When I heard of a Courts Bill coming out of the pipeline, I assumed that it would be the first major reform to be undertaken by this Government. I was looking forward to it, as I always do to legislation relating to legal matters. I was contemplating it as being a Bill in the context of the many promises made, for example, by Deputy Fennell, Minister of State at the Department of Justice, who over the tenure of her office has been proclaiming the need for a reform of law, particularly in relation to illegitimacy. I do not deny that lady the right to do and say what she has been doing and saying but I give this as an example of promises unrelated to the reality.
The Minister has indicated on numerous occasions, to my certain knowledge, her intention and concern for reform of the law on illegitimacy. In the end we got a document which asked us to comment on her views and those of the Government in relation to that subject. That means that the question of illegitimacy has once more been put on the long finger. This was one of the hopes that one had on hearing about the Courts Bill, and what does one get? Instead of a major piece of law reform, one gets legislation which creates more confusion, more bureaucracy and does more harm than good to the courts system. First, we are told that it will improve the issuing of liquor licences. The second major law reform which comes in this Courts Bill is imprisonment for non-payment of judgment debts — two major shafts of wisdom in the area of law reform from this reforming Government.
I am sorry that I am a party to wasting the House's time on this Bill. However, I was requested to come and speak on the Bill, which is what I am now doing. I offered my views on it at the parliamentary party meeting yesterday morning. The Bill was introduced to that meeting in a very able fashion by the present spokesman for Justice, Deputy Hyland. The views expressed there on this piece of law reform were particularly worth hearing. It was a very good parliamentary party meeting in the context of this Bill and of law reform generally. The reaction at it is reflected by my reaction here, being given the opportunity of speaking on the Bill in Dáil Éireann. It is a fraudulent piece of nonsense. Meant to be a law reform Bill, it is nothing of the kind. It is my intention now to expose to the House the wretchedness of this production.
This Bill is an effort to mislead the House in the context of what is required — which is major law reform. The Courts Bill, 1984, is being discussed —"1984", let it be noted. We are now at the end of May 1985. Perhaps the Minister in responding might like to tell us how much time it took for the civil servants to produce this Bill. Undoubtedly, a lot of effort has gone into it on the part of the civil servants, the number of whom we do not know. It is extremely technical legislation, undoubtedly. There are seven sections and then a first and second schedule. One wonders at the research required to come up with this piece of unwisdom, because that is what it is. It makes my blood boil to have to stand on the back benches of my own party to be treated to this contempt of Dáil Éireann presented in the context of law reform.
We talk about bringing this House into disrepute. Is it any wonder that people have a low perception of us when we produce this fraudulence? The Minister for Justice is now present. Where is the rest of the Criminal Justice Act that we spent so much time discussing in this House? At that time he accused some of us of being weak on law and security. Nothing could be further from the truth. That accusation is made if one expresses a view in this House in relation to civil liberties. Where is the great family law reform that we were promised from this Government? Would it not have been better if the Minister, his acolytes, or assistants — no disrespect to the Ministers of State — had produced a Bill which would give many thousands of families hope, instead of having to queue up for justice in courts which would do justice to some of the courts in Iran under the Ayatollah?
This country needs, and needs badly, proper family law courts. Of course, people with family problems are on the increase as the economic pressures increase. Despite what some of our institutions — religious or otherwise — are telling us, the realities are there. What we want in this House is genuine law reform, not phoney law reform. What we want is family law reform, district courts and family law courts that will deal principally with family matters.
I am a qualified lawyer but I am not here to defend lawyers, the Law Library, the Bar Council or the Incorporated Law Society. They are all well able to defend themselves. However, when charges are made against lawyers they should be substantiated by facts rather than fiction. Lawyers are not afraid of change. If the jury system is to be looked at, it will be met with reasoned arguments by the lawyers. However, it is a matter for the Government to produce whatever reforms they have in mind in that regard. If the law must change let it change but those changes should be for the benefit of the people, not for the lawyers or other professions.
We read that this Bill is an Act to amend and extend the Courts of Justice Acts, 1924 to 1961, and the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Acts, 1961 to 1983, and to provide for other matters relating to the courts. The explanatory memorandum states as follows:
The Bill proposes certain amendments of the law designed to simplify procedures in the District Court in relation to a number of matters, principally the renewal of intoxicating liquor licences, and it also proposes certain other changes of which the most important relate to the periods of imprisonment that may be imposed in default of payment of fines.
Hurrah for the Government. They should be ashamed of their effort at law reform. It is a total waste of time and effort. They should be ashamed to come here with this pettifogging measure. The Bill treats the House with contempt. It is my personal view that the House has been humiliated because of it. It has been produced under the guise of law reform. The attitude is that we should hasten slowly, that we cannot have law reform overnight or in bulk. We are told we must have law reform in the context of the renewal of liquor licences and in relation to periods of imprisonment that must be imposed in default of payment of fines. All of these are regarded as major pieces of law reform. God help us and protect us from the efforts of this Government in that regard.
The question might be asked: why not bring before the Dáil another problem with which the Minister is confronted, namely, the role of the Garda Síochána in the context of the District Court? In any such court there may be only a few serious crimes; for example, drunken driving, dangerous driving, larceny, assault and that type of crime. The Minister might address his mind to the procedures in the District Court in connection with such crimes. Those of us who began our legal careers in the District Court often had to wait many hours to have our cases taken. On such occasions we saw many members of the Garda Síochána at the back of the court waiting to deal with matters such as summonses for speeding, tax offences, failure to have a driving licence and so on. In the ordinary way if those crimes were admitted by the defendant they would be uncontested in court and this would relieve the Garda Síochána of having to waste their time and the taxpayers' money. That is the kind of law reform we should be dealing with here.
The Minister is aware that there is a serious breakdown in law and security in Dublin city and county. It would be much better if members of the Garda Síochána were out on the beat rather than wasting their time in the District Court in cases dealing with tax offences and failure to have a driving licence. I am not suggesting that these are not serious matters but if one were to make a comparison between a case of assault and failure to have a driving licence I suggest the driving offence might be seen as a minor one. At the moment the defendant thinks he either has to appear in person in court to answer the charge or to employ a solicitor to act for him. Such matters could be dealt with by an on-the-spot fine. It is only where a defendant genuinely feels he is innocent that he should have to trouble the court.
If matters were dealt with in the way I have suggested, the Garda Síochána would be free to deal with the more serious crimes in this city and in the country. In that connection, perhaps we should pay a tribute to people in the rural areas. The urban sickness, in the context of crime, does not appear to have spread to a great degree to rural Ireland. I know that crimes are committed in rural areas but not to such a degree as in Dublin city and county and a tribute should be paid to our rural citizens for their attitude to the law. It is a pity that attitude does not exist among some of our less unruly citizens, particularly in Dublin city and county. The waste of Garda time in the District Court has to be seen to be believed. As somebody who practised in that court for a considerable number of years I found that one of the most stark matters with which one was confronted was the number of gardaí dealing with so-called minor offences. This is an area the Minister could well examine.
Another area he might well examine is that of the service of summonses by the Garda Síochána. Under present procedures, if, say, a driver is stopped in Dún Laoghaire for exceeding the speed limit the local Garda will send the summons to the nearest Garda station to the driver's residence. A summons has to be delivered either to the residence of the driver or to the driver in person. For example, a driver resides in a flat in Dublin. Those of us who lived in flats know what flatland is like — I lived in a flat in Galway for a number of years; I do not have much experience of flatland in Dublin. It is, to say the least of it a warren-type experience from the point of view of delivering a summons on the part of the gardaí. Why should a garda be exposed to attempting to deliver a summons in Dublin flatland? It is a will o' the wisp operation to which he should not be subjected, a waste of taxpayers' money. In civil cases a civil bill can be served by registered post. It seems ridiculous that a summons for a minor traffic offence cannot also be served by registered post, subject to the right of appeal by the prospective recipient. I understand a system of recorded delivery is used in other countries, which the Minister might well examine.
One other shortfall in the present District Courts system is that there is a substantial amount of money outstanding in unpaid fines. The Minister will be aware that a large number of them date back a number of years, the reason appearing to be that the District Court offices are so under-staffed and overworked they are unable to issue the relevant warrants to the local gardaí to collect the fines. If each District Court office was allocated a junior civil servant that backlog could be dealt with, thus resulting in a great boost to the Exchequer. I should like to pay tribute to our District Court clerks throughout the country who have performed their duties in an excellent manner. In the nature of things the District Court deals with so-called minor offences. District Court clerks have never been found wanting in their profession or calling, but the more we place on the District Court the more over-burdened become the district justices and clerks. An efficient District Court clerk is what makes for an efficient District Court, and the relationship between him and the district justice is all important. It is the clerk who sets the work for the day, informs the district justice what is before the court for that day and does an extremely valuable job.
This so-called piece of law reform has not touched on family law, which is a great tragedy. If the Minister wants to make a real name for himself he should allow his Minister of State, Deputy Fennell, a genuine and concerned person who has shown genuine concern for family reform, loose — and I use the word in its best sense — in the Department to produce genuine law reform. Let her get on with the production of this illegitimacy Bill about which we have heard so much from her on so many occasions. Let her implement the other views she has expressed in the context of family law reform. Obviously she is a very willing, able and articulate person. Here I may use an expression that may well get me into trouble, but I do not think she is getting a fair crack of the whip from the Minister; in the nature of things she is not being given her head. I appeal to the Minister to allow his Minister of State get on with the business of law reform in the interests of his good name, that of his Department and of Dáil Éireann.
Under the provisions of this Bill we are treated to the renewal of intoxicating liquor licences, which undoubtedly constitutes law reform but lower case law reform, as is the question of the periods of imprisonment to be imposed for default of payment of fines. Of course that is law reform, but is it genuine law reform? When we go into the technicalities of the renewal of intoxicating liquor licences we note that in certain circumstances a certificate of the court has to be obtained. If one is dissatisfied with the Revenue Commissioners with regard to what they may do in relation to the renewal of one's liquor licence one can go back to the District Court. This is ping pong legislation of the lowest type. Why has it not been left in the hands of the District Court altogether? Why has not the issuing of liquor licences been left in the hands of the District Court rather than engaging in table tennis legislation — if you do not get it one place you can go back to the other and if you do not get it in that place you can go back to the other, an ever spiralling piece of bureaucratic nonsense? If this is one way of creating more jobs in the Civil Service let the Minister say so. I am not against the creation of more jobs, but I am against the confusion of existing procedures.
When we have laws adjudicated on in regard to liquor licences they should be up front before the District Court, having it out in public. I say that with no disrespect to the Revenue Commissioners, who fulfil an important if intimidating role in our society. That is where we should have our laws adjudicated upon. I accept that the procedures may appear to be simple ones, but I can foresee an awful lot of hardship and confusion being brought about under that system.
