Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

This is relevant to the Bill because the Bill is designed to improve the efficiencies of the system, which I welcome. The main provisions of the Bill will enhance the system and, it is hoped, will improve value for money in the courts area, if that is at all possible. It is interesting that a motion signed by many on this side of the House, which I am informed will be tabled in the near future, on limiting the fees for senior counsel to €969 per day failed to get the support of esteemed colleagues, legal or otherwise, on the other side of the House.

The Bill deals with the maintenance of prisoners in custody and how they are dealt with. The purpose of the Bill is to allow the Prison Service to take custody and not involve Gardaí in the court system. This will have a beneficial effect. Many attempts have been made to increase community policing and the visibility of gardaí on the streets. We have debated that issue on previous occasions and a former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform made improvements in that area where administrative roles in the Garda Síochána were opened to civilians. That has had some effect, as will this, to free up gardaí who are well-qualified and quite well paid and whose job it is to deal with crime. This may provide a template for extension to other areas. The courts are often timed around the convenience of the Judiciary and the legal system rather than gardaí and those who have a serious and responsible job in maintaining order in society, and this creates a certain imbalance in how the system operates. Take Z

Anything that tackles and improves this is to be welcomed.

We have talked here before about video evidence. Under this Bill, court clerks will be authorised to deal with people when they are brought before them for bail reconnaissance. We should consider such changes in the system. Much more use should be made of videoconferencing and so on in remanding prisoners. The idea of having to bring prisoners any distance to court, with all the attendant costs, for purely technical or legal formalities is unpalatable. Obviously people must be able to defend themselves properly and effectively when charged, but common sense must prevail within the system and the current arrangements often defy logic. It has been mentioned that Thornton Hall, when built, will have a court system within it. Wheatfield is another example in this regard. Prisoners do not need to be transported long distances with all the attendant costs.

The Courts Service deserves some recognition for the manner in which it is dealing with certain issues, especially infrastructural issues. However, I have done some homework by talking to people who worked within the Courts Service but do not work there now, and I was aghast to find that many of the inefficiencies we have identified within other public services are just as common within the Courts Service. The culture of not doing things in a cost-effective way is just as evident, including the engagement of professionals. Often, those who command - or seek, depending on one's point of view - the highest fees are engaged, which prevents the service from taking on people in the most cost-effective way. It may be argued that the best often equates to the most expensive, and thus the most expensive professionals are the correct ones to engage. However, the reality from a business perspective is that this is not always the case.

I do not want to refer to the Courts Service in a derogatory way as a quango, but it is one of the agencies that was set up as an offshoot of the public service where Executive discretion no longer has an influence on what goes on. Many of these agencies become empires in their own right, and the interest of the taxpayer frequently does not get the priority it needs. With the significant downturn in public finances, which will be with us for many years to come, it behoves us to investigate every such body to ensure they are forced to operate to the highest standards of efficiency, cost effectiveness and value for money for the taxpayer.