Deputy Cuffe was in possession and has ten minutes remaining.
Courts and Court Officers (Amendment) Bill 2007: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I wish to share my time with Deputy Ó Snodaigh.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am starting to get worried that this Government has been in office for far too long. When a Government is in power for too long, strange things begin to happen. Journalists are arrested, Ministers assume extra powers and the Government starts finding out things before the public. The causes of crime become eclipsed by a focus on the crimes themselves and judicial reform is eclipsed by attempts to curtail the right to silence.
This morning a journalist, Mr. Michael McCaffrey, was arrested at his home in Dublin. Journalists have a duty to report the facts without fear or favour, as Mr. McCaffrey's editor noted, and I believe that should be respected. It is a dark day for press freedom when journalists are arrested for doing their job. It is ironic that in a speech at the 2004 Edward O'Donnell McDevitt Annual Symposium, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform stated:
The media are a vital component of our democracy. They are the means of democratic accountability. Questioning media are not merely legitimate — they are essential.
It is difficult to have a questioning media when journalists are being arrested.
The Prisons Bill 2006, which is currently before the Houses, will make the Minister the planning Czar for all new places of detention, which is a dangerous assumption of powers. During lunchtime today, he was apparently at the desk of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to get the news about the Ringsend incinerator in advance of everyone else, although given that he flip-flops so much, it is hard to know where he stands on the issue. At least President Bush said, "You may not agree with me, but you know where I stand".
It is important that the judicial system focuses on the need to address the causes of crime. In his 2004 speech, the Minister spoke about the rehabilitation of offenders. He cited a survey which indicated that a significant number of prisoners have virtually no literacy skills and pointed out the need to address high rates of illiteracy and to provide work skills, training and education within the prison system. However, not enough is being done in that regard. In his most recent report on Cloverhill Prison, the Inspector of Prisons found little work or other activities to engage prisoners while out of their cells and that they had no access to education. Although classrooms had been provided, they were taken over by the prison transport corps. He concluded that the present arrangement is deplorable. I wish the Minister would have focused on the need for rehabilitation and reform instead the retrograde steps he has taken over the past four years by cutting back on educational and work programmes.
In addressing the Bill before us, previous speakers have referred to the need to educate and inform the Judiciary. Every time this issue arises, the Minister mentions the Judicial Studies Institute. While I applaud that institute on the fine journal it publishes, it does not have the resources to prepare incoming members of the Judiciary for their jobs, let alone provide sufficient continuing professional development. The two full-time staff employed at the institute represents a drop in the ocean when it comes to providing the detailed programmes required for modern judicial training and professional development. Therefore, while I appreciate the need to speed up the judicial process, I remind the Minister of the need to go beyond the proposals made in the Bill.
I draw Members attention to the provision in the Bill which allows the Government to assign judges to particular districts. That provision concerns me because I am not sure whether the Government should have such a power.
When making my contributions on similar Bills in 2003 and 2004, I recall asking why the Minister did not set a higher figure for the judges to be appointed. I argued that if we had set a higher figure, we would not need to introduce further legislation when the court system had once again become bogged down, which is obviously the impetus for the Bill before us. New judges could have been appointed to help ensure that the courts operate efficiently. One of the reasons for granting bail applications is because judges have considered the length of time a defendant spends on remand as a result of backlogs in the system and have decided that 18 months is too long. I welcome that the Minister has produced this Bill but ask why we should stop at the numbers he set out? Why not allow ourselves the luxury of appointing judges when the need arises rather than when the Government wants to look after its friends? Retiring judges need not be replaced once there are sufficient judges and the backlog has been reduced to an acceptable level.
It is a pity we are not using the opportunity of this Bill to address other inadequacies in the Courts Service, such as the need for modern courts, facilities for witnesses and victims and video links for children. Situations should not arise like the one I observed in which bloodstained evidence was spread on the floor in front of the parents of a deceased child. We should ensure that the service is user friendly for everybody and that judges and court officials take pride in the speed at which they meet their responsibilities in terms of avoiding delays in the rest of the justice system. The High Court should be accessible rather than allowing damage to be caused to individual reputations because of lengthy delays.
I welcome this Bill and will be supporting it. However, it is regrettable that Members will not set a number greater than that which is proposed in this Bill. This would afford us the opportunity to use the next two or three years to address delays in the Courts Service. For example, it would enable the introduction of courts that could sit beyond 4 p.m. or 5 p.m. to address delays. Moreover, an increasing number of jury trials appear to take longer to come to a decision. This is to be welcomed, in that jurors are taking their role seriously. However, if some court cases take longer to complete and others take longer to start in the first place, Members must make proper provision for this and this Bill does not go far enough in this regard.
I thank Members for their contribution to this debate, during which some significant issues have been raised. I propose to deal with a few of them.
As for the ratio of judges, Ireland is one of only four common law states within the European Union. The definition of a judge in a civil law state such as Spain or Italy differs greatly from the Irish definition. Judges in such countries are involved in directing investigations. Consequently, the equivalent to an official in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Ireland would be a judge there. Similarly, people from the criminal side of the Chief State Solicitor's office — now the Chief Prosecution Solicitor's office — would count as judges in the civil law system. Consequently, it is difficult to know whether one is comparing like with like when one states that Ireland has a low ratio of judges to its population. In any event, there appears to be general agreement that the appointment of the 14 additional judges is necessary and appropriate.
The Judicial Studies Institute has organised valuable training of judges and continues to so do. However, as part of my proposals for the establishment of a judicial council, I intend to give that council responsibility for judicial education and training, as well as the exchange of information among judges on matters that will include sentencing. I intend to make the Bill available to the joint committee and to take into account in its drafting any views that may emerge from the committee.
In respect of family law, the Courts Service continues to take initiatives to improve the quality of service provided to those involved in routine and difficult family law cases. In the Circuit Court, a third family law court has been established to deal with family law business in Dublin. Moreover, dedicated full-time family law courts are now available in Dublin and Cork and at present, there are dedicated days for family law cases in 45 District Court venues nationwide.
Deputy Jim O'Keeffe raised a number of points, including the possibility of prescribing a substantial number of judges by law and then leaving it to the Executive to appoint judges as and when it saw fit by reference to numbers or needs etc. This would constitute a change from the existing system, which in itself is not too bad. However, there are issues such as how it would interface with the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board. It would be strange if the latter had many vacancies but the Government did not propose to fill them. Moreover, as a general principle, when I propose to appoint additional judges, a debate takes place in this House. This is not the worst of outcomes.
It would be like signing blank cheques.
On the other hand, had I introduced a Bill this evening to the effect that the maximum number of judges of the High Court would be 100, I would have received a sceptical reception from Opposition Members. They would have asked the purpose of the Bill and whether I intended to fill the posts when I thought it appropriate, without informing them. This cuts both ways. I am unsure whether I would get much traction in this House were I to propose the creation of a series of vacancies that I had no intention of filling and which my successors and I would fill when we thought it wise to so do, without being responsible or accountable to the House as to why we might decide to fill them at any given time. Such points go on the other side of the scales. It is inconvenient to be obliged to come before the House. The Deputy will appreciate that it would be much more convenient for me to simply sign a statutory instrument or whatever and get on with it. However, the constitutional order is there.
Imagine if I had a big tranche of unappointed judged sitting there waiting for me. Some would suggest that I had created these vacancies and held them over the present Judiciary in terrorem. In other words, I could decide to appoint another ten judges and send them down to the Four Courts if I did not like the manner in which the Judiciary was dealing with cases one afternoon. People would claim that this constituted dictatorial executive power. Consequently, it is in the interests of this House to hold the reins. I would also make the same point were I sitting on the Opposition benches.
I dealt with sentencing guidelines in my opening speech and the Courts Service is working towards their introduction. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe asked whether this House should set out tariffs and the like. While some jurisdictions have so done, there has been a tradition in Ireland since independence that in general, the Judiciary should not have minimum sentences prescribed to it. In my speech to which Deputy Cuffe referred, I made the point that it is better to leave it to the Judiciary at large, save in exceptional circumstances. I dealt with the section 15A drug dealing issue in that speech as an exception to the general rule that it is not the business of the Legislature to direct minimum standards of sentencing to the Judiciary.
In any event, the power to suspend sentences more or less makes nonsense of minimum standards. For the sake of argument, assume the House set the minimum standard rate for a burglary at three years. I am unsure whether that would be a good idea. However, a judge could then examine the circumstances before him, in which a young man intended to go straight, had a girlfriend, intended to marry and all the rest and could decide to give him a chance by suspending the sentence. What does it then mean if such an individual received a three year suspended sentence in such circumstances?
The power of this House to guide the Judiciary in respect of sentencing should be very sparingly used. It should be directed towards those cases in which there is a clear public perception that it is necessary to exercise such power. This is as far as I would put it. I made this point at the lecture from which Deputy Cuffe quoted. I stated that the general rule should be that it should be left to the judges to decide and that the House should only do otherwise in exceptional cases.
Although two Members suggested I apologised to the Judiciary, this was not the case. I was restating what has always been my position, namely, that I have the greatest of respect for judges. I have said it in their presence and in their absence.
The Minister was misquoted.
Whenever I have had the opportunity, I have stated that I believe our independent Judiciary is of enormous importance.
The Minister has an odd way of indicating respect.
It is perfectly open to Opposition Members to express their views on the adequacy or otherwise of sentencing. They do so frequently and Deputy Gregory probably does so as often as a clock strikes. Equally however, it is also open to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, if he or she thinks that sentencing policy in any area is mistaken, to say so in public. I do not accept the proposition argued in the House that there are ways in which I could convey this in private. In other words, I could telephone the president of a court to suggest I thought he or she was treating burglaries lightly in his or her court. I would not do such a thing and would not be tempted to so do. As a former Attorney General, I have never heard of anyone communicating policy views to the Judiciary through some kind of back channel, in which a Minister could suggest the Judiciary was not doing its job and that he or she wanted X or Y done. It simply does not happen and I do not intend to do it. If I have a view which I want to communicate to the Judiciary, the public should know I communicated that view and should be able to judge what I stated. It is fine if the public does not agree with it. It is not populism.
What if the judges do not agree with it?
That is a different matter. They are independent under the Constitution. It is up to themselves——
They cannot make statements challenging the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. What the Minister did was very——
Deputy Lynch's intervention ignores the fact that it is probably the case the Government is criticised from the bench again with the regularity of a clock striking. I personally have been criticised from the bench. I do not get in a huff about it. I just get on with it.
The Minister never gets in a huff.
I do not.
Deputy Jim O'Keeffe stated I should avail of my reply to comment on points made during the six o'clock news today. I want him to know I had no hand, act or part in the arrests made today. I did not make any complaint to the authorities on this matter and I did not cause any investigation to take place.
Question put and agreed to.