Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 31 May 1988

Vol. 381 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - Courts Bill, 1986: Committee Stage (Resumed).

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Fitzpatrick was in possession and we are resuming on amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 1. I should like to remind the House that amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are being taken together.

NEW SECTION.

The following amendment was moved by the Minister for Justice on Wednesday, 4 May 1988:

1. In page 2, before section 1, to insert the following new section:

"1. —(1) Notwithstanding section 94 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, or any other provision made by or under statute, or any rule of law, an action in the High Court—

(a) claiming damages in respect of personal injuries to a person caused by negligence, nuisance or breach of duty (whether the duty exists by virtue of a contract or a provision made by or under a statute or independently of any such contract or any such provision),

(b) under section 48 of the Civil Liability Act, 1961, or

(c) under section 18 (inserted by the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1965) of the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1936,

or a question of fact or an issue arising in such an action, shall not be tried with a jury.

(2) Subsection (1) of this section also applies in relation to—

(a) an action in which damages are claimed both in respect of personal injuries to a person caused as specified in subsection (1) (a), or the death of a person, and in respect of another matter, and

(b) an action in which—

(i) the damages claimed consist only of damages in respect of a matter other than personal injuries to, or the death of, a person, and

(ii) the claim arises directly or indirectly from an act or omission that has also resulted in personal injuries to, or the death of, a person,

and in relation to a question of fact or an issue arising in an action referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection.

(3) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, subsection (1) of this section does not apply in relation to an action where the damages claimed consist only of damages for false imprisonment or for intentional trespass to the person, or in relation to a question of fact or an issue arising in such an action.

(4) For the purpose of the application of subsection (1) of this section in relation to an action, or a question of fact or an issue arising in an action, any set-off or counterclaim, or any other claim by a party (other than a plaintiff) to the action, shall be disregarded.

(5) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply in relation to an action, or a question of fact or an issue arising in an action, if the trial thereof began before the commencement of this Act but does apply to the retrial of such an action, question of fact or issue if the retrial begins after such commencement.

(6) Where, as respects an action in relation to which subsection (1) of this section applies, or a question of fact or an issue arising in such an action—

(a) a notice of trial containing a requirement to have the action, question or issue tried with a jury, or

(b) a notice signifying a desire to have the action, question or issue tried with a jury,

was served or given before the commencement of this Act, the requirement referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection or, as the case may be, the notice referred to in paragraph (b) of this subsection shall be disregarded.

(7) In this section `personal injuries' includes any disease and any impairment of a person's physical or mental condition.".

—(Minister for Justice.)

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 1:

In subsection (3), third line, to delete "consist only of" and substitute: "comprises in whole or in part of a claim for".

—(Deputy McCartan.)

Mr. T. Fitzpatrick

Before the adjournment I said that I was rather alarmed at the terms of the Bill. In my view the effect of them will be that it will be more difficult for everybody, with the exception of the wealthy litigant who can guarantee payment to his legal team, to have a case brought before a court. I will defer my arguments in regard to the senior counsel until we reach the relevant amendment. The ceasing of that practice together with the abolition of the jury system will make it more difficult for litigants of moderate means to have their case tried before the High Court.

The Bill, as drafted, is loaded in favour of the wealthy corporation and against the person of moderate means or a poor person. The jury system lends itself to settlement. Insurance companies are more likely to settle a case listed to be tried by a jury than if it is to go before a judge sitting alone. It may be that a litigant will be awarded less than if his case was tried by jury. The Constitution guarantees trial by a jury in serious criminal cases and I have never heard it suggested that that right should be taken away from an accused person. In the course of his contribution Deputy McDowell recommended that trial by jury be retained in what he regarded as very serious claims in the High Court for damages for personal injuries. In my view all claims for damages for personal injuries listed for hearing by the High Court are serious matters for plaintiffs involved. The plaintiff should have the right to have his or her case heard by a judge sitting with a jury.

From time to time when the question of trial by jury is raised the argument is put forward that we are the only country in the western world that has retained trial by jury and that we should have got rid of that system long ago. Those who express that view do not say in the same breath that we are the only country in the western world that does not have a full blown free legal aid system. They have had such a system in the UK for almost 50 years. I do not know when trial by jury was abolished there but under their free legal aid system a person with an arguable case can have his or her case dealt with by the courts. It is preposterous that we should consider making radical changes such as the abolition of juries or reducing the number of senior counsel without at the same time introducing a system of free legal aid. However, we have been told that we could not do that because the system would cost the earth. We have also been told that we cannot continue with the present system of trial by jury because insurance premiums are too high.

Who is to pay the cost or bear the loss? In my view the cost will be borne by the unfortunate individual who may be maimed for life, the person who may be deprived of his or her ability to earn a living. Will those people be given compensation which will be less than adequate? I had expected to hear some Members suggesting that we should have a personal injuries policy under which the relatives of a person killed in an accident would be paid £1,000 or the person who would lose an eye or a limb would get some type of mickey mouse contribution. I hope we are not on the road to such a system, although what I heard earlier gave me the impression that we were travelling along that road.

This evening we were told that the cost of insurance premiums is reducing. I am glad to hear that but I find it difficult to accept that hard-headed insurance companies reduced premiums in 1986 when the Bill under discussion was published. At the time the Bill was introduced it was strenuously opposed by the largest party then in the Dáil who were later elected to Government. At that time it did not seem likely that the Bill would get on the Statute Book but strange things have happened. In my view insurance companies reduced premiums because they were too high. Down the years insurance companies have been inclined to exaggerate. I was practising at the time when the old workman's compensation code was abolished and I can recall insurance companies telling us that they had been losing money in the years that code was in operation. Those with claims under that code almost had to get down on their hands and knees to get anything from the insurance companies but when a Bill was introduced to abolish it they lobbied right, left and centre to have it retained.

I believe the insurance companies will reduce premiums in the case of those categories for which there is justification. It is not reasonable or fair to tell young people that this Bill, if it becomes law, will have the effect of reducing their premiums. Statistics prove that people in their teens or early twenties are worse risks than mature people in middle age or in their thirties. Insurance is a business and if companies were to carry on their business in the same manner as a couple of companies I mentioned earlier, they would go the same way.

The practice of having a jury system and two senior counsel is very important and should not be interferred with on any account until we replace it by a proper free legal aid Bill. This Bill was introduced as a political measure. I do not use that phrase in any offensive way, but it was introduced as a carrot to young people to make them believe it would reduce their premiums. It has been carried on by the Government on that basis. It is bad to tamper or tinker with our courts system solely to attain a purpose which has no direct bearing on the courts system.

A tribunal hearing a personal injury case does not mind whether the defendant is insured or not. If one of the advocates in the case were to disclose to a jury the fact that the person was not insured or was insured, the jury would be immediately discharged and a new jury sworn in to hear the case. That is not a matter which should influence the jury. They are supposed to bring in a verdict on the facts before them and on the basis of what would be fair compensation. Yet we are devoting all our time and attention in this debate not to convincing ourselves whether this Bill will be good or bad for the people who most need to be thought about, the injured people who have lost limbs or been incapacitated for life. We are devoting our time to thinking how this Bill will affect people who want to drive negligently, to put it at its best, and cause severe damage to people with whom they come in contact.

Mr. McCartan

I should like to respond to some of the points raised by a number of speakers. Our first amendment applies to subsection (3) of the Minister's amendment. The Government propose that sections relating to the abolition of juries will not apply to an action where damages claimed consist only of damages for false imprisonment or for intentional trespass to the person. Our amendment proposes to take out the words "consist only of" and substitute "comprises in whole or in part of a claim for". Each of these amendments is consequential upon the failure of our initial ground of fundamental opposition to the abolition of juries or the restriction of the availability of juries.

An action is rarely launched on the narrow and single ground of damages for false imprisonment only or intentional trespass only, or only in relation to a fact arising from those two claims. In every area of civil litigation there are attendant or ancillary statutory obligations and duties existing by reason of a ministerial order, statutory instrument or by law. For that reason it is rare to find pleadings drawn in the exact singular under the headings indicated here. We are suggesting in our first amendment that the section should be drafted to allow a definition of the action to suggest that its principal or major cause is false imprisonment or intentional trespass to the person.

That is the gravamen or the central leg of the cause of action and that type of action should have the right to a hearing before a jury at the option of the parties. For that reason I would ask the Minister to consider accepting the amendment in the name of The Worker's Party, dealing with that matter. It is fairly obvious that it will lead to pressure on litigants to be excessively narrow in the basis upon which they draft their cause of action even though the substantial ground will be one of false imprisonment or intentional trespass. Nonetheless, if they want to opt for the availability of a jury they will be unduly constrained and obliged to restrict the drafting of their pleadings to that narrow base and that could have important implications for the progress and development of the action after inception. What is being suggested here is, if the gravamen or the major cause of the action is one relating to assault, intentional trespass of the person or false imprisonment and there are other added ancillary, alternative or additional grounds of complaint, that type of action should be allowed to be brought before a jury.

It is interesting to make the point that the Government accept that there are cases where it is desirable to allow to remain available to a litigant the option of trial by jury. That is one of the more important points which I want to come back to on the overall question of the abolition of juries. It should be made clear to all Deputies in this House who want to address seriously the question of litigation that we are not talking about the total abolition of juries. The reality is that juries will continue in place in a large number of litigation cases after this legislation is passed. There will be practical duties and obligations on registrars to assemble jury panels at the sittings of the High Court throughout the country after the passing of this legislation. It is recognised by the Government and by the Opposition, although the Opposition support the Government on this proposal, that juries are a desirable element in litigation in certain circumstances. Our argument is the extent to which those circumstances exist or are to be availed of.

The second amendment in the name of The Workers' Party deals with what actions the legislation should affect when it becomes law. The Government proposal is that from the day the legislation is passed into law — there are suggested dates as to when that will be and there have been comments as to whether or not we will achieve them — the cases to be heard, irrespective of when they were commenced, will not be entitled to avail of a jury. The Workers' Party are proposing the amendment that the legislation curtailing the availability of juries should not apply to actions or causes of actions "if a writ commencing the action was issued before the commencement of this Act". I mentioned this briefly the last day and I want to make the point again. At the end of the day, given the practical point that registrars and the High Court will be assembling juries for other actions and will have to go through all the necessary ground work for that, all those people who initiated their pleadings and proceedings in the High Court in the hope or expectation of a jury, not realising that this sinister legislation was being contemplated, should be allowed see their proceedings through to the end under the same conditions as when they made their decision to initiate.

It will present no practical difficulties because panels of juries will be assembled anyway. It will not add significantly to delays because there are no delays in the High Court now. If anything, civil actions in the High Court are being heard much too quickly from the practitioners' point of view. They much prefer a longer preparation of cases where intricate medical matters have to be watched, assessed and observed. They want to know the full sequela before they make an ultimate quantitative decision on the damages. They want to see will there be full recovery from occupational injury or accident before making a decision. The situation now applies, certainly in Dublin, the single greatest centre for these kinds of actions, that if you set your action down you can expect to have it finalised, as far as the High Court is concerned, within a year. I want to refer to the arguments of people that insurance premiums will be reduced as a result of this legislation. That is utterly fallacious and without foundation. I do not think it is unreasonable for this House to allow people who initiate proceedings the right to see those proceedings through under the conditions in which they were initially embarked upon.

The final amendment in the name of The Workers' Party relates as a consequence of amendment No. 2 in our name being accepted. Amendment No. 3 is perhaps a preface to some degree because, if amendment No. 2 is accepted, subsection (6) of the proposals of the Government should not arise. Those are the peripheral amendments of The Workers' Party. As I have said, they are consequent on the other issue being lost. One has to recognise that a counter-proposal to a Government suggestion will be defeated. Nonetheless, a number of points must be made in answer to some of the arguments that have been advanced in defence of what has been suggested by Government.

Deputy Barrett, in his opening remarks, said that nothing has changed since the Government of the day introduced the Bill in 1986 and for that reason he and his party feel committed to supporting the proposal. One has to bow to the consistency of the position. I wish I could borrow his remarks and say to the Government: "Why not reflect the same degree of consistency and stand by the position you so admirably stood by in the course of the debate on this issue not so long ago when the point was made that we should not proceed with this proposal."

There are two major reasons why this legislation is being promoted. First, it will assist in the administration of the courts business and in making the proceedings of the High Court more efficient, speedy and effective. Secondly, it will lead to a reduction in insurance costs which, in turn will lead to reduced premiums. Both those premises need to be addressed.

The administrative necessity of assembling juries will not have been disposed of as a result of this legislation, in its present form, being passed. The registrar of the High Court will still have to assemble jury panels, ensure they attend, and make facilities for their accommodation once they attend a sitting of the High Court. There is no way one would be able to assemble sittings of the High Court in their various orders into jury and non-jury sittings given the nature of the actions that will be involved.

On the other hand, the efficiency with which civil actions are being disposed of — and have been for the past two years — with the so-called imposition of the jury is such that we cannot effectively improve on what is already there in terms of speed and getting the cases dealt with. That point must be supported by the minuteness of the percentage of civil actions that ultimately seek a hearing before a jury. Two per cent of all actions set down for hearing eventually avail of a hearing by a jury.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but could I dissuade him from engaging in a wide-ranging speech which, I think he will agree, is inappropriate on Committee Stage, especially when there is a time factor involved in this debate.

Mr. McCartan

I accept your point but unfortunately we have all been labouring under the difficulty that because of the extent of the Government's amendment this is almost a new Bill and we are having difficulty addressing this point on Committee Stage. I admit my remarks may have been wide ranging but, in fairness, most of the contributions today have also been wide ranging. However, I will not be much longer.

The argument is being advanced that by abolishing the jury in civil action we will have a reduction in insurance premiums. For all the reasons that have been advanced by more senior, skilled and experienced Deputies in the area of civil litigation, I have to make the point that the added cost factor for the insurance companies on the administrative side of a jury hearing, given that so few cases go to hearing, is negligible. On the other side, it is said that juries are so unpredictable that the level of settlement is unrealistically high. That point is made by people who are far more experienced and seasoned than I in this area, but I believe that a reflection on settlement figures will show that most judges, in the High Court in particular, are capable of assessing damages as well as anyone could expect. If one read newspaper reports one will see that the single greatest settlements of damages for personal injury have been made by judges sitting alone. I do not believe the argument that juries are more outrageous in their assessment of damages stands up.

Deputy Cooney made the point that at least from the Circuit to the High Court, one has the opportunity of a rehearing by way of appeal. From the High Court to the Supreme Court it is on transcript, but more often than not it is on judge's note because stenographers, as an exception, are employed to report accurately the proceedings in the High Court. What happens is one gets a judge's ruling or decision going to the Supreme Court from the High Court on review, not on transcript but on a note resume prepared by the judge. For that reason I believe the prospect of reviewing downwards an assessment by a judge from the High Court to the Supreme Court is very limited indeed.

All that is put in here on the basis of restricting access to juries. Deputies on this side say it is not a good decision because, at the end of the day, the jury is a safeguard mechanism. It is rarely resorted to in this type of litigation, but it is a useful institution of redress by the man in the street who may have a distrust of lawyers alone, or a misgiving about a judge alone, or a person alone, making the ultimate decision on the issues of fact or quantum in his case. He may want his peers to listen to his case and decide, yes or no, on his claim and the extent of that claim. That principle is accepted and acknowledged, in part at least, in the actions that have been exempted by Government in this legislation from restriction of availability of jury.

If it is right and proper in cases of intentional personal trespass, or false imprisonment, or defamation of character, to retain the availability of choice of jury, what are the considerations that are different in the other areas of personal injury we are seeking to restrict at this stage when so little cost element is involved and when no saving will be made to the consumer by reason of this change alone?

I want to say to Deputy Barrett that I do not have the slightest doubt that this legislation will achieve absolutely no saving or reduction in the premium to the consumer. There are many other proposals that have been discussed in this House by way of Private Members' Business and at Question Time which would have a meaningful impact on the levels of premiums, but this proposal — I may be wrong about this prediction but I do not believe I am — will achieve not one iota of a saving. If one wants to talk about reality, that is the ultimate reality that has to be addressed.

I urge the Government in the only way I can from this very isolated position in the House to consider afresh their proposal in this regard. If they are intent upon it, I ask the Minister to consider at least accepting some of the amendments in the name of The Workers' Party as a means of alleviating the impact on and ameliorating the condition of the litigant who will, sadly, be at a major loss and disadvantage if this proposal proceeds tonight.

Mr. S. Barrett

On a point of order, there are a number of other sections to this Bill and we have only until 11 p.m. Could I ask if the other Members, with your permission, would be agreeable to finishing this section by perhaps 9.15 p.m.?

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. V. Brady)

It is proposed that proceedings on Committee Stage of the Courts Bill be brought to a conclusion in accordance with the following timetable and where proceedings in these cases have not concluded by the stated time they shall be brought to a conclusion by one question which shall be put by the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only amendments set down by the Minister for Justice: section 1 to conclude not later than 9.15 p.m.; section 2 to conclude not later than 9.30 p.m. and Committee Stage to conclude not later than 11 p.m.

Mr. McCartan

May I have clarification on what is suggested? Do I understand that whatever sections remain after section 2 will be debated from 9.30 onwards?

Mr. V. Brady

Yes.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the proposal agreed that section 1 conclude at 9.15 p.m., section 2 conclude not later than 9.30 p.m. and Committee Stage, as such, conclude not later than 11 p.m.?

Mr. McCartan

Are we happy that we can deal adequately with section 2 in 15 minutes?

Mr. S. Barrett

It is a minor section.

Mr. V. Brady

It is a small section.

Miss Colley

I should like to be sure that the Minister is given time to reply to the debate so far and five minutes does not seem adequate. There were a number of points made which need a response.

Mr. V. Brady

It is proposed that section 1 conclude not later than 9.20 p.m.

Mr. Cooney

I have one very brief point to make. It is that the easing in the insurance market which has taken place since 1986 has taken place with the presence of juries still in place.

Mr. S. Barrett

And with the goodwill of the insurance industry.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Reynolds)

I am opposing the three amendments tabled by Deputy McCartan.

The first of these amendments would restore a loophole that could exist in the text of the original Bill, and would enable a plaintiff in a personal injury case to evade the intention of the Bill by including a claim for assault in his action — say where he alleged that there had been a separate assault on him following a car accident.

The purpose of subsection (3) of my amendment No. 1 is to close off that loophole. Deputy McCartan, in moving his amendment, acknowledged that lawyers will attempt to evade the provisions of the Bill by clever drafting of pleadings, so it is most important from my point of view to eliminate any possible loopholes.

In his second amendment, Deputy McCartan wants to allow jury trials for all personal and fatal injury cases where the proceedings have been initiated before the commencement of the Act. The Bill as introduced in 1986, contained a saving provision for all cases that had been set down for trial before the Bill is enacted. In my amendment No. 10 I am proposing to substitute a new commencement provision in the Bill to replace the existing saver, so that all jury trials would end after 31 July 1988, that is, the end of the current legal year. It is over three years since the change from jury trial was announced by the previous Administration, and over two years since the Bill was introduced. I think that generous notice has been given of the change. Also, I am anxious to ensure that the economic benefits expected from the passage of the Bill can be realised quickly and passed on to the public. That cannot happen while jury trials continue.

Deputy McCartan, in moving his amendment, spoke about the small percentage of personal injury cases that go to trial. This obscures the fact that thousands of civil jury actions for personal and fatal injuries are disposed of each year in the High Court and that many hundreds of these cases go all the way to trial. These are not minuscule numbers, as the Deputy would have us believe. The Deputy's third amendment is consequential on this second amendment which I am opposing.

For the benefit of the House, in 1984-85 the number of jury actions set down was 5,385, the number disposed of was 5,033 and the number to trial 700 to 800. In 1985-86, the numbers set down were 5,394, the number disposed of 5,372 and approximately the same number to trial.

Mr. McCartan

What does the Minister mean when he says going to trial?

Mr. Cooney

Obviously, they were the number that went for hearing.

Mr. Reynolds

Yes.

Mr. Cooney

Full hearing.

Mr. Birmingham

That must have been the number listed on the actual morning.

Mr. Reynolds

These were of trials started.

Mr. Cooney

There were 700 out of approximately 5,300.

Mr. McCartan

Assembled in the round hall.

Mr. Reynolds

That is not a small percentage, 15 per cent. In 1984 in England, the number of personal injury cases set down was 31,000, number of cases tried 1,300 to 1,800 — 4 to 5 per cent. I shall not delay the debate because the main debate must be responded to, also.

The main purpose of amendment No. 1 is to replace section 1 of the Bill, with a more comprehensive provision. Section 1 contains the substantive provision in the Bill to abolish the use of juries in personal and fatal injury cases in the High Court. Amendment No. 1 repeats that provision — in subsection (1) of the proposed new section 1, but adds further provisions of a technical nature to eliminate possible loopholes that could arise under section 1 of the Bill as drafted. There is no change in substance proposed in the amendment. The main reason that the additional provisions are needed is that many personal injury actions also include claims for other heads of damage — for example, damage to property — and defendants in these actions can include counter-claims against the plaintiffs and join other parties as co-defendants. It was necessary to provide that none of these aspects could be used in any way to get around the basic provision that personal injury cases should be tried without a jury. It was also necessary to include a transitional provision to enable any jury trial that may be in progress on the cut-off date proposed in the Bill to continue until the trial is completed. Some Deputies acknowledged the need for these additional provisions in their contributions to the debate.

Now I would like to make a few comments in response to the individual contributions by Deputies in the debate on amendment No. 1. Deputy Barrett, while supporting the substantive provision in the Bill, thought that the benefits in terms of insurance costs were being exaggerated, while the rights of plaintiffs to be properly represented in court were being ignored. The insurance industry have for long maintained that the use of juries to decide personal injury cases was the main cause of the high cost of liability insurance. There will be a heavy onus on insurance companies to reduce premiums when this Bill comes into effect.

The question of the level of legal representation that plaintiffs need is a separate but related matter. The Bar Council have already agreed that some reduction is possible in the number of counsel who need to be briefed at present. I can assure the House that the interests of plaintiffs will be carefully protected in any regulations that I may make under the new powers proposed in amendment No. 8. There will be no question of leaving plaintiffs, who have to appear in court, without proper representation.

Deputy Barrett suggested that I should consider increasing the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. Deputy Taylor has tabled an amendment on the same lines. This is an issue which goes beyond the scope of the present Bill, and it would require careful, separate study. There could be staffing and resource implications.

Deputy Taylor and Deputy Kelly said that we were copying the British system and Deputy Taylor said that the British system had been described as a lottery by a leading barrister there. The plain fact is that no other European country uses juries to decide personal injury cases. As far as I know, the only country in the world that uses juries for that purpose is the USA and it has been said that an insurance crisis exists there. Last year, the civil jury system was abolished in Northern Ireland for personal and fatal injury cases, following an independent review of the position there involving widespread consultations with interested parties. There is a commitment in the Programme for National Recovery drawn up between the Government and the social partners to make a similar change here as part of a comprehensive package to tackle the problems of the cost of liability insurance. I wonder was the eminent QC Deputy Taylor referred to advocating the return of jury trials?

Deputy Birmingham inquired if any results were known about the changes made in Northern Ireland. The change there did not come into operation until September last and I am not aware of any analysis of the results. The interesting fact is that the main reason for the change was to bring more consistency and predictability into awards and to reduce legal costs. Benefits were expected to arise in relation to the cost of liability insurance.

Deputy Birmingham was concerned that the public would not perceive judges as being as impartial as juries in deciding cases. I do not think this will be a problem considering the range of civil actions judges already decide in the High Court, and in the Circuit Court, without a jury.

Deputy Taylor is opposed to the Bill and said that the insurance companies were responsible for the three counsel practice by voluntarily briefing three counsel in each case. The Irish Insurance Federation have written to me to say that when the Courts Bill, 1986, is passed they intend to brief only one counsel in most cases and a maximum of two counsel in exceptional cases.

Deputy McCartan is also opposed to the abolition of civil juries in these cases. He said that juries are an essential part of the democratic process and that judges would be as unpredictable and unreliable as juries. The point that juries are part of the democratic process would be more important if juries were involved in all civil trials but that is not the case, even in the High Court where judges alone decide a whole range of cases, including contract, debt and matrimonial actions. Even in the particular area of personal injuries actions, jury trials were abolished for such cases in the Circuit Court in 1972 with no apparent ill-effects.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am very sorry to interrupt the Minister but as it is now 9.20 p.m. I am obliged in accordance with the decision of the House to put the following question: "That amendment No. 1 in the name of the Minister for Justice is hereby made to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Tá, 76; Níl, 11.

Tá

• Abbott, Henry.
• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Matthew.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John.
• Burke, Ray.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Colley, Anne.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary T.
• Cullen, Martin.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Gibbons, Martin Patrick.
• Harney, Mary.
• Hilliard, Colm Michael.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Keating, Michael.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lynch, Michael.
• Lyons, Denis.
• McCoy, John S.
• McDowell, Michael.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Mooney, Mary.
• Morley, P.J.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
• O'Dea, William Gerard.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• Power, Paddy.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Swift, Brian.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Wright, G.V.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Bell, Michael.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• McCartan, Pat.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Spring, Dick.
• Taylor, Mervyn.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies McCartan and De Rossa.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

Acceptance of this amendment involves the deletion of section 1 of the Bill. In accordance with the decision of the House, I am now obliged to put the following question: "That amendment No. 7 in the name of the Minister for Justice is hereby made to the Bill and section 2 is hereby agreed to."

Question put and declared carried.

Mr. S. Barrett

In relation to section 2, I wish to give notice that amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 7 in my name will be brought forward and tabled on Report Stage.

Mr. Reynolds

I will have a look at it on Report Stage.

Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 7 not moved.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. S. Barrett

The Bill has been substantially amended. What is the new section 3?

Mr. Birmingham

It is the existing section 3, is not that the case?

An Ceann Comhairle

Section 3 as drafted and contained in the Bill. I will repeat the question: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill." Is that agreed?

Mr. McCartan

Not agreed.

Question put and declared carried.

NEW SECTION.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 8 in the name of the Minister involves the insertion of a new section. Amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 8 is an alternative to amendment No. 1. I suggest that we take amendments Nos. 9 and 9a, with amendment No. 8. Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are consequential on amendments Nos. 8 and 9a respectively. Additional amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to amendment No. 8, and amendments Nos. 9, 9a, 13 and 14 to be taken together by agreement. Is that satisfactory? Agreed. The Minister to move amendment No. 8.

Mr. Reynolds

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 3, before section 4, to insert the following new section:

4. —(1) Notwithstanding any provision made by or under statute, or any rule of law or practice, the Minister may specify by regulations the maximum number of counsel in respect of whom costs may be allowed, on taxation by a Taxing Master, for payment by another party or other parties to an action in relation to which section 1 (1) of this Act applies, or a question of fact or an issue arising in such an action, or an appeal from a decision in such an action or on such a question or issue.

(2) Regulations under this section may—

(a) specify different numbers of counsel (whether junior counsel or senior counsel or both) in relation to different classes (designated in such manner and by reference to such matters as the Minister considers appropriate) of such actions, questions, issues or appeals as aforesaid,

and

(b) provide for the allowance, on taxation by a Taxing Master, for payment by another party or other parties to such actions, questions, issues or appeals as aforesaid, of the costs in respect of different counsel or different numbers of counsel engaged in relation to different stages of such actions, questions, issues or appeals.

(3) Every regulation under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if either such House, within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the regulation is laid before it, passes a resolution annulling the regulation, the regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder.

This amendment proposes to insert a new section in the Bill to provide for the regulation of the number of counsel appearing in actions covered by the Bill whose costs may be recovered by a successful litigant. The provisions extend to appeals from such actions heard by the Supreme Court.

Subsection (1) is an enabling provision empowering the Minister for Justice to make regulations specifying the maximum number of counsel whose costs may be recovered by a party on a taxation of costs in an action covered by the Bill. The regulations would not affect the right of parties to instruct whatever number of counsel they wish. They would merely limit the costs that the successful party could recover from an unsuccessful party in an action in respect of his counsel's fees.

Subsection (2) (a) will empower the Minister to specify different numbers of counsel, whether junior counsel or senior counsel, for different classes of cases covered by the Bill. The provision is a flexible one which will enable personal injury and dependency actions to be classified in whatever manner I would consider appropriate for the purpose of specifying the maximum number of counsel whose costs can be recovered. While the monetary value of a case and its complexity would be important factors in such classification, it will be necessary to consider this matter in detail before the regulations are finalised. The regulations could include a provision to enable the costs of additional counsel to be allowed in appropriate circumstances, at the discretion of the court.

This degree of flexibility is necessary because a standard provision that would allow costs for a certain predetermined number of counsel in every High Court action, irrespective of the nature and demands of the case, is not appropriate. It could be argued that one counsel would be able to handle many personal injury cases in the High Court, when one counsel can deal with all cases of up to £15,000 in value in the Circuit Court. Also it might be regarded as justifiable to have up to three counsel in some very exceptional cases such as high value cases that might also involve specialist areas of the law.

Subsection (2) (b) will enable the regulations to make provision for cases where different individual counsel share appearances in a case, without exceeding the maximum number of counsel whose costs may be recovered as specified in the regulations. It happens from time to time that an individual counsel will substitute for another in a case for good reason, for example, illness, or because a case may take considerably longer to hear than expected, causing a clash of commitments for the original counsel.

Subsection (2) (b) will also enable a distinction to be made between different stages of an action when specifying the maximum number of counsel whose costs can be allowed. For example, it would be possible to provide that in some cases the costs of one counsel would be allowed for all stages preliminary to the hearing, or for all interlocutory work, while allowing a court to certify that two counsel should be allowed for the hearing of the action. Subsection (3) is a standard provision that regulations must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, and provides that regulations may be annulled by a negative resolution passed by either House within 21 sitting days.

However, in view of the debate that has occurred already in the House on the proposal to empower me to make such regulations, I would now agree that a provision for a positive resolution by both Houses of the Oireachtas would be preferable. Accordingly, I am prepared to accept the terms of the amendment put down by Deputy Barrett. This will have the effect of substituting a provision for a positive resolution by both Houses for the provision in subsection (3) of my amendment No. 8.

Generally, my attitude to the proposed new power to make regulations is that I should wait until experience has been gained of the operation of non-jury trials before considering the question of regulations. Both the Bar Council and the Irish Insurance Federation have given commitments to the number of counsel who will be briefed when civil juries cease in these cases. Also, trials are expected to be shorter and simpler under the new arrangements. This should tie up barristers for shorter periods in court. If, as expected, most cases are settled at an earlier stage, this should improve the position about listing cases for trial which has been frequently cited by the Bar Council as the main cause of multiple representation by counsel.

Finally the report of the Fair Trades Commission into the legal profession, including the question of the number of counsel required in a particular case, is due out fairly soon and I would like to consider that report before deciding what action is necessary. I intend to await these developments before considering what regulations I should make.

Mr. S. Barrett

I move my amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 8:

To delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:

"(3) Where it is proposed to make regulations under this section, a draft of the regulations shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the regulations shall not be made unless a resolution approving of the draft is passed by each such House.".

As I said the last day, this side of the House are totally opposed to the method being used by the Government to introduce this fundamental change. If the Government wanted to introduce procedures on the regulation of the number of counsel appearing in certain actions, they should have done so either by way of withdrawing the existing Bill and bringing forward a totally new Bill so that the fundamental principle could be debated on Second Stage, or waiting to see what agreement could be reached with the Bar Council. If agreement had not been reached, the Government could have brought forward enabling powers for the Minister to make regulations in a future Courts Bill.

There is a fundamental principle involved in amending a Bill of this nature to such an extent on Committee Stage without affording this House an opportunity to debate the principle on Second Stage. I can say that without anybody accusing me of representing a vested interest group because I am not a member of the legal profession.

However, I am thinking in terms of the extent of the interference and the heavy-handed approach by the Government in regulating the rules applying to a profession, whether it be the legal profession or my own profession, the insurance profession, without adequate debate and discussion with the representative body, who must be regarded as a responsible group of people.

I honestly believe it is a grave mistake to introduce an amendment such as amendment No. 8. In his remarks the Minister mentioned the listing system which has been a major justification of the two senior and junior counsel procedure. He said that the abolition of juries may change that, but I am not aware of whether or not that would be the case. I am quite certain that negotiations should take place between the Minister and his Department and the Bar Council to work out an acceptable level of representation for a plaintiff in particular cases.

My understanding from what I have read and from statements from the junior Minister in the Department, is that negotiations have already taken place between the junior Minister and the Bar Council and the Minister for Justice and the Bar Council and that progress has been made. I also understand that the junior Minister issued a statement after one of those meetings saying that if the Bar Council would not agree on a voluntary basis to reducing the number of seniors in particular actions, the Government would be forced to introduce legislation to make it compulsory. I understand that the Bar Council have already agreed to reduce the number of seniors from two to one in accordance with a request made by the Minister of State at the Department of Industry and Commerce. There is no reason for this amendment, certainly at this stage, when there is no obvious breach of good faith on the part of the Bar Council.

I was pleased to hear that the Minister is at least accepting the principle that no regulation should be implemented without first being brought back to this House and to the Seanad for a full debate. Will the Minister put on record that no regulations will be made if agreement is reached between the Minister and the Bar Council? It is important that we as legislators build up our relationships with responsible bodies such as the Bar Council and that we show that we trust each other. If that trust is breached then the law can fill the gap.

It is interesting to note that the Minister is prepared to accept a letter from the insurance industry giving a guarantee that they will do something. Accepting a letter is quite different from imposing statutory controls. If the Minister can do it for one side, surely he can do it for the other. I would like to be satisfied that people will not find that they will only be allowed to have a senior and junior counsel in exceptional circumstances and the defendant, the insurance companies, can have as many representatives as they wish. In some cases it will be necessary to get specialist advice. Any regulations discussed between the Minister and the Bar Council should take exceptional circumstances into account and provisions should be made for proper representation when needed. I would prefer now to hear the views of other members present in the Chamber.

We are opposed in principle to the way in which this amendment is being introduced. I have tabled amendments on behalf of my party to safeguard people. We know that this annulling power is there to be used within 21 days, but in practice this power is never used because successive Governments by and large have refused adequate time to debate such regulations, so the power is not worth the paper it is written on. Our amendment will oblige the Minister to bring before both Houses of the Oireachtas any regulations he wishes to make in this regard. That is the minimum safeguard. I would prefer if this provision was not there at all and to hear from the Minister that he had reached a satisfactory agreement with the Bar Council and with the insurance industry that would not need the heavy hand of the law to implement. Will the Minister assure us that regulations will not be made if agreement is reached between the Minister and the Bar Council and that he will enter into discussions with the insurance companies to see that people will not be left with the minimum of representation in court, when the major institutions, the insurance companies in this case, will have no such restrictions on them as to the numbers. I would like now to hear these assurances from the Minister before contributing any further.

Mr. Birmingham

There was talk on the earlier section about the degree o consistency that the Government have displayed, and the manner in which they have set about their business. Those charges apply with particular force in relation to this section. What is involved here i a very fundamental departure from what we have known to date in the legal system or from the Bill as originally intended. The way in which this amendment is introduced late in the life of the Bill is a most unhappy one. There has been talk about the extent to which the Government have steered a straight course and some questions arise. My understanding of the Government's track record in this debate, is that having opposed this Bill during the life of the last Dáil, within a matter of days of the change of administration, the Minister of State at the Department of Industry and Commerce wandered off to an insurance dinner and, in the congenial company in which he found himself, gave commitments that there would be a volte face on the part of his party and that they would after all favour the abolition of juries.

I understand that in the aftermath of that commitment the Minister of State entered into negotiations with the legal profession and made clear to them, rightly, that the Government of the day had a proper concern with the level of legal costs and with the consequent cost to the insurance industry and the cost to the insured persons. My understanding is that those negotiations proceeded very specifically on the basis that it was for the Bar Council to introduce change, and that if change was not forthcoming, such was the Government's strength of feeling on the subject that they would bring in legislation. I understood that that was a fall back position and that only if no movement was forthcoming from the legal profession would the Government find it necessary to legislate. We know that there has been movement. We know that a general meeting of the Bar attended by several hundred barristers was called and they made a solemn decision to change their procedures so as to provide that it would not be possible to seek to recover costs for more than one senior counsel and one junior counsel in a typical personal injuries case. We know that they have followed that up by specifically stating that that resolution would take effect on the day that this Bill comes into force.

Mr. McCartan

Why not before then?

Mr. Birmingham

Because before then there is the jury system and the current listing system. I understand that this Bill will now come into effect on 31 July and the Bar Council resolution will come into effect simultaneously. There has been movement on the part of the Bar Council. Given that the Minister has been somewhat forthcoming in his attitude to Deputy Barrett's amendment, I do not want to make a charge of breach of faith, but it seems to me that those who entered into negotiations with the Government and with the Minister of State in good faith are entitled to feel more than a little aggrieved at the way in which matters have proceeded.

The Minister has said that to some extent the question of regulations will go, if not on the long finger, at least on the middle finger and that there will not be regulations unless they are first approved by the House. He has also indicated that he does not have any intention of immediately introducing regulations but that he will wait and see what develops. I welcome that proposal. The drafting of regulations would be an extraordinarily complex task and one which I suspect would defeat the Department. I say that because the Minister has indicated that the one area that could be considered is the size of the case, the seriousness of the injuries and the likely damages to be recovered. There is a world of difference between a personal injuries case in a High Court, a case involving two motor cars where the question was which of them was on the right side of the white line and whether the injuries were serious or not and, for example, an accident that might have arisen following the disaster at Whiddy. In fact, I understand that the plaintiff in that case has opted for a non-jury trial. Clearly the degree of expertise that has to be brought to bear and the degree of preliminary work and research to be undertaken will be vastly different.

If the previous Government had not established a tribunal to deal with the victims of the Stardust disaster one can imagine how prolonged and complicated that litigation would have been and how uncertain its prospects would have been because of the multiple defendants involved — the various companies who had an interest in the property, the people who had manufactured the furniture and equipment, the officers of those companies in a personal capacity, the local authority on whether they had carried out their function adequately and the State because of the adequacy of the planning laws and the inspectorate. The range of possibilities would be almost endless if somebody was injured or believed they had suffered injury, sickness or illness following a leak at Sellafield. If one decided to bring an action one can imagine the degree of preparation that would be required if witnesses from all over the world with a high technical expertise had to be assembled together. It is not possible to cover this wide range of possibilities on the basis of certification and by providing at the end of the case that one could stand up and say to the judge: "Would you mind certifying the fact that there are two or three of us here?" Of course, the case is over at that stage and it means that someone has had to work their way through the case — and the cases we are talking about would be of unusual length and complexity — without any knowledge as to whether a person's application for certification would be successful or whether they would be paid. I do not think it is possible to address this simply on the basis of a post hoc certification. If one is to regulate it has to be done on the basis of identifying categories of cases because the multiplicity of categories that would arise would be extraordinary.

There is another issue which should not be lost sight of. At present, almost all personal injury cases are taken on behalf of people who, if unsuccessful, cannot afford to pay their lawyers. The present level of legal costs — and the level of legal costs whether or not this Bill goes through — is such that a person who is mowed down by a motor car at a pedestrian crossing, or a person whose finger is sliced off while operating machinery in a factory, would not have the resources to fund a legal action. Most actions are taken on the basis that the lawyers are content to take them in the expectation that, if the plaintiff is successful, they will be paid but in the knowledge that they have no guarantee of being paid if an action is not successful. I do not want to overstate this case. That is not done by lawyers because they are philanthropists or exclusively out of the goodness of their hearts, although I do think there is some element of public service involved. It is done, of course, because in the majority of cases the plaintiff can expect to recover and if one has multiple counsel it does not require the degree of exclusive commitment that makes it impossible to take the case on the basis that payment will follow only if there is a satisfactory result.

If the Minister were to introduce regulations, as was suggested by the Minister for Social Welfare when he stood in for the Minister on the last occasion, which would provide that there could be only one counsel in a case — and I think it may have been a slip of the tongue by the Minister for Social Welfare — the system of operating without a guarantee of payment would come to a standstill. It could not continue because people would be obliged to take on a case to the exclusion of all other cases and, because of the nature of things, they would not know exactly when a case would begin and could not make an exact estimate of how long it would last. Not only would they have to give exclusive attention to that case but they would also have to block off time at either end. Nobody is going to do that unless they have a reasonable expectation of being paid either on the basis that there is a guarantee of payment or because it appears that the strength of the case is such that a victory is very likely and counsel can expect to recover.

That means that an injured plaintiff who has suffered very serious injuries but whose success is hanging in the balance will find it difficult to secure legal representation. That would be the inevitable consequence of proceeding along the lines suggested by the Minister for Social Welfare. The only follow-on from that would be that a plaintiff who was cut off from effective access to the court would immediately launch a constitutional action seeking to establish a right to legal aid. It seems to be a matter of overwhelming probability that that application would be successful and the effect of that would be that a Pandora's box would be opened, that the State would have let itself in for an absolutely unquantifiable bill and this legislation which was designed to reduce legal costs would, in fact, turn out to be a great bonanza for the legal profession. I caution the Minister against being over-ambitious in this area in seeking to regulate. It is infinitely superior to look to the people who have the greatest knowledge to organise their own affairs and to do it on the basis that, if they do not respond satisfactorily, the Minister will, in the public good, have a reserved right to legislate. That would seem to be the responsible way to proceed.

I concede that the Minister has come a distance and I welcome the fact that there will have to be further vetting of anything that might emerge from the Oireachtas because these are questions not just of detail but of fundamental principle. I also welcome the fact that the Minister has disavowed any immediate intention to introduce regulations. He has indicated that he will wait, listen and observe and this is commendable. However, I think he should go further and indicate that, if the various interests involved, the legal professions and the insurance industry, are prepared to organise their affairs in a responsible way he will not meddle unnecessarily and his concern is that the public interest should be protected. If the legal professions and the insurance industry can arrange that themselves, the Minister would be well advised to stay clear of this.

Mr. Cooney

On a point of order, as there are about 52 minutes left and six or seven potential speakers, would it be in order to ask my colleagues to have regard to the amount of time left?

Acting Chairman (Mr. M. Barrett)

Will Deputies take note of what Deputy Cooney said?

Deputies

Yes.

Miss Colley

Amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 8 reads:

To delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:

"(3) A draft of every regulation proposed to be made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and such regulation shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.".

Amendment No. 9a deals with the regulations of counsel which is in answer to both the Minister's amendment and Deputy Barret's amendment. We believe that there are a number of problems attaching to the amendment tabled by the Minister and the first of these is that the Minister is given the power to specify by regulation the maximum number of counsel in respect of whom the cost can be taxed. It does not specify on what grounds he may make regulations and it does not demand of the Minister that he inform himself as to the reasons such regulations would be necessary.

Our amendment provides that the Minister must be of the opinion that there is a practice leading to an excessive number of counsel being used. In fact, it says here that where the Minister is of opinion that by reason of any practice whereby an excessive number of counsel are retained in cases arising under section 1 (1) of this Act, the amount of costs recoverable on taxation are unreasonable having regard to the nature of the proceedings etc, it allows for the making of regulations at that stage. It is important to echo what Deputy Barrett was saying about the fact that the idea of the Minister making regulations directly to control the numbers of counsel appearing in cases is overstating the necessity. I feel that it is probably unnecessary because the Bar Council does seem to have shown itself willing to make fairly major adjustments in the recent past when it was put to them, quite strenuously I would agree. I feel they would be willing to make even further changes were it spelled out to them that this was absolutely necessary. However, I feel that regulations should be used as a last resort and that is what our amendment allows for.

The second point about our amendment — and it is really the major aspect of it — is that it provides for fairness as between the two sides. This is an issue which has come up a number of times in relation to the regulation of counsel and it is felt that there will be many defendants who will have the services of their insurance company who will be heavily backed and have access to a heavier legal team to represent them. Certainly, as the Minister's amendment is drafted, that is possible. What we have done is to draft amendment No. 9a which would then be section 4 (3) which essentially provides that there shall be similar representation for each party. In other words, if the party who ends up paying the costs ups the ante and decides to put in a heavier team they will do so in the knowledge that they will have to pay the costs of a similar sized team on the other side in most cases. In the vast majority of cases it is the defendant, and probably an insurance company, that ends up paying the costs, and the plaintiff, under the Minister's suggestion, would be restricted in the number of counsel he could have costs taxed for. Our amendment would go a very long way towards evening up the odds as between the two sides. It is a reasonable amendment which I would urge the Minister to take on board to show he wishes to deal with this matter in a fair and even-handed way.

Mr. Taylor

How is the plaintiff supposed to know what kind of team he is going to be faced with?

Miss Colley

What we are suggesting is a framework for allowing fairness to reign.

Mr. Birmingham

Answer that question.

Miss Colley

In other words, if the defendant takes on two counsel he can expect to have to pay for two counsel on the plaintiff's side also.

(Interruptions.)

Miss Colley

One of the problems with regulating the number of counsel at all is that the Title of this Bill, as inserted by the Minister, allows for the regulation of the number of counsel in certain actions. There is no way that can be done because it would be a denial of one's civil rights to engage any number of counsel; if one wanted to have ten counsel on one's side one could have them so long as one was willing to pay for them or they were willing to give their services free of charge. Our amendment No. 14 provides that the number of counsel may be regulated in respect of whom costs may be recovered and is also allowing people their civil right, if they wish, to take the benefit of the service of further counsel, but certainly it is open to the Minister to regulate the numbers in respect of whom he may wish to allow taxation of costs.

In relation to that, I see that Deputy Barrett's amendment allows the Minister, by order, to prescribe rules of practice to be observed by the Bar Council in stipulating the number of counsel appearing in actions to which this section applies. I am surprised and very puzzled because Deputy Barrett, in his contribution, indicated that he felt the Minister was going too far, taking too wide powers, and he did not wish the Minister to step in and regulate the number of counsel. In fact, his own amendment goes much further than the Minister's amendment in trying to stipulate the number of counsel who may appear in a case, not just have their costs taxed. I believe it would be a very grave mistake to follow down that line of argument.

I would like to say further that I believe the Minister and the junior Minister with responsibility for Trade and Marketing have shown a lack of faith in their dealings with the Bar Council to date. I hope that the Minister in his introduction was indicating — I believe he was — somewhat of a pull-back from that position that appeared to have been reached recently. The Bar Council, after consultations with the junior Minister adopted, as Deputy Birmingham said, a new regime that after the passing of this Bill no more than one senior and one junior counsel would appear in these cases. It was on the basis of undertakings that there would be no regulations brought in and no legislation which would curtail the numbers appearing in cases. Having done that they then find that the Minister wishes to take to himself in this Bill the powers to regulate the number of counsel for whom costs may be taxed. In doing this the Minister has invited the Bar Council to end this agreement or to put in jeopardy this type of agreement or future agreements that might be reached between the two parties. That is regrettable because if the goodwill of the Bar Council had been maintained and the dealings had been proceeded with as planned, further changes could have been achieved with no difficulties or less difficulties than we might have now.

I want to refer to the Insurance Federation's letter. The Insurance Federation sent me a copy of the letter they sent to the Minister for Justice and to the Minister who is sitting here, Deputy Reynolds. They say that they have given a categoric assurance in regard to the briefing of no more than two counsel. In fact, the words they use are "insurers can envisage no case in which any party would need to brief a third barrister". That, I would submit, leaves it open to them to revise their opinions in the future and to say that circumstances arise now that they did not envisage before.

Mr. Taylor

There seems to be two counsel in this case.

Miss Colley

Junior and senior. I am being reminded that the plaintiff will know how many are appearing on the other side by those who sign the pleading and by asking the defendant's solicitor how many he is briefing. It is very simple.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Taylor

They are not usually that obliging as to tell you.

Mr. Cooney

If you want to have a swish of silk you might keep it in reserve.

Mr. D. O'Malley

Are you suggesting you opponent would tell you a lie?

A Deputy

Not only juries have changed——

Mr. D. O'Malley

It might happen here but it does not happen in another place.

Miss Colley

If regulations are to be resorted to it should be as a last resort. That should be the rule where legislation is concerned. We have a very specific amendment which allows the Minister——

Mr. S. Barrett

That is not what the Deputy said the last day.

Miss Colley

——to make regulations and we are pressing that the numbers of counsel in cases be reduced. We are absolutely positive about that. There are a number of ways that can be achieved. The Minister and his colleagues have shot themselves in the foot between last year and now. The very least that can be done is that this procedure should be made fair to both sides but particularly to the side, as pointed out by many Deputies, on a less well off footing as regards being able to instruct numbers of counsel. I strongly urge that amendment No. 14 should be adopted because the Minister's amendment, No. 13, is not factually true. You cannot regulate the number of counsel appearing. We should strive for accuracy at the very least.

Mr. Andrews

I will be very brief in response to Deputy Cooney's request for brevity. The Minister knows my views in relation to the retention of the jury system. I have already placed my views in that regard on the record of the House. Despite the fact that my voting position, to say the least, is anomalous I still believe the jury system should have been retained. The Bill remains a Bill until it is signed by the President and will, presumably become law before the end of July. I express my sorrow that that is about to become a reality.

In relation to the regulations before the House, I must express my surprise that we are debating them at all because I understand from discussions between the Minister of State and the Bar Council that on the basis of undertakings given by the Bar Council that they themselves would regulate their own affairs in the context of the number of counsel they would have in running down actions, common law and employers' liability actions and so on. It comes as a surprise to me that we should even be discussing regulations on the basis of the Bar Council's undertaking. I support the manner in which the Bar Council met the reality of the abolition of juries and I also support the statement by the Bar Council which, I believe, will remain a statement of their intent and their practice, that the number of seniors, as undertaken to be regulated by them, will be so regulated. I do not want to be seen as a Tadgh an dá thaobh in this area because the Minister and the House knows that I am a practising barrister and in the nature of things I could be representing a self-interest and so on. That may be so and it may not be so. I would like to feel that I am meeting this problem in an unbiased fashion as a public representative, but it is difficult to beat the barrister out of the public representative.

Having said that and on the basis that the regulations have been suspended pending the operation of the new, non-jury regime, the Minister has very reasonably approached the situation on the basis that the regulations will not be introduced if it is found that the council's system, the limitation on counsel, will be operating properly. I think that is right. My wish is that the Minister will not have to operate these regulations, which I hope will remain in a permanent state of suspension, because I believe that the Minister, who is a reasonable and honourable man, is dealing with a group of reasonable and honourable people. When the new, non-jury system is seen to operate over a period of two, three, four or five years the undertaking originally given will be seen to be a fact. I believe the Bar Council will regulate the system to ensure that the number of counsel in each case will be limited according to the exigencies of the situation.

I would like to see that the regulations would be permanently suspended. I believe they will be and that honour will be met on both sides. I want to place on record again my view that it came as somewhat of a surprise to me that we are debating regulations to curtail the number of counsel in cases. Where small claims in the High Court were dealt with by three counsel, two senior and one junior, and a solicitor on the one hand, and two senior counsel, one junior and a solicitor on the other, that is for plaintiff and defendant, I believed that was socially wrong and incorrect, and I think the general view of the Bar, as a totality, was that it was wrong also. That is why I believe they undertook, in the situation that the non-jury system would be in operation, to have a look at the number of counsel in cases which required that there be fewer counsel than there were originally. I believe the Minister will give effect to his undertaking, that his position will be honoured and that the Bar Council will give effect to their undertaking and that they will regulate the number of counsel in cases and that their position will be honoured. My wish is that these regulations never see the light of day.

Mr. Taylor rose.

Acting Chairman

I am calling Deputy McCartan but I will call Deputy Taylor afterwards.

Mr. McCartan

I appreciate that and I am thankful to you for calling me in this matter. From Second Stage debate I anticipate that I will be very much in the minority of one on this issue. On Second Stage I welcomed the intention of the Government to introduce regulations. I hope the section will be in place and will remain there, and through or by whatever means regulations are eventually drafted, I look forward to the amendment now accepted whereby it will be a matter for this House to debate, discuss and agree them before they are put in place. As someone who has practised, not for as long as Deputy Fitzpatrick, in the legal profession but in an area of work where the Government and the Department of Justice had no difficulty in regulating the number of counsel and deciding down the line in all kinds of complexities and in cases of all kinds of seriousness affecting far greater issues concerning the liberty, livelihood and future wellbeing of the subject, I do not see that they will have any difficulty in this area either. We are talking about the wit and will of this combined House, with all official support and input, and the arguments that it is complex and impossible to deal with do not wash with me. I have worked for 15 years with it and it can be done without any difficulty.

I am disappointed that these regulations are not being progressed. For example. I do not hold the view that there is all that good, great and well disposed attitude of public spirit in the Bar or in any area of the legal profession as a whole. It is not a well-motivated profession when it comes to dealing with negotiations on its own position, rights and area. I could go into theories but I do not want to spend too much time on this. I want to give other Deputies, some of who have a view counter to mine on this, an opportunity to speak. The motivation comes primarily from changes in the rules with regard to the number of counsel and from the change in the structure of membership in the Bar over the past number of years. There has been a huge influx of young members who are standing around idly watching the fat cows on the top of the pile making an absolute fortune as they waddle into the round hall every morning with numerous briefs tucked under their oxters, standing about and controlling what is known locally as the "round hall Mafia". It is the demand for democracy within the Bar that is forcing change on the Bar, not any public spirited notion about the need to change in face of arguments about the interests of the insurance industry or people who have to pay the premiums over the counter in the insurance offices. There is a revolt within the Bar to try to distribute work more fairly among the many hundreds of young, educated, qualified lawyers who find they are not getting a fair deal down there.

In addition, there is worry about the Fair Trade Commission and their recommendations and findings. The Government on this occasion are being prompted by a preview, perhaps, of a suggestion of what might be coming in that commission's report and they are anticipating something that will be suggested and incorporating it into a section of regulations here. I do not want in any way to be singular in the profession, but my experience is that the law profession generally is very slow and reluctant to change and change for the sake of progress. The whole area of legal education has concerned me over the years and it is remarkable that at this stage there is no third level input from the Department of Education. A student coming out of our democratic educational process cannot avail of third level departmental grants. There are arbitrary controls on entry to the profession. There are huge fees to be paid and you cannot get one iota of concession from either side of the profession on that issue.

The one big thing that has not been addressed in these regulations at any stage is the scale of fee that can be levelled by barristers on their brief for attending. I ask the Minister to look at that. I know of an instance in the last week where a case demanded and the client demanded a single senior simply to get singular attention in the hearing. The senior was found without difficulty, but what happened? The brief fee was doubled.

A Deputy

And can be doubled here.

Mr. McCartan

And can be doubled here as well. I make no point about it. The solicitor's fee will be doubled to keep abreast of what the senior is getting and the juniors come up with it as well. As the rule stands within the trade unionism of the Bar, it is two thirds for the juniors. That is what will happen in these regulations. The numbers will be cut down but the fees will be doubled. What is the argument? It is that under the thick oxter under which they carry three or four briefs, they can manage to make three or four brief fees a day. If you interfere with that, they have to compensate over by doubling or trebling up, if they can get away with it, on their brief fees. They will hand them out and work them around, but they will work their fees up. Many of us cannot understand — and as a practising lawyer for many years I could never understand — the basis upon which the fees are marked by lawyers on the whole when they get a run and a brief and a marking pen. They just pick figures from the sky. I have seen figures in lawyer's firms around this city and around the country that baffle me beyond comprehension.

A woman wrote to me last week from Kerry and her bottom line was that this lawyer was charging her £4,500 to get her £7,500 compensation. It was all there documented, no problem to say how it was arrived at.

Mr. Birmingham

You are such a lawyer and stay in business.

Mr. Reynolds

What are you doing here George?

Mr. McCartan

One aspect of these regulations is the question of the scale the fees can be fixed on. Perhaps the commission we talked about will have something to say about that. It is a fact to be concerned about. I am not at all taken by the concessions very late in the day that are welcomed as if they are what the Government and everyone else in this House want. We need enabling legislation in place if we are to do that tonight but the Minister should not wait too long in terms of drafting up his regulations. They will need to be looked at and the matter will have to be addressed.

In answer to Deputy Birmingham's suggestion that the problem up to this has been that the jury system in some way or other makes the listing of cases difficult and makes it hard for the poor counsel to operate down there, that is not so. The current listing in the High Court in Dublin is 25 to 30 actions per day put in for hearing. On average, three to four High Court judges are available per day to take them and 99 per cent of civil actions today operate on a non-jury basis. We have made the point that it is the very exceptional case that goes to a jury hearing. The lawyers go over knowing it is a settling court they are going to, but they go with three or four briefs under their arm and there is no difficulty for them. If the will was there, their own self-governing regulations would be long in place. We would be getting on with it and they would have shown by practical illustration that they had a serious interest in this area. You need a stick, not a carrot, to deal with the legal profession when it comes to change, particularly against their interests. Let us keep on with the job.

Mr. Taylor

What I have to say will be brief because other Members want to contribute on this section of the Bill. While the attitude of the Fine Gael Party on this issue is a little strange and inconsistent, Deputy Barrett made the point, rightly, that this issue of the control of the number of counsel in a case was completely separate and distinct from the main thrust of the Bill dealing with the abolition of juries in civil cases. So it is. He made the point, again rightly, that the normal procedure for a Second Stage debate on this issue has been denied to Members of this House. It is bad parliamentary practice for one thing. When a separate issue of this nature was introduced there should have been a Second Stage debate on it in the normal way. He is right about all those things but, if that is the view he takes, it puzzles me as to why he arranged with his Whip to have this Committee Stage today guillotined to conclude at 11 p.m. It was quite clear that this debate was the only opportunity there would be to have anything even approaching a Second Stage debate on this important issue. Yet the Fine Gael Whip agreed to guillotine the measure. I find those two positions somewhat inconsistent.

Mr. O'Brien

Excuse me. On a point of order, it was not the Fine Gael Whip who agreed. I want to make that clear.

Mr. S. Barrett

The Deputy missed a whole day's debate.

Mr. O'Brien

He comes in here defending his own situation.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Mr. O'Brien

What is a point of order is that he indicated the Fine Gael Whip made the arrangement. The Fine Gael Whip did not make the arrangement. It was made by the Whips.

Mr. S. Barrett

Let him worry about the Government and his own party, forget about Fine Gael and not backtrack on what he did in Government.

Mr. Taylor

I re-emphasise that, according to the information furnished to me by the Labour Party Whip, which I accept, the Fine Gael Whip and the PD Whip both agreed that this debate would be guillotined to conclude at 11 p.m.

Mr. S. Barrett

The Deputy was not here all day.

Mr. Taylor

I was listening to the debate and I contributed——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Taylor

Never mind where I was. I listened to the debate and I contributed to it——

Mr. T. Fitzpatrick

There are only 20 minutes left in this debate.

Mr. O'Brien

Why was the Deputy not here all day?

Mr. Taylor

The Deputy's position is inconsistent.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us have order.

Mr. Taylor

This is an important point and the Deputy should accept his own inconsistencies.

Mr. O'Brien

Deputy Taylor is in his office every day looking after his legal interests.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Taylor on the amendment without interruption.

Mr. Taylor

Can you control them, a Cheann Comhairle?

An Ceann Comhairle

I certainly can.

Mr. O'Brien

Get down to business.

An Ceann Comhairle

These interruptions must cease.

Mr. Taylor

Deputy O'Brien cannot conduct himself.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should not provoke other Members.

Mr. Taylor

One would think that Deputy O'Brien could conduct himself.

Mr. O'Brien

Deputy Taylor raised the issue and we had to listen to him.

Mr. Taylor

The Fine Gael Party should hold their peace on this issue.

Mr. O'Brien

The Labour Party are backtracking.

Mr. Taylor

Deputy O'Brien is being disorderly.

Mr. O'Brien

Deputy Taylor is the cause of the problem.

An Ceann Comhairle

Please, Deputy O'Brien.

Mr. S. Barrett

When will we hear Deputy Taylor's views? He has said nothing.

Mr. Taylor

Now that Fine Gael are in the awkward position into which they talked themselves, they can only resort to attacking me instead of recognising the fact that their own position is totally inconsistent.

Mr. O'Brien

On a point of order, is Deputy Taylor inviting argument?

Mr. Taylor

Never mind what I am inviting. Does Deputy O'Brien take up every invitation that comes his way? He should try to control himself as we are talking about serious issues.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us get down to the amendment. I do not want to hear anything which is not relevant to it. Forget about personalities.

Mr. Taylor

The crucial factor on this issue has been touched on during the course of the debate but I want to emphasise one particular aspect which goes to the root of the matter. In this jurisdiction there is no legal aid system worth mentioning in civil cases and that is the nub of the problem we are seeking to address here, by controlling the number of counsel. In the United Kingdom the number of counsel is controlled and in a normal running down action or in a case for personal injuries, the one counsel rule applies. Indeed, in most cases, a junior counsel conducts the case exclusively.

In regard to the criminal end, Deputy McCartan said that the Minister had no difficulty in bringing in regulations controlling the number of counsel and organising the whole system. That is true but there is a basic difference in the United Kingdom position in civil cases and our system dealing with criminal cases. In both those areas, there is a free legal aid system and that makes the position we are faced with here totally different. If the Minister or the Government wanted to do anything realistic to tackle the problem, they ought to bring in a civil legal aid system and then the question of the number of counsel would, rightly, be brought in as an integral part of that arrangement. Doing it on its own leaves out the most crucial requirement and precondition of the whole issue.

That is the difficulty and, as a practising solicitor acting for clients who cannot afford to pay counsel from their own resources, I must consider their position when the non-jury rule comes into force. I certainly hold no brief for the barons of the round court — the system has been ripped off to a large extent — but I must consider the position of people in poor circumstances who face a very important lawsuit in which they will require the services of an experienced counsel on an issue which will determine the whole future course of their lives and that of their families for many years to come. Will they be adversely affected by this situation? There is a very serious risk, in the absence of a civil legal aid system, that their position will be seriously prejudiced and that they may have great difficulty in obtaining adequate representation for their case.

On an earlier stage of the Bill, Deputy Barrett asked if the new system would be humane towards a person who had been involved in an accident and who had sustained possible serious injuries. I do not know what he meant. Nobody is looking for charity or a humane approach to this issue. People will merely be seeking their legal rights to compensate them for what they have been made to suffer and for the wrong that has been done to them by a car driver or a factory owner whose dangerous system in the workplace caused the accident. I fear that may not be forthcoming because very few cases can be guaranteed 100 per cent and if the case is difficult counsel who are experienced and in demand will be exclusively committed to these cases and may not be available — as they are now in many cases — to assist a person whose whole future may be at issue.

These are my concerns and worries and that is what I meant when I said that we are pushing aside the real issue here. Never mind the insurance companies. I am concerned about the individual person whose life may have been destroyed in an accident. The insurance companies have investment incomes and profits. I am not too concerned about them. Their buildings and offices get bigger and flashier every year notwithstanding the whingeing they do. The danger here is that, as always, it is the man at the wrong end of the stick who suffers. The Minister should do something to assist that person although I do not believe that any of the three parties of the right here have any interest in that regard. They represent other interests. If they want to get together let them do so on some worth-while issue; let them provide a free legal aid system for those people.

We can deal with the question of the number of counsel later. I agree that the present position in regard to counsel is not satisfactory and something will have to be done about it. I would have preferred if we could have had more time to deal with that issue. We could have had if Deputy O'Brien had been as vociferous at the meeting of the Whips as he has been this evening.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am calling on Deputy Cooney.

Mr. O'Brien

The Deputy is a nasty little man.

Mr. Taylor

The Deputy should withdraw that remark.

Mr. O'Brien

The Deputy is a nasty little man.

An Ceann Comhairle

Please, I am calling on Deputy Cooney.

Mr. Taylor

The Deputy is a two-faced one because he says one thing at the meeting of the Whips and he sends his spokesman in here to say something else.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy O'Brien, a remark of the kind you have applied to another Member of the House should not be applied.

Mr. O'Brien

Deputy Taylor indicated that there was a different view expressed at the meeting of the Whips and I should like to tell him that there was not.

Mr. Taylor

Facts speak for themselves.

Mr. Cooney

I asked my colleagues to be brief and so I will have to set an example. I should like to outline to the House the position that faces an ordinary country attorney regularly. His client, probably a man of no substance in terms of material things, comes in to him having been injured in the course of his work, may be in a chemical factory or a complex machinery yard. A difficult technical legal question arises as to whether there was a safe system of work for that man or not. That man may have a young family and he may have sustained a serious injury. His humble country solicitor instructs his junior counsel, probably from the circuit, and instructs a senior counsel probably from the circuit also, a person he is used to dealing with. Because of the complexity of the case he will almost inevitably want to have a second senior counsel and in the past has had a second senior as a matter of course. He has had available to him the best senior counsel practising at the Bar at no cost greater than the cost of the other senior.

The country solicitor can put together the maximum legal team suited to his particular needs and the needs of that client in the knowledge that if the case fails everybody is on nothing and if the case wins everybody gets paid. That is the position at the moment. The second senior counsel may be brought in for a particular purpose in that case. He may be brought in to address the jury winding up the case; he may be brought in for a specialist cross-examination or he may be brought in for his own personal muscle at settlement on the steps of the court. The system allows the humblest country solicitor, acting for the poorest man in his district, to build that sort of a legal team. We are now proposing to end that at the behest of the insurance lobby.

We also propose to introduce regulations but for the life of me I cannot see how regulations are going to be intelligible and workable if they are going to allow exceptions from the norm. They obviously have to set a norm and the norm will be a senior and a junior counsel, as has been indicated. However, it has also been indicated to us that they will allow exceptions. That raises the question: who is to rule on the exception and at what stage? Is it to be the trial court? Is it to be the Minister or officials of the Minister's Department? How are those people going to be convinced that my particular case is one that comes within the exception?

The drafting of regulations to provide a norm, and provide exceptions having regard to a myriad of complex different cases that can arise, is a matter of impossibility. I should like to ask the Minister to reconsider this change which, again, is another example of the insurance lobby getting their way. It is ironic that the insurance lobby are getting their way when they have played the two senior counsel rule down the years and when they know that coming into the new system they will not have to seek exception from the norm. If they want to engage powerful silks they can do so in the knowledge that they will be able to pay. If I want to have a second senior on my team and I do not get permission under these new regulations he has to be paid. Having regard to the law of supply and demand if I want a leader at the Bar his fee is now going to be a market fee and it will not be the same fee as the senior I have already engaged.

They are the realities behind the changes proposed. I will deal with these matters on Report Stage, particularly in regard to Deputy Colley's amendment providing for the same legal representation on each side.

Mr. Reynolds

I may not have time to respond to all the points raised. Deputy Barrett raised a question about the number of counsel to be allowed in personal injury cases and one about jury trials. It is a fundamental purpose of the Courts Bill, 1986 to bring greater consistency and predictability into awards in personal and fatal injury cases in the High Court. This will enable insurance companies to settle cases at earlier stages and reduce the legal costs associated with the large volume of cases that go to trial or are settled at the last moment. Fewer cases going to court will create greater certainty in the listing system and reduce the need for double-booking of barristers, which is frequently cited as the main reason for multiple representation at present.

Also, for cases that do go to trial, the proceedings, in general, should be simpler and shorter before a judge alone. The input needed for barristers should be correspondingly reduced. I also hope that savings can be achieved in the cost of expert evidence — that fewer expensive experts will be needed to give oral evidence in court and that those that appear can be dealt with more quickly.

This connection between the abolition of jury trial and the level of legal representation by counsel justifies dealing with both matters in this Bill. Also, as Deputies will be aware, the question of over-representation in personal injury cases has been the subject of much critical debate, and there is a commitment in the Programme for National Recovery to deal with the problem. The Bar Council have linked their voluntary agreement to reduce the number of barristers who are to be briefed in personal injury cases, to the abolition of civil juries. I recognise that the Bar Council have moved, by a large majority, to regulate the number of counsel.

Mr. Cooney

It is the Incorporated Law Society members who have to face the client.

Mr. Reynolds

I did not hear what Deputy Cooney said. It is clear that the Minister for Justice, or any Minister, will not bring in regulations that are unnecessary. I should like to make it clear that the Director of Fair Trade did not get a preview of them. It is quite sensible for the Minister for Justice to wait until he sees what he should put into the regulations before he decides to introduce them. The amendment proposed by Deputy Barrett is common sense in that it gives both Houses of the Oireachtas — not one House as represented in another amendment — an opportunity to discuss the regulations. Members will be able to voice any reservations they may have about the regulations then.

Mr. S. Barrett

My understanding is that no regulations will be introduced if agreement is reached with the Bar Council. Is that accurate?

Mr. Reynolds

The Bill says "may". It is clear that the Minister for Justice will not be making any regulations in advance of assessing the matter. If they are unnecessary why would any Minister introduce them? We recognise the move of the Bar Council but it would be sensible to have regulations if they are required in the future. I am certain that if the agreements reached are put into practice——

The whole object of the Bill is to get down the cost of insurance claims. A whole package of measures, of which this is one, have been put together. It is in the interests of everybody to get down the cost of insurance in relation to personal injuries and public liability. The high cost of insurance is costing jobs in the economy and we should not be in any doubt about that.

Mr. Birmingham

Will the Minister finish one sentence that he started? He began to say that if the agreements reached are, and I should like to ask him to finish that sentence and say that if the agreement of the Bar Council is implemented and they honour their commitment, as announced after their general meeting, he accepts that the regulations will be unnecessary?

Mr. Reynolds

I was pointing out that the legislation states that the Minister "may". I asked if any Minister would bring regulations into the House if they were unnecessary. We have enough to do legislating for matters that are necessary. Both Houses of the Oireachtas will have full opportunity to discuss the regulations when they come before the House.

Mr. Birmingham

If they come.

Mr. Reynolds

We have already accepted Deputy Barrett's amendment. They will have to be discussed in full and passed by both Houses.

Mr. S. Barrett

On a point of order, I want to be certain that my amendment has been accepted by the Minister, even though it is not in his name.

Mr. Reynolds

Yes, I associated my name with it.

An Ceann Comhairle

As it is now 11 p.m. I am required to put the following Question in accordance with the resolution of the Dáil of this day: That the amendments set down by the Minister for Justice and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill and that the Bill, as amended, is hereby agreed to in Committee and that the Committee reports that it has gone through the Bill and has made amendments thereto and has amended the Title to read as follows:

An Act to provide for the regulation of the number of counsel appearing in certain actions and that certain actions in the High Court shall not be tried with a jury and to provide for related matters.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 12.

Tá

• Abbott, Henry,
• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Matthew.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermott.
• Flood, Chris.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Hilliard, Colm Michael.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lynch, Michael.
• Lyons, Denis.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Mooney, Mary.
• Morley, P.J.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Browne, John.
• Burke, Ray.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Coughlan, Mary T.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Ellis, John.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Noonan, Michael J.
• (Limerick West).
• O'Dea, William Gerard.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Leary, John.
• Power, Paddy.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Swift, Brian.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Wright, G.V.

Níl

• Bell, Michael.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• McCartan, Pat.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies Howlin and Quinn.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

When is it intended to take Report Stage of this Bill?

Mr. Reynolds

Wednesday week, subject to agreement among the Whips.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 8 June 1988.