Seanad debates

Tuesday, 15 November 2022

Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2022: Committee Stage (Resumed)

 

2:30 pm

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

To respond briefly to the previous conversation, I reiterate nobody is being excluded and nobody is being disqualified. Everyone must go through the same process, irrespective of what level along the Judiciary he or she is. They merely have to go through a process. Nobody should be excluded from that, irrespective of who he or she is, particularly where we are talking about a promotion.

In terms of the international standards, I suppose what I was saying or meant was to some extent having regard to international standards, not saying we must go with one or the other. The Senator has referenced some. It is to take into account international standards as well as European rulings and European standards.

It is my advice - I appreciate the advice I receive at Government level - that three is the appropriate number for the recommendations. It limits in a way the current position, where I could potentially have 40 names which some could argue is not the right way either, but it still allows discretion for Government to be able to appoint off those three names. That would be my view on that and that is the advice I have received.

In terms of amendment No. 36, I suppose the purpose of the reform of this Bill is that we are filling individual positions as they arise. I am aware now, even as positions arise in the various different courts, there may be requirements at different stages for different types of expertise, knowledge and cases and a specific surge in particular types of areas of law that is required by the President of any new judge being appointed. This ensures that the appointments, the interview process, the questions and the requirements are specific to the role that is being filled as it changes. I suppose that is one of the main reforms proposed in this Bill that every person going for appointment goes through that process and it is specific to the role that has arisen, not potentially somebody who has sat on a panel or has been put forward already for a different role where circumstances may have changed. It is for that reason that I am not in favour of the amendment. It goes against what many of the core changes in this legislation are trying to achieve.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.