I am grateful to the Chair for the opportunity to raise this matter. My main reason for bringing it to the attention of the House is to give the Minister for Justice an opportunity to make a statement on this rather long drawn-out dispute. For the benefit of Deputies and to put the dispute and its consequences in context, I should like to outline the background to it. The District Court over the past few years has been the recipient of a great number of new and different responsibilities. In the area of family law there has been a great deal of legislation giving the District Court new responsibilities. All of that came to a head when we adopted the Courts Bill, 1980, which increased the civil jurisdiction of that court from a maximum of £250 to £2,500. It was also proposed in that Bill to give the District Court responsibility for other family matters such as the guardianship of infants. In the same year a Malicious Injuries Bill was passed and that gave the District Court jurisdiction to deal with a substantial portion of the malicious injury code.
With all those developments taking place it was obvious to practitioners and District Court clerks that the additional accommodation and facilities necessary in District Courts were not being provided. When the Bill dealing with the courts was being discussed here and in the Seanad, Members were concerned that proper facilities would be made available. We were concerned that new facilities in the form of additional physical accommodation and back-up services would be made available to ensure that the new and wide jurisdiction being given to the District Court would be within the capacity of the court and their staff.
When the matter was discussed in the Seanad I had many exchanges with the Minister for Justice, Deputy Doherty, and he assured us all that plans were in train to improve the physical courthouse accommodation around the country and to increase staff where that was necessary. He assured us that those matters were being examined. At the time I was doubtful about that statement because there was not much evidence of any plan being implemented. Subsequently the Minister indicated that he did not propose to bring the law into effect for 12 months after its passage through the Oireachtas to allow sufficient breathing space for that work to be carried out.
Any member interested in the subject should read carefully the assurances given by the Minister in both Houses. He spelled out precisely what he was going to do and assured both Houses that that work would be carried out within 12 months. Of course, time passed and at the end of 12 months — on 12 May 1982 — the new jurisdiction was to come into effect. It transpired at about that time that consultations with District Court clerks had not taken place, although the Minister had assured me in the Seanad that any necessary consultation would take place. It was obvious to everybody, practitioners, clerks and others, that virtually no changes had taken place in the provision of courthouse accommodation. It was obvious also that plans to increase the staff had not been put into effect. The result was that after some consultation with the Department of Justice, the District Court clerks fell into dispute about this. Since 12 May they have been operating a work to rule.
The effect of the work to rule is that District Court clerks have not operated the increased or any civil jurisdiction in the District Court. That means that anybody with a claim, whether it arises out of a car accident, a tort, a contractual liability, or whatever, has been unable to bring proceedings in the District Court for more than six months. One may say that because it is the District Court it is not too bad but, in fact, it must be borne in mind that the increased jurisdiction gave that court the entire civil jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. In effect, we have been without the civil jurisdiction of the Circuit and District Court since May 1982.
Practitioners will readily say that they have had complaints, understandably, from clients who are enraged by the fact that their car had been crashed into, that somebody had failed to deliver goods or that somebody broke a contract but they are unable in any way to enforce their legal rights by bringing cases against those with whom they are in conflict. The situation is serious but what is more worrying is that courts have not been operating their family law jurisdiction except in urgent and emergency type cases. Thanks to the consciousness of District Court clerks, and officials, of the necessity in certain family law cases they have been operating the administration of protection orders and barring orders where they see that they are required for emergency reasons or where there is a danger to the physical wellbeing of a spouse. However, as far as maintenance is concerned there has been no operation of jurisdiction. The same situation exists as far as enforcement of maintenance is concerned. We can all visualise situations that are arising daily, and have been going on for eight months, where spouses being maintained by husbands have no access to the court to enforce their right to maintenance. It is not too bad if a person is from a wealthy background because one can go to the Circuit Court but those who are badly off have no opportunity to get their maintenance orders. Worse still, all maintenance orders made before May 1982 giving the District Court clerk, as is the standard practice, the right to enforce such orders to make a recalcitant husband pay a certain sum weekly or monthly for maintenance, cannot be enforced. One can imagine the horror and difficulty being faced by spouses who at one time had the benefit of an enforcement system. It seems unlikely that they will ever get the arrears. Obviously such people have had to live off the health boards though the operation of the community welfare system.
I do not wish to get involved in the issues which are complex. We frequently speak of the reasons why strikes occur and we are very much into industrial democracy, at least in our speeches, whatever about our acts and our deeds. However, if one investigated how this dispute came about one could only come to the conclusion that the State failed in its duty to consult with people who would have to undertake a completely different type of work. I am satisfied from the exchanges I had with the Minister for Justice in 1980, and from discussions I had with members of the District Court staffs, that those consultations did not take place.
It is also quite clear that despite the undertakings given about improvements in the accommodation in the District Courts nothing was done over the 12 months from May 1980 to May 1981 when the new jurisdiction was to come into effect. If anything was done, it was done only in isolated places. I can fully understand why the staffs of the District Courts would feel they have been treated most shabbily. They were being asked to operate a jurisdiction for which they did not have the capacity in terms of office space, court space, basic facilities in the courthouses and, very seriously from their point of view, they did not have the staffs to operate this new system.
I remember being accused in the Seanad by Members on the Government side of denying people access to what was described by Senator Eoin Ryan as cheap law. He said I had some objection to cheap law. What Senator Ryan and the then Minister for Justice described as cheap law has turned out to be no law for anyone. The sad thing is that the people who are worse off in the community, the deserted wife, the small businessman who has lost a couple of thousand pounds, or has been cheated out of a couple of thousand pounds in a contract, the ordinary man in the street whose car has been damaged and who has been unable to collect his liability from an insurance company, are the sufferers.
It is incumbent upon the Government to give every consideration possible to going as far as they can to meet the District Court clerks, first because of the inadequacy of the preparation and also because of the failure to do what any employer would have done in changing the workstyle to the extent to which it was planned for in this case; secondly because of the misery caused to so many people because of the non-operation of the District Courts; and finally because of the fact that when this dispute is over there will be one hell of a problem to be dealt with. There will be thousands if not tens of thousands of cases backed up, and the likelihood is that we will be waiting for years to overtake the backlog. The problem is extremely serious. I know the present Minister for Justice was not associated with the problem in any way at any time. He has been busy since he went into the Department. I raised this matter because of its urgency and seriousness and because to the public at least little seems to be happening.
If I am not mistaken this is the Minister's first visit to the Dáil since he was appointed Minister for Justice. I congratulate him on his new position. I wish him well in a very difficult and sensitive job as we all know it to be. I am sure he will acquit himself extremely well. I hope he will have a long and happy time in the Department of Justice.
