Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Listening to the Deputies, I am not satisfied that we have found a way to deal with the concerns of those who are submitting the amendments. Simply deleting reference to the relevant committees is not in itself advisable. I do not accept that this is unduly cumbersome. I do accept that there are a number of committees that have different functions, and which might, at face value, appear to be somewhat technical in nature. In practice, however, the relevant committees are effectively the Commission itself. It is a function of the Commission to select and recommend people for appointment. Under section 10, this function is performed by the relevant committee only. As such the relevant committees are in effect iterations of the Commission. It is not as though we are introducing significant layers of bureaucracy. Circumstances are such that there will be common membership across a range of relevant committees. However, I agree with Deputy Daly that ultimately the objective here is to reform the process of appointment. That is the main thrust of the legislation. It is the manner in which we arrange structures in order to facilitate that objective that we are discussing here.

I said at the outset of this debate that I did not come in here with a closed mind. I have not changed that view. There may be different ways of achieving the objective we all share, as noted by Deputy Daly. I am prepared to further examine the balance between having a manageable number on the Commission and ensuring the membership of the presidents. We all agree that the direct involvement of the presidents of the courts is extremely valuable and will be very important in the new process. The question is how we can best avoid having an unwieldy overall Commission with large numbers of people, while meeting the obligation to have a lay chair and a lay majority, assuming that members of this committee are minded to continue with that central thrust of the legislation.

To my mind, the current relevant committee process is the most effective way of involving the presidents as experts in their own court area. I do not accept Deputy O'Callaghan's contention that we are creating indivisible silos, considering the common membership across the relevant committees. We will continue to have a perspective across the whole gamut of selections and applications. We will also have a common secretariat across all of the relevant committees, which will be the Judicial Appointments Commission office. Should we delete all reference to the committees and deny ourselves the opportunity to avail of expertise of the presidents? I believe that expertise is essential, as the presidents themselves have said. I would be reluctant to depart from that. If we are not going to proceed by way of the relevant committees, as allowed for under the Bill, we return to the structure of the overall Commission. I believe that we envision a membership number that will ensure that the Commission is efficient and effective in the manner it goes about its business. It also respects our central tenets, a lay majority and a lay chair.

However, I am open to giving the matter further consideration in so far as I can.