Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Attorney General's attack on the justice committee last Friday night was not one of his finer moments. It is wholly inappropriate of the Attorney General to make comments on the policy direction of the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017. That is not his role. His role is to advise Government on the legalities of the Bill only. It is not his place to speak publicly about his opinions on policy decisions in respect of how judges are appointed. He is not an elected member of Government but, rather, a legal adviser to same. If the Bill has ended up a "dog's dinner", it has more to do with the fact that the Bill presented by the Government was a mishmash between the original Private Members' Bill of the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, and what Fine Gael could live with than with the efforts of the Opposition on the justice committee to correct the Bill.

The Government came up with a convoluted system to overcome the fact that the presidents of the District Court and the Circuit Court were being excluded from the commission in an effort to avoid it being too big. If the Attorney General had bothered to follow what went on at the justice committee, he would know that we had already established and argued that the Bill would need substantial change in order to make it fit for purpose. The justice committee has had to try to overcome the small detail that the original Bill was poorly drafted. Perhaps the Attorney General would prefer if we had no interest. It is interesting that the only specific point he chose to single out relates to his own role in the process. What does this tell us? Has he forgotten that the Law Society and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, recommended the Attorney General's removal from the commission? Does he know that his counterparts in England, Wales and Scotland do not sit on the commission? The reasoning behind our amendments on this issue are based on the fact that the Attorney General has his say and influence at Cabinet when it sits to choose one of the three candidates presented to it by the commission. What would be the point in having the Attorney General involved in both processes?

The truth is that the judicial appointments process needs reform. It would be a pity if this opportunity were lost because of various political interests. The overriding aim of the Bill should be to lessen political influence over the appointment of judges. The Government Bill that arrived at the justice committee may have lessened the influence of the legal world in choosing judges but it left political influence very much intact. We tried to address that fact at the committee. It may be that Fine Gael does not want the Bill to go through - I do not know - and perhaps the Attorney General's comments were carefully orchestrated to turn the tide of public and media opinion against the Bill in order that it would be shelved without replacement.

Does the Taoiseach think the Attorney General's comments on Friday night were fair? Were they in line with how an Attorney General should behave? Was the Taoiseach happy with the Attorney General's performance?

See this speech in context