Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

As the Chairman said, I am the mover of the legislation. It is important to put it in context, as well as the decisions made previously by the Oireachtas.

The legislation was passed on Second Stage on 26 October. On that day Dáil Éireann made a decision, pursuant to Standing Orders 84A(3)(a) and 141, to refer it to the Select Committee on Justice and Equality. During the course of the debate on Second Stage the Tánaiste and the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport spoke on behalf of the Government. They said they would not oppose the Bill which, in many respects, they welcomed. They stated it was their intention to bring forward Government legislation shortly. At no stage during the course of that debate did either of them suggest the Government would seek to obstruct the Bill by preventing it from receiving a full hearing at the Select Committee on Justice and Equality. On 19 November the committee decided that the legislation did not require to be subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny and it was agreed that Committee Stage would be taken today, 30 November. At no stage has a complaint been made about the orders made by the committee made on 9 November.

It is important to bring into focus the background to this dispute and the efforts made by the Government to subvert this legislation and ensure it will not be brought before this Oireachtas committee for consideration. I was contacted by the Government on the evening of Tuesday, 22 November and asked whether I would withdraw the Bill which was to be considered by the select committee today. The reason I was given was that the Government was under pressure to get the Courts Bill through the Oireachtas, especially the part dealing with the reappointment of the costs accountant. I was asked by the Government, on the basis of the urgency of the Courts Bill, to agree to allow an adjournment until 14 December in order that the Courts Bill could be dealt with today. I refused that request. It is instructive to note that, in fact, the Courts Bill is to be taken by the committee tomorrow.

On Wednesday, 23 November I was again contacted by the Government amd asked whether I would withdraw my Bill in order that it could be subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny. Again, I refused, politely. During the same call I was asked whether I would agree to withdraw the Bill and then work with the Government on its Bill. At that stage I mentioned that there was a particular urgency because the Government had indicated that it was not going to appoint judges because of the insistence of the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport that it not do so until a new statutory regime was in place. At no stage during my discussions with the Government last week did anyone mention that it was going to raise an objection to this legislation because it involved what is referred to as a charge on public expenditure.

I am now aware, from speaking to members of the select committee, that it is being suggested sections 10 and 11 of the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill involve a potential charge on the Exchequer. I have my own views on that matter and do not necessarily agree with the suggestion made. Section 10 states:

(1) The Minister may make available to the Commission such services, including staff, as the Minister may determine from time to time with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.

(2) The Minister may second or assign to the Commission such of his or her officers as he or she may determine, with the consent of the Commission and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, to be members of the staff of the Commission.

Section 11 states: "The expenses incurred by the Commission in the administration of this Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas". Even if it involves expenditure, every real politician in this room and the country knows that it would be minor. What has happened, however, is that because it involves some minor technical details of expenditure, the committee requires a message from the Government in accordance with Article 17.2 of the Constitution. The Government has made a decision not to grant that money message, as it is referred to in the Oireachtas. The sole purpose or reason the Government is invoking this constitutional provision is not that it has any concern about the expenditure of public moneys - it is aware that the public moneys expended would be minimal - but to solve a political problem for it.

Although I am the person who is sponsoring the Bill, it will have consequences for all Members of the Oireachtas in the future. There are many Second Stage debates in the Oireachtas and many Bills are then referred to a select committee. There is no doubt that we could find in every tranche of legislation examples of where some minor expenditure could be incurred. In this case it appears as if the Government does not want the legislation to be placed before a select committee and that it will simply use its veto and seek to invoke, inappropriately, Article 17.2 for the purpose of trying to get itself out of a bind. That places this committee in a difficult position. I know that all members prepared for this hearing and that they have considered the Bill carefully and tabled amendments. I would have thought that as an act of courtesy to you, Chairman, and the committee, if Government knew it was going to invoke this measure, it would have been communicated to the committee earlier than yesterday. I was notified yesterday of its intention to do so. I believe that even the Chairman was not notified of it yesterday. I understand he was only notified this morning. It showed extreme disrespect to the committee and the Legislature by the Executive branch of the Oireachtas. It is important that this dissatisfaction be epressed. It needs to be described for what it is - a stroke by the Government. It is trying to stop the Oireachtas from doing its job and introducing legislation.