Mark Daly (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I join colleagues in expressing concern on aspects of the Bill, the amendment to the GRECO report, GRECO's question as to whether this move is in line with EU standards and why there has been a move away from the original position that it was not in compliance with those standards. Senator Lorraine Clifford Lee put forward the Fianna Fáil amendment to the effect that the commission should consist of 11 members, namely, the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal, the President of the High Court, the President of the Circuit Court, the President of the District Court, a layperson nominated by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, a layperson nominated by the Free Legal Advice Centres, a layperson nominated by the Citizens Information Board, a layperson nominated by an tÚdarás um Ard-Oideachas, a practising barrister nominated under section 13 and a practising solicitor nominated under section 13. The amendment also proposes that the commission shall elect its own chairperson. We shall retable the amendment for Report Stage. In the meantime, the rationale for the current manifestation, as proposed by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, needs to be explained further. We saw recently in the Dáil that the numbers simply did not add up. That tells us a great deal about the real agenda behind this.

There is also the issue of the cost and the establishment of a quango. The programme for Government contains a commitment to get rid of quangos but this commission would cost nearly €1 million per year, as per the explanatory memorandum. The commission would replace the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, which has nine members and costs less than €10,000 per year. By any standards, this does not seem like reform. Our amendment proposes to simplify the commission. Having lay members on the commission may have its merits but the issue is about reform. We all agree the situation needs reform, but the Bill could make it worse. While lay members bring a different perspective they certainly will not have any expertise in appointing judges. I could be wrong and I am open to correction on this. The disqualifying criteria should also be considered. If a person had a previous conviction, should he or she be allowed to be selected as a lay member of the board?