Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 1 Dec 1981

Vol. 331 No. 4

Courts Bill, 1981 [Seanad]: Second Stage.

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

The Bill proposes an increase from 12 to 14 in the statutory number of ordinary judges of the High Court. It also takes account of the fact that, by virtue of the provisions of section 14 of the Law Reform Commission Act, 1975, the number of such judges may in certain circumstances be one more, but since no High Court judge is currently a member of the Law Reform Commission the provisions of the section in question do not affect the High Court at the present time.

The necessity for additional judges of the High Court, as provided for in section 1 of the Bill, arises from the increased volume of business coming before that court in recent years, coupled with the fact that the court is in effect short of two judges, because the full time of one judge has been for some time, and still is, taken up with sittings of the Special Criminal Court, and the assignment of Judge Keane to conduct the Stardust fire inquiry has meant that his services have not been available to the High Court for many months past. It is important that the Presidency of the Special Criminal Court be filled by a judge of the High Court and, in order to ensure that there would at all times be a High Court judge available to act as President, it became necessary to appoint four High Court judges to be members of that court. The effect of this has been to deprive the High Court of the full time of one judge.

The necessity to assign a High Court judge to conduct the Stardust fire inquiry has meant, as I have already said, that the judge assigned has not been available to the High Court for many months past and, although the public hearing of the inquiry has ended, he is unlikely to be able to resume full time High Court duties until well into 1982. This is the second occasion within the last three years that a High Court judge has been called upon to absent himself from the Bench over an extended period to conduct such an inquiry and I consider that the complement of High Court judges should now be such that when a judge is called on to conduct an inquiry of this nature the remaining number of judges will be adequate to deal with the volume of business coming before the court.

Another source of strain on the resources of the High Court has been the substantial growth in recent years of family law business which, because of its personal nature, needs to be disposed of with the minimum of delay and the stage has now been reached where it has been found necessary to allocate the full time of two judges to it. The time of two of the three additional High Court judges appointed on foot of the Courts Act, 1979, has thus been absorbed and the court has not had an opportunity of reducing either its arrears of business or the average time-lag between the date of setting down of a case and the date of hearing which, in the case of jury actions, is now 20 months. It had grown from 16 months in 1979 to 18 months on 31 July 1981, the end of the 1980-81 legal year. In that period the number of jury actions set down for hearing in the High Court has more than doubled, rising from 1,691 during the year ended 31 July 1979 to 3,653 in the year ended 31 July 1981, and although the Court disposed of 1,842 cases during the 1980-81 legal year, arrears continue to accumulate and a serious position now exists.

The proposals in this Bill, therefore, are designed to enable the High Court to eliminate its arrears of business and I hope Deputies will appreciate from what I have said that the proper administration of justice requires that additional judges be made available to the High Court as soon as possible.

Accordingly, I commend this Bill to the House.

I listened very carefully to the Minister of State today, read carefully what he said in the Seanad and followed the debate in the Upper House. Without wishing to score off him, his script is so like mine of 1979, when I came before this House looking for three additional High Court judges, that the same script would have done. I am not at all convinced that a case has been made in this afternoon's ministerial speech. Perhaps, when replying to the debate, the Minister might have more convincing arguments for supporting the Bill. The solution offered to the House on 19 June 1979 did not succeed because of the huge backlog. It is questionable whether that same solution will succeed today, which is why I am drawing the attention of the Minister of State to the contents of this Bill. I was assured by my advisers in 1979 that the case then made was the answer to the problem, but that did not work. The solution offered now is not the answer either.

Being a barrister himself, the Minister will know that justice delayed is justice denied. He knows better than anybody here that ten or 15 years ago there was a policy to appoint the minimum number of judges. Perhaps at that time the Oireachtas were worried about costs. Everyone is now of the opinion that the expeditious disposal of business in the High Court and the elimination of delays are more important than the cost involved in the appointment of further judges. Delays in court cases bring the law into disrepute and lead to unnecessary frustration among the general public. I am not suggesting that all the delays emanate from the courts. There surely are delays all along the way — in solicitors' offices, in the Bar Library, in receiving reports from expert witnesses — and some may be unavoidable.

There is a backlog of cases about which something must be done. I am not opposing the Bill. I am open to being convinced and hope that the Minister will convince me. However, I make a couple of interesting suggestions. Now may be the time to make an exhaustive review and study of the practices and procedures in the operation of the High Court. There is not a Member of this House who has not at some time heard from members of the profession that delays occur which seemingly should not happen and that some practices and procedures are seemingly outdated. I believe, now more than ever before, without any hope of contradiction, that there is a case for the establishment of a High Court regularly sitting in Cork, which would cover, surely, all the south and west. At present the High Court sits three times a year in Cork city, three weeks at a time. It sits twice a year for two weeks in Limerick and I am open to correction on this — it sits twice a year in Galway and for two weekly periods in Sligo. The Minister might have more information on this aspect, but I understand that there are delays of up to one-and-a-half years in the hearing of cases in Limerick, of approximately two years in Galway, and approximately three years elapse from the setting down of a jury action to the date of hearing in Cork city. From the date of instruction to the actual hearing of a case, a period of five or six years might elapse. Delays of this magnitude do not promote the wellbeing of the general public. In many instances they can cause severe hardship to litigants.

I believe what I am saying to be fact and people on all sides of the House will agree with me. I propose, on Committee Stage, which probably will not be taken today, to table an amendment which might in some way allow the Minister to establish a High Court sitting in Cork. It has been said in the past, that judges are slow to leave Dublin and go to the country on a permanent basis. I would not suggest that either of the two new appointments should be based full-time in Cork, but that a High Court in Cork should be serviced from the present panel of High Court judges. If somebody is designated to sit for a six month or 12-month period, there is more than enough work for him to do in the south and west.

I have met a number of professional people—doctors, engineers, veterinary surgeons—who have been called as expert witnesses in High Court cases. The Minister of State probably knows better than I that they come to Dublin to the High Court sessions, wait two to four days for a case which might be listed as No. 4 for a particular court and that case may never be called. There may be some monetary reward for them, but it is fair to say that if they had the choice, they would by far, prefer to be working in their own professions. Instead of bringing the people to the courts, we should bring the courts to the people. I believe that there would be agreement on this important matter from all sides of the House.

I was somewhat frightened to read in some newspaper articles in the Official Report of the Seanad that there was a possibility, because of lack of space in Dublin for High Court judges, of a High Court more or less permanently based in Naas, County Kildare. With all due respect, the Minister of State, having recently half promised a High Court for Tralee when he opened the courthouse which I had got under way for him——

We can both take the credit.

In fairness, I was invited to the opening, but felt that I should not crowd the Minister's scene. Seriously, I was too busy to attend.

The Deputy is a gentleman.

A High Court operating in Naas would not be any good to anybody in rural Ireland, other than those within the immediate proximity of Naas. Anybody coming from the west, north-west or south would still have to come to Dublin by train and find his or her way to Naas. It is not just a question of keeping within the Pale. Let us bring the court to the people of the country as a whole.

The Minister should consider the holding of High Court sittings in Tralee. I hope he will do so. It is between 60 and 70 miles from Limerick and about the same distance from Cork. There is an excellent courthouse in Tralee which could be used for High Court sittings. In Waterford there will be a fine courthouse soon and Cork is a base from which Waterford could be served. There have been demands in the newspapers for High Court sittings in the north-west, in Letterkenny. I understand there will be courthouse facilities there reasonably soon. I should like the Minister to check it out to see if the facilities in Letterkenny are being improved. I hope he can let me know in his reply how soon we can expect the High Court to begin sittings in Donegal.

Because of the hugh increase in running-down cases many people are waiting so long to have their cases heard that with inflation running at its present rate they are out of pocket by the time their business is sorted out. This is of great importance to many people and the Minister should consider all means to give people speedy access to the courts. The Minister might tell me later whether in the circumstances a committee could be set up by the Department to examine the operations of the courts at the present time. I do not like to begin to talk about the holidays judges have, whether it is 15 weeks or 20 weeks, because it would be unfair. That sort of thing happened in the past and it was wrong because even when a court is not sitting, members of the court have to write up their books and record their judgments, tedious and onerous tasks.

Unfortunately people have to wait four or five years for judgments and this should not happen. I would urge the Minister to consult regularly with the President of the High Court to see if anything can be done to expedite judgments after a certain length of time. Criticisms have been made of individual members of the High Court and it has been said that judgments were given only after questions had been asked in this House. There is not a single Member of the House who would not do everything possible to uphold the high regard which the Judiciary enjoy throughout the country.

Another reason why I am not convinced by the case the Minister has made is my fear that the recruitment embargo on staff from 31 July has been applied to the courts. Are there shortages in the courts of registrars, stenographers, clerks? If we are to appoint more judges will the Minister give a categoric assurance that they will be properly and fully facilitated with adequate, qualified staff which they need to conduct their courts.

It has been said, and I am not able to deny it, that there are several vacancies in court staffs. I know there are vacancies in the personnel section, that the position of head of that section is vacant at a time when it is highly important to have it filled, when the Government are appointing extra judges. It is pointless coming in here for permission to appoint two judges if the staff are not there. Incidentally, I wonder why this little Bill has been given precedence in the House over other important legislation. I am sure there will be a short list of applicants for the post, or have they been given away already? There seems to have been a hurry to get this little Bill through and I might suggest that it could be because the Government lack confidence in themselves and feel they might not be around for too long. However, I will leave that for another time and another place. I want to be convinced that there will be sufficient qualified staff to help all the judges.

I repeat my request in regard to the High Court on circuit. Cork, Limerick, Galway and Sligo are the bases from which the service could be extended to places like Waterford, Tralee and Letterkenny, whose people at the moment have completely inadequate access to that court. I agree there is more than sufficient business for two extra judges, dealing with jury or non-jury cases, in Cork, Limerick, Galway and Sligo and there-for serious consideration should be given to holding sittings in Letterkenny to the great relief of pressure on Galway. I suggest there is a case as well for holding sittings in Ennis where there is a very fine courthouse, two vacant rooms and plenty of office space which is at present occupied by the county council. I am sure that if required the county council could get office space elsewhere.

There is a backlog of cases in Dublin. I accept that the President of the High Court has had a difficult time with the absences of Mr. Justice Costello during the Whiddy Inquiry and Mr. Justice Keane at the Stardust investigations. In a written reply to question 9 on 28 October the Minister stated:

Sittings of the Tribunal appointed to report on the Whiddy Island disaster commenced 26 April 1979 and were held on a total of 72 days between then and 20 December 1979. The writing of the report was completed by Mr. Justice Costello on 7 May 1980. The High Court sat on a total of 196 days between 23 April 1979, the first day of the 1979 Easter Term, and 7 May 1980, and High Court records show that Mr. Justice Costello sat in the High Court on 54 days during that period.

The first preliminary hearing of the Stardust Fire Inquiry was held by Mr. Justice Keane on 2 March 1981 and sittings have been held on 106 days since then up to and including 23 October 1981. During that period there were 105 High Court sitting days and Mr. Justice Keane sat in the High Court on 23 days during the months of March and April. Sittings of the tribunal were held on 28 days during the months of April, June, August and September at times when the High Court was on vacation.

I have always heard it said that the Long Vacation was sacred, but we had Mr. Justice Keane sitting on 28 days while the High Court was on vacation. Mr. Keane certainly set a headline. Perhaps this is something which could be looked at when the Minister of State gets approval from the Government to establish a High Court committee to examine the practices and methods of operation of the High Court. It would be the easiest thing in the world for the Minister to say they do not have to do that because they know what is happening. The arguments I used in 1979 when I was trying to wipe out the backlog—we got more judges, but we did not wipe out the backlog—are being used today by the Minister. This will not wipe out the backlog. If we agree to give him the two extra judges, he will be back again in reasonably short time looking for more, that is, if he has courtrooms for them.

It would be inconceivable that we should appoint two new judges if we had not the staff to service their courts. We will get assurances on that when the time comes. It would also be unreal to appoint two new High Court judges if we had not got somewhere for them to sit. Accommodation raises a big question. One of our courts—I think it is No. 4—is out of action because of the fire. Is it a fact that we have now more judges than we have courtrooms to accommodate them? If so, will not that situation be aggravated by the appointment of two new judges, unless we are to have a permanent High Court in the south operating from Cork and covering the south and the west?

Knowing how difficult it is to provide proper accommodation for the High Court, and how difficult it is to get this sort of accommodation because of what is required, and having regard to the fact that the Incorporated Law Society's building in Blackhall Place has been used for the inquiry into the Stardust fire, and has been praised by all as being a very suitable building, I suggest that perhaps it could be leased from the Incorporated Law Society to be used as a court. The Minister will be coming back to us again shortly looking for £500,000 from the Suitors Fund to do a face lift job on the old Kings Inns building in Green Street.

Henrietta Street.

I beg the Minister's pardon. It would be nice to look for it and it would be nicer still to get it. Can we get anything in return for it for the ordinary people of Ireland? Is there any part of that building which could be used as another court for the High Court? If so, it may be offered by the Bar Council now that the matter has been raised. This would be worth looking at. It is nice to give something when one is getting something. More space for the courts to operate in would be welcomed by the President of the High Court and his judges.

As the Minister knows, the jurisdiction of the lower courts is to be increased considerably. The operative date of the Courts Act, 1981, is 12 May 1982. A rumour is circulating that the Minister and the Department want to put back that date. Can the Minister say whether there is any truth in that rumour? Is it still planned to bring the provisions of that Act into operation as and from 12 May next year? If not the increased jurisdiction of the lower courts would be eroded considerably. Indeed, one can see the effects of erosion as of now. It will be eroded considerably more if it is delayed much longer than May 12.

The increased jurisdiction of the lower courts will take part of the load off the High Court, and should make access to the High Court easier than it is at present. I am anxious to see the provisions of the Courts Act, 1981, implemented as soon as possible. I accept that there are difficulties. That is why, when we were putting the legislation through the Houses last year, we had a year's stay on the implementation of its provisions. I hope that year's grace was used fully to try to sort out the difficulties which had to be sorted out so that it could operate successfully.

There is another matter I feel I should raise and, being a barrister, perhaps the Minister will not throw me out for raising it. What are his views on the appointment of members of the other profession, solicitors, to the High Court? Would he agree that a solicitor of 20 years' standing would be suitable?

An excellent idea.

I have no intention of putting the solicitors and barristers at each others throats. I know a committee made up of both professions are trying to iron out the little problems between the two groups. I hope that, in the interests of efficiency, in the interests of economy and in many other interests, that at some time we will have one profession rather than two sections. The Minister might let us know his views and whether he would be prepared to recommend that the Government should consider appointing a solicitor of 20 years' standing. I know — and I am sure others do as well — a number of very eminent people amongst the members of the Incorporated Law Society who would make excellent members of the High Court if they were appointed to it. I should like the Minister to consider it and give us his views on it.

In his opening speech the Minister put forward the argument that a judge of the High Court is the President of the Special Criminal Court. That is so, and that is as it should be. We are all very thankful to the judges of the High Court who have given service in the Special Criminal Court. In reply to a parliamentary question I put down to the Minister recently I was told that a judge of the High Court sat in the Special Criminal Court on 142 days in 1979, 150 days in 1980 and 93 days up to the end of September 1981.

I mention this to show that the argument put forward by the Minister is not as strong as he though it was or his advisers thought it was. In eight months of the year, 93 days would not take up the full-time services of one judge of the High Court. In 1979, 53 cases were disposed of, in 1980, 43 cases and up to the end of September 1981, 26 cases. Unfortunately, no records are kept of the number of actual sitting hours of the court or the time spent by the members of the court in considering decisions. I am not quibbling about any of that. I am just pointing out that the Minister's argument would not convince anyone in this House that there is a need for an extra High Court judge because of that fact.

We will always have members of the High Court tied up in inquiries. Nobody wants to see another disaster like the one in Bantry or the one in the Stardust in Artane. Please God we will not have any more of those.

There is a huge backlog in the courts and we must have a fundamental examination of the whole process to see if there is anything we can do to speed things up. If we have more judges and buildings, could the buildings not be used on a staggered scale? Have we enough staff? There is need for a permanent High Court based in Cork to cover the south and west. Would the Minister give his views on the other matters I raised because justice delayed is justice denied. I should like to pay a special tribute to members of the Judiciary who do a tremendous job and are held in very high esteem by practically everybody.

It has become notorious over the centuries that, implicit in any private person going to law, incredible delays are involved——

On a point of order, why was Deputy Mervyn Taylor entitled to be called before I was, because I indicated to the Ceann Comhairle that I wished to speak and I was sitting here before Deputy Taylor?

This is becoming a habit with Deputy Sherlock.

The Chair does not, nor is it required to give reasons as to why or how it calls. Deputy Sherlock may be sure he will be called when the Chair so decides. He will have to place his trust in the Chair. From notes available to me, Deputy Mervyn Taylor had-already indicated to the Chair that he, too, was anxious to contribute.

I was saying that delays have become notorious and one can read of it with some amusement in the writings of Dickens and even in Shakespearean times. It is a remarkable reflection in this day and age, with all the magnificence of technical improvements and so on, that we should find a situation reflected in the Minister's address giving the delays that are implicit for any citizen seeking justice in the High Court. From the time a case is set down for hearing there is a waiting period of some 20 months. The Minister did not say it could take perhaps up to a year before the case is even set down for hearing so we are talking about anything from a two-and-a-half years to a three year delay. From my own experience it is not unusual to have a period in excess of that, going up to four or five years before a hearing is obtained. It is intolerable and of great prejudice to citizens who, unfortunately for them, need to have recourse to the law. When the necessity arises a citizen is entitled to expect reasonably speedy justice to have his complaint disposed of.

The overwhelming bulk of cases which come before the courts today are those arising from road accidents and injuries sustained by people at work. The fact that damages to which those people would be entitled are delayed and held up for years is something that prejudices them. It means that in the intervening period when many of them would be suffering from serious injuries, incapacitated, in need of medical care and institutional support, they would be denied the money required to support themselves during those intervening years, when the injuries are at their worst, by reason of delays in the law.

Delays suit insurance companies who have the responsibility, for the most part, of paying damages in those cases. Those delays mean that the insurance companies can retain the money, which more properly belongs to the citizen who was injured, and can earn considerable sums in interest until they are required to pay it to where it is right and properly owing. We are talking about millions of pounds and a very large measure of the excessive profits of the insurance companies is earned at the expense of citizens injured in accidents who are entitled to damages from them but who do not get it as a result of the situation described in the Minister's address. Very often a person who has sustained serious injuries may be crippled and may be induced, by reason of the delay, to accept a lesser sum in settlement of his claim than he would otherwise be entitled to because he knows if he insists on the full measure of his rights he will be held up for a period of years. He may find that unacceptable or he may not be in a position to tolerate it. Insurance companies often play a cat and mouse game with an unfortunate injured person. They will offer £X on the table and if the person does not accept it they will tell him to bring it to court where it will be three or four years before he gets anything. That is an unwarranted pressure on the citizen who, of necessity, must have recourse——

On a point of order, I am an elected Deputy for the Cork east area and I wish to protest at the way I am being treated in this House.

Your protestations are not in order.

The Chair did not say he had any indication from Deputy Taylor that he was to speak. If he had said that I would be satisfied. I was here in good time. I have to sit here sometimes for three hours to speak for five or six minutes.

I have indicated to Deputy Sherlock that, if he will be patient, the Chair will call on him as soon as possible. I ask him to place his trust in the Chair and allow Deputy Mervyn Taylor to proceed.

I have been sitting here for two hours. What time does Deputy Taylor think he will conclude?

In a Second Stage debate there is no limit on the contributions. As long as Deputy Taylor speaks in a fashion that is relevant to the legislation before us, he is free to speak at whatever length he wishes. It is not his custom to speak for hours.

Before the interruption I was referring to the impact on private citizens and its effect upon their financial position during the trying time when many people have been involved in accidents and perhaps sustained serious personal injuries, and pointing out that it was at that time that they needed the utmost support and because of the system it was denied to them. It is essential that we should address ourselves very seriously to the methods that can be employed to secure a substantial reduction in that delay period. The Bill is directed towards that end. Of itself it is not going to make any substantial inroads into the delay period.

Apart from the necessity of appointing the additional judges in the High Court, Deputy Collins was correct in referring to the necessity for staff. The staffing situation in the courts, even with the existing number of judges, is totally inadequate. I have heard that there is some form of go-slow at present in operation in the courts and among some of the registrars in the High Court, as a result of which even the existing system is not working full steam ahead. The situation of a judge is similar to that of an army in the field. For every soldier fighting at the front, there must be five or six men backing him and providing him with the necessary services. For each judge sitting and adjudicating on the bench, a substantial back-up of skilled staff would be needed to enable him to discharge his functions adequately, efficiently and with speed. Consideration will have to be given to the staff situation. There is no point appointing additional judges unless the Minister is prepared to make sure that the necessary staff back-up will be available.

Reference has been made to the necessary increases in the jurisdiction of the lower courts. I believe the bringing into operation of the Act increasing the jurisdictions would be a major step forward. The procedures in the lower courts are considerably more speedy than the procedure in the High Court. The high percentage of inflation over the last decades has thrown the jurisdiction question completely out of gear. Successive Ministers for Justice have allowed that situation to run on for too long. In other words, they wait until the maximum jurisdiction of the Circuit Court becomes almost ludicrous in comparison to what was intended, and has been so eroded by inflation that it is more comparable to the District Court than the Circuit Court. Successive Ministers should note that a review of jurisdictions should be required in the present inflationary situation on a more regular basis — perhaps no more than two or three years in this kind of situation should be allowed to pass before the jurisdiction of the District Court and the Circuit Court are substantially upgraded. If that were done it would cut down on the build-up of cases we have seen in the High Court.

The procedures in the High Court have been relatively unchanged for centuries. Modern techniques, typing, office equipment, computers and so on, could be adopted and should be brought into the system. There should be a serious review of the whole method of pleading and procedures in the High Court. The method of pleading is antiquated in the modern context. The procedure in the Circuit Court is speedier, more satisfactory, shorter and no less efficient. The Law Reform Commission, or the appropriate body, should have a look at that situation and recommend improvements that would simplify procedures in the interest of speed and in the interest of those hardy litigants who take to the courts on their own account without the assistance of solicitors or barristers.

In England the procedures are different. They were originally the same but various improvements have been made. Here in the High Court there is only one person carrying the title of the Master of the High Court whereas in England there are a number of masters who fulfil very useful functions in shortening the procedures that would otherwise have to be dealt with by the judges. I am referring to the English system which we never got round to bringing in here whereby at an intermediate stage of the pleadings and the preparations for a case the parties are called in before a master for the purpose of determining what matters may be common between the parties and could be dispensed with when the hearing of the action is brought to trial.

The question of medical evidence could be dealt with. I understand that at the preliminary hearing the master would endeavour to obtain agreement on the medical evidence and get both parties to accept that the medical reports issued by the doctors on both sides would be acceptable. The problem of professional witnesses — doctors, engineers, architects and others — causes a considerable backlog and delay because when cases come to hearing in the High Court they are dependent on these expert witnesses. Doctors in particular cause the biggest problem because one often finds that when they are required to give evidence they are in the middle of operations, or cannot be got because they are at conferences in America, England and so on. The court's time having been set for that day, it now has to put the case back again and it joins the ever-growing list building up to the thousands of cases which are at present awaiting a hearing.

The delays to the citizen in matters of justice are not confined to the courts, although I realise the Bill refers to courts only, but other bodies that determine the rights of citizens, such as An Bord Pleanála, also have run very substantially into arrears, as happened in the courts. The same responsibility that applies to the rights of the citizen before the courts also applies to his rights before Government bodies which are there to determine the rights and duties of the citizen.

I commend the Bill and urge the Minister to look into these supplementary matters that are so essential if it is to have any beneficial effect in achieving the object for which it was intended.

The Chair is happy he measured Deputy Taylor correctly.

The Chair can be assured of my co-operation.

I wanted to speak on this Bill. I am in a rush because I wanted to get the 5.30 p.m. train as I have to attend a meeting of the Mallow Urban District Council. I welcome this Bill which appoints extra High Court Judges. In the Cork area there is an inordinate delay between the time of the accident and the time cases are set down for hearing before a High Court judge. The vast number of cases awaiting trial concern persons who have received personal injuries arising out of accidents. I understand that at the end of July a total of 987 cases were awaiting trial in the Cork area. Recently I had occasion to discuss this matter with a local solicitor who I thought was delaying a case. He said that he had inquired about the position from the Central Statistics Office in Dublin and he was given to understand that at the end of July the number of cases awaiting trial in the Cork area was more than 4,000. I am not questioning the Minister's figure but I am anxious to get it across that a big number of cases are waiting for hearing in Cork. Therefore, there is a case for the appointment of a High Court judge for the Cork area or that the High Court sittings in Cork be more frequent and for a longer period.

The High Court sits in Cork for a total of seven weeks, three in January, two weeks in April and two weeks in July. As a result it takes more than two years, or longer, before cases are set down for trial. I should also like to make the point that there is no reason why the High Court should not sit in Mallow. There is a fine courthouse there and if a sitting of the High Court could be arranged for that town it would be of great benefit to the people of North Cork. Unless something is done people will have to wait up to five years to have personal injury claims dealt with. It is wrong that those who sustain injuries in an accident must wait that length of time for compensation. The matter is more accentuated because in many cases breadwinners with young children are the plaintiffs. It is because of personal pressures on them while they are out of work and not in receipt of any income that many of them are often forced to compromise their case. In some cases they have to settle for a figure less than they could expect to receive if the case was heard before a High Court judge. That situation must be rectified. It is not good enough that a breadwinner without adequate income must wait for years to have his case heard and may settle for a sum less than would compensate him for the loss he suffered. I hope the Minister takes cognisance of the points I have raised in relation to the Cork area.

I welcome the Bill although I wonder why we are here at all dealing with such legislation. I suggest this is a matter that could in the future be usefully regulated by ministerial order as the need arises. Deputy Collins has already told the House that during his period of office he had to introduce a measure in similar terms and, in support of it, made a speech similar to the one made today. Clearly, the question of the optimum number of judges is a matter that will fluctuate from time to time and is one that could appropriately be dealt with in future by ministerial order. The Minister should consider taking that power unto himself at an appropriate stage. I welcome the Bill with some enthusiasm though I speculate that perhaps two additional judges is not, in all the circumstances, adequate because one of these judges, one suspects, is likely in the near future to be removed from availability in the High Court to take up duties with An Bord Pleanála. Statutorily the chairman of An Bord Pleanála must be a judge of the High Court or a retired judge of that court and I understand that the term of office of the present incumbent is due to expire within a matter of months. If that is the case then the total complement of High Court judges will be again reduced by one. For that reason I suggest that as a very minimum we should be thinking of three and not two extra High Court judges.

The point has been well made that there is a constant strain on the manpower available to the High Court given the need for High Court judges to serve on various tribunals. Reference has been made, in particular, to the Whiddy and Stardust tribunals. Deputy Collins expressed all our hopes that there will not be a repeat of those tragedies or a need for a similarly lengthy tribunal, but while we all hope that there will not be a tragedy of those dimensions it is fair to say that there is a constant demand for High Court judges to serve on tribunals of one sort or another because of their status and independence. They bring a quality to tribunals and in some instances are regarded as being necessary. Going back over the years one can think of subjects as diverse as the need for Mr. Justice Kenny to adjudicate on the proposals dealing with land speculation and the acquisition of building land, the Seven Days Tribunal on the money lenders and a succession of others. We should accept as a basic premise that there is going to be a constant demand for High Court judges to participate in these, in a sense, extra-curricular activities.

If that is the case we should accept that the increase in the number of judges is needed urgently. There has already been some discussion of the injustice that arises from the present situation and that injustice arises on both the civil and the criminal side of the courts. The civil side has already been dealt with at some length by Deputy Mervyn Taylor but in crude terms what it amounts to is that an insurance company can go to a plaintiff and say: "We know your injuries are worth £35,000 or £40,000 and in three of four years time you will get that amount but you may not be able to survive until then so why not take £20,000 or £25,000 and it is into your pocket now". That sort of system whereby people have to be bought off for less than their entitlements on the basis that they cannot afford to wait to get their entitlements is a manifest unjustice that must be stopped. Similar difficulties arise on the criminal side and, specifically, in the case of the Central Criminal Court. Again, there are long delays. I recall a speech at a seminar for young solicitors some time ago by the most eminent practitioner on the defence side in criminal law who made the point that the single most effective guarantee of a fair trial in a substantial criminal cause was a quick trial. While there has been much talk about the need to reform the procedures in relation to criminal law — of course there is need for reform — the single most effective step that could be taken to make sure that those who are in fact guilty beyond reasonable doubt are convicted and that those who are in fact not guilty beyond reasonable doubt are acquitted is to ensure that cases are brought on to trial quickly when witnesses' memories are still fresh and when people give evidence of what they actually recollect rather than on the story that has been refined and solidified over two or three years as they retell it to their friends in the process.

In Dublin there is a clear need to see the operation of the High Court in an integrated manner with the way in which the Circuit Court operates. The position is that in Dublin up to about three years ago there were absolutely intolerable delays. People were being charged with serious criminal offences, returned for trial to the Circuit Court and it was taking from 18 months to two-and-a-half years for their cases to be heard. Successive Ministers for Justice — Deputy Collins and Deputy Mitchell — have crusaded against a rise in violent crime. I suggest to them that there is no single step they could take that would be more effective than to guarantee to culprits that they are going to be brought to trial quickly. It is no deterrent to say to somebody: "You are caught. You are going to be brought to the District Court; you are going to be released on bail and your trial will come up in many months' or in many years' time". As a result of the activity of Judges assigned to the Circuit Court in Dublin and with the co-operation of both branches of the legal profession and of the Garda a situation had been achieved whereby people returned for trial in the District Court could be tried within six weeks in the Circuit Court.

However, for several reasons that is no longer the case and the situation is that people being returned for trial now will not be tried before March or April of next year. Overwhelmingly that means that people will be on bail from now until then and the statistics show that a significant number of offences are committed by people while on bail. I suggest that rather than contemplate the possibility of changing the law in relation to bail, we would be more usefully employed in devoting out attention to ensuring that people charged with serious offences are brought to trial speedily. If they are innocent this will be in their interest in terms of the availability of witnesses and so on but if they are guilty it will be very much in the State's interest to have an early trial. Therefore, I ask the Minister, in the context of considering the operation of the courts in Dublin as a whole, to consider the appointment of at least one extra judge to the Dublin Circuit Court to deal with criminal business. The position is that some 58 per cent of indictable crime is committed in the streets of this city and no single step that we could take would be more effective in providing a deterrent in this area than that people would know that if apprehended they would be brought to trial speedily and that shortly after the event they will face the consequences of their crime.

The Dublin Circuit Criminal Court is grossly over-worked now compared with the situation of a year ago. There are several reasons for this. One is that at that stage many trials that were originally listed for that court would transfer, at the option either of the prosecution or of the defence, to the High Court exercising its criminal jurisdiction. As a result of recent legislation that option is no longer available. In other words, this leakage has been plugged. Indeed, the reverse happens in that trials listed originally for the Circuit Court around the country can be transferred to Dublin at the option either of the defence or of the prosecution. Many of the trials that are so transferred are likely to be lengthy and to clog up the business of the Circuit Criminal Court in Dublin for a long time. There was evidence of this in relation to the major drugs trial that came before that court recently.

If the really unsatisfactory situation that prevailed a few years ago is to be avoided there is a need for action to be taken immediately and before the situation gets out of hand. That is why I suggest the appointment of a minimum of one extra judge and his assignment to the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to deal with criminal cases. If it is the norm that Circuit Court judges in Dublin are over-worked and incapable of dealing with the volume of business on the criminal side, that is not the practice every day because it can happen that none of the trials listed for any one day can go ahead. This may happen because of the absconding of an accused while on bail, the non-availability of essential prosecution witnesses or for some other reason. The result of this situation is that judges assigned to the Circuit Court find themselves without anything to do for the remainder of the day after 11.10 a.m. while across the corridor the High Court judges are not able to cope with the workload assigned to them for that day: family law cases may be held up and drift over to the next day. People may be waiting around the corridors and these may include expert witnesses. All this time the cost to the litigants is rising. I suggest that the Minister consider the possibility of amending the legislation to provide that Circuit Court judges assigned to sit on a permanent basis in the Dublin Circuit Court should, ex officio, be judges of the High Court. That situation exists in the case of the President of the High Court and if it were extended as I suggest it would mean that on those rare occasions when judges in the Circuit Court are surplus they would be available to go to the aid of their High Court colleagues. This would provide a more efficient use of the available manpower.

I wish to comment briefly on a suggestion by Deputy Collins regarding the appointment of solicitors to the High Court bench. I appreciate fully the motivation for the suggestion. There are many people among the solicitors' profession who would have all the qualifications necessary for such an appointment. So far as I know there would be no statutory objection to their appointment. However, I suggest that the present system whereby judges of the superior courts are drawn from the ranks of the practising Bar is by far a preferable situation because it means that those who sit in judgment are people with considerable experience of court practice and who have a degree of familiarity with those who appear before them daily. That is a healthier situation than would be the introduction of a solicitor into a court atmosphere, an atmosphere with which the great majority of solicitors are not familiar. Therefore, I urge the Minister not to be influenced too much by that suggestion from Deputy Collins.

I welcome the Bill. There is a need to deal with the backlog of cases that exists and the appointment of two further judges is a step in the right direction. I hope that the Minister of State will be proceeding further along that road.

There is a need for the appointment of extra members to the High Court because of the great backlog of cases there and the great increase in the workload in a number of legal areas.

I intend to concentrate on one aspect and this is an aspect that the Minister of State has highlighted in his opening remarks as being one of the reasons for our needing this legislation. He referred to the fact that there has been a very large increase in the volume of family law work coming before the courts. This is something of which I am aware from my personal involvement in such cases. In so far as the appointment of two additional High Court judges is concerned, this may speed up the manner in which such cases are dealt with and to that extent I welcome the Bill.

Like preceding Court Acts the Bill is effectively a remedial measure to deal with a problem, to some extent to deal with it piecemeal, though this is no fault of the Minister or of the Government and neither is it any fault of the previous administration because despite the existence of a large number of various committees who down through the years have considered different aspects of the courts structures and have made recommendations for changes, there has not been a comprehensive re-examination in this area since the foundation of the State. Effectively we have the same courts system today as we have had since 1922. Indeed, the system that we commenced with in 1922 was effectively the system which existed prior to the establishment of the Free State. There is a need now in so far as the law is administered in a number of areas to have a fundamental re-examination of the manner in which our courts work. This is required more in the area of family law than in any other area.

The position is that the various courts operating within our system are administering family law. The District Court has some jurisdiction in this area as have also the Circuit Court and the High Court. We have an overlapping court structure that lacks co-ordination and which is wasteful financially in so far as one often finds judges at different levels in the courts dealing with family problems involving the same people but not being in a position to deal with such problems in a comprehensive way since different courts have different powers. The time has come to reconsider that situation. A number of bodies have been set up for the purpose of reviewing the courts structure. The Committee on Court Practice and Procedure produced a large number of reports and recommended many significant changes in the jurisdictional basis on which the courts operate. The Courts Act, 1980, which was passed last May sought to implement the recommendations of that committee.

Some speakers in this debate have said that the content of that Act is to be welcomed. When much of the content of that Act comes into force in May 1982 it will greatly increase the jurisdiction of the lower courts and bring them into touch with the realities of inflation and the need to provide a more efficient court system. So far as the Courts Act, 1980 will have the effect of conferring family law jurisdiction on the District Court to deal with custody cases and so far as it intends to deprive the High Court of substantial family law jurisdiction, it is a recipe for disaster. I urge the Minister to think very seriously about amending the Courts Act, 1980, before it comes into force next May in so far as it affects family law.

The Courts Act, 1980, will deprive the High Court of jurisdiction in a number of areas of family law in which the Judiciary in that court over the past 15 years have acquired a tremendous degree of expertise and knowledge. In seeking to deprive that court of this jurisdiction this Act is conferring it in part on the Circuit Court, which it is fair to say, without being in any way disrespectful to the members of that court, is a court in which there have been very few family actions heard. The judges in the Circuit Court have had very little real experience in the family law area. If this Act is not amended, the Circuit Court from May 1982 will be inundated with family law proceedings and will be ill-equipped to deal with them.

There is a similar difficulty in relation to the District Court in so far as this Act, in depriving the High Court of the jurisdiction and competence to deal with custody cases, disputes about custody of children between married couples, will confer this jurisdiction on the District Court in addition to the Circuit Court. The District Court at the moment has very limited family law jurisdiction. I do not believe the physical structures of the District Court are able to deal with custody cases. The present family law jurisdiction of the District Court is essentially to deal with maintenance applications by spouses or with barring orders — an application normally brought by battered wives to have their husbands barred from their homes. In the District Court this can only be done for a period of 12 months.

Such District Court proceedings normally last from one hour to two hours and rarely take longer than that. Custody cases can run for two or three days in some instances. It is unusual for a fully fought custody case to take less than a full days' hearing. I do not believe that the work the District Court presently deals with, which will be increased in other areas by the Courts Act, 1980, will enable that court to deal properly with custody cases. The physical structures of those courts do not permit them to deal with family law in a proper fashion. Many courts lack any real consultation facilities. Some of them operate out of rugby clubs or dance halls. In my constituency the Rathfarnham District Court is effectively a court composed of one room where there are no consultation facilities available. If a person has a family law case and he or she wishes to consult a solicitor outside the court while other cases are going on, that person has no choice but to stand in the main street of Rathfarnham or stand in the public lavatories which adjoin the court. Many consultations in trying to resolve family problems have taken place in those lavatories. That is a disgraceful situation and it will be exacerbated by the Courts Act, 1981.

I believe the intention of the Courts Act, 1981, was to remove some of the pressures which exist on the High Court. The appointment of two additional judges in the Bill we are discussing today will to some extent remove that pressure and, I believe, will render the transfer of custody jurisdiction to the District Court unnecessary. I am not casting any doubts on the integrity of the district justices, but they do not have the experience to deal with this type of litigation. They have never dealt with this. There is however a great deal of experience and expertise in the High Court.

I believe tremendous problems will be created by transferring this jurisdiction out of the High Court and placing it in the District Court. I believe one of the motivating factors in having the Courts Act, 1981, passed was that the previous Minister felt that, if this transfer of jurisdiction took place, it would reduce the cost of such family proceedings. However, I believe that will not be the reality. I believe that, irrespective of whether custody cases are dealt with in the High Court or in the District Court, a similar amount of work will have to be done by lawyers. I believe this transfer of jurisdiction could increase the costs for litigants because district justices have no experience of dealing with these cases. I believe that when this Act comes into force a great many of the people involved will appeal to the Circuit Court for a further full hearing before that court. At the moment it is unusual for custody cases to appeal to the Supreme Court from the High Court. I believe that, instead of the matter being dealt with as speedily and as inexpensively as possible, those cases will straddle the District Court and the Circuit Court and take even longer than they take at the moment. This will end up being more costly for the people involved.

I believe the intention behind the Courts Act, 1981, in dealing with family law was wrong, although much of what was contained in that Act, as far as it affects other areas of civil law, was right and possibly should have been done years earlier. I am not in any way critical of such matters. But the provisions in relation to family law indicate a lack of understanding of the manner in which family law problems are dealt with and of their effects. The recommendations of the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure, which were the guiding hand behind that Act, were indicative of the fact that the members of that committee did not appreciate the implications of what they were suggesting.

I urge the Minister to look seriously, as I believe the Government are committed to do, at establishing as quickly as possible a unified court structure to deal with family cases. There is no reason why these problems should straddle three different courts. There is no reason why we cannot set up a unified family court at the level of the High Court which deals with all family matters. There is no logic in the area of family law in dividing cases between three different courts. I believe the Government are committed to the establishment of a family court structure. I hope we will have a unified system of family courts. For constitutional reasons it would have to have the status of a High Court. Each court should be situated in an area where the Circuit Court operates at present. That would not cost additional finance but would have the merit that it would save the State funds in that it would remove much of the overlapping and inconsistencies of the present system. It would produce a more coherent and unified system of justice.

In this regard one must refer to the other committees that have some jurisdiction to make comments on the reform of the court system. The Law Reform Commission were established by an Act in 1975 and they came into operation in 1976. In that year the commission published a programme for law reform. The programme stated that in examining various aspects of family law the commission "will consider the question of the best type of judicial or court structure or structures appropriate to deal with different matters which fall under the general heading of family law". That was said by the commission in 1976. We are now in 1981 but the Law Reform Commission have not produced even a working paper to deal with this aspect of the problem. That is not the fault of this administration or the previous administration. It is the fault of the Law Reform Commission.

In their work programme published in 1976 the Law Reform Commission stated they regarded family law as a priority area for reform. In a recent question to the Taoiseach, to which I got a very detailed reply, I asked him to list what matters were now being considered by the Law Reform Commission for the purpose of introducing new legislation or reform. In an answer on 20 October 1981, the Taoiseach listed approximately 23 different areas of law that the commission are supposed to be examining at present. Some of them were presumably referred to the commission by previous Attorneys General and some were taken up by the commission on their own initiative. In the 23 areas listed there is no reference to a family law court structure. What has happened to the programme originally put forward by the Law Reform Commission? Do they intend to do any work in this area? I know this is not the function of the Minister of State, but I hope this matter will be clarified.

In the context of court jurisdiction, as in the context of family law reform generally, we have a major problem, namely, that the Law Reform Commission have become one of the greatest impediments to law reform, which is a contradiction in terms. When the commission were established they were welcomed by all sides on the basis that they would provide a very real input and would act as a catalyst to much badly-needed law reform. Since their establishment in 1976, I believe the Law Reform Commission have failed abysmally. Possibly some of the failure is not the fault of the commission. To some extent they have become a form of political dustbin in that the previous Government willy-nilly referred all sorts of areas of law to them to produce reports when they themselves had no policies or opinions on the problems that existed and what law reforms were required. To some extent the commission have had areas of law referred to them for reform that were not purely lawyers' law. To some extent the commission have been asked to do things they are not capable of doing, to make political judgments on social decisions in dealing with questions of law reform.

I find it extraordinary that the Law Reform Commission have managed to produce only one final report in five and a half years. They have produced a number of working papers but in the context of the work done by them and of the great intentions and hopes for the commission they have now been seen to be incapable of carrying out the tasks originally assigned to them. Effectively it is the function of the Attorney General as opposed to the Minister of State, but I urge the Government to have another look at the Law Reform Commission and see what reforming legislation might be introduced to deal with the problems that appear to exist with the commission.

On the evidence of the manner the commission have operated, I do not believe they are capable of dealing with the question of the best type of court structure that should be used in the area of family law. Despite their declared intent to do so, the commission have apparently, quietly and without announcement, dropped that as one of the areas of law they will review. We should deal with this area. Possibly it should be dealt with in the context of the committee that is to be set up which I hope will be an all-party committee, despite what I have been reading in the press. That committee will deal with the problems of family law and family life, particularly in the area of marriage. This matter should not be left to the Law Reform Commission because I do not believe they are capable of dealing with it. The final report the commission produced contained all sorts of extraordinary recommendations for reforming an area of family law on which the commission previously produced a working paper. The major part of the recommendations were rejected, quite rightly, by the former Minister. He flew one or two kites suggesting he might accept them but ultimately they were rejected. That is indicative of the failure of the Law Reform Commission to deal properly with family law problems.

The other two committees that made comments relevant to the court system in dealing with family law include the task force on child care which is a report to the Department of Health in which there are recommendations for changing the District Court structure so far as it affects children's cases and law relating to children, in particular cases brought against children where the criminal law is involved and care proceedings where children have to be taken into care. I urge the Minister not to create more overlapping court structures or to have a series of different types of court. If we are to have a family court, which I hope we will, part of the duties of that court should be to deal with the various matters of law relating to children, which were referred to in the report of the task force.

In welcoming the Bill in the context of the appointment of new judges to the High Court, it is still the position that to become a member of the Judiciary in the High Court — and here I disagree with my colleague, Deputy Birmingham — the legislation specifies that the person must have been a practising barrister of at least ten years standing. There are few other qualifications attached to it. If we are talking about the possibility of establishing a unified family court system, I draw the attention of the Minister of State to a report by a working party which was set up in the Department of Health in 1976 on non-accidental injuries to children which looked at the question of the courts system. It made the recommendation that judges appointed to courts responsible for children's cases should have some training in the area of family problems and child care. If we bring in a family court structure I hope a similar requirement will be applied to it.

This Bill by providing two new judges will provide some relief in the courts, particularly in the criminal and civil areas. In the area of family law it is a holding operation and is merely continuing what we have, although it may be speeded up. I hope the Courts Act, 1981 passed last May, will be amended to remove the custody jurisdiction it intends to transfer to the District Court from that court and reinstate it in the High Court. There is much merit in the Circuit Court having additional jurisdiction pending the provision of some family court structure because it will make justice in the courts available to people living outside Dublin who do not have easy access to the High Court. It is essential that High Court jurisdiction be reinstated. If it is not, there may well be sound reasons for suggesting that the 1981 Act is unconstitutional having regard to Article 34 of the Constitution which confers on that court unlimited jurisdiction in dealing with all matters.

The fact that this is a problem has been highlighted by the Family Law (Protection of Spouses and Children) Act, 1981 which was passed on 21 June and came into force on 21 July. This legislation was intended to increase the protection available for battered wives. It amended the Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act, 1976 and in so doing conferred jurisdiction explicitly on both the District Court and the Circuit Court to make barring orders to protect battered wives and husbands. It enabled the court to exclude from the family home any spouse whose behaviour had a detrimental effect on the safety and welfare of the other spouse or children. The flaw in the 1981 Act is that it contains no reference to the High Court having jurisdiction which it formerly had under section 72 of the 1976 Act. The effect has been that many High Court Judges take the view that they do not have power to make barring orders to provide protection for battered wives. Some judges refuse to make these orders and try to make alternative ones which do not afford the protection the 1981 Act intended to make available. I had hoped that this difficulty would have been dealt with in this Bill. It is a matter that requires to be dealt with urgently. The Minister should introduce legislation to deal with it together with matters arising out of the Courts Act, 1981.

Another problem in relation to High Court jurisdiction is the manner in which these cases are dealt with. Family law cases are held in private. There are many such cases going through the courts. In 1980 approximately 1,000 family law actions were instituted in the High Court. From July 1979 to July 1980 there were 2,500. The vast majority were disputes between husbands and wives whose marriages had irretrievably broken down. There were also cases of disputes about children being placed for adoption or adoptive parents seeking to have adoption orders finalised. The general public are totally unaware of the manner in which these cases are dealt with by the courts, of the volume of cases and the problems attached to such cases in so far as the manner in which they are dealt with and the judgments delivered often highlight deficiencies and inadequacies in the statute law. Family law matters, marital problems and adoption problems should be dealt with in private and the parties involved should have an assurance that in no circumstances will their difficulties become public knowledge or will they be identified. In no circumstances should we allow the type of scurrilous court reporting which appears in some journals in countries outside this country.

There is need for balance. We need to provide, not only to the public but to the legal profession, information concerning the type of decisions reached and the manner in which cases are dealt with. When we read the newspapers we can see that High Court cases are reported in different areas of law from road traffic cases to constitutional cases but family law is rarely reported. It is one of the biggest areas of law going through the courts. The public have a right to know what is happening in this area. The manner in which the privacy rule has developed has made life more comfortable for members of the house in so far as there is little publicity attached to the judgments delivered and the manner in which the law operates. This means there is little public demand for law reform because the only people who understand the inadequacies of the system are those in the courts. They are so involved in solving their own problems that they cannot be expected to start crusades for reform to deal with inadequate laws particularly after their proceedings have been resolved. We need to develop a system where judgments delivered in family cases can be made available to court reporters in a manner in which there is no possibility of the identity of the parties being made known but, at the same time, the public know what is happening. The healthy effect of this can be seen in the one or two cases which have become public knowledge. We all know the outrage and uproar which resulted from the McL adoption case some years ago when the result of that case and the judgments delivered were published in the press while maintaining the anonymity of the parties involved. The need for law reform became apparent because of the publication as a result of which so much pressure was put on the Government of the day that, even if they had not the will to introduce reforming legislation, they would have had to do so. I believe that Government had the will. Nevertheless I have no doubt that the great public reaction to that case forced into this House a legislative measure that otherwise would have taken a good deal longer to come before it.

The Bill proposes to increase the number of judges at the High Court. The Deputy has digressed quite a lot from that.

In this context it is important that we find a balance not only in the context of the High Court but of the other courts also and that the general public are made aware of the manner in which our law operates and the effect it is having on people in the real world. I urge the Minister to have another look at this problem.

I wish to comment on only one other area in relation to the High Court. It is not appropriate under this Bill to go into it in any great detail, but it should be mentioned. We are often told that justice delayed is no justice at all. Because of emergencies not only in the family but in other areas also, people often need quick access to our courts, including the High Court, to seek emergency relief in different areas of life. After much delay and after a case before the European Court and the production of another report — the Pringle Report which was largely ignored — the previous Administration introduced a non-statutory scheme of civil legal aid for those unable to afford legal fees. It is not appropriate in the context of this Bill to become involved in the general inadequacies of that scheme, but I feel that one or two points should be made in so far as they relate to the High Court, with which this Bill is designed to deal. It should be on the record of this House that the scheme as it stands is totally inadequate. At present it does not provide the facility for people to have emergency access to the High Court, due to the delay in processing applications for legal aid, and the centres that exist at present are so inundated with work that some of them have virtually closed their doors on new work.

In some areas of law — for example, adoption — I have come across instances lately where the Legal Aid Board failed to provide legal aid within sufficient time to ensure that the rights of the applicants concerned were protected properly. It is not appropriate to name individuals or cases that could be identified. Particularly in the area of adoption, it is essential that the adoptive parents, for instance, or a mother seeking to regain custody of a child placed for a short period for adoption, make application for legal aid in order that they may be represented legally. The only court in which these proceedings can be heard at present is the High Court. I have little doubt that the manner in which the legal aid centres have dealt with some of these applications has prejudiced greatly the chances of success of those people who sought legal assistance from that scheme.

I welcome the Minister's announced intention to review the whole workings of the legal aid scheme as established. As I predicted when the scheme was first set up, it is now effectively collapsing. I hope that we can introduce a statutory scheme within a short time that will ensure people's legal right of access to the courts. This scheme can be amended by ministerial order as opposed to legislation. This is relevant in the context of the High Court, and this court has original jurisdiction in determining all constitutional cases. No doubt the new judges to be appointed under the Bill before us will find themselves dealing with constitutional actions. For reasons best known to the former Minister it is not possible under the existing legal aid scheme to obtain legal aid from that scheme in a constitutional action. I am aware of instances in which applicants whose means clearly qualified them for legal aid under the scheme were turned down because the action they were to bring was of a constitutional nature. If the scheme remains as it is and if that aspect of it is not amended quickly — and I hope it can be amended by ministerial order even pending the introduction of a statutory scheme — I have very little doubt that this country will have the ignominy of facing a further case before the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg due to the fact that legal aid is not available in this country for the defence of fundamental rights of a constitutional nature before our courts.

I welcome the Bill as a measure which will provide some interim relief. I reiterate that I hope, particularly in areas of family law, that we will have a fundaat mental re-examination of the problems and provide a structure more coherent and unified than we have at the moment. In so doing we will take away some of the pressure that exists on all three branches of our courts at present.

This Bill has the acclaim of everybody in this House in that the main intention of it is to increase the number of High Court judges.

I wish to comment on the situation in regard to the courthouses throughout the country. My colleague has just mentioned a courthouse in his constituency. I would like to draw the attention of the House to some of the areas where High Court cases are held. I am thinking particularly of Galway, where I had business some weeks back. I was at the High Court there and I was appalled at the situation. High Court cases in which awards of £100,000 or £250,000 or more are made are heard before a judge from Dublin. I was interested to hear a judge commenting that he was having difficulty in hearing what was taking place. The situation, particularly with regard to acoustics, in that courthouse in Galway is unsatisfactory. There is no such thing as a consultation room and consultations are held outside in the halls, on the street and at the back of the courtroom itself. All in all the situation is unsatisfactory and it has not improved in the last ten years.

Most of the courthouses in this country are unsatisfactory and unsuitable for their purpose and in this day and age they are a disgrace to our society. That is the situation obtaining in a certain number of our courthouses, at District Court, Circuit Court and indeed High Court level. It is particularly difficult for elderly people in such courtrooms, perhaps people who have never been in court before. They find they cannot hear what is going on, they are sitting in cold courtrooms where the acoustics are very bad and the overall accommodation unsatisfactory. In this day and age our society should be able to provide proper facilities for the hearing of court cases.

I would ask the Minister to give our courthouses priority. At present resposibility for them is divided among the local authorities, the Office of Public Works and the Department of Justice. Inevitably where there is divided responsibility an unsatisfactory situation obtains. For that reason I would ask the Minister to assume absolute responsibility in his Department for our courthouse accommodation. I know it involves a considerable task but he is a young man with much energy and I would prefer to see him tackle the problem than many others.

I am amazed to read that, even with the situation obtaining, the number of cases continues to increase and that the time lag between the setting down of a jury action and the actual date of hearing can be as much as 20 months. The provision of additional judges may or may not prove to be helpful in obviating the present backlog, but it is a step in the right direction. The Minister has said that something of the order of 3,653 cases were heard in the year ended 31 July last. As far as I am aware, there are something like 4,000 cases awaiting hearing at present, which constitutes a huge backlog. The system operating is particularly unfair to poorer people. At present there can be a timelag of four to five years between the date on which an accident or wrongdoing takes place and the date of hearing of that case. Something must be done in an effort to remedy that entirely unsatisfactory situation and speed up the whole process.

I should like to touch on the situation with regard to the list system as it applies in both the Circuit Court and High Court. In the case of the Circuit Court a list is issued to all of the solicitors and barristers in that court area. Normally all of the cases are listed for hearing on the first morning. The majority of people turn up on the first morning, when the cases are then allocated for the coming week. Usually what happens is that doctors, solicitors, barristers, engineers and other witnesses, including the litigants themselves, arrive the first morning. Cases may be put back and these people may be there for two, three or four days. This is not good enough. A common-sense arrangement should be arrived at, through the county registrar, with the solicitors and barristers on both sides so that at least opposing solicitors can inform the county registrar when they expect a particular case to be heard. Common sense should be used in an endeavour to avoid these backlogs and the inconvenience caused so many people.

The situation obtaining in the High Court is totally unsatisfactory also. I am constantly amazed to see the situation affecting so many of our best brain, heart and other surgeons called as witnesses in the High Court. The solicitor who may be calling a particular surgeon as a witness may telephone him on a Thursday to say: "The case in which you are a witness may be heard on next Tuesday or Wednesday." That surgeon then endeavours to arrange his operations a week in advance. The next thing that happens is that on the following Tuesday the solicitor realises that that case will not be heard on the Tuesday and he telephones the surgeon to inform him saying: "It looks now as though it will be heard on Thursday." But because of a backlog on the Thursday the solicitor must telephone him again and say: "I am sorry, that case will not be heard now until next Tuesday." I would hope that that situation could be remedied in some way, thus obviating the inconvenience caused so many people. I have seen people waiting for two days in the Four Courts for their cases to come up. All of this means that there is expense involved for everybody. Hopefully the Minister would arrange immediate consultations with the President of the High Court, the Chief Justice, senior officials of his Department and some of the senior people from the Incorporated Law Society. Indeed the Minister should chair such a meeting to ascertain if the situation can be remedied. It is not an insurmountable problem. Something can and must be done to alleviate the situation. Because of the apparent haphazard system of having cases heard, the law is brought into disrepute. The Bar Council, the Incorporated Law Society, the Chief Justice and the President of the High Court, together with the Department, must find a remedy for this problem.

I have a proposal to put to the Minister this evening. I live in Laois-Offaly. As the House is aware, the main prison in this country is situated in the town of Portlaoise. I travel to Dublin a number of times a week. Because of the Special Criminal Court being situated in Dublin at times one finds oneself being overtaken on the road by a convoy of squad cars, Army trucks, jeeps, armoured cars, the lot, bringing defendants to Dublin. In my view these convoys constitute a danger to other people using the roads because of the speed at which they manoeuvre in and out of the traffic. There are three factors involved here. The first is the safety, one which is of paramount importance to people using the roads. There is then the cost factor to the State, also of importance; and the security factor, which is again of importance to the State. There is all this high speed driving involving defendants, drivers and so on. Would the Minister consider a Special Criminal Court sitting in, perhaps, Portlaoise? The present courthouse there is not satisfactory but it is quite feasible that a satisfactory courthouse could be provided in the town or its vicinity, in close proximity to the prison.

I can understand the Minister's anxiety regarding the attendance of solicitors, barristers and expert witnesses. In that regard, there is an excellent train service between Portlaoise and Dublin of which the professional people could avail, or special arrangements could be made, if necessary. This would avoid danger on the roads, be less costly and provide a speedier and safer method of having the cases heard. It would not cause any inconvenience in Portlaoise, although the feelings and anxieties of the local people would have to be taken into account. The Minister has not had a chance to consider properly this highly desirable addition to our courthouses and I would ask him to do so now. If he wishes to discuss the matter with me at further length, I will be very happy to do so.

This is my first opportunity of speaking in the House since the Minister of State was appointed to the Department of Justice. I hope that he will be in that post for a long number of years and I wish him every happiness in his office. I also wish this Bill a speedy passage through the House.

I shall be very brief. I join with my colleague in welcoming the Minister of State to the House, particularly with this legislation and wish him well in his very interesting position. The responsibility for law reform is a very challenging one, but the Minister of State will acquit himself very well in his task. As he knows by now, there is a great lot of work to be done, much of which is not only desirable but urgent. However, before we can begin speaking about law reform in any real sense we must look at the ordinary administration of our courts at present. I welcome this Bill very much. One could go in depth into the courts system as it works at present but I said that I would be brief and brief I will be. I hope, by being brief, that the couple of points which I will make will be considered very carefully by the Minister.

Earlier this year the House passed legislation increasing the jurisdiction of the lower courts. It was said that this was part of a drive to overcome the massive arrears which had built up in the High Court. At that time it was indicated that additional facilities would be made available to the lower courts and that courthouses would be improved and the office and court staff of the lower courts extended. If my recollection is correct, that legislation was delayed for one year to enable these physical reforms to be carried out. I have not seen, at first hand, any of these reforms undertaken so far and I would like the Minister's assurance that the work involved is being undertaken. If the greater jurisdiction being given to the District and Circuit Courts comes into effect before the facilities are improved, a massive problem will develop in the lower courts which will be far more difficult to solve than those in the High Court at present.

I expressed the view at the time, and I still maintain, that that was not the proper way to overcome the problem of High Court arrears. Work which it was believed should be dealt with by the High Court should be dealt with by it. If there is a shortage of judges and of improved facilities in the High Court, the number of judges should be increased and the facilities improved. Although the measure which the Minister has brought forward this evening will go some way towards helping to solve the problem, I cannot see it solving it completely. The Minister should consider immediately increasing the number of judges in the High Court even further. Even when the jurisdiction of the High Court has been somewhat relieved by the increased jurisdiction of the lower courts a situation may not arise where one serving a notice of trial of a High Court action can expect a trial within three or four months. Any longer than that is justice delayed for a litigant and this we should not tolerate.

Our entire judicial system, so far as the High Court is concerned, traditionally has been centralised in Dublin. In recent years the High Court has sat in provincial centres such as Cork, Limerick and Galway, to great effect. Unfortunately, these centres became so popular that they have serious arrears problems building up. Would the Minister consider urgently the establishment of at least one permanent provincial High Court, let it be in Cork, Limerick or Galway? Put it south or west, but away from Dublin, and make it permanent. In relation to two or three other court centres which will not have the benefit or advantage of a permanent sitting, the sitting which takes place twice a year should be extended and if necessary an increased number of judges brought in for the currency of the sittings. The work which is put down for hearing at the sittings will then be disposed of. It is quite intolerable that cases are put down which may not be listed because judges are not available, or time is not given to deal with the amount of work before these courts.

As Deputy Enright has pointed out, it is desirable, from the point of view of professional witnesses, litigants and legal practitioners, that this work be dispatched in an efficient manner. That is not happening at the moment, which is to our discredit. I want to stress the importance of a further increase in the number of High Court judges and the establishment of at least one permanent provincial court sitting.

Finally — and I hope I am not going outside the terms of the Bill — in the administration of our court system we are very inefficient in some respects, probably because of tradition and because we have not been flexible or willing to consider changes which we should have considered as business grew upon us. In the central office of the High Court at present if one wishes to file pleadings or formal legal notices one must present oneself in person — either the solicitor or his agent — to deliver these documents. It seems extraordinary that the central office of the High Court does not realise that we have a postal service. Though the postal service may not always be as efficient as we would like it to be, I would ask the Minister to request the central office of the High Court to accept pleadings and formal legal notices by post. In so far as legal personnel and their staff are concerned, I find it hard to accept that any great additional burden would be placed on the central office staff. Perhaps the matter has been considered already and had been rejected for some reason. I do not expect the Minister to be able to give me an answer to that when replying to this debate but perhaps he will communicate with me in some other way.

I believe that the structures of our courts, particularly the lower courts around the country, need to be looked at. When the last Minister for Justice introduced the Bill increasing the jurisdiction of the District Court I had hoped that his reforms would include the provision of proper courthouses and court facilities throughout the country. That has not happened and there is no obvious hope of it happening by the time the new jurisdiction will come into effect. It is disgraceful that litigants, particularly those involved in family law type litigation, have to tolerate the facilities that exist at the moment. Members of the Garda must tolerate appalling conditions and they are expected to work in such conditions. Many gardaí spend a great deal of their time waiting for cases to come on without proper consulting rooms or waiting rooms. The courts frequently are held in community halls or old buildings which are draughty, damp and very uncomfortable. If we are to increase the jurisdiction of our lower courts we should have those courts fitted out with the dignity one would expect of legal administration. I welcome the Bill which I hope is the first step only in much needed reform in our court system.

I welcome the contributions made by the Deputies who saw fit to be here for the moving of Second Stage. One point which emerged throughout the contributions is that there is a necessity for this Bill which increases the number of High Court judges. A second point which emerges is that there is general dissatisfaction at the delays from the time of the setting down of trials to their actual hearing, and the general administration of court actions.

Many Deputies referred to the implementation of the Courts Act, 1981, which is due to come into effect on 12 May, 1982. I should like to clarify what seems to be a misapprehension that the wheels were set in motion through which certain things would take place in the course of the 12 months between the passing of the 1981 Act and its coming into operation. Deputy Collins asked for the position to be clarified as to whether I have reservations about the implementation of that Act in May 1982. I have already stated publicly, and it is the feeling of those in the profession, that the implementation of the Act in May 1982 in itself would be a cosmetic exercise particularly the part of it relating to family law and the transfer of jurisdiction to the District Court.

Certain provisions in that Act are very welcome. I would particularly mention the raising of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in tort matters to £15,000. Anybody familiar with the working of our courts must appreciate that the sum of £2,000 for tort actions in the Circuit Court had become outdated. Deputy Taylor suggested that in monetary terms our jurisdiction should be index-linked or at least reviewed every three or four years so that we would not have to change the monetary levels of our jurisdiction. In this matter the jurisdiction had been there for ten years.

In the matter of family law, anybody who has attended a District Court in rural Ireland will appreciate that in matters of custody our District Courts as at present constituted are not geared to cater for custodial matters in family law. Until certain steps have been taken, the Minister for Justice and I are satisfied that these custodial matters should be dealt with in the manner in which they are being dealt with up to now and until then as far as District Court jurisdiction is concerned the provisions of the 1981 Act will not be introduced.

When I consider the concern expressed about delays in the hearing of actions, I am glad I am not the architect of those delays or in any way responsible for them. It is obvious that there is a great demand for the elimination of those delays. I accept that Deputy Collins tried a remedy in 1979, but, the fact that we are here now debating this Bill makes it obvious that his remedy was not altogether successful. We must tackle the problem, and our decision to increase the number of High Court judges is a step in the right direction.

Points were made about the courthouse accommodation and I should like to clarify the situation. Before the recent destruction of Courtroom No. 4 there were ten courtrooms available exclusively for High Court business. One High Court judge sits in the Special Criminal Court in Green Street Courthouse and one courtroom is shared with the Dublin Circuit Court. At the moment, therefore, it is possible, in the absence of Mr. Justice Keane, to accommodate 11 judges, including the President, at High Court sittings in Dublin. If, however, additional judges are appointed, they could be accommodated because, for various reasons, courtrooms are free for 15 to 20 weeks of the working year as a result of the absence of judges on the spring and autumn sittings of the High Court on Circuit, each of which lasts four weeks, while the Cork jury sittings, which are held in January, March and July, account for a further seven weeks. Courtrooms are also available when judges are working in their chambers on preparation of judgments, vetting transcripts of cases, writing notes on cases appealed to the High Court or studying relevant papers for sittings of the Court of Criminal Appeal. When the Court of Criminal Appeal, which is comprised of the Chief Justice and two High Court judges, is sitting and when divisional courts hearing State side matters such as habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus and prohibition are sitting. There is provision for the hearing of these cases by divisional courts of the High Court consisting of three judges.

Furthermore, I understand that at the moment the President of the High Court is looking at the possibility of having High Court sittings at alternative locations. This indicates that even without further courthouse accommodation, which I admit would be desirable particularly with the increase in the number of judges, there will be an improvement. The facilities are available and will be available at various times. My personal view is that judges, having sat on cases for periods of days or weeks, should be allowed time to research their judgments and deliver them as expeditiously as possible so that we will not have a situation when, because of pressure of work, judges would have to get back to work in court much more quickly than would be necessary or desirable. If they were allowed to prepare and deliver their judgments as quickly as possible, we would not have the problem of delayed judgments.

A point was raised on the location of the High Court in various centres throughout the country. Deputy Collins stated his reservations about siting the High Court in Naas. It is not a case of siting the High Court in Naas to get it out of Dublin, or any reason like that. Due to its proximity to the Four Courts, it is considered that we could have sittings on a regular basis in Naas without any great disruption of court business in the Four Courts. I agree with Deputy Collins that it is desirable that the High Court should be taken to the people, rather than having the people travelling to the High Court.

We are all aware of the great inconvenience caused. Delays are caused to expert witnesses, engineers, surgeons, mappers, and so on, who travel from the country to the High Court in Dublin. They are not sure that the case will be heard on that particular day. Great inconvenience is caused to the litigants, the expert witnesses and the people depending on their services in their native towns. Deputy Collins claimed credit for commissioning the renovation of the court building in Tralee. There was a certain amount of short sightedness because, having only one jury box, it would not be suitable for a sitting of the High Court. I can assure the Deputy this matter will get urgent attention.

There is no doubt about that. We understand it, and we will support the Minister of State.

After all, I come from the country. The appointment of solicitors to the Bench was raised. While it is not within the ambit of this Bill, it is worthy of comment. It is an idea with very far-reaching consequences and it should be tackled by members of the Bar Council and by the solicitors' profession. I would have no hesitation in complying with the suggestion made by Deputy Collins. If we are to look at the question of appointing solicitors to the High Court, the whole question of the legal profession, solicitors and barristers, should be looked at from the point of view of the litigants and whether the service provided by a split profession is the best.

As a member of one of the professions, I have absolutely no reservations about welcoming any discussions between both bodies. I am sure my Department would facilitate both bodies in every way possible. This question must be considered against the background of access to justice and whether the litigants are getting the best value for money when they take a case to court. I would have neither reservation nor hesitation in opening any discussions with both professions on that point.

Deputy Enright talked about the disadvantages of having the Special Criminal Court in Dublin. I do not consider it feasible to hold a sitting of the Special Criminal Court outside Dublin for basic reasons. The Judiciary are almost completely based in Dublin. Most of the members working in the Special Criminal Court are based in Dublin. There is also the fact that the Special Criminal Court can sit five or six days a week and, at times, it has to sit at short notice on Saturday. This would not be facilitated by a sitting of that court in Portlaoise.

Deputy Molony talked about serving pleadings and lodging papers in the central office of the High Court. This matter is worth looking at because of the change in mobility, and because of the rule stipulating that one had to have a town agent within two miles of the High Court to serve proceedings. That rule may be outdated and it is worth looking at.

Many of the points raised were not within the ambit of the Bill, which proposes to raise the number of High Court judges by two, which we all accept is necessary. I would ask members of the Opposition in fairness to allow time to see how it develops, coupled with the implementation of the increase in jurisdiction, so that the problem of delays can be tackled seriously. Those delays are not acceptable to any Member of this House. Deputy Sherlock said he came across many instances in which he felt the delays were caused by the practitioners. Cases were set down and because the system was clogged up they could not be taken. I commend the Bill to the House. The points raised will be considered and we will report back at a later stage.

Has the Minister any comment to offer on the possibility of establishing a permanent High Court based in Cork to cover the south and the west?

I apologise for not clarifying that point when I mentioned the possibility of setting up a court in Naas. That matter is receiving active consideration from the point of view of bringing the High Court to the litigants rather than having the litigants coming to the court. It can be said fairly that the delays are distributed throughout the Dublin area and the rural areas and any remedy must be implemented equitably in both situations.

On the question of the prospective transfer of the High Court to Naas or Cork, has the Minister engaged in consultations with the Incorporated Law Society and the Bar Council and other interested parties? I agree that the litigants are the priority in any legal action. On the question of the fire in Court No. 4 in the Four Courts, is the Minister aware that an increase in the number of judges will not reduce the number of cases on the list? Unless Court No. 4 is rehabilitated as a matter of urgency, justice will continue to be denied to those litigants who want it at its freshest.

The Deputy will appreciate that any transfer of the High Court sittings will have to be negotiated with both sides, with the barristers' and solicitors' professions. Anything else would be totally undesirable and unworkable. Representations have been received from the solicitors' profession with a view to setting up a High Court in Cork. On the question of Court No. 4, I can assure the Deputy that its reconstruction is regarded as a matter of urgency by the Department. We realise the difficulties the burning of that court is causing and it will be repaired with all possible expedition.

Has the Minister any comment to make on the staffing difficulties?

I do not envisage any problems in relation to having a back-up staff for the judges to be appointed.

The general Government embargo will not apply in this instance?

I do not anticipate that it will apply. Otherwise there would be very little point in appointing High Court judges.

The Minister knows that very senior posts in his own Department are being blocked because of the embargo, and junior posts also. There will be very little chance of filling posts essential for the servicing and working of the courts unless the embargo is lifted, and unless there is a decision to lift it.

I am familiar with the situation in the Department of Justice.

We will help the Minister of State on Committee Stage by appropriate amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

I have some amendments to prepare, but I will do my best to facilitate the Minister of State.

The Chair would like to order Committee Stage and, if there is not agreement between the Whips, so be it.

Could the Minister put a time limit on the reconstruction of Court No. 4? At present there are only three High Courts catering for the accommodation of juries. The Dáil bar is a case in point. While I am not a regular habitue of the Dáil bar, I do not deny others the right to have a drink if they want one. For some unknown reason the bar, which was burned a number of years ago, has not yet been reconstructed. I hope the same principle does not apply to Court No. 4. I am sure my legal friends will forgive me for comparing a bar with a court, but in the circumstances the same attitude of mind prevails.

The Chair has been tolerant and expects that such tolerance will not be taken as a precedent. I do not know if the Minister of State would like to comment on that matter.

I have already said it will be done as quickly as possible, without going into the merits or demerits of the Dáil bar.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 2 December 1981.

If it is not suitable to take Committee Stage tomorrow, it can be changed, depending on the agreement of the Whips.

Top
Share