Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank everybody for their contributions to this debate. I agree with the point made by Deputy Clare Daly on the need to debate all our institutions and the people within them, particularly those who are conferred by society with huge amounts of power. The Deputy is correct in that regard. I wish to participate in such a discussion as much as does the Deputy, albeit I accept we may reach different conclusions in such a debate. I have listened to what everyone had to say in this debate and I wish to respond to a number of the points made. I will respond in four different areas. The first point to which I wish to respond was made by a number of Members regarding the dangers of the politicisation of the process. I refer to Deputy Joan Collins's strong statement regarding the need for clear water between politicians and the legal system. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan stated that such decisions must be taken out of the political system. However, that is not what this Bill proposes to do. It proposes to allow Members of the Oireachtas who are not members of the governing parties in the Oireachtas to be involved in the decision-making process. If one seeks to have politics taken out of the system, this Bill does not do it as it still allows a role, albeit for individuals who are not members of government but who are politicians, to be involved in this process. If one seeks the non-politicisation of the process of appointing judges, this Bill will put in place a process that allows politicians still to play a role therein. I ask Deputy Ross in particular to respond to this point. In addition, I draw Deputy Ross's attention to what I actually said, which was to acknowledge that within this process, it of course is people who are not within the political parties in government who would be fulfilling the role he seeks. However, I put that point to Members. If their desire is for politicians not to play a role in this regard, Deputy Ross is putting forward a Bill that ensures they still do and I ask for a response to that point.

Second, I will revert to a point I made previously regarding the independence of the Judiciary. Deputy Shortall challenged me on my remarks. I am highly aware of the responsibilities that are conferred on Members of the House but also am aware of the freedoms Members of the House enjoy by virtue of having the privilege to serve in this House as Deputies. I repeat my simple request for an example of where the independence of the Judiciary has been undermined by the manner in which judges have been appointed. I believe we have an independent Judiciary that has fulfilled its functions well. In fairness to Deputy Halligan, while he made many of the points Deputy Ross will emphasise regarding his concerns on how people are being appointed, he made the point that in respect of judges' fulfilment of the role, he could not provide an example. That is what I seek because I believe the independence of the Judiciary is a cornerstone of how the State and this society should function. I believe it is an independence that has been recognised by this Government and its predecessors. I also believe it is an independence the Judiciary itself has been vigilant in protecting. If Members opposite believe this not be the case, I am entitled, despite the accusations levied at me by Deputy Shortall, to ask for an example in this regard. I again ask Deputy Ross for such an example.

Third, the Minister already has indicated he will review this process and has put in place a process by which he intends to do this. I accept completely that Deputy Ross and others might contend that the process is not substantive or will not deliver what they seek.

However, the Minister has put in place a process that reflects the concerns of some to examine how the appointment process could take place.

My fourth point is on how such decisions would be made in the system Deputy Shane Ross proposes. I will quote a politician in this House who has spoken about the pressures politicians are under. He said:

TDs would knife their grannies for a seat on the inquiry. The prospect of months of constant media mesmerises them. At an early stage one of their number will seize the opportunity to grandstand. The competition for the cameras will commence.

That was written by Deputy Shane Ross. I was in the House when he made the following point in opposition to the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Bill: "I do not trust myself or any other politician to be independent in that situation." If he does not believe he could support the Oireachtas undertaking the inquiries that would be undertaken under that Bill, if he opposed that Bill because he believed politicians would abuse the powers that would be conferred on them, how can he be certain this would not happen under the Bill he proposes?

We have an independent Judiciary protected by judges and the Government. Deputy Shane Ross has strongly alleged that it is politically influenced, yet he has argued that we should put in place a process which would ensure its overt politicisation here, albeit by people who are not members of the Government parties. For that reason, while I respect and understand the intent and thinking behind the Bill, as I am sure the Minister for Justice and Equality does, the Government will not accept the Bill.

See this speech in context