On this section, does the Minister, instead of specifying the various jurisdictions and the various courts, not think the time has come for the setting up of one court which would have jurisdiction in all family matters? This might be a great help.
SECTION 22.
Question proposed : " That section 22 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Collins
I agree that there is a lot of merit in the idea of a family court. It is something that is under consideration, but it would represent a very large amendment in our law. It would raise a great many considerations—the jurisdiction of the court, its composition, its place of venue, would it be a court that would move around the country or would courts be constituted in different areas of the country? Ought it to have assessors? If so, would the assessors be a full time corps or appointed ad hoc for cases as they arise? At what level is it to be inserted into our present court structure? What jurisdiction would it have? There is a wide variety of things to be considered with regard to it.
Mr. Collins
I understand the difficulties, but it would lead to better legislation and a more humane way of dealing with people who have problems. If we had one court set up for that particular purpose it would be easier for them to go to it. I cannot ask for an amendment giving what I am looking for. I agree there are difficulties involved but it would be wrong of us to let the occasion go without mentioning the matter in the hope that something will be done about it soon.
Under this section there is provision for such matters to be heard in camera in an informal manner.
The Bill provides that sittings under the provisions of this Bill will be held in private. In the High Court and Circuit Court, they will be in chambers. In chambers a certain informality inevitably occurs and this will remove some of the objections people take to the present court structure because of its formality. This formality has been mentioned as an argument in favour of family courts. Those objections in this case are removed by section 24.
Why is the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court so limited? It appears to be able to deal only with matters under section 7 of the Bill and with appeals from the District Court. If the weekly payment is over £40 you must go to the High Court. This is too cumbersome, slow and very expensive. The Circuit Court is more available and quicker.
I have my doubt about that.
I have no doubt about it in some circuits.
It might depend on the part of the country that the case happened to be in or the particular date of the sitting. If you go above the limits provided in the Bill, £40 for a wife and £10 per week for the support of each child, if the husband's means are such that they would permit awards greater than that, then the High Court is a suitable tribunal. It would be the obvious course of action to send the case to the High Court.
I am sure the Minister is aware of the enormous backlog in the High Court at present.
The Deputy is speaking of running down cases. There is no backlog in cases of this nature.
How many judges will there be? Will the number be increased to deal with the enormous number of cases?
The High Court already has the jurisdiction. We are not adding to it.
I know it has this jurisdiction, but I am talking about the difficulty, the delay and expense incurred by people coming from the country whose means exceed the jurisdiction of the District Court.
(Interruptions.)
We have reduced the delays in running down cases from 18 months between the setting down and trial to between four and six months.
That is ridiculous. Deputy Andrews would certainly tell the Minister otherwise. There are cases in Cork which have been going on for the past 18 months and they have not yet been reached. Would the Minister consider increasing the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for dealing with these matters?
I think that the type of person that is catered for, whose means would allow him to be ordered to pay more than £40 per week for his wife and more than £10 per week for each child, should be dealt with in the High Court.
Except that they will still have to wait.
The High Court is there for them.
I will agree to differ with the Minister.
Will the money be allocated according to the cost of living?
No, that will require legislation in order to be changed.
There is an amendment put down in Deputy Collins' and my name to section 24 which I know the Minister will accept in his usual magnanimous fashion which would cover the points raised by Deputy Burke.
Question put and agreed to.