Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Jim O'Callaghan for preparing and tabling the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2016 and for providing an opportunity for the House to debate this topic today. Reform of the judicial appointments process is a priority for me and for the Government and is an area which is the subject of intensive work at present. The current programme for Government contains commitments to reform this system, in particular by setting up a new judicial appointments commission. I will update the House on the status of those reforms later in my contribution.

I acknowledge that Deputy O'Callaghan's Bill represents a very useful framework for debate on the reforms necessary to update and improve the approach we take to judicial appointments. He introduces it at a point at which my Department has concluded a wide-ranging and in-depth review of all the issues surrounding the topic, a review which has already been well signalled to the House.

Review of the law and procedures in this area needed comprehensive research and consultation with the interested and affected people and groups. This is particularly so given the complexity of existing law in the area, the extensive range of issues involved and, as the Deputy said, the fundamental importance of judicial appointments to public policy and to our democracy and its growth. My Department has carried out that research and has conducted the consultation to which I have referred.

We embarked on a major review of the judicial appointments process and sought submissions in open consultations in 2014 as a first step. It is vital if reforms applicable to this area are to be meaningful and effective that they emerge from a genuine consultative process, public debate and debates in this House. However, in considering the Private Members' proposals before the House today, I intend to outline the clear principles of reform that underpin the legislative scheme I propose to advance over the coming short number of weeks.

In all this, I must be very conscious of the fact that the Judiciary and the courts, as key organs of the justice system, are constitutionally independent in their operation. This is a very basic principle within which we continue our work. International best standards require this as the independence of the Judiciary is vital for its role in safeguarding fundamental freedoms and rights.

I want to be clear about one thing before continuing. We are most fortunate in having in Ireland a strong, independent, impartial and well-respected Judiciary. Let us create no impression that we are trying to fix some fundamental failings in the judicial system. Any such inference simply could not stand up. A central tenet of the review is the need to ensure and protect the principle of judicial independence, and I do not think anyone in this House would argue with that, as enshrined in Article 35.2 of the Constitution. The State has been very well served by an independent Judiciary.

However, the focus is very much on the manner in which the selection, recommendation and appointment arrangements can be improved in a new statutory framework. The objective of this is to increase transparency, match best international practice and ensure that Ireland leads out on the guarantee of a highly effective and impartial judicial appointments system.

I will not go into the history of the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995, suffice to say it has been in place for 20 years. In many respects, it led the way internationally at the time, but I have no doubt that it needs fresh appraisal at this point. Reforms and improvements can be made to deliver a more transparent and accountable system while looking after the independence of our Judiciary. Deputies will be fully aware that under the Constitution, judges are appointed by the President on the advice of the Government. It must always be an act of the Executive, therefore, under the Constitution, to advise the President on the matter. This is all set out in the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995, which established the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board. The board must recommend a minimum of seven candidates for each vacancy and submit to the Minister the name of each person who has applied to the board. I do not have the time to go into all the other details but I think most Deputies contributing tonight will be familiar with the process.

The consultation process undertaken by the last Government sought to be as inclusive as possible, engaging the broader public and interested stakeholders. The following matters were highlighted when we were engaged in that consultation: the existing provisions for eligibility for appointment; the need to ensure and protect the principle of judicial independence; the promotion of equality and diversity; and the role of the advisory board, its membership and its procedures. Clearly, work can be done in this regard, and we received many very thoughtful and challenging submissions.

The programme for Government commitments are the basis for the approach we will take to the development of our legislation. The Programme for a Partnership Government responds to the crucial matters of the recommendations procedure and the composition of the board. Specifically, the programme for Government states, "We will reduce the number of suitable candidates proposed ... for each vacancy to the lowest number advised as constitutionally and legally permissible by the Attorney General, but in any event not more than three candidates to be shortlisted ... for any vacancy." People will be familiar with the other points we made about a reduction in membership; an independent chairperson selected by the Public Appointments Service and approved by an Oireachtas committee; and a lay majority including independent people with specialist qualifications. Suitable provisions to take account of these priority matters are being finalised and are the subject of the view and advices of the Attorney General on key constitutional and law matters, and I and my Cabinet colleagues, including the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, are working intensively on these issues. These reforms will be set out in a Government Bill which will reflect the programme for Government commitments, deal with a number of other areas and build on the 2014 consultations.

Deputy O'Callaghan has devised a progressive and interesting basis for the consideration of reform of the judicial appointments system. He has already outlined the various competencies he believes are necessary and which judicial appointments he feels should be included in the work of a new commission, including Chief Justice and court presidents, where he seeks to confine selection only to judges of the relevant courts. As he said, he has included the European Courts as well. He talked about the increase in the standard practice rule from 12 to 15 years. He does not make any provision in respect of the direct eligibility of District Court judges for consideration for appointments as High Court judges.

I would like to examine further the implications of the Deputy's Bill.

As Deputies are aware, I am currently finalising a general scheme of a Bill to bring to Government. The intention of that is to replace the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board with a judicial appointments commission which will have a dual role of making recommendations to Government for appointments and making longer term contributions to the development of the system of judicial appointments. For example, it will research international practice, keep selection processes under review and make recommendations to Government. The general scheme also proposes to reduce the number of recommendations coming from the commission to three as opposed to the minimum of seven forwarded by the JAAB under the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995. I have been advised that under the Constitution, the Government must have a choice and a minimum of three recommendations would be adequate to provide that choice.

The general scheme also proposes to change the composition of the new body - the commission - to increase lay membership and have a lay chairperson no longer appointed by the Minister, but by open appointment. The general scheme also proposes to open up appointments at every level and in every relevant court to the new process; make District Court judges eligible for appointment to the High Court; consolidate the existing and mostly un-codified provisions on qualifications and eligibility; and repeal previous enactments.

While there is a certain amount of common ground between the two Bills, there are significant differences and further detailed analysis of the overall effect of reforms in this area is required. This can be done without any significant delay and, on that basis, the Government has decided not to oppose the Deputy's Bill. The Government intends to bring forward as a priority a Government Bill to reflect the outcome of the consultation process, and the common ground in this Private Members' Bill and the programme for Government commitments.

I again take the opportunity to thank the Deputy for his very constructive input to the process and to the formulation of policy in this area. It is a priority matter for the Government and I look forward to bringing the Bill to the House at the earliest opportunity.

See this speech in context