Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will not speak for long and I have been listening to the debate with great interest. I echo Senator Norris's words and it is of concern if Senator McDowell is expressing his doubts about the constitutionality of these provisions. The more one reads into the sections we are discussing and the related sections, we can see there are criminal offences created around failures to observe the detailed process. I am looking in particular at section 62(3), which indicates that a person who contravenes subsection (2) shall be guilty of an offence and so on. There are a number of criminal offences and we need clarity in the law around the process. We must be clear about how and what information can be transmitted legally in the course of the process.

There are flaws in which the shortlisting and longlisting is to be prescribed in the Bill. Labour has put in very important amendments that we have not yet reached and they relate to section 46. They are amendments Nos. 92 and 96, which require that the list would be in the order of the commission's preference. It is a very important principle to be observed in any reform of judicial appointments, and which has been recommended for many years by many different critics of the current process. Listening to the debate, I was a bit confused to hear the Minister referring to the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, JAAB, and then Senator Norris referring to flu jabs. It is unfortunate that the term we all use colloquially to describe the current body recommending appointments to the Government is known as JAAB. I do not know how it would appear in the transcript but there is an extra "A" in the JAAB compared with the flu jab.