Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Exactly. I mention the Deputy's amendments to make the point that there are real issues of difference here. The Government members of the committee have such issues as well. We are bringing forward our own Bill. We have given priority to the drafting of that Bill in accordance with our own legislative proposals. I have already said, those Government proposals will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny immediately. I believe the side-by-side consideration of both Bills as part of the legislative process would be in the best interests of the production of the most effective set of legislative proposals. I think the examination of both Bills in this way, with both of them being subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, would be an example of new politics. It would certainly be preferable to a rush to legislating for this important constitutional area.

I have a series of concerns about certain points in Deputy O'Callaghan's Bill. I believe there is a constitutional issue in it. Other issues that arise from it also need further development and change. I accept that this is what happens on Committee and Report Stages. I will not pretend that there are not substantial differences between my approach and that advocated by Deputy O'Callaghan. I refer, for example, to his proposal for an independent chair and his approach to the composition of the new board. In light of the complex choices that are before us, I strongly submit that working co-operatively on pre-legislative scrutiny of both Bills would be in the interests of the production of the best legislation possible. I have already suggested that to Deputy O'Callaghan. I am happy to work closely with him in a co-operative way. I can arrange for officials in the Department to meet him to go through the details of our approach and to explain how it differs from his approach.

I believe our Judiciary is of the most profound importance to the State. I am sure all members of the committee will agree we should follow the best procedures for ensuring the best people are selected. That is of profound importance. That is why I believe everything possible should be done to ensure we examine this legislation in a detailed way, as opposed to rushing to Report Stage next week as Deputy O'Callaghan had envisaged. The timeframe that was available would have left me unable to make the kind of detailed amendments I would want to make. I would certainly have been able to make them by January if we had gone down that route. Equally, the Government decided yesterday to appoint judges where there are vacancies and that will happen next week.

Deputy O'Callaghan's motivation in proposing this legislation, as I understand it, was his concern about delays in judicial appointments. That issue has been addressed. I suggest we need to take the time to examine this legislation and engage in pre-legislative scrutiny, rather than following the accelerated process proposed by Deputy O'Callaghan.

Those are the main points that I would make. I hope it has cast a light on the approach that I would like to see for this legislation, which I think would be the most productive way forward.