Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I would never suggest to Senators that they are wasting their time. We were here for five hours last night. We dealt with five amendments, on two of which there was no debate because they were ruled out of order, which speaks for itself in terms of time wasting. I am here to listen to Senators and to be constructive. I am more than happy to reflect on amendments that I believe to be constructive and it may be the case that later amendments will be accepted during the debate but I am bound by the rules of this House to deal now with amendments Nos. 6 and 110. On the commencement of the debate, the Leas-Chathaoirleach indicated that to ensure an orderly debate we were to deal with the issues to hand.

I refer Senator McDowell to Article 15.4.1 of the Constitution which makes clear that there are no circumstances in which the Oireachtas shall enact any law which in any respect might be repugnant to the Constitution or any provision thereof and Article 15.4.2 any such repugnant legislation enacted shall be invalid to the extent of that repugnancy. Therefore, this Bill when enacted could under no circumstances lawfully change the constitutional prerogative of the Government. There is nothing in this Bill that asserts to in any way change that.

Amendment No. 6 proposes to insert a new section 7 into the Bill, with a general rider that the Act overall cannot limit the advice that the Government may give to the President as regards persons to be appointed. Relevant rider provisions have been inserted into the appropriate places of the Act. Senators Norris and McDowell have rightly adverted to section 40(3) and section 41(4), the wording of which is almost identical to the wording proposed in the amendment by Senator McDowell. The oblique reference that Senator McDowell makes to further amendments probably centres on amendment No. 90. I am happy to reflect on that amendment when we come to it. If it were to be voted upon favourably by this House, there would be validity in amendment No. 6. I will reflect on amendment No. 6 in the context of further amendments and Report Stage. I want to make it clear that the matter intended to be covered by Senator McDowell's amendment is well catered for in so far as the commission is concerned. Were this House to be disposed to the establishment of a senior officials group there would be validity in this amendment and we would have to revert to it.

Senator McDowell has taken the opportunity to deal with matters more specific to the Judiciary, not in the context of this amendment but in the context of the Bill. I would not be surprised if, when Senator McDowell is next in the High Court, an opportunity is taken by a judge or judges to make representations on their behalf.I would expect nothing different. In fact, I would be very surprised if any member of the Judiciary, or indeed any lawyer, would say to Senator McDowell, "Everything is fine, thank you very much, you are doing a great job". As the Senator well knows, things do not work like that, nor should they. Rather than have individual members of the Judiciary making representations in the ear of Senator McDowell when he is in the courts, I want to point to the Association of Judges of Ireland, a body of some importance, which I have met on a number of occasions and which I intend to engage with on a regular basis covering many of the issues raised by Senator McDowell and more. It is entirely legitimate that a relationship would exist between the Minister of the day and a specifically arranged group or committee, in this case entitled the Association of Judges of Ireland. I am happy to engage. I am also happy to record in the budget for this year increased capital expenditure for the courts and their buildings. Senators may have had the opportunity to visit some of the new courthouses which have opened in recent times. I have had the very pleasant opportunity of seeing the opening of four or five state-of-the-art courthouses across the State by the Chief Justice, and not solely in the capital. That is indicative of a commitment on the part of this Government to ensure that the courts and the Judiciary have available to them sufficient surrounds in which to work, and also that they have the assistance which a modern Judiciary should have in regard to the engagement between the courts and our people. I look forward to continuing that unprecedented level of investment this year in the context of the October budget. Capital expenditure on courts has been in excess of €120 million over the past six years.

Senator McDowell is right that there needs to be much more than just bricks and mortar in terms of court infrastructure. He makes a valid point about ensuring there are appropriate and necessary levels of support. We will come to that more particularly in the Judicial Council Bill, which is before the Seanad and which will deal with the issue of judges and supports, the ongoing need for continuous professional development and the ongoing need to ensure modern technology is available right across our courts, for judges, court-users, victims of crime and everybody who experiences our Courts Service. Yes, I will continue to do that, and I would prefer to do so through channels I would regard as being accepted channels, and perhaps even formal channels, rather than an opportunity for a tap on the shoulder or a word in the ear, should Senators McDowell or Bacik, or anybody in this House, engage in professional activities in the Four Courts or outside of this House.

There has not been a go-slow in respect of the appointment of judges.