Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank all of the Senators present and those who have left for their contributions to this Second Stage debate. The Bill is an important part of my own justice plan, is part of the overall programme for Government and is part of the overall mission to build stronger and safer communities, which includes reform of the courts. It is a key element of the democratic charter of the State. Judicial independence safeguards a citizen's rights to have his or her own case decided on the law, the evidence and the facts without improper influence. I believe that this reform will safeguard and enhance the continued independence of the Judiciary, which is vital.

I will turn to some of the points that have been raised. Obviously we can discuss any points in more detail and I will engage with Senators prior to Committee Stage. I refer in particular to some of the points raised by Senators Ward and others about the reason for being prescriptive in section 52 in respect of who is appointed. What I did not want was a commission comprised of 15 or 20 members, that is, a large number that would make it more challenging and feel unwieldy when it came to the commission making a decision.

I appreciate there may have been some upset that the Bar Council and the Law Society were removed. The reason that I was prescriptive in ensuring that we had a judge from a solicitor and a barrister background was to make sure that we still had that representation. That is absolutely certain because it is really important to have representation from both sides when it comes to being on the commission itself.

On legal academics being appointed, again that is why interviews exist, so it is not just to look at somebody's qualifications on paper. Interviews are important to understand if somebody is appropriate or has the legal knowledge and an understanding of how the courts function, not just an ability to read. Interviews are mandatory and will be part of this process, which is important.

A number of Senators have mentioned IHREC and asked why it was removed. There are other organisations that feel they should be represented, whether it is the ICCL or whomever, and by specifying one specific group, one then singles out others. The Bill does not prohibit IHREC members from applying. I am clear in setting out the criteria that there should be a human rights focus. By singling out one organisation, which I appreciate is a very important organisation and does hugely important work to protect human rights, there are many organisations that feel they would have an equal reason for being on this commission. It is important that we have a transparent process and make sure that when the Public Appointments Service, PAS, puts forward recommendations for laypersons, the human rights element is clearly taken on board. I encourage members of IHREC and anyone who is part of that organisation to apply, thus ensuring we have such representation on the board.

On what has been proposed as a veto, I feel and have set out clearly that it is a merit-based system and to get to that point, you will have to go through set criteria that will have to be published and clearly set out. While there were nine members, there are eight voting members and there will have to be a consensus reached because it is four lay members and four members of the Judiciary. Again, it will not be just the Judiciary deciding. Obviously they will have a say but people will have to reach a consensus.

The reason I have asked that the lists are still sent to the Minister is to ensure that if there is a situation where people who clearly have the qualifications are not coming through or are not being put forward, then that will be something that can be seen and the Minister can examine the matter. If it is felt that changes need to be made or that the system and the process are not working in the way they should, then that is something the Minister can decide to change or amend at a later stage.

In terms of delays, at the beginning of the year we opened up the JAAB so people can apply as vacancies arise. It is not prescriptive in the Bill as to how the commission might do so. It is within the remit of the commission to say at the beginning of the year that it will set a process and fill vacancies as they arise. I will engage with Senators on this matter because I do not want a situation where a vacancy arises so we have to open a competition and there are delays. People have engaged me on this matter where it has been made very clear to me that we need more judges, that positions must be filled quickly and that there are a lot of delays. As I do not wish to delay this further, the commission has the remit and scope to set this out, which can be done at the beginning of the year in January and as vacancies arise.

Senator Martin mentioned unintended consequences where there is potential for the relevant president to dislike somebody. We must consider this matter from the point of view that the president will know who the judges are, the work that they do and, therefore, who is competent and who is suitable for a role. We must examine this matter in a more positive way. In any walk of life, there is a possibility that somebody will abuse their position but that is why it is important that the Minister can see, where names are coming through and where people are clearly suitable that if a problem is arising, it can be addressed.

On education and diversity, I met representatives of the Law Society only yesterday and a huge focus of our meeting was on how we can attract a more diverse range of people into the profession. The Law Society has done a huge amount of work on this matter. I have also separately asked the Legal Services Regulatory Authority to consider expanding education and access to education because I believe that the two go hand in hand. I think that the Senator is right that we need to start at the early stages and not when we are just selecting judges.

On the Attorney General and the cooling-off period, I have worked closely with the current Attorney General and have seen the sacrifices people in that office make and the amount of time they put into the work. As I said in the Dáil, for somebody who puts himself or herself forward or is asked and accepts the prospect of taking on such a significant role but then to be disadvantaged because of it would, I think, be a huge turn-off for anyone to take on what is such a significant and important role in the Government. The person would still have to go through the same process as anybody else but were he or she prevented from doing so because he or she had been a service to the State, I think very few people would take on the job if that is what they had intended later on in life.

Again, the IHREC issue has been raised by a number of people. Finally, on challenges and delays to the courts, as much as €2.5 million of the money that has been allocated was to prepare the ground and lay the foundation for what I hope will be a significant increase in the number of judges. I hope to get the Brigid McManus report in the coming weeks. I also hope it will set out not just an increase in the number of judges but also where we can have greater efficiencies and perhaps change some of the work practices. The solution is not just having more judges but it how they operate and function. I look forward to receiving that report.

I thank colleagues for their contributions. Some of the points we can clarify. Amendments will be proposed and I will engage with all Senators on them before we come back on Committee Stage.