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

The Constitution provides for judicial independence and this Bill supports judicial independence. I support the Senator's last comments that we have an independent Judiciary, one that we can be very proud of and one that is held up right across the world.

I thank the Senators for tabling this amendment. The amendment provides for a new section. It provides for an object of the Act being judicial independence and obviously there has been an explanation as to where this has come from. The object of the proposed Act in itself is relatively straightforward; it seeks to establish a new commission to recommend persons for appointment. Of course it does more than that. It puts the entire system of appointments on a completely different level in terms of transparency and strengthens the procedures we have to safeguard the integrity that is already there in terms of the process of appointment. I would say it is already manifesting, perceived and recognised at home and internationally as a very good, transparent and independent process.

The Bill is compliant with international standards. The Court of Justice has taken the view that because national courts such as our courts in Ireland must implement and adjudicate on various fields of EU law, the process of appointment of judges to these courts must ensure the effective judicial protection of individual rights. The Bill will achieve that and these provisions are also consistent with the Dublin Declaration, which was referred to in the amendment tabled by the Senators.

The method of appointing judges is seen as having a key impact on independence from an EU context. The specific concern of the European Commission in the context of the rule of law report, and the Council of Europe's Group of States against Corruption, GRECO, is the level of discretion a member state government might have vis-à-visan advisory or recommending body when it comes to appointments. In particular, the European Court of Justice ruling has made it clear that an obligation under the rule of law it operates in the European Union is the maintenance and enhancing of the impartiality and independence of the courts. The possibility that a Government would appoint a person who is not recommended by the independent body would be contrary to this rule of law in that context. Also, it would be contrary to a merit-based approach.

Senator Ward referred to political patronage in the amendment and the requirement, under the amendment, is for a merit-based system and that is very clearly set out in the Act. For the first time, this Bill will essentially provide that no appointment can be possible without the Government first receiving a recommendation from the commission. Under section 39, they have to be merit-based. Merit will have regard to a number of objectives set out in section 39, which we will mention later. Government discretion to appoint will be from a limited choice of three candidates, while at the same time providing for the fact that our Constitution sets out clearly that a Government must appoint and so it still allows for that.

Senators will know that currently and historically when an appointment of a serving judge to a higher office is made that it will not have come through the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, JAAB. The remit of the board, under the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995, is restricted to people seeking appointment for the first time. We will change that and make sure that everybody has to go through the judicial appointments commission.

More generally, I am confident that the new approach will enhance the reputation that we already have in terms of the independence of the Judiciary. The Bill contributes to that. As I have said, the Constitution provides for judicial independence and the Bill in itself supports that.