Vol. 523 No. 3
7 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason a District Court vacancy for a District Judge has remained unfilled since early 2000; the date when the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board furnished to the Government a list of possible appointees pursuant to the Court and Court Officers Act, 1995; and when the Government will fill the vacancy. [20876/00]
19 Mr. S. Ryan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the current number of vacancies for District Court Judges; when vacancies in the District Court were last advertised; when the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board was last asked to submit a panel of candidates; when the last list was submitted to Government; the reason no appointment has been made from this panel; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20180/00]
A District Court vacancy arose on 3 February of this year following the appointment of former District Judge Desmond Hogan to the Circuit Court. In accordance with standard practice, I asked the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board to furnish me with nominations of persons suitable for appointment to the vacancy and I received a list of names on 3 April.
The filling of the vacancy was considered at a Government meeting on 4 April. Following discussion at the meeting, the Government decided that the Attorney General, who is a member of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, should be asked to discuss certain matters of a substantive legal nature with the Chief Justice who is chairman of the board. A process of consultation then took place on the legal issues and the question of filling the vacancy was left aside while this was ongoing.
In September, however, the Government decided that the filling of the February vacancy could proceed and I resubmitted the proposal to the Government. At its meeting on 3 October 2000, the Government nominated a candidate for appointment by the President of Ireland as a judge of the District Court to fill the existing vacancy. This appointment by the President is expected to be made soon and will bring the number of District Court judges up to the statutory maximum of 51.
Will the Minister tell the House precisely what the Government's difficulty was on 4 April after it received a list of seven names from the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board as proposed nominees to the District Court?
It is not possible for me to go into detail in this regard without disclosing the content of the Cabinet discussions which, as the Deputy knows, is something I am not at liberty to do. The discussion related generally to the procedures followed by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board and whether legislative changes might be required. In this context, a Bill, the Court and Court Officers Bill, 2000, was, and still is, in the course of preparation in my Department and is an appropriate instrument to make changes in the law in this area if change is considered to be desirable.
Is it the case that the problem the Government had was that out of the seven names nominated by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, it could not identify a card carrying member of the Fianna Fáil Party? Will the Minister indicate whether there is a precedent of which he is aware during the lifetime of this Government for a judicial vacancy to remain for a period of seven months following receipt by the Government of the list of proposed nominees from the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board? Will he tell the House what the Attorney General discussed with the Chief Justice and whether the person now being appointed comes from the original list of nominees the Government received last April?
Deputy Shatter should control his language. I remind him that the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board comprises individuals of great eminence and integrity and is, as I have said, chaired by the Chief Justice.
I am not challenging their eminence and integrity but the integrity of the Government in delaying filling the vacancy.
Please allow the Minister to reply.
For any Government to seek to bring improper influence to bear on a body of this kind—
No one did.
In this day and age, it could hardly be said to be a sensible course to follow. Apart from anything else, an attempt of this kind would clearly imply that the Government had taken the view that the board was open to improper influence which is what Deputy Shatter is alleging. This is an implication which would rightly be rejected—
Tell us what the Government was at and do not bluster.
—and would be deeply resented by the individuals concerned—
The Minister is blustering.
—and which I also reject. Had the Government wished to ignore, incidentally, the recommendations—
Why did the Minister not make the appointment last April?
Please allow the Minister to speak, he is in possession.
Had the Government wished to ignore the recommendations of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, it could have done so within the law of the land. The Government decided to take a person from the list submitted to me by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board and I can confirm, incidentally, that all the appointments to the Judiciary since this Government took office have been drawn from the lists submitted by that board. The discussion and communication between the Attorney General and the Chief Justice in relation to this matter are not something which I am prepared to divulge in this House but I am prepared to say that they related to matters of a legal nature in regard to the procedures.
New politics and openness.
Were the legal difficulties in April, to which the Minister alluded, particular to this nomination procedure or were they general to the procedure adopted by the advisory board in general? Is amending legislation required to deal with a deficiency that has been spotted or was it a particular difficulty that arose in this instance?
It was not a legal difficulty, it had to do, generally, with the procedures which were being followed by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board.
In this instance or generally.
In general terms, there was a discussion in regard to the procedures as they were being utilised by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board.
I do not want to go into the Cabinet discussion. The point is whether there were difficulties in the procedure generally and that it did not matter what appointment was before the board. Was it a difficulty which arose simply because of the circumstances of this case?
My difficulty is that I cannot, without revealing what was discussed at Cabinet, reply to that question specifically other than to say that the discussions, in so far as I am aware, between the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board and the Attorney General had to do generally with the procedures followed by the board and the question as to whether legislation might be required.
