Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 29 Apr 1993

Vol. 135 No. 16

Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments Bill, 1993: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Equality and Law Reform (Mr. Taylor)

The Bill proposes to give the force of law to two international conventions which, as a member state of the European Communities, we are committed to ratify. Both conventions deal with the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

One of them — the Accession Convention — provides for the accession of Spain and Portugal to the 1968 EC Convention and to the Protocol on its interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Luxembourg.

The other — called the Lugano Convention — was negotiated between EC member states and the member states of the European Free Trade Association and extended the area of reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments from the European Communities to all the six EFTA countries.

The conventions will come into force on the first day of the third month after deposit of the instruments of ratification. From then on our civil judgments and other court orders will be enforceable on a reciprocal basis in Spain and Portugal and in the EFTA countries, namely, Austria, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland.

I shall deal first with the background to the Accession Convention. In 1968 a convention for the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments was negotiated by the six original member states of the European Community. A Protocol was added in 1971 providing for the interpretation of the convention by the European Court of Justice. When Denmark, Ireland and the UK joined the Community, and later on when Greece joined, the convention and Protocol were amended to cater for the particular concerns of those countries. In 1988 we gave the force of law to the amended 1968 Convention and Protocol with the result that our judgments are now enforceable, on a reciprocal basis, in nine of the other EC member states. Passage of the Bill will enable the area of reciprocal enforcement to be extended to the whole Twelve.

So, as regards the Accession Convention, what the Bill does is to extend the application of the 1988 Act to Spain and Portugal. This is achieved in the Bill by consequential amendments of that Act and these amendments, as Senators will see, are of a technical character. The Bill also gives effect to a number of other amendments made by the Accession Convention to the EC Convention. These other amendments were made so that the EC Convention would correspond as closely as possible with the Lugano Convention concluded with the EFTA countries. I shall come back to the various amendments later.

I think it is worthwhile recalling some of the main principles underlying the EC Convention. First, it applies only to judgments in civil and commercial matters. It extends to employment contracts, and also to maintenance orders. It expressly excludes such matters as those affecting the status of legal capacity of natural persons and rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship. And of course it does not apply to fiscal or administrative matters, but clearly, the convention has a very wide scope.

Secondly, it includes uniform and comprehensive rules on jurisdiction which apply in the country where the proceedings are instituted and serve to determine the court vested with jurisdiction. The importance of this is that, with a few exceptions, an enforcing court in another member state is obliged to accept the jurisdictional competence of the court which gave the judgment so that enforcement of a judgment given in one member state is, as nearly as possible, automatic in each of the other member states.

The third principle is that the defendant must be sued in the member state where he or she ordinarily resides. Obviously it is more difficult, generally speaking, to defend oneself before a court of a foreign country than it would be before a court in another town in one's own country, but there are several exceptions to this principle to cover cases where the plaintiff is the weaker party to the proceedings or for other practical reasons. For example, a married woman seeking maintenance against her husband living in another member state may initiate the proceedings in her local court. The same applies to consumers and holders of insurance policies.

Finally, the convention limits the grounds for refusing to recognise and enforce judgments mainly to public policy and natural justice and it provides a unified and simplified enforcement procedure.

The 1968 Convention was a tremendous step forward at the time in facilitating the free circulation of judgments throughout the Community. The more or less automatic recognition of judgments made possible their speedy enforcement. Here, for example, the foreign creditor has only to apply to the Master of the High Court ex parte to have the judgment enforced as if it were an order of the High Court. However, a creditor, particularly a maintenance creditor, who is not in a position to avail himself or herself of even this simplified procedure is still at a disadvantage as compared with a person enforcing an order within the jurisdiction. I shall be addressing this matter in another measure which is now being prepared and which will further help in the enforcement abroad of maintenance orders. This measure will enable Ireland to accede to the EC and UN Maintenance Conventions which improve procedures for recovery of maintenance within the European Communities and which provide a mechanism to assist in the recovery of maintenance payments for spouses resident in non-EC countries.

I now turn to Part III of the Bill which is concerned with giving the force of law to the Lugano Convention. In 1985 the member states of the European Free Trade Association expressed a wish to conclude with the member states of the European Communities a convention based on the principles of the EC Convention. The negotiations were completed relatively quickly. They resulted in a convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, which was opened for signature in Lugano on 16 September 1988 at the close of a diplomatic conference held at the invitation of the Swiss Government.

The Lugano Convention is also based on the fundamental principles of the EC Convention and most of its articles are identical with those of that convention. A number of improvements to the EC Convention were incorporated by the Lugano Convention. It was therefore natural that these improvements should be taken into account in the preparatory negotiations, within the Communities, for the accession of Spain and Portugal to the EC Convention.

The main amendments made to the EC Convention has been outlined in the appendix to the explanatory and financial memorandum circulated with the Bill. Several of the amendments are designed to improve the position of the weaker party to proceedings by enabling him or her to commence the proceedings in his or her own courts. For example, the position of an employee is improved in several respects. Under the 1968 EC Convention the employee could sue the employer either in the courts of the employer's domicile or those of the country where the contract of employment was to be performed. Under the amended EC Convention and the Lugano Convention the employee has the option of suing in the country where he or she habitally works and, if the employee does not habitually work in any one country, in the country where the employee was engaged. Actually, the amended EC Convention goes further. It covers also the case where the business that engaged the employer has moved to another member state and gives the employee the option of suing there also.

Another amendment designed to protect the employee is contained in a paragraph added to Article 17 of each convention. That article allows parties to agree on the court of a contracting state that is to have jurisdiction to settle any disputes that have arisen or may arise. The Lugano Convention provides that, in the case of an individual contract of employment, such an agreement will not be valid unless it is entered into after a dispute has arisen. The amendment to the EC Convention makes similar provision but also allows an employee to invoke a pre-dispute agreement. Thus under the amending EC Convention the choice between the courts having jurisdiction is entirely at the discretion of the employee as plaintiff. The chosen court can be that of the state where the employer is domiciled, or the court of the state where the contract of employment is to be performed, or the court of the state designated in an agreement covering jurisdiction.

Another improvement in the EC Convention I might mention relates to short term lettings of properties abroad. Under Article 16.1 of the 1968 EC Convention proceedings relating to tenancies of such properties have to be taken in the country where the property is situated. That would obviously be most inconvenient where, for example, an Irish resident needed to sue another Irish resident for rent due under a letting of a holiday home, say in Spain. Under the amended EC Convention such an action can be instituted in our courts. The amended provision will apply only where both parties are individuals — companies are excluded on the grounds that they are concerned with commercial actions — and where they are both domiciled in the same state.

The corresponding provision in the Lugano Convention is somewhat less restrictive. It provides that in the case of holiday lettings the plaintiff can apply to the courts of the state where the defendant is domiciled. The only qualification is that the tenant is an individual and that neither party is domiciled in the country where the property is situated.

This is the first of the Bills which I am committed to introduce under the Programme for a Partnership Government. Although it is a technical Bill, it has significant practical implications. It will be of benefit to our business community in securing more or less automatic enforcement for Irish judgments in Spain, Portugal and all the EFTA countries. But it will also — and, as the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, I am particularly concerned with this aspect — ensure the enforcement in those countries of orders for the maintenance of spouses and dependants. I trust it will be acceptable to the House as a noncontroversial measure which arises out of our obligations as a member state of the European Communities.

I shall be happy to give any clarifications that Senators may seek and to consider any amendments they may wish to put forward either now or on Committee Stage.

Mr. Neville

I welcome the Minister to the House and the fact that this legislation is before the House today. As the Minister said, this is a technical Bill which enables Ireland to ratify the Accession Convention of Spain and Portugal in 1989 and the Lugano Convention which governs the enforcement of judgments between the EC and EFTA member states. The Bill gives the force of law to both these conventions. It has relevance to people who have dealings with Spain and Portugal and the countries of the European Free Trade Association. It is relevant to Irish companies doing business in these states, especially where they have legal difficulties and need to institute proceedings in any of those states to seek or enforce judgments granted by our courts. It will confer basic rights on individuals who might, for example, suffer injury as a result of a road accident or other civil wrong in another State. Another example would be the purchase of a consumer product in an EFTA country which could cause personal injury or be found faulty on return to this country. Court proceedings might be necessary to seek compensation from a supplier in one of the EFTA states for any resulting personal injuries. The Bill before the House has fulfilled a promise made in 1987, by the then Minister for Justice, Deputy Collins, to extend the writ of the then Bill to include the EFTA countries.

The Bill is oriented towards the High and Supreme Court. Surely there are increased work load implications for these courts. I ask the Minister to comment on that because the Bill states that there will be no need for increased staff. The basic principle of the Bill is that civil judgments in one member state should be recognised and enforced throughout EFTA states as well as EC states. The Bill sets out the procedure to be followed in order to achieve this. The Bill extends existing EC practice to Spain and Portugal and to the states of the European Free Trade Association. It is hardly possible that this Bill will not give rise to an increased work load in the already busy courts.

In my constituency in the mid-west area, the High Court is four years behind in the hearing of civil cases. It is unjust that people should have to wait three or four years to have a case heard and it appears that the delay in the mid-west is getting worse. I refer to the situation in the Limerick-Ennis area as an example of what is happening throughout the country. While the legal profession get bad press out of this, insurance companies are virtually ignoring claims at present. People who are under financial pressure waiting for accident claims to come to court are often unable to work because of injuries received. They could be waiting three or four years to hear the outcome of a claim. I ask the Minister to look at this problem. In Limerick and Ennis, instead of two judges for six weeks there should be two judges for a period of six months to clear the backlog. The present delay is giving the area of civil proceedings a bad name in the press and with the public. The implications are that the insurance companies are abusing the situation. A similar arrangement should be made countrywide to reduce the backlog of civil cases.

As the Minister said, this is a technical Bill which will not cause much public reaction. Nevertheless, it is a very important Bill and I commend the Minister for introducing it to the House.

Mr. Roche

I welcome the Minister and the Bill. This is complex and technical legislation ratifying two separate international conventions. When the Bill comes into effect Irish judgments in civil and commercial matters will be enforceable throughout the EFTA countries. The Bill will also provide reciprocal enforcement of EFTA state judgments in this State by a simple and speedy arrangement.

The general principle of the Bill is a good one and helps to internationalise justice. It means that there are no boltholes through which the unscrupulous can escape. The arrangements protect an injured party who has received a judgment from suffering the further injustice and injury of seeing the party against whom he or she has won the judgment go free in a neighbouring state because judgments are not enforceable there or because of the cost and complexity of attempting to win a further judgment or enforcement in another state. The main thrust of the legislation and its founding principle are welcome.

The specific provisions of the Bill are highly technical. I note and welcome a number of specific parts of the Bill. Section 8 confers jurisdiction in these areas on the Circuit Court. The same section also provides for clarification on issues of domicile. As the Minister has said, a particularly welcome aspect of this Bill and of further changes the Minister has undertaken to introduce are the improvements that will be made on the issue of maintenance.

The Bill itself touches on an important principle, that is, the internationalisation of law. It elaborates on the idea of justice crossing borders without complex, special, individual, country by country arrangements. It is interesting that the international community has evolved to a point where this can be done in particularly complex areas of commercial and civil law. This counterpoints the failure of the international community to establish similar logical working arrangements in matters of criminal law. The failure has produced complication and confusion in an area where there should be none.

The most serious area, extradition, is fraught with difficulties not just in Ireland but in many other countries. It is interesting that Irish court judgments in complex commercial and civil matters can be dealt with without difficulty but the appropriate authorities in other States are less willing to accept the competence of these same courts in criminal areas, particularly those with a political context. This is an indication of the immaturity of authorities elsewhere. They are willing to accept the internationalisation of law in one regard but they are not willing to accept that principle in other areas. They are also unwilling to trust the wisdom and impartiality of courts in this country or other countries in the same areas. I do not wish to expand on this subject because I realise it is a more controversial area and is not directly relevant to the Bill. Nonetheless, the net effect is one of complication, dissatisfaction and confusion all round.

The Minister's clear, precise contribution dealt with a complex piece of legislation in a concise manner. He showed that the internationalisation of the legal process is beneficial to all. It helps commercial operators and businesses in this country which have had difficulties with judgments, and it particularly helps spouses who have had difficulties with maintenance changes.

The Bill is a further example of a trend of tackling those complex traditional legal features which tied law to individual countries and prevented justice crossing borders. This legislation will be welcomed by all sides in the House. I commend it to the House and I compliment the Minister on coming so speedily to us with this complex legislation. I look forward to the other legislation and the changes which will flow from this. Finally, I welcome the Minister, congratulate him on his portfolio and wish him well.

Ms Gallagher

I, too, welcome the Minister to the House and compliment him on this fine legislation.

This is a technical Bill. Its intention is to enable Ireland to ratify two international conventions relating to the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The Bill is necessary by virtue of our membership of the EC and the European Free Trade Association. First it adopts the Accession Convention of 1989 which provided for the accession of Spain and Portugal to the 1968 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments. When another country joined the EC it was necessary to provide for the accession of the EC Convention in each case. In 1978 the convention was amended to allow for Ireland's membership and was given force in Ireland under the Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments (European Communities) Act, 1988. Judgments handed down by the Irish courts are now reciprocally enforceable in nine other EC states and will shortly be applicable in Spain and Portugal when the Accession Convention relating to those two countries comes into force. Secondly, the Act enables Ireland to ratify the Lugano Convention. This Convention provides for the enforcement of judgments between members of the EC and the EFTA member states.

This legislation is a practical measure. The 1968 Convention was a major step in facilitating the free circulation and general applicability of judgments throughout European countries. If one goes to the Irish courts as a creditor and gets judgment ordered against the debtor, should the debtor decide to abscond to a European country one need only apply to the courts in that country to have the judgment pursued and perhaps ultimately receive payment. One does not have to go through the exhaustive procedure again in the new country. This is a practical measure in the fields of trade and commerce and allows for a much easier flow of business.

The main amendments to the EC Conventions are included in this Bill. It improves the position of the weaker party in proceedings by enabling him or her to commence proceedings in his or her own jurisdiction instead of having to go through the exhaustive procedure in other European states. The Minister should be complimented for introducing this legislation now.

A worthwhile aspect of the Bill is that it assists the employee in many instances. The employee is given the option of suing in the country where he or she works or in another state where the company has moved its registered office. The employee can initiate proceedings in whichever country suits him or her.

The short term letting of properties abroad is an important matter in a time when many invest in such property. Under Article 16 (1) of the 1968 Convention, proceedings relating to tenancies of such properties had to be taken in the country where the property is situated. Under the amended EC Convention any action necessary can be initiated in our own courts, where both parties are individuals and both are domiciled in the same state.

I will mention briefly the main features of the system of reciprocal enforcement. It applies only to civil and commercial matters, including maintenance orders. Going through the courts to obtain maintenance is difficult at the best of times and it does not help to know that either spouse can abscond and that one may have to start again especially when financial circumstances may not allow for that. Therefore its particular applicability to maintenance orders is welcome.

The Bill provides that a defendant must generally be sued in the country where he or she is domiciled. There are exceptions, for example, an insurance policy holder may sue in the country where he or she is domiciled, as can a consumer who is a party to a contract for the sale of goods or supply of services. Matters relating to tort, i.e., the civil actions referred to earlier, can be litigated in the place where the damage occurred. Matters relating to contract can now be litigated in the place where the contract was to be performed as opposed to where the contract was made initially. That is a practical provision for people in trade.

While the Bill may seem technical I believe it is simple. It allows for the ratification of these two conventions and I welcome it.

Mr. Crowley

I welcome the Minister to the House and congratulate him on the legislation he is introducing.

This Bill is only now being debated in the Houses of the Oireachtas. However, in a recent High Court judgment, a defendant sought to have the plantiff's proceedings dismissed on the grounds that they had no connection with the Irish jurisdiction. The judge ruled it is not open to a defendant from a contracting state to admit liability so as to deprive a plantiff of the right to pursue a claim in a court in which jurisdiction has been established. The 1968 Brussels Convention was referred to in this case.

This Bill marks a further step in the process initiated when we joined the European Community in January 1973. During the past 20 years we have been integrated into this community of 340 million people which is governed by representatives of the 12 member states. It is in our national interest to maintain full membership of this democratic club and to participate in decision making for the socio-economic benefit of Ireland and the development of Europe. Ireland's commitment to the European Community is based on realpolitik and on an assessment of our practical, economic and social interests. Community membership provides us with the means to influence decisions on political, economic and social issues which, inevitably, will have a profound effect on us.

For many years there has been co-operation between member states in the areas of justice and home affairs on an inter-governmental basis outside the framework of the Treaty of Rome. In 1976 Justice and Interior Ministers of the member states set up an informal organisation known as the Trevi Group as a forum for the exchange of information on matters of common interest. It has brought international co-operation in the fight against serious crime to the level it has reached today. Expanding from its early concentration on the fight against international terrorism it is involved in the fight against drug trafficking and other serious crime, police training and the use of equipment and forensic methods. Through that forum, judicial co-operation between the member states has been advanced, particularly in the area of civil law, child abduction, child custody and on simplified procedures for recovery of maintenance payments.

Since 1 January this year we have free access to the largest and strongest consumer market in the world. Within the European Union Treaty there is a section dealing with citizenship. It gives all citizens of member states citizenship of the EC with the right to move freely throughout the EC and the right to diplomatic protection from all member states. However free access has attendant risks for consumers and this Bill will reduce those risks.

Although the Bill is not connected with the Maastricht Treaty or the Single Market, it indicates our commitment to the European Community and the trend towards unity that exists between communities. Successive Irish Governments have favoured the progressive evolution of the European Economic Community to European Union and the Irish people, in referenda in 1972, 1987 and 1992, overwhelmingly endorsed Ireland's accession to the Community. Membership of the European Community has brought substantial benefits to this country. Since our accession in 1973 all Governments have ensured that membership has yielded substantial political, economic and social benefits while the Community has been influenced by Ireland to include the intrinsic values and aspirations of Irish people in its social and foreign policies.

The Co-ordinator's Group for the Free Movement of Persons was established by the European Council at a Heads of Government meeting in Rhodes in December 1988. The Council was aware that the free movement of persons, especially in territory without internal frontiers, is linked to inter-governmental co-operation to combat terrorism, serious crime and illegal trafficking of all kinds. It is with understanding that I address the section of the Bill dealing with the enforcement of maintenance orders in all European locations.

The Bill encompasses two international conventions: the first provides for the accession of Spain and Portugal into the European Community and the second enables us to ratify the 1988 Lugano Convention. Both conventions have their origin in the 1968 Brussels Convention on the Recognition of Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments. The Lugano Convention allows, in the case of short term tenancies, an exception to the rule in Article 16.1 of the EC Convention that proceedings relating to tenancies of immovable property must be heard in the courts of the state where the property is situated. The new provision would allow, for example, an Irishman to take an action against a fellow Irishman where the dispute relates to a short term tenancy of property, maybe a holiday home, situated in another country, such as Spain. The tenant, however, must be a named person and not a company.

This Bill will be of benefit to many people who, previously, have had difficulty getting court judgments enforced outside this country. With the continuing freedom of trade and movement between countries it is no longer sufficient that Irish judgments should be limited in terms of enforcement. The Lugano Convention provides for reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments between the European Community and European countries which are members of the European Free Trade Association. As we will be in a position to ratify the 1989 Accession Convention, court orders and judgments including maintenance orders which are enforceable in Spain and Portugal, will be enforceable here and, by the same token, Irish judgments will be enforceable in Spain and Portugal.

With regard to the enforcement of maintenance orders, this provision is helpful in cases where spouses have left the country for another European location and discontinued maintenance payments to their spouses and their children. The ease of travel between European countries in recent years has meant that such occurrences are now quite common and it is, therefore, timely that a provision such as that outlined in this Bill should be introduced. It will also alleviate the financial burden for the State caused by spouses absconding.

The Lugano Convention is almost a mirror image of the European Community Judgments Convention. The EFTA countries, who are not members of the European Community — Austria, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland — will have the same arrangement with Ireland regarding reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments as already exists between Ireland and the European Community. That is a welcome development to alleviate the problem of enforcing maintenance orders in respect of those people who have fled to another European country.

The Bill is another step on the road to harmonisation of arrangements between European countries. It is appropriate that in so far as the enforcement of maintenance orders is concerned, justice will not only be done but will be seen to be done in Ireland, the European Community and the EFTA countries.

The Bill will also reduce the conflict of laws in the international sphere. I was heartened to see, in the interpretation section of the Bill, that Irish courts can now refer to judgments in similar cases in other countries when making their decisions. The interpretation clauses are also binding on the European Court of Justice and should allow precedents established at European level to apply to local Circuit Court decisions.

I recommend this Bill to the House and thank the Minister for introducing it.

Mr. Fahey

I welcome the Minister and the introduction of this Bill. It is a necessary and welcome development that the Accession Convention is extended to Spain and Portugal.

I welcome the fact that the Bill improves the implementation of legislation throughout the EC. However, I have some queries about this legislation. The Bill expressly excludes matters affecting the status or legal capacity of natural persons and property rights arising out of a matrimonial relationship. Why is this excluded? Although it is gratifying to see that a married woman seeking a maintenance order against her husband living in another state may initiate proceedings in her local court why is that facility not extended to the broader jurisdiction?

I am contributing to this debate in order to focus on the fact that this meritorious convention does not apply to certain other countries to which it should apply. I would like to bring to the Minister's attention the fact that outside the Geneva Convention, we have few arrangements with for example, New Zealand. While I realise that my contribution is not dealing specifically with this Bill, I want to take the opportunity to bring to the Minister's attention an unsatisfactory situation which exists in regard to New Zealand, Australia and the United States.

At present, because of the absence — as far as I am aware — of any convention or agreement with New Zealand, an Irish person cannot enforce a judgment obtained here in that country. For example, I had a case in my constituency recently of an Irishman who was married to a New Zealander. Despite the fact that court orders were issued in this country, the wife was unable to leave this jurisdiction and return to New Zealand and her husband has no rights now with regard to his two children. He cannot claim access to them or bring them back to this country. There is no convention — there was not up to a number of months ago — which would allow him to make a claim on his children. I believe this to be a serious situation and although I am only aware of that one case, I wonder are there other cases, for example, in the United States, Australia, etc.?

I welcome the Bill which I understand is largely a technical measure and I ask the Minister to focus on the need for a proper convention to be enacted with New Zealand, so the example I have given does not arise in the future.

Minister for Equality and Law Reform (Mr. Taylor)

First, I thank all who contributed to the debate, for their constructive and helpful interventions. Senator Neville complained that the Bill was not very exciting. I am sorry about that. Perhaps on the next occasion we will try to spice it up. This is a technical measure, but it has important and will have increasing application as time passes. Senators will be aware of the increasing interplay between Ireland and EC and EFTA countries over recent years as a result of the association between the two trading blocs. There are many cases of spouses being separated, one living here and one in another European country. People work or holiday in Europe and may have accidents there. Many thousands of Irish people holiday in Spain every year. Many accidents occur and the question of redress will be facilitated by the passage of this Bill, following on the accession of Spain to the EC.

Senator Neville referred to the question of delays in the courts. He is concerned that the passage of the Bill might increase the workload of the courts, particularly in his own region and, thereby, exacerbate that problem. Undoubtedly, some of the courts are heavily overburdened and there are long lists, which is regrettable. It is not a matter which comes under my Department; it is a matter for the Department of Justice to organise the courts and their staffing. I would not expect, however, that any increase in staffing will be required as a result of the passage of this Bill.

From 1988 to mid-1992 about 75 requests for enforcement of judgments were made to Irish courts. The procedure for enforcing a foreign judgment in an Irish court is a simple, short procedure and would take little court time. As I said, it is done on an ex parte basis. The application would be little more than a formality, would take some minutes and would not require extensive paper work. The object of the exercise is to facilitate and simplify the procedures for enforcement of foreign judgments in Ireland and Irish judgments abroad.

The only case where perhaps some court time might be taken up is in the case of an appeal against the Master's order, which would be to a High Court judge. The possibilities for appeal are very limited. Once the foreign court judgment is in place, it speaks for itself and is automatically confirmed by the Master of the High Court, so the basis for an appeal would be very rare and would only arise in exceptional circumstances.

Senator Roche pointed out that the Bill will be valuable for protecting an injured party and I agree with him. He deplored the fact that the concept behind the Bill could not be extended to criminal matters and that was a point taken up by Senator Crowley also in a very detailed and thoughtful contribution, for which I compliment him. I agree broadly with their comments. Again, I will draw those comments to the attention of the Minister for Justice who has responsibility for criminal matters and I am sure she and her Department are working on all possible measures to improve the cross-Border effectiveness of the criminal law.

Senator Crowley rightly pointed out that the Bill is an indication of an increase in co-operation between EC countries on important business, commercial and personal matters and is one of the benefits we have obtained from the EC. The mere fact that those benefits exist, highlights the shortcomings in our arrangements with other countries, as mentioned by Senator Fahey. Before we became a member of the EC, our position with regard to EC and EFTA countries was as it is now in the case of New Zealand, Australia and the United States. There was no mutual effective support for judgments between Ireland and another country.

Senator Fahey's highlighting of the New Zealand case shows the progress we have made in achieving this reciprocity for judgments in the EC and EFTA countries. It is not true, as he said, that an Irish person would have no claim or rights in these situations. They would have rights but the means of enforcing them would present almost insuperable difficulties. They could institute proceedings in New Zealand and conduct a case there, but the practicalities of carrying it through is another matter.

For practical purposes, Senator Fahey is correct in concluding that they are deprived of their rights. This highlights the need to try to conclude and negotiate similar conventions with other countries outside the EC and EFTA, to achieve mutual reciprocity in the enforcement of judgments. I am not sure what the position is in the United States but I do not think there is a detailed convention in this area. As Senators know, there is a great deal of movement of Irish people and spouses between this country and the US. New Zealand might be an exception, but the United States would pose a major problem. Enforcing maintenance orders in the US would present almost insuperable difficulties for the spouses resident here to secure redress.

Senator Neville rightly implied that if business and commercial arrangements are to function with maximum efficiency, there has to be an assurance that legal remedies will not be bound by national frontiers. This Bill could make a valuable contribution in fostering a climate which might help to increase our exports, especially to those countries not members of the EC. Irish experience of the Brussels Convention suggests that it is not giving rise to any substantive problems or difficulties. The familiarity which the courts and practitioners would have gained in operating its provisions should smooth the implementation of this measure.

I thank the Senators for their contributions. I emphasise again the importance of this legislation in terms of its social impact in the maintenance area and the impact it may have on consumer and business relationships. I am confident this Bill will make people more conscious that their legal rights have a genuine extra-territorial dimension so far as the EC and EFTA countries are concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 5 May 1993.

Sitting suspended at 11.30 a.m. and resumed at 1 p.m.