Vol. 504 No. 2
37 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the estimated amount of damages to the State in the Flattery v. Ireland case in relation to a complaint involving a six year delay in the delivery of a judgment [11492/99]
The Deputy will be aware that the courts are subject only to the Constitution and the law, independent in the exercise of their judicial functions, including determining what judgment to give in any individual case and when to give that judgment. The consideration, formulation and delivery of judgments is an integral part of the judicial process. It would be, therefore, particularly inappropriate for me, as Minister, to comment on the conduct of an individual court case.
I understand the case was lodged with the European Commission on Human Rights in November 1995. The case was subsequently withdrawn following an agreement between the parties and, as it has been referred to an arbitrator, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.
(Mayo): The Minister has a responsibility to comment further. Will he not accept that the taxpayer is about to be saddled with a bill of £2 million because a judge failed to perform his job and deliver a judgment? Why has the State accepted responsibility for the failure of the Chief Justice to perform his function as a judge and give a judgment? There was a six year delay in this case. Why is the taxpayer expected to pay up? Does it not make nonsense of the term “independent“? If the Judiciary is independent, why is the judge in this case not responsible for paying the bill he has incurred for the taxpayer?
Deputy Higgins will accept that I could not possibly join in such criticism of the Chief Justice. It would be wrong of me to do so. The position, as I understand it, is that the State is in receipt of legal advice in respect of its position on the case, and that would include any question of damages. Furthermore, to raise such a matter in public before the arbitration procedure has been concluded, especially as regards possible damages involved, could adversely compromise the State's position and give rise to higher damages. There is clearly a problem in devolving information about the case as the agreement on arbitration contains a confidentiality clause. It is not possible for me to divulge the State's position at this time other than to put it like that.
(Mayo): Who sought the insertion of the confidentiality clause? Was it the State? Regardless of whether the taxpayers have to pay £1 million or £2 million, which Vote will this payment come from? In view of this unprecedented situation, will legislation be required to deal with the matter?
The clear position from the State's perspective is that it is not possible for me to go into the matter as I would need a waiver from the other party's solicitor if I were to divulge details relating to the agreement.
(Mayo): The Minister represents the State's interest in this House. The State agreed to a settlement outside the door of the European Court. The Minister has sought to protect himself from divulging any information on the basis of a confidentiality clause. Was it the State that sought to insert the confidentiality clause?
Deputy Higgins, only the question of the cost to the State is a matter for the Minister.
It must be abundantly clear that it is not possible for me to go into the details of this agreement.
(Mayo): The Minister knows. It should be on his file.
It is not possible for me to go into the details because it might prejudice the situation.
(Mayo): How could that prejudice it?
Surely Deputy Higgins realises that this matter is—
(Mayo): Has the State not agreed to settle it?
—under arbitration and it is not possible for me to comment any further on it.
(Mayo): The figure is under arbitration.
Will the Minister accept he has a responsibility to this House to ensure that justice is administered fairly and, therefore, justice delayed is justice denied? Will he accept that when the arbitration he has referred to is concluded, he has a responsibility to give full details to the House and he should not, in the interim, agree to anything that would preclude him in carrying out that important responsibility?
I accept Deputy Howlin's point that I should give as much information about all matters as I possibly can to the representatives of the people. The difficulty is—
The Minister has lately arrived at that view.
—that I must also protect the people's interests and it would not be in the people's interests, at this time, for me to divulge information in this matter.
Will the Minister do so in the future?
When the matter has been—
I would prefer if the Minister did not answer questions that come by way of interruption.
I will not answer questions which come by way of interruption but in deference to Deputy Howlin's question, when it is appropriate and in the people's interests for me to come in here and speak further on the issue, I will do it.
