Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I join the Taoiseach and Deputies Martin and Adams in expressing sympathy to the family of Savita on the tragedy that happened at Galway University Hospital.

Last year the Government courageously decided to hold a referendum on judicial pay and conditions, which was passed by the electorate with a large majority. That was a good start to reforms, which, I suggest, are now necessary in a much more radical vein. Yesterday in the High Court, a judge recused himself from a case because he held shares in CRH, the company over which he was making an adjudication. After he had admitted in open court in 2010 that he held the shares, the discovery was made by the plaintiffs that his advisers - in his words - had bought more shares at a time when the case was proceeding under him. I am not making any accusations against him. He states that this was done by his advisers without his knowledge. It raises serious questions about the regulation of the Judiciary and its self-regulation. How can it happen that a judge is allocated a case involving a company in which he holds shares and from which he stands to benefit or lose depending on the verdict? That is the reality. This is a multi-million euro case. It could run into tens of millions of euro. There could also be, unknown to us, other cases involving such matters as the banks and NAMA whose judges are involved in commercial activities which are not declared and about which the plaintiffs and the defendants know nothing. In light of this, would the Taoiseach consider providing that the members of the Judiciary be required by law to make a declaration of their interests for public view so that plaintiffs and defendants can see what they hold and the president of the court can allocate cases accordingly?

See this speech in context