Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I sincerely hope so. The order of the Supreme Court lends legitimacy to it. Legal fees are very high. Even with normal transactions, one of the big difficulties is that many people of regular income cannot vindicate rights in the courts. Access to the courts is now too expensive. In a civil matter, for example, people looking to vindicate their rights can often be bullied. I have dealt with cases where people of material rather than moral substance have bullied others of lesser financial wherewithal into accepting situations they should not, and would not if they had the financial wherewithal to resist. In a republic we should always be mindful of the right of the citizen to have access to legal vindication of rights. This should even be so in civil matters, where others can intimidate by delay, obfuscation and by using the courts as a battering ram against people. Where people are badly done by, the threshold provided for in section 54 is modest enough. It is an issue we might consider on Committee Stage.

The other miscellaneous provisions do a number of things that have been indicated in the Minister of State's speech. It would be a tour of virtually every civil statute if I was to go through them all. They are all listed in a variety of sections, and each section virtually deals with a different legal enactment. We were told in the final paragraph of the Minister of State's speech that more are to come. They will not only come on Committee Stage but there will undoubtedly be a few bright ideas to be grafted on Report Stage.

That is not a good thing. Perhaps the previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was no different, but I do not like the notion that the Department or the current Minister, in seeing space on the parliamentary bandwagon, sees the clock ticking. In this case there are not really five Stages to a Bill, and not everything has to be debated on Second Stage. If the train is moving at all, an amendment can be thrown in right up to Report Stage that will change fundamental law.

As far as I can discern, there is nothing particularly controversial about this Bill, although I have asked for advice on it. We will have a chance to look in detail at particular points on Committee Stage. By and large I support this Bill.

Section 51 deals with video conferencing in civil proceedings. I am repeating this point because all of us serving on the child protection sub-committee are focused on the process of evidence taking and its presentation in cases involving violence, particularly sexual violence or the abuse of children. There is no simple solution to this. There is concern about how to balance the constitutional right of defendants to confront the accuser, confront the evidence and question those giving evidence, with the vulnerability of victims. There are concerns also about the number of assault, rape and sexual abuse cases that are never prosecuted or, in many cases, never even reported for fear of the process. We must get the process right or certainly improve it if we are going to attack that clear deficiency in our criminal law. We will have to examine that matter which largely refers to the criminal law, although section 51 deals with civil proceedings. It is sensible to provide for the possibility of taking evidence in civil matters by a video or television link.

There is, however, a downside to all of this. On the last occasion I was my party's spokesperson for justice, we had a great debate about the taking of evidence by way of questioning suspects in Garda stations and recording all such interviews. It has taken a decade subsequent to the enactment of legislation for that equipment to be made generally available. Quite often the physical infrastructure required to implement good ideas is slow to follow. The Courts Service has done a great job since it was instituted. It is one of the success stories among recent State agencies in that it has reformed the physical nature of most of our courts. I am sure Deputy Twomey will re-echo my call for a new courthouse in Wexford, which is desperately needed. The Courts Service, with which I am in regular contact, is currently looking for a site in that area. Perhaps the next time the Minister is in touch with the chief executive of the Courts Service he might mention the fact that Wexford has been a priority for a new courthouse for a little while. We could do with a new court building there as a matter of urgency. When these facilities are in place they should be equipped with all the capabilities, such as video-conferencing, that we expect in a modern court of law, as well as proper facilities for witnesses and the bereaved during inquests. In modern buildings such facilities are now provided as a matter of routine.

I will not go through every sub-clause of the proposals that deal with everything from inheritance and statutory declarations to amendments to the Gaming and Lotteries Act. Some of the proposals have been recommended by various notable people. Clearly, I will not go through them all now. By and large, I have no difficulty with these amendments. As regards miscellaneous Bills of this sort, we must have a consolidated law which is accessible. The process for doing so must be available so that we can see new amendments to statute law readily to hand, not only for lawyers but also the general citizenry.

See this speech in context