Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 20 Nov 2014

Vote 22 - Courts Service

Mr. Brendan Ryan (Chief Executive Officer, Courts Service) called and examined.

We are now dealing with No. 7, the appropriation accounts of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Vote 22 - Courts Service. In welcoming the witnesses, I apologise for the delay in inviting them in. We had other matters that we had to clarify before this business. Before we begin, I remind members, witnesses and those in the Visitors Gallery to please turn off their mobile phones.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. If they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing ruling of the Chair to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. They are also reminded of the provisions of Standing Order 163 that the committee shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government or the merits of the objectives of such policy or policies.

I welcome Mr. Ryan from the Courts Services and ask him to introduce his officials.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

I am accompanied by Mr. Seán Quigley, head of resource management in the Courts Service. He is also the accountant for the courts of justice. Ms Nuala McLoughlin is head of Supreme Court, High Court and Court of Appeal operations. Mr. John Coyle is head of Circuit Court and District Court operations. Mr. Paul Burns is head of infrastructural services which include facilities, IT and HR functions.

I invite Mr. Gallagher from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to introduce his colleague.

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

I am accompanied by Ms Patricia Ballantine.

I invite the official from the Department of Justice and Equality to introduce herself.

Ms Joyce Duffy

I am from the courts policy division of the Department.

I invite the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. McCarthy, to introduce the 2013 appropriation accounts for the Courts Service - Vote 22.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The 2013 appropriation accounts for the Courts Service - Vote 22 - received a clear audit opinion. They record gross expenditure by the service of €104.6 million in 2013. This represents a 2.9% reduction in expenditure year on year. I have provided a graphic to illustrate the composition of Courts Service expenditure in 2013.

Salaries accounted for 47% of expenditure, with total payroll costs amounting to €49 million. There were 927 full-time equivalent posts at the end of 2013, down from 945 at the end of 2012.

The most significant programme spend relates to payments under the Criminal Courts of Justice PPP deal. These are in the form of monthly unitary or combined payments which cover the cost of facility availability, financing, insurance and the provision of specified facility maintenance and support services for the users of the complex. The charge in 2013 amounted to a total of €20.2 million which represents an 11% reduction year on year. This includes the effect of a rebate of €566,000 arising from a periodic review of insurance costs, as provided for in the PPP contract.

Programme expenditure under the Vote also includes spending on capital works for other courthouses. A provision of €3.9 million was made for such spending in 2013 and the outturn was €2.5 million. Note 3 explains that the underspend was due to delays in commencing works on a number of courthouse projects, including a delay in commencing preparatory works for a planned PPP bundle to provide new or refurbished courthouses at seven locations.

On the receipts side, there were appropriations-in-aid amounting to €46.8 million, of which €42 million relates to fees charged for various categories of court transactions. In addition, the Courts Service collected court fines, totalling €11.7 million, which were remitted to the Exchequer. A further €7.6 million was collected and remitted to the Revenue Commissioners and a number of other State bodies. This mainly comprised fines imposed in cases prosecuted by the Revenue Commissioners and fees paid for licensing applications.

Members of the committee may wish to be aware that, as provided for by law and under the rules of the superior courts, the Judiciary oversees the investment and management of court funds. They include funds held on behalf of wards of court and awards to minors arising from certain court proceedings. These funds, amounting to around €1.3 billion at end 2013, are not accounted for in the appropriations account for the Courts Service. Annual financial statements for these funds are produced by the Office of the Accountant of the Courts of Justice and audited by an audit firm appointed by that office. They are not within my remit.

I invite Mr. Ryan to make his opening statement.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

I thank the Chairman for the invitation to appear before the committee in my capacity as Accounting Officer for the Courts Service, Vote 22. I look forward to discussing any aspect of the Vote with the Chairman and members of the committee.

I am pleased to report that a clean audit report has been provided by the Comptroller and Auditor General on the 2013 appropriations account. Overall, the Vote was managed successfully and within budget at year end. A surrender balance of €515,170 was recorded in the Vote.

The Courts Service is responsible for the management and administration of the courts. The administration of justice is a matter for the Judiciary and, in accordance with the constitutional independence of the Judiciary and the provisions of the Courts Service Act, is outside the scope of the functions of the Courts Service. The committee will appreciate, therefore, that in my discussions today I am precluded from commenting on any matter relating to the exercise by a judge of his or her judicial functions or the exercise of quasi-judicial functions by an officer of the court. I am also precluded from commenting on matters of Government policy.

Since its establishment, the Courts Service has worked to ensure the courts operate effectively and efficiently, that the use of available resources is optimised, that value for money is achieved and that the best possible service is provided for court users. Since the Vote was last considered by the committee in 2010, the Courts Service has seen very severe reductions in funding and staff numbers. In this regard, the service has worked tirelessly to introduce a broad range of changes and reforms to bring about savings for the Exchequer, while maintaining access to justice and services for the public. The service has diligently cut expenditure and, through proactive management, increased court fees, resulting in a significant contribution to the Government's recovery programme. The net cost to the Exchequer of operating the service has reduced by €41 million, or 41%, since 2008 - from €99 million to €58 million - as provided in the Estimates for 2014. During this period day-to-day running costs as represented by non-pay current expenditure decreased by €19.3 million, or 44%, with an 18% reduction in pay and a 73% reduction in capital expenditure. Court fee income in 2008 was €39 million, whereas the fee income target for 2014 is €46.5 million, an increase of 19%. The fee income for 2014 is forecasted to exceed this target.

The Courts Service fully accepts and supports the Government’s ongoing requirement for savings to be achieved and reforms introduced in the delivery of public services. In this regard, the service has in place robust financial control measures across the organisation to ensure expenditure is kept to an absolute minimum, incurred only where absolutely necessary and unavoidable and that value for money is achieved. In the past six years the service has been to the fore in the introduction of a range of transformational changes which have delivered very significant savings. Given the severity of the funding and staffing reductions in the service which saw a 16% reduction in staff numbers - double the Civil Service average and significantly greater than the public service average of 10% - it would not have been possible to maintain services without introducing a range of efficiency and productivity measures across all aspects of Courts Service structures, administration and operation, while maintaining access to justice.

The modernisation programme has included significant structural and administrative reforms, with the completion of the combined office project, and the rationalisation of stand-alone offices and the regional management structure. We have also carried out a review and rationalisation of court venues and the hearing of cases in larger venues has freed up judicial and staff time. We have also worked to introduce a substantial programme of legislative and process reforms to enable improved operation of the courts and efficiency in deployment of court resources. The implementation of our ICT programme has resulted in the optimisation of courtroom and court support technology, including the roll out of digital audio recording, DAR, to all court jurisdictions and venues; extended use of video link and video conferencing, which has resulted in significant cross-justice sector efficiencies; the development of case management systems for the debt claims on-line project, the new insolvency service, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court; and ICT support for the new fines legislation. There has also been increased staff flexibility in a number of areas such as DAR logging by court registrars, as well as increased in-house ICT and legal support, all of which have yielded significant savings.

The increased productivity arising from these measures has enabled the service to support a 7% increase in the number of judges, not including the ten new judges appointed to the Court of Appeal, and an estimated increase of 10% in the number of court sitting days in recent years, despite reduced staffing and funding. It has also allowed us to initiate an ambitious public private partnership programme which will see the refurbishment of seven courthouses around the country in the coming years.

The Courts Service very much welcomes the funding and staffing provision sanctioned this year to support the establishment and running of the Court of Appeal. That court is now sitting and work on the infrastructure it will require is under way. We also welcome the increased funding announced for the Courts Service Vote for 2015. An increase in investment will continue to be required in the coming years to address the consequences of the austerity measures which had to be introduced. Investment is required in ICT, for example, which, if made, has the potential to bring about a transformation in the way the courts operate and achieve significant further savings. In the context of reduced resources and growing workloads, technology offers the best solution to enhancing customer service and delivering improved value for money.

Investment is also required to undertake a number of smaller courthouse capital refurbishment projects and urgent maintenance in courthouses. These works have continued to be deferred owing to a lack of funding and are now urgently required if the fabric of these buildings is not to be totally compromised and if the future of our historic structures is to be safeguarded.

The prioritisation of court sittings and front-line services has resulted in the stripping of back office and support functions, which in itself carries operational risks. The Courts Service has reached tipping point in regard to staff numbers. Additional staff are required if we are to continue to support court sittings as required by the presidents of the courts, maintain court services in offices around the country and support Government initiatives such as the implementation of the new fines legislation, new arrangements for the hearing of child care cases, the new legal costs adjudication regime to be provided for under the Legal Services Bill and the restructuring of the family law courts. Just as with the Court of Appeal which was successfully established on 28 October, the successful implementation of these initiatives will require provision of the necessary funding and staffing.

Our priority has always been and will continue to be the provision of front-line, core court services to support the Judiciary and court users. This can only be achieved through the ongoing review of the organisation and delivery of services and the continued implementation of our change and modernisation programme. The Courts Service strategic plan 2014–17 which sets out the key priorities for the service in the next three years has been submitted to the Minister for Justice and Equality for approval. Over the lifetime of the plan we propose to build on the progress made in the review and reform of our structures and service delivery to bring about improved services and value for money. We intend to focus on maximising the use of technology, developing our staff to ensure they have the necessary legal, technical and management skills and placing particular emphasis on the ongoing standardisation and rationalisation of processes and procedures to enable us to achieve significant economies and efficiencies in the delivery of services. The service will work to ensure we continue to improve services for court users, make the courts as accessible as possible and achieve real value for money in the provision of these services.

I thank Mr. Ryan. May we publish his statement?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Yes.

I welcome Mr. Ryan and apologise for the major delay he and his colleagues had to endure. What is the running of the Court of Appeal likely to cost the State and how is the Courts Service preparing for it?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

The Court of Appeal was established on 28 October and sat for the first time on Wednesday, 5 November. It began hearing criminal appeals and sentence-related matters on 10 November and these sittings will continue each day until the end of term, on 19 December. Hearing dates have been given for 140 such cases this term. On 17 November the President of the court held further list hearings to fix dates to hear transferred appeals against convictions. The court will sit Monday to Friday each week to consider these matters.

In civil matters, all notices of civil appeals are given a date for a directions hearing before a nominated judge. Directions hearings for expedited appeals will be held each Thursday, while ordinary appeals will be listed for directions hearings on Fridays.

We anticipate annual expenditure on the Court of Appeal will be in the region of €2.5 million to €3 million. This estimated expenditure includes judicial salaries plus overhead costs. However, judicial salaries do not come from the Courts Service but are paid from the Central Fund. The figure given will also cover court equipment and support staff.

Has the service been given sufficient funding to cover the new expenses?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Yes. In the 2014 budget we were given €2 million to bring forward the Court of Appeal. A lot of this money has gone on infrastructure. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform sanctioned the 26 staff and has provided funding in 2015 for them. Work on the infrastructure required is ongoing. The Four Courts are housed in an old building and bringing ten new judges on board has caused some difficulties. To accommodate some of the new appointees we are preparing the old public records building which was formerly the home of the National Archives of Ireland before that body moved to Bishop Street. That accommodation will be ready for occupation in mid-January.

Judges of the new court are concentrating their resources on the criminal business side and spending most of their time sitting on two benches in the Criminal Courts of Justice where there is spare capacity. They come down on a regular basis to call on civil matter lists.

Moving on to the investment and divestment programme, I understand a number of courthouses throughout the country have been closed and that a number are being refurbished. Will Mr. Ryan explain why plans to close four courthouses in the Dublin area, namely, in Tallaght, Balbriggan, Swords and Dún Laoghaire, were abandoned?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

We operate a very transparent system when it comes to investment in and divestment of court venues. Where a venue is being considered for closure, all interested parties are consulted as part of the detailed assessment. Where parties are consulted, they are provided with full details of the assessment undertaken by the Courts Service of the proposal in question. The views expressed by those consulted form part of a detailed assessment provided for the building committee of the Courts Service. If the committee proposes to recommend to the Courts Service board the closure of a particular venue, all those previously consulted are informed of this proposal and allowed to make a submission directly to the board. As I said, it is an open and transparent system.

On the Dublin venues to which the Deputy referred, we took the view that their closure was warranted from a Courts Service perspective. I have mentioned that we have had severe reductions in funding and a 16% reduction in staff numbers. There are challenges in maintaining sittings on a daily basis. The Courts Service and its staff should be applauded in that, despite all the cutbacks made in the past six years, the fact that judicial numbers have increased by 8% or so and the 10% rise in the number of sitting days, no scheduled court sitting has been cancelled. However, in the central Dublin area, we considered it would be more efficient to centralise all of our business within the Criminal Courts of Justice and the Four Courts area.

Would there have been enough space to do so?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

We were satisfied that there would be adequate space available.

Would it have had an impact on An Garda Síochána in the provision of back-up support?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Yes.

In other words, the maintenance of these extra four courts does have implications for the Garda and other services?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

That was the reason for the decision ultimately taken. We received 71 detailed submissions on the proposal, all of which were opposed to the closures for various reasons. They included submissions from the Garda and the Law Society of Ireland.

To clarify, the Garda was opposed to the closures.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Yes. In fact, nobody was in favour of them, other than the Courts Service. We took all of these submissions into consideration when we were preparing the report for the building committee. The process, as I outlined, is that the report goes to the building committee and then to the board with a recommendation.

We recommended to the building committee that this matter not be progressed further. Proceeding with the closures would have had significant consequences for other justice agencies and we considered, based on their concerns, that the closures should not take place. Some 12 members of staff in the outlying venues mentioned would have come into the centre and while the savings in the cost of maintenance for the Courts Service would have been around €300,000, there is no doubt the closures would have caused difficulties. The courthouse in Dún Laoghaire is a fine venue and while there are issues with the courthouse in Tallaght, it is not bad. The courthouses in Swords and Balbriggan are poor venues that need significant investment to bring them up to acceptable standards, but we do not have the money. There is still an issue, but we accept the point on the submissions made, as the Courts Service is open in this manner.

Part of my reason for asking was to ensure gardaí would not be tied up in court.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

That was one of the issues we took into account.

If full centralisation had proceeded, would there have been a difference in the time spent by gardaí in court?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

It made some proposals, but I do not have the information in front of me. It indicated that some gardaí would be removed from local policing duties to appear in court; therefore, this measure would have had a significant effect on policing in certain areas. We took this on board, but we take the view that the Garda could revisit the issue of court process management. In Dublin a presenter system is used such that instead of all gardaí attending court for initial case hearings, an inspector or sergeant will present the evidence to the court. Perhaps this system might be expanded further. We took on board the views of the Garda and other organisations. I think the Irish Prison Service was in favour of centralisation, while the Probation Service was neutral, but all other stakeholders were opposed.

A fund of some €1.3 billion is managed by the Courts Service in respect of wards of court. Will Mr. Ryan explain the role of the service in managing these funds?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

It is important to appreciate that court funds are held in trust by the courts. The Courts Service, in accordance with the Courts Service Act 1998, is responsible for the management and administration of the courts and provides a support service for judges. It is in this capacity that the service has a role in the management and investment of court funds. These funds are invested in line with the provisions of the Trustee (Authorised Investments) Act 1958 and subsequent orders. The Courts Service was established in 1999 and in 2001 commenced a review of the management and investment of court funds which culminated in the establishment of a number of customised funds in December 2003. Most court funds have since been invested according to the new arrangements, including District Court and Circuit Court funds, in addition to High Court funds. The Courts Service operates a very conservative investment policy to ensure the capital sum is protected, particularly in the case of minors. Where necessary, an appropriate balance is struck between income generation and capital preservation and this approach has worked well in the past 11 years. Very good returns have been generated, while protecting court funds from the worst effects of the credit crisis. Some 65% of funds are held in cash-based assets and bonds, while there is a 35% exposure to equities and corporate bonds.

In making a decision to invest court funds on behalf of a ward or a minor a key factor is the length of time the funds will be held by the courts. Shorter term funds are invested in cash-based assets and funds held for longer periods are invested in the most appropriate funds available.

Let me ask Mr. Ryan about the source of the funds. Do they all derive from awards made to individuals by the courts?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Yes, but they also relate to assets held for people in wardship.

These funds serve people who cannot look after themselves, for some reason.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Exactly.

Those involved could vary from minors to seniors suffering from dementia and the like.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

The funds held for some minors derive from awards made in court that relate to injuries suffered. Until the minor reaches 18 years of age, the fund will be managed by the Courts Service.

Can the funds run out and, if so, what happens then?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

When the award is made, the court takes its value into account. The Courts Service invests whatever the court awards. Some funds may run out, but the service is not involved in the sums originally awarded. It is not privy to the factors taken into account in deciding the level of award to be made, but we invest prudently when the funds are transferred to the management of the service.

Do the families of the people concerned have any input or is it left entirely up to the Courts Service?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

I want to give the Deputy a flavour of what happens in respect of minors and wards of court. When a person is taken into wardship, the President of the High Court appoints a committee, usually one person, to deal with the ward's property and, in certain cases, make recommendations for his or her personal welfare. In approximately 75% of cases the ward's committee comprises a family member or a friend. If no suitable or willing private person resident in the jurisdiction is available or if there is a conflict of interest between the ward and the person who would otherwise have been appointed, the President of the High Court can appoint a general solicitor for minors and wards of court to act as the committee. A committee only has the powers conferred on it by order of the President of the High Court. Where a committee is authorised to collect a ward's income from any source, it is its duty to make all appropriate tax returns on behalf of the ward and discharge his or her tax liabilities. A committee in receipt of income is requested periodically to account to the Office of Wards of Court.

My last question relates to the poor box. I understand that since 2011 judges have lost the power to use the poor box in certain cases. To which cases does this apply and how is poor box money used? How much is collected under the poor box scheme and who manages the fund?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

The practice of the court directing that money be paid into the poor box is carried out in lieu of or in conjunction with another penalty. The practice predates the foundation of the State and it does not appear that there is a statutory basis for it. It appears to extend from the judge's common law jurisdiction to exercise discretion in imposing penalties and other conditions such as the making of a donation to the poor box or a particular charity. While each court of first jurisdiction - the District Court, the Circuit Court and the High Court - has used the poor box on occasion, the facility is mostly invoked in the District Court.

For what is it used?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

It is used to make an order for a charitable donation. Approximately €2 million was donated to the poor box due to the orders of judges, instead of or in addition to the imposition of a different penalty.

What type of penalty?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Penalties are a judicial matter and the matters we are discussing are within the judicial sphere. Judges decide whether a donation should be made to the poor box.

It seems rather strange if judges have lost the power to use the poor box in certain cases but are still doing so. Presumably, they are supposed to operate within the law, like the rest of us.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Judges do operate within the law. I think the Deputy is referring to the District Court common law box jurisdiction under the Road Traffic Act. In some cases in the past accused persons were requested to make a donation to the poor box, rather than incur a different penalty.

Some judges adopted the practice of asking for contributions to be made to the poor box instead. In the High Court earlier in the year Mr. Justice Hogan concluded:

The District Court enjoys no jurisdiction to impose an informal sanction short of actual conviction such as accepting a donation to the poor box ... This would amount to an indirect circumvention of these statutory provisions.

The Courts Service manages the funds, but it only has a management function and has no responsibility or discretion with regard to whom the money is paid.

Who decides to whom the money is paid?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

The relevant judge. In 2013 some €1.976 million was taken in, while a total of €1.995 million was paid out. In the main, poor box moneys are paid to local charities, including local branches of national charities such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, etc., local schools and youth organisations and the Probation Service.

Is it possible for people to make contributions to the poor box in respect of any type of conviction?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

If members of the Judiciary are obliged to impose mandatory sentences as a result of legislative provisions, they have no discretion. In other circumstances they do.

Therefore, the Courts Service has no function in the matter.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

None whatsoever. The money goes through our financial system. It comes into our office and individual judges will issue directions as to how it is to be disbursed. We just issue the money. That is our role.

In February the Government approved the drafting and publication of the general scheme of the criminal justice (community sanctions) Bill. The proposed legislation will replace the Probation of Offenders Act 1907 with modern provisions dealing with community sanctions and the role of the Probation Service. The new Bill will abolish the poor box and replace it with reparation funds to provide for a fair, equitable and transparent system of reparation that will apply only to minor offences dealt with by the District Court. The replacement of the poor box with a statutory reparation fund was recommended, as the Deputy may recall, by the Law Reform Commission in 2005. The new reparation fund will be used to provide additional funding for services for the victims of crime and compensation payments payable by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. The legislation will clearly provide that the fund may not be used for any purpose other than the provision of compensation, reparation and assistance for the victims of crime.

Is Mr. Ryan suggesting the poor box is going to be abolished?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Yes. Once the legislation is enacted, that will be the end of it. Under the new regime, when we collect money, it will be transferred to the Department of Justice and Equality. I understand the Department will be establishing a committee which will be charged with deciding how moneys from the fund will be disbursed.

I thank Mr. Ryan.

I welcome Mr. Ryan and his colleagues and thank them for attending. I compliment him and his team on the service they provide, particularly in the context of the measures introduced in recent years. I wish the Courts Service continued success in this regard.

On the capital programme, what is the position on the Criminal Courts of Justice building?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

I was involved in the project in the 2000s and when we built it, we designed it for the future. At that stage we were using approximately 16 courts on a daily basis. Today, all 22 courts are in use. Obviously, the new Court of Appeal has been located within the building and it uses two courtrooms. Business has increased in the building, while the number of judges has increased significantly since we took over the building in 2009. The number of court sitting days throughout the country has increased by approximately 10%. It is a very busy building. On most days at least 20 or 21 courts are in operation and on some all 22.

In the context of the public private partnership and the 25 year maintenance contract, the cost last year was €22.2 million. Will it be a fixed cost for the remainder of the contract?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

No. Some 57% of the cost of the 25 year contract is fixed in that it relates to design, construction, etc. The other 43% is subject to indexation. Based on the current rate of inflation, we estimate that the cost over the 25 years, inclusive of VAT, will be approximately €623 million. Excluding VAT, the total amount is €565 million.

Does that amount relate only to maintenance?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

That is the overall cost of the building over the 25 year period. The Deputy will appreciate that, as part of the contract, at the end of the period the building will be handed back as new or as good as it was on the day on which it was opened.

What is the current rate of inflation?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

It is less than 2%. The Deputy will also appreciate that the construction costs for the building - some €150 million to €160 million - were significant. It is a much needed facility for the Court Service. I would be afraid to think what we might be doing if the building had not been constructed. For that type of upfront money, the State would have had to build such a huge complex.

Mr. Ryan referred to the necessity to build a new computer system. What is the cost in that regard?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

We have put in place basic infrastructure for civil case management to really drive efficiencies in the Courts Service. We have not costed this project. It all comes down to reductions in staff numbers and funding. As stated, we have been stripping back office areas to support front-line sittings. I take great pride in the fact that no scheduled sitting has been cancelled. In that context, the number of staff in the ICT unit has been reduced from 16 to 12. That is just one of the areas to which I refer that has been affected. In general, we know what we need, but we have not costed it. If we are going to go down the route of having a standardised civil system for the High Court, the Circuit Court and the District Court - such a system will really generate significant efficiencies - we will be obliged to take staff out of all three in order to build the business case and supply the ICT people who provide exactly what is required. The difficulty is that we have stripped out staff all over the place. We cannot pursue this matter unless we obtain additional resources. As I stated, we have reached tipping point. I reiterate that we have lost 16% of our staff and that the net cost to the Exchequer of running the Courts Service has fallen by 41%, which is amazing. In 2009 the Exchequer was obliged to provide us with funding of €99 million. This year the figure is €58 million. We have made huge efficiency gains, but we need to start investing. If the cut to our staffing levels had been similar to that applied in other areas of the Civil Service - according to a report by Mr. Boyle of the IPA, it stands at 8% - we would have a staff of 980. We have 903 staff members, which is giving rise to significant consequences. I am not stating we need 980 staff.

I am glad to hear it.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

If we had some additional staff, however, we could begin processes such as that to which I refer.

I presume the new technology would assist in the delivery of the service.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Very much so. It would create huge-----

Is the information technology to facilitate the development we are discussing already in place or would it have to be built?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

We have developed the basic infrastructure and would be obliged to build onto it.

The Department of Justice and Equality decides the amount of funding allocated to the Courts Service.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Yes.

I presume, therefore, that the next step would involve costing the project and building a business case.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Yes. We have started work in that regard and hope to make an application for funding to the Department of Justice and Equality and, more importantly, another to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform for staffing. In fairness, the Department of Justice and Equality cannot grant us additional staff; only the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform may do so. I hope that when we make them, our applications will be viewed favourably because we have made significant cuts and transformed the way in which the organisation operates.

That is very encouraging.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

I thank the Deputy.

On penalty points, some one third of drivers who go to court and are convicted are not having the points recorded. What is Mr. Ryan's view on this matter?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

If the Deputy has no objection, I will explain how the system operates. Fixed charge penalty points apply to a range of motoring offences. What happens in any case is that a fixed charge penalty notice is issued by the Garda national processing office in Thurles when a motoring offence has been detected by a garda or a speed or safety camera, either static or mobile. The notice is issued to the registered owner of the vehicle in the case of detection by a camera or the driver if the vehicle is stopped by a garda. When the initial 28 day period has elapsed, the registered owner or driver has a further 28 days in which to pay the fine and incur penalty points.

Once the fine is paid, the Garda electronically updates the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport with the offence details. Once the 26-day period has elapsed, a fine cannot be paid. I will come back to the issue. The unpaid fine triggers an application to the courts for the issue of a summons.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell took the Chair.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

The summons is then prepared and printed by the Courts Service and a hearing is scheduled. The summons is served and when the accused person is convicted of the offence, approximately 28 days after the conviction we inform the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport of the penalty points. The notification is electronic.

To return to the Deputy's point on the collection of driving licences, section 63 of the 2010 Act provides that, where a person is alleged to have committed an offence or has been charged with the commission of an offence under the Road Traffic Act and is due to appear before the court, the court is required to collect sufficient information - that is, the driving licence number - to provide to the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport so that the penalty points are applied appropriately to the licence holder.

The Courts Service has taken the following steps to implement penalty points. All summonses issued in respect of the alleged offences under the Road Traffic Act include a specific provision that notifies the accused person that he or she must bring to court his or her driving licence permit and a legible copy of the driving licence. The court registrar, following consultation with the presiding judge, makes an announcement at the start of the court proceedings to the effect that, as required by the summons, the person must produce his or her driving licence permit and a copy to the registrar once the case has been called. Where a driving licence permit and a copy are produced, we put it into our system and the information is transferred electronically. Where a driving licence permit is not produced, the registrar records that in the summons book and the minute book.

We have made the case over a long period that we view this as an inefficient use of court resources. I do not know whether the Deputy has ever been in a District Court when it is dealing with road traffic offences, but it is a very busy court with a lot of hustle and bustle. Stopping the court just to try to collect details has caused issues for busy courts. We believe it is very inefficient but, more importantly, we think it is a very ineffective way of collecting much-needed data in this area. Over the years we have pointed out to the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, the Road Safety Authority and others the specific difficulties associated with the collection of driving licence numbers when the business of the court is being conducted. It is inefficient and, more importantly, it is ineffective.

When an accused person is convicted in his or her absence of a road traffic offence, which is a regular occurrence in court, the Courts Service is not in any position to collect his or her driving licence details. The Courts Service has consistently advocated an alternative approach, going back many years. We feel that the national vehicle driving file and the motor tax file should be linked. At the first registration of a vehicle and upon every change of ownership, the owner of a car should have to indicate his or her driving licence number. Through the years we have changed the manner in which road tax has been paid. Years ago in Dublin, one had to queue up for hours to apply to pay road tax, but mostly people now do it online, and one also provides details of one’s insurance certificate number. We are of the view that when one buys a car or it changes ownership the detail of one’s driving licence should be incorporated. That would address the inefficiency in the system and, critically, would result in driving licence numbers being available at the point of detection, either by camera or upon being stopped by a garda, and when a summons is being issued.

We did not seem to make any progress in the area for years but, following the Garda Inspectorate report on fixed-charge processing systems, a working group was set up - the criminal justice fixed charge processing group - of which we are a member, and which is jointly chaired by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and the Department of Justice and Equality. The group has been actively considering the proposal and we hope it will be implemented. We feel this is the only sensible approach.

There is also the third payment option. I mentioned earlier that after 56 days, when the summons issues, if a motorist wants to pay his or her fine at that stage, unfortunately, that is not possible at the moment. That is regrettable, but it is the way the legislation is framed. Section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 provides for a scenario where the appropriate fixed charge penalty will now be paid after the issue of a summons and not later than seven days before a person comes into the court, as the court needs seven days to take the issue out of the court list. A subgroup of the criminal justice fixed charge processing group examined the option of bringing this section into effect. Based on the approach agreed at the working group, the solution will involve the Garda taking on from the Courts Service the printing of all District Court summonses - not just those relating to road traffic offences - using an outsourced printing service provider and extending the payment system to include third payment options, and then electronically updating the court case management system to remove cases from the court list when a person has availed of the third payment option. Such an approach would make it possible to automate aspects of the process that are currently managed manually and would provide assurances that the same organisation will generate the payment notice and managing receipts. Obviously the Courts Service is fully supportive of the process. From our perspective, it would reduce the number of cases that come before the courts-----

I think we get it. I appreciate the information and I welcome the fact that the system will hopefully be changed in the near future. In the meantime, is there not a photocopying machine in the court room? Could a photocopy of someone’s licence not be taken and processed later?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

It is not that we do not do that. We do collect a significant number of licences in court.

I appreciate that two thirds of penalty point applications are processed and one third are not. That is very unfair when one thinks of all the processes that have been gone through to get the person there, and the good people who pay their penalty points.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

I agree with the Deputy, but collecting licence numbers at the final point of the process-----

I accept that, and I accept the fact that we are in a process which has been outlined to change it.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Yes.

However, in the past 12 months, for example, a third of drivers - somewhere in the region of 31,000 - who should have had penalty points applied to their licences have not. That is very difficult for the rest of the public who paid their fines and got penalty points.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Deputy Áine Collins will appreciate that of the 31,000, a significant number did not bring their licences to court. They were convicted but they did not bring their licences into court, and when that happens there is not much we can do. We are in the process of agreeing with the Garda Síochána that those people who do not provide their driving licence details will be prosecuted. There are issues in that regard.

How long does Mr. Ryan think it will be before the situation is resolved?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

We hope the third payment option will be resolved early in the new year.

I appreciate that, but what about the penalty points option?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

The fixed charge processing group is examining the matter. Now that we have the other interested groups involved, I hope that legislation will be brought forward in the next year to deal with the matter. It would resolve all issues if at the point of detection everyone’s licence was available to the Garda - the prosecuting authority. If that were the case, then no issue would arise. We would not need to have this conversation. I accept that some issues arise. For example, if every car has a licence assigned to it, what does one do with company cars or rental cars?

We will not solve all the issues.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

We are of the view that more than 90% of drivers own the car they are driving, so we would solve all those problems. We will do our best in the meantime, with reduced resources and the business of the courts, to ensure we collect as many licences as we can. The third payment option will increase the number again, but we really need to change the way we look upon the issue.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

If I could just interject on a point of clarification, my understanding of the numbers is that it is one third of licences that are collected and two thirds that are not.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Yes. I am sorry.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is twice the problem that has been indicated.

Finally, could I talk to Mr. Ryan about procurement? It was noted in the audit report by the Comptroller and Auditor General that the Courts Service did not comply with all the relevant guidelines regarding procurement. Ten contracts to the value of €1.5 million were extended beyond their original contract dates without any procurement process. Could Mr. Ryan indicate how that happened and why it happened?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

I wish to make one point at the outset.

There is no suggestion or evidence that there was any waste of public funds in this regard.

Regarding the cleaning contracts that were involved in many of these matters, we had a national a cleaning contract prior to the contracts that are now being put in place. The national cleaning contract for the Courts Service was put in place some years ago and it commenced in the Dublin area. It was then rolled out to the regions; we have four or five regions outside Dublin. They started at various stages several months after the Dublin one. An issue arose when we were going to a framework document in regard to new contracts as to when the two or three years for those contracts finished. That took some resolving, but eventually it was resolved. We then went out to tender, and just before we were due to appoint new providers, there was a threat of a legal action which delayed us another few weeks. Seven of those new contracts are in place, and the other three will be completed by the end of the year, or we have ceased procuring those goods. Circular 40/02 is an area in which I take personal interest and I regret that this has happened, but there was no waste of public funds. It came down to interpretation as to when the previous contract ended and there was some misunderstanding with regard to that. We have cleared that up now. As I indicated, since the report seven of them have gone into the new contracts and the other three will be resolved by the end of this year.

But the procurement regulations were broken-----

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Yes.

-----and as we are talking about the Courts Service-----

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Yes, I appreciate that.

-----I would be concerned about how that presents to the public. I appreciate that there may not be any loss of money, but there is also a duty to-----

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Very much so. Reputational damage is something of which we are very conscious.

I note in the mission statement that Mr. Ryan stated that the organisation is very professional.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Yes. It is something I am not happy with, but the matter has been resolved. I wish to let the Deputy know-----

And I am sure Mr. Ryan will put a procedure in place to make sure it will not happen again.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

I want the Deputy to know that we now have a procurement network within the organisation. We do quarterly vendor reports. We have early warning mechanisms in place so that 12 to 18 months before a contract is due for renewal the people responsible for procurement are informed, and they have to keep the senior management team informed of where they are in the procurement process. There is a lot of procurement training. We had a big training seminar for staff in September. Mr. Quigley's director takes personal responsibility for those; it is being co-ordinated.

I thank Mr. Ryan.

Mr. Ryan and all the officials are welcome. I have some brief questions, the first of which has to do with Circuit Court sittings leading to civil Circuit Court sittings. I understand in the past 24 hours nominations have been made for seven vacancies on the Circuit Court.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Yes.

If we take my constituency as an example, this month's proposed sitting of the civil Circuit Court was abandoned at the last minute. As far as Waterford generally is concerned, the last civil Circuit Court sitting was in May and the next one will be March. Can Mr. Ryan tell me how many sittings of the civil Circuit Court have been postponed around the country because of the vacancies that have occurred in the past six weeks? I checked with the Garda, and when it comes to criminal Circuit Court sittings, the opinion of one fairly senior garda was that they had not been disrupted, but can Mr. Ryan tell me how many sittings have been disrupted?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

I do not have that information. I know the Waterford position because I got correspondence from one of the legal practitioners in Waterford about it. The Deputy is correct that the eight vacancies in the Circuit Court have had an impact. The president of the court decides on the sittings and who should sit where and the cases.

I understand that. I am asking about the sittings nationally.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

I will have to get back to the Deputy.

Mr. Ryan must have some idea. This is what he deals with every day. Were there other sittings-----

Mr. Brendan Ryan

The Deputy can take it that if there are seven vacancies at the moment there could be-----

There are 40 Circuit Court judges-----

Mr. Brendan Ryan

No. There are 38 Circuit Court judges.

-----there or thereabouts.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

One of them is on long-term sick leave. We are working off 30 judges at the moment. The president prioritises criminal matters, and after criminal matters it is family law matters.

I understand all that. I understand the process. Does Mr. Ryan have no idea of the number of sittings that have been postponed because of the vacancies?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

The representations I have got are about Waterford. I have no doubt there have been other cancellations, but I do not have those figures. It depends on the scheduling of cases in any Circuit Court in Ireland. They are scheduled a year in advance. They are scheduled either for criminal court, the civil court or the family court. If most of those scheduled sittings this month were criminal court, the impact on the civil court would be minimal because the judges are still dealing with criminal matters. If the scheduled sittings were for the civil court, as was the case in Waterford, unfortunately, the president has directed that criminal matters have to take priority because, as the Deputy will appreciate, people may be in custody.

Mr. Ryan cannot answer that question.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

No, unfortunately, but if the Deputy wishes I can come back to him on it.

No. I believe the issue will be dealt with now that the nominations have been made. I am trying to find out how this occurred procedurally and make the point to the Department that it should not occur again. We are in an unusual situation with the creation of an entirely different court, but at the same time, these things happen on occasion because of retirements, deaths, promotions and elevations of a kind, and always have done. In this particular case, seven vacancies were created as a result of one retirement, one elevation to the Court of Appeal and the elevation to the High Court of five individuals. The Government promoted judges from the High Court to the Court of Appeal and it promoted judges from the Circuit Court to the High Court, but what it did not do was make new appointments to the Circuit Court or the District Court in their places. That occurred in the past 24 hours, but there was a gap.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

There is a gap.

There is a gap.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

There was a gap, yes. I am not trying to defend the Department of Justice and Equality or the Government, but this was unprecedented. I have worked in the courts since 1981. This was unprecedented.

That is fine. I know that; I just said that. Even when it comes to civil Circuit Court issues, they are fairly serious.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Yes.

When we talk about criminal Circuit Court issues we are talking about very serious crimes.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Yes.

When we talk about civil Circuit Court sittings, those are serious issues.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Yes.

If seven principals of primary schools were being promoted from the ranks there would not be vacancies for the positions they left because teachers would be in place. Yet when it comes to this area, it appears to be acceptable. It is a political process. I know it should not be, and it is something this Government probably has fallen down on when it comes to judicial appointments. In our programme for Government we promised that we would look at this, and I believe it is a failing. People such as Mrs. Justice Susan Denham have commented that it is a miracle our Judiciary has maintained its independence so well considering it is so political. That aside, what we can do at the very least - I understand this is not Mr. Ryan's role - is to have a reasonable transition when something like this occurs to ensure there are no gaps and that sittings are not postponed.

I know Ms Duffy does not set policy, but she deals with it within the Department of Justice and Equality. I can raise this with the Minister, but it is a simple question. The suggestion I am making and that I will make to the Minister - I am raising it with Mr. Ryan now because he is the person dealing with policy in the Department when it comes to the courts - is that when this occurs, the appointments to the Circuit Court and the District Court should happen at the same time.

They should happen in tandem or, at the very least, within a specified period. That is a simple suggestion.

Mr. Ryan makes a good case about the Courts Service's efficiency and talked about a 16% reduction in its staff. Some would state it is too efficient, while plenty of communities nationwide would suggest it has stripped down courthouses and so on. The service has done a good job in cutting costs and, at the very least, it is possible to have sittings take place. While one part of the Government system may be working well, another is not and has failed in providing judges to preside over sittings in the Circuit Court. This is something that could be rectified easily. I do not know whether the witnesses have a comment to make on this. I again acknowledge to Ms Duffy that I am aware departmental officials do not set policy. I do not know whether this issue has been raised in the past, but it appears to be a reasonable suggestion that when something like this occurs - retirements and deaths take place all the time - this could happen in tandem.

Ms Joyce Duffy

I am certainly happy to take back the Deputy's comments to the Minister who probably will make the point that she has moved speedily to appoint judges and assist in the process of appointing them. In the past four to six weeks she has brought a series of memorandums to the Government on appointing ten judges to the Court of Appeal, the subsequent replacements to the High Court and, this week, on appointments to the Circuit Court. As Mr. Ryan stated, this has been unprecedented. This is the first new court jurisdiction established since 1961. It has been a long time since we went through such a major change to the system. As for the nominations to the Circuit Court announced by the Government yesterday, the process was completed in as speedy a manner as possible. As the Deputy is aware, names are submitted via the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, which conducts its process. The Government then has its part to play in evaluating the names and considering serving judges for the position. However, I appreciate that there has been a consequence, of which the Minister will certainly be made aware.

I take Ms Duffy's point. The situation was unusual. I received a reply to a parliamentary question on this matter a few days ago and what has happened in the past couple of days is miraculous, considering that the last line of the reply indicated that the Government would be dealing with the matter in the coming weeks. What role does Mr. Ryan play when something like this occurs? Obviously, the presidents of the different courts have a major role to play in this regard, but as far as rostering is concerned, the issue about court sittings taking place on Monday afternoons or Fridays has come up repeatedly. Is this something in which the Courts Service gets involved in any way, shape or form?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

No, it is entirely a matter for the presidents of the courts. The Deputy will appreciate that we support sittings as they occur.

It may be an old jurisprudential cliche, but justice delayed is justice denied. Perhaps Ms Duffy might take the suggestion back to the Minister. While I can raise it directly with her, it is reasonable to avoid such delays because, as Mr. Ryan is aware, practitioners could not believe people had not thought about the gaps that there would be as a result of these appointments or elevations.

Ms Joyce Duffy

Absolutely.

I will revert to an issue Deputy Robert Dowds raised with Mr. Ryan, namely, the closure of courthouses. Mr. Ryan spoke about the process, the management committee and taking expressions of interest from stakeholders. In one case, that of the courthouse in Dún Laoghaire, approximately 70 people were-----

Mr. Brendan Ryan

No, that was for the four locations in Dublin.

Okay. Mr. Ryan mentioned that he had agreed with the sentiments and expressions of opposition in one case.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

No, we received 71 submissions, of which 68 or 69 were opposed to our proposal. There were extensive submissions; we took on board the views expressed and concluded that in the interests of the wider justice community, our proposal was not-----

How many times has the Courts Service done this? How many times has it agreed with the sentiments expressed?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

In the past two or three years we reviewed 18 venues, of which 12 have been closed based on the submissions received.

It is important that people be aware that there is a process involved, as opposed to a rubber-stamping exercise.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

That is what I mentioned to Deputy Áine Collins. There is a transparent system in place. The board and the building committee which is chaired by a member of the board who is a High Court judge receive all of the information. We realise that access to justice is an issue and do not take these decisions lightly. I assure the Deputy that they all are dealt with objectively.

I understand that, based on the issue of access to justice, the West Cork Bar Association has sought a judicial review.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

The Deputy will appreciate that I cannot comment on the matter.

Yes. It is an example of the depth of feeling about the closing down of courthouses. As the particular case is before the courts, Mr. Ryan is precluded from commenting.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Yes, I believe it might be before the court today, but I cannot comment on it.

That is fair enough. May I ask Mr. Ryan about Waterford courthouse?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Yes, of course.

My understanding is that the tender process is to be completed by March 2015.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

We are down to four companies that have bid for the bundle of seven courthouses. By May 2015 we will be down to a single company and anticipate that contracts will be signed by October 2015 approximately, with site work to begin straightaway. As the Deputy is aware, we are getting the site in Waterford and will have six courtrooms. I have the details to hand-----

Will Mr. Ryan give me an idea of the date of completion?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Everything will be completed. All seven projects will start at the same time. To let the Deputy know what they are, they include the courthouses in Drogheda, Waterford, Wexford, Cork, Limerick, Letterkenny and Mullingar. We expect work on all of them to be finished by the start of 2017 approximately.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Yes, it is in the interests of the public private partnership, PPP, developer to get things finished earlier. It is like the Newlands Cross project, on which work finished three months early. The developers started to be paid three months earlier; consequently, it is in the interests of the people concerned to finish early.

Mr. Ryan believes the work will be completed at the start of 2017.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Yes, in the first few months of 2017.

It has just changed from the start of 2017 to some time in 2017.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Yes, it depends on the particular project involved; some of them are small enough. For example, in Drogheda it is a greenfield site as such and the courthouse is small and will go up easily. The Deputy will appreciate that in Waterford there is a lot of conservation work involved. Moreover, it is an extension to an existing building in respect of which there are preservation issues; consequently, it will take a little longer to complete.

I was delighted when the courts bundle was included in the stimulus package announced by the Government couple of years ago. We have 12 projects outstanding. While we have carried out numerous building projects, 12 county towns remain and once these seven projects are completed, only five county town venues will remain to be dealt with. They will all be significant and efficient buildings; consequently, I was delighted when they were included in the stimulus package. I am also delighted that the work has proceeded to this extent. We have handed over the procurement process to the National Development Finance Agency which is working on it.

I thank Mr. Ryan and all of the witnesses.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

I thank the Deputy.

I will take up a matter to which Deputy John Deasy referred, specifically the new courthouse in Limerick. As Mr. Ryan is probably aware, it is being moved to Mulgrave Street. He might give me an update on the matter, in terms of the timeframe involved.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

It is the same. I hope that by next October we will have signed a contract with the PPP company. It will be on the old Costello's Yard site.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

There are a couple of old buildings that have to be preserved, but they will not be part of the fabric of the court building which will be 7,600 sq. m. It will include six courtrooms, custody facilities, court offices and associated facilities. To let the Vice Chairman know, we will, of course, be holding onto the courthouse on the river to deal with civil and family law business. As he knows, it is a fine courthouse, but it is not suitable for current purposes.

Will the existing District Court building be used?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

We will enter into discussions with the local authority on that matter. I do not want to concede anything at this stage.

I would not wish to pre-empt the outcome, but is it the intention to use it as a civic building?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

As I say, we do not want to concede anything at this stage.

Mr. Ryan might give me the timeframe within which he expects the new court complex to be ready. He hopes to have the contract signed by October.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

In October 2015, with building work to start straightaway. These are normally about 16 to 18 month contracts. The only good thing about them is that, because they are PPP projects, they tend to be completed quicker.

Does Mr. Ryan anticipate that it will be ready before Easter 2016?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

It will be ready around mid-year 2017. It is a significant building, as the Vice Chairman knows-----

I appreciate that.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

-----but being a brownfield site makes it easier.

Does Mr. Ryan have any idea of the budget provided for the project?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

I would not like to say anything at this stage. Procurement is ongoing.

Mr. Ryan anticipates that the new court complex will be up and running-----

Mr. Brendan Ryan

By mid-2017 at the latest, we hope.

I will deal with an issue that has come up but which has not been raised today. It is the issue of wards of courts in terms of the Office of the Accountant of the Courts of Justice, although I would say it was more within Mr. Quigley's domain. Members of the committee have on and off received written correspondence on the issue, about which I have a couple of questions. The office is independent in the way it functions and has its own investment committee. Funds in the order of €1.3 billion at the end of 2013 were involved. Funds are audited independently; the Comptroller and Auditor General does not have a role. The question that arises is whether Mr. Quigley is satisfied with the management strategy for investments and that the funds have been properly benchmarked in terms of performance. He might put the matter in context.

Awards have been made to persons who are wards of court. In some cases, relatives are worried that there may not be sufficient funds available to deal with all eventualities in meeting the needs of an individual who is a ward of court. They have major worries about the make-up of investments, as between equities and cash. Mr. Quigley might give his perspective. During the downturn, in the period from 2007, was there a fall in investments? I suppose it is about providing comfort. I am not questioning the independence of the investments committee and what it does, but Mr. Quigley might give his perspective in terms of ensuring there are sufficient funds available. Has the State had to provide funds?

Mr. Sean Quigley

To clarify, there are two offices involved in dealing with wards of court funds: the office of the accountant which looks after investments and financial transactions and the wards of court office which has a more hands-on role in dealing with each individual ward of court.

I am focusing specifically on investments.

Mr. Sean Quigley

Mr. Ryan has alluded to the background information on the role of the Courts Service in putting in place infrastructure to support members of the Judiciary who make the awards. In 2002 a comprehensive review was carried out. We engaged external investment advisers.

Who were they?

Mr. Sean Quigley

Mercer Investment Consulting. Arising from that review, a range of investment strategies were put in place. There was a new governance structure put in place which included an investment committee headed by the President of the High Court. We also went to tender for fund managers and Bank of Ireland Asset Management and State Street were awarded the contract. We again went to tender, I think, in 2011, at which time State Street was again successful, by which time it had taken over Bank of Ireland Asset Management. Our objective is to have investment strategies that match as closely as possible the requirements of individual beneficiaries, taking account of the duration of the investment and also capital preservation, particularly in the case of minors.

During the financial crisis, about which the Vice Chairman asked, the funds were hit like every other investment. At the year end of 2008, our growth fund, the one exposed most to equities, stood at minus 17%. However, as we keep telling people, one is in such a fund for the long term, not for one or two years but for at least five or ten years plus.

Under which category do investments fall - unitised funds of Bank of Ireland Asset Management, BIAM, managed funds or equities?

Mr. Sean Quigley

To what is the Vice Chairman referring?

I am looking at the note to the accounts of the Office of the Accountant of the Courts of Justice.

Mr. Sean Quigley

It is probably on the balance of the fund last year. None of this material will be included in the appropriations account. To follow up on my point, the figure for the investment performance of the fund over a ten-year period was a cumulative 37.6%.

Over what period?

Mr. Sean Quigley

From December 2003 to September 2013. In the most recent year, to the end of September 2014, the fund generated a figure of 13%. One is looking at a cumulative investment performance figure of in excess of 60%.

There was a reduction of 17% in 2008. What value did this represent?

Mr. Sean Quigley

I do not have that figure. What one must remember is that reduction would only have been triggered if we had sold any of the units in the fund. It was an unrealised paper loss, which only materialises if we sells units.

When an award is made to an individual who is made a ward of court, is the way in which the fund is invested determined by the investment committee?

Mr. Sean Quigley

Not directly. The investment committee will approve the investment strategy, but it does not become involved in each individual case. The investment strategy is taken, for example, by the registrar for the wards of court and by-----

If someone is awarded €4 million in court, how will it be invested by the investment committee?

Mr. Sean Quigley

It depends on the circumstances of each individual case. The likelihood is that it will be placed in the growth fund. We hold back a percentage in cash to meet short-term payments.

Roughly, what is the breakdown between cash payments and long-term investments?

Mr. Sean Quigley

It depends on the circumstances of each individual case. In assessing requirements in each case the outgoings are looked at. No two cases are the same.

Typically, what is the percentage breakdown between cash payments and investments?

Mr. Sean Quigley

In the growth fund there is no exposure to cash payments-----

I accept that.

Mr. Sean Quigley

-----but we hold back the equivalent of-----

Mr. Sean Quigley

We hold back the equivalent of what will be required over three years.

In any individual case, I cannot say what that is.

In the circumstances of the Courts Service, could it differ from one individual to the next?

Mr. Sean Quigley

Yes.

Is the State the underwriter of the fund?

Mr. Sean Quigley

No.

Let us say for argument's sake that €4 million is got for an individual and, through unforeseen circumstances, the individual's family is put into a position where it has to draw down funds much faster than anticipated initially when health reasons, for example, might have been a factor. Have there ever been circumstances in which the State has had to cover the shortfall? What would happen if there were a shortfall? Let us say €4 million came in and the health requirements of the individual turned out to be out of sync with the fund put in, or the amount of money put in just did not meet the individual's requirements.

Mr. Sean Quigley

This goes back to the fact that the court determines the amount of the settlement. We manage whatever that settlement is to the best of our ability. We have no ability to guarantee the value of the award of the court will be sufficient. This has been recognised more recently with the consideration of the periodic payments. It is a difficulty and we recognise that. The evidence, certainly in relation to the arrangements the Courts Service has put in place over the past ten or 11 years, is that those arrangements are working very effectively. If there is a shortfall, it is not down to what the Courts Service has been doing.

If there is a shortfall, what decision does the investment committee make in terms of the fund?

Mr. Sean Quigley

The investment committee, the registrar of the wards of court and I would look at that case and say there is a risk the fund will run out. We would look to maximise the returns within the risk tolerance that we have. Ultimately, if the funds are going to run out, there is nothing we can do about it. Ultimately, if the care of the person is still an issue it will fall on the State to provide the facilities. There is no situation, however, where the State will step in and provide funding.

The State, despite the belief people might have, is not the underwriter of the fund.

Mr. Sean Quigley

That is correct.

But the State, through the HSE or other body, steps in by default in terms of the provision of services.

Mr. Sean Quigley

The only situation where the State could step in is if there were negligence on the part of my office in the management-----

I would not go there.

Mr. Sean Quigley

I am just saying that is the only circumstance.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

When the fund is exhausted.

What is the benchmark when investing in a fund? I acknowledge that an extern from the NTMA is on the investment committee. Does Mr. Quigley's office benchmark in making investments?

Mr. Sean Quigley

The benchmark is specific to each fund. We will be guided on that by our independent investment adviser, currently Aon Hewitt, and we will work in conjunction with our fund managers. We have new funds that we put in place following the last procurement. They have outperformed the benchmark, albeit marginally.

I will conclude on that point. If someone is made a ward of court, do the family members have any input or engage in discussions? Are they consulted in any way on the type of investment put in place for the individual?

Mr. Sean Quigley

That is a matter for the registrar of the wards of court. My understanding is that there is consultation and discussion between the registrar and representatives of the ward. Ultimately, the decision on the ultimate investment is the responsibility of the registrar of the wards of court and the President of the High Court.

I thank the witnesses.

Let me take up on that theme. The current value of the ward of court moneys is in the order of €1.3 billion. Is that correct?

Mr. Sean Quigley

At the end of September 2014, it was closer to €1.5 billion.

Closer to €1.5 billion. To how many individuals does that pertain?

Mr. Sean Quigley

There are approximately 18,500 beneficiaries, of whom 14,300 are minors. Some 2,600 cases concern wards of court.

Who manages the funds?

Mr. Sean Quigley

State Street Global Advisors.

Was there some controversy over State Street in respect of the NTMA?

Mr. Sean Quigley

There was some controversy over an entity that the NTMA had engaged, State Street UK, for transition management. I am aware of the circumstances. The Courts Service examined the circumstances. First, we did not have any relationship with that particular entity in State Street but we examined the matter and considered whether there was any need to take action. The view that there was none in terms of going out to tender. However, we are in the process of changing the custodian within the arrangement with State Street.

What does that mean?

Mr. Sean Quigley

It means we are retaining State Street for the investment management but we want to ensure, to avoid doubt, that there is segregation of duties within the arrangement. We do not have State Street doing the custodian work and administration, which is a separate element from the investment management. It was not that we had any particular concerns but we said that if could leverage this we would do it. We are in a process of doing that.

Could Mr. Quigley explain in layman's terms the difference between the investment and custodial roles?

Mr. Sean Quigley

In the management of funds of this scale, there is a fund manager, an administrator-registrar role and a custodian role. The trustee takes into his custody all the assets of the trust. It is regulated by the Central Bank. We wanted to address any doubt. Previously the entity had been separate. When we went to tender again there did not seem to be any reason to have it outside-----

The management and control of the fund are under a body other than State Street.

Mr. Sean Quigley

It does not control the assets. It makes the investment decisions but does not control the assets.

However, it gives advice on the types of investment policies to be adopted.

Mr. Sean Quigley

No, the advice comes from our investment adviser, Aon Hewitt. We have separation of that function.

Who is the custodian?

Mr. Sean Quigley

It is a matter for State Street. We do not make that appointment under the role. We just said to State Street we would be more comfortable if it changed that function. It is in the process of making that new appointment, which we expect early in 2015.

So the person would report to State Street. It is not a stand-alone function.

Mr. Sean Quigley

It is not but the role will be outside the State Street group.

Why not just make the appointment independent of State Street?

Mr. Sean Quigley

That is not the way the structures work.

If that is the case, why does the Courts Service feel it is necessary to ask State Street to appoint someone to carry out the custodial function of the brief separately, which it has been doing up to now? Over how many years was it carrying out the dual role?

Mr. Sean Quigley

Prior to the most recent tender, there was a separate custodian, JP Morgan. Following the most recent tender-----

In 2011, State Street took over the fund.

Mr. Sean Quigley

Yes. We appointed State Street to do the custodian and administration as well.

Mr. Sean Quigley

Because the advice we got was that there was no benefit and one could possibly benefit from economies of scale and lower fees.

Why does the Courts Service deem it necessary now to split that role?

Mr. Sean Quigley

We just feel it sends out a message that we want everything to be above board. Whenever there were any concerns about certain things going on within State Street that did not have a direct impact on us, we stated the minimum that we wanted to happen. We did not feel it was appropriate to go beyond that because we would potentially have been disadvantaging beneficiaries.

I do not want to be cutting in.

That is helpful. The last tender was in 2011 and State Street won it.

Mr. Sean Quigley

Yes.

They had had a previous involvement with the Courts Service though, had they not?

Mr. Sean Quigley

They had the previous contract as well.

So how long in duration have they been with the Courts Service?

Mr. Sean Quigley

They were appointed effectively in 2003 as part of a joint bid with Bank of Ireland Asset Management. We then went out to tender again in 2011 and because they had subsequently taken over Bank of Ireland Asset Management, they were the sole bidder.

They were the sole bidder in 2011?

Mr. Sean Quigley

From State Street on their own, rather than State Street and Bank of Ireland Asset Management. We had six bidders in total.

Issues arose in 2012. I am reading this from a media report, although I am not au fait with the details. It was reported that a State Street unit based in London had been accused of defrauding Irish taxpayers to the tune of €3.2 million. That was the allegation, was it not?

Mr. Sean Quigley

It is all in the public domain.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I actually reported on that in the 2011 report on the accounts of the public services concerning the National Pensions Reserve Fund resources that were being disposed of. In the process of that disposal, unfair or uncontractual rates were applied. That is where the loss arose.

Notwithstanding all of that, Mr. Quigley stuck with the decision. They were the successful bidders, had won the tender and the Courts Service carried on with them. Mr. Quigley has now made this arrangement, as he has described to Deputy O'Donnell, to split the roles.

Mr. Sean Quigley

Yes.

Can Mr. Quigley tell me what kind of fees-----

They are splitting the roles, but State Street are the people appointed.

Yes, I got that. It is an interesting manner of splitting the roles. I think the Comptroller and Auditor General wishes to comment.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes. I think there is also an important point in that State Street UK was a separate company that was involved with the National Pensions Reserve Fund. Just to be clear, there are several State Street companies. The one I reported on was a UK company. They are not the same company.

They are not members of the parent group.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

They would certainly be part of a group of companies.

Yes, so there is an organic relationship.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

But there is a legal difference.

And a legal distinction. I thank the comptroller. I was just trying to figure that out.

Can Mr. Quigley tell me what sort of fees they earned for fulfilling this fund management task?

Mr. Sean Quigley

The fees we paid in 2013, and in 2014 as well, were €1.47 million. As a percentage of the total funds under management, that is of the order of 0.12%. Our investment advisers would tell us that these fees are substantially lower than pension funds or equivalent funds that one would find out there, so we push a very hard bargain in relation to these fees. They are extremely low.

Other than those going to State Street, what other fees - professional fees and the like - are paid?

Mr. Sean Quigley

The only fees that are charged directly out of the funds would be court fees. These are authorised by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Justice and Equality. These fees are currently based on any transaction that happens with a ward of court, or any other funds, and we deduct a fee. In 2013, about €1.8 million was deducted, which on average is about the equivalent of 0.14% across all funds.

In the accounts that were published for the Office of the Courts of Justice for the year ending September 2013, there is no breakdown of expenses. I have just glanced through the accounts and effectively one gets a summary balance sheet and a summary of income and expenditure, but there is no breakdown of any expenses incurred. Is there a reason for that?

Mr. Sean Quigley

I presume the Vice Chairman could be referring to the expenses of the Courts Service - the resources it puts in.

Going back to Deputy McDonald's point, I am referring to expenses within the fund itself.

Mr. Sean Quigley

The only expenses against the fund that are deducted directly from those are the fund management charges. They are noted in the accounts. The Vice Chairman will find that figure that I have just quoted.

Mr. Sean Quigley

This is a statement of funds that are managed. The Courts Service provides the infrastructure, resources, investment, the independent advice we get, and the audit fee. That appears in the Courts Service Vote. The way we have of recovering part of that overhead is the court fee we charge, to which I have just referred.

I thank Mr. Quigley for that information. Perhaps I can ask the Comptroller and Auditor General about the oversight of this particular fund. As I understand it, when this issue was visited substantively by this committee in 2001 and 2002, one of the issues that arose was the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General in respect of oversight of this particular fund.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

That is correct. There was a proposal at one stage - around 2007, I think - to appoint the Comptroller and Auditor General as auditor of the fund account. However, while it was included in a draft Bill, it was never progressed.

Is that the case even though the Attorney General had advised very clearly that there was no impediment to the Comptroller and Auditor General's office taking on such a role? Is that correct?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

That is my understanding.

What would Mr. Quigley think of that as an idea?

Mr. Sean Quigley

We have said from the outset that we have no difficulty with the Comptroller and Auditor General auditing these funds. The problem we have is that the legislation, as it currently stands, does not allow for that. That is the 1993 Comptroller and Auditor General legislation. It is a matter for the Department of Justice and Equality to progress that legislation, but we have absolutely no problem. In the meantime, in the absence of that independent audit, we have put in our own audit arrangements. We have published financial statements.

Who carries out that audit?

Mr. Sean Quigley

At the moment it is Grant Thornton.

What is Grant Thornton paid to do that?

Mr. Sean Quigley

Off the top of my head, it is somewhere in the order of €27,000 per annum

But Mr. Quigley would have no objection in principle?

Mr. Sean Quigley

No.

Would he see the good sense in the Comptroller and Auditor General carrying out a role like that?

Mr. Sean Quigley

Absolutely.

It certainly strikes me that he ought to.

Mr. Sean Quigley

Yes.

Perhaps "comfort" is not the word, but it would certainly add confidence to the families of those who depend on these funds - some of them for a lifetime if they have suffered catastrophic injury or disability - that a senior officer of the State would actually audit and oversee the funds. I think it is something that we should all personally try to advance. Given that there was no legal impediment, I cannot really understand why it has not happened until now.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There is actually a legal impediment which, as Mr. Quigley mentioned, is the 1993 Act. That says that the Comptroller and Auditor General shall audit accounts other than a fund under the control of the Courts.

Yes, so let me correct that. To be absolutely precise about it, barring the need for legislative change there is no constitutional or larger legal issue in terms of the Comptroller and Auditor General carrying out this work.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

At the time of the 1993 Act, the thinking probably was that these are not public funds in the sense that they emanate from public sources. They are funds that belong to private individuals. There is also a question of the independence of the courts.

The courts have no objection.

Mr. Sean Quigley

As we would see it, the audit is around the infrastructure that is put in place to manage the funds, and to look at value-for-money issues and control issues. There would be a constraint around looking at a decision of the judge in determining the award. Obviously that would be outside the remit. We do this job to the best of our ability.

We have nothing to hide and would welcome the Comptroller and Auditor General's involvement once the legislation provides for that.

In circumstances in which funds are provided to cater for a lifetime of care, which is the intention of the courts in making the awards, how does the Courts Service protect the individuals and uphold the clear intention of the courts? I appreciate that the specific sums are not the decision of the Courts Service. Mr. Quigley said the Courts Service was prudent in the management of the funds and obtained the best possible advice to maximise the value of funds. What happens if and when things go wrong?

Mr. Sean Quigley

This issue was looked at in 2002. The registrar of wards of court must look at the ongoing and future expenditure requirements. There are modelling tools available to the registrar which can forecast how long the money would be expected to last based on projected expenditure. The investment decision will be aimed at maximising the value that can be got from the fund. Obviously, if the value of the award in the first place was determined by taking account of contributory negligence or other factors, it is very difficult to guarantee things. While it may be the wish of the court, circumstances can change. Inflation can have an impact. However, we do everything we can to maximise the value of the award. It has been recognised that there may be a need for a different approach involving, perhaps, periodic payments to help to mitigate risk. Within the current system, we are doing the best job we can.

I received correspondence from one family. Without getting into the precise circumstances of her son, a woman told me that over a two-year period the relevant fund had diminished from €510,685 to €280,145. These are precise figures, and that is quite a drop over that period. The family - and there are many others - were very alarmed by the drop and very concerned, and they feel helpless in this scenario. They believe there are insufficient protections for these funds. I ask Mr. Quigley to comment on that. These are families who do not necessarily have any interest in the money markets or its vagaries. They simply have to provide for their loved one. They believe there are insufficient checks and balances. They also feel they are entirely locked out of any decisions around investment and report that they find it nearly impossible to get detailed information in respect of investments and returns. That is their experience.

Mr. Sean Quigley

I know we are not going to go into individual cases. I think I understand the scenario to which the Deputy refers. We are looking at the value of those funds at the worst point in the financial crisis. As I alluded to earlier, all those funds took a hit. We have looked at a number of cases. If one looks at them over the longer term, even since December 2003, all of them are significantly up. Of course, if one looks at any long-term fund in a particular year, which is what we are looking at here, and the fund is down substantially, it is not a real loss. It is a paper loss. If one were to sell all those units at that point in time, one would trigger the loss, but that did not happen in this case. We are getting into investments where there is going to be fluctuation in the value of funds in the short term. We get into those investments, however, because we take a long-term view. That has been determined to be in the best interests of cases such as the one the Deputy has mentioned. If we were to take an approach in which we took no risk with the funds and put them into a cash-type investment, we would be criticised because the return is extremely low and would not achieve the long-term objective of growing the investment.

In terms of input, there is consultation between the wards of court office and individual beneficiaries, but, ultimately, the registrar and the courts must make a decision based on what is in the best interests of the beneficiary.

We just have a collision of two different worlds in exactly what Mr. Quigley has described. He describes in financial terms the best interest of the funds. I am not suggesting that he is indifferent to the circumstances of the people affected. I ask him not to misunderstand what I am saying. He is talking about the best interest and the best investment decisions, which is fine on the face of it. However, families feel very locked out of the system and actually quite helpless. The families I have spoken to have the bigger best interest at the core of their concerns, which is the best interest of their injured child or disabled parent or whoever it might be. I suggest to Mr. Quigley, without intending to open a long discussion, that it might be useful to go back and look again at that interaction between individuals and the system in these cases. People have told me that attempting to get any detailed information is like trying to get the third secret of Fatima. One is sent from Billy to Jack if one is not fortunate enough to know exactly who to go to and exactly what questions to ask. As a politician famously said, "You asked the wrong question." That might be fine in politics, but it is not right in this scenario.

Another question families have is whether there are protocols for investment.

Mr. Sean Quigley

Yes. We have investment strategies.

Who are they shared with?

Mr. Sean Quigley

We publish them. They are on the Courts Service website and are made available when the registrar of wards of court engages with families. They are given the information.

How many engagements with families are there? Does this happen annually?

Mr. Sean Quigley

I am not the registrar of wards of court. I cannot comment. It depends on each case and its nature. There are some cases where there is very little and others where there is a lot. Whenever information is sought - and we have had a great deal of experience over recent years - we provide the information that is available. People may feel they are at a loss there, but whenever the request comes in we give out all the information we have.

That is not what people are reporting, and Mr. Quigley needs to hear that, not just as a contribution to a committee meeting, but as something worth reflecting on.

Mr. Sean Quigley

It is something we are conscious of. We look continuously at how we communicate and engage with beneficiaries.

There was a suggestion that the Courts Service would look at the making of periodic payments rather than having very large sums handed out. Has that been looked at? The question boils down to that. Where the Comptroller and Auditor General comes in is that if a fund in respect of a particular individual runs out, it falls back on the State and public funds to deal with the costs thereafter. As a committee, it is something on which we should make a recommendation to the Department of Justice and Equality. This matter should be examined again in consultation with the good people of the Courts Service. The question is on the periodic issue. The service would say, for a fund of €3 million, for example, that it was going to pay so much per year.

To date, in respect of how many individuals that were wards of court has a fund run out leaving the HSE and other organs of the State to deal with the costs involved in their care?

Mr. Sean Quigley

I do not have that information. In respect of the periodic payments, it is really a legislative matter and a matter for the Department of Justice and Equality. As I understand it, the decision in principle has been made to bring forward legislation to provide for periodic payments. It is a question of when it happens. I do not know if my colleague here from the Department of Justice and Equality has any comment to make on that.

Ms Duffy might give us an update on that so that when we are making recommendations as a committee, we do so inclusively. Is that coming in under the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill? Is that the context?

Ms Joyce Duffy

My understanding is that the Government in January 2013 approved the drafting of the heads of the Civil Liability (Amendment) Bill, which will implement the High Court working group's recommendation in respect of periodic payments.

Where is that currently?

Ms Joyce Duffy

A draft general scheme has been prepared by the Department and an actuarial study is being undertaken at the moment. I understand that there are a number of technical issues that need to be resolved if the legislation is to proceed.

Ms Duffy does not have a date as to when that legislation will come before the-----

Ms Joyce Duffy

No, these are issues that are under consideration in the civil law division in the Department.

Obviously, it would go back from the committee that this is something that perhaps would be given priority in terms of advancing it.

I have another suggestion to make. Mr. Quigley said that he was not the registrar of the wards of court. We might write to the registrar and put some of these questions to them. I know they are not directly accountancy questions but nonetheless they are important process issues. Is there merit in a review of all of the above - the management of the fund, the performance of the fund, capturing the practices, the interaction, the role of families and the role of the person to whom the award is made? Would there be merit in doing that because I know that prior to the last foray by this committee into this area, there had been no real accountability for any of this for some 20 years so it has had a chequered history? Might it be an idea for such a review to take place? I do not know who might answer that.

Mr. Sean Quigley

First of all, within the remit under which we operate, we are constantly reviewing how the funds are performing and how the arrangements are working. In the context of the bigger picture, the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill will have an impact on this area.

It is because I am mindful of that legislation that I am suggesting this. I know that it might be the Courts Service that would make a decision on it but it seems sensible to me at this juncture to review the entire kit and caboodle.

Perhaps it could be done in the context of a value for money review by either the Department of Justice and Equality or the Courts Service in line with the fact that there has been a change with regard to periodic payments and legislation. This does not in any way take from the work the Courts Service is doing but perhaps it could be looked at the context of dealing with the realities of modern caring and modern life and demographic changes. How would the Courts Service view that?

Mr. Sean Quigley

Certainly we welcome the review of the initiative around the periodic payments and assisted decision making. Ultimately, our only concern is the interest of the beneficiary so that whatever arrangements are in place, they meet the requirements of the beneficiary. I accept what the Vice Chairman says. We are sympathetic to the concerns that wards of court beneficiaries have. We work within the existing arrangements to the best of our ability but there is obviously potential for improvement there. The two changes that are coming down the tracks will, hopefully, bring about that improvement. It would be timely to have a comprehensive review.

The Courts Service obviously works within the constraints of the system so this is not in any way intended to be critical. The time is possibly right for that kind of review so this committee might write and suggest that.

Yes, we could write in the context of the Comptroller and Auditor General's involvement in terms of-----

Generally, the time is probably right for such a review.

I welcome the witnesses. I apologise for the fact that I could not be here for the substance of the discussion so I will not go over old ground.

I do not want in any way to halt the Deputy's advancement.

I am sure Deputy McDonald and others have traversed the terrain fairly effectively. The Courts Service's track record seems very good in terms of the success it has had in reducing the amount of money that is required from the Exchequer. There has been a 41% reduction between 2008 and 2014. I would say that the Comptroller and Auditor General has not come across that in too many areas.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Except for my own office.

Touché - the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General is probably looking for an increase. I have not heard any demand from the Courts Service for an increase in its budget from the Exchequer at this point in time but it has used the fee income very successfully.

I wish to mention two points. I wrote to Mr. Ryan last month about issues concerning decisions that had been made in the Circuit Court and the High Court and possession orders that had been issued. Mr. Ryan wrote me a very fine and extensive letter. However, there seems to be considerable discrepancies in the manner in which the Circuit Court and the High Court conduct their business. For example, I was looking for possessions broken down in terms of residential possessions and non-residential orders that had been issued. The Circuit Court was able to supply those details but the High Court did not have any breakdown of that nature. Likewise, I was looking for location. The Circuit Court had the breakdown in respect of location but the High Court had none. It just had a bald figure.

While I understand that nobody wants to interfere too much with the Judiciary and the manner in which it conducts its business, it would seem that we could do with a more detailed level of information and at least a standardised level of information related to the same matters from the different courts. I cannot understand why we cannot get information with regard to residential and non-residential and for both courts to be able to provide a breakdown with regard to the various areas. Now that the Department of Justice and Equality is no longer the go-between with regard to Oireachtas Members because the Courts Service provides that information, the relationship between the Courts Service and the Oireachtas Members - because this is information that is coming from our clientele - is very interesting and it is very important that we are aware of it.

In the context of the new Courts Service strategy plan for 2014, I think the witnesses suggested that this was before the Department of Justice and Equality so it is a draft plan. Is there any chance of us getting a look at that draft plan to see whether or not we could have an input before it is finalised in the context of our relationship with the Courts Service as serving Members of the Oireachtas and the work we are doing as it would be mutually beneficial?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

There is no problem with sending it to the committee. It has gone to the Minister for approval. I do not know when she will approve it so I do not know what the time line is for her to approve it. It is due at this stage but we have no problem sending on the draft plan to the committee. It has gone from the Courts Service so we will do that.

The High Court has a very old IT system. It is a legacy system which predates the establishment of the Courts Service, unlike the Circuit Court and District Court system, which is a very modern civil courts management system. It is part of our agenda to upgrade the High Court system but it is a funding and staffing issue. Providing the details sought by the Deputy would require us go through every file. We just do not have the resources, but we intend to update our IT system for the High Court when funds become available.

My request did not go that far back. It was only in respect of recent years. I was not looking for legacy information.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

I appreciate that.

It is important for us to get relevant information, particularly in regard to the huge problems arising with mortgages, to find out whether residential homes are being repossessed at a higher rate than previously. We can get a degree of information on this issue, but once cases go the High Court we are almost blanked, because there is no breakdown of the figures.

Mr. Brendan Ryan

I will look again at the Deputy's request. Ms McLoughlin has indicated that she will endeavour to find the resources necessary to retrieve the information that the Deputy requires. It will involve a manual trawl.

Perhaps Mr. Ryan will provide a copy of the strategic plan to us. It might be valuable for us to examine it. Have all the procurement contracts been dealt with at this point in time? Are they all completed?

Mr. Brendan Ryan

Yes; seven have been completed and the other three will be completed by the end of the year.

Does the Comptroller and Auditor General wish to comment?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

No, thank you.

Does the committee agree to dispose of the 2013 Appropriation Accounts of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Vote 22 - Courts Service? Agreed. I thank Mr. Ryan and his colleagues for attending and apologise for the delay in commencing. Their contributions were well received.

The witnesses withdrew.
The committee adjourned at 2.30 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 27 November 2014.
Barr
Roinn