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

I want to respond to the points made. In dealing with the Tánaiste's comments, I will not repeat points that I made earlier.

I will respond to the three points made by Deputy Jonathan O'Brien. His first point was about having diversity in the Tánaiste's general scheme of the Bill. Section 15(4)(a) of my Bill states that the Commission must take into account "promoting gender and cultural diversity within the judiciary.". I included the provision because it is a very important progression that needs to be made.

Second, Deputy O'Brien claimed there was a judicial majority on my commission. That is incorrect. Only five of the 12 people would be judges in my commission.

Third, the Deputy mentioned a constitutional issue. I agree with the Tánaiste in respect of this matter. I do not think it is feasible to restrict the decision-making process of the Government to the names that are provided by the recommending body. Constitutionally, the Government must be given the ability to appoint whoever it wants.

Deputy Clare Daly made a number of good points. The first point she mentioned, and this is what I tried to emphasise at the outset, was that Judges work in the best interests of society. In my legislation I have sought to improve the process for nominating Judges to improve society, not to improve the lives of Judges, and not to make it easier for lawyers, lay people or whatever. The important thing, and everyone here is motivated by this, is to ensure that the public interest is best served so that the public get the most suitably qualified and best candidates to fulfil the role of Judiciary under the Constitution.

One has a recommending body and one has the final body at Cabinet. The Deputy is correct in terms of what she said about the presence of the Attorney General on both bodies leading to confusion and the office holding too much influence on the recommending body.

The Deputy also mentioned the issue about a lay majority, as did others. We need to get away from using the term "lay people". It suits the agenda of some people to present the view that lay people are good and anyone opposed to having lay people is trying to promote their own cosy or cushy cartel. What we want on the commission are people who are suitable and well qualified to identify who will be the best candidates. I do not mind what they are called. Using the terminology of "lay person" does not serve any great policy purpose.

The Deputy mentioned that a gender balance is needed. My Bill includes the provision at section 15(4).

The Deputy welcomed the fact that there was a requirement on the committee, set up under the Tánaiste's scheme, for it to set out a list, code of excellence or a code of what will make a good judge in terms of the appointment procedure. Section 6(4) of my Bill refers to an obligation on the commission to publish "selection competencies" within a short period after the commission has been constituted.

Deputy Farrell made a number of points on a lay majority. I shall repeat the point that I made previously about the matter. He questioned my interest in the matter but not in a derogatory manner. He wondered whether Fianna Fáil only made the proposal now to stymie the Government's proposal. That is not correct because we tabled legislation during the life of the previous Dáil. Like other members, I am interested in the area.

I will not reply to each of the Tánaiste's comments as if this debate was a table tennis match. Instead, I will make a number of points. I did not accuse her, personally, of being disrespectful to the Judiciary. I did accuse the Government of being disrespectful to the Judiciary. It is instructive to note that over an hour ago I asked her to identify one committee on which the Taoiseach served but which he did not chair.

I have not heard an answer to that because I do not think there is one. There are reasons for that. It is because of the respect that people have, and should have, for the office of the Taoiseach.

Much ground has been covered and it has been a very useful engagement. I am not proprietorial or emotionally committed to my legislation. We need to get the best scheme available. I would be concerned however, that what is really motivating the Government side of the debate is not in fact the desire to get the best scheme in place, but a desire on the part of Government to abide by a rather foolish commitment it made in the programme for Government.