Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Deputy O'Callaghan has made a compelling argument for the amendment. It is a fairly straightforward body. If we were talking about a judicial council body then there would be staffing implications and a big volume of work to be done that is not being done now. I do not see such implications for the present proposal. Since 2002, there have been 90 appointments to the three superior courts or an average of just over six appointments per year. Such a workload does not require a permanent office, a director or that type of resource. As the Minister has said, the office would have a significantly bigger workload than the present arrangement. I would like his view explained as I do not see any basis for his claim. I do not know where the hundreds of applications will come from if they do not exist now because all we are changing is the method of appointment.

There will not be research into the whole structure of the Judiciary. The research element is just for judicial appointments, which is not rocket science. There are examples available from other jurisdictions. One analyses the nearest peer reviewed study and say, "Sure maybe we can make that a bit better." The work does not require a permanent office. I had not noted the points in our amendments and it is something that we bypassed. The arguments that have been made are pretty strong. As things stand, I support the amendments.