Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 96b:

In page 32, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:“49.(1) The Government shall not be obliged to publish the names of persons who have not been appointed to judicial office following their recommendation by the Commission.

(2) Nothing in this section shall prevent the Commission from informing persons who have applied to it to be recommended for appointment to judicial office whether such persons have been recommended by the Commission to the Government for such appointment.”.

This amendment proposes to amend section 49 by inserting in page 32 of the Bill, between lines 17 and 18, the following:

“49.(1) The Government shall not be obliged to publish the names of persons who have not been appointed to judicial office following their recommendation by the Commission.

(2) Nothing in this section shall prevent the Commission from informing persons who have applied to it to be recommended for appointment to judicial office whether such persons have been recommended by the Commission to the Government for such appointment.”

The purpose of this is to make it very clear that instead of the proposed provisions of section 49, there should be a totally different procedure, namely, one whereby the Government would under no circumstances be obliged to publish the names of persons who have not been appointed to judicial office following their recommendation by the commission, but that this removal of obligation in the context of reporting to the Dáil should not inhibit the Government from informing persons who have applied that they have been unsuccessful or have been short-listed. The problem with section 49, as it has come to us, is that if it is left in its present state, it will state:

Within 30 days after the end of each year, the Minister shall cause to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas a statement of appointments to judicial office made by the President during the previous year (not being appointments made before the commencement of this section) and that statement shall include—(a) the name of each appointee and the judicial office to which he or she was appointed,

(b) particulars of the education, professional qualifications and experience of each appointee, and

(c) if it be the case in relation to a particular appointee, a statement that the appointee's name was—

(i) recommended by the Commission to the Minister in accordance with the provisions of this Act, or

(ii) recommended to the Government under section 44.

I will not repeat what I had to say earlier about section 44. However, if this is to be the law, that the Minister is to lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas every year stating who he has appointed to various positions, giving details of their suitability and the like, it raises the question as to why the Minister is being asked to do this.If each House of the Oireachtas is not entitled to consider the report that has been put before it and is not entitled to debate it in some shape or form then the purpose of the report seems to me to be entirely non-existent. If, on the other hand, it is anticipated that, I do not know, the justice committee of each or both Houses or the entire Chamber in each or both Houses should be free to debate the report of the Minister under this section, then that raises the very significant issue of what purpose such a debate could actually have. Are people to say, "Why did you appoint so and so as I do not think much of her or his [to keep Senator Norris happy] educational qualifications?" Is this information just simply to be put out there and never commented on? Is it to be put out there so that the media can comment on same or is it to be the subject of debate and consideration by the Houses of the Oireachtas? For the life of me I cannot see any useful purpose in having such a report or debate. It would tend to embarrass and politicise the Judiciary. It would tend to, if there were negative criticism of the actual appointment made, undermine public confidence in the appointments which were made. I do not see how it could advance anything in particular except, perhaps, some people might make the point that there were not sufficient members of each or either gender appointed, or people from a diverse background. All of that can be gauged by looking at Iris Oifigiúil. There is no need for a report of this kind. I do not know whether I am right or wrong and perhaps the Minister will inform me because I have not had the opportunity this afternoon to go back over the Dáil record in terms of this legislation. Is this an original part of the legislation or something that was brought in when Committee Stage was considered by the Select Committee on Justice and Equality or when Report Stage was considered in Dáil Éireann? I do not see why section 49 should be part of the Bill. It is for that reason that I think the amendment put forward by us stating, "The Government shall not be obliged to publish the names of persons who have not been appointed to judicial office", should be substituted for section 49.