, Limerick East): I would like to thank the Senators who contributed to this debate. This is an important piece of legislation and I am glad it is passing through the House expeditiously.
When I came into office there were very long delays, indeed, especially in the High Court. Those delays were averaging around 30 months from the time of setdown to the date of the hearing of the action. The reasons for the delays were threefold. First, there was a lack of accommodation. There simply were not enough jury courtrooms, especially in Dublin city, to deal with the amount of business that was being transacted. We put in two new courtrooms in the Four Courts building, with full jury rooms. That has helped very much in Dublin.
It has been suggested to me from time to time that some of the preliminary work could be done by, for example, the Master of the High Court. I have legislation in preparation which will increase the role of the Master of the High Court. I think that will help as well. But it became clear during this year that if we were to deal effectively with the backlog we would need more manpower. In the High Court we would need an extra judge, at least for 12 to 15 months. The courts have been working very efficiently. I compliment, in particular, the President of the High Court and his predecessor for the work they have done in clearing backlogs. There has been a significant improvement and, as I said, the modifications which were carried out in the Four Courts now allow three High Court judges to sit simultaneously in Dublin. For example, in the 1984 legal year there was an increase of 84 per cent in the number of jury actions disposed of during the year, that is, 5,725 as compared with 3,107 in the previous year. There was an increase of 26 per cent in the number of non-jury common law actions disposed of. Tremendous credit is due to the President of the High Court who organised this and to his judges who co-operated so effectively with him.
We now have a situation in the High Court where the judges are disposing of more business than is actually being set down, so if there was not a backlog the present complement of judges could deal with the business that is coming before the courts. That is why I am asking this House to pass the Bill in the form in which I have proposed it. I do not think we will need the extra High Court judge as a permanent appointment. If that judge is used to clear the backlog, which still exists in Cork in particular and in other places in the country also, the problems will be removed and the existing complement of judges in the High Court will be able to deal, as they are dealing now, with the amount of business that is being set down.
It would be impossible to bring about a situation where there were no delays at all. We are talking about, principally, jury actions and people who sue for damages as a result of car accidents. When somebody is injured in a car accident in the normal course of events he goes to hospital and it takes a while for him to recuperate. Of necessity, time must elapse until the injured party has fully recuperated before a court is in a position to assess damage. That, I am told, is usually nine or ten months. When we are talking in terms of 12 month delays we are talking about a situation where we can only reduce the delays by two months. Otherwise, one would be simply waiting for the medical evidence and it would not work out.
I hope the situation in Cork will improve substantially. It has improved already this year. The President of the High Court went down there and called over the lists. He is putting extra judges there. There is an absolute blitz intended for Cork in 1986. I hope the delay that is running now at 20 months will be reduced substantially in line with what is happening in the rest of the country. I hope the extra judge which the President of the High Court will have at his disposal as a result of the appointment which will ensue from this legislation will help him in that respect.
With regard to the Circuit Court, there is a delay in Dublin of approximately 11 months in the hearing of criminal cases. Custody cases as Senator O'Leary pointed out, are given priority and dealt with as expeditously as possible. There are no delays in the Circuit Court on the civil side in Dublin. In Cork, there is an arrears situation in the Circuit Court, both in the civil and criminal cases. Again, priority is given, as is the practice everywhere, to people in custody. There has been a huge increase in Cork. Between 1979-84, for example, the number of criminal cases increased by 50 per cent and the number of civil cases increased by 35 per cent in the Cork area. During the legal years 1983-84 and 1984-85 a second Circuit Court judge sat in Cork for a total of 64 days and 70 days respectively. There will be one new appointment when we allow for the 12 permanent Circuit Court judges and add on the two temporary Circuit Court judges whom we are now making permanent. I know it is the intention of the President of the Circuit Court to appoint this judge to Cork. Rather than having a second judge there for a number of sitting days, there will be a second permanent appointment of a Circuit Court judge to Cork which, I think, will effectively deal with the backlog there.
One final comment of a general nature before I go to specific points raised by Senators is that the practice of having temporary judges is something I have been uneasy about for some time. There has never been any suggestion that because judges were temporary they were at the grace and pleasure of the Government and the Government would not make them permanent. There was always the possibility of a challenge because of the position of the temporary judge, since constitutionally the Judiciary are independent. No Government since the foundation of this State made any attempt whatsoever to direct a judge on the grounds that he was a temporary appointee and, consequently, was there at the grace and pleasure of the Government. That is not the point which is at issue. The point which is at issue is the very fact that the situation pertaining, where somebody is temporary rather than permanent, takes away somewhat from the independence of the Judiciary and their independent role. As I said in my opening remarks, it is the intention that the two temporary judges who are practising at the moment in the Circuit Court would be made permanent, and that then there would be a new appointee who would subsequently be assigned to Cork. That is it, in effect.
There were a number of points raised by different Senators which I would like to deal with very briefly. Senator Lanigan talked about training of the members of the Judiciary. On the question of training, as we know, there is no formal training. In the District Court the appointee needs to be a barrister or a solicitor of ten years' standing. In the Circuit Court or the High Court the appointee needs to be a barrister who has ten years' experience. One can ask what training has a Senator, a TD or a Minister.
I do not think the idea of running AnCO course for judges particularly appeals to me. If we pick our candidates carefully, as we do, we know that they are people of repute who are familiar with the courts because they practise in them. They learn quite a lot over the minimum period of ten years, which every judge has to have in practice. As well as that, the President of the District Court is empowered, for example, to bring all his justices together for the purpose of discussing matters relating to the discharge of business of the court. He has the formal power. The other presidents bring their judges together informally. They have discussions on sentencing policy and on various other matters. There is no provision in law for that, but the Chief Justice has over the past few years convened regional and national conferences of judges and justices in order to discuss the administration of justice. The holding of regional conferences was recommended in the twelfth interim report of the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure. Also, members of the Judiciary regularly attend national and international meetings and conferences, which keeps them in touch with new ideas and developments. Because of the constitutional independence of the Judiciary the initiative regarding briefing, training and so on must be left to the judges themselves. Certainly, they are very well in touch with what is happening in Europe and America. That area is not being neglected at all.
Senator Lanigan and other Senators also asked about staff. We are appointing the necessary staff and they will not be drawn from the existing pool of staff. There will be new registrars appointed as well as criers, drivers and so on. Such staff are provided with the appointment. That sanction was obtained before we came this far with the Bill. There are certain problems of staffing in various areas. The courts are subject to the embargo, as are other areas of the public sector, but there are some improvements. The courts are coping better now than they were. It might be of interest to Senators to know that there are a number of developments — for example, the assignment of 57 temporary clerical trainees. Most of them will go into District Court offices. That will help quite a lot. A lot of routine work causes the backlog. Also, there is a major computerisation project now, particularly in Dublin, but also in Cork and Limerick. The issuing of summonses, fines and warrants is computerised. That will help also.
Senator Durcan made quite a number of points. He talked about removing from the courts certain matters which should have automatic penalties — fines on the spot for Road Traffic Act offences and so on. It is something that has been suggested before. There is an objection to it. I am not ruling it out completely. I will certainly consider it again. But there is an objection. I do not think it is the best procedure to have the gardaí on duty handling money. I do not think that is necessarily the best way to do business. If there are fines on the spot, obviously the people who find the transgressor transgressing will have to collect and then to account for money. Gardaí have a lot of problems at the moment. I do not want to put another duty on them of having to keep track of money while on duty. They would have to account for it and pay it in when they came back. We have to weigh that against the advantage of removing matters such as this from the District Court.
We are doing quite a lot of work on buildings here in Dublin, but court buildings around the country are the responsibility of local authorities. There are enough people in politics in both Houses who are members of local authorities and who can make an impact in their own areas. I cannot see why county councils and corporations should decide that the local court house is always the last item on the list of priorities. If local government is to mean anything those involved in local government certainly should have a very strong interest in the dispensation of justice in their own areas. We have district justices appointed to local areas and I cannot see why the local authorities cannot accommodate them better, because it is their responsibility to do so.
Nationally, we have a number of building projects under way at the moment. Everybody knows that work on the construction of an office block on the site of the former Four Courts Hotel commenced early in 1984 and will be completed by 1987. It is expected to be ready for occupation before the end of 1987. When it is completed the office block will facilitate the redevelopment of the existing accommodation within the Four Courts to provide additional accommodation and ancillary accommodation. As well as the jury rooms already provided, and, the court rooms in the Four Courts buildings, we are providing extra space in the Four Courts. When the Four Courts Hotel office block is built all the office facilities which are in the Four Courts can be moved. There will then be extra accommodation in the Four Courts for actual court work. That will help quite a lot. It will make a major improvement there.
I have dealt with the various other items in my preliminary remarks or now. I was particularly impressed by Senator Durcan's speech. There are a number of points there which I will be taking up to see can we implement some of the suggestions he made.
Senator O'Leary went over some of the ground covered by some other Senators. I would like to thank him very much for his support. I am aware of the Cork situation. This Bill will help the Cork situation in particular. It will probably help Cork more than any other part of the country.
I also agree with what Senator O'Leary said about family cases. There is a danger that we would go for over-specialisation to deal with a very real problem. Certainly, family cases must be dealt with sensitively, but I would agree with the view that somebody has to have a broad view of life which is open to change. One should not be restricted in a specialised way for an over-long period in the area of family law. When the deliberations which are at present going on in the other House are concluded and when decisions are made, obviously the area of family law is going to be very important. We will have to provide the facilities, the judges and the training, if necessary, to deal with the situation.
I would like to thank the Senators again for their support. As Senator Durcan pointed out, the claim in the last sentence of my introductory remark may be extravagant, but it certainly will make a contribution to the easement of a problem which has existed now for a number of years.