Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. It is unfortunate, given the way in which this Bill has been debated, that the Minister was not in a position to respond personally to the debate. I asked the Minister when we would see the GRECO report. We debated at length last night the context to this Bill and the issues it purports to address. I read into the record of the House certain paragraphs of what I believe to be the GRECO report, which is as yet unpublished and dated 31 May 2018 or a date subsequent thereto. I will not repeat the paragraphs I read; suffice it to say they express significant concerns about the current composition of the appointments commission as proposed in the Bill and state the move is not in line with European standards. The document urges the authorities to reconsider this matter.

It is in light of the critique by GRECO, which we have not yet seen, that I tabled amendment No. 7. The amendment is very much in keeping with the principles behind this Bill and the stated intention of the proposers of the Bill, namely to ensure positive reform of the judicial appointments process. I speak as somebody who has always advocated for positive reform of the judicial appointments process, particularly regarding the need to ensure that we enshrine in law the obligation to uphold judicial independence. That is precisely what this amendment seeks to do. It was in the context of our discussion of this amendment that I asked the Minister earlier when we would have sight of the GRECO report so we could know, when debating the amendments, the response of the Government to that report and precisely what the GRECO criticisms are. All I have are excerpts that I believe are from the GRECO report, but we are all at a severe disadvantage drafting and debating amendments at this late stage, halfway through Committee Stage, without any knowledge of whether the Minister has seen the report and what his response to it will be.

When will the GRECO report will be available to us as legislators in the Seanad? We have been told the debate will continue tomorrow until late. It will obviously go late tonight, and it will probably continue into Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week with a view to ramming it into the Dáil by Thursday of next week. I asked the Minister whether he could really commit to reviewing amendments we have tabled and coming back to us on Report Stage thereon given the very tight timeframe, which is unfortunate.

I listened very carefully to the contributions of colleagues during the debate. The Minister said there had been no go-slow on judicial appointments and that judicial appointments were being made even though the Bill was in the offing. In that context, I question again the urgent desire to get the Bill back to the Dáil by Thursday of next week given that the Minister said there are no judicial appointments to be made that are awaiting the passage of this Bill.I have been a Member of this House long enough to know that justice Bills are always rushed through in the last few weeks prior to the summer recess. It is unfortunate in the context of new politics and the new procedures we have in place that this approach is still being taken such that we have late night sittings and so on. This is an important but contentious Bill. We are all well aware of the particular Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, who is driving it through both Houses, which seems at odds with his colleagues in the Government.

I listened carefully to Senator Noone's astute critique of the Bill and I note her comment that she will be voting for it with a heavy heart because she is whipped to do so and also that this Bill is an insult to the legal profession. I am interested in hearing the response of the Minister, Deputy Flanagan, to all of the points made. I am particularly interested in knowing if the Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, is in a position to indicate whether the Minister, Deputy Flanagan, will be able to review the amendment and to tweak it if necessary.

As mentioned by Senator Humphreys, we are happy to see it amended but we believe it is important the Bill includes a specific and overt reference to an obligation to uphold judicial independence and that the work of the Public Appointments Service, the commission and its members, should be conducted in the context and the framework of a commitment to the principle of judicial independence. I do not think anyone could have any objection to that, although a few people have raised issues around obligations to answer or not. It is important to provide that if a person is asked a question, he or she is not obliged to answer such that those who are seeking appointment to judicial office or those seeking appointment as lay members of the commission should not be obliged to answer any question relating to personal political opinions or religious or philosophical beliefs. This is an important protective measure, which is in keeping with GRECO's view that there is no perception of improper influence on the appointment process to the Judiciary. This is an important part of the amendment but we are happy to see the wording tweaked if necessary.

I would like answers to the specific questions I have raised and, in particular, on whether the amendment will be considered by the Minister in the brief time available to him between now and Report Stage.