Vincent P Martin (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I will begin by congratulating the new Minister for Justice and Equality and wishing her well on the road ahead. She is hitting the road running by coming to the House today as we progress this important legislation, which will improve the efficiency of the administration of justice. I acknowledge the work of the Courts Service in recent years in making the workings of the legal system more accessible to the public and the day-to-day administration of justice more efficient. As Senator Ward stated, the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Frank Clarke, is a reforming voice who is bringing us - some would say dragging us kicking - into a more modern age of the administration of justice where people feel a part of it.

A number of Senators have addressed various aspects of the Bill, including the welcome reforms relating to coroners. I will touch briefly on sections 13 to 15, inclusive. Section 13 is on business records as documentary evidence presumed to be admissible. The key word is "presumed". There is no automatic admissibility. Like other Senators, I would be concerned if there was ever an erosion of our country's strict rules of evidence, which are cherished and upheld day in and day out in the courts. I welcome this section because there is a presumption, which people are entitled to refute and rebut if properly armed with the legal ammunition.

The Minister kindly mentioned the Law Reform Commission, LRC. I suspect section 14 has its genesis in the 2016 report. The LRC is the unsung hero in the administration of justice and should be better resourced and more valued than it is currently. Often, its reports lie on shelves for decades before we get around to them. The LRC is usually way ahead of the curve. What it suggested in the report it published in 2016 is becoming a reality during the pandemic. We do not like to see an erosion of the evidential rules, including on the admissibility of business records, but it brings us into a more modern time when an approach like this is important and where such records are compiled in the ordinary course of business. There are balances and checks and these can be found in section 16. Apart from Covid, the higher courts will be able to exercise their inherent jurisdiction.It is very important that misinformation does not go out from this House today. In, say, debt matters, the nature of these contracts often means that a summary procedure is instituted, which does not mean R11s; it does not go to plenary. However, there is no prohibition on a plenary hearing in this modern step the Minister is taking. If, for instance, a debtor says he or she never got the money and disputes the admissibility of the business records, the court will take that into consideration and, apart from its own inherent jurisdiction in the higher courts, will consider if the information is reliable, if there is reasonable inference that the information is authentic and whether it is likely to be possible to controvert the information. Consideration is given to all the circumstances which may be taken into consideration or drawn from the accuracy of the information or otherwise.

I know the intent of the legislation in many respects but when it comes to personal debt we should always remember that we have the personal insolvency regime on a statutory framework in this country which is one of the most modern in the world. It is a fair system and it should be embarked upon by anyone in debt difficulty.

I understand that the amendments will in a sense save unnecessary court costs. They will become less unwieldy but it is not a fait accompli. There is still a plenary hearing entitlement if one can convince the court of its appropriateness.