Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I do not accept that logic applies at all. Section 54 states:

(1) The Commission shall consider each of the statements submitted to it under section 53(1) [section 53(1) is submitted by the procedures committee] and may, subject to subsection (3)—(a) approve each of the statements,

(b) make such modifications to either of them as it considers appropriate and approve them as so modified, or

(c) refuse to approve them.(2) If the Commission refuses to approve the statements, the Procedures Committee shall prepare new statements of the kind referred to in paragraphs (a) and(b) of subsection(1) of section 53, and that subsection shall otherwise apply in those circumstances(together with the other provisions of that section).

It then states:

(3) The Commission shall consult with the Minister before exercising any of the powers under subsection (1)(a) to (c).

The Minister is only consulted by the commission after the procedures committee has already devised a statement, circulated it for comment and the like. Finally there is consultation with the Minister. Unlike in our amendment, there is no provision as to what happens if the Minister is seriously unhappy with what he sees. I do not see how that establishes the authority of the Government appropriately or at all.

We will shortly come to the Minister's text for section 51. Now that each president of each court is an ex officiomember of the commission, I ask him to confirm that section 51(1) is redundant and therefore should be deleted, and that section 51(3) will need to be amended to reflect that deletion.