Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 12, to delete lines 35 to 37 and substitute the following:“(i) from time to time when requested to do so by the Minister, a selection process referred to in subsection (3) for the purpose specified in that subsection, and”.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and appreciate his assistance.

I will first speak to my amendment No. 37. My amendment seeks to strengthen the knowledge and expertise requirement set out in section 12(6) as it would require the Public Appointments Service to ensure that the people that it recommends, as lay people, have to among them as a cohort knowledge and experience of each of the matters outlined in section rather than as many as possible, as currently drafted. This would mean that each of the criterion listed would have to represented in the collective knowledge of the lay people. It would also mean that PAS would be unable to rely on certain criterion to the detriment of others ensuring a healthy balance of knowledge and competencies.

As the lay people are the mechanism, in this process, through which more diverse opinions and perspectives on judicial appointments are injected into the process, I would like to see each of the criterion in section 12(6) be represented as there is a good range of knowledge and experience there. I hope that the Minister will appreciate where we are coming from and accept the amendment.

I will briefly speak to amendments Nos. 44 and 45 in terms of the GRECO report that we all have had a chance to read. It seems that the main objections to the Bill in the report are as follows: first, the Judiciary was not consulted enough when the Bill was being drafted; second, the chair is a lay member; third, judges are in a minority on the commission; and fourth, the chair and members of the commission are accountable to the Oireachtas with all the concerns about the separation of power that that involves.

We cannot go back and change the consultation process for the Bill now. Let us be honest that the lay chair and lay majority are the subject of commitments given in the programme of Government so are not going to change at this stage. What we are left with is the role of Parliament in the commission's work, and I share some of the concerns expressed in the report. I do not necessarily see why the law people must be approved by the Oireachtas, as outlined in section 14(1). These people will be the majority members on the commission and will recommend who becomes a judge. They will get there by going through a process in the independent Public Appointments Service. Why should Parliament play an additional role in deciding who the lay members are? In practice, Senators approve the names of people for appointment to State bodies, and without any objections since I have been elected. However, we are concerned with the principle and I am unconvinced about its merits. The provision seems to inject parliamentary politics into a process that claims to depoliticise the judicial appointments process and, potentially, has negative implications for the separation of powers.

The issue of parliamentary oversight of the commission also arises in section 22, in terms of the chair, and I also have concerns in this regard. I would like to hear the Minister's rationale for drafting section 14 as is and I want him to explain why amendments Nos. 44 and 45 are unnecessary, if he is not accepting them.