Alex White (Labour)

I share the surprise of my colleagues on this provision, particularly 9(2). It begs more questions than it answers. The first and most obvious question is why the Minister is being given the power to consult with a judge. What is the purpose? Senator Bacik is correct that there is already a role for the Executive in releasing persons from detention in different contexts. Why would the Minister consult with the judge? What would the Minister ask the judge? What sort of consultation would they have and for what purpose? Would it involve meeting with the judge? I am sorry if it sounds crass, but where would the Minister meet the judge? In what context would they meet? Would it be a formal meeting? Would it be documented? Who would have access to documentation on it? How would the deliberations between the judge and the Minister be recorded? Would the parties involved have access to documentation on the meeting between the Minister and the judge? Would a person who is in prison and regarding whom consideration was given to his or her release and, following consultation between the Minister and the Judge, a decision was made not to release that person, be entitled to know what the judge said to the Minister that persuaded the Minister not to release the person?

I appeal to the Minister to re-examine this. Apart from the fundamental objection to it regarding the separation of powers, this opens all kinds of possibilities and problems for Ministers in future regarding what would or would not happen or could happen. I am not suggesting for a minute any question of possible impropriety, although that could happen. I do not suggest it could happen with anybody currently in office. However, if we are providing in statute for consultation to occur, whether through meetings, letters or otherwise, between a Minister and a judge, it would be dangerous for that to become in any way a precedent in our system. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this provision. No case has been made for it and it could cause the most serious problems in the future in how it might play out.

The period of imprisonment for debtors is relatively short, as I recall. It is three months. In those circumstances if the Minister were to contact a judge and was considering releasing the person, presumably it would be only three months since any such hearing would have occurred, but three months is three months. A District Court judge presumably has many cases coming in and out through his or her court and I wonder what implications this has for what records would be kept by a District Court justice on these cases.

I am reminded that within the past year we debated another Bill in the House which was taken by the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan. As far as I recall, in that legislation we removed an ancient provision whereby a District Court judge was required to take a note of the deliberations in court. As I understand it, that has been removed by legislation passed by these Houses in the past year or so. There is now no provision for a record or a note to be kept by a District Court judge of what has happened in his or her court. Obviously some record is taken of decisions made. What will the judge be able to tell the Minister? This is the nub of the issue as far as I am concerned. What will the Minister ask the judge? Will he or she ask about the character of the person concerned? What would be the factors that would enter into the equation from the judge to the Minister that might persuade the Minister to release the person or keep the person in custody? This seems to be highly fraught with considerable danger for all concerned and I counsel in the strongest possible terms against its inclusion.