Last year this House passed a Bill last year which provided for increasing the number of Circuit Judges from 17 to 24. This new Bill increases that number by three. Yesterday the Cabinet nominated nine people for appointment as judges. Can the Minister explain why three more are necessary at this time? Why not provide for four or five? Why not wait to see how the increase from 17 judges to 24 works as those extra seven have not arrived on the Bench yet? This section increases the number of judges from 24 to 27. A cynic could think of a reason for that. It is extraordinary that we are appointing three more judges before we have seen how the extra seven are working. Are the extra three appointments a cosmetic exercise? Could I be so devious as to suggest that it is an appeasement for the three parties in Government? That is what is being said outside the House.
Courts Bill, 1996: Committee and Remaining Stages.
On a point of order, is the Title of the Bill being discussed at this stage?
No.
The Minister of State, Deputy Coveney, did not refer to the point I made to the Minister on the appointment of temporary judges. Section 1 could have stated "The number of ordinary judges of the Circuit Court shall not be more than 27 and the Minister shall be empowered to appoint temporary judges". While the existing backlog might not last forever, there might be a good reason to appoint temporary judges for as long as the backlog exists.
I was interested by what Senator Mulcahy said but the appointment of temporary judges strikes me as a stopgap measure. What sort of people will make the career choice to become temporary judges? For how long would they be temporary? Would they have to give up their practice? Could they take up where they left off before they were appointed to the Bench? That does not strike me as satisfactory from the point of view of the person appointed as a temporary judge. Once they are appointed in a temporary capacity they will want to be made permanent. It does not strike me as being the answer to the problem the Senator mentioned.
It is the judgment and view of the Government, the Department of Justice and the Minister for Justice that this increase is the optimum figure which they can justify at the moment. The appointment of temporary judges is under review but decisive action was required here. It is certainly not a form of palliative. I would not be here, nor would Members, at 7.20 p.m. to debate it if it was simply a device to get the Government off some hook. It is a serious proposal. It is the view of the Department and the Minister that this is the appropriate number. That is the position.
If three more judges are needed in a year's time, another Bill will have to be passed. That seems a very cumbersome way of doing business. I would be tempted to change the word "more" to "less". Further legislation will have to be introduced if more judges are needed. I question the desirability of such ongoing legislation. A provision should be brought in which would enable extra judges to be appointed by ministerial order rather having to introduce legislation each time.
A few years ago a regulation was brought in whereby judges have to retire at a certain age. In many companies, retired workers are brought back on temporary contracts if the company is under pressure. I would prefer to see that mechanism used rather than the appointment of temporary judges.
I wish to reiterate the excellent point made by Senator Daly. The Court and Court Officers Bill, 1995, was brought in in December and we are now taking this Bill. It is not appropriate to have to introduce legislation every time we require more judges. It would be more appropriate if section 1 read "The number of ordinary judges of the Circuit Court shall be a number as specified by the Minister by regulation brought before both Houses of the Oireachtas", although that would require changes to the Court (Supplemental Provisions) Act. If the Minister had put a little more work into this Bill she might have seen that that change was well worth making. As Senator Daly said, it will be very embarrassing for the Government if it has to say in three or four months' time that three extra judges were not enough and we need new legislation.
The Constitution requires us to regulate the number of judges. We are not permitted, nor would it be right, to state "not less than 27" on the basis that it could be 100. The appointment of judges is such a serious matter and so bound up in our Constitution that it is appropriate to require that the number of judges should be stated. In the judgment of the Government and the Department, the proposed number is 27 and I obviously could not agree to change that number.
Amendment No. 1 is out of order as it is not relevant to the Bill as read a Second Time.
On a point of order, while it is not for me to raise this point as the amendment is in someone else's name, with due respect, a Chathaoirligh, it is very easy to rule an amendment out of order without giving a reason. This amendment appears to me to be in order.
I have already ruled on it and I have pointed out why I did so.
Could we share in that?
I will be free to see the Senator in my office after the debate. The matter has already been discussed with the Senator in whose name the amendment was tabled. I understand she is satisfied with my ruling.
Of course, I accept your ruling on the amendment which is to do with the Circuit Court. However, I must express my disappointment that this matter was not covered by the Government in the Bill. It is eight months since we debated the last Bill, which was plenty of time to have looked at this issue.
Why are District Court judges judged under different criteria? I spoke before about the need for a medical audit to solve the medical problems in the Prison Service. Could we not have a judicial audit rather than having different criteria for various people? I have written to the Minister about this and I suggested that I would bring it up under the Criminal Justice (Mental Disorders) Bill. I do not know whether drink, drugs or being batty is supposed to be the problem with district justices. I think Senator Manning suggested it was because they were liverish.
I did.
We are certainly straying from section 2.
I, of course, accept your ruling on the amendment.
I have great sympathy for what Senator Henry is trying to do. Given that we have now changed the Standing Orders, if she had an even shorter Private Members' Bill we would certainly find time for it.
I thank the Leader of the House.
I am surprised by the Title of the Bill. To my knowledge, Courts Bills normally deal with the jurisdiction of the courts. The number of judges appointed to the Circuit Court was dealt with by section 10 of the Courts and Courts Officers Bill, 1995. In the interests of consistency, the Title of the Bill before the House should be the Courts and Courts Officers Bill, 1996.
I am advised that the Title is based on legal advice provided to the Department of Justice. I can say no more about the matter. The advice may be wrong but I do not believe I can dispute it.
It is a terrible tragedy for modern society that legal advice, like medical or economic advice, can differ. I respect any advice the Minister of State may have received. The Title seems slightly out of step and the Minister of State seems, more or less, to accept my point.
There was undoubtedly some logic to the Senator's statement.
I believe this Bill could and should be entitled the Courts and Courts Officers Bill, 1996. If the Government shows the kind of flexibility is states it is prepared to show, the Opposition will, even at this late stage, allow it to amend the Title.
On behalf of Fianna Fáil, I formally welcome this Bill and congratulate the Government on its introduction. My party has consistently indicated that it will support any measure which assists the fight against crime. Nothing on the record of the House will show that, between February 1995 and the dissolution of this Dáil, Fianna Fáil in any way impeded or argued against positive measures to aid the fight against crime. Any new laws, concepts, ideas or provisions introduced to deal with crime will find a warm welcome on this side of the House.
I thank the Minister of State for coming before the House today. I regard him as a person of great ability and wish him well in his new role as prisons construction supremo. No one wants to build more prisons than necessary, but we will support the use of any resources that are required. The Minister of State has the technical ability, enthusiasm and dedication to put in place a proper prison building programme. There will be no smiles or smirks from this side of the House in supporting that.
I wish to make a number of observations about the comments made by the Leader of the House. I join with him is stating that no one is above debate or discussion. Members of the Judiciary frequently comment on how the Legislature should work. Such comments are usually made in good spirit. As long as nothing is said which impinges on the independence and integrity of the Judiciary, it should be open for Members to engage in a similar debate.
I agree.
I am glad the Leader of the House said nothing nasty about me because I said nothing nasty about the Minister for Justice. In so far as I criticised the Minister for Justice, she can only blame herself for deviating from the core subject matter of the Bill.
No one criticises any Member of this House.
On behalf of the Progressive Democrats, I welcome the passage of the Bill. I thank the Minister of State for his detailed responses to the matters raised during the debate. I wish him well in his task.
I also welcome the passage of this important Bill which is part of the Minister for Justice's work in ensuring that the enormous difficulties relating to crime are tackled. I congratulate the Minister on her work and compliment Members for the tone of this debate.
Compliment us.
I was going to qualify that remark, but I will not. I also compliment the Minister of State and wish him well in his task.
I thank Senator Mulcahy for his remarks, he is a very tough campaigner. When I enter the Seanad, the first person I look for is Senator Mulcahy because he never gives me an easy ride. The Senator's comments are generally tough but fair and I hope I can respond to them. This is the second time in a week I have appeared before the House at short notice and I felt somewhat fragile when confronted by so many lawyers and solicitors. When I first considered it, the Bill seemed an easy proposition. However, I shuddered at the scale and width of the debate. I thank Senators Mulcahy and Honan for their indulgence.
The Minister of State coped well.
He should be Minister for Justice.
I thank Members on the Government side for their assistance.
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 26 July 1996.