Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

This is sensible and pragmatic legislation. On behalf of the Labour Party, I am happy to support it and give it a quick dispatch through the House. Those of us on this side of the House and people outside it have been properly critical about how well the fruits of the boom have been used. Many things might have been done better and there are identifiable areas in which there has been considerable waste or misspending of public money. However, credit where it is due.

According to what we know about this new courts complex, it is an exceptional development and a major improvement involving modernisation, efficiencies and savings for the taxpayer. Also, according to what we have been told informally by the courts service, it is a particularly splendid building which the public deserves, will make the lives of many people easier and, as the Minister said, will mark a new era in court buildings.

It appears that since the establishment of the courts service, there has been considerable modernisation and greater efficiencies put in place. I do not know if all the users see it that way but the changes have been dramatic. The operation of the courts from the point of view of the interested citizen has sometimes seemed archaic, out of date, inefficient and haphazard and rules were applied which would not apply anywhere else in society. Those days seem to have been put behind us and the Courts Service seems to have done a good job.

This latest step is obviously a major one which we can only welcome. I do not know if the Minister sees this as the beginning of specialisation or a parting of the ways between the criminal and civil justice. The fact the criminal courts will essentially be located in one new location will almost inevitably mean that the practitioners will have to opt for one or the other. It has been suggested to me that the Minister might start a barge service along the river, which will have regard to the tides. Given the different levels of the courts which will be located in the new complex, I do not know whether he might need a different quality of barge, depending on the court being ferried. However, this will probably lead to practitioners beginning to opt for one or the other. The Minister's script does not provide any figures for the costs savings envisaged over time by the creation of a single administrative office in one location instead of an office for each of the courts concerned. Are any available? Has the Minister done a cost-benefit analysis of this exercise?

I presume a major area of cost is the use of Garda time and the escort service. Deputy Charles Flanagan believes there may be a case for the construction of a court facility at Portlaoise given the number of prisoners being transported from the prison there. To the layman, it would appear there is considerable waste in this area. "Considerable inefficiency" would probably be a more appropriate term. Still, it is to be welcomed that the Bill will facilitate the coming into operation of a new complex at Kingsbridge which will tackle this. Will the Minister give figures for the costs involved in this?

Deputy Charles Flanagan referred to the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the progress of the civilianisation programme in the Garda. The Minister must admit it has been very disappointing. The Government simply increased the number of civilians employed which was not the programme's intention. It was intended to free up gardaí from routine administrative duties to concentrate on their first task, namely policing, but little progress has been made in this. Several years ago I read a report from one of the white-collar unions which conveyed an even more baleful picture than the figures compiled by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

In a way the approach to the programme was symptomatic of the times – we simply employed more civilians. Gardaí who were tied up in routine administrative functions were not displaced or put on the beat performing the first tasks of policemen and policewomen. No matter what the Minister says and how he fights his corner at Cabinet, we will have difficulties in stretching police resources in the immediate years ahead. Such circumstances make an additional argument for an added impetus to be given to the civilianisation programme. It would not do any harm either for Garda-citizen relations if the civilianisation programme was stepped up with young citizens trained to perform some of the routine duties, including contact with the public, which are sometimes not done well by some gardaí.

No matter how the figures are analysed, they are very disappointing. I presume the Minister and his predecessors have met resistance to the programme. The Garda is highly unionised. People who have been doing certain duties for a long time may not want to be displaced at this stage of their lives and probably have little appetite to go back to routine policing. The programme, however, should be focused on at a time when Garda numbers are likely to be under attack.

The Minister is under the impression that an bord snip nua has been kind to him and his Department, and in turn, he will be kind to it. As Deputy Charles Flanagan put on the record, that impression is not necessarily true when it comes to the operation of the courts system. Several recommendations suggesting specific savings in the administration of the courts were made in the McCarthy report. The Minister claims he has commented on them but I have not heard him. I do not know if these recommendations have been considered in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform or whether we will have to wait until budget day to see if any of them have found merit with the Minister. It would be helpful if the Minister were to indicate his thinking in this regard.

On the Courts Acts, the Minister stated: "They comprise over 100 statutes, many dating from before Independence. However, in co-operation with my Department, the Law Reform Commission is working on a valuable piece of legislation to codify the provisions." While everyone would welcome such a development, I am concerned about the Law Reform Commission's workload. When it examines a particular subject, often far more complex areas of law than this one, it ends up attaching a draft Bill to the end of its report. The McCarthy report made specific recommendations on the future of the Law Reform Commission. Considering the Minister introduced the subject into this debate, it would be appropriate for him to comment on the commission's future. It provides invaluable and quality work for the Minister and the Legislature. It would be reassured if the Minister took the opportunity to comment on how he views its future role. 12 o'clock

Deputy Charles Flanagan also raised Dr. Carol Coulter's report on the operation of the family courts. More often now Members are interacting with the workload of the family courts in their constituency clinics. Various matters are drawn to our attention on which it is difficult to have an informed view. We have no overview of the performance and experience of the family courts because they operate in camera but constituents present their views on their operation in our clinics. Apart from Deputy Charles Flanagan's point about whether there should be a special identifiable family court, what does the Minister think of the report prepared by Dr. Carol Coulter? Is it the subject of work in the Department and does the Minister intend to allow debate on it in the House reasonably soon? The throughput of the family courts is very high and I would like to have an opportunity here to test the concerns that have been raised.

This is not a contentious Bill. I am glad to see it brought before the House and am delighted to know that the new courts will operate from the beginning of November. Somewhere in the Minister's script there is a reference to the holding area in the complex. There is, however, a separate holding facility in Phoenix Park from which people might be brought to the court. Are there two holding areas? If the Garda time involved in the traditional escort and supervision system for persons held temporarily or awaiting recognisance on bail is to diminish will there be fewer gardaí involved but more officers of the prison service? Has the Minister examined the figures for a net saving? Is there a saving to the taxpayer or will the responsibility be transferred from one limb of the State, the Garda Síochána, to another, the Irish Prison Service? The Minister indicated that the structure, architecture and layout of the building is such that there are manifest savings but will we simply compensate for fewer gardaí with more staff from the Irish Prison Service to perform these duties?

The Labour Party is happy to support the speedy enactment of this Bill and welcomes what appears to be a splendid new piece of infrastructure for the administration of justice. I promise to support the Bill as it progresses through the House.

See this speech in context