Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

To answer the questions directly, I will make two points in response to Senators McDowell and Humphreys. Yes, I would be satisfied to be held to account, so long as I am Minister for Justice and Equality, in regard to the nominations to the Government of names that are to be recommended to the President for appointment to the courts. I feel very strongly about the need to ensure the courts are firing on all cylinders and that resources are made available by the Government to the Courts Service and the courts in that regard. We all know what happened during the crash in terms of a lack of investment and I am very pleased to be in a position to reverse that trend. I believe it is important that continuous professional development is available to judges in order to ensure they are in a position to carry out their duties and functions in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the State. I do not want to see any appointments left unfilled. I have recently been in correspondence with the Chief Justice on this particular issue.

I note Senator McDowell raised the matter of one court, the Court of Appeal. I would regard the setting up of the Court of Appeal as being one of the successes of the Fine Gael-Labour Party Government in the earlier parts of this decade. Having done that, and having ensured the new court was established, I believe it is fundamental to its running and to those availing of its services that it would be best equipped, and that means it being led by a full complement of judges. I would be very happy to continue on in that regard by ensuring that appointments are made, and made in a timely manner.

On the second point raised by Senator McDowell on the timeframe for the setting up of the new commission, as I said, two years is his figure, not mine. I would refer Senators to a later section, section 61, which makes provision for a transition in regard to the recommendation function of the new commission. I believe that will be important in the context of ensuring there is early engagement.

To refer to the points raised by Senators Bacik and Humphreys in respect of the numbers, while it is correct that 17 will be the number, I reject assertions that this number is unwieldy.

On the second point raised by Senator McDowell in respect of the timeframe for the setting up of the new coMany bodies, organisations, commissions and committees have numbers to this order. I refer to the Cabinet, which currently has 19 or 20 members if reference is made to the super juniors, as well as the Attorney General, all Cabinet Ministers and the Taoiseach. I do not accept that 17 people is too many or that a commission of 17 members is too big. I believe also that consideration can be given towards ensuring an appropriate and timely aspect to the discussions, having regard to the issues to hand. In other words, if they are discussing Circuit Court appointments then it is unlikely that all the members of the Judiciary would be actively engaged. So, I do not accept that.

I would say that by having 17 members, we have the advantage of having a representative at the highest level of all the courts, ranging from the Chief Justice, through the presidents of the Court of the Appeal, High Court and Circuit Court to the President of the District Court, all sitting around the table in the company of the Attorney General, nine non-legal or laypersons or non-judicial figures, including the representative of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, who is a very important representative, and the two legal representatives from the Bar Council and the Law Society of Ireland. I think we have a good balance and a very good mix. We will also be in a position to ensure that the diversity principle, as pioneered by Senator Ruane at last week's debate, can be fully met. This is very much to the advantage of the commission in its deliberations, work and duties.

As regards the point made by Senator Bacik that her amendment might be a better fit, I would say that relying on the independent Public Appointments Service could well reflect the import of the amendment as regards ensuring we have persons with experience of the law and with expertise and not the type of randomer that was speculated upon last week in our debate. We will return to section 12 later but the importance of sections 12(5) and 12(6), as evidenced by Senator Bacik, refers to matters connected with the operation of the courts, the operation of the courts and the provision of supports to persons who are victims of crime. Section 12(6) also refers to persons who are users of the courts on an ongoing basis, persons with expert knowledge of offending behaviour, persons with expertise knowledge of commerce, finance or administration, including public administration, persons engaged in mediation activities and persons engaged in professional dispute resolution.

It can be a very exciting commission that draws on some of the best names available across society. Therefore, having a complement of 17 people engaged in the deliberative process will ensure that we provide a good service to our independent Judiciary in the manner in which names are brought forward to Government for nomination to the President, in accordance with the Constitution, which of course we are not changing.

As regards costs, I am not in a position at this stage to tie down actual amounts in terms of costs. If between now and the end of the debate, I am in a position to run a slide rule through it or whatever, I would be happy to provide Members with more information. I do not see the commission costing €1 million a year. I did make a stab at the stipend or expense allowance that would be available to persons, along the lines of a State board. I have sought further information on that to see what further figures I could project for Senator McDowell. I do not believe that service on this commission will be full time nor do I believe that it will be unduly costly in the discharge of its functions under the Act.