Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The establishment of a court of appeal to handle the bulk of cases emanating from the High Court is long overdue and welcome. Unfortunately, I cannot stand here and not criticise the manner in which the Bill is passing through Second Stage today, although the guillotine may not be required to be used. The Bill was published on Tuesday. We have a full slate of legislation and have had very long sittings this week to debate the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill, as well as committee meetings to deal with the Estimates. This is the kind of legislation of which we should have had sight earlier. It should not feel like it is a fait accompli and that there is no time to consider and table amendments that might be taken. This is especially so when it comes to constitutional amendments. I value the fact that we have a written constitution. I would be afraid to say when I bought my first copy of the Constitution, but it is a while back and at the time one had to be 21 years of age to vote. I still have that copy in my office. We have to be very careful about what we include in it because every line and comma means something and it has to read in harmony. The courts system is part of this.

People must have confidence in the courts system. One reason they do not have confidence in it is there are long delays on issues that really should pass through the system much quicker. From that point of view, one would have to welcome the changes, both in regard to the civil courts and the proposed constitutional amendment.

To come back to the substance of the proposed amendment, the workload of the Supreme Court is unsustainable. None of us can ignore the comments of the Chief Justice, Mrs. Justice Susan Denham, in this regard. Not long ago she was very vocal, rightly so, in pointing out that it could take until 2017 at the earliest to deal with new non-priority cases and there were upwards of 70 cases on the priority list. Even in the Court of Criminal Appeal we are seeing waiting times of 15 months. The Chief Justice has moved to reduce delays, for example, by changing holiday times to help address this issue in some way, which was a positive gesture. She has rightly pointed out that it is important, both domestically and internationally, that the courts system function well and in a timely way. She has said the courts perform an important task in supervising the activities of regulatory bodies and that it is important the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts be exercised promptly and efficiently. I do not believe there is a citizen in the country who would not agree with her on that point.

To the Minister's credit, he has responded to the problems identified. The Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill provides for an increase in the number of Supreme Court judges to nine, which will allow for three judge panels to sit and, I hope, get through the backlog, although this obviously will take time. The move to establish an intermediate level court of appeal to help address the bulk of the delays is, therefore, extremely welcome in that context and, of course, in the context of our international obligations under the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which I have to keep on saying was probably the only reason I could talk myself into voting for the Lisbon treaty. The European Charter of Fundamental Rights is important to me and, obviously, there is a relationship between it and the courts.

For the public to have confidence in the courts system, it is often said justice must be done and be seen to be done in a timely manner, as memories can fade. Long delays threaten public confidence in the administration of justice. Unfortunately, I know this institution has lost a great deal of confidence. We have to make sure, therefore, that we do not diminish confidence in the courts system.

There is also the economic impact, to which the Minister referred when he stated:

It is not just our reputation from the point of view of human rights and rule of law that is in the dock. Today's international business world works best where the law is clear [and] where the Judiciary is independent...

I completely agree. It should not take the Chief Justice to point this out for us to take it on board, although I am not suggesting she is the only one who did so. This is incredibly important.

Another point to bear in mind is that the quality of justice can diminish over time. As I said last week, people move on from organisations, including regulatory bodies. People's memories fade if they are asked to be witnesses. Witnesses often die, records can be lost and, given the large volume of records now available, people have to be asked to go back to remind themselves where records are located. This is very inefficient, if nothing else.

I welcome the provision that spells out which cases the Supreme Court will be able to take instead of their being taken by the new court of appeal, namely, cases of general public importance, similar to the US Supreme Court. It is critical to have swift decisions made in these cases. Does this mean that the vast bulk of the backlog of cases will merely be transferred to the new court and will that itself cause a backlog? How will this function?

Another point on which I seek clarification is whether the Court of Criminal Appeal will remain in operation. It has been intended since the mid-1990s to dissolve this court, but that could not happen because of its workload. What is the intention now? I do not believe we can look at such matters in isolation. The various levels of the courts system work in harmony.

The Minister has said that during the years the volume of litigation has increased dramatically, but the question is why this has happened. Are there measures that could reduce the workload of the courts? For example, in some areas mediation is a much more valuable tool and it may be that this service needs to be beefed up to make sure issues that could end up in the courts end in a more satisfactory arrangement for all involved.

Of course, the Government participates in a very large number of court cases.

During my previous time in the Dáil, from 2005 to 2007, I recall raising the issue of a number of cases that were taken against the State by parents seeking appropriate education for their children. I asked on one occasion how much money the Government had spent in the three years preceding 2006 in fighting those cases. The answer I received - that the expenditure amounted to some €20 million - has remained indelibly marked in my mind. I did not understand how such a situation could be tolerated, where the throughput of cases was such as to entail a level of expenditure which would have been far better allocated to the delivery of services. That figure of €20 million seemed to me to amount to an almost criminal expenditure. The parents in those cases merely wanted appropriate education for their children. The last thing they wanted was to end up in the courts and the ordeal of going through the judicial process put huge stress on their families. We must be very careful to avoid similar cases in the future. Where there is a particular class or category of claimants, such as the parents to whom I referred, the Government would do well to consider whether institutional or service provision changes might end up being less costly in the long run and providing a better outcome for all concerned.

I support the principle of the legislation, but I regret the manner in which it has been presented to us. As I recall the constitutional amendment to provide for an enhanced functionality for Oireachtas inquiries was also rushed and presented to us as a fait accompli. I pointed out at the at that the third paragraph of the text of that proposal would be problematic, which proved to be the case. The flawed process by which that legislation was brought forward meant that the outcome was inevitably compromised. The people rejected that referendum for more reasons than simply the problematic wording, but it was probably a factor in the defeat of the amendment. It is vital, in this instance, that we get the process right. In the case of any constitutional amendment, there must be an adequate lead-in process, early engagement and early publication of proposals. We must have the opportunity to table amendments which are sensible and warranted. We are all citizens of this country and it is our Constitution. We are in this House on a temporary basis, but we will continue to be citizens after we leave it. We deserve nothing less than the type of scrutiny that is afforded by the provision of sufficient time for debate and adequate forewarning of what is proposed.

See this speech in context