Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 9, to delete lines 1 to 10 and substitute the following: "(2) Where the Government—

(a) receives a request from the Minister,

(b) the Minister has made the request after consultation with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,

(c) the Minister and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform are of the opinion that, that it is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to do so, having regard to—

(i) the volume of business to be transacted in the High Court or any other reason arising from the state of business in that Court, and

(ii) the need to ensure the efficient transaction of business in that Court,

the Government may, by order, provide that the number of ordinary judges of the High Court otherwise provided for under any enactment, for the time being in force, may be exceeded by one.".".

I very much welcome section 8. It is something we have called for on a number of occasions at the justice committee and elsewhere. There is a serious shortage of judges. I remind the Minister of State this is not just in the High Court but in other courts also. I hope the Minister of State will take on board the fact there is a shortage generally.

The amendment I have tabled relates to the second subsection of the proposed section 9 to be inserted in the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995. I will read the proposed section:

Number of ordinary judges of High Court

8.The Courts and Court Officers Act 1995 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 9 (inserted by section 1 of the Courts Act 2015): "9. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the number of ordinary judges of the High Court shall not be more than 42.

(2) The Government, on the request of the Minister made after consultation with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, and where they are of the opinion that, having regard to the volume of business to be transacted in the High Court or to any other reason arising from the state of business in that Court, and to the need to ensure the efficient transaction of business in that Court, it is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to do so, may by order provide that the number of ordinary judges of the High Court otherwise provided for under any enactment for the time being in force may be exceeded by one.".

I have been a barrister for 15 years. Before that I worked for two years in Leinster House dealing with legislation. I read the section 15 times before I had any idea what it meant. It is the most convoluted absolutely illegible and impenetrable paragraph I have seen in legislation since I became a Senator 12 months ago. It is absolutely impossible to dissect exactly what is involved in it.

What I propose in the amendment is a restructured paragraph that does not change the import of it, as far as I am aware, assuming I have read it correctly. I propose that the paragraph be restructured so it is legible to ordinary people as much as to legislators and lawyers and those who have to implement the legislation. The Minister of State can correct me on this as I may have misinterpreted it. Even if I have misinterpreted it, it only goes to further the point that it is impenetrable as a piece of legislative drafting.

It seems that what the section is saying is that the Government must receive a request from the Minister, being the Minister for Justice, that the Minister for Justice must make that request having consulted the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, and that both of them must be of the opinion that it is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice, having regard to the volume of business done in the High Court or any other reason, and the need to ensure the official transaction of business in the High Court, and that after all of this is done the Government may, by order, provide for an extra judge in the High Court. This is my reading of it after the 15 times I had to read it. I have restructured this in amendment No. 10 into a paragraph that can be read by somebody who does not deal with this all day every day. This is why I have tabled the amendment.