Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Feb 1986

Vol. 364 No. 2

Courts (No. 2) Bill, 1986: Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Dukes)

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

This is a straightforward, although somewhat technical, Bill. Its purpose is (i) to designate Galway as a High Court appeal town for appeals from the Circuit Court sitting in the County Borough of Galway, and (ii) to allow the Minister for Justice, after consultation with the President of the High Court, to alter the composition of a High Court Circuit by adding or removing counties and/or county boroughs.

The need for the legislation arises from the fact that under the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, Galway is specified as the appeal town for the county of Galway only. The county borough of Galway was established on 1 January 1986 under section 5 of the Local Government (Reorganisation) Act, 1985 and is not, therefore, comprehended by the 1936 Act. This legislation will cater for the new county borough.

Under existing legislation the counties and county boroughs — other than the county of Dublin and the county borough of Dublin — which existed at the time of the passing of the 1936 Act are divided into four High Court Circuits, namely, the eastern, western, southern and north-ern circuits. The county of Galway only is included in the western circuit. It will be necessary for me, as soon as this legislation is passed and after consultation with the President of the High Court, to make an order adding the county borough of Galway to the western circuit of the High Court.

There is provision also in the Bill which will ensure that appeals lodged before the passing of this Act may be heard by the High Court on Circuit sitting in Galway.

The Bill is necessary for the due administration of justice and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Flynn

We have no objection to the Minister proposing this Courts (No. 2) Bill. It will have the support of this side of the House. I presume it is purely an arrangement whereby the new status of Galway can be incorporated in so far as the designation of Galway as a place for cases to be heard in the High Court is concerned. We happily give our full support.

Mr. Coogan

I should like to welcome this Bill. The anomaly created by not having this amendment made would have meant that the Circuit Court could not have sat in Galway. Whereas there might be some who would be very happy if that were so, there would be quite a number of others who would not be so happy. This arose as a result of a very historic and unique decision by the Government to give Galway a borough status. Although it was not seen at first that this would have to be done, a number of dramatic changes will be occurring in the next five years to give Galway its total independence. This is only one of many, I am sure. I welcome the Bill and I hope it will pass very briefly through the House.

Dr. Woods

Having given the courtesy to the Minister to let the Bill go through on very short notice today with very little opportunity to study the implications, I might have been given an opportunity to get here in time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not the fault of the Chair.

Dr. Woods

It has been done before that the Chair has asked for the spokesman in these circumstances. I was working in my office, saw that the House was still working on the Canals Bill and when I lifted my head again I saw that the Courts Bill was being taken.

Mr. Dukes

No fault of the Minister, either.

Dr. Woods

I appreciate that. In any event, we are prepared to go along with the Government on this measure in taking it in the rather unusual way in which it is being taken, with all Stages being taken today, the Bill having been circulated last night. I appreciate that the need for it has arisen quite suddenly. Why has the problem arisen now? It is a consequence of changes made earlier in the administration of local authorities. An order was made for the County Borough of Galway under the 1985 Act, on 1 January this year. If the order was made then, how is it that between 1 January and 25 February nothing was done and the matter arises here as late as today? When an order like that is made in the first instance, consequential changes are set out in the documentation accompanying the Bill. Therefore, the need for this change must have been known on 1 January.

Yet here we are faced with an emergency situation. The High Court is due to sit in Galway next week and no provision has been made for the hearing of appeals to the High Court from the Circuit Court. There is no provision in the 1936 Act, so it has to be made in a hurry today, otherwise there would be great difficulty in Galway next week. We appreciate the Government's difficulty and we are prepared to facilitate them, but why did the delay occur? It was known last year that this would happen, yet an order was made on 1 January by the Minister for the Environment, and he must have known about the difficulties then. Why did he not tell his colleague, the then Minister for Justice, about this difficulty? Did he tell the Minister for Justice or did he neglect to do so? When the order was made by the Minister for the Environment a brief would have been prepared. Instead we are forced to deal with this retrospective legislation and the whole thing has left citizens and the courts in a difficult position because of lack of attention to administrative details.

Of course the House will give the Minister leave to make the necessary rearrangements and the thing will be put back on an even keel, but this kind of thing should not be happening. What would have happened if this arose when the House was not in session? Some other means would have to be found to make the rearrangement but that would mean a longer period of retrospection.

Though the Opposition are prepared to be helpful to the Minister and the Government, it is not a good thing to allows things like this to happen. This is dealing with legislation in a piecemeal way, making minor changes in the basic Act. We know a great deal of work remains to be done in relation to the Courts of Justice Act, 1936. The administrative side needs to be brought up to date.

Last weekend one of the Minister's colleagues, Deputy Gay Mitchell, spoke about the courts, and the Oireachtas Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism have been looking at the courts of justice. Deputy Mitchell expressed the feeling that wigs and gowns should be got rid of from the courts. Perhaps I agree with him about the wigs, but I would be inclined to keep the gowns because we must retain some semblance of the seriousness of the work done in the courts. We should not denigrate the importance of the work of the courts in any way. Of course we all agree that the surroundings of the work of the courts leave a lot to be desired. Most of them are out of date and need complete revision and modernisation. One of the things that come to mind in this regard are on-the-spot fines, an extension of that system. Of course there should be an appeal back to the courts from such fines and I would ask the Minister to consider this area of the administration of justice. There can be cases in regard to the absence of a tail light from a car, bald tyres and other such offences——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is a very restricted Bill dealing with a change in Galway.

Mr. Dukes

Perhaps the Deputy could put the wigs on the bald tyres.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We were talking about an amendment:

(i) to designate Galway as a High Court appeal town for appeals from the Circuit Court sitting in the County Borough of Galway, and

(ii) to allow the Minister for Justice, after consultation with the President of the High Court, to alter the composition of a High Court Circuit by adding or removing counties and/or county boroughs.

Dr. Woods

The Bill adds to the area to be covered by the courts in Galway.

Mr. Dukes

No.

Dr. Woods

It designates Galway town as a town to cover Galway County Borough. That is not in the Schedule.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is a short but somewhat technical Bill.

Dr. Woods

I have read the purpose of the Bill. The Minister is seeking to add "Galway County Borough".

Mr. Coogan

No.

Dr. Woods

I would be obliged if I were allowed to speak on the Bill.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Woods, without interruption from Deputy Mitchell.

Dr. Woods

We are talking about the courts and the court in Galway town. This Bill refers to the administration of the court in Galway town, which is similar to the administration of courts throughout the country. This area of administration is in great need of re-examination. I would prefer the Minister to bring in a Bill making real changes as regards the administration of the courts rather than making piecemeal changes in the 1936 Act. I would like to see changes made in on-the-spot fines and in other areas. The buildings in which the appeals will take place are also a matter of concern because they are out of date. We must have a commitment to modernise many of these buildings and to provide a system which will ensure that the administration of the courts is carried out in an efficient and business-like way. There is also the provision of computerisation——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I emphasise that this is a limited Bill. I appreciate the Deputy's concern for further legislation to improve the courts but this Bill deals with the new development in Galway.

Dr. Woods

We are amending the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, adding a county borough but we are also giving the Minister authority in the future to make any further additions he wants to make. Section (aa) says that the Minister may in future, alter the composition of a High Court Circuit by adding to or removing from the Circuit a county or counties, a county borough or county boroughs or a county or counties and a county borough or county boroughs, and so on. If he makes any of these changes in the future he will affect the administration of the courts. This will also affect the place where the courts are held and how they are administered. The Minister is not just adding to a Schedule, as Government Deputies are suggesting, he is also giving himself powers to add to and subtract from these courts as he pleases.

I would be very appreciative if the Chair allowed me to proceed to deal with this Bill and to examine the areas which are relevant. The Minister could subsequently add any county borough or county he feels like and that will have serious implications for the courts. If he makes these changes at some future date he should first deal with the administration of justice in the courts in a more comprehensive way, and improve the administration of the courts for all who seek justice. I have already mentioned that the Minister could extend the scope of on-the-spot fines, driving licences and road taxes. He should consider codifying the law in relation to this area, bringing in Schedules which would relate to sentencing policy. People appeal the on-the-spot fines in court because it is so easy to do so. This too should be looked at and it should not be so easy to appeal. Having delayed proceedings for a long time, having cost many people a lot of money and time, the people involved may end up with a reduced fine——

Mr. Dukes

Or an increased fine as the case may be.

Dr. Woods

That does not happen very often. This is a point to which the Minister should give his attention. He should see what is actually happening on the ground. We have seen from recent court reports that the system is jammed because of appeals, the issue of licences and so on. This is an area where computerisation would help.

It is important that the Garda are not involved unnecessarily in court cases. They should be on the beat as far as possible, not tied up with appeals which are only making use of the system. When the Minister examines the criminal legal aid scheme he will find that appeals can be used as a delaying device. I cannot go into this in detail at the moment because I am only allowed make a passing reference to it but this is another area which should be looked at.

The kind of cases for which the Minister needs this Bill through in a hurry, by 3 March, deal particularly with tax appeals. The Minister might look at the way these appeals operate. As a result of the 1985 Act which altered the boundaries, a number of things are happening. One of the effects of this Act has been that the Howth court closed and any provision of a court in Howth would be a matter for the county. This means the county would have to make financial provision for this court whereas in the city of Dublin the courts come directly under the Department of Justice. I would like the Minister to tell us the extent to which that occurs within the county. Is it only to provide court facilities? Does it happen in any of the other major towns like Galway or Waterford? What does the Minister think of this arrangement? I am very interested in this because Howth has just been shifted into the county and has lost its court. The reply I had from the former Minister was that it is up to the local authority if they want to provide a court there. The situation in relation to Dublin is that the Department of Justice will provide a court.

What is the situation in Galway? As I understand it they come directly under the county. This has implications for the provision of the facilities in that areas as, indeed, it does in other areas throughout the country. Would the Minister let us know what is the position in relation to that aspect of the administration of the courts and what plans he has for future development in that area.

With regard to the detail of the Bill, on the one hand it adds this extra section to the schedule covering Galway County Borough. If the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, would watch the deals he might make as carefully as we feel we have to watch the small Bills that go through here, then the deals made by Ministers might be a little safer in the long run. Let us not sneer at the Opposition for checking in detail what is happening in a Bill, however small the Bill may be or however hurriedly the Government may want to put it through the House. Section 1 (1) (b) gives the Minister power in future to add or subtract, to alter the composition of a High Court circuit by adding to or removing from the circuit a county or counties. Would the Minister tell us if he has any intention at this stage of adding or removing other counties or changing or altering any other counties because this provision gives him the power to do that, which he has not at the moment?

I take it that the Act will require the Minister to put the regulations before the House in any event and that will also apply to paragraph (aa) of subsection (b) of this section and therefore any change he makes will have to come before the House to be dealt with. The other sections of the Bill deal with the retrospective aspects of this legislation and they attempt to highlight the point I raised at the beginning, that is that it is retrospective legislation and the Government are seeking to be covered in the Bill. Subsection (2) (b) states:

A notice of appeal served before such passing in respect of a judgment or order referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection shall not be invalid by reason only of the fact that an appeal town, within the meaning aforesaid, for the County Borough of Galway did not stand specified or that paragraph (a) of this subsection was not in force, at the time of such service.

This indicates quite clearly the retrospective problems the Government may have in relation to this Bill. I mention it to emphasise the fact that it is preferable that these matters be dealt with at the time they arise in the first instance because they had to arise on two occasions previously. The first occasion was when the Act was passed in 1985 and secondly, and probably more specifically, when the order for the County Borough of Galway under the 1985 Act was made by the Minister for the Environment on 1 January 1986. It must have been abundantly clear at that time, even if it was in any way covered up by events in the previous more important Act. The Minister for the Environment must have asked himself if he should be making an order in this area. The Minister for Justice has not made any particular reference to that retrospective aspect of it.

Mr. Dukes

I referred to it in the second last paragraph of my speech.

Dr. Woods

I have been in the House before when something like what happened this morning occurred. The Minister at the time asked if he could arrange for the member of the Opposition to be called knowing that the business had finished earlier.

Mr. Dukes

On a point of order, when the matter came before the House I was in fact in the House. I had taken care to be in the House before it began. The Deputy has been here longer than I have and he should know better than I do that you make those arrangements. I was gratified to see the smiling countenance of Deputy Flynn obviously prepared to deal with the matter competently.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Woods without interruption.'

Dr. Woods

The Minister said at the end of his speech:

There is provision also in the Bill which will ensure that appeals lodged before the passing of this Act may be heard by the High Court on circuit sitting in Galway.

There is provision in the Bill because the Government have to provide that at this stage. Provision should have been made at the time it occurred in the first instance. I am not accusing the Minister in this respect. I know he is only a short period in his present portfolio and I do not believe he would have been involved in the earlier situation except in collective Cabinet responsibility. On 1 January there was a very definite situation when the Minister for the Environment made the order. I am quite sure his officials told him at that time of the consequential changes because we all know the different Departments have to put their views to one another in relation to these matters. I find it hard to understand why the Minister for the Environment did not consider making an order under that Act to adjust the situation, which would have been the less desirable approach or he might have gone away from that and said that it was a matter which should have been dealt with under the 1936 Courts of Justice Act and that he would pass it on to the Department of Justice. Was it passed on at that time or was it passed over and the courts had to get into a difficulty before anything was done? If that is the case I ask the Minister to ensure that that type of thing will not happen in the future.

The Minister wanted to bring this in urgently to the House and he wanted to get all Stages passed today. We told him we were prepared to do that and that we would support the Bill. The Minister should refrain from making petty criticism of the Opposition spokesman for the fact that the Bill came in earlier this morning than was anticipated by the Whips because I have to get the Act, read it to see what is in it to make sure there is nothing happening that the Minister and his Department have not noticed or that we would not notice on First Reading. I was in the process of finalising that when the business came on early. Otherwise I would have been sitting here waiting, as the Minister said, just like himself. But given the circumstances it is the kind of comment that ill becomes a Minister. I have told the Minister we are prepared to agree all Stages today. We are happy to agree the Second Reading now.

Mr. G. Mitchell

The House appreciates the difficulty of the Opposition spokesman in getting his act together.

I welcome this Bill and I shall not speak for more than a couple of minutes. I would like to make a passing reference to one or two points made. First, with regard to the comment Deputy Woods made regarding my comments on the wearing of wigs and gowns, I might point out that solicitors do not wear wigs and gowns but that does not take from the dignity of the court in any way. In introducing this Bill I regret that we have not the time to go further in specifying certain matters which can take place not just in these courts but in others as well. I hope the Minister, in his term of office, will take on board the need to reform the whole courts system which will affect these courts as it will others. There is undoubted need for court reform. Every Minister for Justice in recent times who has endeavoured to do so has met resistance on the part of the Bar, has been told by the Bar that they will not have change. I was confronted recently by the Bar Council contending that it was up to the Legislature to effect the change. I now put it to the Legislature to take this on board. It is absurd to continue to allow the restrictive practice of four lawyers having to be engaged by anybody taking a case in order to brief senior counsel. It is a restrictive practice, unfair, outmoded and one that should not be allowed continue.

I note that The Workers' Party — who are very adept at making suggestions on all sorts of Bills, raising questions about all sorts of costs and pensions — have never seen fit to put down a question about the fees paid to certain free legal aid lawyers, presumably because that affects one of their members. A system that allows certain members of the legal profession to claim more than the President, the Taoiseach and the Chief Justice put together in free legal aid fees is an absurd one. I hope the Minister will avail of the opportunity to reform the entire courts system in his term of office. I know it is a big but he is capable of it. I hope the Minister will find it possible to affect a detailed reform of the courts system within his term of office. I take this opportunity of wishing him well in his difficult task.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

I too would like to wish the Minister success in his new Department. Indeed, we in Galway city were privileged to welcome him when, as his first official duty as Minister for Justice, he opened the new Garda station in Millstreet, a fine building which I am sure the Minister will agree will serve as a showpiece for the rest of the country.

I should like to follow up on one of the points made by Deputy Woods, that in January 1985 the order for county borough status was made for Galway. The intentions of the Government had been made clear six months previously. I should like to know when the Department of the Environment established contact with the Department of Justice in relation to the order now before us. Did they establish such contact or was it something discovered by the Department of Justice? Why was there such delay in bringing it forward?

Many of us wanted to make points about the courts system, particularly those of us from Galway. We wanted to state what we would like to see changed. In that regard, the present condition of Galway courthouse leaves a lot to be desired. It is an old building in a very bad state of repair. All of us feel it is either worthy of restoration or, if not, knocking it down and rebuilding it with the same kind of facade. There is a tremendous lack of facilities there. For example, there is lack of privacy for consultations between clients and their solicitors. With the burden on the courts so great and being added to daily, we need these kinds of facilities.

The general upkeep of courthouses at present is a matter of financial burden and strain on local authorities. Heretofore, Galway County Council undertook the maintenance work on Galway courthouse, with the county borough, or the corporation, paying their proportion towards such costs. Henceforth, the county borough will pay their proportion. In these times of general under-financing of local authorities — when it comes to Estimates time and pruning must be effected in certain areas — one item that has been consistently pruned within each local authority has been the amount of money expended on the upkeep of courthouses. As a result the courthouse in Galway missed out consistently.

Last year the Minister's predecessor sent officers of the Office of Public Works into Galway courthouse to carry out urgent repairs. The Office of Public Works are now billing the local authority with those costs. This year in our estimates — which have not been decided at all as yet — there is something in the region of less than £30,000 for the county borough proportion of the cost of the upkeep of Galway courthouse, representing 28 per cent of the cost only. When one adds in what Galway County Council pay one arrives at a figure of over £99,000. That is not at all sufficient to bring the courthouse up to the necessary standard. I suggest that the upkeep of courthouses in the future should be a matter for the Department of Justice. They are the people who receive the fines which are collected. If we want to have the level of service that is desirable then this kind of work should be carried out by the Department of Justice.

As Deputy G. Mitchell suggested, I hope the Minister, will effect some reforms in the courts system during his term of office. I might ask the Minister how many appeals are awaiting hearing at present. For example, what is the time lapse before an appeal is heard? We are told there are long delays involved. Has the Minister any proposals now or in the near future to have such delays minimised? All of us feel that court appearances by members of the Garda take up an inordinate amount of their time which could more properly be devoted to crime detection. As all of us know, they can spend days waiting in courthouses without having the case in which they are involved called for hearing.

We are delighted to support the Bill. In replying, I hope the Minister will respond to some of the points I have made.

Mr. Skelly

I should like to congratulate the Minister for Justice on having come into the House the third time in two years with improvements in the courts area. Here I might make particular reference to the Minister's comment that one of the purposes of this Bill is to allow the Minister for Justice, after consultation with the President of the High Court, to alter the composition of a High Court by adding or removing counties and/or county boroughs. Because of the backlog of cases it has been the practice in the past in the High Court and Circuit Court system for solicitors to search around the country, to establish what is the backlog in, say, Galway, Naas, Cork, or wherever, and to take cases which have been held up for years, occasioning people terrible hardship, with unscrupulous insurance companies endeavouring to delay as long as possible severely injured accident victims from getting compensation through the courts. In many cases where there were serious injuries sustained they operated in the hope that the victims would die, before their case came up for hearing. In others they tended to force victims to accept reduced compensation or less than that to which they were entitled. It is good to see that the Minister is taking a further hand in controlling this situation. I do not agree with the abolition of the civil injuries. It is a cave-in to the vested interest of the insurance companies who are not contributing anything to the State but are taking from it.

Because the Minister is taking this power upon himself he will be able to improve the efficiency of the courts and to eliminate backlogs to a large extent. People who are desperately awaiting the solution of a case and who in the meantime are suffering terrible injuries are not getting the kind of care and attention they should be getting. While they wait for the case to be settled they suffer the indignity of outrageously highly paid barristers coming together for consultations of half-an-hour on one or two occasions and taking fees of £20,000 to £25,000 each out of the unfortunate victim's compensation. This is an opportunity to cut back on that. As a result of the good work done by my colleague, Deputy Allen, over the last number of years there seems to be highlighting of the enormous injustice and the enormous fees that are resulting from eight lawyers sitting together like carrion crows over an accident victim's——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Skelly is moving slightly away from the Bill. He is dealing with section 2 which is to allow the Minister to consult with the President of the High Court. It deals with the composition of the High Court. There is no mention of excessive fees or legal affairs in that section.

Mr. Skelly

It is just a passing reference.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

You are passing it for a long time.

Mr. Skelly

You interrupted me in midstride. It allows the Minister to alter the composition of a High Court circuit by adding or removing counties and county boroughs. It is the practice for solicitors who are trying to get cases solved to look at the lists in Galway, Naas and Cork and to put cases in places like Mayo and Dublin on those lists. If they do not get on the Galway list they put them on the Naas list. These lawyers at their consultations are like carrion crows taking the best pickings from unfortunate victims, especially in injury cases. The professions are becoming more aware that the public know about the enormous fees that cannot be justified and the extra heavy representation in the courts during certain cases. I hope the Minister will make progress along the lines of his predecessor. He was unfairly ridiculed by Deputy Andrews when he brought in the first such Bill two years ago. He said that it was a joke and that this was not reform. Since then he has brought in three reviews, one of which relates to Galway as a High Court appeal town for appeals from the Circuit Court. The major portion of the cases take place in Dublin because it is the major population centre. We could end up honing in on the problems of backlogs, representation, inefficiency and costs. Before this Government finish their term of office we might achieve a very great improvement in the courts system and, therefore, a very great improvement in justice for our population. I encourage the Minister to do that. By making the improvements at the top we will be able to highlight the high costs which are mostly unjustifiable. We might get back to the very forward looking reforms which the Fianna Fáil Government tried to bring in——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Skelly should get back to the Bill.

Mr. Skelly

This is in the Bill. Mr. Ó Móráin and Deputy O'Malley when they were Ministers for Justice tried to fuse the professions in 1970 and up to 1973. That work was interrupted by the election of the first Coalition Government. I was very sad to see that they did not achieve their objective of fusing the professions and thereby cutting by half at least the high cost of getting justice in Ireland. Before this Government leave office we might succeed in getting rid of these archaic wigs and gowns and this hocuspocus terrifying experience which most of the population have to undergo while being——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Skelly is completely out of court.

Mr. Skelly

——ripped off by a profession which is controlled by an elitist group.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Most of what Deputy Skelly is saying is irrelevant. I am trying to be patient with him.

Dr. Woods

Something you were not with me.

Mr. Skelly

This is an attempt by the Minister to intervene in an archaic, inefficient system. We may do a great service for the people by successful interventions. Most of those people cannot afford to go to law and are bing ripped off by elitist——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is the third time the Deputy said that.

Mr. Skelly

You stopped me in the middle and you are doing it again.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I will stop you the fourth time if I have to. It is not relevant to the Bill and I am being very patient with you.

Mr. Skelly

If the Minister can alter the composition of the High Court circuit by adding or removing counties or county boroughs, he must be doing it for a purpose. The whole system is so badly in backlog that solicitors have to go all over the country in order to give a fast service to their clients.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The same as you are doing at the moment.

Mr. Skelly

I would be finished if you just gave me ten seconds.

Mr. Flynn

He will get the headlines tomorrow.

Mr. Skelly

I am not looking for headlines.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am looking for co-operation but I am not getting it.

Mr. Skelly

My father-in-law who was from Mayo suffered in a road accident and ended up a quadriplegic, paralysed from the neck down. A charade went on for five years and eventually he never did get justice because he died last year. It is relevant that the Minister should intervene and try to straighten out this system. If you have to pay fees in the order of £20,000 for 20 minute consultations with two bewigged professionals you have to ask questions about it. Justice is not available to the majority of the people. The fusion of the professions was taken seriously by two former Ministers and I have always admired them for that. They knew that this continuing injustice was going on. Sixteen years later nothing has been done about it. I often think that one of the reasons we have not done anything is the heavy weight of the legal people who are members of the Fine Gael Party. I am a barrister——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is a pity you would not work within the Act on this Bill.

Mr. Skelly

It is not very funny.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is anything but funny.

Mr. Skelly

I welcome the next stage of the Minister's reform along this road. I and other members of the party will contribute further to the straightening out of the whole legal system.

Mr. Allen

I would like to say that this is the first Bill the new Minister for Justice has introduced. I hope this will be only the first minor step along the road to major reform in the system. It is a very localised, confined Bill but at the same time it is only right that I should put on record my concern that we are dealing only in a minor way with some of the problems in the court system. The major defects in the court system at present are bringing the country to a standstill whether we like it or not. We only have to look at the high cost of insurance which is totally related to the archaic system, over-representation and the mismanagement and presentation of cases in the court. This Bill plus the Bill that is on the Order of Business at present in relation to juries are only minor steps towards the major reform that is required. I am taking this opportunity in the House today to ask the Minister to bring about real reform in this area. The Minister, by the nature of his job, is most of the time reacting to crises be they in the prisons or in other security areas but I appeal to him to put much of the time he has into serious reform of the legal system.

I am not going to detain this House by spelling out the major defects but the people are of the opinion at present that our political parties are in the pockets of the legal profession — I am not alluding to any party be it on this side or the other side — and can be intimidated and bought by them. The public believe there will be no reform because we are totally compromised. I would ask the Minister to nail that lie and prove it is wrong by bringing legislation into this House in the next few months which will deal with major court reform and the abuses that are being carried out against the people by solicitors. If the Minister does that in the year-and-a-half which he has, he will have done a very good job.

I would ask the Minister to indicate if he has any proposals at present to bring to this House in those areas within the next few months, as people like myself who have been highlighting these issues in recent times have been assured that legislation will be brought in. It is as far away as ever and until such time as we are given guarantees that legislation will be presented to this House we cannot reassure people who have been hurt and been victims of grave injustice. I can recount many cases of very severe hardship because of what is happening in our courts and within the legal profession at present. I would ask the Minister to give definite guarantees and indications to this House that real reform will be brought about in this area.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Dukes)

I am not at all surprised at the importance attached to the city of Galway and to the equipment thereof, because the administration of justice should get the kind of attention that this Bill has got in the House today. It is never possible to say that a Bill gets more attention than it deserves but this rather modest Bill has got in full the attention that it deserves. It is only proper because it is one that, after all, concerns the capital of the western part of our country. I regret that Deputy Woods seems to feel a little as if I had been saying something out of place about him in remarks I made earlier on about keeping one's eye on the monitor. It has always been my practice since. I came into the House, which is not all that long ago, to make sure that even if I were involved in something else that I would have a line to what was happening in the Chamber so that if a matter of interest for me came up I could be there. I am not at all criticising Deputy Woods when I say that.

Dr. Woods

When the Minister asks me to take a Bill in earnest he might have the courtesy to treat it that way.

Mr. Dukes

If the Deputy would refrain from interrupting me, I was about to say I appreciate the willingness of the Opposition to facilitate me and the Government on this matter and for the contributions they have made. Although Deputy Woods is a man I know for a long time in various different capacities and he is a grand fellow, there is a limit to the degree that one would hold his hand. I can assure Deputy Woods that as far as I am concerned courtesy, analysis and questioning in the House will be met on my side by a corresponding courtesy, openness and a willingness to reply. I cannot guarantee that sanctimoniousness will not be met on my part with a degree of sarcasm. That is the chance we take in the Chamber.

Mr. Faulkner

This job suits him.

Dr. Woods

The next time the Minister comes to the Opposition looking for co-operation and assistance for all parts of a Bill——

Mr. Dukes

I will bear that fully in mind.

Mr. Faulkner

He is definitely at home in the Department.

Mr. Dukes

There is no reason for experienced and thick skinned people to descend to the level of that kind of squabbling. Why so suddenly? That is the main question that has been brought up on the other side of the House. I accept that is a perfectly valid and reasonable question to ask. The answer to it, quite frankly, is that it was not until quite recently, on legal advice, my Department and I became aware that the order setting up the County Borough of Galway had implications for the jurisdiction of the High Court. Immediately we became aware of that we looked at what was required to be done in order to meet that situation. The High Court, as has been pointed out, is due to sit in Galway on 3 March and without this measure no provision would be made for dealing with appeals that arise in the county borough area. Had it not been possible to proceed quickly with this measure there would have been very little alternative but to postpone the High Court sitting with consequent delays to the people who are involved.

The Minister for the Environment was not in any way neglectful in making his order. I make the point and believe this quite sincerely that it would not have been appropriate for the Minister for the Environment under a local government reorganisation Act to make provisions for the administration of justice such as the one contained in this Bill in relation to the courts. It is far more appropriate that we should make provisions in relation to the courts under the Act which already provides for the business of the courts. That is the reason why this Bill is being presented in the framework of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, rather than in any other framework. Deputy Woods is worried about what he regards as a retrospective aspect of the legislation. I would like to assure him that this is not retrospection in the sense in which we normally comprehend it.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.