Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I wish to speak in support of amendment No. 91g, as proposed by Senator McDowell, to insert a new section. I spoke on a similar and related topic on the last occasion we debated section 45 and asked the Minister at that time why the statement required to be provided in that section set out only the reasons the commission was of the opinion that a person was suitable for appointment, rather than also setting out the reasons a person may not be suitable for an appointment. It is eminently sensible to include a provision of the sort proposed by Senator McDowell in his proposal for a new section 46, to be inserted by the amendment.As I said during the previous debate on this, it is pretty standard for anyone sitting on interview panels that the people to whom it is most important to supply reasons are those who are not to be appointed or not deemed suitable for appointment. This is a very important point. They are the people who will be disappointed and who will be looking for reasons to be given. Much more care generally is spent in drafting the rationale or basis on which people are not to be appointed or on which people are not suitable for appointment. This is a sensible amendment that would assist in the way in which the commission is to go about its business given that the Bill envisages the commission will operate by way of majority vote.

I do not feel the Minister has given me an adequate response to the questions I asked in respect of how section 45 would work in practice. Overall there is a real difficulty with sections 45 and 46 and the process as set forth in the Bill. The process that is to be followed by any future commission is unwieldy and cumbersome. It is also opaque. I listened carefully to Senator McDowell's points about a cloak of secrecy. It seems to me this is a big part of the problem. While this is purported to be a reform of the process for judicial appointment, what we will be left with if the Bill is passed in its current form, or even in its amended form, is a Bill that provides for this extremely cumbersome procedure and yet a procedure that lacks transparency and a rational basis. For example, without amendment No. 91g we will see a requirement that the commission will provide the Minister with a statement setting out the reasons a person is suitable for appointment in respect of each person who is recommended but we will not see any detail provided to the Minister as to reasons a person might not be suitable for appointment. Again, without amendment No. 91g we will not see details provided the Minister, or any requirement for the Minister to be provided with details, as to whether a vote or recommendation is made by way of majority, perhaps a majority of only one, on the commission or whether it is, in fact, a unanimous recommendation where the person is so clearly meritorious there is no dissenter. The problem is this will be a cumbersome procedure but it is also an opaque procedure that will lack any rational basis.

The Bill as it came to us originally in the Seanad was inherently inconsistent. Of course, it has now been amended to resolve at least that glaring problem in terms of the numbers on the commission. There are still quite a number of areas where the Bill lacks inherent or internal consistency and this is one of the issues we seek to address with these amendments. This is why I will support Senator McDowell's amendment No. 91g.

To reflect on what Senator Boyhan has just said, there has been a lot of comment in the press about the way in which the Bill is proceeding through the Seanad and the length of time taken on Committee Stage. I have not spoken to any huge extent, other than on my amendments. It is important to make this point in respect of amendment No. 91g and the other amendments. It has been very helpful that the Minister has indicated to us on the floor of the House where he does intend to bring forward amendments on Report Stage and we all appreciate this. He has indicated this in respect particularly of earlier sections dealing with the most senior appointments. He will bring forward quite extensive or significant amendments on Report Stage. His has also indicated a willingness to accept the points made in some of the amendments already put forward by those of us in opposition. I withdrew some amendments I tabled with regard to gender balance in the Judiciary with a view to redrafting them and bringing them forward again on Report Stage.

It would really be of greater assistance if we could engage with the Minister and his officials in seeking compromise and resolution of some of the issues we have raised in an attempt to be constructive-----