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

Amendment No. 8 is linked with a number of others, which I have just looked at. A lot of them are in my name and some are in the name of Deputy Wallace. The purpose of amendment No. 8 and many of the others in the grouping is to simplify the process set out by the Minister in the Bill. From the last occasion, it may be recalled that one of the arguments I made was that a very complicated statutory scheme has been set out. The purpose of amendment No. 8 is to try to simplify it. The reason I say it is complicated is that under the Bill there are a number of committees. There is a procedures committee and another section refers to a "relevant committee". The procedures committee is supposed to set out the procedures for the operation of judicial advisory board. The purpose of the amendment is to simplify matters to make it one board. It is not a body which is appointing hundreds of people each year. The Minister may have more accurate figures, but I think it will be ten to 15 appointments to the Judiciary each year. What is the point of having a procedures committee and some other one? I know there is a dispute about who should be on the body, but let us just put together a body which makes decisions as to who should be recommended for judicial appointment.

It is for that reason, in amendment No. 8, we seek to delete the definition of the Procedures Committee in section 2, which states the ""Procedures Committee" has the meaning assigned to it by section 19(1)."

Amendment No. 84 is in the name of Deputy Wallace and amendment No. 85 is in the names of Deputies Sean Sherlock and Mick Wallace. One can see that after amendment No. 85 that the proposal put forward by myself and Deputy Jack Chambers is that section 19 should be deleted. Section 19, on page 17, deals with the "Procedures Committee and other committees of Commission". Again, the purpose of our proposal is to simplify the matter.

I might as well deal with the other amendments in this group now rather than have to talk about them later. Amendment No. 162, in section 53, states: "In page 36 to delete lines 2 to 5." Again, the amendment seeks to remove references to the Procedures Committee and to remove, in particular, the first part of section 53(1) where the Procedures Committee can "consult with the President of each court". If one is going to get rid of the Procedures Committee then there is obviously no need to do that.

Amendments Nos. 163 to 165, inclusive, relate to section 53. They also seek to delete references to the Procedures Committee.

In terms of Section 55, Deputy Jack Chambers and I have proposed amendments Nos. 166 to 172, inclusive. Again, they deal with the preparation of statements under the Act and the role of the Procedures Committee.

Amendments Nos. 175 to 179, inclusive, seek to get rid of references to the Procedures Committee. Again, what will be mentioned simply is that it will be the Commission as opposed to the Procedures Committee.

Members will note that Deputy Jack Chambers and I oppose section 56 in its entirety. We oppose it because we do not think there is a necessity to include section 56 if it is the case that the Procedures Committee will be removed.

Finally, amendments Nos. 181 to 183, inclusive, are the last amendments in my name and that of Deputy Jack Chambers in this group of amendments and they concern section 58. Again, they refer to the review by the Procedures Committee and recommendations. We have proposed that we should, in amendments Nos. 181 to 183, inclusive, remove the reference to the Procedures Committee and substitute the word "Commission".

We have tabled many amendments but they all seek to do the same thing - remove references to the Procedures Committee and just have the Commission perform the function. Our rationale is that it is complicated to have a separate committee within a commission, which is already doing a fairly net short job. That is my overview of the grouped amendments. I know the group of amendments contained a number of amendments tabled by Deputy Wallace but I think they are on the same topic and seek to have the same effect.