Niall Collins
Ceist:4. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the mechanisms of the new communications between the Judiciary and the Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20856/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraThursday, 2 May 2013
Ceisteanna (4)
Freagraí ó Béal (5 píosaí cainte)
It is usual for the Minister for Justice and Equality to have regular contact with the Judiciary regarding Courts Service matters. Since my appointment I have met regularly with the Chief Justice in her capacity as chair of the Courts Service Board on a range of issues and, from time to time, with other members of the Judiciary. Prior to the enactment of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012, the Attorney General and I also met with the Chief Justice and the President of the Circuit Court to discuss the role of the new specialist judges of the Circuit Court. Members of the Judiciary meet with members of the Government from time to time in the course of normal business and ongoing links are maintained between the Attorney General and the Chief Justice.
As the Chief Justice recently highlighted, the Government has facilitated a new arrangement in the form of a committee chaired by the Chief Justice and comprising the presidents of the courts and other senior judges. In the past, meetings between the Attorney General and the Chief Justice were on a more ad hoc basis. The Attorney General, who has traditionally acted as the formal link with the Judiciary, also attends the committee, accompanied by the Secretary General to the Government. A meeting of this committee took place during April and a further meeting will be held this month.
I have also met the Chief Justice and other members of the Judiciary on numerous occasions over the past two years at seminars, launches and other functions. In addition, there are several working groups on matters of mutual interest under the aegis of my Department to which judges have been nominated by the Chief Justice to participate, where appropriate, together with officials of my Department and the relevant agencies. For example, the working group on efficiency measures in the criminal justice system - Circuit and District Courts, reported to me and the Chief Justice last December on the implementation of significant and welcome reforms, and its work is ongoing in 2013.
As the Deputy will be aware, the programme for Government contains a commitment to legislate to establish a judicial council, which has been promised for over a decade. I can confirm to the Deputy that the Attorney General has indicated that it will be possible to publish the Bill this autumn. The council will provide a statutory basis of formal communication with the Judiciary, as well as promoting excellence and high standards of conduct by judges. The Deputy should also note that I welcomed the establishment by the Judiciary in November 2011 of an interim judicial council, pending the publication and enactment of the proposed Bill.
I thank the Minister for his response. I wish to make a number of comments on the recent controversy involving the Minister and the Judiciary. First, I believe it was not entirely of the Minister's making. Obviously he was partly to blame, but there were two sides to it. The Judiciary must accept that the people of this country voted by way of a referendum to allow the Executive to have a say in setting the remuneration of judges. I am echoing what people on the street are saying. It is not acceptable for the Judiciary to occupy a separate position when it comes to the setting of remuneration. That is just not on and the referendum has put that question to bed.
On the issue of communication, it is obvious that something broke down along the way. The Minister said he was in regular contact with the Judiciary, but that was not the message coming from the Association of Judges of Ireland, AJI, in press statements and briefings. Has the Minister been at meetings of the new forum that has been established under the Chief Justice, Ms Susan Denham? How often will the forum meet? Will meetings be held on a monthly or a quarterly basis? What issues have been raised to date and what routes to resolution will be taken? I ask the Minister to give us an overview of the issues being raised or flagged by the judges.
The controversy that arose and lasted for some days came as something of a surprise to me and it was as a result of a misunderstanding on the part of the AJI. There had been ongoing contact on the issues they raised that fall within my brief. For example, there was a suggestion that there had been no communication or contact with them regarding the provisions in the Personal Insolvency Act relating to the appointment of specialist judges, but that was far from the case. It was an issue on which, together with the Attorney General and in advance of the inclusion of the proposals in the legislation, I engaged in discussions with the Chief Justice and the President of the Circuit Court. The suggestion that there had been no discussion on the matter came as a complete surprise to me. In the context of other issues, which I do not want to go into at any length, clearly there were some concerns surrounding the pay and pensions of members of the Judiciary.
The people made a decision in a referendum on the issue relating to pay, and that is a matter to be dealt with by my colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin. There are lines of communication and, as the Deputy may be aware, it has been traditional over the years for both formal and informal lines to be maintained through the Attorney General, which is appropriate. I have had meetings in my Department and discussed issues of concern to the different levels within the court structure. I have had meetings with members of the District Court, for example, together with the Attorney General, as well as members of the Circuit Court and representatives of the High and Supreme Courts.
I deliberately mentioned other events, such as seminars, that take place because frequently when I meet members of the Judiciary at these events, issues of relevance to the running of the Courts Service are discussed. On 2 March we held in the Law Society a conference hosted by my Department to discuss the forthcoming referendum on the court of appeal. Not only did the Chief Justice address that meeting, but members of the High Court Judiciary involved in a sub-committee to consider how to deal with the architecture of the court of appeal were present and I took the opportunity to engage with them.
There is continuing and ongoing engagement and it is unfortunate that there is a perception of some controversy in which I want to engage. I have not wish to be engaged in a controversy with the Judiciary and I fully respect the separation of powers. It is of major importance for us to have an independent Judiciary and that there is no question of members of the Executive or Members of Parliament interfering with the hearing of court proceedings or the decisions made and delivered by judges. It is key to our constitutional democracy and a tenet of our Constitution.
Each body must respect the constitutional independence of the other and get on accordingly but the Minister did not answer my question on the new forum. How often is it intended to meet and what issues have been flagged as being on the agenda?
This forum is being put together to formalise the arrangement whereby the Attorney General, in the past, would substantially communicate with the Chief Justice. Now the group will be representative of the different levels within the court system and it will facilitate members of the Judiciary raising issues of concern. The Attorney General will either address those issues or report to the Government on the issues that need to be addressed. It is important that such discussion takes place and it is not in the public interest for every issue raised by the Judiciary to be publicly broadcast. It is entitled to some degree of confidentiality in the communications that take place.
One of the issues that would have arisen is the architecture of the new court of appeal, which is very important. I welcome the fact that this week the Attorney General furnished a submission to me from the judicial sub-committee considering the issue of the court of appeal and the constitutional architecture that should surround it. I very much welcome that very positive and constructive contribution by members of the Judiciary in the development of a very new important court within our judicial architecture.