Castle and is a very seriously deficient court. What progress has been made on that? Has any building commenced in relation to the complex of, I think, 17 district courts which were to be built in Smithfield, and has any building commenced in relation to the Circuit Courts or the Children's Court?
The Deputy will recall the setting up of the InterDepartmental Committee which sat on that. In their first interim report the committee recommended the purchase of a 2½ acre site at Smithfield on which to build a new complex to house the whole of the Metropolitan District Court and, possibly, a new Garda station and Bridewell as well as a new headquarters for the welfare service. They also reported that another smaller site in the same area might be available for renting on a short-term basis and that this would be large enough to accommodate a temporary Children's Court and at least one temporary Circuit Court.
The committee's recommendations were accepted and negotiations for the purchase of the large site, at a cost of £365,000, were concluded in the spring of 1973. Negotiations for the acquisition of the smaller site were commenced and the committee proceeded to draw up plans for the temporary courts. They decided, with the Minister's approval, to plan for two Children's Courts and one Circuit Criminal Court. When the outline plans had been completed it was estimated that the cost of the temporary building would be of the order of £250,000 and Finance sanction to proceed with the project was sought in August, 1973. In view of the estimated high cost of the building it was decided that a long-term lease or outright purchase of the smaller site should be negotiated.
However, progress on all fronts was held up early in 1974 when the corporation received a report from consultants whom they had engaged to make recommendations for the relief of traffic congestion in the city. The report recommended, inter alia, the construction of a fly-over bridge across the Liffey, and a new complex of roads fanning out from the northern end of the bridge, at a point which would, if proceeded with, have ruled out for our purposes the sites in question.
In the latter half of 1974, the corporation decided not to accept the consultants' recommendations in relation to this particular development and the sites were "freed" for development subject to normal planning requirements. However, the Office of Public Works have so far not succeeded in acquiring the smaller site because of a newly developed reluctance on the part of the owners to dispose of it.
In other words the position seems to be that the whole project of accommodation for the courts is at a complete full stop now?
I think "a complete full stop" appears to be an exaggeration, and the Office of Public Works are endeavouring to overcome the reluctance on the part of the owners to dispose of the site.
The site the Minister is talking about is only a small car park. The main site has been bought since the spring of 1973. Is there any work going ahead on that?
I understand that in the light of the difficulties that developed in 1974 in relation to sites for additional accommodation, the committee have now made certain recommendations representing an alternative approach to the resolution of the accommodation problems, which are being examined at present.
What are those alternatives?
I am not in a position to state what those alternatives are. No doubt the Minister will be reporting when he has examined them.
Has the delay anything to do with the lack of finance in the Government generally at the moment?
This is not an extraneous red herring being dragged in to distract attention?
I have given the reasons.
On the question of courts, the High Court has made orders in respect of two areas against the Minister for Justice in the last year where the local authorities have failed to carry out their statutory functions. What is the position in regard to these? I think Waterford was one and Drogheda or Dundalk was another. There are dozens and dozens of courthouses throughout the country in a similar state of disrepair in which both justices and judges are refusing to sit. I could give several examples. I wonder does the Minister propose to compel local authorities to discharge their statutory functions or will he do the work instead on their behalf?
The Deputy raised the question of the position at Drogheda and Waterford. In regard to Drogheda, in April, 1972, as a result of proceedings taken by representatives of the Drogheda Solicitor's Association, the President of the High Court made an absolute order of mandamus directing the Minister to exercise the statutory duties imposed on him by the Courthouses (Maintenance and Provision) Act, 1935, by directing the Commissioners of Public Works to carry out the necessary repair work on Drogheda Courthouse in view of the local authority's failure to do the work. The Commissioners of Public Works were directed accordingly in May, 1972, and sittings of the Circuit Court resumed in Drogheda in June, 1973, after an absence of 9 years. The cost of the repair work which is estimated at £9,500 is recoverable from the local authority under the provisions of the above-mentioned Act.
As far as Waterford is concerned, Waterford Corporation had refused to undertake the very costly task of restoring or replacing the Waterford Courthouse at Catherine Street, Waterford in the absence of assistance from central funds. In 1971 sittings of the High, Circuit and District Courts were transferred out of Waterford city. In January, 1972, in an effort to resolve the impasse, the Minister gave an undertaking to the corporation to the effect that, if any scheme of financial assistance was introduced following and consequent on the report of the interdepartmental committee established in 1968, any substantial work commenced in Waterford to provide permanent courthouse accommodation would benefit by the retrospective application of the scheme to the works in question. The corporation subsequently agreed to re-examine the economics of restoring the Catherine Street courthouse and to provide temporary accommodation for the District and Circuit Courts in alternative premises at O'Connell Street, Waterford.
In July, 1973, the Waterford Law Society initiated mandamus proceedings against the Minister, in circumstances similar to the Drogheda case, with the object of compelling him to have Waterford courthouse repaired. A conditional order of mandamus was granted.
Subsequent to the initiation of these proceedings, Waterford Corporation revealed to the Department that they had agreed to proceed with the restoration of the courthouse at an estimated cost of £120,000. As an earnest of the corporation's expressed intention to proceed with the work a sum of £25,000 was included in their capital budget for the financial year 1974 and sums of £50,000 and £45,000 respectively were included in their budget projections for 1975 and 1976.
The O'Connell Street premises were adapted for sittings of the Circuit and District Courts and sittings of the District Court commenced there in October, 1973. Sittings of the Circuit Court commenced there in July, 1974.
Despite these developments the Waterford Law Society went ahead with their application to have the conditional order of mandamus made absolute. The hearing of their application concluded on 27th January, 1975. In a judgment delivered on 30th May, 1975, Mr. Justice Doyle made absolute the conditional order of mandamus.
Some time back a report was prepared on the redrafting of District Court areas in County Dublin. This redrafting would eliminate Swords and Balbriggan Courts. What is the present position in this regard?
I am afraid I do not have the information the Deputy requests, but I will have it obtained for him.
This was a general report on District Court areas in the Dublin region.
