Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Dec 1997

Vol. 153 No. 2

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

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

Senator O'Meara is in possession. She will be sharing her time with Senator Maurice Hayes and Senator Burke.

: At the adjournment of the debate I was speaking about the Four Courts building and I put a view which I have discovered in the interim has a lot of support. That is to move the courts out of the Four Courts building into a modern, efficient and user-friendly building.

A culture has grown up around the Four Courts building which does not relate properly to the public, whom the system is supposed to serve. The Four Courts building should send a signal that supports a modern and open system, one which reflects the type of democracy we would like to have and of which the courts are an essential ingredient. Instead we have a system which is Dickensian in its operation, particularly for the barristers who use the Four Courts. I cannot understand why the barristers who use the Law Library do not object to the conditions in which they must work. The conditions of overcrowding were described to me last week — there is not even space to store personal possessions. I cannot understand how people can work effectively or provide a proper service to their clients in such conditions.

The message given by the court system is that it is elitist and exclusive, whether that message is intended or not. What interest can that message serve in a modern democracy? A more democratic signal would be sent by a building which was modern, open and efficient, which provided services for families, juries and the media. This Bill is a move in that direction, but unfortunately it ringfences the Four Courts.

I welcome this fine, well drafted Bill and I congratulate those responsible for it. I pay tribute to Justice Susan Denham and the working group on the courts' commission. I hope it marks the beginning of a new phase of giving responsibility for areas of the justice system to independent boards and the beginning of a more open style of judicial administration in at least one section of the system.

I welcome the Minister. Most of the essential points have already been made by other Senators. However, I wish to add my tribute to the work of Justice Denham who produced a readable report of remarkable clarity and force which presents clear conclusions argued with force and cogency.

Previously I was peripherally involved in discussions leading to the similar judicature Bill in Northern Ireland. It may encourage the Minister to know that Bill transformed the situation there as I believe this Bill will transform the management of the courts system here. It also enormously improved the morale of those working in the system by giving them a sense of purpose and leadership. I know of no member of staff who transferred to the courts system who did not feel it was better as a result of the new legislation. Like other Senators, I hope the quality of court buildings, particularly in relation to children's court, can be improved. Practising in very inadequate circumstances and surroundings takes away from the dignity of the law. Surroundings should be made inviting for those who find it is a tremendous ordeal to go to court. An unfriendly and inefficient environment is an added burden.

I have not noticed the financial provisions of the Bill, but I presume the strategic plan to be approved by the Minister will be costed. It should include performance indicators such as delays in bringing cases to court. There is a case for judges to come together to develop a consistency in sentencing but it would be wrong to make this a function of the management of the service. However, money will be required and it is important that resources are provided to carry through the development of the court systems.

A Senator said this Bill would bring the Courts Service into the 21st century, which is perhaps over optimistic. I had the honour last year of being invited to attend a tribunal of inquiry in Sydney. The development and use of new technology in the courts there was light years ahead of anything in these islands. It provided an impressive capacity for the retrieval of documents, the exhibition of documents to everybody in the court, and communication from a distance. The resources, but also the expertise, have to be provided to allow this. I hope the board which will run the Courts Service will have the explicit power to train people and develop and run pilot projects.

Like others, I have been lobbied by an Irish language organisation which wishes the Bill to include an explicit statement that the courts have a duty to provide a service for those who wish to use Irish. While such a provision may be implicit in the Bill and the Constitution, it is important that resources be focused to facilitate those who wish to do their business through Irish.

Would it be worthwhile to place a duty on the Courts Service to co-operate with other arms of the public service, particularly the Garda and prison service? An enormous amount of time is lost in remands and escorts and there are possibilities in this context for the use of new technology. I once calculated that we could double the number of hip joint replacements if orthopaedic surgeons were not occupied with court cases.

I notice immunity is being extended to the Courts Service from the planning process. The aim should be to reduce rather than increase the number of bodies which are protected from the planning process. Bodies should have to go through the normal processes which other agencies and citizens have to undergo. Some courts are operating in protected or listed buildings and it is important that such buildings have the full protection of the planning process.

I commend the Bill which is a remarkable example of concepts being quickly marshalled and of a rapid response to a clear and direct report. I commend the Minister on the Bill and wish it well.

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Wallace, to the House and I wish him well in his portfolio. I regret the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is not present. However, I appreciate that he has already spent the day in the House. I congratulate him on his portfolio and wish him luck in his Department. I know he will carry out his duties to the best of his ability. I also congratulate the Minister on initiating a number of Bills in the House during the week. In the last Seanad, a number of Bills were initiated in this House and a number of amendments were made to Bills upon which we had some excellent debates. This House can be a very useful instrument in initiating legislation and the Minster for Justice, Equality and Law Reform realises this.

I welcome this Bill which contains some very fine provisions, although I disagree with others. The Bill appoints a chief executive officer to run the Courts Service and I welcome this. It also provides for a structure to run the courts. I hope it does its business as it is intended to. There is a great need to streamline the courts which, over the past number of years, have become clogged, resulting in extra judges being appointed. Changes have been made in the structures over the past number of years and I welcome this further change.

As public representatives we are familiar with courthouses throughout the country, with many local authority meetings being held in them. A courthouse is a miserable place at the best of times and it is only right that they be brought up to a proper standard of which we can be proud. I hope the chief executive officer will streamline matters, secure the extra funding which is required from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and ensure proper courthouses are put in place.

The Minister said 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 an Accounting Officer and as such will appear before the Committee of Public Accounts. The Minister continued that a wider general obligation on the chief executive to appear before an Oireachtas committee when required by it to account for the general administration of the courts service, including its strategic plan, is contained in section 21. I welcome those important provisions. It is democracy and accountability at its best. Members of the Oireachtas can require the chief executive officer to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts or other Oireachtas committees. He or she will be accountable to the elected representatives of both Houses. We should be proud of these sections and welcome them.

I also welcome a number of other sections with which I will deal in detail on Committee Stage. However, I do not agree with a number of changes proposed in the Bill. Undoubtedly, they have been brought to the attention of the Minister by previous speakers. A specific change is that county registrars will no longer report directly to the Minister or the Cabinet and will be brought within the remit of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the chief executive officer. This is a retrograde step. The Minister is a lawyer and I am sure he realises that is the case. Undoubtedly, he has serious reservations about it. I hope the Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace, and the departmental officials will bring a strong message to the Minister regarding the proposal in the Bill to remove county registrars from the direct responsibility of the Minister.

We must take into account the work of county registrars. They carry out many functions. They are responsible for managing courthouses, staff and the enforcement of court orders. They also have sheriff obligations. County registrars have quasi-judicial functions and the Minister recognises this fact. They also have electoral duties and every public representative has made representations to them over the years at meetings in courthouses about electoral registers. Every county registrar I have known over the years has carried out their functions in an exemplary manner. They have provided a great service to the State and they should be independent of the chief executive officer.

In their role as sheriffs county registrars must carry out their functions in a certain way. He or she must use discretion and they have used this over the years. I ask the Minister of State to make a strong case to the Minister regarding the proposal that county registrars will no longer be directly responsible to the Minister. County registrars have always carried out their functions independently. They were always answerable to the Minister for Justice and the Cabinet and not to the Department of Justice. This position should stand. Their independence is paramount.

On the basis of his speech earlier, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform believes in and supports the Bill. However, the Taoiseach obviously does not have confidence in the Minister. On 12 November 1996, when the Taoiseach was in Opposition, he said in the debate on the proposals for a Courts Service put forward by the then Government that it was a peculiar way to show confidence in the then Minister for Justice to take away more than 50 per cent of her responsibilities in one go. Yet this is what this Bill proposes; many of the Minister's responsibilities will be removed. On that basis it appears the Taoiseach does not have confidence in the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Minister has confidence in the Bill but what is the Taoiseach's position in relation to the Minister?

I compliment Mrs. Justice Susan Denham on the report of the working group on a courts commission. However, I have been informed by a number of county registrars that Mrs. Justice Denham gave an undertaking that there would be consultation between her and county registrars before legislation was dealt with by the Houses of the Oireachtas. This has not happened. The majority of county registrars, if not all, only learned yesterday that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was introducing the Bill in the House today. This came as a great surprise to them because they were assured there would be further consultation between them and the chairperson of the working group, Mrs. Justice Denham.

The report states that established statutory positions, such as the Master of the High Court, county registrars, taxing masters and examiners shall be maintained, except where, to date, they had a formal statutory relationship with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. That shall change to become a relationship with the Courts Service. However, the proposal is a major change to the recommendation in the report. In the Bill, county registrars are removed but taxing masters and others are retained; the country registrars have not been treated according to the recommendations of the working group on the courts commission. The Minister of State should bring this matter to the attention of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. We will table amendments on this matter as it is very serious. It further complicates the issue when Ms. Justice Denham states she would meet the county registrars, who are disappointed at the lack of consultation. The county registrars are the fall guys, and the Minister of State and the Department officials should ask the Minister to right the wrong done by this Bill regarding the treatment of county registrars.

I thank all Senators for their contributions. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform met representatives of the county registrars and he is considering amending the Bill to take their functions into consideration.

The Minister listened to Senators' contributions with interest and I will inform him of contributions he could not hear in person. He appreciates the level of support the Bill has received and is anxious to progress this important legislation, which will achieve major reforms in the administration of the courts. The Courts Service provided for by the Bill is a significant step towards ensuring that the courts will be able to provide a quality service for all parties that come into contact with them. The establishment of the service means we are well on the way to a court system that will be able to meet all demands placed on it as we move towards the new millennium.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Tomorrow. Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 11 December 1997.

Acting Chairman

When is it proposed to sit again?

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.

Top
Share