asked the Minister for Justice (a) the average delay in the hearing of criminal cases which came to trial in Dublin in the past three months and (b) the minimum and maximum delays in such cases.

I assume the Deputy is referring to trials in the Dublin Circuit Court and I would refer him to my replies in detail of 11th and 12th February.

As then indicated, an accused person who is returned for trial in custody normally has his case heard within the term.

In the last three months the interval between the return for trial and the actual trial of accused persons who had been admitted to bail has been about 12 months. There were longer intervals in a small number of bail cases arising from difficulties of the defence or prosecution.

I might add that special arrangements have been put into effect to reduce arrears and the number of cases awaiting hearing at the end of last term was 172 as against 256 at the commencement of the previous term.

Is it not totally unsatisfactory that, normally, a period of 12 months should now elapse before the hearing of cases where people are admitted to bail and that, because of the Minister's inability to make provision for such cases to be heard in time, a situation has arisen under which he is seeking to interfere with the rights of people on bail by the introduction of amending legislation? If the Minister had made adequate provision for the hearing of these cases, this problem of people on bail for committing crimes having to wait for such a long period would not have arisen.

I am not happy with the delay to which the Deputy has referred. Every step open to me has been taken to wipe out these arrears.

(Cavan): I take it the Minister agrees that it is unfair that a person returned for trial, even on bail, should have to wait 12 months to have his case disposed of? Could the Minister give any indication of the steps he is taking in this connection and when he hopes to be able to bring these cases to trial, say, within three months at the maximum?

I am assured that there has been a substantial improvement in the position, an improvement that will continue, because Judge Conroy is available all the time now to deal with some of the arrears of these cases. We had a court accommodation problem, too. I dealt with this matter before.

(Cavan): Is part of the trouble not the fact that, even if the Minister had additional judges, he has not suitable courtroom accommodation within easy reach of the Four Courts? Is it not a fact that some accommodation was offered to the Department within the past 12 months or so but was not accepted—in fact, was refused?

I do not accept that. There is court accommodation available but those concerned with the courts were not prepared to go out there and use the court accomodation that is available there. There is an accommodation problem but no suitable accommodation was offered that was refused by me.

Would some of the arrears, at least, be related to the strike on the part of the Bar for increased fees under the free legal aid scheme? Furthermore, is it not peculiar, in April, 1970, for us to be talking of increasing the number of judges and increasing court accommodation to deal with criminal cases? I should like the Minister's comment on that point—or is that answered now?

That is a separate question.

Question No. 13.

Might I ask the Minister——

Just a second, please.

I shall take my turn.

I asked the Minister if the delays referred to by Deputy FitzGerald result to some extent from the strike on the part of the legal profession for increased fees. Is the Minister not aware that recently in Limerick the circuit court judge adjourned indefinitely a criminal prosecution because he was informed by the defending solicitor that he could get no counsel to defend the accused under the free legal aid scheme? Is that responsible for the delay?

I accept that part of the recent delay is due to the reason suggested by Deputy Murphy.

Arising out of the Minister's assurance——

I am calling Question No. 13.