Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Feb 1998

Vol. 154 No. 1

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

Debate resumed on amendment No. 8:

In page 6, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following new paragraph:

"(b) to establish and manage a statistics unit to compile and publish statistical data on court proceedings,".

— (Senator O'Meara.)

Mr. Connor

I support the amendment proposed by Senator O'Meara relating to the compilation and publication of statistical data on court proceedings. It is a necessary part of the information service we need relating to crime. I was surprised a few months ago when I asked the Garda for certain up to date figures on drug crime to be told they could not let me have them. The amendment is important in the function of providing "information on the courts system to the public" as section 5(c) states. It is eminently reasonable for Senator O'Meara to table this amendment to tie down that function and give meaning to it.

As regards the wider aspect of the Courts Service in the sense of its management of the service of the courts and all that relates to it, last Monday I, along with a friend, attended at the Four Courts to see how the courts system works and to familiarise myself with the role I play here. I spent half the day there going from the District Court to the Supreme Court to the High Court. I was amazed at the level of chaos which exists in the premier court. Part of my knowledge of courts is from reading Charles Dickens when I was a young fellow. He gave wonderful portrayals of what 19th century courts were like in Great Britain. These were similar to the send-ups Gilbert and Sullivan gave in their comic operas of the courts and judicial system in the UK in the late 19th century. Looking around me on that visit to the Four Courts, I wondered how much had changed. There is a lack of user friendliness. Some of those appearing on charges appeared to me to be treated like wretches, given the language used, the contempt with which they were treated and the lack of sympathy shown. The Courts Service must examine that area. The attitude which exists in the courts does not seem to have changed since the 19th century, especially in terms of the language used, although I know it is very precise. It seems it is often meant to intimidate the accused, as it would have in the 19th century. It may not be for the Minister to give instructions to the new Courts Service board. Nevertheless, the courts system is archaic and has not changed. I did not speak on the issue as I was not in the House when it was debated, so I make the point now, although it may not be appropriate to do so on Committee Stage.

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

I appreciate the thinking behind Senator O'Meara's amendment but I am not convinced it would be appropriate. Section 5 sets out the proposed functions of the Courts Service. The first is to manage the courts. This amendment would include the establishment of a statistics unit to compile and publish statistical data on court proceedings. I do not believe it is helpful to try to prescribe in detail how the Courts Service is to be managed. I would go so far as to say it would defeat the purpose for which the Courts Service is being established. If it is to be stated in the Bill that a statistics unit is to be established, it would look odd if it did not also state that there should be a finance unit, technology unit or personnel unit.

That is not to say I do not appreciate and recognise the need for comprehensive and up to date court statistics. I recall as Opposition spokesperson on justice in the Dáil being often greatly frustrated at the absence of statistics relating to certain matters. However, I believe the function of comprehensive court statistics is comprehended by the function of managing the courts which is already enshrined in the Bill. It should also be borne in mind that under section 8 there is a requirement on the Courts Service to submit an annual report to the Minister which, in turn, will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Those reports shall include information on the performance of the functions of the service during the year to which it relates and other information in such form as the Minister may direct. Such reports would include statistical information as a matter of course.

I wish to make it clear that I accept that over the years the criminal justice system has unquestionably suffered from a lack of adequate research. This was very frustrating when I was Opposition spokesperson on Justice. The ESRI was commissioned by my Department to look at the issue of research and, in the light of their findings, for the first time I have included £250,000 in the Estimates for my Department for carrying out research into criminal justice issues. It is important that that research be done, which is why I appreciate the thinking behind Senator O'Meara's amendment.

I envisage the research being carried out by outside agencies such as research departments in universities, and we are drawing up a list of priorities. This is further evidence of the commitment of the Government and the Department to comprehensive and high quality research in the criminal justice area. One of the key issues in this matter is the keeping of statistics by the agencies involved in criminal justice. While I understand the thinking behind the amendment, I have difficulties with it as it is proposed. First, I do not think it is necessary for the reasons I have given. Second, it could distort the balance of the Bill if we sought to include provisions to micromanage how the Courts Service should function.

Senators mentioned the transfer of courthouses to the Courts Service. This is dealt with in section 26. The Minister of the day, who I hope will be me, may ——

Mr. Connor

The Minister should not count his chickens.

Mr. Burke

There are two by-elections.

Mr. O'Donoghue

—— by order, appoint a vesting day in respect of any premises used solely for the purposes to which the functions of the service relate and which immediately before the vesting day were vested in the Commissioners. Whether before or after the by-elections, I anticipate that these premises will be vested in the Courts Service.

Payments to local authorities arising out of those vestings would be inappropriate. It might be seen by local authorities as fully appropriate, but it would not be possible to have the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform paying local authorities or the commissioners arising out the vesting of properties in the Courts Service. The courthouses and other premises are obviously being vested in another statutory body. We are to hold the properties in trust for both compliant and non-compliant taxpayers.

I appreciate Senator Connor's comments. However, Charles Dickens and Rumpole of the Bailey do not reflect the reality of courtrooms in this or any other country.

Mr. Connor

You could have fooled me.

Ms O'Meara

I am disappointed the Minister is not accepting the amendment. It is a reasonable amendment and not one that would tax the new Courts Service to any great extent. It would send a very strong signal that we place a high premium on the regular availability of accurate information. That is not to say that what the Minister says about the organisation's annual report will not be the case. He says that that report will include matters as directed, but that does not specify the compilation and publication of statistics on court proceedings.

The Minister referred to the fact that getting information when in Opposition is not easy. Hardly a week goes by without reference being made to living in the information age, and it is important that our legislation sends a strong signal to both new and old institutions that we place a high premium on the availability and publication of accurate and accessible information. I will not be withdrawing the amendment for that reason.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I am disappointed that the Minister is shying away from the term "statistics unit". He should not be intimidated by this. Senator O'Meara's concept is straightforward. At the end of each court day or the following morning someone should type in the number of cases and classify them as assault, larceny, etc. Half an hour each day would be enough to deal with this. That information could then be fed to a central computer and at the end of every quarter an overall picture of the classification of cases could be given. One could then see the most common and most serious crimes. The information would be available to the Minister, the Department, the Government and any other interested organisation. This is not a major issue. It is a matter of getting the available information without making a big deal of it. The Minister is sensible and will see the sense in this proposal. He should not think of a big statistics office such as those in St. Stephen's Green. He should review his position.

I am not surprised at his response about the local authorities. Kerry County Council, from which he emerged, will be disappointed that he is not prepared to make a financial contribution for the properties they will be transferring to the Courts Service. These are all public buildings vested in various statutory bodies for the use of the public. In the interests of recognising what has been done it would have been opportune to show some gratitude to the local authorities for the work they have done in the past. The Minister should review his position on the amendment.

Mr. Burke

Senator Taylor-Quinn has covered many of the points I wished to raise. I appreciate that buildings and facilities must be upgraded. We need consultation rooms and other facilities in our courts. Does the Minister agree that, when the Courts Service is in place, many rural courthouses will be closed? This is the death knell for rural courthouses and facilities. It will cost an enormous amount to bring rural courthouses up to the standard of those in larger towns. Such upgrading, including the provision of facilities such as consultation rooms, is necessary. However, I cannot envisage such provision in rural areas. If this is the case and the board, in its wisdom, decides to reduce the number of courthouses in a particular county, it could sell those properties and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform would receive a windfall. The Courts Service or the Department should hand back to local authorities courthouses which are outdated and will be no longer used. This is a reasonable suggestion and I would like to hear the Minister's views on it. Should an amendment to that effect be brought forward?

Mr. O'Donovan

The Minister has already addressed this issue as regards courthouses and their conditions, etc., most councils, including my own in County Cork, would be glad to hand over responsibility for these courthouses. Out of ten or 11 courthouses in my constituency, only three are owned by councils. Others are community halls which are leased for two or three hours every second month. I see no difficulty with this.

I accept the sincerity of Senator O'Meara's amendment, but the thrust of the Bill is to reform the courts system — we should not lose sight of this — and to bring the system from the 19th into the 21st century. This Bill will achieve this by setting up a board and by the appointment of a chief executive. It is my understanding that the chief executive and the new board will have responsibility for statistics and the proper correlation of such matters. The chief executive is obliged to lay an annual report before the Houses of the Oireachtas, ensuring all these matters can be dealt with. Responsibility will rest with the chief executive and the board both of whom are answerable to the Oireachtas.

Another aspect of this legislation is the distancing of the day to day running of the courts from the Minister. The Bill provides for a severe derogation of power to the board and the chief executive. It is their function to ensure that, over the next few years, there will be state of the art technology and statistics available in courthouses, to the Garda and others who administer the courts. The Minister has responded appropriately to the amendment and I hope Senator O'Meara withdraws it.

Mr. Connor

I do not wish to delay the proceedings of the House. I join with Members on this side of the House who have spoken in favour of Senator O'Meara's amendment. What is sought will not cost much money or trouble. The amendment refers to information technology and the proper keeping of information.

In the context of court archives, we should ensure that a comprehensive bank of information is kept which will eventually become an archive. About 1850 an ancestor of mine engaged in legal action with the local landlord in the High Court. I was amazed that I was unable to find any archival material relating to the case. It is extremely important that court archives are well kept. The keeping and publication of good information is related to Senator O'Meara's amendment.

Senator Burke said that in certain areas there could be a threatened loss of court sittings; for example, there was a threat that High Court and Circuit Court sittings would be removed from certain provincial towns. The centralisation of the courts system in the Four Courts has proved chaotic. We need to decentralise the system. In conversation today Senator O'Donovan made the valid point that a High Court judge should be designated to certain regions and sit permanently in, for example, the western region, the southern or south western region, etc. This would replace the present position of all cases being dealt with in the High Court. The High Court goes on circuit throughout the country but this is not adequate. A number of trivial issues end up in the High Court in Dublin, clogging the entire system. This was the clear indication I got from examining the system over a day.

Mr. O'Donoghue

We are establishing a new Courts Service to manage the courts. The last thing I wish to do is to tie the hands of the service by including in the legislation specific provisions such as a statistics unit. If I follow that route I will interfere with the independence of the service. The philosophy behind the legislation is that the Courts Service should be independent of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and, consequently, of the Minister. The Minister will remain accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas for the courts and the legislation includes mechanisms to ensure this.

The Courts Service is intended to be well equipped to manage the courts. If we cannot trust the service to keep statistics and to keep up to date in the context of technology, I humbly suggest we are wasting our time. There is no logical reason I should send out signals regarding statistics and not send out signals concerning technology, personnel, etc. The third report of the working group on a courts commission recommended the establishment of a statistics unit as part of the management process of the service. It also recommended the establishment of other management processes, including audit, computerisation, etc. The working group did not recommend that we legislate for a statistics unit.

The thrust of this amendment is comprehended by the broad management functions set out in section 5. Section 8 of the Bill requires the service to make an annual report to the Minister on its activities. Section 8(1) states that the report must be laid by the Minister before both Houses of the Oireachtas while section 8(2) provides that the report shall include information on the performance of the functions of the service and other information which the Minister may direct be included in the annual report.

The annual report requirements, with other provisions of the Bill, are intended to support the obligation of the Minister to be accountable to Dáil Éireann. Section 8 will provide that the Minister may obtain information from the Courts Service in relation to specific matters and matters of general policy to allow the Minister to fulfil the role of being accountable to the Dáil. Clearly, that would include the entire question of statistics and other information which might be required by Members of the House.

With regard to the question of closures of court venues, it is true that the Bill enables the Courts Service to designate court venues. It would be incongruous if the legislation did not provide a Courts Service intended to manage the courts with the power to designate court venues. This function is at present carried out by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in relation to the District Court. The service will determine whether a court will sit in a particular location. This does not mean that the issue of possible closure by the service of court venues arises in that context. The Bill does confer on the Minister significant powers in relation to the formation of the Courts Service's strategic plan and I would suggest that any concern which may arise in this area could be dealt with in that context. I do not wish to direct the Courts Service as to how they should manage the courts. If I do that I shall be defeating the purpose of the legislation and telling the Courts Service that I do not trust them. What would be the point in establishing a Courts Service if the Minister did not trust the service?

With regard to statistics, I am satisfied that the new Courts Service which is being formed to manage the courts will use whatever technology is required to gather and disseminate the sort of information of which Senator O'Meara has spoken. Notable cases are dealt with in reports which can be obtained in law libraries.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Acting Chairman (Dr. Henry)

Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 24 and 32 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Ms O'Meara

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 6, paragraph (d), line 36, to delete "and".

These amendments relate to the operation of the courts through the medium of Irish. They ensure that, instead of paying lip service to the the use of Irish and to the rights of Irish speakers, we enshrine those rights in legislation.

In 1993 the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, issued guidelines to all Departments and State organisations stating the necessity of ensuring that all public services were made available through the medium of Irish and English. It is clear that guidelines are not sufficient. Irish speakers who live in Gaeltacht areas and elsewhere cannot depend on guidelines to ensure that State agencies will provide an effective level of service through the medium of Irish and that the rights of Irish speakers are guaranteed. Delivery of State services in Irish must be given legislative effect. This is the purpose of this series of amendments. It seems extraordinary that a Bill must be amended to ensure that linguistic rights are underlined. One would have thought it could be taken for granted that service in Irish would be available from all State bodies to those who wish to use it as their first language, but it cannot.

In most parts of the country the demand for service in Irish in our courts is not great. In Gaeltacht areas, however, the linguistic rights of Irish speakers are not being protected. The present practice in Gaeltacht areas is that courts operate through English and are only obliged to hear cases in Irish if that is the wish of the plaintiff or defendant. This situation should be reversed. Courts in Gaeltacht areas should function through the medium of Irish as a matter of course and court users should not have to insist on their right to use Irish.

We recognise that linguistics rights are human rights. To be allowed to conduct one's business in one's native tongue is a basic right. A Bord na Gaeilge report has established that the public will not use Irish in their dealings with State bodies if they perceive that the quality of the service is not of an acceptable standard. State bodies must take a pro-active approach to the delivery of services through the medium of Irish. This will only be ensured if it is given legislative effect.

Amendment No. 13 will ensure that planning for the delivery of both Irish and English will begin immediately. An earlier amendment attempted to give the Courts Service an Irish title but it was not accepted. I urge the Minister to end long years of paying lip service to the Irish language and to recognise the fact that a voluntary code and a set of guidelines is not sufficient in ensuring the linguistic rights of our citizens.

Mr. Connor

I support Senator O'Meara's amendments. Linguistic rights are human rights. It used to be a primary aim of the Minister's party to restore the Irish language. That no longer appears to be the case.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

Remaining in power is now more important.

Mr. Connor

It is also true that if there is a doubt about the interpretation of any provision of the Constitution, the Irish language version is used to determine its definitive meaning. The Minister should bear that in mind in considering these amendments.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

At a time when there is a great deal of discussion about minority languages, particularly in the European Union where Ireland is one of the member states seeking recognition for such languages, it is important that this issue be raised in the context of the administration of justice in this country.

Fluency in the Irish language should be a factor in the appointment of court officers. Irish is supposed to be our first language, although it is only in recent years that it has become trendy to be fluent in the language. That is a welcome development. It is equally important that officers appointed to the Courts Service should be fluent in Irish, particularly if they are dealing with Gaeltacht areas. Judgments in certain cases could conceivably depend on the understanding between the presiding judge and those before the court. Fluency in Irish is an important factor in such cases and a requirement of fluency merits serious consideration. I hope the Minister will give these amendments such consideration.

Irish is our first language and all citizens are expected to have a measure of fluency, particularly as everybody has spent about ten years studying the language in primary and second level education; some of us have even studied it at third level. Despite this, however, our level of fluency leaves much to be desired. What that says about our education system is a debate for another day.

As Senator Connor pointed out, the Irish language version of the Constitution takes precedence over the English version when its provisions are being interpreted. That is an extremely important consideration and it can be the deciding factor in substantive decisions with regard to the Constitution.

Mr. Burke

I support the amendments. I represent a Gaeltacht constituency and it is important that at least some officers should be fluent in Irish and capable of providing a service in both Irish and English. With regard to the section——

Acting Chairman

The Senator can comment on the section when the amendments have been disposed of.

Mr. O'Donoghue

Ba mhaith liom my bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na Seanadóirí mar gheall ar an méid atá ráite inniu ar ár dteanga. Tá sé an-tábhachtach ach go mbeidh athrú san Bille seo chun ár dteanga a chur ar aghaidh agus chun cinn. Tá sé an-tábhachtach do na daoine atá ina gconaí sna Gaeltachtaí agus daoine eile a bhíonn ag labhairt na Gaeilge de ghnáth.

I thank Senators for their comments on behalf of our native language. I agree that the Irish language should be recognised in this legislation. It is important not only for the sake of the language but also for the sake of people who live in Gaeltacht areas and ordinarily speak Irish and for those outside Gaeltachta who prefer to speak Irish. My amendment seeks to insert a new paragraph (d) to section 7(2) which provides that the strategic plan of the Courts Service should have regard to Government policy on promoting bilingualism. It requires in particular that regard should be had to the need to ensure that an adequate number of staff at the service are competent to provide service in Irish as well as English.

It is essential that the Bill recognises the importance of the right to use Irish in legal proceedings which have been recognised by the courts and the need to ensure that persons who wish to use Irish for official purposes should not be inconvenienced any more than those who use English. Senators spoke strongly about the need for the Courts Service to provide in the Bill for Irish language services. I have consulted with my colleague, Deputy Ó Cuív, Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, and I am satisfied that the amendment I propose is the most effective way to ensure that the Courts Service has a statutory responsibility to provide services through the medium of Irish in the future.

Section 7 provides that the strategic plan of the service must be submitted to the Minister and laid before each House of the Oireachtas. The Minister has the power to approve the strategic plan with or without amendment. This provision gives the Minister a significant role in relation to the strategic plan. Under the criteria set out in paragraph (c) relating to the best use of the service's resources and under the proposed paragraph (d), provision of an Irish language service must be observed in the formulation of the service's strategic plan. A particular concern in this regard is the provision in the plan in respect of the delivery of service in Irish in court offices serving areas where Irish is in general use.

Senator O'Meara's amendments are the same as those proposed and circulated by Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge. They seek to ensure that all the services and facilities of the courts are available through the medium of Irish and English and that courts operating in Gaeltacht areas function through the medium of Irish; that the strategic plan of the service should contain details of how the service intends to ensure the effective delivery of its services and the services of the courts through the medium of Irish to residents of the Gaeltacht and to Irish speakers who live outside the Gaeltacht; that there will be represented on the board a person who, in the Minister's opinion, has relevant knowledge and experience of the effective delivery of services through the medium of Irish and who is nominated by the Minister after consultation with such bodies as the Minister considers are representative of such interests in the State and that the board should ensure that the number of staff appointed in each grade should include a sufficient number whose competence in Irish is such as to ensure that the service can effectively deliver all its services through the medium of Irish and English.

The Government amendment is similar to amendments Nos. 13 and 32 in that it seeks to underpin the Government policy to promote bilingualism and, in that context, to ensure that staff can provide a service through Irish and that this is done in the context of the service's strategic plan. The other amendments proposed by the Senator would make it mandatory for the service to provide all its facilities and services through Irish as well as English. This might be interpreted to mean that every court in the country would be equally in a position to provide services through Irish or English. While this is a desirable objective, it would place too great a burden in the short term on the Courts Service. If the Department had to ensure that the Courts Service would be in a position to comply with those requirements, the effect of accepting the amendments might be likely to delay for a considerable time the establishment of the Courts Service.

I am reluctant to amend the constitution of the board in the manner proposed by the Senator. The board comprises members who are representative of groups or bodies with a direct function and relationship with the Courts Service. The new requirements proposed to be inserted in section 7 will, of themselves, ensure that the board will have the effective delivery of services through Irish on its agenda.

Overall, my response to Senator O'Meara's amendments is that I consider that the current legislative provisions and the case law relating to the use of Irish in legal proceedings taken together with my amendment to section 7 are sufficient to ensure that persons wishing to conduct their business through Irish in the courts can be appropriately facilitated. In particular, the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, provides that as far as practicable a district judge or judge of the Circuit Court assigned to an area which includes an area where the Irish language is in general use shall possess such knowledge of Irish as would enable that judge to dispense with the assistance of an interpreter when hearing evidence in Irish.

My amendment arises from consultations with my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, who has responsibility for both the Gaeltacht and the State's policy on bilingualism. What I propose goes a long way to meet what I describe as the understandable concerns which have been raised and which I share. I propose a practical recognition of the importance of the Irish language. The approach would not result in delays in the establishment of the Courts Service which would be the unintentional effect of Senator O'Meara's amendments. In the circumstances, I ask the Senator to consider withdrawing her amendments. Tá mé an-bhuíoch don Seanadóir as ucht an méid atá ráite aici ar son ár dteanga inniu.

Ms O'Meara

I appreciate the Minister's amendment. Reference was made to a strategic plan which is exactly what this is. The series of amendments I tabled are more specific. The Minister was correct to say they are guided and proposed by Comhdháil Náisiúnta na hÉireann, representatives of which were here this afternoon to listen to the debate. A plan is largely aspirational and the legislation sets out a laudable one in terms of what it might include. I thank the Minister for including proposals on the most beneficial, effective and efficient use of resources of the service. On the use of the Irish language, the strategic plan does not go far enough in terms of what we are trying to achieve. While I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply, I will not withdraw my amendments.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 10 not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Cosgrave

I would like to ask the Minister about the general management of the courts, particularly those of which I am sure the Minister is well aware. I am sure Senator O'Donovan would agree with me on the general condition of courts. I refer to the functions of the service in managing the courts, providing support services for judges, providing, managing and maintaining court buildings, providing facilities for users of the courts and providing information on the courts system to the public. I am sure the Minister is aware that appearing in court can be a frightening experience for witnesses — I am not talking about doctors or other experts who will have probably been to court a couple times — who have not been to court previously and who must appear as a witness on behalf of a plaintiff or defendant.

On facilities for the users of the courts, call-overs take place in the District Court in Dolphin House. I am sure the Minister will agree that at times some of these courts are grossly overcrowded. Will he talk to the chief executive and others to ensure these difficulties are resolved? I am sure the Minister has been in a court where, if the appropriate fire officer was as vigilant as he should be, business would not be allowed to continue, which is not helpful to judges, the practitioners, solicitors or barristers and people in the court.

I ask the Minister to elaborate on where he sees us going from here. Some courts are in good condition, some need general improvement while others need much work. Does he have a plan in relation to section 5 and on how the Courts Service will operate? Some of the matters I raised were mentioned on Second Stage. The Minister might enlighten us whether he agrees with some of the issues I raised and if he believes the matters mentioned will be dealt with when the Courts Service comes into operation.

On providing information on the courts system to the public, does the Minister envisage providing information to schools or a better system? Some people, including those on traffic summonses, who have not been to court before and who, hopefully, will not be again, do not know where to go. Perhaps the Minister will expand on section 5.

Mr. O'Donoghue

The functions of the Courts Service are set out in section 5. Part of its functions is the maintenance, provision and management of the court buildings. I envisage the Courts Service making its own decisions on how best courthouses should be maintained and provided, and I anticipate that the Courts Service will have this as one of its main functions. I do not envisage any interference from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I accept there are courthouses which are, to say the least, inadequate for the purpose for which they are used. I hope to see the Courts Service improving courthouses and facilities generally.

I trust this explains section 5 in so far as it relates to the provision, management and maintenance of courthouse premises and responds to the queries raised by Senator Cosgrave.

Mr. Cosgrave

Has there been any discussion about the operation of section 5 (c)? Will there be explanatory leaflets or is something else envisaged? There will be a certain cost involved in managing and maintaining court buildings, so if the Courts Service seeks money to repair or replace courthouses will that be forthcoming?

Mr. O'Donoghue

I am here not to state categorically what money might or might not be forthcoming in the context of this legislation but to have the Bill passed. However, I want to be as helpful as possible. The Courts Service is being set up to manage independently the courts and many of the questions which the Senator properly poses can only be answered by the service. There was discussion of section 5 (c) because it was considered by the courts commission.

In due course, the question of how to disseminate this information will be decided by the Courts Service. In addition, an information officer in the Four Courts has been appointed recently. The implementation of the provisions in section 5 is a matter for the Courts Service and it would be wrong of me to seek to interfere with its independence by suggesting how it should do its business, especially since the functions set out in the section relate to the service, not to me. I am confident the service will carry out those functions in a professional, efficient and effective manner.

Mr. Cosgrave

I appreciate that the Minister will not interfere with the Courts Service but he is introducing the Bill and I presume he will have an input through appointing a member to the board, etc. Does he accept that appearing in court for the first time can be a daunting experience for someone who is, for instance, a witness to a traffic summons or appearing for himself in a minor case where he does not want to incur extra costs? Should there not be a system of information available to him? In some cases, a local Garda sergeant also acts as information officer. One hopes that such a person's first experience in court will be his last but it can be a daunting ordeal and the system could be improved. Will the Minister communicate my concern about this matter, without interfering with the Courts Service?

Mr. O'Donoghue

Section 5 (c) recognises the problem highlighted by Senator Cosgrave, that is, the public's lack of information about the courts system. The provision has been inserted to give the Courts Service the power to inform the public about the system. I agree with the Senator that going to court can be traumatic and the provision of information should alleviate people's concerns in this respect. How the Courts Service disseminates the information is a matter for itself but section 5 (c) is designed to ensure the service will provide information and I have no doubt it will do so successfully.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Amendment No. 11 not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Burke

I spoke briefly about this point on section 5 but was not happy with the Minister's reply. Section 6 (a) and (f) provide that the board can hold and dispose of property and can designate court areas and venues. The Minister is a reasonable man; does he envisage that any properties which close would revert to local authorities?

Mr. O'Donoghue

It is not the intention of the legislation to close courthouses, no more than it is intended to close court venues. I have addressed the question of vesting courthouse premises in the Courts Service — the service will become the owners of the properties in question and, as such, will have rights of disposal over the property, just as any other State agency has such powers. It would be wrong of me to circumscribe those powers in a manner which would oblige the Courts Service to pay local authorities or the commissioners the proceeds of such sales. I envisage improvements to courthouses and the provision of further courthouses by the service but do not envisage the closure of courthouses by the service. Any such proposals would be part of the strategic plan and I have outlined the input which the Minister of the day will have. I hope that deals comprehensively with the Senator's concerns and that he is now satisfied there will not be a unilateral closure of court venues. It is my sincere hope that any disposal of courthouses or premises would be for the purpose of acquiring or building new premises where that is seen to be desirable by the Courts Service. The legislation is designed not to close court venues or courthouses but to improve our courts service. In that context, the improvement of courthouses is one of the matters I wish the Courts Service to address. Undoubtedly it will address it, given the widespread powers which will be conferred on it by the Bill, through the exercise of its independent functions.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Government amendment No. 12:

In page 7, lines 35 to 38, to delete paragraphs (b) and (c) and substitute the following new paragraphs:

"(b) be prepared in a form and manner in accordance with any directions issued from time to time by the Minister,

(c) have regard to the need to ensure the most beneficial, effective and efficient use of the resources of the Service, and

(d) have regard to the Government policy on bilingualism and, in particular, to the need to ensure that an adequate number of staff are competent in the Irish language so as to be able to provide service through Irish as well as English.".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 13 not moved.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Dardis)

There is a printing error in amendment No. 14. The word "shall" should appear after "subsection (1)".

Ms O'Meara

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 8, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following new subsection:

"(2) A report under subsection (1) shall include information on the activities of any committee having functions in relation to the making of rules of court during the year to which it relates.".

This amendment is consistent with earlier amendments on the subject of information and deals specifically with the inclusion of information on the activities of any committee having functions in relation to the making of rules of court during the year to which it relates. It is straightforward and self-explanatory. However, it is important when reports are made that the activities of any additional committees or sub-committees, particularly in relation to the making of rules of court, are included. I urge the Minister to take the amendment on board.

Mr. O'Donoghue

Section 8 provides that the Courts Service each year will report in writing to the Minister on its activities. I outlined this matter earlier. The Bill provides that the report, which will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas, shall include information on the performance of the functions of the service during the year to which it relates and such other information in such form as the service thinks fit or the Minister may direct. The amendment seeks to impose a requirement to deal with one specific issue in the annual report relating to court rules committees. I have two difficulties with the amendment.

First, for good reasons, the section as it stands does not purport to contain a comprehensive list of headings under which that report is to be compiled. In those circumstances, to include only one specific heading — in this case to court rules committees — would distort the balance of the section. Second, the Bill does not alter the statutory basis on which the court rules committees operate. In those circumstances, including the amendment would place a statutory requirement on the Courts Service to report on something for which it is not directly responsible.

There is a wide range of information which is expected to be included in the annual report of any State body. However, it is not desirable to specify those in great detail in the Bill. In these circumstances, if the requirement was included as the amendment proposes in relation to one specific issue, it would raise obvious questions why a whole range of other headings are not included.

The general approach taken in the Bill is correct. It provides the broad framework in which the Courts Service will operate rather than adopts a prescriptive approach. The Bill also includes a fail safe mechanism that the Minister may direct certain information to be included in the annual report. In all the circumstances, I cannot support the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 8 agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 15, 18, 28, 29, 31, 34, 38, 43 and 45 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Connor

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 8, line 24, after "judges" to insert "or County Registrars".

Section 9 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—

(a) a judge in the performance of his or her judicial functions, or

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

The amendments relate to the position of county registrars under this legislation. The Minister is aware that county registrars are independent officers — the position was established in an Act relating to the courts in 1926 — and they continue to have several independent quasi-judicial roles.

The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that aspect is enshrined in the Bill. The area of Courts Service will not be revisited in terms of legislation for a long time. Therefore, the amendments are important and I hope the Minister will support them. Government amendments may meet our concerns, but we await the Minister's response to these amendments. I do not wish to delay the House as the debate must be suspended at 6 p.m. I want to hear from the Minister before the proceedings adjourn.

Acting Chairman

The debate will resume at 8 p.m.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

This is a most important section and this side has tabled a number of amendments on the position of county registrars. It was stated on Second Stage that county registrars have a specific role in the judicial system and in terms of the Courts Service. They have specific quasi-judicial functions and it is most important that legislation does nothing to diminish, dilute or impinge on them.

These functions are enshrined in legislation. They emanate from the essence of democracy governed by the Constitution and they are fundamental to the rights of citizens and the democratic system. This aspect relates to the fundamental issue of democracy versus bureaucracy which must be addressed. It is time the Minister and politicians in general took a stand and stated that democracy and elected politicians must take precedence over bureaucracy. We are the elected representatives of the people and we are accountable to them in this and the other House. We are accountable, but bureaucracy is an arm of Government working in the interests of the State in general. When bureaucracy supersedes democracy we will be in a very serious situation.

Any proposal in any legislation which attempts to dilute the role of county registrars is a fundamental attack on the essence of democracy. County registrars hold a specific semi-judicial function in every county. The Minister as a politician, lawyer and public representative is aware of the extended roles and functions of county registrars. The day county registrars are not appointed by a Minister, irrespective of party, will be a sad one for democracy. Politicians should stop kowtowing to the media and bureaucracy and apologising for our existence. A few of us have sinned in the past, but this does not mean we should all be tarred with the same brush and that that we should transfer the powers vested in us under the Constitution, the rules of this House and legislation elsewhere. It is vital that we do not do that. It is time for the elected Members of the Oireachtas to take a stand in the interests of public representatives and democracy.

The appointment of county registrars is vested in the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform under the 1926 Act. We have tabled an amendment to section 10 of this Bill which is being taken in this group of amendments.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.