Vincent P Martin (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit.The Green Party grouping welcomes this short Bill put before the House as a step in the right direction as part of the overall jigsaw. It comes from the Government. To give some credit to the Government, it appears to be in listening mode. More judges have been called for, for as long as I remembering practising in the Law Library. To see a Bill come before the House is a positive step in the right direction.

I also commend the Department on listening and on accepting my Bill last month. It has given an undertaking that it will adopt it. When it is enacted or becomes part of a larger Bill, it will quite properly, I maintain, restrict and curtail the entitlement of an accused to cross-examine in person the victim in respect of coercive control cases. The Government was listening and this is an important step. However, I am concerned about its implementation. While I wish it well, I note we threw much money and investment at the health system. Did it automatically improve? No. Will the provision of additional judges on its own suddenly alleviate and rectify a long-standing problem of delay? I would like to see it accompanied with some sort of performance metrics to know exactly how it is. Has it been worked out? My preference, which is not in the cards for this Bill, is for a judge not to hear the next case until he writes up the judgment in the superior courts in the case he heard. There has been a big delay, and this is not a criticism of judges; it is their workload. The parties, who have long since litigated, have to wait for months on end before they get the written judgment.

We talk in this Chamber about the principles of due process and fair procedures. Central to that is to ensure justice is administered properly and efficiently. Justice delayed is justice denied. Equally so, as Senator McDowell said, the creation of unnecessary administrative blocks in the central office creates an issue where justice is denied. It is part of the process.

We are coming out of Covid and it has taught us some things. I would like to shake off the shackles of aspects of it that there is no need to hide behind any more. For instance, in Naas, we had an excellent antenatal maternity service for years. Quite correctly, it was removed at the time of Covid. We did not think it was a permanent decision. It has never come back, yet we have secured accommodation rooms for it to come back. Therefore, they cannot hide behind “not enough space” or “not enough appropriate accommodation”.

Law is always in a state of change. When I started at the Bar, the big area was Army deafness cases. A specific response from a judicial wing to look after all those cases, with specialised training and knowledge, is needed. For instance, there might have then been bankruptcy and insolvency, which hit a high at one stage after the Celtic tiger bust. There was then data protection. One that is here to stay is planning and environmental law. I welcome the fact that we are streamlining this as a separate division of the High Court. However, equally, with all these judges who have served our country well, we need ongoing top state-of-the-art training in the latest law but also the highest possible level of interpersonal skills. While my experience has been very positive, we cannot rest on our laurels because it has been okay in the past. We have to train our judges to the very latest skillset.

Other speakers spoke about the fees, especially for younger practitioners. I would like to closely associate myself with those remarks. If we do not address that issue, it will slowly but surely dismantle the renowned, as we call it, appreciated and independent Irish referral Bar, which for centuries has served us so well. If we do not look after the youngest practitioners, they will be pushed out of the Law Library. We have a wonderful independent referral Bar where any solicitor can pick up a phone and if that barrister is free, that solicitor has a chance of getting that barrister to represent them. That will be gone if we do not look after the most vulnerable barristers. I would hate to think there is an optical politically correct purported reason for this, that it looks like barristers from the tribunals and to not touch them, as politically, that is a hot potato. That would be unfair on the young practitioners who deserve - we should insist they get - the best remuneration on a par, nothing more or less, with other aspects of the State that have rectified pay inequities.

I agree with the retirement age being increased. That was a retrograde step and it was not fully thought out. People on the bench have wisdom. We should not suddenly cut down their careers after all those years of experience of not just dealing with the law but dealing with the practitioners, plaintiffs and witnesses that come before the court. The late Mr. Justice Paul Carney was on record as very much - to put it mildly - a reluctant retiree. He was willing and it would have suited his life to stay on. He was the senior criminal judge in Ireland. However, that was not possible. I urge the Minister of State to look at the retirement age again.

I will conclude by returning to my opening remark. More judges sounds great and will hopefully tackle what at times is, unfortunately, a dreadful delay in the process. However, I want to see performance metrics on how this is done. A big decision has been taken. Perhaps there will be some commentators who say that more judges is only good for the Law Library or the legal system. Not at all; it is good for everyone, including the most vulnerable in society, to have a functioning, proper and fair legal system. In doing so with performance metrics, the current system can help itself a bit more. As a practitioner, the Minister of State would be aware that the retired President of the High Court, Mr. Justice Peter Kelly, did great work in streamlining the commercial division of the High Court. It was a no-nonsense style but he increased and improved the system of access to law and reduced delays. This must go in tandem with a bigger and broader approach. We will now get these extra judges, but the Minister of State should make sure that they impact as effectively as is feasibly possible.