I understand I have 20 minutes.
Adjournment Debate. - Family Law Cases
Yes, and the Minister will have ten minutes to reply.
The matter I am raising arises from a question I had on the Order Paper today to which I got a written reply. The question was effectively and essentially concerned with asking the Minister for Justice whether he intends to introduce legislation to amend those provisions in the Courts Act, 1981, which would enable the District Court to determine custody proceedings as and from 12 May 1982 and which will from that date deprive the High Court of jurisdiction in such proceedings. The reply I was given was to the effect that parliamentary questions about possible legislation presented particular problems for the Minister for Justice because of the very wide range of his responsibilities. Effectively, the reply was that various policy questions about law reform have first to be discussed by the Minister with the Government. It is clear from his reply that there is no intention to deal with the problem referred to by me in the question.
What I particularly want to raise is the worry about what is going to happen as and from 12 May 1982 if no amending legislation is introduced by the Minister and in particular what plans the Minister and the Government have to deal with the ensuing problems. The problem is a simple one. It is that there are a great number of marriages breaking down and in a number of instances parents cannot agree as to which parent should have custody of children born to them. As a result there has been a continuous stream of family law cases going into the courts dealing with different aspects of marital breakdown and family law. In particular there has been a regular stream of such cases into the High Court. The most recent statistics available to me show that in a 12-month period the High Court dealt with something approaching 1,000 custody cases.
The difficulty is that, under the legislation passed by the previous Fianna Fáil administration, the High Court from 12 May will effectively lose its powers to deal with this area of law, will cease to have power to make custody orders, and this jurisdiction will be rransferred, willy nilly to the District Court. It will be transferred out of the High Court, a court which for over 150 years has had power to deal with this area and in which it has developed a considerable expertise in determining such distressing cases. The District Court at present has very limited powers in the area of family law and has had no experience of dealing with custody disputes.
I believe that the Government should consider introducing as rapidly as possible — if possible on the first day after the adjournment to this House for the Easter holidays — a Bill to remedy the situation and to remove that jurisdiction from the District Court and retain it in the High Court. The reason for that is due not only to the fact that the members of the High Court have developed an expertise in that area while members of the District Court do not have such expertise, but that the District Court totally lacks proper court facilities throughout the country. It is demeaning to the family in a nation whose Constitution upholds the institution of marriage and says we will defend it from attack, where we regard marriage as the most important institution and something worthy of protection. Yet we are intending to tell people whose marriages have broken down that they can no longer go and have their custody disputes over any children resolved in the court which has the most experience in this area, that they must now go down to the District Court which has no experience. If one looks at the facilities available in some of our District courts one sees the idiocy of this proposal to be implemented on 12 May. In some parts of the country District Court sittings are held in dance halls, in rugby football clubs, in dilapidated buildings that are sometimes simply one single room with no facilities for consultation with clients, for private discussions or privacy of any nature. The District Court is totally both structurally and in regard to manpower, ill equipped to deal with such cases and it should not be given the power to deal with them until it is fully and properly equipped to do so.
I am sorry that the Minister for Justice is not available and I understand the reason why he is not. I presume the Minister present has been briefed by the Minister for Justice. As this is not a matter of Government policy requiring all sorts of preparations, I would like to know whether the Minister intends to introduce emergency amending legislation after the recess. If not, what steps will his Department take to provide the additional facilities that the District Court will require to enable this Act to be workable? If those facilities are not provided, if additional district justices are not to be appointed, if additional social workers or court officers, who are presently doing some work in the area of marital problems, are not appointed to the District Court, we will have total chaos in our court system in the area of marital problems from 12 May. We will have total confusion, not merely on the part of lawyers seeking to advise their clients, but also on the part of people caught up in the unfortunate predicament of facing a marriage breakdown.
The chaos will be added to by the fact that depriving the High Court of power in this area is unconstitutional. Therefore we will be creating a situation where we may have a logjam of family custody cases. We will be creating a situation in which it will appear on the face of it that the High Court has no jurisdiction to deal with those cases. The District Court or, alternatively the Circuit Court, which will also have jurisdiction and has equally little experience in this area, will find themselves in the position of trying to take up such cases under an Act which I believe may be constitutionally unsound. We will have a situation where couples whose marriages have broken down will find themselves in a complete limbo, unable to litigate in the High Court, unable to litigate in the District Court either because the structural facilities are not available for the cases to be heard or because the District Court is waiting for the determination of a constitutional decision in relation to the validity of this section in the Courts Act, 1981.
I urge the Minister in the interests of people whose marriages are in difficulty and who have sufficient problems without this legislation adding to them by placing them in this political limbo, to take immediate steps to repeal that section of the Courts Act 1981. In case the Minister tries to give the justification his colleague gave to justify this position, that by conferring this jurisdiction on the District Court it would ease the legal cost burden of people who are parties to constitutional cases, I disabuse the Minister of that notion. It is desirable that legal costs be reduced but where a custody case is fought between a husband and wife represented by lawyers in the District Court or High Court, the legal costs aspect is not relevant in the context of the form in which these cases are determined. What is relevant is the type of work involved in the proceedings. Many custody cases are not determined and dealt with in the courts within an hour or half-an-hour, which is the usual time a District Court takes when dealing with cases in the area of family law, but often can run for two or three days. Whether that happens in a District Court in a dance hall in Lucan or in the High Court proper the same evidence will have to be called, the same professional and psychiatric witnesses will have to be present and the same degree of work will have to be done.
It is dishonest to suggest that this measure will save money. It will add to human misery and to the existing legal chaos we have in the area of family law. If the Minister's colleague does not intend to introduce amending legislation, what specific plans have the Department and the Minister to make this provision work? What arrangements have the Department made to have suitable premises made available in which the courts can operate? Does the Department know whether the President of the District Court has taken steps to ensure that his colleagues in that court are fully acquainted with the vast number of judgements delivered by the High Court in this area to ensure uniformity of approach when dealing with tragic cases of custody disputes between husband and wife?
In case what I am saying is misinterpreted I do not believe that these types of cases should remain for all time within the High Court jurisdiction. Before being a Member of the House, I advocated the establishment of a family court. We should have a uniform and specialist system of family courts established to deal with all family law matters and matters arising particularly from marital breakdown. Under the system that exists at present with no legislation for the establishment of family courts, we must deal with the situation in the best way we can, which is to use the judicial expertise which resides in the courts and have such cases determined within those courts that have been used to dealing with them.
The High Court has dealt with the vast majority of custody cases which have been determined over the years. The Circuit Court had a jurisdiction but it was more theoretical than real. There have been no more than half-a-dozen custody cases dealt with in the Dublin Circuit Court in the last 12 months. The reason is that the expertise rests in the High Court and everyone knows this. The manner of Circuit Court sittings has never lent itself to these cases being dealt with in a considerate and humane way. Instead of such disputes being heard in one, two or three days when the Circuit Court is involved, the parties may find themselves in court on a Tuesday, a week later on a Thursday and the following week on a different day and so on. The process is dragged out and adds to the distress of the people involved.
I hope the Minister will give specific information as to what the Government intend to do in relation to this matter, whether we will have amending legislation or state, as an alternative, the facilities that will be provided. Not merely does the Act deprive the High Court of jurisdiction to determine custody cases but it also appears to do so in a number of other areas, for example, maintenance applications. What plans are afoot to ensure that the Circuit Court has proper facilities in this area? What measures had the Minister and the Department implemented to ensure that all these matters are dealt within a proper, humane and speedy fashion, whether in the District Court or the Circuit Court?
The Minister's answer to my question on today's Order Paper is disingenuous, to say the least. It is an appalling reply from a Minister who has no knowledge or understanding of the whole area with which I am concerned. Clearly neither he nor his officials made any inquiries to ascertain the problems in this area. It shows no inkling of knowledge or wish to obtain, through his officials, the necessary knowledge to provide a sensible and substantive reply. I am appalled by the long waffling answer given that if there is to be law reform the Minister must discuss it at Government level and so on. On 12 May this problem will arise. The vast majority of people heading into court with a marital problem will find themselves in considerable confusion as will the courts, the lawyers and other professionals such as social workers.
The Minister's reply is an indictment of the lack of social concern this Government have. It is indicative of the fact that the Government have no serious commitment to tackle the real problems that exist in the general area of family law and marital breakdown. This is confirmed by the fact that there was no Minister of State appointed to the Department to deal with the area of law reform. If there was such a Minister possibly there would be more understanding of the problem I am dealing with.
There is an additional matter I should like to put on the record of the House so that the Government will have no excuse for not tackling the issue. A commitment was given by Deputy Spring on 1 December 1981 that this provision in the Act would not be allowed to come into force. He stated that in the matter of family law anyone who attended a District Court in rural Ireland would appreciate that District Courts as presently constituted are not geared to cater for custodial matters in family law. He went on to say that until certain steps were taken, he and the Minister for Justice were satisfied that these custodial matters should be dealt with in the manner in which they had been dealt with until then, that was within the High Court structure. He said that until then as far as the District Court jurisdiction was concerned, the provision of the 1981 Act would not be introduced. I have been advised that a Bill was under preparation to introduce necessary amending legislation to ensure that the events which are to befall us on 12 May will not happen. If the Minister or the Government have any desire to amend the provisions I have referred to, some of the preliminary work has been done.
The Deputy has raised on the Adjournment a subject which is in essence the same as Question No. 153 on today's Order Paper which received a written answer from the Minister today. The essence of the question and of this motion is the Deputy's apparent opposition to the provisions of the Courts Act, 1981, which gave jurisdiction in custody matters to the District Court with effect from 12 May next.
Dúirt an tAire, mar fhreagra ar an cheist nach raibh sí i gceart ná ar a chumas ráiteas a dhéanamh ar bun ábhair na ceiste sin go fóill agus níl athrú ar bith tagaithe ar an scéal ó thrí a chloig iarnóin agus is dócha go mbeidh seans ag an Teachta na rudaí seo atá luaite aige sna ceisteanna a phlé am éigin eile. Tá eolas fíor leathan ag an Aire agus a lán taithí ag an Aire maidir leis na ceisteanna ata á phlé agus na cúraimí atá aige féin.
On a point of order, if the Minister intends to speak in Irish in which I am not fluent, I would like the opportunity to switch on the translation service.
It is on.
Alternatively, I would like him to give me an opportunity to put on the ear phones, and secondly——
I am sorry, we cannot have interruptions.
On a point of order——
We cannot have points of order now.
If the Minister is as articulate in English as he is in Irish, he could treat this matter with the respect and understanding with which I would hope it would be treated. He could give me the consideration of talking in the English language which is the language I understand better——
That is not a point of order.
It is an indication of the contempt——
Is mise——
This makes it awkward to deal with this problem.
Aire na Gaeltachta atá anseo inniu.
(Interruptions.)
Bhí mé ag rá go raibh eolas fíorleathan agus a lán taithí ag an Aire maidir leis na ceisteanna atá á bplé agus gach uile chúram atá ag an Aire Dlí agus Cirt. Ní ceart go mbeadh imní ar bith ar an Teachta maidir le taithí an Aire Dlí agus Cirt. Sin atá le rá agam maidir leis na ceisteanna atá luaite ag an Teachta anseo agus beidh seans éigin eile aige sar i bhfad na ceisteanna sin a phlé, is dócha, leis an Aire Dlí agus Cirt nuair a bheidh sé i láthair.
That is a totally nonsensical reply and I wish to put on the record of the House that it is a contemptuous way to deal with a very serious social problem which will affect many hundreds of couples whose marriages have broken down within a very short time.
Is féidir leis an Teachta na ceisteanna sin a phlé nuair a bheidh an tAire Dlí agus Cirt i láthair.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.25 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 28 April 1982.