Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I cannot support amendment No. 6 from Deputy O'Callaghan because it will pave the way for a non-lay majority. I have made that clear to Deputy O'Callaghan previously. I also believe it is too prescriptive in terms of the organisations that can be representative. The need for those lay people to be more representative was discussed at length at Committee Stage. We should try to be more imaginative and go beyond the usual processes of appointment through the Public Appointments Service.

It is for this reason that I have put forward a number of amendments. Some of them are in this group, although the key one is in the next group.

The key amendment to which I refer proposes to split the lay majority between the general lay appointments, the three people who would be appointed under amendment No. 15, and the three who would be appointed under the diversity and social inclusion provisions. It is probably a miscalculation to go for a split of three and three so this is a matter which I may revisit. However, the principle behind it is that the diversity and social inclusion appointments in the judicial council could develop a register of relevant organisations beyond the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, the Free Legal Aid Centres, FLAC, and the Citizens Information Board. All of those are valuable and would have a role to play, as well as an interest in ensuring that the judicial appointments council is properly representative with a view to ensuring that the judiciary is properly representative. However, there are many other organisations that would be relevant in that regard as well. The proposal would be that a register of organisations would be developed and that those organisations would be invited to bring forward nominations through the judicial appointments commission. The Public Appointments Service could agree or otherwise and take on board a number of those nominations.

Unfortunately, my amendment has been ruled out of order but I am minded to support amendment No. 11 in the name of Deputy Clare Daly. That would be my preference. I do not support the Attorney General's presence on the judicial appointments commission. As has been discussed on a number of occasions, I think that constitutes a second bite at the cherry. However, my vote will be to ensure that the lay majority is preserved. I do not for one moment accept the point about populism. There is an obligation on all Members of this House to try to deliver for their constituents. I am of the view that everyone here is very committed to doing so.

Sentencing guidelines have been discussed at length in this House over many years. They have been pursued by several organisations, including the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, Rape Crisis Network Ireland and the Irish Penal Reform Trust. Fianna Fáil and many others, including the Labour Party, have expressed support for the notion of such guidelines. Whatever comments may have been made, it is clear that sentencing guidelines - or scope for them - were not included in the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017. We have done what we can to pursue that aim and deliver on it. I think that is right. It is in the public interest and, I think, it is something that members of the public, particularly the victims of crime, would be keen to see. Deputy Clare Daly is quite right; there are issues around to the separation of powers. Any proposals we have brought forward in the past have been consistent with that. They have always ensured that the final authority lies with the judge. Ultimately, the latter has jurisdiction. We are mindful of the separation of powers. Any proposals that we have brought have taken account of it, as will any proposals we will support in the future.

The point that I made previously about this Bill and the other legislation is that I view them as a package. It is very rare for reforms relating to the Judiciary to go through these Houses. The matter of judicial appointments is one such area of reform. We are dealing here with a proposal to ensure that the process for appointing judges is transparent, independent and removed from political influence. The case concerning the manner in which these appointments have been carried out has been made in a comprehensive manner. That is important. However, it is also important that we address how the Judiciary conduct themselves when in office. There has been significant criticism of the lack of consistency in sentencing and, indeed, of the lack of research and information on it that is available to organisations. That is something that has to be rectified.

As already stated, it has always been my view that I will deal with each amendment as it comes and that our discussion relates to supporting this Bill on Fifth Stage. While I believe that there is a great deal of work to do - not only here but also in the Seanad - to try to ensure that the Bill is up to scratch, as matters stand, I am of the view that it is worthy of support and that it can improve the process by means of which judges are appointed.

See this speech in context