Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. For reasons on which I might touch during my contribution, it is also welcome that she is not a lawyer and that she is coming to the Bill with a layman's common sense. That will benefit the Department of Justice and Equality and some of the decisions that emerge from it. From observing the Minister while she was a Senator and in her previous Ministry, I do not doubt that she will do justice to her current position, if she will pardon the pun.

The House is debating the Bill because of the 2013 referendum result. We will support the Bill which deals with civil and criminal cases. In 2009 the Fianna Fáil Government commissioned the working group to examine the problems in the courts system. The group advocated the creation of a new court to reflect the need to eliminate undue delays in processing appeals, create an appeals structure that would be cost effective - a point to which I will revert, enhance the administration of justice in the superior courts and improve certainty in the law - the Minister might comment on this issue - through the prompt publication of reasoned decisions by the Supreme Court, thereby enhancing the legal process. At the time there were delays in the Supreme Court of up to four and a half years. There probably still are, which is unacceptable. I could never understand how the sitting hours, days and weeks of the courts were so limited. It was almost as if the work lifestyle of the judges dictated the administration of justice. Something should be done about this. We live in a republic and no one is above the law. Given the burden we have asked society to carry, everyone must share it.

Some factors have evolved because of the increase of 2 million in the population between 1961 and 2011, the nature of modern litigation which has resulted in a number of complex cases and the increased number of legislative provisions, many of them from the European Union. The Minister might consider creating a system whereby the legislation we pass is simplified and our propensity for new legislation is reduced in favour of consolidating and amending core Acts relating to certain spheres of justice.

It should be done by amendment to simplify the process.
It is interesting that the number of High Court judges increased in recent years from seven to 36 while the number on the Supreme Court increased from five to eight. The Commercial Court was created to fast-track disputes but it was also subject to similar delays. A bugbear of mine has been that we have inherited almost blindly, without great critical analysis, the common law system of our colonial days. The Minister might usefully consider the provision of a court of mediation and arbitration based exclusively on an inquisitorial basis rather than on the expensive advocacy basis we have. It might be a toe in the water in respect of examining the overall structure of our justice system.
The European convention obliges us to ensure that excessive delays are not incurred, and that is important from the point of view of the domestic economy because SMEs and so on are badly affected by such delays. Speedy resolution of disputes is important in a successful economy where the rule of law applies fairly, ensuring swift access to justice for all. For justice to be open to all, which should not only be an aspiration but asine qua nonfor a republic, it must be accessible. Given the unnecessary and large exploitative legal fees that apply, justice is not accessible to those without great wealth. The high cost of legal services has been criticised by the European Commission, which has raised concerns. In particular, it pointed out that economic growth could be restricted because of such costs. Legal service costs in this State are 12.1% higher than in 2006, which is markedly in contrast with developments in this sector in other post-crisis countries.
The Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011 was intended to address this but, in its current form, it is unlikely to result in dramatic reductions in fees. I am surprised that the Government appears to have made a U-turn by deleting the section to provide for the creation of multidisciplinary practices.