Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I have listened carefully to what Deputy O'Callaghan has had to say on this issue. He has proposed amendment No. 6, which provides for an 11-member commission. The Judicial Appointments Advisory Board currently has the same number of members. A positive element of the Deputy's amendment is that it secures the membership on the commission of all the court presidents, including the Chief Justice. That is a key objective of the amendment I am proposing in this regard. I agree with the committee's proposal, as replicated in my amendment, that it would be appropriate to nominate a member of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. We will not be changing that proposal.

There are a number of problems with Deputy O'Callaghan's amendment. First, the amendment does not allow for a lay majority. The composition of the commission he is proposing barely represents any reform of the current position. Deputies will be aware that a key priority in the programme for Government is the establishment of a judicial appointments commission with "a lay majority" and "an independent chairperson". The Bill, as passed by the committee, provides for a lay chair and a lay majority. I do not see any rational basis for revisiting, much less reversing, that position.

I am still convinced that the use of the Public Appointments Service, operating on the basis of a set of competencies provided for in the Bill, is the best method of obtaining the knowledge and experience that may well be represented in some of these bodies. I say that in response to Deputy O'Callaghan's suggestion that it could be difficult to get lay people with sufficient expertise and experience. I think we will look to the Public Appointments Service in this regard.

Deputy O'Callaghan's amendment poses a number of policy difficulties. It does not provide for a lay chair and does not guarantee that there will ever be a lay chair. It does not provide for a lay majority. It provides for a membership of five judges, four lay members and two legal members. It does not provide for a role for the Public Appointments Service. I cannot support it for those reasons.

I would like to speak on the amendments in this group in my name, which are Nos. 8, 10, 12 and 14. Deputies will be aware that the relevant committee structure provided in the Bill, as published, was removed by a vote of the select committee. This means that the selection and recommendation function falls back on the commission. It also means there is no role in the Bill for the presidents of the District Court or the Circuit Court. I believe we need to be as representative as we can. I think I have done that with regard to amendment No. 10.

Since this Bill was first published and debated, the provision that has attracted the most attention has undeniably been section 10. I believe amendment No. 10, which includes a reference to "the Attorney General", is important in that context. I acknowledge that the will of the select committee was to remove the Attorney General from the membership of the commission. The committee voted in favour of including the Chief Justice and the chief commissioner of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. I accept the inclusion of the chief commissioner of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, but I believe there is strong merit in revisiting the membership of the Attorney General.

The Government's view on this matter, which was reaffirmed recently in the context of this debate, is that the Attorney General should be included in the new commission, subject to the inclusion of the presidents of the District Court and the Circuit Court and the retention of the chief commissioner of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission as a lay person. This would bring the total membership of the commission to 16 and would not bring about a lay majority. I am proposing in amendment No. 14, having regard to the programme for Government, to add one further lay person to the commission, thereby providing for a commission of 17 members with a lay majority.

We have a short amount of time available to us this afternoon. We will come back to this legislation next week. As Deputies are aware, the Attorney General has an important function in representing the State in legal proceedings. The Attorney General represents the public in all legal proceedings from the perspective of the enforcement of the law and the assertion or protection of public rights. The day-to-day interaction between the law and the courts, and at the highest level of legal proceedings before the courts, gives the Attorney General a unique perspective on the work of legal practitioners and on the deliberations of the courts themselves.

I have not heard a convincing argument for losing the Attorney General's potentially significant input into the deliberation stage of the selection process. During that stage, very many names may come before the commission, whereas a limited number of names come before the Cabinet at present. I do not believe there can be a convincing argument for the removal of the Attorney General from the commission. I see no justification whatsoever for turning on its head the very positive history of the Attorney General's involvement in the advisory board process, the benefits of which the courts and the system have enjoyed for over 20 years.

I assume Deputy Clare Daly will move amendment No. 13, which is linked to amendment No. 16. Perhaps we will have an opportunity to deal with those amendments when these proceedings resume after they have been adjourned today.

See this speech in context