I welcome many of the provisions in this Bill but I wish to raise a matter which should be considered by all those involved. I believe that the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland and the Bar Council of Ireland should study the amalgamation of the two professions. We have followed the English judicial system to a large extent and the system has worked quite well. It is also true to say that there would be some difficulties in the event of amalgamation of the two professions. Senior and junior counsel have been regarded as specialists in particular fields. In litigation particularly there have been very eminent senior and junior counsel who specialised in probates, conveyancing and other judicial matters. In many ways the system has been satisfactory. The vast majority of senior and junior counsel reside in the vicinity of Dublin, while some live in the Cork area and there are various others around the country.
In the event of amalgamation the manpower involved in some cases would be less. At present there are a firm of instructing solicitors, a junior counsel and usually two senior counsel on the side of the plaintiff and there are a similar number on the side of the defendant. Amalgamation of the two professions would mean the involvement of fewer people on each side and this would definitely lead to a reduction in the cost of a case. It would also help to streamline the two professions.
The idea of amalgamation has been tossed around on occasion but I am not aware that it has ever been studied jointly by the Incorporated Law Society and the Bar Council. Such a study could result in the publication of a report to be considered by all sides of the legal profession detailing the advantages and disadvantages of amalgamation and whether it would improve the present situation.
When this Bill is passed it will bring the law somewhat closer to the people and make it more relevant to their needs. The extension of the jurisdiction of the District Court and Circuit Court will mean a very sizable reduction in the number of cases coming before the High Court. I hope that as a result of that many more of these cases may be heard outside Dublin than are at present. The list in Galway, Cork, Limerick, Kilkenny and so on is very extensive. A reduction in the number of cases in these venues will mean that there will be less people going to the high Court. Following upon this the High Court could be of assistance to the Incorporated Law Society and to the Bar Council in studying this matter. That is something that should be looked into at present. I am not advocating coercion or that some Minister or somebody in the Department of Justice should try to arrange a shot-gun wedding or something of that nature. But I am advocating that the matter be looked into because it could be of benefit to everybody involved in law.
Part of my reason for welcoming this matter before the House this afternoon —and I touched on this the last day— is that from the date that a High Court case is set down to the date of the actual hearing there can be a delay of from 15 months to a year and a half. That is a long time. But prior to the setting down of the case there can be a delay of perhaps three years in the preparation of the case so that from the date of the commencement of the action, that is from the date a person suffers some wrong from which he wants redress, to the date of hearing, the delays can at times be four, four and a half, or five years and this is a very long time for somebody to have to wait to have a case heard.
This 12 to 18 months period of waiting is impossible to explain to people; they cannot understand why the court system could have a backlog of something approaching a year-and-a-half from the date the case is set down. A person calls to his solicitor and is told that his case which has taken three years to prepare will take a further 18 months, half the time again. In the vast majority of cases the people involved are in poor circumstances following injury to the breadwinner of the family or perhaps even his death. These people have to wait a further year-and-a-half. This is not good enough. I am hopeful that this is going to get rid of that backlog with great speed because it is urgent that that appalling backlog is got rid of immediately. The only people benefiting from that backlog at present are the big insurance companies who can sit back and wait a year-and-a-half for a case to come up. It can happen that people who are not physically able are forced back to work to try to bring in some money to their homes; perhaps even a person who received very serious injuries has died in the meantime. The insurance companies can sit back and let all that time elapse. A delay of that nature is something approaching a social scandal.
This Bill may help to remove that backlog. I hope it will because I have the greatest sympathy for people who suffer injuries and have to wait all those years to have their case decided. In some cases a very sizeable award is made in the High Court to an individual and the insurance company then lodge an appeal and the case goes to the Supreme Court. The resulting delay can run into years again, all of this in many instances involving a litigant who is in very poor financial circumstances. All of this is of tremendous importance and I welcome these changes which I hope will remedy and alleviate a very serious situation.
The Bar Council have drawn attention to one particular matter. Indeed I welcome their comments in regard to the present appalling conditions of our courthouses around the country. Our High Courts are satisfactory. I am not aware of any Circuit Court that is in very bad condition. Some of them leave something to be desired but overall they are properly heated; in most instances there is reasonable accommodation for consultations, reasonable waiting rooms, reasonable toilet facilities. But our District Courts are an absolute disgrace. Quite a sizeable number are in extremely bad condition. They are held in old dance-halls, old schools, pool rooms, parts of publichouses, parts of GAA clubs or rugby clubs and so on. When one sees films of courts being conducted behind the Iron Curtain one is shocked at the system those people are operating. But if one were to visit some of the district courthouses here or to see them on television one would be absolutely appalled at their disgraceful condition.
I have been smoked out of courtrooms here where a fire would have been lit perhaps an hour beforehand by a member of the Garda Síochána or a caretaker and after a period the courtroom would be filled with smoke which, along with the cold and crowding made it appalling and totally unsatisfactory and much more relevant to the last century than to the present. I would like to know if the Department of Justice have ever conducted any type of survey of our courtrooms. I doubt it, because if they had and realised the conditions under which justice is administered here they would have taken action long before now. The Minister has promised to bring proposals before the Government in regard to this matter. I welcome this promise but I am sorry that he was not more definite in what he said.
We are now going to bring family law cases into the District Courts. There will be children involved in these cases and perhaps mothers and fathers who are separated and there will be decisions made, when this Bill becomes law, in these places. It concerns me greatly that such decisions will be made in the conditions under which our district justices are forced to labour at present. I would urge that an immediate study be conducted by the Department of Justice, that they would consult the District Justices Association, District Court Clerks and the Garda Síochána, requesting them for a list of the courthouses they consider to be unsuitable for the hearing of many cases. At present many of our courts beg description. Indeed, I would hope immediate steps would be taken so that difficult family law cases would not be heard in many of these courthouses. We must remember the sad plight of many young boys and girls of an impressionable age having important decisions taken in regard to their family. They may have been brought into court by their mother or father and be present when the justice asks some very relevant questions. This is sad and tragic enough even when such cases are heard in some kind of comfort and privacy, but when they are conducted in the circumstances I have described— and here I speak from personal experience in regard to these matters—then we place our judicial system under a strain.
I go along with a lot of the provisions of this Bill. At present district justices have a very large number of cases to hear. The extent of their work at present should be brought home to the Department of Justice. For instance, I believe that over the last five years our Garda force has been increased by something like 3,000 members. I am giving an approximate figure only. Has there been any increase in the number of district justices in the past five years? I honestly do not believe there has been. It is obvious also that the vast majority of that increased number of gardaí are detecting breaches of the law and bringing such matters before the courts. That entails a very sizable increase in the volume of work of our district justices in that section alone. In my view that necessitates an increase in their numbers.
The vast majority of judges in our District Courts, as in all our courts — here I am speaking of 99.9 per cent of the Judiciary — have been exemplary in their conduct at all levels. It is approximately 12 years since I first qualified and never have I had even the slightest doubt that any justice, Circuit Court judge or High Court judge ever made other than the most honest, straightforward and, in his view, correct decision. I say that without fear of contradiction. Our Judiciary have been impeccable in regard to the honesty of their judgments and in their conduct.
These matters are of immense importance in regard to the extension of the Guardianship of Infants Act and family law matters. These are cases needing to be heard carefully and diligently without the justice feeling he is being crowded out by volume of work. I believe this will necessitate an increase in the number of appointments at District Court and Circuit Court levels. I believe that these family law and other related cases on account of the care and attention they warrant, will necessitate an increase in the number of district justices in order that the justices will be able to give them their full and undivided attention without the feeling that there is a sizable backlog being built up. The Minister should examine this position very carefully and ascertain whether or not he will take steps in that direction. I make this case because of the sensitive nature of these cases, on account of the thought and care they warrant, and which I am confident will be exercised by the District Court Justices and Circuit Court judges. Basically the question of barring orders, the extension of the Guardianship of Infants Act and so on, will be dealt with in the District Court but the Circuit Court may well be involved also.
I wish to draw the attention of the House also to one very important matter. At present all family law, civil and criminal cases are heard on the same day. I regard this as totally unsatisfactory. I am speaking now of country areas and larger towns. I understand it is somewhat different in cities where there has been a division of responsibilities and where certain justices are assigned especially to family law cases, particularly in Dublin. However, in rural areas at present the situation is that family law cases are heard in camera but at the very commencement of the day's list. All of the people are summoned to attend on the morning of the court hearing at 11 a.m. Let us take the case of a wife who has initiated some proceedings against her husband. I have seen such a case come before a court in a crowded courtroom with perhaps 100 or 200 people present. In the presence of everybody a District Court clerk calls on Mr. A, from one side and, from the other, Mrs. A, so that it becomes immediately evident to people from the surrounding area that there is some serious family problem involved between the two of them. Therefore what that couple may have succeeded in keeping an internal family problem is fairly well advertised in those circumstances when it becomes evident that they are experiencing some kind of marital difficulty. Mr. and Mrs. A appear from two different parts of the building and they go in and are inside for about 15 minutes. The next case of Mr. and Mrs. B is called and they go to have their case heard. Everybody present in the courthouse is aware of the marital difficulties these couples are experiencing.
I see no problem of any magnitude in providing that family law cases would be heard on a special afternoon or day. This is of great importance to people who wish to have family law matters heard in court. I urge the Minister to ensure that any such matters would be heard on a specified day and that nothing else but family law cases be heard in that particular courtroom during that particular sitting. I want the Minister to set aside a specific period or sitting for the hearing of family law cases. If he fails to do that I intend to continue raising this matter in the House until I get an absolute guarantee from him that he will accede to this — not request because I specify that it is a demand. The existing situation is totally wrong and I am highly critical of it. If, through lack of finance, facilities or a shortage of judges the Minister deems it necessary to have civil and criminal law cases heard — I am speaking of contract and tort matters — at the one sitting along with criminal cases, while I would not be in favour of it I do not think it is of quite the same importance as having family law cases heard on their own on a specific day. That is important and would be welcomed. It would meet with the approval of the vast majority of people I have met who have been involved in family law cases.
There are two matters about which I am very pleased. I see that there will be an increase regarding judgment debt. That is welcome. As regards amendment of the Civil Liability Act, 1961, section 28, the £1,000 has been there since 1961. That amount is paid for mental distress suffered by people following the death of some member of the family. While that amount may have been relevant at the time of the passing of the Act it needs drastic amending. I note that the Minister has put in £5,000. While that is a five-fold increase in the 19-year period, and is welcome, I think that on the death of a member of a family I would personally recommend £10,000. I ask the Minister to consider changing the amount from £1,000 to £10,000. Such an increase would be of much benefit. It only arises in connection with the mental distress and suffering of a family following the death of a member. As the Minister knows, money is no great compensation for the death of a loved member of a family but over a period it may alleviate some of the sadness and hardship that follows. I very much favour an increase in the amount to £10,000.
I see that judgments under £150 do not carry interest. This is debatable if money is left outstanding for a long period. Even if it is a small amount. I suggest that, while £150 is not a fortune, it may be a lot to some people particularly if they are short of money. While a decree is a great encouragement to get people to pay up. I think that if they had the added fear that interest would be charged on the amount in addition to the decree there would be a greater incentive to speed up payment. I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter of allowing such payments to carry interest. It would be no great burden on anybody to have interest charged on such amounts. It would not cause any great problems to the District Court staff if these judgments carried interest.
In general, with the reservations I have mentioned. I think the Bill includes many benefits and improvements.