Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Dec 1997

Vol. 153 No. 2

Courts Service (No. 2) Bill, 1997: Second Stage.

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

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

I thank you, a Chathaoirligh, and Members of the House for facilitating me by adjourning for 15 minutes as I had to attend a conference in Dublin Castle.

In recent years a dramatic increase in the number of cases coming before the courts has placed a very severe strain on the administration of justice in this country. While significant improvements have resulted from the appointment of additional judges, the fact remains that we have reached the stage where the current arrangements for the management of the courts, which have remained largely unaltered over the past 70 years, are not adequate to meet the demands that are being placed upon them. This is a matter that has attracted concern both within and outside the Houses of the Oireachtas.

At a very early stage the Government recognised the need to ensure that parties involved directly with the courts and the general public can secure a quality service from the courts. This was the basis for the undertaking given by the Government in its Action Programme for the Millennium to set up an independent courts service to manage the courts system more efficiently. I am happy to be in a position to bring before the Oireachtas the legislation required to give effect to that undertaking in the action plan.

The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the establishment of an independent body which will be known as the Courts Service and will assume my current functions in relation to the administration of the courts. The policy of the service will be determined by the board of the service and day to day management will be the responsibility of a chief executive who will be appointed by the board. The effect of these arrangements will be to introduce the most comprehensive and radical reform of court administration since the foundation of the State. In order to ensure that the new measures are implemented as quickly as possible provision has also been made for the establishment of a transitional board and the appointment of a chief executive designate with a view to preparing for the full establishment of the service.

Before I proceed to deal in detail with the sections of the Bill I would like to provide a general outline of the background to its proposals. At the end of 1995, my predecessor established the Working Group on a Courts Commission chaired by Mrs. Justice Susan Denham to review the operation and financing of the courts system and, in particular, to consider the matter of the establishment of a commission on the management of the courts as an independent and permanent body with financial and management autonomy. The previous Government agreed to the establishment of a Courts Service as a statutory body to manage a unified courts system as recommended by the working group. The group's third report entitled Towards the Courts Service provided an outline of a legislative scheme to establish a Courts Service and this has served as the framework for the Courts Service (No. 2) Bill.

I should not let the opportunity pass to pay tribute to Mrs. Justice Denham and the members of the working group who have invested and, indeed, continue to invest a very considerable amount of time and energy examining and reporting on the operation of key elements of the courts system. Their valuable work has provided a very firm foundation for the legislative framework for the new Courts Service and I am sure the House will join with me in giving due credit to Mrs. Justice Denham and the working group.

A further development I would like to mention with reference to the measures contained in the Bill concerns the changes which are taking place within the framework of my Department. As the Members of this House will be aware, there is a significant ongoing programme of organisational change in the Justice area. Leaving aside my functions in relation to the Garda Síochána, which were dealt with in the Garda SMI document published recently, my responsibility for the administration of justice is discharged in the context of the relationship between my Department and the courts and the Prison Service. Under the Strategic Management Initiative in my Department, the role of the Department is shifting away decisively from the day-to-day provision of support services for the courts and the administration of prisons. The Bill underpins this development in the courts area by transferring the function of managing the courts to the Courts Service, and I can inform the House that a prisons service Bill is being prepared to establish a prisons board on a statutory basis.

A key element in the development of the new services in the Justice area will be the retention by the Minister of political responsibility and accountability to the Oireachtas for the discharge by the new bodies of their functions. Crucial to the success of the new bodies, too, will be their structuring to take full responsibility for the management of their respective services, including the achievement of agreed objectives, service levels and financial performance. This approach to political accountability and management responsibility is reflected in the provisions of the Courts Service (No. 2) Bill.

I turn now to the main provisions of the Bill. Section 4 is the pivotal provision of the Bill as it brings the Courts Service into existence on the establishment day. That day will be appointed by order of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform under section 3. However, section 1 and Part VIII provide for the establishment of the Courts Service Transitional Board. As the text stands at present, this will happen immediately on the enactment of the Bill but, for operational reasons, I am considering whether it would be more appropriate that a short period, perhaps a month, should be allowed after enactment for the establishment of the transitional board.

Section 11 establishes the board of the Courts Service and provides for its membership in accordance with the recommendations of the working group on a courts commission. The board will have 17 members and will be widely representative, which is appropriate and, indeed, necessary in a body which will be located at the top of the Courts Service structure and will have responsibility for formulating the policy of the service. It is only right that the judiciary, staff of the service, practitioners and users of the courts, who have a very real interest in the future of the courts system, should be represented at the decision-making level.

The Chief Justice and the Presidents of the High, Circuit and District Courts will be members of the board or will nominate another judge for that purpose. An ordinary judge of each of those courts will also be elected to the board by his or her judicial colleagues. A further judge will be nominated by the Chief Justice in respect of his or her expertise in a specific area. The other members of the board will be the chief executive, a practising barrister nominated by the Chairman of the Bar Council, a practising solicitor nominated by the President of the Law Society, a member of the staff of the Courts Service, an officer of the Minister, a person nominated by the Minister to represent consumers of the services provided by the courts, a person nominated by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and a person nominated by the Minister with knowledge and experience of commerce, finance or administration after consultation with bodies representative of such interests.

The Chief Justice or his or her nominated replacement will chair the board. Elected or nominated members will serve for a term of three years, which will be renewable on re-election or renomination under section 12. The Minister will be entitled to remove, for stated reasons, a member of the board nominated by the Minister. To remove, for stated reasons, members nominated by the President of the Law Society, the Chairman of the Bar Council or the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Minister must first consult with the nominating person or body concerned.

Under section 14, the board must meet at least once every three months and that section provides in a standard form for the procedures of the board. Finally, as regards the workings of the board, section 15 empowers it to establish committees which may comprise persons who are not members of the board but who have expertise relevant to the work of a committee. This flexibility would allow the board, for example, to examine in a very specialised way particular aspects of court operations.

As I have already mentioned, the essential purpose of the Bill is to transfer the current functions of the Minister which relate to the courts to the Courts Service. This is reflected in section 5 which draws out the broad parameters of the service's functions. Apart from the general mandate to manage the courts, the section provides that the service shall provide services for the judges, information and facilities to the public, and courtroom accommodation. I take this opportunity to highlight the service's function of providing facilities for those who use the courts. I am aware that courthouse facilities and conditions are of vital concern to members of the public, including victims of crime. Considerable improvements have been made in this area but it is essential that the process of the modernisation of courthouses be kept up to pace. I am confident that the service will be fully aware of the need to target resources towards the provision of modern accommodation to meet the requirements of all court users.

Section 29 is also relevant in this area. That section, which is essentially an adaptation provision, taken in conjunction with Schedule 2 to which it relates, provides a list of the many statutory provisions where functions will be devolved on the service with effect from the establishment day. The section provides that the schedule can be augmented by way of an order made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The section also provides that any other statutory function relevant to the work of the service may be conferred on the service by a Government order.

Section 6 confers powers generally on the service to enable it to perform its functions under the Act and certain powers are specifically mentioned, including the power to hold land and to enter into contracts and arrangements. Essentially what we are talking about is to ensure that the new service will have the capacity to carry out its functions as effectively and efficiently as possible, and I am satisfied that aspect is properly covered in the Bill.

While the provisions to which I have just referred map out the overall remit of the service, sections 13 and 20, dealing respectively with the board's functions and those of the chief executive, cover a key relationship within the overall framework of management of the Courts Service. Under section 13, the board will be responsible for the policy of the service and for overseeing the implementation by the chief executive of the board's policy. By virtue of section 20, the chief executive's function will primarily be to manage and control on a day-to-day basis the business, administration and staff of the service. Section 20(2) makes it clear that the chief executive will be accountable to the board in the implementation by him or her of the board's policies and the performance generally of his or her functions, including all functions conferred on him or her under the Bill or by the board.

One of my priorities in bringing forward this measure has been to ensure that the statutory framework for the Courts Service establishes clear lines of accountability and responsibility. Under the Bill full responsibility for the management of the courts system will be conferred on the Courts Service while political accountability for the activities of the service will continue to rest with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Under section 8 the service will be required to submit an annual report to the Minister of its activities and the Minister will lay that report before each House of the Oireachtas. The section allows the Minister to direct that additional information be included in the annual report. It also imposes a general requirement on the service, acting through the chief executive, to provide information to the Minister about the policy and activities of the service. It is essential that the Minister and Government of the day as well as the Oireachtas has a clear insight into the way the service is operating.

Notice taken that 12 Members were not present; House counted and 12 Members being present,

Mr. O'Donoghue

The Bill goes a number of steps further to underpin the policy of ensuring the optimum level of accountability. Section 7 requires the service to submit three year strategic plans to the Minister for his or her approval following which the Minister is required to lay the plans before each House of the Oireachtas, with or without amendment. This requirement is based on corresponding provisions contained in the Public Service Management (No. 2) Act, 1997, and arises from the same policy objectives, that of enhancing the management and effectiveness of public services, in this case in the area of the courts. The underlying principle of strategic management is to promote the provisions of an excellent service to the public which ensures that resources are used in a value for money way. I am satisfied those principles will be reflected in the operation of the service as a result of the obligation placed on it under section 7 to plan ahead strategically, not least due to the specific requirement that the strategic plans have regard to the need for the best use of the resources of the service.

Section 13(2) supports the value for money approach of the Bill which, in the context of the discharge by the board of its functions, requires it to have regard to the best use of the resources of the service and any Government or ministerial policy or objective relating to its functions. This section also enables the Minister to inform the board of any such policy or objective.

In addition, the Bill provides for lines of direct accountability for the service to the Oireachtas. Under section 19, the chief executive of the service will be the accounting officer for the service and as such will appear before the Committee of Public Accounts. A wider general obligation on the chief executive to attend before an Oireachtas committee when required to account for the general administration of the Courts Service, including its strategic plan, is contained in section 21. This is based on the corresponding provisions of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges, and Immunities of Witnesses) Act, 1997.

Section 9 protects the independence of judges in the exercise of judicial business and a person, such as the Master of the High Court, exercising quasi-judicial functions from interference by the service, the board or the chief executive. Section 39 makes similar provision in respect of the transitional arrangements under the Bill.

The working group's fourth report, The Chief Executive of the Courts Service, was approved for publication by the previous Government earlier this year. It provided a comprehensive framework for the role of the service's chief executive which is reflected in the Bill. Section 17 provides that the chief executive will be appointed by the board and the appointee will be the chief executive designate who will have been appointed by the transitional board. The terms of appointment of the chief executive will be fixed by contract, which will be renewable on terms and conditions determined by the board and approved by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance. The effect of section 18 is that the chief executive will not be subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Commissioners Act, 1956, and will not, therefore, be appointed as a civil servant.

The role of the chief executive in the management of the service will be critically important. A vital task for him or her will be the management of several hundred staff members who will become part of the Courts Service. To achieve this task, it is essential the existing courts system which is dispersed between several court offices and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is brought together into a single cohesive structure. The existing system may have been sufficient in the past but it is no longer adequate to meet the demands arising from the large volume of business now coming before the courts. In that context, section 22 of the Bill, which declares that the service shall have a unified organisation and structure, is a critical reference point for the form the new service will take.

Section 23 provides that the board may appoint staff and determine their grades with the approval of the Minister and the consent of the Minister for Finance, and staff of the service will have the status of civil servants of the State. That Civil Service designation is consistent with the role of the service, which will be a statutory agency of the State, independent of the Government.

There are broadly two groups of Civil Service staff currently involved in the work of the courts. The first group — the vast majority of such staff — is located within the courts and includes registrars, court clerks, clerical and very many more grades of staff. Section 24 provides that such staff, who are specified in Schedule 1 to the Bill, will transfer to the Courts Service on the establishment day. The second group of relevant staff — staff of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform engaged in functions relating to the administration of the courts — will transfer to the service by way of designation by order of the Minister. Designation of such staff will take place after consultation with organisations representing staff interests.

For all staff transferring to the Courts Service, section 25 provides that a lesser scale of pay or less beneficial terms and conditions of service than those applied prior to the transfer will not be imposed unless this is done in accordance with a collective agreement negotiated with recognised staff representatives. The procedure for varying scales of pay and terms and conditions of staff by the service will be agreed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister for Finance following consultation with a recognised trade union or staff association concerned. I pay tribute to all court staff who have given such an excellent service over many years under the existing courts organisational structure. I know that I can look forward to the continuation of that excellent service to the State under the new arrangements that we are embarking on.

At present, local authorities, in accordance with the provisions of the Courthouses (Provision and Maintenance) Act, 1935, are responsible for the provision of courthouses throughout the country with the exception of the Four Courts complex and a number of other venues in the Dublin area which are the responsibility of the Office of Public Works. Consistent with the function of providing, managing and maintaining court buildings which the Bill confers on the service, section 26 provides for the vesting in the service of appropriate premises. Although I have mentioned the Four Courts, I should make it clear that, exceptionally, I do not envisage the transfer of the Four Courts to the service under the vesting arrangements provided for under section 26. Because of the unique history of the Four Courts and the significant place it holds in our heritage and culture, it would be appropriate that the service should lease these premises from the Commissioners of Public Works in an arrangement similar to the one in place with An Post in respect of the GPO.

Section 27 provides for the transfer from the Minister to the service of property other than land used for court purposes. Section 28 provides for the transfer from the Minister to the service of all rights and liabilities under a contract or commitment relating to court functions.

Part Vll of the Bill makes provision for miscellaneous matters which require attention with a view to the establishment of the Courts Service. In particular, section 30 is a standard type provision disqualifying members of the board or of the staff of the service from serving as such once they become nominated as a Member of either House of the Oireachtas or are elected to the European Parliament. In addition, steps have been taken under section 31 of the Bill to exempt the Courts Service from planning permission requirements under the Planning Acts.

The final portion of the Bill is concerned with the arrangements to be made in respect of the transitional board and the chief executive designate. Under section 36, the composition of the transitional board will be identical to that of the board of the service under section 11, with necessary modifications to enable a court staff representative and the chief executive designate to be members of the transitional board. Apart from the appointment of a chief executive designate which will arise under section 38, the transitional board will, under section 37, have the broader function of preparing generally for the taking on by the service of its court management functions. Section 41 provides for the dissolution of the transitional board on the establishment day.

The transitional arrangements provide a mechanism for putting a chief executive in place as quickly as possible and, crucially, in advance of the actual start-up of the service. The chief executive designate, who will be the first chief executive of the service, will work in partnership with the transitional board within the remit of its power to prepare the way generally in the run-up to the establishment of the service.

I believe the establishment of the courts service on the lines proposed in this Bill is the best way forward to ensure the administration of the courts is carried out with the greatest efficiency and the provision of a high level and quality of service to the public. That is the yardstick against which the success of the service will be measured in years to come. I am especially pleased to have had the opportunity to shape and advance the statutory framework for the establishment of the Courts Service. I believe this Bill represents a landmark development for the administration of justice through the courts system in this State. I look forward to the debate on the Bill in this House. Senators, I am sure, will recognise the very significant move forward for the courts system for which the Bill provides and will, I know, want to contribute in relation to these far-reaching reforms. I look forward to hearing those contributions and commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister is getting to know the House this week in presenting various Bills. If he has been inconvenienced I am sure the Government Whip will bring him up to date on the difficulties experienced by Members. When he is speaking to other members of Cabinet he might pass on suggestions for resolving the matter.

This Bill is to be welcomed and we whole-heartedly support it. While we may have amendments on Committee Stage the thrust of the Bill is welcomed by this group and, I am sure, by all Members of the House. As the Minister said, it had its genesis in the working group set up in 1995 by his predecessor, Deputy Owen. In the 75 years since the foundation of the State the operation of the courts has not been changed. As we approach the end of the century, one hopes this Bill will bring about the necessary improvements. Many aspects of our judicial system work reasonably well but the Minister and Senator O'Donovan are well aware that other areas require attention because they are still in the 19th century.

I pay tribute to the working group for what it has brought about. In a recent article the Director General of the Law Society wrote:

The litany of problems [noted by the working group] included:

no clear reporting structure;

no adequate performance measurements;

no objectives;

minimum planning;

poor use of information technology;

fragmentation of administration systems between each of the courts;

apparent remoteness of administration system from the judiciary;

lack of statistical or financial information;

no strategic plan.

Clearly matters must be resolved. Hopefully, with the establishment of the independent body, in the form of a transitional body initially, and the policies outlined in the Action Programme for the Millennium, this will be a turning point in bringing about improvements.

In certain areas there are questions about the running of the courts, who they serve and the improvements needed for all those who use the courts professionally and the consumers in courts at all levels, whether facing charges or taking an action. We welcome the Bill although there will be teething problems in the transitional period. I understand there is concern among some staff who may be transferred, in particular county registrars. It is a matter we will revisit at a later stage.

It is important that this new agency will slay the dragon, so to speak. The problems are related to delays and to the courts being overcrowded and unsatisfactory for administering justice. There are courthouses in certain parts of the country which are unsuitable and consultations must take place on the street or in a local hostelry or hotel. In some cases courts are damp and squalid. I recall that Judge Hussey had to compete with rats in the courthouse in Kilmainham. That problem was resolved but I am sure the Minister is aware of similar difficulties elsewhere. I am aware of another case in which a district judge had to put on his overcoat during hearings because the windows behind him were cracked. These issues must be addressed.

At the level of the higher courts these problems are not as acute and may be more easily solved. However, a vigilant fire officer might close down the Circuit Court in Dublin, for example, because of the number of people who are in the court on any given day, many of whom are wandering around not knowing where they should be. The courthouse may be crowded with barristers, solicitors, clients and witnesses. The judge may be lucky to be heard in court and it is little wonder there are problems with the public getting lost or turning up at the wrong court.

It can be a frightening experience for people going to court for the first time, not necessarily as defendants but as plaintiffs seeking to have their rights vindicated or to reach a settlement in a case. Courts can be overcrowded and there may be poor amplification systems so the judge may tell the petrified witness to speak up and the witness will try to address the judge, but all the while there may be the noise of doors opening and closing and people coming and going. As often as not cases are scheduled for the 10.30 a.m. or 2 p.m. sitting, yet even if the case is heard that day people may have to wait for hours. These are basic problems of which I am sure the Minister is aware, being a legal practitioner himself. I am sure the courts in County Kerry are similar to those elsewhere. I hope these problems will be examined by the board.

I welcome the Bill and particularly the composition of the board. It will comprise the Chief Justice or a judge of the Supreme Court nominated by him; the President of High Court or a judge of the High Court nominated by him; a judge of the High Court elected by the ordinary judges of that court; the President of the Circuit Court or a judge of that court nominated by him; a judge of the Circuit Court elected by the ordinary judges of that court; the President of the District Court or a judge of that court nominated by him; a judge of the District Court elected by the judges other than the President of that court; a judge nominated by the Chief Justice in respect of his or her experience or expertise in a specific area of court business; the chief executive; a practising barrister nominated by the Bar Council; a practising solicitor nominated by the Law Society; a member of the staff of the service — an important inclusion; an officer of the Minister nominated by the Minister and, perhaps most important of all, a person nominated by the Minister to represent consumers of the services provided by the courts. Barristers, solicitors and gardaí can look after themselves. However, if other consumers of the service feel aggrieved after their day in court, it is important that they have somebody to whom they may address their concerns or queries so that problems do not recur.

It is important that the board will report annually and that we will have the chance to discuss its report in the House, as we discuss the Ombudsman's report and those of other bodies. These provisions are important for the operation of the courts. I am glad the board will meet at least every three months. The Law Society is concerned that during the period of transition there will be teething and staffing problems.

After the transition period the aim is to have courts which are workable and where there are basic facilities for those who go to court, particularly with regard to family law cases. In many instances at present the courts are so crowded that both parties in such cases find themselves sitting outside the court unable to have a private consultation. These issues must be considered. Some of the courts are in fairly good condition and could be described as state of the art. However, there are areas that need to be addressed and children's courts and family law courts should have an area where people can have a consultation in private if necessary. At present courts can be more like Heuston Station on a busy Friday with people hanging around. People have no place to talk and it is difficult for those who want to show an injury they received in an accident. In other words, it can be very difficult for people to conduct their business.

The Minister said the prison facilities are to be improved and I welcome this. Earlier I mentioned delays in the courts system and I hope this Bill, in conjunction with other legislation which the Minister will bring forward, will effect some streamlining and improvement. A combination of matters, including procedures, needs to be examined. While some improvements have taken place, it can still be far too long from the setting down date until the case is brought to trial. Instances where constant remands and adjournments are sought in relatively serious District Court cases, resulting in gardaí having to appear and diverting them from issues on which the Minister would prefer them to concentrate, should be examined. Notice should be given if an adjournment is being sought by a client or if a member of the Garda is not available. Such things should not have to go to court and take up time.

I am sure the Minister has heard from county registrars who are concerned about their position. The First Schedule deals with transferred officers and I ask that their viewpoint be taken on board. Perhaps the Minister will indicate whether he or his representatives have met representatives of county registrars or District Court clerks. We have all had dealings with District Court clerks who do so much to help the smooth operation of the court. People who deal with them on a regular basis can be helped by them because problems may arise if, say, two cases are listed for the same time in nearby courts and the same solicitor or barrister is involved. This issue must be examined and I ask the Minister in his reply to tell us that the future of those at present employed is safeguarded, that the concerns that have been brought to my attention will be examined and that the problems envisaged by such officers will be dealt with. We can return to this issue on Committee Stage.

The Minister is hoping this legislation will pass speedily through both Houses. What timescale has he for the transitional period? The Director General of the Law Society, Mr. Ken Murphy, expressed concern that all aspects of the Bill be fully operational by the beginning of the next legal year which is October 1998. Is the Minister satisfied that this deadline can be met?

I referred to the staffing difficulties in courts and the condition of courthouses. These conditions will be improved by the transfer of functions to the board. For many years the corporation in Dún Laoghaire was responsible for the courthouse. However, it only provided money for its upkeep while the Department of Justice ruled the roost. It was a ridiculous situation. — The manner in which courts operate is important. Some courts are very overcrowded. If the fire officer was vigilant he would make changes in the Four Courts. If anything happened there it could lead to a tragedy.

We support the thrust of this Bill which was initiated by Deputy Owen and which the Minister has progressed. Both are to be complimented on bringing forward the Bill. It is important that the proposals and initiatives of the working group are put in place and that we get things right. It is also important that the justice system is seen to be working, particularly for consumers. Barristers and solicitors also need facilities. There should be a long-term policy to have very old courthouses torn down and replaced with new buildings. Regarding the financial implications of the Bill and the commencement date, does the Minister envisage further expenses in the operation of the Bill?

Fine Gael supports and welcomes the Bill and praises those involved in bringing it forward. It is important legislation on which many people are depending. We must get over the transitional period and ensure any teething problems are resolved. I look forward to debating the first report and to hearing how the service has evolved. This side will support Second Stage of the Bill.

Mr. O'Donovan

I welcome the Minister and congratulate him on introducing the Bill. I also thank Senator Cosgrave for his broad supportive remarks. In the late 1970s a member of the Garret FitzGerald led Government made the broad statement that he intended to drag the court system and barristers and solicitors kicking and screaming into the 20th century. That comment was appropriate at the time. I compliment the Minister and his predecessor, Deputy Owen, on their work on Bills which will bring the work of the courts into the 21st century. This is most important. I join the Minister and Senator Cosgrave in thanking the working group of the courts commission, which was chaired by Mrs. Justice Susan Denham. I compliment her on the excellent work on this matter.

As a practising lawyer, the Bill is a most welcome initiative. In common with Senator Cosgrave, I have experience of poor courthouses, inefficiency, lack of technology and courtroom space. From my frequent visits as a lawyer to the Four Courts, I concur with his point about overcrowding and the facilities in the Bar room. It is similar to a cattle mart and one wonders how the public think the legal profession is in another world. I hope the new service will streamline the courts system and administration of justice and make it more user friendly and accessible to the public.

Senator Cosgrave mentioned the lack of facilities. On at least 20 occasions in my District Court Area No. 19, judges have adjourned courts before business commenced because of arctic conditions in courtrooms. Senator Cosgrave mentioned a judge in Kilmainham putting on his overcoat. I am aware of incidents where judges had to adjourn court sittings because of broken windows and desperate facilities. Some courts were held in dance halls that were used two or three times a year. A room was opened and a heater plugged in for the sitting of the court. That was no way to treat the District Judge, the lawyers or the public. People were left standing for hours in atrocious conditions. As the District Judge commented on one occasion when adjourning proceedings, it was cold justice.

This position prevailed for many years, although matters have improved in the last decade and not before time. I compliment the various Bar organisations, such as the southern law association, which did much to try to improve their lot in their areas. It was unusual 25 years ago for judges of the District, Circuit or High Courts to attend local Bar association functions or seminars. However, this happens frequently now and it is a welcome step because practitioners can hear what is wrong with the system at first hand from judges. The associations then try to make the system more user friendly and accessible to the public and practitioners.

Unfortunately, there is a total lack of facilities in most courthouses in rural Ireland. Every courthouse should have proper waiting and consultation rooms, particularly for family law cases where delicate topics are discussed and instructions taken by lawyers. As Senator Cosgrave said, it is not acceptable in this day and age that barristers and solicitors must take instructions on the street. We are still working under 19th century systems and facilities and we must propel them into the 21st century.

I wish to raise a number of questions and perhaps the Minister will respond to them in his reply or on Committee Stage. As somebody from west Cork, which is one of the most peripheral areas in the country, I am baffled as to why a High Court judge is not based permanently in Cork or Munster to cover Cork, Tralee and Limerick. I accept this is a matter for the President of the High Court, but I do not understand why barristers, solicitors, the public and senior medical personnel from Cork, Kerry and Limerick must travel to the High Court in Dublin. They must wait hours and sometimes days for cases to be called. It is a most uneconomical system.

In addition to a High Court judge being based permanently in the south, another should be based in the Galway/north-west region. There is no reason in this day and age, particularly in civil matters, that a High Court judge could not sit three weeks every month, with the exception of August, in these areas. As a practitioner this matter is of great concern to me. At present it is necessary to bring clients from Castletownbere, Castlebar or Donegal all the way to Dublin. One must ensure all one's medical experts, such as consultant surgeons and neurosurgeons, are available. In many cases they are unavailable. I hope the Bill will streamline this system and ensure that it is efficient, cohesive and involves co-operation.

I do not condemn neurosurgeons or consultants for not attending courts because they also have schedules. A neurosurgeon told me recently that if he was carrying out technical brain surgery in Cork University Hospital, I should not expect him to rush off to the High Court in Dublin or elsewhere. This must be accepted because lives must be saved. I ask the Minister to consider whether High Court judges could be based permanently in the west, north-west and Munster areas to deal with civil matters.

I hope my comments are viewed as positive rather than critical because the Bill provides a great opportunity to grasp the nettle of decentralisation. Is it necessary for everything to revolve round the Four Courts in Dublin? I asked a colleague earlier if there were District or Circuit Courts in Tallaght, which is as big as Cork city. Everything should not revolve around one small building in Dublin which is totally overcrowded and lacks basic facilities that the public, practitioners and judges require. Although some improvements have taken place in the last decade, the lack of facilities for family courts is of great concern. With the provision of this new service and the appointment of a chief executive, there is no reason a section of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform could not be decentralised to Cork, Limerick, Galway or Athlone. There is overcrowding in Dublin, and decentralisation should be implemented. The Minister should examine this.

The establishment of the new service includes appointing a chief executive and 17 members to its board. I welcome the suggestion that this should include nine judges, who want better facilities more than anyone else. They want decent courthouses, fax machines, telephone systems and proper consultating rooms. Including nine judges among the members ensures that those most concerned with the administration of justice will be able to help provide a proper service.

The Chief Justice and the Presidents of the High Court, Circuit Court, District Court and Supreme Court will all be members of the board. Other judges will also be appointed. A practising barrister, a practising solicitor, an official of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others will also be appointed. He has a direct input in the appointment of only two members of the board. He is trying to allocate much of the workings of the court system and the administration of justice to a separate body. Different bodies were responsible for these matters until now, but with the appointment of a professional chief executive who will be responsible to the board, matters can only improve. There will be proper services all over the country. This will require money, but the board's powers should not be diminished. It will have powers to sue and be sued because it will be a separate legal entity in certain respects. It will have the power to acquire courthouses, obtain leases on courthouses or take over existing leases. This is a significant leap into the future.

The board will meet regularly; the Minister suggests it should meet every three months. That means there will be at least four meetings every 12 months, perhaps more. The chief executive will be answerable to the Minister and an annual report will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. While the Minister is giving independence to the board, the chief executive and board are responsible to the Minister, who retains political responsibility. That must be acknowledged, even if he might want to divest himself of it from time to time. I welcome this aspect of the Bill.

A member of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions will be appointed to the board, which is welcome. The new service envisaged by the streamlining of the courts system will have wide ranging powers. It will have the power to employ extra staff, to take staff from the existing Department and to ensure that courthouses are up to date with fax machines, telephone systems and video recording machinery as recommended under the Children Bill. Those facilities should be made available but should not be totally Dublin based. We must look at Munster and the west. Cork, Limerick, Galway, Tralee and Athlone must not be left out. Courthouses there must be updated. I have visited courthouses in Britain, America and some European countries, and our courthouses, with some exceptions, are well below the average.

Accountability is an important aspect of this Bill. It is important that the new Courts Service is fully accountable and is seen to be responsible. The board, and also possibly the chief executive, is required to bring forward a plan of action for an extended period. The chief executive can be compelled to come before an Oireachtas committee to answer questions and possibly to amend the plan. That is crucial, because everything will not be transformed by this legislation even by next year, although I hope that this legislation will be enacted by Easter. The transformation cannot happen overnight. We must plan for a longer period. In five or seven years, practitioners of law, the public and Members of the Oireachtas can look back and say that this legislation, initiated in the Seanad, worked. The taxpayer will fund this through the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Notice taken that 12 Members were not present; House counted and 12 Members being present,

Mr. O'Donovan

The Opposition must be picking on me because this is the third time in two days that my contribution has been interrupted. Perhaps my contributions sound inappropriate or inadequate.

I was speaking about the importance of the accountability and responsibility of the service. The chief executive will be responsible to an Oireachtas committee which, in turn, is responsible to the Minister.

Section 9 protects the independence of judges in the exercise of judicial business and a person, such as the Master of the High Court, exercising quasi-judicial functions from interference by the service, board or chief executive. That independence must be retained under the Constitution and I welcome the Minister's commitment to protect it.

The chief executive and the board will have full responsibility for staffing and running the service. Court staff includes court clerks, county registrars and other officials. The service will also have important powers in regard to the heating and furnishing of courthouses, the provision of rooms, refurbishment and the acquisition of new buildings. I do not wish to harp on the issue, but the condition of some rural courthouses leaves a great deal to be desired. We are not asking for luxury but this service will have an obligation to ensure decent facilities are provided.

The board will also have powers in regard to the grading of staff, such as county registrars and court clerks. It is also provided that officials of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform who transfer to the new service will not suffer a decrease in salary, which is understandable and welcome.

The remuneration of judges is paltry. People with such experience and qualifications could probably quadruple their annual salaries in the commercial sector. Eminent senior counsel who take on the honourable and noble position of Attorney General usually incur a huge decrease in their annual income. Politicians are often criticised for being overpaid. Alas, despite the advances of the Celtic tiger, that is not the case. Judges at all levels are also underpaid. Nine out of ten senior counsel with a half decent practice, aside from those in the top 20, earn far more money than a High Court judge. If one pays peanuts one will get monkeys. I am not criticising any member of the Judiciary, but if we want top quality lawyers to become judges we must pay more. The Minister might refer to these issues on Committee Stage.

Much of the criticism levelled against the Judiciary over the years has been unfair. Many judges, especially those in the Circuit and District Courts, have had to put up with appalling facilities over the past 20 or 30 years. There have been improvements in the past ten years but they still leave a great deal to be desired.

As I said earlier, I was delighted Senator Cosgrave, on behalf of Fine Gael, broadly welcomed the Bill. I congratulate the Minister, his predecessor and the independent commission. The purpose of the Bill is to establish a Courts Service. It is on a par with the Criminal Justice (No. 2) Bill, 1997, which represents a courageous leap into the future. This Bill probably comprises the most practical legislation in this area to be introduced in the last 40 years. It covers the day to day administration of justice, including the running and staffing of courthouses and it will provide a comprehensive and co-ordinated strategy for the future. The Minister must be congratulated for his initiative.

I hope that the thrust of the Bill, which deals with the administration of justice, will be welcomed. It should ensure that basic facilities are provided. These include lighting and toilets in courthouses, the provision of staff and technology, such as computers and word processors, and other items which would be standard features of a solicitor's office or any commercial enterprise.

I hope that when the board, the service and the chief executive are established there will be a reformation and renaissance of the courts system and the administration of justice within the next seven years. I also hope it will mean that in, say, 20 years, those who administer justice, from judges to solicitors and barristers, will look on this legislation as being among the best and most practical to be enacted by the Oireachtas representing as it does an efficient and cohesive combination of the various relevant strands within the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Dr. Henry

I welcome this legislation. Senator O'Donovan hailed it as the best legislation in this area for 40 years. Have we not waited for it for 75 years? We recently celebrated the foundation of the State. Until then, the courts were administered by the Lord Chancellor and his staff, which continues to be the case in the UK. We never replaced that office, which meant that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which is overloaded with work, had to take on the running of the courts.

This legislation is a great innovation. The Minister's predecessor, Deputy Owen, is to be complimented for establishing the working group under Mrs. Justice Susan Denham to investigate the Courts Service. I am delighted that the Minister responded so rapidly to the report of the working party by introducing this legislation.

I am also delighted that the Minister indicated that he intends to establish an independent prisons board. Having been the Chair of the Irish Penal Reform Trust, he will know that we sought such a board for some years. I am gratified that a Bill providing for the establishment of an independent prison service is to be introduced. I hope it will appear before the House shortly. While I am enthusiastic about the upgrading of prison places I am more reticent about the huge increase in the number of places. I would prefer the money to be invested in the Probation Service.

Other speakers mentioned that for decades we have suffered from an appalling lack of co-ordination within the Courts Service. Terrible facilities have been provided, not only for those appearing before the courts but also for those working in them. The Judiciary and the courts staff are to be complimented on maintaining the service because they have had to work in dreadful conditions. Where justice was not delayed it was seen to be exercised in inferior conditions, which was not good. Justice may not be taken seriously if there is a long delay in bringing cases, especially criminal cases, before the courts. While there is always a victim in such cases there is also a suspected criminal who may be incarcerated for some time only to be found innocent. There have also been appalling delays in civil cases. In some instances people may have had to wait nine or ten years for accident cases to be assessed and compensation awarded. The co-ordination of resources and the establishment of a Courts Service are, therefore, to be welcomed.

The facilities provided in the courts should be rightly stressed. I have appeared as a witness in criminal cases at District Court sittings in Sutton Rugby Club and in a north Dublin night club festooned with fishing nets. It was difficult for the criminal to take matters seriously when the court was deliberating in the surroundings of rugby boots and hanging plastic lobsters. The new District Court on the site of the old Richmond Hospital is to be welcomed. People attending that court know cases are taken seriously and that they are treated with much greater respect and importance.

Delays in the children's courts were unforgivable because a child has a different concept of time from an adult. I am glad that the work done on the court in Smithfield has improved the facilities for the hearing of cases. Nevertheless, family cases are being heard all over the country involving parties consulting with their solicitors on the same corridor. This is intimidating for both sides. It is good to note that the new board will have control of buildings, although I understand that the Four Courts are to be excluded.

The proposed structure of the board is welcome. In many countries the courts are controlled exclusively by judges. In the US, Japan and in some of the states in Australia the courts boards are comprised solely of judges. It is right that the majority of members of the proposed board — nine — should comprise the Judiciary. The spread of the other members is also to be welcomed.

Who does the Minister have in mind with regard to the consumer member of the board? Is a consumer with experience in this area required? Should it be an experienced criminal? There is nothing to say that somebody with a criminal record cannot be represented. A consumer with such experience on the board may highlight the sad side of criminal justice, which may be no harm.

The proposed size and balance of the board are also about right. Anything bigger than 17 members would become unmanageable. In addition, the Judiciary cannot say it is being outflanked by those who work within the courts system or by the Minister.

The proposal to establish subcommittees in specialist areas is to be welcomed, especially if the Minister wishes to have specialist functions of the courts examined. This will enable him to introduce the expertise he considers is not already represented on the board. I applaud that.

The Bill should state that the report, which will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, must be published. We often see a list of reports on the Order Paper but we do not know much about them. It is important to publish this report.

I compliment the Minister on introducing this Bill in the House so quickly. It has been delayed for 75 years but I hope he ensures it is enacted in the near future.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Cregan)

I call Senator Liam Fitzgerald to speak. Senator Quill may have been under the impression she would speak before the next Fianna Fáil speaker. However, it has been agreed that there will be two Fianna Fáil speakers followed by a Progressive Democrats speaker.

Miss Quill

I have confronted greater challenges than this so I will not cause a row. I thought a procedure was agreed and put in place at the start of this session that the second Government speaker would be from the second party in Government. I inspected the list when Senator Caffrey was in the Chair and my name was immediately after that of Senator Henry. I came here prepared to speak as soon as she concluded.

Acting Chairman

I apologise to you on behalf of the Chair, but I am only explaining to you what has been explained to me by the Government party whip.

Miss Quill

There are two parties in Government.

Acting Chairman

It has been agreed there will be two Fianna Fáil speakers followed by a Progressive Democrats speaker, except when a Progressive Democrats Minister is in the House. Then it will be a Fianna Fáil speaker and a Progressive Democrats speaker followed by a Fianna Fáil speaker. I apologise to the Senator but it is not my fault. I would prefer if Senator Quill and Senator Liam Fitzgerald sorted this out between them.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

I understood I would speak after Senator O'Donovan. In view of Senator Quill's understanding that she would be the second Government speaker, I will give way as I only have a short contribution to make.

Miss Quill

I thank Senator Liam Fitzgerald. It was not my aim or intention to cause a row as it would not be in the spirit of this partnership Government. Nevertheless, a principle was clearly outlined to me and I wanted to know the reason for changing it. I compliment the Minister on introducing this legislation in the House so quickly. It is based on the report of a working group which was put in place by the Minister's predecessor. It did its work diligently and submitted its report in 1996. I am sure the Chairman knows the standing joke in our part of the country that politically we are always one report away from action. However, that cannot be said in the case of this Minister. I commend him for taking the recommendations of the working group on board and for drafting this legislation with extraordinary speed. It marks him as a reforming and progressive Minister.

This legislation is long overdue. Many speakers mentioned the conditions of courthouses, the backlog of cases and the delays in hearing such cases. These are some of the more salient features of the courts section of our justice system. I am pleased that rather than tinkering around at the edges and introducing minor reforms, the Minister has undertaken full surgery. He has taken the administration of the courts out of the Minister's hands and given it to an independent body whose recommendations will be dealt with by a chief executive. When this Bill becomes law, I hope our courts will be run on a businesslike basis and will deliver a speedy, effective and efficient service to their consumers. That should be the ultimate objective of those of us who are concerned about every arm of the justice system, whether it is the courts, the prisons or the Garda.

I am pleased that the functions which were carried out by previous Ministers will now be given to this proposed body. These functions are to manage the courts, provide support services for judges, give information on the courts system to the public, provide, manage and maintain court buildings and provide facilities for users of the courts. This broad range of functions needed to be clearly defined because in many cases they were nobody's business. The new body has a clearly defined set of tasks which it must undertake and deliver. If these functions are fully carried out, we will have an effective, efficient and streamlined courts system.

The chief executive will be the key person to make these new changes work. I read the Bill in some detail but it did not specify a fixed term of office for the chief executive. I ask the Minister to comment on that. It is important when devising and designing new posts to have a clearly defined term of office, such as five or seven years. County council and city managers are now appointed for seven years. If one cannot deliver on something in seven years, questions should be asked. I recommend that a set term of office should be specified for the chief executive. That imposes its own discipline because it requires people to set and meet realistic targets.

I am pleased with the proposed composition of the board which is broadly based. Senator O'Donovan said he was glad there will be nine out of 17 judges on it, which gives them a fair balance. It is important to have a strong input from people who are consumer conscious, such as the Consumers Association of Ireland. The Bill states that a person will be nominated by the Minister to represent consumers of the services provided by the court. I am unclear how the Minister will choose that person, although the principle is correct. The courts should be consumer friendly because they provide a vital service. It is important that consumers' needs and priorities are taken into account. This appointment is critical. I want to see a strong input into the board's deliberations and policy making strategies from community conscious people, the Consumers Association of Ireland and from business. I am glad that it is proposed to nominate someone with the relevant knowledge and experience in commerce, finance and administration. This is very important. Any businessman looking at the manner in which some of our courts are run would have many useful things to say.

Senator O'Donovan mentioned the wastefulness of dragging clients and highly qualified people, such as brain surgeons, to courts in Dublin instead of taking the service to where the need exists. This waste must be eradicated so that the chief executive will have resources to upgrade and update the Dickensian conditions in some of our courthouses. There is scope for huge savings in the day to day running of the courts. I am pleased that someone with a strong business ethic will be put at the heart of this policy making board which will oversee the work of the chief executive. That is of equal importance to the number of judges. The Consumers Association and the world of business will put the ideas in place to help achieve the objectives of the Bill.

The conditions of courthouses are legendary. There have been occasions when judges have refused to sit. There must be a systematic programme of upgrading and updating our court facilities. They should be places where people can work efficiently. They should be equipped with modern technology. These are good investments as they save time particularly when highly paid professionals are involved. I have seen squalor in the environs of many courtrooms. Clients have to confer with the desperate mothers of juvenile criminals on stairways and behind doors. How can justice be fairly administered in such an environment? As we move into the next century and deal with buildings which were erected before the foundation of the State, we must think of the change which has occurred in society. Family law was not a big issue when most of our courthouses were built. Children's courts were hardly thought of. We must design and equip our buildings in the knowledge that proper provision must be made for family courts with consulting rooms so that clients can consult with solicitors and the best service is offered to all.

In particular, we must construct proper courts for the hearing of juvenile cases. It is sad that one third of all crimes are committed by juveniles. When we are upgrading our courts system we must bear in mind the number of juveniles being brought before the courts. Younger juveniles should not be mixed in with hardened criminals who have almost turned court appearances into a science. That is no place for young people. The principle of juvenile justice must be to divert people from serious crime.

I am disappointed that we do not have any modern juvenile justice legislation. Senator Liam Fitzgerald and I were members of a select Dáil committee which spent 11 months drawing up proposals which were to be the basis of a juvenile justice Bill. That was in 1990-1. That committee worked very conscientiously. It carried out a thorough examination of the causes of juvenile crime and the possible cures. I made a shrew of myself in the Dáil begging the last Government to bring forward the legislation. It is critically important that we have modern juvenile justice legislation so that we can provide a legislative framework to protect young people and allow for early intervention to prevent them from slipping into a lifetime of crime. I hope that a juvenile justice Bill will be introduced early in the lifetime of the Government and that we make proper provision for juveniles and family courts.

The conditions of our courthouses are a salient feature of the courts system. There is no reason courts cannot provide a more responsive service. In extreme cases, courts sit at night but this should happen more often. There is no reason they cannot sit at weekends in certain cases. There are incredible delays between a charge being brought, a Garda file being completed and a hearing commencing. This has been a damning feature of our courts system. In this respect, I compliment two judges who have taken that system by the throat and established procedures which have speeded up hearings and more than halved the backlog. I hope I am not being too chauvinistic but both of these are from Cork, namely, Judge Harvey Kenny and Judge Sean O'Leary.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

They are both Fine Gael people.

Miss Quill

I am being particularly generous. One is Fianna Fáil and the other Fine Gael.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

They are above politics.

Miss Quill

They have worked very well and established procedures which other judges are beginning to follow. No matter how bad the buildings, if a good system is put in place one can improve matters.

An outrageous amount of Garda time is spent in court. The Minister has plans to cut down on this waste but it is not unusual to see battalions of gardaí hanging around courtrooms waiting for cases to be heard only to find out at the end of a long day that the case has been adjourned for a flimsy reason. That is a wasteful use of Garda time and I am glad it is being tackled under another Bill. In other jurisdictions court officers present cases on behalf of individual policemen and justice is well served.

While discussing courts — we may not revisit this issue — most people believe we should work towards an updated sentencing policy. Many citizens feel disquiet by the disparity between sentences handed down in different jurisdictions in respect of broadly similar crimes. It is time to put in place a sentencing policy and more up to date guidelines to assist judges in arriving at their decisions.

There is nothing more corrosive in respect of the sentences handed down by judges than petitioning Ministers which has taken root in recent years. This applies across the board, regardless of the parties in power. Courts hand down sentences in public — which is proper and fit for the administration of justice — but surreptitiously, without reference to the original judgment, a sentence can be shortened or changed by a Minister. That is wrong. Will the Minister give consideration to this issue because such petitions should only be accepted in exceptional cases. This kind of behaviour corrodes the justice system. It must be sickening for gardaí who bring perpetrators to court and obtain convictions and for judges who hand down sentences they believe to be based on justice to discover that their actions have been completely undermined by a person who petitions a Minister to have a conviction or sentence changed. Since we are trying to institute reforms we should reform this area also.

It is important that the new chief executive be given a budget to enable him or her to proceed immediately with modernising court buildings. I agree with Senator O'Donovan's assertion that High Court judges should be appointed on a regional basis. The service should be taken to the people because that is the way the modern world operates. High Court judges who are appointed in the Cork/Kerry/Limerick regions should also be resident there. This would speed up the hearing of cases and reduce costs considerably.

Iarradh orm é seo a rá. Tá sé thar a bheith tábhachtach go mbeadh seirbhísí agus áiseanna na gcúirteanna ar fáil trí Ghaeilge as seo amach, go mbeadh cúirteanna a bhíonn á reachtáil sa Ghaeltacht ag feidhmiú agus ag riarú as Gaeilge.

That is in the spirit of what I have already said. If we are taking the service to the people, as a minimum we should appoint judges who can deal with consumers who want their cases to be heard trí Ghaeilge. That is of fundamental importance. I ask the Minister to take this issue on board because I may table an amendment on it on Committee Stage.

Tá sé fíor-tábhachtach go ndéanfaí a leithéid. Má tá cúirteanna ag feidhmiú sa Ghaeltacht tá sé thar a bheith tábhachtach go mbeadh sé ar chumas gach uile duine atá ag feidhmiú sna cúirteanna sin an Ghaeilge a úsáid.

Having said that, I welcome the Bill. I look forward to seeing measurable and tangible improvements, in the short-term, in the administration of this element of our justice system. The provision which requires that the Courts Service report back to the Minister is good because it is important that the Houses can make any necessary changes or amendments. However, I do not believe this will happen.

This legislation gives me great grounds for optimism because crime, and the way it has been dealt with, has caused major hardship in this country. Anything we, as legislators, can do to improve our criminal justice system — whether it be upgrading courts or prisons or modernising the Garda Síochána — can only yield good results for all citizens. I am glad the Minister stated that, as an early priority, he would put in place a similar system in respect of prisons. I congratulate him, wish him well and look forward to the speedy enactment of the Bill.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

Senator Liam Fitzgerald has two minutes.

An Cathaoirleach

Was Senator Fitzgerald sharing time?

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

Senator Quill did not seek to share time with me. I have yet to make my contribution.

Mr. Coghlan

I propose to share time with Senator Taylor-Quinn.

An Cathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Coghlan

I will also share time with Senator Liam Fitzgerald.

An Cathaoirleach

I ask Senator Coghlan to address his comments to the Bill.

Mr. Coghlan

I apologise. In the Minister's absence yesterday I complimented him on initiating four Bills in the Seanad this week. I stated that perhaps he was becoming fond of us and preferred the gentility of this Chamber to that of the more robust nature of the Lower House. However, the bells calling for a quorum have been rung so often today that I am not sure the Minister would agree with my assertion. Perhaps he can use his influence and good offices to rectify our accommodation difficulties and severe staff shortage.

I welcome what the Minister has set about achieving in this Bill. I compliment his predecessor, Deputy Owen, and Mrs. Justice Susan Denham for her work on the commission which delivered many reports, the recommendations of which, have been taken on board in the Bill.

The system for administering the courts is unwieldy and has been in place for many years and the management of the Courts Service has been inadequate. For those reasons, I welcome the Bill and what it sets out to achieve in respect of the Courts Service. As consumers, citizens have a right to expect quality service from the courts as they do in other areas. The independence of the Courts Service, which the Minister is seeking to accomplish by way of the Bill, is vitally important.

I agree with the provisions of the Bill in respect of the composition of the Courts Service Board. I am intrigued about the person to be nominated by the Minister to represent consumers of the services provided by the courts. Perhaps that person should be someone with a good criminal record who has been suitably reformed. However, I have no doubt the Minister will deal with this issue in good time.

Section 15 is important because it provides for the establishment of committees to investigate particular aspects of court operations. I am glad the Minister acknowledged the serious problem in respect of courthouse facilities and conditions. We all agree they are not up to scratch and are not what we want to see in our democracy.

I welcome section 26 which states that courthouses, the property and the functions of the service will be vested in the board at a suitable juncture, presumably by way of ministerial order. I always thought it wrong that county councils should have any function in the provision or maintenance of courthouses. I am delighted that will cease on the enactment of this Bill and the setting up of the board. I also welcome section 29 which provides that any other statutory function relevant to the work of the service may be conferred on the service by Government order. I welcome the fact that the Minister said he will still be politically accountable, which is right.

As regards sentencing policy, we have all been intrigued by the different sentences handed down for similar offences. I do not know if this is relevant to the Bill but perhaps the Minister could use his good offices to ensure judges are in touch with one another, through seminars or whatever, particularly those in the lower courts, to guarantee some semblance of uniformity. It is an issue which, from time to time, outrages the public and I recommend that the Minister consider it.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

The Minister is extremely fortunate to have had such a competent, progressive, diligent and able predecessor who laid the ground work for some many of the constructive Bills being initiated in the House this week.

Mr. Cosgrave

I call for a quorum. Notice taken that 12 Members were not present; House counted and 12 Members being present,

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

Before we were interrupted by Senator Cosgrave, who engaged in activity which I suggest is not in keeping with the Cosgrave tradition, I said the Minister was fortunate to have had Deputy Owen as a predecessor. She did wonderful ground work on these Bills and laid the foundations. The former Minister established the working group which completed its work and we now have a Bill as a result. It is appropriate to compliment Mrs. Justice Susan Denham and the members of the working group on reporting so efficiently and effectively to the Minister.

This Bill is a welcome development because there is a need to modernise the courts system and the way the courts operate. I am delighted the Minister has taken this route and decided to set up a board. The proposed membership of the board is commendable because it is important that those who are most familiar with the courts system are members. It should ensure the provision of an efficient service.

Throughout the debate, the word "consumer" has been used. We associate many things with the courts, but "consumer" is unusual in this regard. We usually refer to the consumer as a consumer of specific goods or services. The public would not aspire to be consumers of the Courts Service. Only some members of the legal profession would aspire to be users of the Courts Service. We are the consumers of the Courts Service. I find this interesting new piece of terminology which we are applying to the service rather amusing to put it mildly because one is not a consumer in court; one is either the prosecutor or the accused, but one is definitely not a willing consumer of the service. Applying that particular word in this scenario is a little ludicrous and merely carrying modern terminology too far. We are talking about courts which provide a specific service and it is important that the service, which is part of a legal and constitutional service, is carried out in the most effective and efficient way possible.

The Bill states that meetings of the board must be held at least every three months and this is essential. I hope that the board will meet far more often and that members may be renominated after three years or new members appointed.

I am concerned about one section of the Bill in particular. Everyone in this Chamber is familiar with the efficient work of county registrars and I am concerned that the Minister has decided to change completely the position of county registrars. In effect, this Bill abolishes the position of county registrar. That is not a good idea. Section 24(1) and Schedule 1 would clearly suggest that this is the case.

Maybe the Minister might elaborate on section 9(b), which relates to the independence of the exercise of judicial functions. It states:

No function conferred on or power vested in the Service, the Board or the Chief Executive, under this Act shall be exercised so as to interfere with the conduct of that part of the business of the courts required by law to be transacted by or before one or more judges or to impugn the independence of..

(b) a person other than a judge in the performance of limited functions of a judicial nature conferred on that person by law.

Does that refer to county registrars? If that is the only section which refers to them, there is a need to amend the Bill to clearly establish their position.

The Minister should remember that county registrars were established under the Court Officers Act, 1926, and that they have a specific quasi-judicial function. If, as it seems, the Minister proposes in this Bill to subsume them into the Civil Service, that is a totally different situation. At present, county registrars are appointed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Government. They are independent appointments. Now the Minister is suggesting that they will become civil servants and, in the future, will be appointed by the Civil Service Commission. That is not a wise decision and I ask the Minister to reconsider it.

County registrars have a definite quasi-judicial function; they act as county sheriffs. Coming, like the Minister, from a rural constituency, I am sure he fully appreciates the importance of that function and how it is implemented in each and every county. It is extremely important that the county registrar is independent and able to make specific judgments, with his or her local knowledge, as county sheriffs.

The county registrars are also arbitrators and they make judgments in relation to landlord and tenant disputes and this, again, is a quasi-judicial function. They also manage the Circuit Court as it moves to different locations around the country, and that is extremely important. They also have a statutory function under the Electoral Acts as returning officers at general and presidential elections and at referenda. Therefore, it is extremely important that they be allowed to maintain these quasi-judicial functions and, as the Bill stands, this would not appear to be the case. They are also district probate officers and county land registry officers. I appeal to the Minister to examine all these issues. These are statutory powers vested in county registrars. They are not court clerks or civil servants but have a specific judicial function. It is amazing that this course of action is being taken by the Minister at this time. I appeal to him to re-examine this and ensure there is consultation on the matter.

I know his predecessor was involved in consultation as is this Minister. He was supposed to get back to these people within a month but his officials have not got back to them since their last meeting with the Minister. I appeal to the Minister to do so not just in the interests of county registrars but in the interests of the people. If this Bill is enacted who will appoint the county registrar in future? Will these appointments be made subject to the Local Appointments Commission?

This is an extremely serious matter which should be addressed by the Minister and I am disappointed that he did not elaborate on it in his speech. It is the one outstanding issue. He chose in his speech to exclude the Master of the High Court, who, he stated, exercises a "quasi-judicial function". He recognised that in his speech but he did not recognise that county registrars exercise a quasi-judicial function also. I appeal to him between now and Committee Stage to rectify that matter and provide the same exclusion to county registrars as he has provided to the Master of the High Court.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

I thank Senators Coghlan and Taylor-Quinn for their generosity of spirit in proposing to extend some of their time to me but I assure them that we, on this side of the House, are not that badly off yet although it may have appeared to them that there was confusion as to the allocation of time this afternoon.

In welcoming this Bill, I welcome the Minister as this is his second appearance in the House today. I welcome in particular the fact that this is a double first for the Minister, and I make no apology for repeating that. It is a first for him in initiating four Bills in the Seanad in one week and in bringing four Bills through Second Stage in a House in one week. It is important that the record clearly show that is the case.

This Minister was extremely vocal, articulate and definitive in his understanding of necessary anti-crime measures in Opposition and he came in for some criticism as a result, as I said this morning. As Minister, he deserves the highest commendation for being equally strong and forceful, and for being a politician of action, in bringing forward a wide ranging package of legislation. This Bill is but one of a series, and it is very important. Among his objectives are the clear determination to fast track trials, the conviction of the guilty to the maximum possible extent by the elimination of the loopholes in the law — he stated definitively that he was determined to look at that, even if it took going through the statutes to eliminate existing loopholes — and tougher sentences where stronger signals need to be given to the criminal godfathers. All of these objectives will inevitably lead to even more pressure on an already hard pressed system.

In commending the Minister for bringing forward this Bill after such a short period in office and shortly after the receipt of the final report from the working group, to which I will refer, I also commend his predecessor, Deputy Owen. I would not be as eulogistic in her regard as the previous speaker although I concur that the courts system was badly in need of review, as it had not had one for over 70 years, and action was badly needed. I commend the Minister's predecessor for setting this review process in train and for overseeing publication of the third report. The fourth report may have been published in her tenure but I am unsure of that. Departments often display lethargy and coyness in publishing Bills as a follow up to what in many instances were good comprehensive reports which deserved and merited comprehensive legislation.

The courts system has until now been under the administration of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Recent evidence suggested that the quality of administration had become unsatisfactory and that the quality of service delivered had seriously deteriorated at a time when demands were increasing and at a phenomenal rate in some categories of cases. For example, the public has become very claims conscious over the past ten years and this has added a substantial burden of work to the courts system with no concomitant reform or substantial addition in resources, personnel or equipment, to meet that increased demand.

It is little wonder, therefore, that the first interim report of the working group on a courts commission chaired by Mrs. Justice Denham — everyone has paid tribute to her for chairing the working group and issuing these reports — was widely referred to as a milestone for having recognised the crisis in the courts system. The central conclusions of that report and subsequent ones — the second was a follow up and the fourth dealt with the role of the chief executive — have been adopted in this Bill.

A radical reform of the management of the courts system was called for so that day to day control would be removed from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I am delighted the Minister has quickly embraced the central recommendation of the report and has shown the courage and commitment to bring it forward in legislation. He has ensured the general service will be answerable to him and to the Houses of the Oireachtas. Annual reports must be laid before both Houses and strategic plans must be submitted to the Minister every three years. These are vital links which must be retained by the new Courts Service in the interests of accountability.

One of the cornerstones of any democracy is the right of a citizen to have ease of access to the courts of the land to right a wrong or redress an injustice they feel has been meted out to them by the State, an individual, an organisation or a corporate body. A victim of crime has a right to see that justice is done in an efficient, effective and speedy manner. The ordinary citizen has a fundamental democratic right enshrined in the Constitution of ease of access to the courts. It is an inviolable right which must be protected by Ministers for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and by Governments. They must also take prompt action where there is evidence to suggest this right is being denied, inhibited or frustrated. The Bill is a significant response to that problem and the Minister has shown he is determined to uphold and preserve that right in a comprehensive way.

I congratulate the Minister for bringing the legislation forward after only four months in office and shortly after the receipt of four reports in this area. The terms and measures are based on the recommendations of the working group on a courts commission in its third report entitled Towards the Courts Service, published in November last year. As the Minister pointed out, the chief executive's powers are based on the fourth report. I believe the Bill will make a major contribution towards creating a much more efficient courts system. The structures proposed will make the courts more streamlined, focused, unified and integrated in discharging their functions.

I am delighted to see the resources aspects are being examined in detail because they will be fundamental in ensuring this new service works efficiently from the earliest date. There must be training of personnel and, if adequate provision is not made, I earnestly encourage the Minister to ensure it be provided where it is lacking and shortcomings are evident.

I welcome the Minister's decision to utilise the large pool of expertise available. The expertise, experience and knowledge of the workings of the system will be invaluable in the launch of the service and will make a considerable contribution on an ongoing basis.

I also welcome the Minister's decision to direct the new service to computerise its systems. He acknowledged that the system of operations in terms of communications systems and mechanisms is outmoded, belongs to another century and was born of the need for a service which has nothing to do with the wide ranging complexities of and the huge volume of demands on the service at the moment.

Resources directed by a unified body in a focused and streamlined way will ensure the delivery of a far superior service into the next millennium. Radical reforms are proposed in structure and administration which will create far reaching efficiencies thus enhancing the quality of service available to the public and significantly improving the fundamental right of access. The first and second reports of the working group detailed serious delays, major inefficiencies, cumbersome procedures, outmoded practices and poor quality communications systems as contributing to the backlog of cases to be heard in both criminal and civil areas. This chaos gives increased potency to the argument that justice delayed is justice denied.

Part II of the Bill establishes a Courts Service which will have the function of managing the courts and its functions are defined in section 5. I will not go into detail on these as the Minister has already outlined them. I have no doubt they are of tremendous significance and will prove an invaluable part in the successful and smooth working of this new service. Subsequent Parts provide for the establishment of a board to determine policy and appoint a chief executive officer responsible for the day to day operations and management of the service.

This Bill is a clear recognition and acknowledgement by the Minister that the arrangements which have existed since the 1920s, whereby the administrative infrastructure of the courts lay with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, are simply not tailored to meet the demands and requirements of a modern democracy. Recent events in the courts, which regrettably did little to enhance confidence in the courts system, bear stark testimony to the urgent need for radical administrative reform. I do not want to go into any greater detail on that.

I welcome the decision to establish a board in the Courts Service as provided for in Part III of the Bill. Like other Members, I am impressed with its composition which is wide ranging and provides for a broad range of expertise. It comprises of judges from all courts, from the Supreme Court to the District Court, with a good non-legal counterbalance and a consumer representative.

Senator Taylor-Quinn and others questioned the definition of a representative of consumers of services provided by the courts. I am not in a position to give a definitive view as to who that person should be or what category of person should be considered but the decision to include such a person widens and broadens the representation. The presence of an ICTU representative and an administrative/financial expert on the board is equally welcome. Such a broadly based aggregate of interests and expertise will ensure a proper balance is struck and maintained between the internal efficiency needs of the service and its primary role, which is the common good in the discharge of a court system of justice. In this context, it is important to recognise the safeguard in section 9 of the Bill, which ensures that no power or function conferred on any member of the board or on the board itself can at any time interfere with the independence of a judge in the exercise of his judicial duties.

The Minister has given us an historic milestone in terms of court legislation, his anti-crime package and in upholding and promoting the public's right of access to the courts, whether the people involved are victims of crime or feel aggrieved at the hands of public or private corporations.

Ms O'Meara

I wish to share my time with Senator Burke and Senator Hayes.

An Cathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed. Most of the Senator's time slot will be taken after Private Members' Business.

Ms O'Meara

I welcome this significant, historic and long overdue Bill. The setting up of the board is the result of an initiative of the previous Government and it is good to see the current Administration take the proposal on board in its entirety. The Minister indicated that it represents the start of a trend of setting up independent agencies to run not only the judicial system but also, for instance, the Probation and Welfare Service. That would have a beneficial effect, as will this Bill.

I also welcome the legislation because it is considered and based on several well written reports. I join the tributes to Mrs. Justice Susan Denham for her work and initiative in this regard. The legislation is well thought out; it knows what it wants to achieve and it does so. It compares favourably in that regard with the Criminal Justice (No. 2) Bill which we discussed yesterday — that was neither well thought out nor studied adequately. In contrast, this is a fine Bill. As I said, the Bill is long overdue. In his opening remarks, the Minister said: "In recent years a dramatic increase in the number of cases coming before the courts has placed a very severe strain on the administration of justice". I take it he is making a direct connection between the increased business of the courts and the establishment of this service. While the service should have a beneficial effect on the running of the courts, the third report of the working group — entitled Towards the Courts Service and issued in November 1996 — states:

The establishment of an independent courts service is an historic move representing unfinished business since the establishment of the State. In the 1920s under the Constitution of Saorstát Éireann and legislation, the structure of Government was altered and the administrative infrastructure for the courts was placed mainly with the Department of Justice.

It is now the 1990s, which shows how long overdue is this legislation.

It is overdue in other senses also. By placing the management of the courts in the hands of a board we are sending a signal that we trust an independent body to do this job. We are also acknowledging that the Courts Service needs a chief executive and a considerable number of staff to run it. Now that the desirability of efficiency and good management is central to the thinking of Government and private institutions, it is good to see such thinking emerge from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Some people see the provision of good buildings for working and living as a frill but it is much more important than that. The Minister was right to mention accountability and responsibility in his speech. It is crucial that those who have dealings with courts and the justice system — whether they be full-time staff or those with occasional reference to the system, such as jury members, unfortunate victims or witnesses — find it a satisfactory experience. However, people's current experience of the court system is far from satisfactory and much of this has to do with the management of the Courts Service. This legislation, providing for the initiation of an independent board with a chief executive, is therefore welcome. I have no doubt that the new board will do its job well but even if it only half does its job, it will be an improvement on the current position.

The Minister mentioned court buildings; the quality of some of these is extremely bad, which sends a negative signal to those with reason to use the system. In the run-up to the divorce referendum it was drawn to the attention of the then Minister, Mr. Mervyn Taylor, on more than one occasion that people involved in family law cases find themselves in difficult and unamenable surroundings. This is often their only contact with the court system and this urgent matter must be tackled.

The Bill ring-fences the Four Courts building and the Minister mentioned its historic and cultural associations. That building is the most public manifestation of our justice system but if I had my way I would take all court operations out of that building and place it in a modern, streamlined building. This may attract criticism from those who practise in the building but I approach the matter from a consumer viewpoint. The Four Courts is an extraordinary place; it is intimidating and difficult to find one's way around. Both as a member of a jury and in my occasional work there as a journalist I found the facilities appalling. Should we not remove court operations from that building and view it for what it is, a fabulous, historic building with heritage associations? We could put the operation of the courts into a modern building designed for the purpose and which would have the facilities needed for judges, court officials, the media, witnesses and juries.

Debate adjourned.