I join with other speakers in supporting the Bill. I should like to make a number of observations which are to a considerable extent derived from my own practical experience but also from the experience of those who have more time than I to practise. I agree with Deputy Enright when he said that it is the Government who have and should retain the responsibility for the appointment of judges. I say that in the knowledge that the Judiciary subsequently becomes a separate arm of the Constitution. I have been practising for over 25 years at the Bar and I have been a Member of the Oireachtas for 20 years and I have found that the manner in which the Judiciary discharge their separate constitutional function has always been independent and without any political bias.
At this late hour we are only speaking for the record and certainly not for the mass attendance here. Perhaps we are not even speaking for the public because of the late hour and the pressure that puts on the reporting staff in the media. For that reason I want to quote my own experience in Government and in practice. That experience is derived from an association which I had on a personal level with a former Taoiseach, the late John A. Costello, whom we all knew at the Bar as "Jack" and which is how he wished to be known. It was my privilege to find myself sitting beside the late Jack Costello when the question of appointments by Governments came up. He indicated that in the first Inter-Party Government a suggestion was made that the appointments should be taken out of the hands of Government and placed in the hands of the Bar Council or the Incorporated Law Society, for whom I have the greatest respect, or some other independent group. The Government tried to be impartial for a very short period, but they then decided that that was not the way to do it. The representations and the understandable persuasions from within the professional lobbies became the main problem that the Government faced, whereas in this instance it is their role to discharge independently their function in the appointment of judges.
A former President of the Incorporated Law Society, Michael Houlihan, made great play in public statements recently regarding the Judiciary. The consequences of his statement could only have two effects: to denigrate the standing of the Judiciary, although he may not have intended that, and also to denigrate the role of public representatives. He suggested that the appointment of judges should be taken out of the hands of politicians. Unfortunately, the term "politician" does not have the connotations or standing that we wish it had, but I totally repudiate the implications of that criticism. It is the fundamental role of Government and in the discharge of that role they have invariably made the best choice. I see no basis on which anybody from a professional organisation should, for the sake of publicity, make a criticism which is so ill-founded.
I was pleased that Deputy Enright mentioned that I was a member of the Government who appointed such a distinguished former Fine Gael Deputy to the High Court. I refer to Mr. Justice Finlay, who is now the Chief Justice. I was equally privileged to be a member of the Fianna Fáil Government which appointed Mr. Justice William O'Brien Fitzgerald as Chief Justice. He had not been a representative of Fine Gael but his sympathies were known to lie in that direction. We also had the distinction of appointing the first lady to the High Court, namely Miss Justice Mella Carroll, and that could hardly be said to be on the basis of association with Fianna Fáil. The pattern in recent times, if not as obviously impartial, has been done on the basis of the highest standing at the Bar. To those who suggest or imply that our Judiciary are there because they are politicial hacks, I say that that is a great insult to those who have served us so well. It is also an offence to the House and to the Government who have discharged their responsibilities very effectively. We are very fortunate in the standing of the current Bench, not that I am looking for any favours when I may appear before some of them next week.
The problem is not just in regard to numbers of judges; it also refers to accommodation. If we had adequate accommodation in the courts we could deal very effectively with the backlog referred to by the Minister. The Minister mentioned that there are delays in bringing trials to court, ranging from ten months in Dundalk to 12 months in Dublin and elsewhere. As far as I know, the Dundalk High Court sessions last for at most four weeks in the year. They are currently sitting for two weeks in Dundalk. Therefore, when one speaks of a ten month delay, in effect you are not talking about a delay at all. I know of cases in connection with accidents which occurred during the last year and a half which are down for hearing in this session in the Dundalk High Court. We need more accommodation around the country so that the High Court and justice can be brought to the people. The only limit on that operation is the lack of adequate accommodation. If one could have three judges of the High Court in Limerick there would be little or no backlog in the High Court there. The same applies to Cork and Galway. The real limitation is not that on the number of judges, it is the limitation of accommodation.
Some of the experiments that took place some time ago in bringing the High Court to towns such as Trim, Kilkenny and other places might be repeated elsewhere. For instance, why not bring it to Nenagh where we have the necessary accommodation? It is certain that sufficient litigation from County Tipperary could be dealt with there. I am not making the case just for Nenagh. I suggest that in many places the facilities are available and they should be used to relieve the backlog of cases. While judges are needed, accommodation is also necessary.
There is some necessary delay in most serious High Court actions. If a person suffers a serious injury, a claim in the High Court cannot be concluded without having the opportunity to establish and diagnose the sequelae of the injuries suffered by a person in an accident. In major injuries this will not emerge clearly until at least two years have elapsed. A person may suffer a fractured femur, a fractured tibia or a fractured skull but the consequences will not be known until at least two years. People should realise there is a minimum period that must elapse before proceeding with a case, even though a courtroom and a judge may be available immediately. Any prudent lawyer would advise waiting until there was a final prognosis and a conclusive medical opinion. It should not be thought that all delays are due to the backlog of cases. Quite a number are delayed by deliberate and prudent decision of the legal advisers concerned.
I should like to pay tribute to the current President of the High Court, Mr. Justice Liam Hamilton and to his distinguished predecessor, Mr. Justice Finlay, now President of the Supreme Court. Presidency of the High Court entails the job of management and administration as much as carrying out judicial functions. The current president and his predecessor have accommodated the interests of litigants and of the juries and witnesses. They have also accommodated the lawyers who discharge their professional obligations and the court staff.
The only problem that remains is the problem of adequate accommodation. Sometimes people compare the atmosphere in the High Court to a fair day in the old town. It has to be said that the provision of adequate consultation rooms in court buildings would not go amiss. I am not talking about lawyers who are paid to do their job and who are used to standing around in corridors. However, for the people involved that one day has fundamental importance in terms of obtaining proper compensation and they have to convey their views to their lawyers in the corridors of draughty court buildings. That is not a proper service. There should be adequate consultation rooms for people to allow them facilities to consult with their legal advisers on a very important day in their lives.
I exclude Dublin when dealing with accommodation because the Round Hall is spacious and there are consultation rooms, but the story is different so far as the High Court and the Circuit Court are concerned when we talk about Cork, Galway, Limerick, Sligo and Dundalk. Sometimes consultations have to be conducted outside doors even in winter. What kind of facility is that for our citizens? It has to be said that some progress has been made in improving some of the accommodation. In Waterford, Thurles and Dungarvan — I am talking about the circuit in which I practise — facilities are adequate, but I think it would be past the comprehension of any Member here to realise the circumstances in which justice was administered in these courts even ten years ago. However, I must acknowledge the progress that has been made and I hope there will be further improvement.
The appointment of judges is important. They will not deal just with civil cases but with criminal cases. The most grave error was made by this Government in early 1983 when they cancelled the prison development programme. It was necessary at that time, but now it is crying out for implementation. How can the courts properly discharge their responsibilities when people sentenced by them find there is no accommodation for them in prisons? On occasions people sentenced by our courts get as far as the front door of the prison but are sent home because of lack of accommodation. Consider the damage done by that to the whole administration of justice, to the standing of our our courts, the morale of the Garda and the social fabric of society. I have never heard any Minister attempt to justify that shortsighted decision.
If the Minister for Justice were present, and I wish he were, he would try to deny that that caused the problem. Judges, district justices, the Garda Síochána and people who know the system are aware of the true situation. It is a major public scandal. In his report on the Appropriations Account for 1984, the Comptroller and Auditor General pointed out the money wasted in the prison development programme. Millions of pounds have been wasted on surveyors' fees, on site acquisition and on accommodation of prison staff. Costs have been incurred in respect of custom engineered operated steel doors. I will leave it at that.
It is time the Government acknowledged that that decision in 1983 has had disastrous consequences for the administration of justice, that it has undermined the morale of prison staffs, the Garda and the officials of the Department of Justice who could have told the Minister for Justice that if that programme was urgently necessary in 1980, by 1983 it was far more necessary. It was cancelled.
We complain about judges, the courts and about criminals walking our streets. I know the Minister of State is concerned about preserving our social fabric. Would she therefore please convey, as a matter of urgency, to the Minister for Justice the need to have proper prison accommodation, the kind that was taken over in Cork which was used for the education of people from deprived backgrounds, people who should be helped by every means along the way to rehabilitation. We have done nothing about such deprived people — indeed, we have deprived them of the rights that should be theirs while they are in custodial care. A matter which applies equally to the High Court, the Supreme Court and the District Court has been included in the most recent report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. It appears on page XXX of the report. It shows how the current blunt instrument in regard to public sector recruitment is affecting the administration of justice:
The Accounting Officer has informed me that the Commissioner has since reported that the number of unexecuted warrants in this office in mid-1985 was 10,360, a reduction of 4,500 since June 1984.
The report stated that the local District Court — this is in Dublin — had not issued any warrants to the Garda in respect of traffic offences for more than a year. Why should they, when they know that the warrants have not been executed? The backlog of warrants in the District Courts is greater than that in the warrants office. The Accounting Officer said that the situation was created by staffing problems for which no immediate solution is in sight.
This has been evident to all but those who do not wish to see, and I particularly include in this the current Minister for Justice who does not want to see, the lack of proper prison accommodation, the lack of court staff, the lack of staffs to execute judgments which are piling up. The effect on the Garda is serious. I hope the appointment of extra judges will not be the subject of criticism because their judgments, sentences and fines will not be implemented. I hope the Minister of State will report to the Minister for Justice that, though we welcomed the appointment of extra judges, we expressed serious concern about the lack of back-up staff, of prison accommodation and proper court facilities which undermine the whole process of the law and the prison service. Our Judiciary and prison staffs have done us proud in severely restricting circumstances.
Grave injustices are being caused, also by staff shortages, to people who have been sentenced in the Circuit and Central Criminal Courts and who have lodged notices of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. They are unable to proceed because transcripts of the trials are not available. Appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal are heard on those transcripts but there are delays of between two and three years in the production of those transcripts. I have this on the authority of members of the Judiciary. Therefore, a person convicted who has lodged an appeal has to wait, possibly in prison, for two years until the transcript of his trial becomes available. This is due to the staff recruitment embargo. There are many people in prison whose appeals should have been heard long ago. The appeals of some of those people may be successful, so one can appreciate the mental and physical harm inflicted by this crude blunt instrument of the recruitment embargo. It is time for that embargo to be removed so that the courts could have the proper back-up services to enable them to work properly in the administration of justice.
Deputy Hyland was more than kind to lawyers but he referred to the use of legal gobbledegook which the public do not understand. I endorse fully his concern that the law should be understandable to ordinary members of the public. Every young law student knows the maxim that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Therefore, we should try to ensure that the citizens would be able to understand the law. It is not the fault of lawyers that the phraseology of law is so complex and unintelligible. The fault lies with this House. We are the ones who pass legislation and who introduce all the complex amendments to amendments. We use such phraseology as, "the Principal Act is the Act of 1935 and notwithstanding anything contained in section 43, subsection (2) of that Act, amended by section 5, subsection (6) of the Act of 1948 with the proviso that no amendment be made to the Act of 1949." We are the ones who present that gobbledegook. That is the kind of terminology that Deputy Hyland has complained of.
It is easier to complain than to do something about the problem but I must hazard the view — it is more than a guess — that by and large the terminology in most of our legislation is based closely on the drafting procedures in British legislation. Much of the legislation being introduced here is "cogged" directly from British statutes in terms of drafting. I am not blaming the parliamentary draftsman's office for this because again we are talking about an area in which there is not adequate staff. The courts cannot be blamed for the delay in updating laws. We have been waiting for a long time for this updating. In this regard I shall not mention the number of Bills that have been promised here but the main reason, though not the only one perhaps, for the delay stems from the draftsman's office because of the shortage of staff there as a result of the embargo on recruitment. The only point on which I would take issue with Deputy Hyland in his criticism is that the lawyers are not responsible for proposing the kind of terminology used in our laws.
I trust as Deputy Hyland has raised the issue it will have the result of all of us being a little more sharp in our scrutiny of legislation. Regardless of what role I may discharge at the time of the next Finance Bill, I will bear in mind the Deputy's criticisms. Anyone who has ever tried to make sense of the terminology in Finance Bills will appreciate precisely what Deputy Hyland is complaining about though I consider him to have directed his criticism at the wrong targets.
Regarding the appointment of women to the Judiciary or to ministerial position, I am proud that we made history by being the first Government to appoint a woman judge, in the person of Miss Justice Carroll, to the High Court and in the appointment of Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn as a Minister. We must all welcome the fact that women are being acknowledged in our society at every level in terms of the roles they discharge. The number of women practising at the Bar and in the solicitors' profession will mean that, if not immediately, there will be soon a highly qualified pool of expert lawyers who will include women and men and from which the Executive of the day will make its choice in terms of appointment to any of our courts. From my knowledge of the capacity of so many lady barristers and solicitors I am confident that in the foreseeable future there will be an adequate representation of experienced and qualified professional women on the Bench.
The only comment I would make is that all judges should have the necessary professional qualifications. If they do not have those qualifications after ten years of practice at the Bar there is little hope for them. The only question of suitability that arises is not a question of qualification and experience: it is a question of temperament. The old fashioned gifts of courtesy, patience and concern are of special importance to those who sit on the Bench. I am glad to be able to say that the present judges of the High Court, the Circuit Court and the Supreme Court are exemplary. That has been the pattern at least during my experience of the courts and I trust it will continue. I trust, too, that there will be no implication that those being appointed to the Bench are being appointed as political hacks but rather that their appointments are based on their professional standing, integrity and the human qualities of courtesy and concern.
