Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The first group of amendments relates to an expressed desire on the part of members to take out or eliminate any reference to the office of the new commission and its proposed director.

The amendments, taken together, would eliminate the administrative support office established under Part 5 of the Bill in sections 32 to 34. The Deputy also intends to delete sections 32 and 34 in their entirety. Section 32 provides for the legislative basis and funding arrangements for the administrative support office headed by a director attached to the commission. The office will be under the control and management of the commission and, subject to the consent of the Minister and approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, it may have staff members who would be Civil Service employees. Section 34 sets out the functions of the director.

Amendments Nos. 109 to 113, inclusive, would alter section 33 by the substitution of the director with a secretary who, on his or her own without any staff resources or administrative back-up, would be responsible for the workings of the commission. The amendments would change the term "Director" wherever it appears throughout the rest of the Bill with the term "Secretary". This would mean that in place of the director, a secretary would instead, under section 24, be accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts. The same would apply in respect of section 29 which protects against disclosure of confidential information obtained in the course of performing functions as director or members of staff of the judicial appointments commission office and, likewise, in respect of section 30 which safeguards the confidentiality of the proceedings of the commission and its communications.

The amendments would also remove from the Bill the role the Committee on Procedures has under section 58 in monitoring and reviewing the effectiveness of the administrative support provided by the office to the commission and the obligation the committee has, following that review, to report to the commission and make recommendations, as necessary, with a view to ensuring the effectiveness of the administrative support.

Amendment No. 191 would change the Long Title in so far as it relates to the establishment of the judicial appointments commission office.

The Schedule sets out further necessary detail regarding the status of the commission as a body corporate; administrative arrangements in respect of the official seal; and what circumstances might cause the director or the Civil Service staff of the director to cease to attach to the office. We should bear in mind that amendment No. 35 concerns the Schedule which the select committee will discuss later.

I am at somewhat of a loss to understand the logic of the amendments and the proposed deletion of all reference to the office of the new commission and its new director.

The need to ensure value for money in respect of all Exchequer spending goes without saying and no one is in a position to dispute that. Deputies will know, however, that the issue of inadequate resources was highlighted as part of the review of the current system. A key element of the submissions made by various stakeholders when the draft Bill was in its early stages and subject to public consultation concerned the provision of a dedicated resource to the new commission. For example, I examined a submission made in 2014 by the judicial appointments review committee in which the committee stressed the importance of adequate resources to enable the new appointments body to carry out its functions. The committee, like my office, frequently receives correspondence from various stakeholders in this area commenting on the need to ensure there are proper and adequate resources in place. More often than not, we are subjected to criticism for a dearth of a resources.

I draw members' attention to the Dublin declaration issued by the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary in May 2012 in which the network underlined the importance of resources in the following statement: "The body in charge of the selection and appointment of judges must be provided with adequate resources to a level commensurate with the programme of work it is expected to undertake each year and must have independent control over its own budget, subject to the usual requirements as to audit."

I understand the GRECO evaluation team has been in contact with the committee. In its fourth round evaluation report on Ireland in 2014, the team stressed that the new, more profound, selection procedure for the recruitment and promotion of judges needed to be provided with what it described as appropriate resources.

I listened carefully to Deputy O'Callaghan's comments on this matter. The programme of work to be undertaken by the new commission under the Bill is significant when compared with the current arrangements under the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, JAAB, system. These arrangements are resourced from within the Courts Service, with attendant and related costs subsumed in the courts Vote. It is important that a budget and adequate resources are provided to the commission, that it is independent and that the director and other members of the new body do not feel in any way restricted or compromised in the manner in which they undertake their business.

As I pointed out in response to remarks made during Second Stage, the replacement of the JAAB with a new commission will represent a modest but much needed investment to bring the system into the 21st century. While I accept Deputy O'Callaghan's point that there may not be a large number of appointments annually, each appointment is of vital importance and could attract scores of applications. Furthermore, the making of appointments is not the only business the commission will undertake. The Bill also tasks it with a significant research, development and consultative role to ensure the State has in place and maintains a model of best practice for the selection of members of the Judiciary. The commission must be kept up to date with and abreast of national and international best practice. A specialist body of this nature will generate a small staffing requirement and needs adequate resources to function effectively.

For the reasons outlined, I am not in a position to accept the amendments, which would have the effect of deleting all references to the office of the new commission and its proposed director. This would create a fundamental flaw in the legislation before the office had an opportunity to function.