On section 1, an amendment in the name of Deputy Woods has been ruled out of order because it involves a potential charge on Revenue.
Courts Bill, 1985: Committee and Final Stages.
SECTION 1.
The amendment which has been ruled out of order reads:
In page 2, before section 1, to insert the following new section:
"1.—The number of ordinary judges of the High Court shall not be more than fifteen."
Section 1 proposes that the number of ordinary judges of the High Court shall be increased from 14 to 15 for a limited period, and the limited period is spelled out in subsection (2) which says:
This section shall cease to be in force on the day on which a vacancy amongst the ordinary judges of the High Court first occurs after the 2nd day of April, 1987.
As far as the High Court is concerned, the Minister is seeking our agreement to an additional post at High Court level being created now, that post to cease on the first occasion after 2 April 1987 on which a vacancy occurs. In other words, the Minister wants to fill now the vacancy which will occur at that time rather than filling it on 3 April 1987. I have serious reservations about what the Minister is doing. For example, if the Minister considered it possible that an election would take place in the next six to nine months, that would afford the Government an opportunity to instal a further judge now who would continue to be there when the vacancy occurred on, say, 3 April 1987. In effect it amounts to a Government filling a post in advance. Surely that must be quite an exceptional arrangement. If there was a change of Government in the meantime it would deny any incoming Government the opportunity of filling a normal vacancy as it occurred. That must be very suspect. It was for that reason that I suggested in my amendment that the number of ordinary judges of the High Court shall not be more than 15. If the Government want to appoint somebody at this stage, for temporary business or whatever, why not increase the number to 15, leave it at 15 and let the Government of the day decide whether they want to refill posts which are vacated at any time in the future.
I was confirmed in that view by the fact that there are various other things happening which would require the services of High Court judges. For example, I am sure the Government will pledge themselves to the establishment of a family court. Certainly we shall be pressing them to do so. There was all party agreement at the Joint Committee on Marriage Breakdown on the importance of having a family court established urgently and having a High Court judge specifically allocated to that court. There are various ramifications in that in relation to the number of judges from the Circuit Court and High Court who might be involved and they would have to be worked out. If that is to happen it would appear that the Government of the day might very effectively make use of an additional judge in that interim period. There are other suggestions, particularly in relation to family law, which could result in an extra demand on personnel at High Court level. It seemed to me that the logical thing to do was to increase the number of judges approved by the House to 15 in the way it has been done in the past and then to leave it to the Government of the day to decide whether they fill any vacancy occurring. Here the Government are filling a vacancy in advance and that, naturally, must raise suspicions about why it is being done in this way. Perhaps the Minister will give us his views on that.
Limerick East): It is very unusual to be debating an amendment which has already been ruled out of order. It is not in the least unusual to be replying to Deputy Woods who seems to make contributions not on the merits of the case; he seems always to look behind a provision and then comes up with some innuendo about the mala fides of the Government or the Minister. We are putting up a proposal to appoint an extra judge for about 15 months because of the backlog, especially on the civil side, in the courts and we feel the need for an extra judge for about 15 months. We do not need a permanent appointment and our best estimation at the moment is that if we had an extra judge for a short period that would cut down on the backlog.
We have done an enormous amount already. I would like to pay tribute to the President of the High Court for what he has done in cutting down on the enormous backlog in civil cases, which was running up to three years when I became Minister. Now it is down to about 12 months all around the country in Dublin, Limerick and various other places where the High Court sits, with the exception of Cork. As late as last spring Cork was still running with lists of 27 or 28 months. It would take almost two and a half years to get a case heard. Again, the President of the High Court made arrangements, and that is cut down to 18 months. We think that if we had an extra judge we could bring it down to about 11 months, which is about the appropriate period.
The kind of case we have in mind will never be heard a month or two months after it is set down. We are talking about a typical road accident case. By the time somebody has been treated for the injuries received, has come out of hospital and has recuperated and the doctors are in a position to give a medical opinion of the damage from the injury inflicted on the person, we are talking about nine or ten months anyway from the date of the accident. Therefore, you cannot push it below that point. It has come to a point where the civil lists have been cut down enormously on the jury side to about 12 months, with the exception of Cork, and down to three months on the non-jury side, which again is about as far as it can go. We did this by providing better accommodation both in Dublin and Cork so that there were extra physical courts where judges could sit, but it was done principally by the organisational ability of the present President of the High Court and his immediate predecessor who did a tremendous job in this respect.
We are not doing anything here which is not straightforward and which is not clear on the face of the Bill. Our estimation is that if there was an extra High Court judge for 12 or 15 months then the backlog could be cleared totally. Fewer cases are being set down now than in the past. The present complement of judges could deal adequately with what is being set down now — we know that from the statistics — but if we had the extra man to deal with the backlog, then it would go back again to the complement of judges which is there now.
We picked 2 April 1987 because there is to be a retirement from the Bench on 3 April 1987. One member of the High Court will reach retirement age then. Also, a High Court judge must have a registrar, a crier, driver and so on, and the appointment is not just the salary of the judge. It involves consequential appointments and a certain amount of money is involved in it as well. We do not want that position to hold permanently if it is not necessary. If my best estimation of the need is incorrect, — I or anybody else who is in my job — can come back in April 1987 with a simple piece of legislation to provide an extra appointment.
On the implication that somehow or other we are advancing an appointment of a judge so that Fianna Fáil will be deprived of an appointment, if Fianna Fail come into Government and want to appoint 100 High Court judges they are quite free to bring in a Bill saying that they will appoint 100 High Court judges. We are depriving them of nothing whatsoever. The opportunity is there. We are doing this now to meet a problem in a particular way. It is additional to the measures we have taken already and we believe that the extra High Court judge for a period of 14 or 15 months — I intend the appointment to be made in early January — will eliminate the backlog, and then the present complement of judges, 14 plus the President of the High Court, would be quite adequate to deal with what is being set down at the moment. There is nothing cute or tricky about this. It is absolutely straightforward. There is no need to look for motives behind the Bill. The motive is straightforward. There is a backlog which is particularly bad in Cork. When one extra judge clears the backlog the present complement of judges will be adequate to deal with the situation from there on in.
From the picture the Minister has painted in his Second Stage speech we see that the waiting period has been cut down to ten months in Dundalk and 12 months in Dublin and now 18 months in the Cork area. Is the delay now caused by a lack of judges in Cork or by some other reason? The Bill was circulated on 5 June 1985. Why is there a rush to take it at this stage and why was there no rush to take this Bill — a very simple Bill — and get it under way this year and get to work on the backlog? The Minister has told us that one of the judges is due to retire on 3 April 1987. Of course, we must guess at this and look behind the Bill to try to find out. There was no explanatory memorandum with the Bill. The Minister says that this is a simple, short Bill, but an explanatory memorandum would have made it a little clearer. On replying to Second Stage the Minister of State told us that a judge was due to retire on that date. Could the Minister tell us when the other High Court judges are due to retire? I take it that this retirement which is due on 3 April 1987 is the first.
(Limerick East): I understand there is to be a retirement in early January 1986 which will require an appointment. The next after that is 3 April 1987. Therefore, there will be a vacancy in January. I intend to go to Government in early January to fill the vacancy that occurs in January and, if this Bill passes through both Houses, to fill the vacancy which is provided for here. Therefore, I envisage two new High Court judges being appointed.
We do not appoint High Court judges on a political basis. They have not been political in their actions. We are very interested in good judges at the moment. We would like to have good judges, and I am open to suggestions privately from the other side of the House, as I am from anybody who knows existing barristers who might be capable of doing a good job in the High Court.
I do not disagree with the Minister on that aspect. Our High Court judges have served us very well. Can the Minister give us retirement dates from 3 April 1987 on? I am sure he has those available.
(Limerick East): I have not them available. Can I provide the Deputy with them later?
Can the Minister give me just a few of them now?
(Limerick East): I have nothing for the Deputy except those two now.
Is it true that the next after that will be December 1990?
(Limerick East): I do not know that, but I can check it for the Deputy.
If the Minister would not mind, would he supply them afterwards?
(Limerick East): The Deputy asked about Cork and I should like to tell him that one of the problems there was a lack of an extra courtroom to clear the backlog. Even if a judge was available there was not accommodation to hold a court. It is no harm to repeat my view that I do not think the legal profession in Cork organised themselves very well to clear the backlog. There may have been too few people operating at senior level. The President of the High Court by going down himself and calling all the cases earlier in the year cut the backlog substantially. It is not so much a question of the cases that go through the courts, it is getting cases to the door of the court so that people settle. Most of the cases on the list never go through the court but if there is a backlog of two or three years nobody is interested in settling. The nearer a case gets to the door of the court the greater the propensity to settle it.
If insurance companies and others can see that once a case is set down it will be in the court after ten months many of the cases will never get to court because they will be settled. That is the way to clear the backlog. It will be up to the President of the High Court to designate a judge to Cork but if one is appointed to that area the backlog will be reduced further. If we could cut another two months off the position in Dublin it would be an improvement. I believe that ten months is the optimum and I do not think we can go below that because of personal injuries and so on.
I appreciate that. My information is that the next appointment will be December 1990 and the one after that will be 2000. I am glad the Minister outlined his concern about the legal profession in Cork in regard to delays because that concern has been expressed to me. I wonder how much of the delay is due to the legal profession and how much of it would be rectified by the appointment of an additional judge. I appreciate that the appointment of an additional judge would result in pressure being put on those involved to get things up to date. Will the Minister tell the House what happens if a person dies early next year?
(Limerick East): As I understand it, the complement will be kept at 15, plus the President, up to 2 April 1987. A vacancy occurring in the meantime could be filled, if the Government so wish.
Mar fhocal scoir, we have been very well served in the High Court but the family courts require additional services and all sides of the House agree on that. The best way to approach this is to increase the number of ordinary judges in the High Court to a figure of not more than 15 and leave it to the Minister, and the Government of the day, to make their own recommendation within that figure depending on the amount of business and decisions reached. I accept the ruling of the Chair that appointments after April 1987 could involve additional expenditure but the case could be made for raising the figure and leaving it to the Government of the day to deal with the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Has the Minister any comment to make on this section?
(Limerick East): Subsection (a) provides that the number of ordinary judges of the Circuit Court, judges other than the President, shall not be more than 15. At present there are 12 ordinary Circuit Court judges and two temporary judges. The intention is that the temporary judges will be made permanent, making 14 permanent judges. There will be one extra appointment and I understand that it is the intention of the President of the Circuit Court to appoint that person to Cork where there are delays on the Circuit Court side. Deputy Woods will be aware that the practice of appointing temporary judges may not be the best method in modern times. The Judiciary should be independent and be seen to be so. The concept of appointing people on a temporary basis at the pleasure of the Government seems to conflict with that. That is one of the reasons we are introducing this section.
It is because of the pressure of business that a change is being made. Deputies may be interested to know that in 1928 there were ten judges; in 1947, 11; in 1960, ten; in 1961, nine; in 1964, ten; in 1977, 12 and in 1981, 13. The number has fluctuated over the years.
I have pleasure in supporting the Minister on this. He is doing in this section what I suggested he should have done in section 1, raise the number and get rid of the temporary arrangement. It is crucial to the operation of the judicial system that the independence of the Judiciary be seen. What is the position in regard to retirements? When are retirements expected?
One can appreciate that it is desirable to have permanent as distinct from temporary appointments but the Minister will acknowledge that there has not been any sense of insecurity to the Executive of the day as far as I am aware in every case in regard to temporary appointments. While there may have been one exception some considerable time ago I understand that all temporary appointees were made permanent. I do not think it is the Minister's intention to leave the implication on the record that the practice is that people hold office at the favour of the Government and if they discharge their responsibilities in a way that pleases the Government they will be made permanent and if not they will not. My view is that the record is quite the opposite; all temporary appointees have been made permanent. I do not know if that is a matter of major significance and I do not think it was to get rid of any doubt judges might have while temporary office holders.
Those who practise in our courts acknowledge the need for additional judges but they also hold the view that extra judges without more adequate accommodation would be unsatisfactory. In many of our courts at every level the accommodation is entirely inadequate. I attended Dundalk Circuit Court recently and I was in a position to assess the accommodation available there. I suggest that the Minister's advisers visit that court which is used on occasions for High Court sittings and view the accommodation which is unacceptable for litigants. I am not so concerned about lawyers but it is not acceptable to have one or two consultation rooms to cope with a variety of cases. People have to have consultations on matters of great importance to them in hallways and corridors and, on occasions, outside the courthouse.
I would like an indication of what proposals generally the Minister has to ensure that accommodation will measure up to the standards necessary, particularly in view of the extra appointments. Secondly, judges do not operate in isolation. They require adequate staff in every sense. I am speaking here particularly in terms of Circuit Court staff and the effectivenes of the staff available to the county registrars. There are very many cases of which the Minister must be aware and he has mentioned Cork. In Cork, Kilkenny, Tipperary, or anywhere, there are many judgments of the courts which are not capable of being executed because of lack of adequate staff.
To refer to the staff of the judges, the Chair thinks would be in order, but the execution of warrants is another step. I do not think it is included in the Bill.
I accept that. The Ceann Comhairle will appreciate that a judge does not reach judgments in isolation. It is very important that the decisions of the court are capable of being implemented, otherwise the functions of the court and the Judiciary of whom we speak here are undermined. It is vitally important that we ensure that there is an adequate back-up staff and, quite frankly, at present there is not. Even a casual inquiry around the offices of our Circuit Courts here as elsewhere, will demonstrate that we do not have adequate staff and the decisions of the court are not capable of being effectively executed. If there is one way of undermining the authority of the Judiciary, that is it. That would not be what the Minister would want, but that is the reality. I would like to get on the record assurances from the Minister that the inadequate staffing position at the moment will be corrected. If the Minister suggests that staffing is entirely adequate, then we are living in two different worlds. If he acknowledges that it is inadequate, what proposals has he to unsure that the courts can operate effectively?
In relation to the criminal jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts, which is a very important element in the Circuit Court jurisdiction, the truth is that when people have actually being sentenced in accordance with the law of this land in many cases there is not accommodation for them in prisons.
The Chair is of the opinion that if the Deputy were to put down to this Bill, an amendment dealing with the provision of prisons, it would be ruled out of order.
(Limerick East): The Deputy is talking off the top of his head.
The Chair is also of the opinion that if the Deputy were to put down an amendment providing for the appointment of sheriffs, it would also be ruled out of order.
That may be, but I think the Minister would acknowledge — and, if not, I would be happy to have him so put on the record — that judges cannot operate in isolation, as if the judicial decision was the beginning and end of it, if they have not the staff to implement the decisions and have not the prison accommodation, which the Minister seems to be saying is there in abundance.
If the Deputy were to draw this to its logical conclusion, we could be dealing with the Land Registry, with prisons and with everything that might be a secondary step to this.
(Limerick East): On a point of order, there is a Private Members' motion down tonight which deals with prisons, among other things. It was put down by the Deputy's colleagues.
I appreciate that.
(Limerick East): Why does the Deputy not make his speech after 7 p.m. this evening?
I am not making a point about the Land Registry, although there is a case there.
The Deputy could equally make a case, if the court made an order amending a folio, that because there was not sufficient staff in the Land Registry to do the necessary work there it could be discussed here. I do not think it could be.
That would be rather exceptional and certainly at the margin of the problem. With deference to the Chair's experience — and my own experience stretches back over 25 years but I do not know what direct experience the Minister has, even from his advisers, to be put against that — our judges do not operate in isolation. The important thing is to ensure that the decisions they take in the interests of maintaining the integrity of the Judiciary are capable of being implemented, that the sentences they pass are not frustrated for lack of prison accommodation. The reality at this moment is that in both instances that is not so.
(Limerick East): That is a lie.
A Cheann Comhairle, I do not know if you heard what the Minister has just said. I would ask that his comment be withdrawn.
(Limerick East): What the Deputy is saying is not true. There is nobody sentenced by the court refused a place in prison. That is not true.
And who serve their full sentences? That is not the information I have.
(Limerick East): The Deputy is arguing that people are being sentenced by the court who cannot go to prison. That is not true.
It is happening.
(Limerick East): Would the Deputy specify? Would he give an example?
If the Minister wants me to give him cases, I shall. I cannot give them across the floor of the House, very clearly. Is the Minister saying that our prison accommodation is entirely adequate?
(Limerick East): What the Deputy is saying is not true.
The Minister will have some cases from me then and will he be able to tell me that in no case——'
(Limerick East): Fine.
In view of what the Minister has just said where people have been sentenced and the Minister is asked to review the sentences in accordance with his powers, the practice has been over the years that before coming to his decision he would consult, first, with the judge imposing the sentence, and, second, with the chief superintendent or superintendent of the area before deciding to exercise his judgment. Does the Minister tell me that he continues that practice to this day?
(Limerick East): Yes.
If that is the case, some of the judges who have been speaking to me seem to be living in a different world.
(Limerick East): Yes.
I have been informed that that practice is not being followed——
(Limerick East): It is being followed. That is the second untruth now. The Deputy should check his facts before he comes into the House.
Order, please.
(Limerick East): I am becoming tired of innuendos and misrepresentations from that side of the House.
Order, please. I call Deputy Taylor.
(Limerick East): I am saying that people sentenced are sent to prison and lack of accommodation does not keep them out of it. The Deputy makes a speech and there are no facts given and no proper research.
Minister, please.
I am saying that there is not accommodation for them.
We cannot have this sort of discussion across the floor.
(Limerick East): The Deputy is talking through his hat.
If I am making this statement, it is because of my experience in the courts.
I have called Deputy Taylor.
I did research before I gave the facts.
(Limerick East): The Deputy did not.
I set out the facts.
(Limerick East): The Deputy did not.
Order, please. I call on Deputy Taylor.
There is no doubt that additional judicial services are required. I often wonder if that, in itself, is ever going to meet the needs and requirements for the speedy attaining of justice, which is what it is all about. At present in many of the courts it is taking far too long to get a trial. The saying is, justice delayed is justice denied. There are, however, additional matters which should be looked at very seriously, to try to shorten procedures and to avoid much of the apparent contention between parties on law cases which at the end of the day turn out not to be there. It very often happens, probably in most cases, that in the two or three years from the time the case starts to when it is finally disposed of, great inter-party disputes are going on into all sorts of issues which, when they come to hearing at the end of the day, fade away.
There is in other jurisdictions a procedure which operates to try to avoid this, at which we should take a long, hard look. It is at a very early stage of the case that an official of the court — not a judge. but a subordinate official, a master, registrar, or other official, somebody of that category — calls the two parties in together and goes through the case to see what is agreed between them and what is not agreed. In many cases a very large proportion of the necessity for grudgery and witnesses and preparation and so forth and a great deal of expense and trouble are avoided. We would get far better value for the legal services which are provided at great expense if we used subordinate officials who are capable and able to bring the points to fruition. The judge would be left to deal only with those points found to be in contention between the two parties.
There is another minor aspect where a great deal of time could be saved. The problem of calling medical doctors as witnesses takes up a great deal of time and for the most part it ought to be unnecessary. Changes in the rules of court should be provided to ensure that in most cases the medical reports on both sides will be admitted as evidence without the necessity of calling the doctors. This would be a great saving in time and expense.
I would add my words of welcome to this improvement in increasing even temporarily the number of High Court judges. This is a follow-on from the 1984 Courts Bill which was the first step. The Minister was lambasted because the Bill was doing too little and wasting the time of the House. He made a promise of more to come. I and other Members mentioned this problem and pleaded with the Minister to apply his energies to speed up the administration of justice in the courts. What I cannot understand about the problem of High Court delays——
We are dealing now with section 2, which deals exclusively with Circuit Court judges.
Delays exist throughout the system, but most delays are in the High Court.
That would not come under this section.
The Minister already has power to increase the number of Circuit Court judges and it has worked far better than the High Court in the past few years. One can get a fairly speedy service from the Circuit Court. I do not understand why economic reasons are given for not having extra judges. I do not think anybody would complain if we had even a surfeit of judges or an extra one, two or three. The cost to the State would not be that much, compared to the awful hardship and the cost to other services by not having such judges. I do not see why we cannot have speedy justice in our courts. The economics do not justify any delay, particularly in relation to road traffic accidents where delays result in severe hardships on people involved. Although it is not intended, we are helping the insurance companies to reach lower settlements with their clients because they cannot afford to wait around. The recent decision that hospital bills will have to be paid out of any settlement will increase the pressure on people to accept a lower settlement from an insurance company.
I am glad this area is being tackled and any improvement is welcome. I should like these appointments made permanent, if necessary. While I disagree with the provisions in many Bills whereby Ministers can make orders without having to seek the approval of the House, in this case he should have the authority to make any appointments necessary without coming back to the House. There is no dispute about the Government's intention to appoint two temporary judges. In the end there may be only one permanent judge. There will be a general welcome throughout the country for improvements in this area.
Has the Minister any information about retirements from the Circuit Court?
(Limerick East): They will be in February 1986, May 1988, October 1988, May 1990, June 1991 and June 1989.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Amendment No. 2 is out of order.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
I am sorry that Deputy Skelly was not here earlier to support my amendment which you ruled out of order. Sir, because he certainly would have approved of what I was doing. What is the position in relation to the Law Reform Commission?
Would it not be open to the Minister to make provision for extra permanent appointments in the Circuit Court? It would also be open to the Minister to make permanent appointments in the High Court. While the amendment is out of order, the Minister could, if so disposed, do in respect of the High Court what he is proposing in respect of the Circuit Court. Why does he not feel disposed to doing that?
That was dealt with in section 1.
It is consequential.
It is not. This is dealing with the Law Reform Commission.
(Limerick East): Section 14 (1) (b) of the Law Reform Commission Act, 1975, as inserted by section 2 of the Courts (No. 2) Act, 1981, provides that in the event of either the President or an ordinary judge of the High Court being appointed to the Law Reform Commission the statutory number of High Court judges may be increased to 15 so that a replacement may be appointed. No such appointment has in fact been made. Mr. Justice Walsh of the Supreme Court is chairman of the commission. The substitution proposed in this section will amend the Law Reform Commission Act, 1975, by changing the base number so that the appointment of a High Court judge to the Law Reform Commission may still be made if and when required. It is simply changing the number from 15 to 16 to allow for a possible appointment.
The Law Reform Commission is not within the ambit of the Department of Justice. The commission reports to the Taoiseach through the Attorney General and Deputies wishing to have information should raise the matter with the Taoiseach.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
Would the Minister indicate that he is determined to provide adequate staffing in the High Court and the Circuit Court to ensure that the decisions of the courts can be implemented?
(Limerick East): I do not agree that the decisions of the court are not being implemented but certainly there should be adequate staff. The High Court and the Circuit Court do not have so much difficulty in that regard but the District Court is very short of staff. Fifty-seven temporary clerical trainees have been appointed to the District Court which will help and a major computerisation programme is in the course of development which applies especially to Dublin but also to other large areas, which will also help the Circuit Court. I know that county registrars say they are hampered by lack of staff but one could put forward other arguments as well about the difficulties and the reasons for them. The proposed appointments of sheriffs——
Does the Minister not accept what county registrars say?
(Limerick East): I accept what some of them say but I do not accept what all of them say, to put it bluntly. I was about to say, before Deputy O'Kennedy interrupted, that the proposed appointment of sheriffs for revenue certificates will remove a task which was traditionally that of the county registrars and leave them free to administer their offices more efficiently.
In accordance with an order of the House made today, I must now put the following question: "That Committee Stage is hereby agreed to, that the Bill is reported to the House without amendment, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed; and the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put and agreed to.