John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The fact is that we will do irreparable damage to the judicial system if we continue the way we are going. We need to stop and think about the reforms we want. On some of them, I absolutely agree with what the Minister is saying, but we are going about it in the wrong way.

In preparing for a debate such as this, one tends to Google. I read about the system in place in Canada and other countries. There are so many models of administration, appointment systems and justice systems that we could take from any one of them and apply it here and it would work, yet we do not want to do that. We want to mess around with the system, rush the legislation through Parliament and come up with what we think is a solution, but it simply will not work. I refer again to the document dating from 2000 that spoke about the Chief Justice and the presidents of the other courts. It all makes eminent sense to me, but what does not make any sense and what annoys the public is that we are continuing to offer in this House the excuse of the separation of powers as the reason we cannot talk about anything to do with judges. If we had listened carefully in the past few years, we would have known judges did not have any difficulty in making comments on the Members and processes of this House. They just said whatever they wanted to say. I agree fully with the separation of powers, but I do not agree with the use of that position to stop answering questions of or seeking answers on behalf of the public from those in power. I see no reason we cannot have a debate in this House on issues affecting the judicial system without being accused by the courts of doing something wrong.

In 2001, there was a debate at the Committee of Public Accounts about the wards of court system. Everyone walked on eggshells to ensure they did not upset the Judiciary which the committee was asking to account for the millions of euros looked after by the court system. It was found that the court system did not have an accountant reporting to the Secretary General at the time and every year since. The Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality at the time said the State would have to pick up the losses incurred in the funds. I have tabled a question today to the Minister for Justice and Equality about this matter, but if that is a fact, the question of what the Minister will do about the losses must be answered. Will he undertake to challenge the audit of the wards of court system? Will he insist on receiving a complete report on how the money was invested and a reason some of the huge amounts of money involved - up to €250,000 or €500,000 - are now down to €20,000 or €60,000? Will the State pick up the tab for the balance? Will the Minister insist on the courts speaking directly to and accounting to each and every one of the families who are trying to get answers?

The Minister might ask what that has to do with the Bill. It has everything to do with it. I was not a member at the time, but in 2001 the Committee of Public Accounts was told that it could not ask any question about the matter because it was related to the courts. That is a fig leaf. It is just smoke and mirrors and everyone knows it. It would not damage in any way the judicial system or the concept of the separation of powers. It is simply a question of having the political will within the Department of Justice and Equality and on the part of the Minister in this case to get to the truth for the people we represent. My biggest fear in terms of the commission and the selection process is that the commission will end up being manned or womaned by the usual suspects from either the Department of Justice and Equality or the justice area. That is my greatest concern.

We have to ask about the quality of the people we appoint as judges. If we agree that all of the judges appointed up to now are wonderful people and doing the right job - I do not have any complaint about them - I have a question. When the family in the case of Charles Farrell and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine write to the Department of Justice and Equality demanding answers and asking for justice, why is it that they are told - it is in correspondence and the Minister can check it - the Department cannot deal with it owing to the separation of powers? The man was robbed by the State. I do not expect the Minister to know about these cases, but they are familiar to those of us who were or are on the Committee of Public Accounts. There is also the case of Douglas Fannin and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Judge Reynolds chastised the Department for its behaviour in the case. The man was vindicated in court.

See this speech in context