(Cavan-Monaghan): On a point of order, I wish to clarify the position now in regard to the procedure. May I take it that the Minister proposes to make a statement in accordance with Standing Order No. 38 and that a Member designated by this party will then have the opportunity of making a statement?
Court Officials Dispute: Statement by Minister.
I understand that the Government are accepting this procedure on this occasion only, that is, that a statement in response to a query from a Deputy be made by a member of the Government and that a statement be made also by a Member designated by each of the Opposition parties.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I do not wish to be controversial but lest it be taken that the Government had an option in this matter, I would point out that so far as I am aware the only way in which the Government can make a statement on notice to the Chair is in accordance with Standing Order No. 38 and that then the matter rests with the Chair and not with the Government as to whether Deputies of Opposition parties may make statements on the matter concerned.
I am only giving the House the information I received. When a statement is made on notice, where the Government give advance notice of intention to make a statement, under Standing Order No. 38 there is provision for a Member designated by each of the Opposition parties to make a statement also but on this occassion I understand that the Government are making a statement in reply to a query and that, as such, it does not come within the provisions of Standing Order No. 38. In this instance, having had advance notice of a statement to be made by a Minister, I will call on a Member designated by each of the Opposition parties after the Minister has concluded.
(Cavan-Monaghan): But am I to take it that the statement is being made in accordance with Standing Order No. 38?
That is so.
(Cavan-Monaghan): In those circumstances it would appear to be a gross impertinence on the part of the Government to say that on this occasion they would tolerate so and so. In my respectful submission they, like any other Deputy here must abide by Standing Orders.
At this point, it is good to clarify the matter. If the Government do not give notice of a statement, I would have no say in the matter anyway.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Am I not right in thinking that either the Government make a statement in accordance with Standing Order No. 38 or that they do not make a statement?
That is right.
(Cavan-Monaghan): If the Government fail to make a statement, the public can judge what their silence means but if they make a statement they must do so in accordance with Standing Order No. 38 and without any frills or anything else attaching to it.
On that point——
Is this a point of order?
It is on the matter that we are discussing. Am I to understand that a different situation would apply if, without giving notice to the Chair, the Government were to make a statement? Is that your ruling? It seems to me that in that case the Government are simply being disorderly. If they wish to make a statement either in response to a query raised from these benches or for some other reason, they must give notice to the Chair accordingly.
Yes.
Therefore, no situation other than that provided for in Standing Order No. 38 can arise.
But the Minister could reply to a query on the Order of Business and I would not be able to stop him. That would not come under Standing Order No. 38.
That is clear and if that were the case we would not be having this discussion now. If the Minister had been content to reply on the Order of Business we would have been much happier.
Thank you, Deputy.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I wish to make a statement on the negotiations that have taken place between my Department and the Civil Service Executive Union in the matter of the operation of the Courts Act, 1981.
May I begin by saying that, to the best of my knowledge, the matters at issue have now been resolved to the satisfaction of both sides but it may be that, because of an unavoidable time-lag in communication between the union leadership and all the members, there may still be some difficulties in some areas. If so, I hope and expect that they will be ironed out very shortly.
By way of background, may I say that the staff claims which were very substantial in financial terms, related not only to the Courts Act, 1981 but also to a number of other enactments already in force.
The matters at issue were referred to a joint committee consisting of representatives of the Public Services Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and representatives of the Minister for the Public Service established under the current public service pay agreement. As a result, agreement was reached, as an interim measure, for the upgrading of some posts, the creation of one additional post and a resumption of negotiations on the union's claim as soon as a work survey already in progress has been completed, which will be by 30 September. It was further agreed that, in the event of those negotiations not resulting in agreement by 30 November 1982, the matter would again be referred to the joint committee for a recommendation as to the procedure that should then be adopted to resolve it.
Following a meeting of the Executive Committee of the union on the evening of Tuesday 11 May, my Department were informed that the Executive Committee had decided to instruct their members in the Circuit and District Courts to process claims made under the provisions of all the relevant Acts including the Courts Act, 1981. My information is that the executive officers of the union set out immediately to communicate orally to the union's members concerned the decision of the executive and that written confirmation of the decision was issued by post yesterday to all those members.
The Minister has dealt only partly with the matters I asked him to refer to. First, I raised the problem of the dispute that had arisen and which was in existence yesterday and which so far as I know still exists in the context of the District Court clerks refusing to co-operate in the implementation of the provisions of the Courts Act, 1981.
I asked the Minister to comment also on the fact that there have been no rules of court published by him to deal with various areas of concern that arise out of change of court jurisdictions effected by the Courts Act, 1981. This Act extends greatly the civil jurisdiction of the District and Circuit Courts. It enables the District Court to determine civil actions involving sums of money up to £2,500. Up to 12 May this year that court was limited to determining such claims up to a monetary value of £250. The Circuit Court is now empowered under the 1981 Act to determine claims involving sums of money up to £15,000. It was previously limited to determining claims worth no more than £2,000.
In the area of family law the Act not only increases the financial jurisdiction of the courts but also introduces other far more fundamental changes. It effectively removes from the High Court its powers to determine custody disputes between parents or parties to a broken marriage and transfers these powers to the District Court and Circuit Court. It also removes from the High Court much of its remaining matrimonial jurisdiction and transfers it to the Circuit Court. While the general increase in the financial jurisdiction of both the District and Circuit Court is in principle a welcome reform, it is generally acknowledged by all those involved in the area of family law that the District and Circuit Courts as presently constituted are totally unsuited to deal with the vast areas of family law litigation now transferred to them. The physical structure of the buildings out of which district courts operate throughout the country alone renders them unsuitable forums for dealing with the emotional and sensitive issues that arise in custody cases. The same can be said of many of the buildings in which circuit courts operate.
In an Adjournment Debate on 1 April last I raised the various difficulties that would arise in the area of family law on the coming into force of the 1981 Act. In asking the Minister to introduce amending legislation I pointed out that although our courts have little experience in the area of matrimonial law and that while the District Court had some experience in this area the Circuit Court had almost none. I pointed out that in practice both the District and the Circuit Court had no real experience in the area of custody disputes. Replying on behalf of the Minister for Justice, the Minister for the Gaeltacht informed the House and assured me that his colleague, the Minister for Justice was fully aware of his responsibilities in dealing with these matters. However, from a reply received by me to a question on 5 May last it became clear that not only was the Minister not prepared to introduce amending legislation but that he and the Department had made no preparations of any nature for the coming into force of this legislation. It became clear that no additional court facilities would be made available on 12 May and that no additional staff had been recruited by the Department to assist the staff in the District and Circuit Court offices with the enormous increase in work resulting from the implementation of the provisions in the 1981 Act.
Even more extraordinary, however, is the failure of the Minister to publish rules of court laying down the basic procedures to be used in issuing proceedings in District and Circuit Courts to enable these courts to determine disputes arising out of the new jurisdictions transferred to them, not only in the area of family law but in all areas of civil litigation. This totally unprecedented failure of the Minister, a failure that has not been explained by him in the House today, casts grave doubts on his ability to properly exercise his responsibilities. In the light of the Minister's failure it is not surprising that the overworked and dedicated District Court staff are now engaged in a form of industrial action. That action is now coming to an end to enable further discussions to take place, but that is not a compliment to the Minister but an indication of the level of concern of the staff employed in District Court and Circuit Court offices.
Not only have no rules of court been published but no coherent and detailed instructions have been given by the Minister or his Department to the staff in either the Circuit Court or District Court offices around the country as to what administrative steps they should take to implement the new procedures. The Minister's failure to act is leading to total and utter confusion within the legal profession and is rendering it virtually impossible for lawyers to properly advise clients as to how to process claims before the courts. In the area of family law this will have particularly serious consequences. For many of those who look to the courts to resolve their difficulties, as matters now stand the High Court cannot deal with the vast majority of problems in the area of family law and no effective procedures have been introduced by the Minister by way of providing enabling rules of court to enable the lower courts to deal with these matters.
There are four actions I should like the Minister to take. The Minister should immediately publish the necessary rules of court. He should give an explanation to the House as to why no such rules have been published. It is necessary, and I believe he will be told this by his officials — and I am sure he has been told it already by the unions representing the staff in the District and Circuit Courts — to recruit additional staff to enable the courts to service the great increase in litigation they will now have to deal with. There is a need for additional court facilities. District Courts throughout the country are not suited and cannot cope with the great increase in jurisdiction that is going to descend on them. In the area of family law it will create additional traumas and problems for many litigants who come before our courts.
I should like to ask the Minister to recognise the fact that this Act, in so far as it relates to the area of family law is defective. I ask the Minister to consider reviewing the jurisdiction that the High Court possesses in these areas. I ask the Minister to introduce legislation here as rapidly as possible to do that. If he does so I can assure him that he will have the support and assistance of Members on this side of the House. In the interests of ensuring the proper administration of justice I hope the Minister is given leave to reply to the one question that is of great immediate and urgent concern, when will the rules of court be published so that lawyers and court staff will know how to deal with all the new jurisdictions the lower courts now find vested in them?
On a point of order, I want to try to get some information for the Members who are less clued into the difficulties here. I want to try to establish if this is a question of lawyers who have made large fortunes out of the miseries of other people not wanting to bring these matters down to the District Court?
(Cavan-Monaghan): On a point of order, I do not think it is necessary to make a point of order because I am sure the Chair will rule as he should rule. Rule 38 excludes any debate other than a statement from the Minister and a statement from a Member of the Opposition.
I find it very interesting to see so many lawyers defending their own personal interests.
On a point of order, if Deputy Fitzpatrick was aware that a point of order was not allowed under a Standing Order why did he rise to make a point of order?
It did not need a point of order. Deputy Fitzpatrick was right.
The Deputy broke the rules.
Basically, the Labour Party would regard the 1981 Act as welcome legislation in that without doubt the inroads of inflation necessitated an increase in the jurisdictions of the District and Circuit Courts. That cannot be denied. Those jurisdictions have remained unchanged for many years. However, it would follow that such a drastic alteration in the jurisdictions of the courts would require, and should have necessitated, a considerable degree of forethought and prior preparation on the part of the Minister for Justice and his staff. Clearly no preparation, or very little preparation or forethought, was given as to what the consequences would be of so drastic a measure in the administration of justice as was involved in the alterations in the jurisdictions.
As Deputy Shatter pointed out, rules of court covering the new situation have not as yet been published or prepared notwithstanding the fact that the Act is now in operation. That throws a question mark over the effective operation of the new machinery. Costs, for example, are not provided for under the existing rules of the court. As a matter of obvious comment I would say that the rules of the court should have been published and been put into operation simultaneously with the coming into operation of the Act. Had it not been possible for technical reasons in the Minister's Department — one can understand that — to have the rules available and published contemporaneously with the coming into operation of the Act, the Minister should have acceded to the requests made to him to defer the implementation of the Act until such time as it was possible to conduct the administration of justice of the country in an orderly and proper manner. Likewise, there was no forethought or consideration given to the fact that there will be a tremendous increase in the workload of the District Court and the Circuit Court, whose jurisdiction is being substantially increased.
We have no information that a commensurate increase in the staff servicing those courts — judges, county registrars and office staff — have been provided and likewise in the District Court. I believe it to be the case that no additional courthouse accommodation has been provided for the Circuit Court or District Court, within which the very substantially increased number of cases, which can quite readily be foreseen, will be heard. This will give rise to a very serious situation, not only for practitioners but for members of the public. Far from making provision for increasing accommodation, particularly in the District Court, as has been pointed out many times both here and at local authority meetings, the existing facilities of the District Court in Dublin and around the country are already utterly inadequate and incapable of handling the volume of business which they transact. These courts, to give dignity to the administration of justice, require, adequate premises and such facilities are not available. Here we find that, without any forethought, a huge additional workload will be imposed on these courts without any attention being given to the necessity for these facilities.
The increased workload for the District Court, for example, will very likely be quadrupled as a result of the increase in jurisdiction. I very much fear that, unless immediate action is taken, there will be a breakdown in the administration of justice. It may well be that, as an interim measure, the existing initial problems to which the Minister referred have been resolved. But I can well foresee that, unless urgent steps are taken, there will be even greater stresses building up in the District Court staffs, registrars and district justices as a result of which there will be a further breakdown unless that situation is tackled now.
Deputy Gallagher, as the agreed spokesman of the remaining political parties.
(Waterford): This Act became law 12 months ago, but the actual implication of most sections of the Act was deferred for 12 months and consequently came into effect on 12 May. The self-evident purpose of this deferment was to enable the Government and the Department of Justice to make adequate provision for the enormously increased jurisdiction of the District and Circuit Courts. To our mind the increased jurisdiction necessitated, firstly, increased staffing and training of District Court staff. Staff could not be expected to take on an increased workload without adequate increases in pay and improvement in staffing conditions; secondly, an increase in the number of district justices to handle the increased volume of cases, in particular family law cases. A complex body of law in relation to guardianship has been built up by the High Court in recent years and many of these decisions are unreported. Steps should have been taken to familiarise district justices with the complex law in the important area of guardianship. Thirdly, the provision of adequate support staff — for example, welfare officials, to enable the courts to come to rational decisions based on an adequate appraisal of the facts; fourthly, improvements in the physical facilities available in the District Court to enable consultation to take place in civilised surroundings. The present conditions of District Court premises are deplorable and totally unsuitable, as we all well know; fifthly, provision to be made for new proceedings embodying the rules of court to facilitate the implementation of the new jurisdictions; sixthly, the extending of the civil legal aid scheme beyond the existing centres, to enable persons to realise the remedies now available to them locally under the Act, in keeping with the principle embodied in the Act, of decentralisation of access to courts.
The State have had over 12 months to make these arrangements and their total failure to do so is a sign of gross irresponsibility and negligence. This has led directly to the present impasse which will effectively render the Act unworkable — this is quite on the cards — to the detriment of litigants seeking urgent relief. My party call on the Government to make the necessary arrangements which we have outlined.
Item No. 5.
I would like to say something.
I am sorry, Minister.
Could I make this point——
Standing Order No. 38 provides for the order governing statements.
I have a difficulty in this connection, because Deputy Fitzpatrick stated that by my silence I would be judged.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Sir, I did not.
The Chair is taking the Minister on a point of order. Would Deputy Fitzpatrick please resume his seat?
(Cavan-Monaghan): I rose to clarify what I said.
Gross impertinence.
The Chair is taking the Minister on a point of order.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I did not say that.
Of course, he did not.
Please resume your seat, Deputy Fitzpatrick. The Chair is taking the Minister on a point of order.
(Cavan-Monaghan): He did not make a point of order.
Well, he said he was about to make a point of order. The Chair will see. The Chair will adjudicate on that, not Deputy Fitzpatrick. The Minister, on a point of order.
Deputy Fitzpatrick has stated that by my silence I will be judged here today.
He did not.
That is exactly what I heard him say.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I said that if the Minister did not make a statement——
The Deputy should not distort what he has said.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The record will show.
Will the Minister please address his point of order to the Chair and not to Deputy Fitzpatrick?
Deputy Fitzpatrick states that, in the knowledge which he claims to have of the rules of the court, while at the same time Deputy Shatter asks me, in the course of his contribution, to make a statement in reply to his allegations——
Deputies
Hear, hear, exactly.
——in connection with the rules of the courts. In fairness to the Deputy, he should——
I am bearing with the Minister on the point of order. If he is asking the Chair to confirm his understanding of the point of order, the Chair will do so; but the Chair is not in a position, in respect of statements, to allow anybody to speak more than once.
Hear, hear.
There is no provision for a reply by the Minister. That is the position under Standing Order 38.
May I address myself to the Chair and say that it is a scandalous situation that Deputy Shatter and his colleagues in the Fine Gael Party can misinterpret the rule and misrepresent me and the Government?
On a point of order——
(Cavan-Monaghan): That is not so.
That is abusing the order of the House.
Now, Minister——
That is an accusation which will present more difficulty than the solution which is sought by my Department and myself, and it is done for the purposes of political projection.
I am sorry, Minister. I must now interrupt you and ask you to desist. The Chair has indicated to the House——
Grossly impertinent.
——that the Minister is not permitted to make any reply.
He has just done so.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Good man yourself, Minister.
Hear, hear.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister can take consolation in the fact——
You are making money on the backs of the poor.
What about The Irish Press on the day before yesterday, talking about the wheeler dealing between the Taoiseach and the Gallagher Group? Tell us about the wheeling dealing there? It was in The Irish Press the day before yesterday, in black and white, the truth in the news.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy L'Estrange is locked in reverse.
Deputy L'Estrange——
Deputy L'Estrange was silent for four years and he is six months here and is introducing disorder.
Deputy L'Estrange is up to his old tricks again.
Would the House be satisfied now that it has given the Deputies an opportunity of ridding themselves of the puerility which we have heard and allow me to proceed to the next business? I am calling item No. 5 now and will insist that anybody who remains will be orderly.
On a point of order——
Deputy L'Estrange, on a point of order.
What I stated appeared in the day before yesterday's Irish Press. I am only quoting from that.
(Interruptions.)
I will be back in the backbenches enjoying myself. It makes no difference to me, thanks be to God.
Deputy Creed, please.