Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I am not speaking about the most productive sectors.

It is sometimes difficult for politicians to resist playing politics with serious issues like this. It is a pity if that should happen as ultimately the public will not thank us. Two decades ago we had an example in this country of a Government which operated with such profligacy that a whole generation of Irish people had to emigrate because they could not get jobs. It would be a pity if the lessons of those terrible mistakes were not learned on all sides of the political divide in these Houses.

A question has arisen on matters pertaining to judges, such as consistency of sentencing, sensitivity to criticism, etc. In the other House, the Minister clearly spelt out his position on the matter. Those are real issues for people which come back to the accountability factor.

Nobody would subscribe to the notion that this debate should go on in the media with one side criticising the other. That tends not to achieve anything. There should be some structure, forum or system in place to deal with the views of these Houses, as well as the views of the Judiciary, Garda and others involved in controlling crime, maintaining law and order and protecting people. In that regard I welcome the Minister's comments on a judicial council, which is long overdue.

The Minister and the Garda Commissioner visited Massachusetts some years ago. The Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, which included myself and Senator Cummins, were on the same trip. We all came away very impressed with the judicial commission operating in Massachusetts. In that state judges can be held accountable for misbehaviour, but we have seen instances of misbehaviour or serious criminal activity here where there was almost no system but a cumbersome approach to correcting the issues. It is not good enough for such matters to be played out over years in trying to find some solution to what is a very serious issue.

There should be a judicial council or commission which should be equipped to deal with these issues. It should be able to reach out, assess fairly and give people a chance to defend themselves. Ultimately it should be able to expeditiously come to a conclusion and deal with the matter. We have not yet seen this happen, which shows a serious lacuna within the system of the administration of justice.

It does not serve justice well either if the public comes to the notion that certain people occupying privileged positions are above the law. Equally we have seen a case where a judge was perhaps unwise in approaches made to people within the system and was forced to resign. Most fair-minded people would feel that while the actions were not correct, they did not warrant impeachment or dismissal.

We must put systems in place but unfortunately it seems to take an interminable amount of time to do so. I would have thought we have had fair warning with many of these matters and we should really have had them up and running by now. I hope it will happen.

There must be a way of having an evaluation within the council or some other structure. Judges are human beings like everyone else, with some performing to a very high level, others performing to an average level and some failing to perform to a level we feel should pertain to judges. There should be a process for dealing with that. Having an impeachment process in these Houses is not the most appropriate or efficient method.

I have long held the view that the legal and medical professions are the worst for having exorbitant fees, and neither has been seriously tackled by the State. I hope the Minister for Health and Children will now do so with the consultants. The language in the Minister of State's speech was somewhat weak on this, and the tone was almost aspirational rather than determining that legal fees will come down.

The State has been one of the biggest culprits in this matter. We have set fees for the tribunals of €2,250 per day for people sitting around for an hour or two or sometimes only for a few minutes before they go to some other case. Every day the tribunals sit and do not sit the amount is accumulating. Having recognised the mistake we reduced the target but this reduction has never happened. The consequence is that taxpayers pay all the money, and it is not as if the State has some finances of its own. We are also setting the headline rates for private people pursuing legal cases.

In a republic or any democracy, an essence of citizens being able to participate fully is access to the courts. Other than for a small minority of the population, people cannot afford to take cases to the High Court or Supreme Court. That is wrong. There is no reason this should be the case. To compare people in professions other than those I have mentioned, people such as engineers are still paid well, but much less. The State must accept culpability to some extent over many decades for allowing that to happen. We had a system in which one could appeal fees to the Taxing Master, who was often a barrister in receipt of the same rate as the people on whom he or she adjudicated. There was no interest on the Taxing Master's part to cut the fees in half, so it never happened.

I hope this regulatory body will have real teeth and will not be composed of people who protect the legal industry, as has occurred in many cases. A range of competitive aspects must be injected in the legal profession's fees. It always struck me as ironic that competition legislation was processed through the courts by barristers and solicitors who were immune from the faintest hint of the requirements of that legislation, which is applied European-wide.

The Bill may impact on civil and family law cases and it is important that they be given the preferential position they require. I am not sure that going through the current legal process is a great way to deal with family law. People should be specifically trained and there should be a strong emphasis on reconciliation. Many cases are settled before they reach court, but the court system is not a good way to address the matter. There have been many incidents of irreconcilable marriage breakdowns, in respect of which the court system is fine, but the State should recognise that the more the incidence rate increases, the less it is in the interest of society as to use the courts. Our policies should pursue this line.