These measures are welcome but would the Minister agree that the whole legal system needs review, and that two senior counsel, one junior counsel and a solicitor representing each side plus the question of a jury system are adding about £1 million to the cost of motor insurance? Has he looked at that area in any great detail?

(Limerick East): The Prices Advisory Committee made a recommendation on motor insurance and that has been referred to the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure. The decision involved giving a greater discretion to the judge in recommending levels of claims when a claim was being tried by jury. That has been referred to the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure. There will not be further consideration of this matter by the Government until a report is received on that. With regard to the other question, certainly there are delays in civil cases in the High Court and quite a large number of these are related to motor insurance claims. Various initiatives have been taken by me to try to improve the situation and cut down on the backlog and on the length of the list now before the High Court.

Would the Minister agree that at this stage backlogs arise even with small claims in the Circuit Court? Have there been any discussions at all with members of the Judiciary, or with the body that represent them, in relation to longer sitting hours by these judges?

This appears to be a separate question. Question No. 13 relates to an announcement about motor insurance measures.

One of the main problems is that our judges are sitting for insufficient hours and Circuit Court judges are sitting perhaps during only three or four short sessions per year. If they sat from nine to 11 months of the year, that at least would get rid of the backlog. I cannot see why, these days, people would not work for a full week.

I find it difficult to relate that to Question No. 13.

It deals with the backlog of cases which is adding greatly to the cost of insurance. That has been documented.

(Limerick East): Delays in court actions on motor insurance mainly arise not in the Circuit Court but in the High Court. For example, High Court statistics for the legal year 1982 to 1983, the year ended 31 July 1983, show some significant improvement in the state of High Court business. The main features are as follows: an increase of 33 per cent in the number of jury actions disposed of during the year — 3,107 as compared with 2,328 in the previous year — an increase of 61 per cent in the number of non-jury common law actions disposed of — 503 as compared with 312 in the previous year and a reduction from 22 months to 20 months in the average delay from the date of setting down to the date of hearing in the case of jury actions and from 15 months to 13 months in the case of non-jury actions. Two additional judges were appointed in 1982 and there is now very effective management of court business. I am giving average monthly delays. There is a difference, for example, in the delay in the High Court in Dublin, in Cork and in Limerick.

I partially agree with the Minister, but does he not agree that this is basically a Dublin High Court problem? There is a serious administrative blockage in the administration of the High Court in Dublin, which is causing the public intolerable delays in getting their appropriate legal remedies.

(Limerick East): There are a number of reasons for the delays. Firstly, the longest delays are not in Dublin but in Cork and the shortest delays are in Limerick. Dublin, carrying most of the business, affects many people. One of the reasons for the delays is lack of accommodation in Dublin but that will be dealt with satisfactorily over the next few months, when we will be providing two extra jury courts in the Four Courts building. That will certainly help matters quite a lot. Another factor in causing delays is the unwillingness shown by some practitioners to settle before arriving at the door of the court. If these were prepared to settle earlier in the process, the list would not be so long.

I take it that the Minister is no longer considering the abolition of the jury system and is now considering the recommendation under subsection 2 of the legislation.

(Limerick East): It is not for the Minister to consider the matter. It is a matter for the Government which examined the report and decided to refer the particular recommendation to the Committee on Court Practice and Procedures. When they report, the matter will be considered further by the Government.

A final supplementary from Deputy Lenihan.

Would the Minister not agree that there is a long-standing recommendation made either by this or the previous Committee on Court Practice and Procedure, to the effect that a system could easily be adopted to effect a settlement of pre-trial issues — matters of technical details as between medical and engineer witnesses on each side. These could be settled pretty easily in office or in chambers by an official such as a master or a registrar. The main issues going for open trial before a judge or a judge and jury could be reduced to the key issues involved. That is a very simple procedural reform which has existed for a long time by way of recommendation before successive Ministers for Justice. I would ask the Minister to examine it as a reform which would be very easily implemented and would bring very practical benefits.

(Limerick East): I am aware of the delays in these matters before the High Court, in particular. There are three aspects of the delay, firstly examination of the existing accommodation and I am proceeding to deal with that, especially in the case of Dublin. As I have already said, extra courts will be provided in the immediate future and further courts in the medium term. The second issue arising concerns the number of judges and I have not evaluated that as yet. The third issue is whether some of the preparatory work, as the Deputy has mentioned, could be engaged in, for example, by the Master of the High Court. I am having that examined at the moment. It is not a simple administrative matter, but would require legislation.

I appreciate that.

(Limerick East): It could not be implemented as quickly as the Deputy would seem to suggest.