Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 28, to delete lines 26 to 31 and substitute the following: "(g) in the case of nomination for election by the Parliamentary Assembly to be a judge of the European Court of Human Rights, he or she satisfies the criteria for office under Article 21 of the European Convention on Human Rights,

(h) in the case of nomination for election to be a judge of the International Criminal Court, he or she is qualified having regard to the eligibility requirements of that Court set out in Article 36 of the Rome Statute, and

(i) in the case of all offices specified under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g)or (h), he or she has not held the office of Attorney General for a period of two years prior to their application under section 43.".

This is with regard to the Attorney General being appointed to the Judiciary. The argument is that a person should have ceased to have been Attorney General for at least two years before being eligible to be appointed to the Judiciary. This would be good practice. As we have seen in our discussion on the Bill, the Attorney General is very much in the centre of almost everything that happens. It would be appropriate to have a period for an Attorney General to be away from the Judiciary prior to being considered eligible. We have had practices in the past and we are trying to introduce legislation that we hope will see a marked change in how things are done. This is no reflection on anyone. We are all trying to collaborate to bring this about. This little amendment would ensure that a cooling-off period would exist and every Attorney General would know there would not be an automatic passage to the Judiciary once his or her term ended. It would be appropriate that this would happen. I hope the Minister accepts the amendment.

The issue with regard to amendment No. 19 is that the Attorney General would be at both ends of this process. The Attorney General would be on the commission that recommends who goes forward to be a judge and would also advise the Cabinet when it comes to selecting who the judge is. Most people would recognise this is an issue that needs to be dealt with. The easiest way to avoid it is to ensure the Attorney General is not a member of the commission. It will come to the Cabinet table and the Attorney General will be involved at that end. It is not appropriate that the Attorney General should be on the commission and he or she should be removed from it. There is an ample number of competent legal minds that could be appointed to the commission without needing the Attorney General to be one of them. I hope the Minister will also accept this amendment.