Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. I am aware that the consultation process is ongoing. It is obviously wider and broader than the subject matter of these amendments and I do not perceive the process as necessarily being a justification for not considering the application and implementation of the proposal I have outlined. It is simple and is very much in line with the clear recommendation that came from the judicial appointments review committee last January. I would be surprised were a further consultation process to throw up anything that would be anathema to that or which somehow would deviate from the spirit of my proposals. I accept the perhaps unintentional anomaly. I am sure it is something that could be easily rectified by ministerial amendment, were the Minister so inclined.

I have not suggested for a second that the Government has gone outside the parameters set down by legislation and believe the Government has adhered to the letter of the law. I am talking about changing the letter and the spirit of the law and, essentially, that is what my two amendments aspire to do. It would be in line with commitments in the programme for Government and the pre-election promises of both Government parties, were the Government inclined to do that. The idea of limiting the scope and choice in respect of the numbers that go before the Government obviously would ensure there would be far less scope for ensuring political appointment, which all Members are aware does occur. It would restrict and limit and ultimately would ensure a lot more trust in the process for the public at large, who at this stage are well aware of how politicised is the process of appointment. Moreover, from her remarks, I do not think the Minister disagrees with this in any sense.

At this stage, the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board simply has outlived its useful purpose. It is out of date and is not in line with best international practice, and the procedures that are set out in legislation allow for manipulation of the process. They certainly do lead and have led repeatedly to political appointments. As a member of the Law Library and as a non-practising barrister, I hold my hand up and am well aware, as are all my colleagues, of just how politicised is this process. More than three years into the lifetime of the Government, it is extraordinary that the aforementioned process was only launched before Christmas of last year. It is disappointing and should have been prioritised by the Minister's predecessor because it is actually a simple reform that could have been done very quickly. It is popular in Europe these days to talk about reforms within 100 days and this certainly is a reform that should and could have happened within the first 100 days of the lifetime of the Government. While this did not occur, I really hope the Minister will now accelerate the process. I worry that a further process of consultation will bring Members to the end of this year and who knows what lies ahead in 2015? There could well be an election before the summer of next year and for a Government that promised and was elected on a wave of popular support for radical reform and change, as well as the ending of cronyism and all the political problems which blighted both previous Governments and this country and which created a toxic culture here, it would be a shame for it to miss an opportunity to make such a simple but important reform. It certainly would be a major disappointment not only to those of us who care about transparency in public life, but also to the wider public, who had high hopes for the Government.

The Minister sought clarification on the proposed obligation on the Government to publish its reasons. I do not believe this is anything about which Members should be concerned. I do not believe it would give rise to any sort of confidentiality concerns but simply would oblige the Government to put forward logical and reasoned explanations as to the qualifications and suitability of members of either legal profession in respect of their appointment to the Bench. That is perfectly logical and is something that should be expected and demanded in a free and open democracy such as ours, not something that should be feared. We should be moving well beyond the days of appointments behind closed doors, nods and winks and so on. The process should be clear and transparent and the logic behind this proposal is simple. There is no mystery to it and there is certainly no fear of threat in respect of confidentiality. It is simply that if a person is good enough to be appointed to the Bench, the Government would be obliged to demonstrate, in appointing the person, that he or she had the requisite talent, experience and qualifications.

I see no reason or logic for not doing that.

See this speech in context