Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I too am delighted to speak on this important legislation. I have to declare that when the matter to which it relates was put to referendum, I opposed it for very genuine reasons. It is like getting a flat tyre when driving one's car and one takes off the other three wheels as well. At the time of the referendum, we were informed by the Government that it was introducing this great and wonderful model that would solve all the problems. In fact, it was not going to solve anything. That was because the Government did not propose to address the reason the tyres were punctured in the first place. No one was looking at the engine or anything else and the car was not fit for purpose. That was the problem. I was going to say that this was a typical Irish solution to an Irish problem but it was more a Fine Gael solution to a particular problem. The taxpayer had to foot the cost of a referendum campaign and everything else but what was proposed was useless in the absence of the real changes necessary to remedy the situation relating to the courts.

I take this opportunity to mention Mr. Johnny Walsh, a barrister in Tipperary who is a good friend to myself and Deputy O'Callaghan. He was due to visit the House today but he is in hospital. I wish him well. I also wish the former Attorney General, who is member of the Court of Appeal - the court to which the Bill relates - well in her new role.

I am not anti-judge. The purpose of the Bill is to provide for an increase in the maximum number of ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal from nine to 15. That is another waste of time. We are scratching at the surface. In a moment, I will use figures to explain why that is the case and why we are going backwards. The explanatory memorandum states to the Bill states:

It is clear that the Court of Appeal has a very significant volume of work ... without additional judges, the Court of Appeal could, before too long, be facing a similar level of delay to that which prevailed previously. As it is, the current waiting time of 20 months for civil appeals would be considered problematic in terms of access to justice.

One of the old sayings in the legal sphere, "Justice delayed is justice denied", is very true. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae referred to unacceptable delays and the confusion of people attending on particular dates only for their cases to be postponed. I attended the High Court in Waterford ten years ago in the context of a claim someone brought against me and my business. It was like a Munster final. Walsh Park, which can accommodate 12,000 people, could not have held the crowd that showed up on the day. Everybody was obliged to attend but only handful of cases were heard on the day. I am not sure whether the courts sat for four or five days that week. Surely to God those involved would know that they would be lucky if 20 cases were heard, although it could be as few as three or four. This looks like a racket and that is what it is.

I hope the Acting Chairman is not getting cross with me. I know she is a barrister and I wish her well in the context of the duties she performed before she became a Member of this House. I am not blaming anybody but it is the system that is broken. All of the people to whom I refer should not be brought to court on a particular day if a case is not going to be heard, particularly in view of the cost involved.

See this speech in context