Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 3 proposes to insert a new section in place of section 7. The amendment is identical to an amendment discussed at some length on Committee Stage and ultimately withdrawn by Deputy Ó Laoghaire to facilitate other amendments to section 7. I acknowledge that the Deputy flagged that he would resubmit the amendment on Report Stage but in so doing he has failed to take into account a change made to section 7 on Committee Stage by an amendment that introduced the objective of Irish language proficiency. I indicated on Committee Stage that I was not amenable to accepting the amendment and I reiterate that now.

Subsection (1) of the proposed replacement section 7 states that "No person shall be recommended, under this Act, for appointment to judicial office unless they are of sufficient merit to discharge with distinction the responsibilities of the office to which they are appointed (the “Merit Principle”)." Subsection (2) of the proposed new section has the effect of benchmarking the merit-based recommendation against the objectives of having an equality of men and women in the membership of the Judiciary and diversity among that membership. The objectives are denoted by reference to a diversity principle. Subsection (3) stipulates that "a list of persons recommended for appointment to judicial office under this Act shall include at least one person whose appointment would further the objectives of the Diversity Principle". I am not at all sure that the Bill should require the commission to select in such a specific manner.

I acknowledge the points made by Deputy O'Callaghan on the issue. He made a lot of sense on the merit principle. Deputies are aware that there are several elements to how the Bill addresses the issue of population diversity and gender equality. Under section 7, subject to decisions being based on merit, the concerns in regard to gender balance and diversity in the membership of the Judiciary are very clearly brought to the fore by way of a requirement that regard must be had to them for the function of selecting and recommending persons for appointment. Gender equality and diversity feature elsewhere in the Bill, such as sections 12(5) and 50(5). Section 12(7) provides that one area where knowledge and experience is to be to the fore in the selection of lay members is with respect to "human rights, equality or issues concerning diversity amongst members of society". Under the review process provided for in section 53 the procedures committee must monitor and review the implementation of the Act including, in particular, the diversity among candidates for appointment. It must report its findings to the commission which, in turn will report to the Minister with recommendations. I am satisfied that the Bill addresses this issue adequately as well as that which Deputy Ó Laoghaire intends to achieve through the amendment, and I am not inclined to support it.

I wish to discuss amendment No. 4 and other amendments in this grouping which are in my name. Amendment No. 4 is a drafting amendment. As regards amendment No. 5, section 7 was amended on Committee Stage such that, in addition to the objectives that membership of the Judiciary should comprise equal numbers of men and women and reflect the diversity of the population as a whole, a third objective now provides that there shall be proficiency in the Irish language among judges, subject to the fundamental requirement that merit be the basis for any decision to recommend a person for appointment to office. Under section 7, regard shall be had to those three objectives.

Section 50, which was section 55 of the Bill as published, was also amended on Committee Stage. It regards the procedures committee and its role and function. There ought to be more consistency in section 50(5)(f) with the language of the objective of gender equality in 50(5)(c) and that on the objective of population diversity in 50(5)(d). For that reason, I have tabled amendments Nos. 5 and 100 and related them to a new subsection, the subject of amendment No. 102, which I am sure Deputy Clare Daly will welcome. Similarly, amendment No. 100 provides that, in the context of the statement to be prepared by the procedures committee, section 50(5)(f) will prescribe that a matter to which the committee shall have regard will be the written statement to be provided under section 50(7).

Deputy O'Callaghan referred to the subject matter of amendment No. 102, namely, a new provision requiring the commission to consult with the Courts Service to enable the commission to keep under review the needs of court users with respect to Irish language proceedings. This new subsection will require the commission to provide a written statement to the procedures committee from time to time, addressing those needs.

My colleague, the Minister, Deputy Ross, has expressed certain views on the nature of judicial appointments. He is entitled to his views but I do not share them. I disagree with his view that our Judiciary is comprised of friends of Government, past and present. I believe that is unfair and untrue. As Minister for Justice and Equality I wish to state on the record that we have been very well served by our Judiciary, who serve our people on a daily basis without fear or favour. The Judiciary has been independent in that service since the foundation of the State. Our judges are highly regarded both at home within this jurisdiction and abroad.

The reforms in this Bill that the Government is bringing forward should not in any way be construed as casting any negative aspersions or otherwise on the quality of the Judiciary. These reforms modernise aspects of the judicial appointments system. I believe it is important that we keep our laws updated. I do not agree that the Judiciary has been in any way compromised down the years and I reject that notion if it was construed by what has been said earlier this afternoon in the course of this debate.

See this speech in context