Amendments No. 84 and 85 are related and may be discussed together.
SECTION 22.
I move amendment No. 84:
In page 18, subsection (1), line 35, to delete "£25" and substitute "£20".
Section 22 relates to the jurisdiction of proceedings relating to a matrimonial home with a rateable valuation not exceeding £25. Because no general countrywide revaluation has ever taken place there is no uniform relationship between all these on the current market values of houses in different localities and different periods. It would seem to me to be a reflection of the value of £25 as being on the high side. In certain areas it could relate to properties that have a value above the limit I would consider appropriate for the District Court. For that reason I am proposing in this amendment to reduce the limit of the valuation from £25 to £20.
What is the minimum value he considers appropriate to the District Court? I would then like to respond to the proposed amendment, Chairman. It may not be necessary to do so but I would like to hear what the Minister says.
I would say something in the region of £30,000 to £40,000.
I want to say something general about the Minister's amendment and about this section because there is a trend in what the Minister is doing. It relates to the Matrimonial Property Bill but it relates to other matters also and I believe it is a matter of grave concern. There has been widespread public disquiet for a long time about the disparity of approaches by members of the Judiciary and the different court levels in dealing with family law matters. Indeed, I can recall some 20 years ago, I think it was the first occasion when I stated the need for family courts and family tribunals. I believe a family court is a better phrase than tribunal. At that stage everybody thought it was a rather odd and unique idea but it has now become part of the theology of reform that there is a need for family courts.
The reality is that nothing has happened. There is now a problem that is going to be exacerbated by this Bill and by other Bills the Minister is planning and it is a trend. Family law and the determination of disputes relating to couples whose marriages have broken down is becoming increasingly more fragmented between three different sets of courts, the District Court, the Circuit Court and the High Court. It means that when a wife or a husband find themselves in court, be it a property dispute under this legislation in relation to the matrimonial home or a dispute pursuant to section 19 or a family law matter, they become engaged in a game of judicial roulette. I presume it is the Minister's intention that section 19 disputes, which used to be confined to the Circuit or High Court will now be dealt with in the District Court. The Minister might clarify this for me.
At all levels of courts, be it the District, Circuit or High Court, you may get a judge who is compassionate and sensitive with a great deal of insight and legal knowledge, who deals carefully and sensitively with resolving a marriage problem and sorting out the conflict between a husband and wife to allow them to make reasonable future arrangements to live apart or to deal with whatever matter is in dispute between them. However, it may also be said there is an equal possibility of getting a judge who does not have that degree of compassion or sensitivity or legal knowledge. Instead of helping to resolve matters in a practical and sensible way in applying the law, such judges can make things worse for both parties who are before the courts.
That is a big problem. For a long time I have been saying we need this Government to commit itself to establishing a unified system of family courts that would have judges who are specially trained, and who have come from the current Judiciary and who have good track records in dealing with family problems. People's difficulties would be resolved by the application of the law and an approach that did not make life worse for the couple.
What the Minister is now doing is sending property disputes to the District Court where a husband and wife may make claims and counter claims not only about the ownership of a family home but perhaps other business property. The Minister is saying it may be property worth £30,000 or £40,000. I do not want people to think I am exaggerating because it does happen and it happens quite frequently when marriages break down. There may be more than one property. What happens if there are two properties worth £35,000 or £40,000? Let us assume a couple want to separate. They are arguing about two different properties, the total value of which is £80,000. Will they come to the rateable valuation the Misister is outlining? They are arguing about their children, who should have custody and they are arguing about support payments. It is the Minister's plan apparently to give he District Court power to make capital or lump sum payment orders.
What I can say to the Minister, and what everyone in this House knows who has any experience in this area is that the District Courts are snowed under with family law cases and cannot cope with the demands made on them. Not enough time is made available to some District Court areas for a reasonable hearing in family cases and that is not the judge's fault. It is often simply the pressure of the number of cases the judge has to deal with. In some District Courts there is insufficient time made available and the back-up facilities are not available. We recently heard that the probation and welfare service had been more or less told by this Government to stay out of family disputes and problems. Currently district judges who want to get family welfare reports in the area of custody disputes, where applications are made by a wife to bar the husband from the family home, may find that the probation and welfare office does not have the personnel to prepare reports in any sort of a reasonable time.
I have a view of this which is that we need a system of family courts with a uniform approach, involving members of the Judiciary with proper legal training and proper insight into family problems to deal with marital problems when they come before the courts to be resolved. I also have a view that if you have such a system and if it is put in place in a way where it works in an efficient manner it may greatly reduce the level of legal expense people currently incur.
I have grave doubts about the capacity of the District Court to take on another jurisdiction in dealing with the resolution of property disputes which the Minister is now asking us to do. He is asking members of the District Court judiciary to make decisions in an area of law with which a large number of them may not be familiar. This may be a recipe not for resolving problems more speedily but for a large number of District Court decisions about ownership of property ending up in the Circuit Court. There is a problem here. I am saying this quite clearly to the Minister. I know he has other plans to extend further jurisdiction to the District Court. Many people who may want to use the District Court or the Circuit Court in this area may seek legal aid through one of the Government law centres and very often it is the wife who is dependent on the legal aid. The husband may have all the property in his name. The wife on legal aid may have substantial claims to a share in property owned by her husband but may not be able to protect her interests or litigate her rights where a husband is being unreasonable without going to court.
Currently we have law centres closed all over the country. The Minister knows that the law centres cannot cope with representing people even in the District Court on maintenance and custody claims because he is trying to put in place a scheme through private solicitors where they are being asked for a sum of £75 to process District Court cases. That scheme is designed to ensure people go to court, that they get poor legal representation and a fire brigade service that certainly will not lend itself to a considered approach to resolving their family problems. Presumably, the Minister will want this new jurisdiction to fall under that scheme as well.
There is an air of unreality about this. It is an attempt to put on the Statute Book legislation which gives the impression that things are improving. However, when people try to benefit from it, they will find it exists in theory only; they cannot avail of it within a reasonable period regardless of whether the District Court, the Circuit Court or the High Court is asked to determine matters. Reducing the rateable valuation from £25 to £20 will certainly take houses valued in the region of £100,000 out of the jurisdiction of the District Court but I am not sure it is wise to confer an additional jurisdiction on a court that cannot cope with its current workload.
I do not know what plans the Minister has to increase the number of district judges, in order to provide better facilities in the District Court and to ensure that people who go to court get proper legal representation. At present some people whose marriages have broken down and are seeking legal advice will be told at law centres that if they cannot afford to go to a solicitor in private practice, they might have to wait six or eight months to gain access to a lawyer. That is not good enough. A wife who needs to go to the District Court with a maintenance claim should not be left in that position. The Minister is going to complicate that area even further.
I have no objection to the Minister reducing the rateable valuation. I do not want any member of this committee to say I want to keep it in the Circuit Court because lawyers will make more money out of it. That is not the point. If the man or woman whose marriage has broken down cannot resolve their problems by agreement we must provide a modern legal service to allow them to acquire their rights through the courts within a reasonable period. They should know that if they have to go to court, the courts will function efficiently and the judges will approach the case with knowledge and compassion.
I am putting down a marker; I will not formally oppose this section but I am unhappy with the trend that is developing. We are further fragmenting the family law jurisdiction of our courts. We are ensuring that the game of Russian roulette — or judicial roulette — will continue as more judges with less experience in this area determine more property disputes. The possibility of a uniform approach at each court level will go out the window.
I do not think it is correct to say that this section is bringing any fragmentation into family law so far as the courts are concerned. The District Court already has substantial jurisdiction in the area of family law and related matters. The District Court already deals with large numbers of cases concerning maintenance, access to children, custody of children and so on. There are District Courts sitting and dealing with family issues all the time; there is already a well established family law jurisdiction there.
Proceedings in the District Courts are speedy and considerably cheaper than judges in the Circuit Court. District Court judges are experienced and dedicated people and qualified in family law and other areas. The District Courts were established under the Constitution. The principle is that the District Court has jurisdiction in all areas up to certain limits; likewise in the Circuit Court while the High Court has unlimited jurisdiction. In the interests of speed and substantially reducing legal costs, it is desirable that the District Court should have jurisdiction in cases involving modest amounts of property. Many people would prefer that and it will be helpful.
I do not want to comment here on the legal aid position; that is for another day. There are substantial improvements taking place in this area. Deputy Shatter is correct in saying that there will be an involvement of private practitioners to help deal with the backlog in the legal aid service. I hope the new positions which are being put in place will be helpful.
The Distict Court has a role to play, subject to the limits laid down. I am satisfied that, the District Judges appointed under the Constitution can do the job. Where there is any difficulty or doubt, there is always an appeal to the Circuit Court. An appeal from the Circuit Court would be to the High Court and involve substantial legal fees and so on. Usually solicitors practice in the District Court and there is rarely a need for counsel. In cases involving modest amounts of property, it is desirable that there be provision for limited jurisdiction.
Does the Minister plan to provide family courts? Does he envisage modifying this legislation at some future date to provide for family courts or is that not on the agenda?
The court structure is a matter for the Minister for Justice; I have no departmental role there. I intend to have intensive discussions with the Minister for Justice on the general issue of courts.
I move amendment No.85:
In page 18, after line 52, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) The District Court may, for the purpose of determining whether it has jurisdiction in proceeding under this Act in relation to a matrimonial home that has not been given a rateable valuation or is the subject with other land of a rateable valuation, determine that its rateable valuation would exceed, or would not exceed, £20.".
I move amendment No. 86:
In page 19, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following subsections:
"(2) The proceedings to which section 33 (conduct of family law proceedings in Circuit Court and High Court) of the Act of 1989 applies shall be deemed to include proceedings under this Act.
(3) Section 45 (conduct of family law proceedings in District Court) of that Act, as amended by section 39 (3) of the Child Abduction and Enforcement of Custody Orders Act, 1991, is hereby further amended by the substitution in subsection (1) of ‘the child Abduction and enforcement of Custody Orders Act, 1991, and the Matrimonial Home Act, 1993,' for ‘and the Child Abduction and Enforcement of Custody Orders Act, 1991'.".
The object of this amendment is to bring the conduct of proceedings under this Bill into line with the conduct of family law proceedings under the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989. Under sections 33 and 45 of that Act, family law proceedings in the High Court, Circuit Court and District Court must be as informal as is practicable and consistent with the administration of justice.
The committee will agree that the considerations underlying the provisions of the 1989 Act in this regard are also relevant in proceedings relating to matrimonial homes and other disputes about matrimonial property and that these proceedings should be conducted in the same informal manner.