Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I am disappointed that the Government will vote against this Bill but we have had a constructive debate and it has been a helpful opportunity to examine these issues. I reiterate that the intervention by the Chief Justice, Susan Denham and her committee was very timely. It sent a clear message that the Judiciary wants to see a change to the appointments procedure. Whether we like it or not, there is a long-held perception that the men and women of the Judiciary are often appointed on their political allegiances. The first question that many people - in particular those who practise law - ask about a recent judicial appointment is to find out who has been appointed and what are his or her political affiliations. This has been the case and is well known in this House. We need to remove that perception of any political interference in the process.

Another important point to consider is the importance of the Supreme Court decisions. It is the highest court in the land and its responsibility is to interpret the Constitution on behalf of the people. Its members must often make difficult decisions when interpreting the Constitution. We need to ensure that the Supreme Court is representative of all the Irish people, of all the ideologies in Irish society, including conservative, liberal and reforming ideologies. It is not satisfactory to have an entire Supreme Court based on a conservative tradition, as is the case in some countries. In my view, such a Supreme Court will interpret the Constitution in a conservative fashion. That is the reason these matters are so important; it is a case of achieving a balance in a Judiciary that is representative of all the people in order to achieve balanced, fair decisions.

I do not wish to impugn the character of our Judiciary. I accept that we have, in the main, an independent Judiciary which has performed a very proud service to this State. However, I am reassured and supported in my view by the intervention of the Chief Justice, Ms Susan Denham, which shows that the Judiciary believes the process needs to be changed. I believe the Minister of State, like me, as well as Members of this House, wish to achieve that change. I have to accept that the Minister of State does not intend to support the Bill and I accept that the Bill does not provide the full panacea but is instead my humble contribution and I agree that there are many other issues which I have not raised in this Bill. I accept the premise of the arguments made by the Minister of State about the wider range of issues that need to be addressed. I ask that the review process should not be prolonged unnecessarily and that it should be time-limited - I am sure it is - and that the decisions be made quickly. It is in everyone's interest to have a judicial appointments process that is beyond challenge or any suggestion of political interference, even though this may not be the only challenge. We also need to progress the Bill dealing with the judicial council as soon as possible. I suggest the incorporation in that Bill of a model based on the sentencing council in England and Wales which gives clear sentencing guidelines to the Judiciary.

We want to achieve an accountable and transparent judicial appointments process with no question about the reasons for the appointment of any individual to the Judiciary - which is a great honour for the individual and his or her family. We need a judicial council to hold the Judiciary to account and puts in place a clear code of ethics and standards. I know the Judiciary would welcome such a regulation. We ask for the establishment of sentencing guidelines to achieve accountability and consistency in judicial decisions. Some decisions have been controversial, in particular those related to sexual offenders being released by the payment of a fine. Such a decision is not in the public interest.

1 o’clock

In other cases, individuals have received very long sentences for tax evasion. While tax evasion is a serious crime for which an appropriate sentence is required, one must compare the sentences handed down in such cases to those handed down in cases involving sexual attacks, which members of the public regard as much more serious offences. The public must be involved in the process, although not by engaging in some kind of town hall raid, as depicted in "The Simpsons" with crowds of people bearing torches descending on a suspect's home. We need to have a mature debate about what types of sentences are appropriate for particular categories of offence. Consistency is required throughout the judicial system if full public confidence is to be retained.

I am pleased to have had this opportunity to propose this Bill and I accept that the Government wishes to address this issue in wider legislation. It should introduce a Bill within the current term to address the two issues I have raised, namely, judicial appointments and a judicial council.

See this speech in context