Since there are no amendments on Report Stage, in accordance with Standing Orders, we proceed to Fifth Stage.
Courts Bill, 1980: Fifth Stage
I move: "That the Bill do now pass".
I understand from my colleague, Deputy Keating, who was dealing with this Bill that he had made certain suggestions to the Minister which the Minister had agreed to consider. I recollect one of these suggestions being in relation to the reduction of a figure of £150 to £100 — the question of the judgments not earning interest unless they exceed a certain sum.
Section 23.
I gather the Minister agreed to consider that suggestion and indeed possibly some others made by my colleague. When this Bill goes to the Seanad perhaps the Minister would confirm that he will deal with those proposals of my colleague.
Perhaps I might be permitted to ask the Minister a couple of questions on this Bill. These are related more to my practical experience in my former profession as a lawyer: From the point of view of the administration in both the District Court and Circuit Court offices I wonder what steps have been taken to ensure that those respective offices will be able to handle the undoubted extra business they will have to handle because of the increases in their respective jurisdictions.
We debated all of that in depth on Committee Stage.
I appreciate that but the situation is that I was not involved in the earlier debates here. Is the Minister satisfied in this respect because I recollect — when there was last an increase in jurisdiction, when the jurisdiction of the District Court was increased from £50 to £250 — there were considerable hiccups on the administrative side before the new system was in smooth operation. That was one of my basic worries about this Bill.
The Deputy will appreciate that we can discuss only what is in the Bill.
Now that my colleague who has been dealing with the Bill is here to finalise matters I will hand over to him.
This Bill, as the Minister is aware, holds a number of areas of dissatisfaction for us. We note the passing of the Bill with mixed feelings because — without spending too long on it — its essence is that the characteristics it will give to the courts, allied to and compounding the existing problems being experienced in the courts, are major difficulties over areas of jurisdiction. I would hope that some of the more gloomy forecasts we have been making here in relation to the very unsatisfactory nature of the District Court, particularly in relation to handling family law matters, will not be borne out. Since Committee Stage I have discussed the matter further with people whose job it is to be aware of these problems. I am convinced that the system of dealing with family law cases, as outlined in this Bill, is one which will lead to most serious difficulties, difficulties relating to families in distress, with marital problems, difficulties over guardianship of infants, difficulties which should not be dealt with by the District Courts.
I shall not delay the House or the Minister by repeating what I said on Committee Stage. However, I should outline that, despite all our protestations to the contrary, despite the concern expressed by people on all sides of the House, the principal characteristics of the courts after this Bill is passed will be that they will be dealing with areas that should not be dealt with by them, areas of sensitive, delicate adjudication, analysis, arbitration, which should not be dealt with by an adversary system. The courts will remain still largely a domain in which financial power gives one a decided advantage, and the greater financial power the more the advantage. The courts will remain an area in which, for many people, they do not see any great solace or any great belief that here is something that gives them retribution but is instead something which oppresses them. That is unfortunate.
None of these situations will be improved by this Bill. As far as I am concerned what is in the Bill, with the exception of the very sensible increases in financial jurisdiction — which are in some cases no more than are minimally necessary to update on account of inflation — does not constitute an improvement. Indeed had our amendment been accepted it would not be necessary in a number of years' time to introduce a similar, technical Bill in this House in order to continue to update on account of soaring inflation. Had our amendment been accepted this would have been automatic but apparently the essential common sense of that suggestion did not meet with the approval of the Minister. Instead we will have a series of these kinds of Bills whenever the obvious injustice of outdated fine limits, outdated mental distress limits and so on, brings home to the Government of the day that something needs to be done.
Accordingly, we have very mixed feelings indeed about many of the fundamental elements of this Bill. I would ask the Minister to keep under review the particular difficulties relating to family law cases. I honestly believe that in this respect the Bill is misguided. I can only hope that the hurt caused people, despite the very best efforts of many district justices, will not be grieviously damaging and that sooner or later — I hope sooner — we will have the common sense in this House to try to tackle the problem of marriages in difficulty, preferably along the lines we suggested earlier in the House, some months ago, which of course was shot down with a venom that I found surprising, even allowing for the political inhibitions, to put it mildly, of some Members of the House.
That being said, we hope this Bill will effect some improvement. I know it will in the area of financial jurisdiction. I hope the Minister will be courageous and honest enough to be ready to come back here if he sees the scandalous situation that can arise in the District Courts.
I am afraid the Deputy is moving away from the Fifth Stage.
I am trying to refer to elements in the Bill.
The Deputy can refer only to what is actually in the Bill.
I am referring precisely and essentially to jurisdiction in relation to family courts. If it is shown that my forecast is misguided and that a combination of unfeeling, inadequate, not sufficiently sensitive handling of such cases comes to light, compounded as it often is at that particular level by asides and remarks completely improper to the functioning of such court systems, causing the inevitable hurt that type of approach engenders, then we will come back to this House and seek to introduce the kind of sensitive system for dealing with family law cases. Such a system cries out for introduction, because it is apparent that the problems of marital difficulties are now buried very deeply, in case we might have to grapple with them and do something about them. They may have to become an avalanche threatening our very stability before we have the guts and the manliness to stand up and say that here is a problem that must be tackled. Apparently it is not to be tackled today.
Question put and agreed to.