Select Committee on Legislation and Security díospóireacht -
Friday, 21 May 1993

Vote 22—Courts.

Miss Harney

I want to raise a number of questions in relation to the courts. Most of our court accommodation in this country is appalling. In some areas there are no proper consultation rooms for litigants. With the volume of family law cases coming before the court and the upcoming divorce referendum which has been promised by the Government for next year, we are going to have an influx of family law cases.

The traditional courtroom atmosphere is not the appropriate place to deal with family law matters. The privacy necessary is not suited to the traditional courtroom atmosphere. I ask the Minister what her views are in relation to special family courts? Before we get to the stage of establishing special tribunals, would the Minister accept that the accommodation arrangements of our courts are totally unacceptable? I note from the Estimates that about £1.2 million has been provided for capital expenditure on courtroom accommodation in 1993. How will this money be spent?

Under the 1935 Act, the maintenance and provision of courthouse accommodation is the responsibility of local government. Since the removal of rates in the mid-1970s expenditure on courthouses is almost exclusively provided by the Department of Justice and the Central Fund rather than charged on local government. Confusion about who exactly is responsible for this matter has resulted in its not being a priority of either central Government or local government. Legal personnel who practise in our courts, members of the Judiciary and the Garda Síochána who attend court frequently have all made several complaints to me about accommodation and backup facilities at most of our courtrooms around the country. Could the Minister give details of the proceedings for damages which have been taken against her arising from the condition of courtroom accommodation?

I also wish to ask her about improvements which have taken place at Letterkenny courthouse. I raised this by way of a parliamentary question addressed to the Minister of State. I was to be provided with further information but this has not happened. I was told by a practitioner who frequents that court that despite expensive renovations the standards of refurbishment is such that cases can still not be heard in camera because the rooms are not sufficiently sound-proofed. Could the Minister, if she is aware of the details, comment on this? We should ensure that expenditure is effective in achieving its intended goals.

The President of the District Court has put a training system in place for the US judges of that court. This is a welcome development. It has been a poor feature of our judicial appointment system that no training was required. Not everybody is suitable to sit and adjudicate, certainly not without appropriate training. Training is particularly important in relation to family law matters. I would like to hear the Minister's plans to ensure that training programmes are also put in place by the Presidents of other courts such as the Circuit Court and the High Court.

I strongly support the arguments made this morning about the need to appoint more women to the Judiciary. There is one female judge in both the High Court and the Supreme Court. We should not be satisfied with this level of female representation. I would like the Minister to inform us, if she has the information, of the number of women among the 45 District Court judges and the total number of both Circuit Court and High Court judges.

In addition to needing a higher proportion of female judges we also need an increase in the total number of judges. Civil litigation is an extremely slow process. One normally has to wait two or three years before one can bring proceedings to the High Court. This is unacceptable. Justice which is not speedy is not justice at all. Sometimes cases are delayed because judges are not immediately available to hear them due to the shortage of judges. On other occasions delays are due to courtroom accommodation not being available, resulting in cases having to be postponed.

As we have now concluded debating the Estimates of the Departments for which this committee is reponsible it would be useful if we discussed the reports of the Law Reform Commission, particularly its recent one on sentencing policy. We need appropriate sentencing guidelines and members of the judiciary should meet together in conference to draft these guidelines. However, these may not be followed by all the members of a particular court, some of whom may take a poor view of being told what to do. The more the Judiciary consult with each other and set down their own guidelines, the greater clarity and the less confusion and anomalies we will have.

It is very unsatisfactory that legal representatives can advise their clients of the sentences they can expect from particular judges and the discrepancies between these sentences. There are considerable inconsistencies between the sentences imposed by different judges of the same court. It is obvious that the circumstances of cases will differ from each other but if there is no general consistency or uniformity in sentencing the system will come into disrepute. The Minister said some months ago that she intended to have discussions with the Judiciary. Although I respect the separate roles of the Executive and the Judiciary and the need to maintain the independence of the Judiciary we should, notwithstanding that independence, encourage the formulation of a sentencing policy which will result in greater uniformity in sentencing. This is extremely important.

Although we have had a very constructive Committee meeting today and the Minister has been very helpful, she has not yet answered my question about petitions. There are very few people serving sentences in detention centres for non-payment of fines. Is this because they are successfully petitioning the Minister to waive the fines? I am sure the Minister is aware of the strong opinions expressed by Judge Brennan in Mayo who is imposing fines for breaches of the fishing laws. I saw his comments quoted in last Sunday's newspapers and on other occasions also.

There is no point in our being critical of lenient sentences and giving the DPP the power to appeal such sentences in certain cases, which we have done recently, if we also take the view that tough fines can be automatically withdrawn because there are not enough places in detention centres for those on whom the fines are imposed. There is a wider and more realistic way of dealing with non-payment of fines than imposing custodial sentences but while such sentences are being given we should ensure that they are not brought into such disrepute that the view is taken that there is little point in imposing fines.

On a number of occasions recently I have spoken to members of the Judiciary about this matter. They were all strongly critical of the fact that they were unaware of petitions until they heard about them from gardaí and others. They are greatly criticised when they pass what are regarded as lenient sentences but secretly behind closed doors penalties which they impose are interfered with. This brings the criminal justice system into disrepute, makes the role of the Judiciary more difficult and weakens the deterrent element of our judicial system.

Mr. Lenihan

The Minister should consider introducing greater flexibility regarding locations of court hearings. The second has accommodated this Committee by allowing us meet in this Chamber. Similar flexibility could be shown by the Judiciary in relation to the location of hearings. Cases do not necessarily have to be heard in formal settings in courthouses but can be heard in any reasonable accommodation. The important thing is that justice is done.

Deputy Harney spoke about family courts. If family disputes and, ultimately, divorce are to be settled by consensus and in a less adversarial manner, it is important that less formal surroundings than courthouses be found for sittings of such courts and for the backup mediation and conciliation services. A court of law can take place in any room, any type of accommodation anywhere, provided the personnel and practitioners are right and the law is administered properly. I suggest to the Minister that in dealing with the provision of court accommodation and the availability of court sittings the paramount interest should be to facilitate citizens and that justice can be meted out in any reasonable accommodation. It need not have the trappings that we associate with a courtroom or court accommodation.

A little commonsense might be usefully employed in regard to the Special Criminal Court. In the Prisons Vote £0.5 million per year is devoted to the conveyance of prisoners to Special Criminal Court sittings. That means bringing prisoners from Portlaoise to Dublin for a Special Criminal Court sitting with the accompanying outriders and security personnel. Why not have the trial of these prisoners in Portlaoise? There is an excellent courthouse there which could accommodate these trials. One could move them from the prison to the courthouse a distance of one mile away and have everything done there.

There is no practical reason why the Circuit Court in Portlaoise should not be utilised for Special Criminal Court purposes and so save people from Portlaoise to Dublin the almost daily sight of prisoners being escorted by outriders, disturbing the traffic in Dublin leading to congestion around Green Street, and being conveyed back again, often only to secure an adjournment. An order can be made that the Special Criminal Court sits in Portlaoise. I do not know whether it is the convenience of the judges or the judicial system which is in question but it highlights what I am talking about, the lack of creative imagination in regard to holding court sittings.

There is no great deal about having a court. A court is a matter of arbitrating between citizens or, in the case of the State, having a prosecution against somebody for criminal activity. That can be heard anywhere provided it is competently done. The less strongly held the idea that it must be held in particular courtrooms or locations, adds to the overall administration of justice through a court system that is clearly understood by the people.

With regard to family courts, it would be a serious matter if we introduced into this family court system, which we all want to see properly structured, anything of the old adversarial system which is a thing of the past. It is a relic of the British system of justice and we do not want it introduced into our family court system. Generally, in regard to our court procedures I do not agree with the idea that the law must have some sort of phoney majesty about it which only terrifies citizens. We are talking about a lega-judicial system which should be appreciated by the citizens. It should be available to them and understood by them.

I would ask the Minister to look into the possibility of having District Courts in centres like Dublin held around the clock. District magistrates are available in London to a policeman so that he may apprehend a person and bring him straight to a court to be tried at any hour of the day or night. That facility is not available in this country.

We have an artificial division in the Circuit Court system and the High Court system, leading to an extra tier of judges. There is no reason, now that the Circuit Court funding is being increased by about £300,000 that it should not be unlimited and that Circuit Court judges should not be deemed to be High Court judges. A decentralised High Court system of justice exists in the country and in the city. I do not know if this artificial tier is in the Circuit Court, High Court or the Supreme Court but a tier within the structure could be abolished, making the Circuit Courts High Courts. One would not abolish the Circuit Court as such, but the nomenclature.

At present an outrageous situation exists where a case is heard in the Circuit Court and then is heard again on appeal by the High Court. It is essentially a case of one judge against another judge and sometimes the facts of the case are turned around by the High Court judge on appeal. It does not make sense. It makes sense to have an appeal to a Supreme Court or a divisional court of the Supreme Court, but there is no point in having a complete oral hearing on appeal from Circuit Court to High Court in civil cases. There should be one middle tier of courts so that there would be a District Court system, an intermediate court system, called a High Court, and a Supreme Court with divisional courts of the Supreme Court to hear a greater volume of appeals. That would be a simplified court structure and I ask the Minister to comment on that.

I ask that we look again at a system we have inherited from the British and which we have not seriously looked at for many years. We should decide on a new court structure that is informal, accessible and available for 24 hours of the day in urban centres to deal with serious crime. This new court structure should be visible and accessible to the public without any of the trappings that lawyers and judges have over the years sought to add to the system. It should be far simpler and far more easily understood by ordinary members of the public.

Chairman

I remind the Members that concluding statements will be taken at 3.40 p.m.

Mr. Barrett

I am glad that Deputy Lenihan found it fit to agree with me in relation to this nonsense of conveying prisoners from prisons to a court, maybe 50 or 60 miles away, when the case could be heard adjacent to the prison. It is a total waste of money and is part and parcel of this antiquated system we have.

I would like to ask the Minister, with regard to the small claims procedures, when she expects to expand that system, which is exceptionally worthwhile. I understand it has been extremely successful and it should be expanded to take pressure off the District Court and to make the system more available to the public.

As regards the District Court and the management of the courts, a great amount of time is wasted by the ordinary citizen who goes to a court having been told to be there at 10.30 a.m. and is left hanging around all day. The case is not heard and he is told to come back the next day. A witness may lose up to a week's work all because of the lack of a proper management structure in the listing of cases. Cases are settled at the last minute without any formal notification and no concern for following cases and the inconvenience caused.

The amounts of money involved, particularly in relation to insurance costs, are extraordinary. When we heard of a case being settled for £50,000 or £100,000, the public do not realise that often 50 per cent of the settlement might be paid as fees to doctors, engineers, solicitors and barristers. The injured party is not necessarily getting the full £50,000. I saw a claim recently settled for £46,000 on the steps of the court and £24,000 of the £46,000 was in respect of expenses. Witnesses who are called include professional people, accountants, doctors, solicitors etc. and these people charge their full fee. Vast sums of money are wasted on a daily basis in the Four Courts. People are left waiting to be called as witnesses, perhaps as a specialist witness, and often the case is deferred. The sum of money that has been wasted, and that we as taxpayers must pay is enormous. There has been no attempt to introduce a modern management structure to the courts.

I share the concern by Deputy Lenihan in relation to the family courts. A lady attended my clinic last week who was terrified at the prospect of seeking an application for a judicial separation. She had already experienced the formality of the courts. Why do we need judges in a formal setting? We need specially trained judges to deal with family law cases. We need sympathetic judges, who understand the feelings of both partners and the trauma experienced by people when they face separation. The need for a formal setting is out-of-date. I accept what Deputy Lenihan said in relation to the need for flexibility in matters involving family law.

A considerable number of cases are being heard in District Courts. Traffic offences should be dealt with by way of on the spot fines. A lot of time is wasted by gardaí waiting for cases to be heard. This highlights the lack of the management in our courts system.

Could the Minister indicate the number of offences committed by persons on bail? This is an issue which we must tackle. The Constitution prevents a judge from refusing bail except in cases where witnesses may be interfered with or where the person would not turn up for trial. It is time to change the Constitution in this regard. The court must be given the discretion to decide whether bail should be granted. If such measures were implemented there would be an obligation to hear cases quickly. I am sure my colleagues have dealt with complaints at public meetings that offences are committed by people on bail. Criminals have adopted an "in for a penny in for a pound" approach because one will receive the same sentence regardless of the number of crimes one has committed. Judges must be given discretionary powers to decide, depending on the circumstances, and evidence produced by the Garda Síochána, whether bail is granted. The court should have greater flexibility in such matters. If a constitutional amendment is necessary then so be it. If bail is refused an early hearing would be obligatory. I would appreciate it if the Minister could reply to the points I have made in relation to those matters.

Chairman

I call for brevity because of the time constraint.

Mr. Callely

Regarding court accommodation, I echo the sentiments expressed by Deputy Harney and Deputy Lenihan on this matter. The Minister might consider the suggestions made in that area.

Deputy Lenihan referred to the sum of £500,000 for escorts to and from prisons. Under A(2) the cost of travel and subsistence totals almost £1 million. Perhaps savings could be made in this area.

Deputy Barrett and I referred to the number of cases before the District Court. There are — and we are aware of them — other ways in which these matters could be addressed. I have suggested measures which could be implemented in relation to parking offences. My suggestion was quite simple and perhaps the Minister could respond to it.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I have indulged in tautology. The Chairman does not have to remind me to be brief. May I ask the Minister if her Department plans to take over the cost of running courthouses? At present, county councils must carry the can. Perhaps the Minister will deal with my question in relation to land registry.

Mr. E. Walsh

I echo the sentiments expressed by Deputy Barrett and Deputy Lenihan in relation to the courts. Courts are intimidating places. It is a difficult area for people to operate it. Often people are unaware of what is going on around them. The acoustics in courthouses are usually poor and the people who work in them have no regard for people who are unable to come to grips with such formal surroundings. The system must be altered so that people may feel included rather than excluded. One hears of cases where people have not even heard their case being called and the case is heard without their knowledge.

Efforts must be made to improve conditions and services for victims. Victims experience trauma in the courtroom when they have nowhere comfortable to place themselves. They are usually placed in the same area as the accused persons. A service must be provided for people who use the courts.

We often hear people complain about people on bail threatening and abusing the victims of their crimes. It is frightening to hear these stories. It appears that bail is given to people involved in serious crime. Many people in my constituency have brought these points to my attention. I would like the Minister to improve the administration of bail to people involved in serious crime.

Regarding the sentencing of criminals, judges are often known to adopt a particular approach to certain crimes. A judge may be lenient in certain cases and more severe in others. Justice must be administered effectively and this should not depend on the judge. Appropriate sentencing should take place regardless of the judge. The public must have confidence in the system. Justice must be administered fairly.

I ask the Minister to consider the provision of a courthouse in my constituency, South Dublin. Deputy Lenihan suggested that one room could be set aside in the new buildings in Tallaght for this purpose until permanent premises are considered.

Mr. Gilmore

I will be brief. Obviously a dimension of the workings of the courts relates to the legal profession. There is a need to bring it into the 21st century. The Solicitors' Bill introduced in the last Dáil was dealt with in Special Committee. Would the Minister say what happened to that Bill? Is it still alive? A great deal of legislation is not being dealt with at the moment and I am surprised that it has not reappeared on the Order Paper.

Many Deputies have spoken about the intimidating atmosphere of courtrooms and that this is not entirely due to their physical conditions, bad and all as they are. To a large extent, it is created by the 19th century pomp and nonsense of members of the legal profession. We get a wig, gown and a Rumpole of the Baileystyle of courtroom performance. This needs to be addressed.

The way the legal profession interrelate with each other and access to practising in the legal profession also needs to be addressed. The manner in which the solicitors and barristers scene operates is conducive to the old boys network. Unfortunately, it usually tends to be boys who are engaged in it — there is a certain amount of contact, making briefs available and so on. The system, as far as the legal professions are concerned, needs to be democracised and brought into the modern world.

The question of fees and fee structures, etc., goes hand in hand with that. Anyone who has had any experience of attempting to seek his or her rights through the courts knows the phenomenal costs involved. The first intimidation that most people get — certainly in the civil area — if they wish to pursue their rights through the courts is the potential cost of losing, which causes many to abandon the idea in the first place. The modernisation of the courts needs not only to address itself to the architecture of the courtrooms but also to the whole legal profession.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

I will first talk about relieving county councils of the cost of providing and maintaining courthouses and then talk about the fundamental suggestions that Deputy Lenihan, a former Minister for Justice, made.

In March 1990, the Government decided that local authorities should be relieved of the financial burden of providing and maintaining courthouses and that the cost should be borne in future by the Exchequer, subject to a limit agreed annually between the Ministers for Finance and Justice. A sum of £1.25 million was provided for each of the years 1992 and 1993. Deputy Harney was interested to know how the £2.3 million under subhead B. Vote 22, would be spent. Capital works account for £1.25 million; maintenance, £671,000; heat, light and fuel, £220,000; furniture and fittings, £100,000 and miscellaneous, £59.000.

A number of projects are under consideration for capital works, including provision for three major courthouse refurbishment projects: Clonmel (Phase II), Galway, the provision of extra accommodation for Cork District Court and a number of smaller projects.

Deputy Lenihan also raised a valid point that in most small communities where there is a courthouse, people feel threatened in some way if it is not up to the standard they see in large urban areas and cities. To suggest, in some instances, that perhaps the court should sit in alternative accommodation that would be far better than the existing accommodation in old courthouses, sometimes raises many difficulties and questions in local communities. But Deputy Lenihan is correct in saying that the courts are there to facilitate the citizens and provided you have all the legal representatives of the highest calibre available and the accommodation is comfortable, then we should not worry if it is taking place in the formality of the existing courthouse structure, or in a large hotel room or in some other public building like a community centre. In fact, that has happened in areas where we have had temporary difficulties with courthouse accommodation and I do not see why we cannot continue this situation. But, as I said, Deputy Lenihan is raising fundamental issues.

The question was raised in relation to the Special Criminal Court about conveying criminals. Deputy Barrett initially raised the £0.5 million involved in the Estimate for this. While it sounds a good proposition to transfer sittings of the Special Criminal Court to Portlaoise it is a matter for the Special Criminal Court itself to decide where and when it sits. When a similar proposal was looked at before, it was found that one would have to transfer solicitors, junior counsel, senior counsel and all the legal paraphernalia that goes along with a court sitting out of — almost inevitably — Dublin, down to Portlaoise. I am not convinced it would be cheaper to transfer the legal experts down the country than providing the sum of £0.5 million for conveying prisoners, primarily to and from the Special Criminal Court. We may well end up changing a system, which is now costing £0.5 million, to one which might cost double or treble that amount. No one is suggesting that this is the way we should go.

Someone raised the question of personal injury claims and that the courts are being clogged up because of the level and number of the claims now before the courts. What most people forget is that 93 per cent of all personal injury claims never go to court. They are settled out of court, but often the settlement, as Deputy Barrett is correct in saying, only happens on the steps of the court, so the system has been clogged up all along the way.

I met members of the insurance federation yesterday and this was one of the issues I raised with them because I felt that both they and the insurance companies — which they represent — had a special role to play. However, at the end of the day it is a matter for the citizen taking a personal injury claim, or the solicitor acting on his or her behalf, to make a decision as to which settlement might be better for them; whether to settle early or later on. There seems to be a perception that the longer you draw out a personal injury claim, the greater the settlement at the end of the day. However, I accept that clogging up the system is taking place and that 93 per cent of cases which do not go to court are primarily causing this problem.

In relation to the District Court, Deputy Lenihan referred to night courts. I am told that this was looked at before but it was found that the savings derived for the Garda were outweighted by the additional costs involved in setting up a court sitting every night. But in light of various proposals made here and the views that have been expressed by members — which would be shared by myself, especially in this area — I would like to look at the possibility of going down that road and seeing what might be done. At present, as Deputy Lenihan is aware, ad hoc special sittings of the night court are held as required. There is one almost every night in Dublin, if required.

Bail has been raised in a number of forum, especially in the Dáil in recent times. It is a cause of concern to all of us. First, we all accept that bail and its granting is a matter for the judge presiding in court on that day. Secondly, the advice available to me would suggest that any change in our bail laws may involve a constitutional amendment. It is not as straightforward as one might think.

In relation to Letterkenny Courthouse and the recent refurbishment that took place there, Deputy Harney raised the point that the courthouse was not sound proof. This was caused, I understand, by a door which was not closing property. The door has since been replaced and the situation has been rectified.

Deputy Gilmore asked about the Solicitors Bill. I made the decision, as Minister, to withdraw it on the basis that the Bill as published and going into committee had approximately 100 amendments. It was untidy and I felt it would be much better to withdraw it and submit a new Bill. That is being done at present as a matter of urgency.

In relation to the number of women appointed, to courts, there are eight women county registrars out of a total of 26. There is one women judge in the Supreme Court and I am delighted that I was a member of a Government that appointed the first woman Supreme Court judge. There is one female High Court judge, no female Circuit Court judge and six women District Court judges. The District Court Rules Committee has no women members. The Circuit Court Rules Committee has one female member and the Superior Courts Rules Committee has one female member. The District Court Rules Committee is the only one to which the Minister can nominate members. The Government decision on the appointment of women to State boards has been forwarded to the Circuit and Superior Courts Rules Committees and their nominating authorities. I hope they will take Government policy into account in this area. It is my policy as Minister for Justice to recommend more women for appointment. However I am only one member of Government and obviously I have to convince my Cabinet colleagues that that should be the road we should travel. Deputy Harney need not have any worries about my views in that regard.

In relation to the training of judges, I also compliment District Judge Peter Smithwick, the President of the District Court, for his initiative and innovation in tackling the issue of the training of judges. While I cannot in any way enforce training or initiatives of this kind on the Judiciary — and I would not want to — much can be learned from this initiative. It has been received very well by members of the Judiciary and the District Court and as a result of today's debate people in the appropriate places will be listening. Perhaps it might be extended to other areas.

I am aware of the need to provide facilities in all our courts to ensure that family law business can be transacted with the delicacy that it requires in private and in confidence. I am satisfied that the facilities provided in the District Court, Circuit Court and High Court in Dublin, which include separate courtrooms, consultation rooms and private waiting areas, are fully adequate to meet the needs of those attending the courts on family law related matters, their legal representatives and the Judiciary. The provision of facilities for the hearing of family law cases is a matter of priority in all places where existing courthouse projects are being refurbished. Both the recently opened courthouse in Dun Laoghaire and the newly refurbished courthouse in Letterkenny contain the facilities necessary for conducting family law cases. Those facilities will be provided in all future refurbishment and court accommodation projects.

Regarding sentencing policy, under our legal system the law provides generally for maximum penalties for criminal offences. It enables the judge to exercise his or her discretion within the maximum penalty by reference to the conclusions that he or she has reached after trying the case, hearing all the evidence, assessing the culpability and the circumstances of the accused. I accept that there are concerns among the public in relation to the lack of uniformity, as they see it, in sentencing policy. It is not for me, as Minister for Justice, to complain about or to criticise members of the Judiciary because of this perception of lack of uniformity. However it is a step in the right direction that in the Criminal Justice Bill there is now a procedure whereby unduly lenient sentences may be appealed. In March 1987 the Attorney General requested the Law Reform Commission to conduct research and to formulate and submit to him proposals for reform in relation to a number of aspects of criminal law, including sentencing policy. On 15 March 1993 the Law Reform Commission issued a consultation paper on sentencing. It has since asked for views from members of the public and it has invited comments before 1 June. I urge members of the public, Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas and others who may have an interest in this area to make their views known to the Law Reform Commission so that it may be in a position to finalise its report and submit it to me. I will be prepared to take action on foot of the recommendations of the final report.

A review of the operation of the small claims procedure has been underway in my Department for some time. As part of this review I sought views and suggestions from various interested parties. The final submissions are just to hand and are currently being examined and evaluated. Therefore I should not comment in advance of the result of that evaluation. Among the matters under consideration as part of the review of the procedure is the possible increase in the monetary limit, the type of cases dealt with by the claims procedure and the number of locations in which the procedure might operate.

Chairman

We are not dealing with any further Votes, Minister. We will be concluding in three or four minutes.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

In relation to the Land Registry, I think Deputy Browne, (Carlow-Kilkenny) will accept that in recent years substantial strides have been made by the Land Registry in updating its procedures. It is in the course of computerisation. Much of that has been completed and more has yet to be completed. We are also in the process of transferring the Land Registry into a semi-State body. An interim board is sitting on that and making proposals and has made various proposals to me as Minister. I visited the Land Registry and we need to try to ensure that the Land Registry is contained in one specific building as opposed to the way it is at present where it is spread over a number of buildings. We need to accelerate computerisation. As an ordinary TD in a constituency, I find that the level of complaints about the Land Registry I receive has decreased substantially in the last three years. The increased efficiency owes much to the commitment and dedication of the staff and most particularly to the person who heads the Land Registry on behalf of the Department.

Chairman

Thank you, Minister. I thank the Members for their constructive contributions, particularly those Members who remained all day. I thank the Minister and her officials. She has been very forthcoming and comprehensive in her responses. I, as chairman, benefited from this meeting today. I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. As Chairman and on behalf of the committee I look forward to working with her in the years to come in a very difficult portfolio. I am sure in working together we can make some worthwhile impact on the major problems.

I would like to refer to item No. 2 — the Draft Report of the Select Committee. The Select Committee has considered the Estimates for Public Services 1993, for the following Departments: Defence, Equality and Law Reform, and Justice and all other Estimates relevant to these Departments. The Estimates are hereby reported to the Dáil. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Select Committee adjourned at 4 p.m. until 5 p.m. on 1 June, 1993 in private session.