Colm Burke (Fine Gael)

I again welcome the Minister to the House. I also welcome this legislation. Previous speakers have already covered many of the issues I wanted to raise. Earlier today, I referred to the independence of the Judiciary. In my experience over the years, I have found that at all times judges have ensured a clear line is drawn as regards their independence and how they arrive at their decisions.

I have checked the figures concerning the number of Supreme Court appeals that have been lodged. The current Chief Justice published a paper in 2006 on the need to establish a court of appeal. Rather than raising the matter on the Order of Business, the Minister might indicate where we are going on that issue. Over the last three years, for instance, the number of appeals to the Supreme Court have been as follows: 443 in 2008, 499 in 2009 and 466 in 2010. The number of cases dealt with in the respective years as follows: 230 in 2008, 228 in 2009 and 233 in 2010. Therefore, only half the cases appealed are being deal with in any one year.

I am raising this issue because not too long ago I was involved in a family law matter which involved a judicial review of a Circuit Court judge's decision to the High Court, with an appeal to the Supreme Court. Being a family law case it went on longer than it should have. The problem of delays in the Supreme Court process needs to be examined. In particular, when one looks at the figures I cited it appears that there will be no improvement on how appeals will be dealt with in the Supreme Court because of the volume of appeals.

The paper produced by the current Chief Justice in 2006 concerned the need for a court of appeal. We have a Court of Criminal Appeal, but many other issues go to the Supreme Court which raise serious questions of whether they should ever come before that court. We should have another process for dealing with them. At the time, Mrs. Justice Susan Denham was of the view that there was not a need for a constitutional amendment to deal with the issue. The question is, however, whether or not we should have examined that and catered for a change in this area involving the establishment of a court of appeal, rather than all matters going on appeal from the High Court to the Supreme Court. The time factor involved is also important. That issue is relevant now due to the volume of commercial law that is ending up in the Supreme Court. As a result, there are many other areas which, unfortunately, cannot be given the same priority.

There is specific provision that constitutional issues must be dealt with in a particular period of time, but some matters are being put back and not dealt with within the required period. I know that the main issue before us is the constitutional amendment on judges' remuneration, but perhaps in his reply the Minister could touch on the issues I have raised.