This is a Seanad Bill which has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 85, it is deemed to have passed its First, Second and Third Stages in the Seanad and is placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. On the question "That the Bill be received for final consideration", the Minister may explain the purpose of the amendments made by the Dáil and this is looked upon as the report of the Dáil amendments to the Seanad. The only matter, therefore, that may be discussed is the amendments made by the Dáil. For the convenience of Senators I have arranged for the printing and circulation to them of those amendments.
Courts Service (No. 2) Bill, 1997 [Seanad Bill amended by Dáil] : Report and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
Members may speak only once on this question. I call on the Minister to make one statement on all the amendments.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform introduced amendment No. 1 last week in the Dáil to meet concerns Deputies had raised on recommendations by the Courts Service as to the appropriate level of court fees. Section 6(2)(e) provides that, at the request of the Minister, the service may recommend to the Minister appropriate scales of court fees and charges. The Minister agreed with Deputies that the power of initiative in this regard should also lie with the Courts Service. I am satisfied the amendment improves the Bill by ensuring that the service will be in a position, both on its own initiative or at the request of the Minister, to recommend appropriate scales of court fees.
Amendment No. 2 would require the Minister to have regard to the need to ensure that the Courts Service Board includes both men and women members in nominating the three members of the board which the Bill provides are to be nominated by the Minister. Those three nominations are an officer of the Minister, a person to represent consumers and court services and a person representing commerce, finance or administration interests. I am satisfied this amendment improves the Bill. It is a practical step as the Minister of the day will have latitude with three nominations when taking into account the issue of the gender composition of the board.
Amendment No. 3 is a technical, drafting amendment. The purpose of section 19 is to provide that the chief executive will be the accounting officer for the purposes of expenditure by the service. The amendment realigns the wording of the section to ensure consistency with the provisions of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act, 1993.
Amendment No. 4 is a drafting amendment which updates the citation in section 23 of the Bill in relation to the Civil Service Regulation Acts.
We have no difficulty with these amendments. The Bill provides that, in nominating three members of the board, the Minister will seek to ensure gender balance. Will the Minister indicate how the full membership of the board is to be nominated?
We do not have a problem with amendment No. 1, which allows the board to initiate a request regarding the recommendation of an appropriate scale of court fees and charges. To what extent does this cover court fees and charges? Does it include the fees and charges of barristers and solicitors in terms of payments in private practice and State legal aid schemes, both of a criminal and civil nature? Will the Minister rather than the Taxing Master have the major role in deciding these scales?
In relation to the nominations I may not have heard correctly, but I thought the Minister said he could exercise the powers given under the amendment only in the area of three nominations in order to achieve a gender balance. There are 17 members of the board, and while it is top heavy with judges I would have thought it would be appropriate to examine gender equity in each of those categories rather than simply referring to practising solicitors and barristers, members of the staff of service, an officer of the Minister nominated by the Minister, a person nominated by the Minister and so on. Is that what the Minister is talking about or is the Minister referring to the member nominated by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions so that a request could be made to the ICTU in relation to gender balance, as is the case in a number of other bodies.
How many gender specific people are we talking about? What rule of thumb is the Minister proposing? Previously we had an indicator that 40 per cent of State boards should have each gender representation. Is the Minister suggesting the Judiciary make their own appointments without suggesting they might choose a balance between the genders? Are we talking about the other areas being the same in terms of the appointment of members to the board? I fully support the amendment, which the Minister tabled at the request of both Houses. However, having done so he should seek to ensure balanced gender representation on the board.
Senator Connor asked about the gender balance of the board. Section 11(1) states the categories of members of the board in paragraphs (a) to (q). The Minister will nominate three members of the board. Amendment No. 2 inserts a new subsection (2) which states the Minister, in making those nominations, must take account of gender balance.
I understand the Minister stated in the Dáil last week that he would ask the nominating bodies to also take account of the need for gender balance. The Minister is obliged to take account of gender balance in making his three out of the 17 nominations and he has undertaken to ask the nominating bodies to do likewise.
Senator Costello raised the issue of court fees, which was the purpose of amendment No. 1. Court fees are not the fees charged by barristers and solicitors but are administration and application fees which must be paid to the court clerk, even in the District Court.
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank Members for being so constructive in accepting the amendments as tabled. I thank the Minister for Finance for safely guiding the Bill through the House.
I thank Senators for their co-operation in progressing the legislation. The Bill was improved through a number of amendments made to it some weeks ago in this House. I am satisfied that the additional amendments made last week in the other House were an important part of the Bill's further refinement. The establishment of a Courts Service represents the most fundamental reform of our courts administration since the foundation of the State. We can be proud of our role in establishing the service and I know we all wish it well in dealing with the many challenges it will face.
Question put and agreed to.