Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Subsection (2) states: "The Commission shall have regard to any direction made by the Minister under this section in discharging its functions in respect of any appointment in respect of which the direction applies." Subsection (3) states: "The Minister may from time to time consult with the Presidents of the Court of Appeal, the High Court, the Circuit Court and the District Court in relation to the making of directions under this section." and subsection (4) states: "Where more than one vacancy is to be considered by the Commission in accordance with section 41, the Minister's direction under this section may apply to one or more of such vacancies as the Minister may direct."

The reason the amendment is being proposed is as follows. If, for instance, it is determined that we want to appoint two more family law judges, let us say at District Court or Circuit Court level, the present scheme of the Bill does not allow the Government, which is going to take advice from the commission, to tell it that the president of the court is looking for a person most likely to have specialised in family law. It is for the Government to decide that rather than simply the president of the court himself or herself. Likewise, if the Government wants more criminal judges, let us say in the Circuit Court, there is no point in having a competition where people who would be family law judges spend hours and hours preparing applications for a particular appointment and behind the scenes it has already been decided at Government level that it is hunting for two extra criminal law judges. Therefore, what Senators Boyhan and Craughwell and I believe is essential in these circumstances is that the process of advertising a vacancy and interviewing people should not proceed as though replicating the navigation of a submarine without a periscope. If the name of the game is to get two extra family law judges, why advertise the position to people who would not be interested in being appointed to that particular aspect of the court's business, and vice versa, if it is in relation to crime? If the Government is seeking extra criminal judges, why would people who have no interest whatsoever in criminal law and no record in criminal law feel that they should apply on the basis that this could be a family law vacancy, a civil law vacancy or a refugee law vacancy when the Government is not looking to appoint somebody to such a position?A deficiency with the Bill at present is that the procedures permit the commission to differentiate between different classes of business to which a judge is likely to be appointed. It does not allow the Government to say that it is interested in two extra judges, whether criminal, family or bankruptcy judges. It does not permit the commission, in its advertisements, to say that it is hunting for family law judges so if one does not want to spend one's life doing family law, that person should not apply for this position because he or she will be disappointed because he or she will be sent to do family law work in County Kerry or Limerick. It seems to me to be common sense that the policy in this regard should be determined by the Government. The president of a court will frequently say that he or she needs more family law judges and will communicate that to the Minister, saying that the court is sorely pressed in the family law area. It is for the Government to decide that it is willing to make such extra appointments. If the Government is so minded, there should be a mechanism to direct the appointments commission to do two things. It should make it clearly apparent to the would-be applicants what kind of appointment is likely to be made and what kind of specialism is likely to be the subject of the appointment. It should concentrate its own efforts on getting such a person, which this amendment proposes.