I want to raise a number of questions in relation to the courts. Most of our court accommodation in this country is appalling. In some areas there are no proper consultation rooms for litigants. With the volume of family law cases coming before the court and the upcoming divorce referendum which has been promised by the Government for next year, we are going to have an influx of family law cases.
The traditional courtroom atmosphere is not the appropriate place to deal with family law matters. The privacy necessary is not suited to the traditional courtroom atmosphere. I ask the Minister what her views are in relation to special family courts? Before we get to the stage of establishing special tribunals, would the Minister accept that the accommodation arrangements of our courts are totally unacceptable? I note from the Estimates that about £1.2 million has been provided for capital expenditure on courtroom accommodation in 1993. How will this money be spent?
Under the 1935 Act, the maintenance and provision of courthouse accommodation is the responsibility of local government. Since the removal of rates in the mid-1970s expenditure on courthouses is almost exclusively provided by the Department of Justice and the Central Fund rather than charged on local government. Confusion about who exactly is responsible for this matter has resulted in its not being a priority of either central Government or local government. Legal personnel who practise in our courts, members of the Judiciary and the Garda Síochána who attend court frequently have all made several complaints to me about accommodation and backup facilities at most of our courtrooms around the country. Could the Minister give details of the proceedings for damages which have been taken against her arising from the condition of courtroom accommodation?
I also wish to ask her about improvements which have taken place at Letterkenny courthouse. I raised this by way of a parliamentary question addressed to the Minister of State. I was to be provided with further information but this has not happened. I was told by a practitioner who frequents that court that despite expensive renovations the standards of refurbishment is such that cases can still not be heard in camera because the rooms are not sufficiently sound-proofed. Could the Minister, if she is aware of the details, comment on this? We should ensure that expenditure is effective in achieving its intended goals.
The President of the District Court has put a training system in place for the US judges of that court. This is a welcome development. It has been a poor feature of our judicial appointment system that no training was required. Not everybody is suitable to sit and adjudicate, certainly not without appropriate training. Training is particularly important in relation to family law matters. I would like to hear the Minister's plans to ensure that training programmes are also put in place by the Presidents of other courts such as the Circuit Court and the High Court.
I strongly support the arguments made this morning about the need to appoint more women to the Judiciary. There is one female judge in both the High Court and the Supreme Court. We should not be satisfied with this level of female representation. I would like the Minister to inform us, if she has the information, of the number of women among the 45 District Court judges and the total number of both Circuit Court and High Court judges.
In addition to needing a higher proportion of female judges we also need an increase in the total number of judges. Civil litigation is an extremely slow process. One normally has to wait two or three years before one can bring proceedings to the High Court. This is unacceptable. Justice which is not speedy is not justice at all. Sometimes cases are delayed because judges are not immediately available to hear them due to the shortage of judges. On other occasions delays are due to courtroom accommodation not being available, resulting in cases having to be postponed.
As we have now concluded debating the Estimates of the Departments for which this committee is reponsible it would be useful if we discussed the reports of the Law Reform Commission, particularly its recent one on sentencing policy. We need appropriate sentencing guidelines and members of the judiciary should meet together in conference to draft these guidelines. However, these may not be followed by all the members of a particular court, some of whom may take a poor view of being told what to do. The more the Judiciary consult with each other and set down their own guidelines, the greater clarity and the less confusion and anomalies we will have.
It is very unsatisfactory that legal representatives can advise their clients of the sentences they can expect from particular judges and the discrepancies between these sentences. There are considerable inconsistencies between the sentences imposed by different judges of the same court. It is obvious that the circumstances of cases will differ from each other but if there is no general consistency or uniformity in sentencing the system will come into disrepute. The Minister said some months ago that she intended to have discussions with the Judiciary. Although I respect the separate roles of the Executive and the Judiciary and the need to maintain the independence of the Judiciary we should, notwithstanding that independence, encourage the formulation of a sentencing policy which will result in greater uniformity in sentencing. This is extremely important.
Although we have had a very constructive Committee meeting today and the Minister has been very helpful, she has not yet answered my question about petitions. There are very few people serving sentences in detention centres for non-payment of fines. Is this because they are successfully petitioning the Minister to waive the fines? I am sure the Minister is aware of the strong opinions expressed by Judge Brennan in Mayo who is imposing fines for breaches of the fishing laws. I saw his comments quoted in last Sunday's newspapers and on other occasions also.
There is no point in our being critical of lenient sentences and giving the DPP the power to appeal such sentences in certain cases, which we have done recently, if we also take the view that tough fines can be automatically withdrawn because there are not enough places in detention centres for those on whom the fines are imposed. There is a wider and more realistic way of dealing with non-payment of fines than imposing custodial sentences but while such sentences are being given we should ensure that they are not brought into such disrepute that the view is taken that there is little point in imposing fines.
On a number of occasions recently I have spoken to members of the Judiciary about this matter. They were all strongly critical of the fact that they were unaware of petitions until they heard about them from gardaí and others. They are greatly criticised when they pass what are regarded as lenient sentences but secretly behind closed doors penalties which they impose are interfered with. This brings the criminal justice system into disrepute, makes the role of the Judiciary more difficult and weakens the deterrent element of our judicial system.