Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge what was a very constructive debate. Many important points were raised and I thank Senators Wilson, McDowell, Ó Donnghaile, Bacik, Boyhan and Conway for their contributions. Valid points have been made.

Almost all of the Senators who spoke made reference to the length of time involved in the preparation of this legislation. In this regard I will be very open to giving positive consideration to any reasonable proposals that come by way of amendments on this legislation. The wide-ranging nature of the debate underlines the importance of the issues and the concerns we all share around the need for a Judiciary that adheres to the highest standards of probity and which continues to have a very high degree of trust and confidence of the people.We have that currently but it is important we maintain it on the basis that judges continue to have a vital role to play in our society. Citizens come before the courts daily in large numbers, and going to court can be a stressful experience and a time of worry, difficulty, challenge and, in some respects, trauma. That said, I believe that all our citizens and everyone appearing before the courts enjoys a legitimate right to expect that the highest standards of independence, impartiality, integrity and behaviour will prevail at all times.

The relationship we have as a society with the members of our independent Judiciary is complex. As an institution, the Judiciary derives strength from the confidence we repose in it, and it acts without fear or favour, as it should. We in turn, therefore, feel secure in the knowledge that we can trust it to do its job to the highest possible standards. Judicial independence continues to be recognised, and rightly so, as a core value within our society. The founders of the State were wise in the way in which they gave explicit constitutional effect to that recognition. I believe it is important, therefore, in the context of whatever final shape this Bill has when it goes for enactment, that it will continue to foster that culture of independence and impartiality. It will also ensure there is appropriate oversight in respect of the conduct of judges and will be of benefit in supporting continuing professional development among judges, having regard to the advances in our economy and our society, technological or otherwise. All of us in our professional lives, no matter what we do, need to keep abreast of new developments in advancing technologies, changing practices and anything else that can enhance and further develop our capacity to work in a way that can be described as more efficient. Judges are no different in this regard, and I know they welcome the more structured approach to education and training provided for in the Bill.

I will very briefly advert to some of the points raised by Seanadóirí in the course of the debate. Again, I would be keen to ensure a sufficient lapse of time between Second Stage and Committee Stage to allow for many of the issues we discussed to manifest themselves in amendments, and I assure the House of my full co-operation in this regard.

I welcome Senator Wilson's indication that his party, Fianna Fáil, will support the Bill. As I mentioned at the outset, the Bill has a long history and it has outlived many Governments. I also acknowledge the support of the Opposition, including Senator Ó Donnghaile's and Senator Bacik's welcome for the Bill. I note the point that was made about confidentiality. I have already given a commitment to bring forward amendments on this point but I am open to hearing the views of other Senators. Senators McDowell and Ó Donnghaile also referred to this matter. I agree there is a greater willingness to embrace transparency in this area and I very much welcome that. I acknowledge what Senator Wilson said in reference to the possibility of a member of the public making a complaint against the president of a court where the judge concerned is a member of that court. I understand that this may happen, but on an informal basis. I do not have statistics in that regard at this point. Should I be in a position to provide the Senator with further information on this, I will be happy to do so.

Both Senators Bacik and McDowell referred to the definition of judicial misconduct. I note the reference to "acknowledged standards of judicial conduct". I feel that must be read against the explicit reference to the Bangalore principles. Looking at the Bangalore principles, I think there is a reasonable precision there. As for the use of the term "a code of conduct" as opposed to "guidelines", as referred to by Senator Bacik, I acknowledge that differing terms are used in different jurisdictions. In essence, I do not see any significant difference between the terms. If a better understanding or clearer interpretation would come from the use of one over the other, I am happy to consider it.

I note Senator McDowell's reticence about the matter of the register of interests and I would be happy to hear more from Seanadóirí in this regard. This is a sensitive issue and a delicate matter, but we should be mindful of developments in other jurisdictions, particularly jurisdictions of a similar common law nature to ours. As I said in my initial remarks, I am giving careful consideration to what in the circumstances might be feasible, whatever shape such a register might take. I would be happy to discuss this issue with Senators openly but we have an opportunity here to see how best we can deal with this issue, and I hope we can do so.

Senators Colm Burke, Michael McDowell and Diarmuid Wilson mentioned the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill. Senators will be aware that Bill is currently making its way through Dáil Éireann. It was published in June, and Second Stage was taken before the summer recess. We spent a day discussing the Bill on Committee Stage before the Select Committee on Justice and Equality last month. I can now say that Committee Stage is due to resume in January - I think the date of 18 January was given. It is whatever the Wednesday that is closest to 18 January. I acknowledge, as Seanadóirí will be aware, that a large number of amendments have been tabled. I have an open mind about some of the areas raised in amendments to that Bill but I will have difficulty agreeing to any amendments or making any changes that cut across the basic tenets of A Programme for a Partnership Government and the commitment towards a new judicial appointments commission with an independent chair and what has been described as a non-legal or lay majority. This House will have an opportunity to debate that legislation in its entirety at an appropriate time to be considered after the Dáil has completed its deliberations some time next year.

Senator Ó Donnghaile referred to the need for a sentencing council. The Bill provides for the setting up of a sentencing information committee. The functions of such a committee are to collate an appropriate level of information on sentences imposed by the courts and to disseminate that information from time to time to judges or interested stakeholders, who may be persons other than judges. However, I do not envisage that such a committee will have a role in preparing sentencing guidelines, which, in essence, would be binding on judges. Without seeing the detail of the Bill referred to by Senator Ó Donnghaile, I would hazard a guess that it goes a little further, perhaps considerably further, than what is envisaged under this Bill in the sentencing information committee. However, regarding that committee, it would be expected that the transmission of such information would be very valuable in promoting the overall approach which I think we all agree needs to be consistent regarding the practice of sentencing, not in any way interfering with the fact that each and every criminal case has its own particular circumstances.It would not be wise to impose any restrictions that the Judiciary might consider cut across its independence in terms of sentencing. The House dealt with such a Bill earlier today and I appreciate it is a matter of concern for Senators.

The sentencing information committee will be mandated to conduct research on sentences imposed by the courts, which will undoubtedly be of benefit to judges, practitioners and the wider public, including those who appear before the courts and those who do not but have an interest in the matter as citizen stakeholders.

A number of Senators, including Senators Bacik and Boyhan, referenced the need to be more explicit in terms of the training required, which is a reasonable point. I am open minded on the issue but it is often better to have a general inclusive provision rather than a list as that runs the risk of something being omitted. Having a general framework is often more inclusive. However, we can revisit the issue on Committee Stage.

Senator Bacik referred to the adequacy of the guidance offered to a panel of inquiry when it comes to the reference of a matter to the Minister for action under Article 35 of the Constitution. I again caution against a list as being too prescriptive. However, I am willing to look at the language of the provision and I am happy to engage on it. As regards the refusal by a judge to co-operate with a panel of inquiry, it is explicit in the Bill that in such a case the name of the judge would be published in the annual report with the appropriate adverse consequences that would ensue.

I acknowledge the useful nature of today's debate and the positive tone of all who made a contribution. I apologise if I have not addressed all the points made by Senators in the time available to me but I assure the House that I have been carefully listening and will give appropriate consideration to all points made and proposals mentioned and look forward to a more detailed examination of the Bill on Committee Stage. I reiterate that I am open to offering a positive response to what might be regarded as reasonable proposals for amendment. Let us hope that we can put legislation on the Statute Book that will stand the test of time and acknowledge the very detailed consideration the legislation has had in draft form over many years and Governments.