Amendment No. 9 in the name of Deputy O'Donoghue is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.
SECTION 9.
I am amazed it was felt the amendment might involve a charge on the Exchequer. I am confident it would not result in a net charge to the Exchequer. The amendment seeks that provision would be made for the establishment of a permanent High Court in Munster.
The amendment is out of order and cannot be discussed. Amendment No. 9 seeks to have a permanent High Court established in the province of Munster. Given that the High Court, as the Deputy will be aware, only goes on circuit to Munster, its establishment on a permanent footing would entail the establishment of, at least, a permanent High Court building in the province along with the associated administration etc. with which I am sure the Deputy is familiar. It appears clear, therefore, the amendment involves a potential charge on the Revenue and as such cannot be taken.
If one considers the amount of weeks the High Court spends in Munster the amendment would not involve a net charge on the Exchequer. I can make the argument for the record.
We are moving on to amendment No. 9a and perhaps the Deputy may make his points when dealing with the amendments or speaking to the section. However, I will not allow him to move amendment No. 9 or speak on it as it is out of order.
In that case I have no choice.
The Deputy will have every liberty under the section.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 9a, 9b, 9c and 9d are related and all may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 9a:
In page 8, subsection (1), line 5, to delete "18" and substitute "19".
This amendment is to allow for an increase in the statutory maximum number of judges as proposed in the Bill by one; that is, to provide an additional High Court judge. I hoped to be in a position to appoint all 17 of the judges provided for in the Bill and that included two additional High Court judges. I have looked again at the position in the High Court and I feel it appropriate to increase the statutory number of High Court judges by one. If the Minister of the day feels there is a need for an additional High Court judge a judge can be appointed.
Many of the committee members will know the level of delay in the higher courts is extremely serious. In the Central Criminal Court there are delays of up to year in hearing cases and in the High Court there are delays of three years in some instances in personal injury actions and five months in the hearing of family law cases.
I recognise, as other members have said throughout this debate, the enormous workload of our courts and the delays in a number of areas of law. I have inherited responsibility for this — it did not happen in the last nine months, as members who practise law will know. I intend to tackle it and the appointment of additional judges is one of the ways, along with a number of other measures, which I have put into this legislation. It is an appropriate time to add an additional judge to the High Court numbers which I have already put into this Bill and I hope that members see the benefit of that.
In years to come, when the courts have begun to do their work in a much more precipitate way, the maximum number of judges may not always be required. However, it is laid down in Statute how many judges can be in each of the other courts. I wish to take the opportunity to insert into this legislation the relevant maximum numbers so that future Governments will have the latitude to appoint up to that number of judges if they feel the court system so requires. The latitude is also there that the maximum number does not have to be filled — much of our legislation states a maximum number which, for various reasons, does not always have to be filled. It is appropriate to ensure that we do not have to return to this legislation in the future if we find that the High Court cannot cope with the level of cases.
Although Deputy O'Donoghue probably stretched the patience of the Chair somewhat, I listened to what he said and I am sure that he will use this amendment to elaborate on his thoughts on the situation in Munster. The people there often complain about the availability of the High Court in the Munster region. It is a matter which I have discussed at various times with the President of the High Court and I believe there is a flexibility there to ensure that the High Court is available in the regions as it is needed. There are ways for it to be conveyed through the various legal bodies to the president of any court if there seems to be a pressing need for either additional sittings or to change the location of the sitting. Those powers rest with the President of the High Court and I know that he will exercise them with due diligence.
I recommend these amendments to the Select Committee. Amendments Nos. 9b, 9c and 9d are contingent on amendment No. 9a which increases the number of High Court judges from 18 to 19, which is an increase of three rather than two.
I greatly welcome the Minister's amendment whereby she intends to increase the number of ordinary judges of the High Court to 19, which represents an increase of three judges. It is particularly welcome in light of the fact that there are inordinate delays in courts at present, which are worst in Munster. Munster has a number of sittings of the original High Court for personal injuries cases at various times throughout the year as follows: Cork has nine weeks of sittings per annum with two judges sitting at these times; Ennis has six weeks of sittings with two judges sitting and Waterford has four weeks of sittings with two judges sitting. The foregoing amounts to 19 weeks of sittings by two judges, which is equivalent to 38 weeks of sittings by one judge. Cork has two weeks of sittings per annum of the High Court hearing appeals from the Circuit Court by either two or three judges. In the south-western circuit — Kerry, Limerick and Clare — they have two weeks per annum of High Court sittings by two or three judges and Waterford has two weeks of sittings per annum of the High Court by two judges hearing appeals from the south-eastern circuit.
From the above, it is apparent that the number of weeks of sittings by a High Court judge in Munster would occupy a full calendar year. As we all know, the legal year is considerably shorter than the calendar year. For this reason, and due to the huge backlog of personal injuries cases awaiting trial in Munster, it is time for a permanent High Court sitting in the province of Munster. This would obviously make for far greater efficiency and, in particular, it would alleviate the hardship on litigants awaiting the hearing of their cases, particularly aged litigants or persons suffering ongoing losses of earnings. It would cost quite little, if anything — any additional charge on the Exchequer would be inconsequential in terms of the greater efficiency which would be achieved. It is generally accepted that the delays in getting High Court cases to trial is one of the reasons for the high cost of litigation. Accordingly, for a number of reasons, including the minimisation of hardship to litigants and in an effort to reduce the cost of litigation, it would be most desirable to establish a permanent High Court based in Munster.
Furthermore, a division of the criminal side of the High Court, namely, the Central Criminal Court, could also be based there. This would entitle accused persons to be tried on serious criminal matters by their peers, which is a central theme of our criminal jurisprudence. It would also involve a very worthwhile reduction in the substantial costs involved in having Munster cases heard in Dublin, although I am aware that there are provisions in this Bill — and amendments tabled — which would achieve this objective.
I am very conscious of the fact that the Minister has made provision for the possibility of additional judges being appointed to the High Court. However, she did not say that the judges would be in fact appointed but just provided for the possibility. I would have expected her to give a commitment that the judges would be appointed at the earliest possible date and that the necessary buildings and support staff to enable them to carry out their judicial functions would also be provided. I appreciate that the Minister would prefer to make this an enabling provision as opposed to a definitive statement of additional appointments, but everybody involved in the courts system and the public would very much like her to state categorically that the appointments will take place at the earliest possible opportunity.
I am sure that the Minister will reply to the Deputy's comments. I was interested to hear Deputy O'Donoghue speak about the difficulties in Munster and I am sure that Members from other parts of the country will agree that the delays are not confined to Munster. He referred to the calendar year and the long vacation. What powers does the Minister have in regard to the legal calendar? Will she ensure that the management committee which has been set up to review the courts will examine the calendar? I agree with Deputy O'Donoghue.
The reason for the long vacation, whereby the High Court does not sit in the autumn, is that it was impossible to form panels of juries at harvest time, which is a relic from a bygone age. What justification is there for the High Court not sitting in September or early October? Will the Minister confirm or deny that the reason courts do not sit before 11 a.m. is that no train arrived in any assize town before 10.30 a.m.? This is another area which we have not really questioned over the decades.
I did not have time to make a tot of Deputy O'Donoghue's figures but it appears the High Court does not sit for 20 out of 52 weeks in a year. We all welcome the appointment of judges, but one must wonder about a system where 20 weeks pass without a sitting of the High Court. Along with the appointment of judges we must reform the legal calendar.
I agree, Chairman, that if the chaotic position in the courts system is to be improved it will require a range of integrated measures and not simply a numerical increase in the number of judges. However, the fundamental problem is that there are not enough judges to deal with the volume of litigation of all kinds and of all levels of sophistication.
Delays which have been attributed to the courts are responsible for a great deal of trauma to individual and corporate litigants. If cases go on for years or are constantly adjourned or put back due to a backlog in the lists, it severely hampers the proper transaction of commerce and adds greatly to the cost, not only of litigation but of car and house insurance. There is a knock-on effect on everything.
As the Minister indicated, there have been decades of neglect in the area and we need to put the court system on a modern, coherent footing so that it will be a responsive and modern commercial justice system. Nothing has been done since 1927, there has been no review of the quality of the courts service or the management of the courts. The combination of the working party, the courts commission, which will make recommendations for fundamental change and an increase in the number of judges in order to get through the backlog of lists, will make a huge difference.
I agree with Deputy O'Donoghue that appointing new judges to serve in the current chaos and inadequate court space must be considered in an integrated way, through the combination of policy and budgetary decisions by the Minister and recommendations by the courts commission. I broadly welcome the Minister's amendments as they will go a long way towards easing the current congestion which is not in the public interest and is detrimental to overall justice in the State.
In view of the figures quoted by Deputy O'Donoghue, I am more than surprised that his amendment was ruled out of order as imposing an extra charge on the Exchequer. If his figures are correct, the Exchequer would save money by setting up a permanent High Court in Munster. I do not see how it would cost them more, given the number of manhours involved and judges' travelling expenses on each occasion they preside. There is a good case for a permanent High Court in Munster as it would lead to more consistency and would lead to more uniformity, especially in personal injuries awards, which are now decided by a judge alone.
I agree with you, Chairman, that this is not only a question of extra personnel but of productivity. If the time judges sit in a day was increased by one hour, productivity would increase by 20 to 25 per cent. Similarly, if we increased yearly sitting days from the current number of 150 to 200, there would be 33 per cent extra productivity. It is not a question of throwing taxpayers' money at the problem — the courts system is already costing quite an amount. We will be spending more but we must ensure we get proper value for it. I urge the Minister to make a commitment that she will move on productivity, on personnel, as requested by Deputy O'Donoghue, on accommodation and on back-up services, as requested by Deputy O'Donnell.
One area of law in which there will be a substantial increase in business, if certain court cases do not succeed, is family law. The family law system outside Dublin has broken down completely. I am not aware of the position in Dublin but in the country, people in dead marriages are waiting for up to three years for a judicial separation. People are forced to consult with their lawyers outside in the rain as there are no facilities inside courthouses, apart from a crowded hallway where an estranged wife may be consulting her solicitor a few feet away from where her husband is consulting his. The facilities are Victorian and this cannot be allowed to continue. Is it any wonder that the Law Reform Commission, in making recommendations for making changes in family law hearings, described the system as "a sad parody of justice"?
While we fully support the Minister's amendments, which enable her to increase the number of High Court Justices which can be appointed, we need definitive commitments at this meeting on personnel, productivity, accommodation and appropriate back-up services to bring the law into the modern era and provide justice for litigants, who are being treated in an appalling fashion at present, especially the most vulnerable ones.
It is hard to avoid repetition on this point. The difficulty is that the judge on circuit goes to Carlow, Wexford, Waterford, Kilkenny and perhaps south Tipperary — his visit is like the arrival of the swallow. Criminal cases have to be taken first and people going to court have to sit and wait. I received complaints from people that solicitors do not push court cases; but the solicitors are innocent, they cannot do anything. A circuit session might hear only one criminal case which will take a whole day, and then the judge goes off on his galloping horse to the next town. That system might have been all right when trains did not arrive until 10.30 a.m. — and when there were trains — or when harvest had to be collected. But in this age, when crime has increased so much, it is incredible that the same system exists to cater for much greater needs. I welcome the appointment of an extra judge but if the system stays as it is I do not think it will make much difference.
I have participated on Committee Stage when in Opposition and realise that a simple amendment such as this, changing a figure from 18 to 19, gives rise to a wider debate. I will try to the best of my ability to take up the points members made — if I do not have all the answers it is because I could not have anticipated everything which has been raised in discussion on this amendment.
I have the same concerns as members in connection with a number of the issues raised, which is precisely why I set up the working group on the courts commission and why in its terms of reference I asked it to review the courts system having regard to the level and quality of service provided to the public. That relates to everything raised by members, whether it was people forced to consult their solicitors in the rain or had chairs to sit on, to the most basic elements of providing a court service. I ask the commission to make ongoing recommendations to me so that I can implement them on an ongoing basis.
The weight of business going through the courts has placed a great burden on many courthouses around the country, which are almost exclusively owned by county councils. They were set up at a time when far fewer people used or had access to the courts. The new legislation brought in over the last ten to 15 years has added greatly to the burdens of the physical structure of those courthouses.
The working group is meeting. One report of our deliberations yesterday stated I intended to set up a working group. This working group has been set up and has had numerous meetings. Some of the sub-groups are meeting weekly and daily. A number of subgroups have been set up to deal with the particular areas you raise. A special family law sub-group is chaired, as I understand it, by Justice Catherine McGuinness and is looking at the mechanics and workings of the family law area.
I have ensured that improvements to facilities needed by the family law service are recognised as being essential to my programme of refurbishment of courthouses. The facilities in the District, Circuit and High Courts in Dublin include separate courtrooms, consultation rooms and private waiting areas and these are fully adequate to meet the needs of people attending on family law related matters, the legal representatives and the Judiciary. However, I know that outside Dublin the physical structure of the buildings places severe restrictions on the hearing of family law cases.
Courthouses in Letterkenny, Athlone, Galway and Cork have already been refurbished and provide all the necessary facilities for conducting family law cases. These facilities are being provided in the major cities and will be provided eventually in all refurbished courthouses. I will list the places where refurbishment projects are being carried out, first with regard to court accommodation in the courts in Dublin. The Supreme Court was refurbished this year as part of the general refurbishment work. The bench of the refurbished court can now accommodate eight judges presiding at one hearing if necessary. High Court No. 6 has also been refurbished as a second Supreme Court with three judges presiding.
The Office of Public Works is in the process of seeking accommodation for three to five courtrooms to replace the three District Court rooms at present in the Morgan Place wing of the four courts. These three District Court rooms will then be designated as High/Circuit courts. A new Circuit courtroom is just completed in the refurbished public records office and this large courtroom will be particularly suited for jury call over. The court based in Green Street will be moving shortly to that new public records office and it will be possible to accommodate a further courtroom in Green Street courthouse when the staff vacate that premises. A proposal by the Bar Council to build a court complex on their site at Church Street which would be funded by the State has been forwarded to the Office of Public Works for consideration. The Office of Public Works is aware of my Department's requirements and is looking at this proposal and at other options.
Outside the Dublin area £6 million was provided for capital works and £1.5 million approximately for maintenance in courthouses in 1995. That represents a significant increase over previous years. Maintenance projects have been completed in 40 venues, so there is some good news about the court buildings. The total amount provided under the courts subhead is £7. 59 million and we are establishing the priorities. Major refurbishment work has been completed in Athlone, Letterkenny, Carlow phase 1 — I hope Carlow phase 2 will commence as soon as the local authority can sort out the problem down there — Galway, Donegal and at the Model School in Cork city which I recently opened. I have also approved a new courthouse in Carrick-on-Shannon and work has started on that. Refurbishment works are nearing completion in Clonmel, Ballina and Ballinasloe. In conjunction with the Office of Public Works, my Department has recently completed phase 2 of the three phase refurbishment in the Four Courts.
Progress is being made on the physical structures of the courts and I am satisfied that when this Bill is passed and the new judges are appointed, the Judiciary will not be prevented by lack of accommodation from making sure those judges can work. With regard to many of the complaints about the sitting days, the hours they start and why those hours are kept are all matters for the rules committee of the courts. Justice Susan Denham's working group has been given a sufficiently open mandate to look at all those issues and come back with recommendations which I then will be able to put to the rules committee.
As anybody who knows how this system works realises, the rules committee decides the sitting days, the calendars and where and for how long the courts will sit. I will make sure that the relevant people outside this committee, such as the presidents of the courts etc., are made aware of the concerns expressed here by letting them have copies of these debates, because the points raised are not ones that I, as Minister, can address. The rules committee makes those decisions itself.
In regard to Deputy O'Donoghue's point about establishing a High Court in Munster, according to the rules of the superior courts, the High Court sits at three venues — Cork, Limerick and Waterford. The allocation and distribution of the business is a matter for the president of that court. Deputy O'Donoghue has told us of delays in having cases heard. We looked at this — we were requested to do so earlier — but I do not see that the appointment of a permanent High Court in Munster will deal with the level of arrears.
There are serious objections in principle of dividing the High Court into two courts. There is a fear that it could be constitutionally unsound to establish a second permanent High Court which would mean restricting the range of work of the High Court, which is under the Constitution. There is a sense that a second High Court could undermine the collegiate nature of the High Court as it exists now and could lead to a divergence in court decisions and to some kind of inconsistency. There are also practical objections in that a division would reduce the president's flexibility in disposing of the business. The delays in Munster which Deputy O'Donoghue outlined to the committee will be tackled by the new allocation of judges, the effect of which will spread out through the whole system and begin to get rid of all the arrears.
These improvements are not just for Dublin or Munster; they are for the whole country and will give the presidents of the different courts the flexibility to go to the venues where there are the backlogs and tackle them. I could draw an analogy with the Land Registry Office. Until I became Minister for Justice I did not have a great deal of dealings with this office; I dealt with about one or two cases a year, but other Deputies have spilt their life's blood dealing with land registry cases. The Land Registry has sections for each county or group of counties, but it also has a separate section which deals specifically with unloading arrears that are building up in places.
I know the Judiciary is very consious of where these delays are and when it gets these new judges will order the work in order to tackle the areas where the biggest delays are. I have spelt out some of the delays, three year delays in personal injuries and very long delays in family law. I am satisfied that these extra judges will give the Judiciary the freedom to tackle the arrears in an effective way so that we will begin to see justice delivered much faster.
The lack of judges and the fact that there are many cases waiting to be heard are not the only causes of delays. There are many other facets of the system, such as the dealings that barristers and solicitors get into where people reach agreement about cases on the steps of the courthouse. Agreement is always reached after the case has been listed for hearing. No judge has any idea whether as they walk up the steps of the court, six cases might get settled, putting case No. 7 at the top of the queue. Perhaps the people for case No. 7 are not in court. A number of the measures in the Bill will smarten up pre-trial activities so that before people get to the court steps, they might have sorted out their differences. That will in turn help to make the lists and calendars more realistic.
We have had a fairly comprehensive debate on the amendments. Everyone will agree that we have gone far beyond the amendments so I will put the amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9b:
In page 8, subsection (2), line 14, to delete "19" and substitute "20".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9c:
In page 8, subsection (2), line 16, to delete "18" and substitute "19".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9d:
In page 8, subsection (2), line 17, to delete "19" and substitute "20".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.