Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

In response to the Deputy's initial question, the Attorney General has carefully considered the information available and the various judgments. I know they are complex and sometimes conflicting but two things are clear, namely, that the approval of the Oireachtas is needed and that the guidelines are valid. After carefully considering the Supreme Court judgment, the advice from the Attorney General is that the approach that has been set out will suffice. The Attorney General has also taken into consideration, when making that decision, the issue of judicial independence but has come to the conclusion that the approach set out in section 4 is the appropriate one to take.

Amendment No. 13 and the two parts to amendment No. 20 relate to the sentencing guidelines. In response to remarks made by the Deputy last week, whatever assistance needed by the council is being, and will be, provided but to the Deputy's point, obviously a huge amount of work has been done already, particularly in the area of domestic violence in the home. Progress has been made on that only this week. The other area the council is currently looking at is that of fatal road traffic accidents.

Amendment No. 20 seeks to introduce revised procedures for adoption of sentencing guidelines by the council similar to those introduced by section 4 of the Bill, mirroring the provisions set out in the new subsections (2C) and (2E) proposed for insertion. Amendment No. 13 provides for a consequential renumbering of the subsections. As Deputy Howlin has set out, this is presumably designed to reflect the concerns expressed by the Supreme Court in the Delaney appeal decision of last April. Obviously, that specifically applies to the personal injuries guidelines but the amendments provide that it would apply to the sentencing guidelines as well. As I said a few moments ago, this is not something to which we are opposed but we are seeking to determine if it would apply in the same way or would necessarily be required in the same way because it applies to different guidelines. They seem somewhat similar but, at the same time, they are different. It is important for us to get that legal advice back in order to make sure that if we were to progress with something like this, it would be both necessary and appropriate. We want to make sure that we do not introduce a pre-emptive arrangement that may not be necessary. I am not saying it would have any adverse impacts but it may not be required. I do not propose to accept amendments Nos. 13 and 20. They relate to revised procedures for sentencing guidelines when we are talking about something different from what such procedures have been applied to so far.

On the second part of amendment No. 20, work is being done by the sentencing guidelines committee. To impose a particular area or part of sentencing that it would be required to look at may knock off track the work that is already being done. The two areas that I mentioned specifically were domestic violence in the home and fatal road collisions. What we do not want to do is specifically refer to any particular area the council should look at but, rather, we want to allow it to identify issues itself. If the committee is looking at guidelines in general and sentencing guidelines in particular, this forms a natural part of that. Suspended sentences are included in the overall review and the work the Judicial Council is doing, so it is not necessary to single that out. It will be part of the overall work that the council is doing. The focus at the moment is very much on the two areas I have mentioned. To try to single out or pull out something separate from that, which is part of the overall piece of work, would be counterproductive at this stage.

In terms of the initial amendment, I am not opposed to it in principle but I want to have absolute clarity that it is necessary and would apply in the same way as it does for the personal injuries guidelines. On the second amendment, No. 20, as I have said, this is very much part of the overall review that is taking place around guidelines and how they are applied, not applied or suspended in certain circumstances. That is why I do not propose to accept that amendment either.

See this speech in context