Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I attract Senator McDowell's attention to section 35(3) which seems to me to meet most of the grievances he has put forward relating to the change from the 1996 Act and the 2002 Act to the current Bill. The Senator will be aware, with the quotation from the Courts and Court Officers Act 2002, that the text has been evolving to cater for the fact that solicitors bring a different type or range of experience to the courts. I remind the Senator of the 1999 working group on qualifications which made specific reference to appropriate knowledge and experience. That, in many respects, forms the change of wording. In section 35(3), with regard to the appointment for office in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal or High Court, it is clear that the commission will be unable to recommend a name of a person unless, in the opinion of that commission, the person has appropriate knowledge of the practice and procedure, which is the point that Senator McDowell has made, with appropriate knowledge of the decisions and knowledge and experience of the practice and procedure of the court, whether the Court of Appeal, the High Court or the Supreme Court. I feel that meets the point, albeit in a different text. Nevertheless, it adequately covers the point that Senator McDowell has made.

I agree with Senator Bacik that the widening of eligibility for appointments should not be cumbersome. It is a point that I referred to in a reply earlier. It is something that I can work on and that I can usefully draw from the points that Senator Bacik made. Lest my silence be misinterpreted, I agree fully with Senator Clifford-Lee on the points she makes regarding the importance of the District Court.I am pleased that Senator McDowell added considerably to the points he made earlier in respect of that cohort. I regret what Senator Norris has said and I certainly do not agree with the point he raised.

If I did not make it clear early on to Senator Bacik, I want to acknowledge the importance of her point, which I believe is most correct, on the section 2 definition of "practising barrister" in the 2015 Act. That, of course, is detached from the Courts Acts insofar as the matter of eligibility is concerned. The point she makes regarding the in-house lawyer is reasonable and is one I will be happy to look at in the context of the earlier debate.