Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I wish to speak in favour of the amendment.While I have been supportive of the Government in a number of the votes, and in respect of aspects of the Bill, and I have not always been in agreement with my colleague, Senator McDowell, I believe he is completely correct that this amendment is of deep concern. It has to be revisited and I very much urge the Government to agree to its removal and that if it needs to need to put something back in, that it might be far more nuanced.

There are a number of key concerns here. I, and many of my colleagues, have argued about the importance of trusting the commission and the persons who we will appoint to it with the key responsibility of making decisions regarding the appointment of the Judiciary for our State. It is a very serious responsibility, where safeguards, measures and criteria have been put in place as to the persons who may be nominated to that commission, and to the manner in which they will conduct their work. It seems to somewhat undermine the thought and consideration put into the membership and the make up of the commission, and indeed to the criteria and the basis upon which it will make its decisions in respect of the Judiciary, if we then have a large part of and the preliminary work of that role effectively delegated to private consultants or advisers in respect of whom no conditions, no rules and measures and no standards are set out. It is an incredibly wide provision right now.

Senator McDowell pointed to the ambiguity. It could be a HR company or a major firm of solicitors, which would add to a concern around a conflict of interest, for example, for those who would come through. It could be a former Government member, a prominent member of a political party or a major donor to the Government who happens to run a consultancy business. I have not spoken about GRECO for as long as many of my colleagues in the House but I note paragraph 36 of GRECO which urges the authorities to reconsider matters in order to limit potential risks of improper influence from the Executive or political power over the appointment process to the Judiciary or any perception thereof.

There is an opportunity here to amend and improve the Bill. This section is potentially the most open one. The concerns are around the wideness of the frame in terms of the definition of the consultant or advisers. The second layer of concern is the Minister's role in approving the appointment of these consultants or advisers. We have two layers of concerns. The first is around the parts of the role to be carried out by the consultant or adviser and the second is the Minister's role in terms of appointing consultants or advisers. If we wish the commission to have the power - I believe it is mentioned in section 4 - to enter into contracts, where that may be appropriate, it would be inappropriate, having decided to hire a company or an individual and to delegate to them the pre-screening of applicants and all the information on the applicants, that contract should in any way be determined or approved based on the consent of the Minister.

With greatest respect to the Minister for Justice and Equality, I ask him to look at this section because it has far too wide a remit or power. I have sat on boards where we have had 120 to 150 candidates for a role. We formed a subcommittee and we screened applicants. It was a little bit onerous but became faster. My amendment No. 26 - the Minister indicated some amenability to the spirt of it - provides for the potential training for persons who are members of the commission to be skilled and facilitated in that kind of pre-screening work, in setting out standards and in using whatever grids or references that they need. I have sat on boards and we have gone through 120 applications. It is doable, it is fine and it becomes faster and easier as one becomes more efficient. I do not think it is appropriate that we delegate this work. I am aware that private companies are hired in respect of other roles within the public service for employees of the public service. There is a concern here that is quite different because this is not for employees of the public service or employees of a public or statutory body - I am conscious that recruitment companies have been used in that regard - but it is respect of the pre-screening of persons who are to specifically hold a role, separate from the Executive and the Oireachtas, in the Judiciary.

I strongly support this amendment and I will support Senator McDowell if he wishes to press it to a vote. Moreover, I reserve the right to revisit this on Report Stage. I ask the Minister to reconsider and come back with a more nuanced piece.