Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will explain why we tabled the amendment. If one looks at section 56, one will see that it requires the procedures committee to monitor and review implementation of the Bill. It states the review under subsection (1) shall be conducted two years after commencement of the section and thereafter from time to time as the commission so requests. One of the things on which the procedures committee will be required to report - I think section 56(4) should contain the word "may" rather than "shall" - is its findings, including any recommendation related to implementation of the Bill, including but not limited to recommendations regarding the published statement, procedures and processes for developing and strengthening diversity among candidates for judicial appointment and changes to the qualification requirements for appointment to judicial office and the requirements for the selection and recommendation of persons for such appointment, ensuring the effectiveness of the administrative support provided by the office for the commission and the functions assigned to the commission. Paragraph (c) refers to changes to the qualification requirements for appointment to judicial office. What could happen is that the procedures committee might make a recommendation that instead of ten years' practice, it should be eight or 12 years. Let us suppose it makes such a recommendation. One would then go back to section 53(6)(d), which requires the procedures committee in the second or subsequent statements to have regard to recommendations it has made related, for example, to the eligibility of persons to be appointed to judicial office. That simply does not make sense because the Oireachtas either will or will not have made such changes. To require the procedures committee under section 53(6)(d) to have regard to its own recommendations in a process that, when one looks at the section, does not require those recommendations to be accepted or even implemented by statute seems wrong. That is what I am driving at. It seems to be a little premature and is unfortunately drafted. I know that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has a difficult job to do and I am not being niggly in my criticism, but if one puts section 53(6)(d) with section 56(4)(a), one will find oneself requiring the commission to have regard to things that may not even be law at the time it will come to make its second or subsequent statements. That is why I think a review is needed.