Those factors include the operation of statements on selection procedures and skills and attributes which the procedures committee is required to publish under section 55, which we referred to earlier. Other factors include diversity among candidates for judicial appointment and the adequacy of functions assigned to the commission.

Section 58(3), as I have said, mandates the review to be conducted within a two-year period. This process will be followed by a report, including any recommendations, to the commission. That report, and any recommendations, will be submitted by the commission to the Minister with observations of the commission.

It can be assumed that the process of review will serve as a reference point for the review by the Minister of the Act, as provided for under section 5. To adequately take account of the entire experience and workings of the Act, including the review, and reporting process, I am of the view that a period of five years is appropriate. This is typical of such provisions which have been used from time to time in statutes where it is considered that a review clause is deemed prudent. Deputy Ó Laoghaire suggested three years. In principle, that of itself is not objectionable. I appreciate the support that is implicit for the review concept but one factor behind the five year mark is that we need to see a sufficient throughput of selections and appointments over an adequate period of time. The more appointments that become the subject of a review, for example, with reference to matters such as diversity which is referenced in Part 8 of the Bill, the better picture we will have of developments. It will also give us a clearer picture of trends in these areas which are important to us all. It is critical to have had adequate experience of the new procedures and skills and the frameworks that we are developing, and that the procedures committee has that bank of experience under section 55, before we are in a position to make an objective and clear assessment. It is my view that three years, as suggested by the Deputy, is too short. An extra two years, that is, a total of five years, would allow for a second review and perhaps even a request by the Minister for a report to look again in that period at key factors in the selection and recommendation process, as provided. Of course, how the matter of ongoing review is approached will, in essence, be one for the commission itself to decide. I am of the view that in the five-year mark, allowing for adequate time to carry out that review and to process and analyse the outcome of the review, and, indeed, to allow 12 months before the results of that in the form or a report to the Oireachtas is to be furnished, we have struck an important balance here having regard to the new ground that will be travelled here.

In that regard, I would ask Deputy Ó Laoghaire to accept what I am saying and not to press the amendments.