David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The particular skills and experience required of the lay members are set out in section 12 of the Bill, a section to which many amendments will be discussed during Committee Stage.

On amendment No. 7, this is a substantive amendment and we thank the Senators for it. Subsection (1) of the amendment seeks to insert a new section 7 in Part 2. The thrust of the amendment is to make provision for obligations on the part of the Public Appointments Service and the commission to uphold judicial independence. Subsection (2) provides for restrictions on the motivations of persons seeking to be appointed as lay members of the commission and on information that may be provided or asked of a person applying for judicial office.

The primary concern behind the decision of the Minister in 2013 to engage in public consultations was with a mind to ensuring that the independence of the Judiciary was preserved and strengthened. Ireland's Judiciary is rightly lauded and rates most highly internationally on criteria relating to judicial independence. This is on record, as we know. We are fortunate in having a uniquely independent Judiciary. Other factors were in view regarding the public consultations, including matters related to diversity, eligibility and the adequacy of existing structures in place in respect of judicial appointments. This is carried over into the Bill. In the critically important areas of the Bill dealing with the development of procedures and requirements around judicial appointments, it is recognised explicitly in Part 8 that in the preparation of statements the procedures committee shall have regard to the independence required of holders of judicial office as respects the exercise by them of their functions as holders of such office. Members will be aware that in my view, and that of the Minister, the Public Appointments Service is the most appropriate body to carry out the function of selection by lay members of the commission and, indeed, of the lay chair. It is the centralised provider of recruitment, assessment and selection services for the Civil Service and provides analogous services in the wider public service.

The Senator seeks to apply new obligations to the Public Appointments Service itself and the Minister thinks this is excessive and unnecessary. We are fully aware of the excellent standards of service delivered by the PAS to the State. It operates to the highest standards and delivers a most professional service. It is independent in the manner in which it operates and its byword is that all appointments are made on merit. The Minister is completely satisfied that merit will be the only criterion, with reference to the specific qualities indicated in section 12, that will be benchmarked in the selection of lay members. He sees no basis for adding any conditionality to that role, nor would he have any authority to do so, and he believes that it is an unnecessary step.

The canvassing restrictions in section 62 of the Bill provide that any applicant for judicial office who canvasses any person involved in the process for support for an application shall be guilty of an offence. This would apply to any untoward influencing of a decision to be made by the PAS or the commission. The Minister is satisfied that the functions given to the PAS and the commission, the provisions related to the composition of the commission and the relevant provisions of the Bill concerning judicial independence, and the restriction on canvassing and matters relating to confidentiality, fully protect the integrity of the roles assigned and address any concerns that lie behind this amendment.