James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for their contributions. We have had an interesting debate both on the previous occasion and today and very useful contributions. This legislation meets the commitment in the programme for Government to overhaul our judicial appointments system. We are debating serious and meaningful reform.

It is significant that all judicial offices in the State and outside the State will come within the commission's remit to recommend. It is critical that all applications must be made to the commission, and only to the commission, including from serving judges. It is important the Government may only appoint or nominate a person recommended by the commission.

I may not have the opportunity to cover all issues raised, but I will endeavour to respond to some key points. Deputy Martin Kenny welcomed the Bill and questioned the chairing and lay complement. The Judicial Appointments Advisory Board is, and has been for about 25 years, since its inception, chaired by the Chief Justice of the day. The Chief Justice has a unique perspective on the workings of the entire judicial system and has a particular understanding of what is required to become a judge at any level of the judicial system. The Chief Justice is chair of the Judicial Council. I accept that the commission we are providing for and the council are not the same and have different functions and objectives, but I believe there is not a person better placed to guide and lead the function of selecting judges into the future. It is not always the choice of comparable jurisdictions to have a leading judge heading up this role, but some jurisdictions, such as Northern Ireland, have this arrangement and I am satisfied that it works particularly well.

The context is increased lay involvement. Judges and lawyers outnumber laypersons on the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board by eight to three. The Bill represents a large vote of confidence in what previous and existing lay members will bring to this function and the future expertise lay members will bring to the commission under section 13. Under section 9, four lay members, openly recruited, will have the exact same weighting on the commission as judicial members, that is, four to four. A smaller commission with a balance of lay and judicial voices will be efficient and effective at making recommendations to the Government. The judicial membership has been reduced from what was previously planned and what currently pertains under the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board. There is no particular need to have all court presence sitting all the time. The Bill provides for the fixed membership of the President of the Court of Appeal only. Other presidents will come in and out as members, depending on which court vacancies are being considered. Overall, with the Chief Justice's chair, this is a sound, effective and balanced arrangement.

Deputies Martin Kenny and Catherine Murphy also mentioned ranking of candidates or an order of preference among the three recommended names. The Minister's advice is that, for the Government to discharge its function under the Constitution, it must have a choice of candidates. The Minister is of the view that three names, without an order of preference, is essential to maintain this balance.

Deputy Howlin reminded us of the context of the inception of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board arrangements. He also touched on the important context of the rule of law in the EU for the Bill.

Deputy Howlin and others also referred to the position of the Attorney General on the commission. This matter was the subject of the committee's pre-legislative scrutiny report and thank them for raising it. As noted in the committee's report, the general scheme of the Bill provided that the Attorney General shall not, as a member of the commission, have a right to vote, and section 9 provides for that. The committee's report notes it was argued that the general scheme of the Bill contained a significant weakness in the proposal for the senior judicial appointments advisory committee including the Attorney General. However, the Bill does not include this proposal, as the Minister mentioned yesterday.

As the legal adviser to the Government and the chief law officer of the State under the Constitution, the holder of the Office of the Attorney General is a suitable person to be a member of the judicial appointments commission in the performance of its functions under the Bill. The provision that the Attorney General shall not have a vote as a member of the commission allows for an appropriate balance between the four judicial members and the four lay members. Under Article 30 of the Constitution, the Attorney General shall not be a member of the Government, and the Attorney General does not have the role of representing the Government on the commission.

Several Deputies mentioned the importance of the diversity objective. I agree this is a concern and I thank them for raising this important issue. I have two points to make. First, section 28, in a development of the general scheme, now provides for the periodic publication of a diversity statement by the commission. This will set out the manner in which the commission gives effect to the objective, set out in section 39, that membership of the Judiciary in each court shall reflect the diversity of the population of the State as a whole, as well as related matters specified in section 28. The commission must prepare such a strategy periodically. It should be noted that section 61 requires a review of how the key objectives of the Bill, including diversity, are being met.

Second, focusing more so on the legal professions, the Minister is engaging with the Legal Services Regulatory Authority, LSRA, on the matter. The Minister asked the LSRA to examine further the remuneration of trainee barristers and solicitors, the other costs associated with joining each profession, the information available to prospective trainee barristers and solicitors on available masters and solicitors firms, the information available on the terms and conditions available and how they are selected, and any other barriers facing young barristers and solicitors, including the ability to take maternity leave. The Minister asked the LSRA to pay particular attention to equity of access and entry into the legal professions and the objective of achieving greater diversity within the professions. The authority has reported on the matter and the Department is currently engaging with the authority.

Deputy Connolly raised the issue of access. Access is an important component of Mr. Justice Peter Kelly's review, wherein 90 recommendations were made, including several relating to access. An action plan will be brought before the Cabinet shortly in the implementation of these recommendations.

As to the number of judges, there was a recent increase in the number of High Court judges, from 37 to 42, and a review is being carried out to assess the need for judges across all courts.

I thank the Deputies once again for their engagement with this topic. There is clear acknowledgment of the importance of a judicial appointments process and the need to get the various aspects and balances around the procedure right and fit for purpose. The selection, recommendation, and appointment of persons to these critical roles with such a bearing on peoples' lives and on communities and greater society is a focal point of the administration of justice. This will be enhanced by the reforms put forward in the Bill.

See this speech in context