The motion that is now before the Dáil is a motion that would authorise the expenditure of money, and the debate that ought to have taken place on the Second Reading of the Bill may take place on this motion. I want to say very little regarding the Bill, of which the Second Reading has been given, except that I think there are certain omissions, which might well have been included in the Bill and which undoubtedly would require a larger expenditure of money. Therefore, what I have to say is appropriate to this motion. What I think, in regard to the Bill in general, is that there are two or three proposals that might still be considered, might, as a matter of fact, be more properly considered when dealing with the rules governing the conduct of the Courts, but I am not sufficiently familiar with the process of the administration of the law to know whether I am right or wrong on that.
I would like that there had been something in the Bill to improve and extend the provisions of Children's Courts. I think that the experiments on the trivial offences which are allowed to go before Children's Courts now have proved satisfactory, and justify an extension of the operation of those Courts, and that such Courts should be empowered to deal with even more serious cases than the present Courts are allowed to do. I think the experience of those who have been familiar with the work of those Courts would support what I say, and that children who are guilty, or at least who are being tried for more serious offences, might well be brought before Courts which are not Courts in the minds of the people, but are rather places where strict fatherly advice might be given and minor punishment inflicted. The children should not be brought into contact with the atmosphere of Criminal Courts. I think that a great deal of money might be saved to the country if there was some application in Ireland of a system which has been introduced with success in one or two Continental countries and is advocated by experienced Judges in England, of some kind of a conciliator rather than a Judge, whom the parties can approach, and perhaps even whom the parties must approach in certain classes of cases before the trails take place or litigation is persisted in. It has been found, I understand, in Norway that a very large percentage of the cases are settled out of court through the operations of, shall I say, this conciliator, and that very many cases which are not settled are not persisted in because of the advice of the impartial person in regard to the prospects of the case. I think that is a reform which might well be introduced here and would, perhaps, cure the country of a disease which is very prevalent, the epidemic of litigation.
Another point I would like to raise, and this is the only one. Perhaps this is particularly the one that ought to be dealt with in the Rules, but there are members of the Dáil who will be quite familiar with the movement in industrial circles towards consolidation, and the removal of lines of demarcation, such as the amalgamation of unions. It has led to a great deal of economy and oiling of machinery. I think there should be something of the kind done in respect to the legal profession, and that the strict lines of demarcation between Solicitor and Counsel should not be persisted in. I think there should be no compulsion upon a litigant to pay a Counsel as well as a Solicitor if he is satisfied the Solicitor can do his work satisfactorily. I would like to have seen a reform in that direction which would enable the Solicitor, if his client is satisfied with his advocacy, to appear before the Court. The employment of a Counsel should be optional. I am sure there is a great deal of disagreement within the profession on that proposition, but I am informed authoritatively that very highly experienced lawyers believe the time has come when there should be either an amalgamation of the departments of the profession or at least greater facilities for appearance, in the Courts, of the Solicitors. I suppose I should add that the Counsel and Barristers should have the right to defend and do work which Solicitors now are entitled to do. Perhaps before the discussions on the Bill itself are completed we may hear some observations on those points by those who are competent by their experience to deal with them. I throw them out as the mind of a considerable section of laymen who are anxious to get justice done as cheaply as possible. There is a pretty generally accepted belief that the country is over professionalised and that amongst the professions in which there are too many practising, the legal profession predominates. If it were possible gradually to eliminate half the lawyers in the country I think the country would benefit.
