Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I certainly do not wish to have any responsibility for legislation that is passed through the House unless it is legally sound and constitutionally proofed. This strikes at the heart of the amendments under discussion.

We did not have a constitutional referendum to change the role of Government in the matter of the appointment of judges. That is retained. It was not part of any programme for Government commitment nor is it a Government policy. We are merely introducing changes within the current constitutional framework. My concern is the need to ensure, at every remove, that the Government retains the constitutional freedom to choose a person other than those who may be recommended. I cannot envisage circumstances where this might arise but it is nevertheless important that this constitutional preserve is maintained.

On amendments Nos. 97 and 99, I reiterate an important point about the requirement that a notice would at some stage include a reasoned explanation of a decision not to nominate a person. I gave this matter some consideration since we last discussed it. I have no doubt that a statement that a recommendation of the commission was not followed would undermine the credibility and the integrity of the appointee and the judicial system if it was known that a particular person was not recommended by the commission. This is a matter of great concern. We run too great a risk by leaving the Bill in its current form.

Deputy O'Callaghan referred to comments made by the President of the Court of Appeal. I agree with the Deputy. I take very seriously any point coming from the president of any court. I share Deputy O'Callaghan's concern on that matter and I will propose, at the earliest opportunity, that the Government acts accordingly so a situation is not allowed to develop where the Court of Appeal does not have enough judges. I take very seriously comments made in that regard in this House.

See this speech in context