Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Justice debate -
Tuesday, 24 May 2022

Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2022: Committee Stage

Deputy Smyth has a commitment and she might join us a little bit later in the meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to consider the Committee Stage of the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2022. I welcome the Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, to our meeting. This is an example of the system working well, in the sense that this is a Bill we took in at the start of the term. We produced a report on it after a number of hearings. The Minister took some guidance from that report and certainly amended the Bill based upon some of our recommendations. The fact that the Bill is back to committee in pretty rapid succession and has been processed expeditiously is good as well. It is a good sign all round. I thank everybody involved. I thank the Minister for taking on board our amendments and the committee for its due diligence.

We will move on to consideration of the amendments. While we do still facilitate hybrid meetings, if a vote is called at any stage, Deputies must be physically present in the room. They cannot vote remotely. We will deal with that if it comes along but there is a technology in use which allows us to see the votes on screen, if needed. We have not seen it in this committee yet, but I have used it in other committees.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2

Deputy Howlin is not here to move amendment No. 1.

Amendment No. 1 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 2, 15, 25 and 26 are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 11, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

“ “TFEU” means the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;”.

The amendments are mainly technical. I will go through them as quickly as I can. Amendment No. 2 inserts a new definition in the section. This is the interpretation section, which sets out the definitions and meanings for key terms and expressions used in the Bill. The new definition refers to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, TFEU. This allows for better definition in the provisions of sections 40, 58 and 59, which are also amended by this group. Articles 254 and 255 of the TFEU concern appointments to the judicial offices in the Court of Justice of the European Union, including the office of Advocate General and the General Court. The Deputies will be aware the Bill includes, within this commission remit, recommendations for nominations by Government to all of these offices. It applies to all of the courts. Amendments Nos. 15, 25 and 26 are very much connected with that.

Amendment No. 15 is essentially technical. It provides a more precise reference point for the qualifications required for nomination as judge of the Court of Justice, Advocate General of the Court of Justice or judge of the General Court. The amendment essentially amends the wording, "the requirements that for the time being stand specified by the court to which the judicial office [is] concerned", to replace it with a more accurate reference, "qualified for appointment in accordance with the requirements of the TFEU".

My advice is that the requirements are more correctly attributed to the treaty rather than the specified court.

Under section 58, amendment No. 25 is similar in so far as it relates to the nomination of judge of the Court of Justice, Advocate General of the Court of Justice or judge of the General Court and it makes provision for the statement of requisite knowledge, skills and attributes for judicial office. It removes reference to "requirements specified by the court, or the governing body of the court, to which the judicial office relates" and replaces it with "requirements of the TFEU, and ... the criteria used by the panel, established under Article 255 of the TFEU, to assess candidates' suitability to perform the duties of the judicial office concerned". Again, my advice is that the requirements are more correctly attributed to the treaty rather than to the court.

Amendment No. 26 is a technical amendment. It provides a more precise reference point in dealing with the selection procedures in so far as it relates to the Court of Justice, Advocate General of the Court of Justice or judge of the General Court. The amendment seeks to replace reference to "requirements specified by the court or the governing body of the court, to which that judicial office relates" with "any requirements of the TFEU concerning the procedures for selection of candidates for those judicial offices". Again, my advice is that it is more correctly attributed to the treaty rather than to particular courts. It is all quite specific and technical amendment but it is about tidying it up and making sure it relates to the right sections.

That all seems to make sense.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8

Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 9 are related and may be taken together. The amendments are in the names of Deputies Pringle, Daly, Martin Kenny, and Ó Snodaigh. The first three Deputies are members of this committee while Deputy Ó Snodaigh is not. As such, he can put forward an amendment but he cannot vote on it.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 12, lines 23 and 24, to delete “or, in the English language, the Judicial Appointments Commission”.

This follows up on some of the amendments made in the Official Languages Act. Amendment No. 3 would remove "or, in the English language, the Judicial Appointments Commission”.

Amendment No. 4 follows on from the theme of the Official Languages Act. It seeks to get rid of the English language version of the commission's name by deleting the reference to "Commission" where it secondly occurs and substituting it with "Coimisiún".

Amendment No. 5, inserts "members who shall be competent to conduct their functions through the medium of Irish" on page 12. This would impose an obligation on lay members to speak Irish.

Amendment No. 9 would remove the English language name from the Bill. We believe it is important for such commissions to use the Irish language name where appropriate. I am aware Deputy Pringle has a similar amendment.

These amendments may be of interest to Conradh na Gaeilge as well.

It may well have had some input into them.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 9 propose to completely remove the English language title of the commission and the office from the Bill. Given the fact that the Bill is entirely in English, it would be out of step with the Bill as presented in the English language. As to section 8, the amendment refers to the name of the commission in the Irish language only. The section Deputy is referring to in the Official Languages Act, which was amended in 2021, has not commenced. This amendment is pre-empting a section of an Act that has been agreed but has not yet commenced. I appreciate the argument may be why not do it anyway. However, we would be setting a precedent in which we enact something that has not commenced. I am not sure if we would do this in other areas of law, be it in courts or other judicial settings. I do not want to pre-empt the commencement of sections of another Minister's Act. The main concern here is that it has not been enacted yet. Identifying the titles in Irish would be out of step with the rest of the Bill.

How stands amendment No. 3?

I will not press it.

I believe there is a logic to that. A bilingual approach makes sense but I am not convinced about taking a monolingual approach. In any event, it does not arise as the member wishes to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9

Amendments Nos. 5 and 8 are related and may be taken together.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 12, line 27, after “members,” to insert “who shall be competent to conduct their functions through the medium of Irish”.

Amendment No. 5 would ensure members will be competent to conduct their functions through the medium of the Irish language. It is important that members of the commission would be competent to do this. It is coming from the same space in that the language Act is trying to get us into a position where more people, particularly those in official positions of this nature, will have a high level of competency in the Irish language, while not the common language, and be able to use it when necessary. It would be hoped that would become more of the norm. In that context, it is appropriate to make this amendment. Amendment No. 8 in the name of Deputy Pringle is similar in that it seeks to ensure competent use of the Irish language by all members of the commission.

The challenge with regard to amendment No. 5, where we are talking about the nine members of the council, four of whom are lay members and four Judiciary, with the Attorney General as a non-voting member, is that there are three ex officio members - the Attorney General, the Chief Justice, and the President of the Court of Appeal, and these alternate depending on which judge is appointed to which court. This would place a specific reference that they must be competent to conduct their functions through Irish, something that is not there when a person is appointed to the position of Chief Justice, Attorney General or other positions. This amendment would place an additional onus on ex officio members.

Separate to that, and I mentioned this at the Irish language committee, by insisting on the competence for all members, another group of people are being excluded. We put in place a requirement to ensure diversity, including gender-specific diversity, general diversity in terms of background and community, and a third relating to the Irish language. We have tried, inasmuch as possible, to include diversity in the Bill in the appointment of members, the people coming through the interview process, and the three appointees being put forward so that there is a balance across the board. By making sure everybody has to be competent, it automatically removes a cohort of people who do not have the language because it is not universal. This may not be where we would like it to be but the language is not universal. It is not an expressed requirement for the roles the ex officio members are currently in, so it would be adding in an additional layer.

On amendment No. 8, and this may have been dealt with differently in the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin's Bill, we are dealing with people who are not involved in the provision of public-facing services. Their role is to put forward people who will be appointed to public-facing positions, but they themselves are not in public-facing positions.

For those reasons, I would find it difficult to accept the amendments. I stress, and this probably applies to many of the amendments the Deputy is putting forward in terms of the Irish language, that there is a review after two years looking at the requirement for diversity in gender, ethnic diversity and the Irish language. From a ministerial point of view, it will have to be clear there is diversity and balance.

It strikes me that requiring all the members of the commission to be fluid as Gaeilge may be a stretch at this time. When the Minister reviews the diversity heading, it might be a place to look at that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 6 has had to be disallowed. A potential charge on the public purse arises from it. That was communicated yesterday to Deputy Daly as the moving party.

Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 13, line 12, after “office,” to insert the following:

“ensuring that recommendations in the case of no fewer than 20 per cent of judicial offices, and 100 per cent in the case of appointments to the Supreme Court, in a given year, the nominees shall be exclusively drawn from candidates who are competent to read and understand the Constitution and matters of law in both official languages”.

When the recommendations or obligations under the Act are implemented by 2030, there will be a requirement that 20% of all public servants be competent to deal with members of the public in Gaeltacht areas and people who speak Irish throughout the State. As judges are also public servants, this amendment requires that at least 20% of judicial offices and 100% for the Supreme Court, which has the obligation to interpret the Constitution, the Irish-language version of which takes priority, would be able to read and understand the Constitution and matters of law in official languages. It is simply a quota for judges and a requirement for the Supreme Court that justices are competent in both languages.

My concerns are the same as in the previous areas. I do not think the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin's, Bill would apply to this, separate to the fact it is not commenced. I would have the same concerns if that had been the case. While there is the requirement for balance between gender, diversity and the Irish language, we have tried to set it out such that somebody is appointed based on merit, and that should be first and foremost. There is already a requirement in specific jurisdictions, across different courts or where the president of the court identifies a specific need or requirement for the Irish language for particular vacancies to be filled. There is an ability here to have that engagement when engaging with the commission because the relevant president will be on the court and will be able to engage with the Courts Service to identify the need in terms of Irish language skills and report that back. The commission can then work on that basis.

Expressly stating that it must be 20% takes away the point that, first and foremost, it needs to be based on merit. The language is to the effect that they shall take into account the objective of the membership, which includes proficiency in the Irish language. By putting that number in, it would tie their hands slightly and take away from the fact it has to be merit-based. There are also the implications for equality and diversity but I do not think that is as much of an issue in this one.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 10 agreed to.
Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Section 13 agreed to.
Sections 14 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.
Section 35 agreed to.
SECTION 36

Amendment No. 11 was grouped with amendment No. 10. How stands that amendment?

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 26, line 18, after “Director” to insert “and competent to conduct their functions through the medium of Irish”.

This amendment is a little different. It refers to the director's competence in the use of Irish. Perhaps that is something we should look at as a requirement. I am not sure how the Minister feels about that.

My concern is it is an essential skill, rather than a desirable one. You would not preclude anyone from applying but, by making sure they had to have Irish, you are potentially excluding many people by making it mandatory.

If we had a commitment that all of this would be reviewed when the review time comes up, it would be the way to deal with a lot of it. It would be necessary to have a proper review of the use of the Irish language in regard to the legislation and the commission's function.

The two-year review will look at the judges appointed and the requirement around diversity, gender and Irish language. The specifics around the establishment of the commission dealing directly with the Minister, Deputy Martin's, Bill is for a date after that is commenced. It will look at things after that is commenced.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 36 agreed to.
Sections 37 and 38 agreed to.
SECTION 39

Amendments Nos. 12 to 14, inclusive, 27 and 28 are grouped because there is a commonality there.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 27, to delete lines 28 to 31 and substitute the following:

“(2) Subject to subsection (1), the function of selection and recommendation of persons for appointment to judicial office in the State shall conform to the objectives that the membership of the judiciary in each court should—

This is moving it from as far as "feasible and practicable" to "shall". It again goes back to strengthening the requirement for diversity and the Irish language. The amendment changes what is aspirational to a requirement. There are qualified individuals out there who fulfil the relevant criteria.

Government policy on legal education should ensure they continue to exist rather than allowing the status quo to continue. Amendment No. 14 proposes changing the definition of "merit" to include a strict requirement for a judge presented for appointment to be competent in both official languages.

Is the intention of the reference in amendment No. 12 to the commission conforming to these objectives with regard to all three names? The intention is that the applicants are based on merit but they would have to include somebody with a proficiency in the Irish language and somebody with a diverse background and alternate between male and female each time. This is very specific, particularly when it has been reduced to the small number of three people. Each recommendation would have to have all three criteria and be based on merit. It would constrain the commission in putting forward names. I understand where it is coming from but if the commission were to conform with the objectives it would make it difficult to put forward names.

With regard to amendments Nos. 13 and 14, the Bill contains significant provisions on Irish language needs. There is a review and the expressed position is that diversity, gender and language must be included. It would be interesting to get the logic for why this should be 100% for the Supreme Court. To go back to my initial point, the president of the relevant court will be on the selection commission. He or she will be able to identify where there is a need and engage with the Courts Service to identify need. Without expressly including a figure we will be able to address a need and the development of the Irish language. Nobody who speaks Irish is precluded at any stage from putting themselves forward. Of the applications I receive, 30% to 40% are proficient in the Irish language. This varies and it can be much lower or higher. There is already a significant number.

Amendment No. 27 restates something in the initial Bill and puts it into simplified language. It is not a new section. It simplifies and aligns text. It is a more helpful presentation of the cross reference to section 39(2). Section 39 provides that the commission shall make recommendations on merit. Section 39(2) provides that on making such recommendations the commission must take account of the objective that members of the Judiciary in each court should comprise an equal number of male and female members, should reflect the diversity of the population as a whole and include a sufficient number of judges with proficiency in the Irish language. The new cross-reference in section 61 will simplify the matter without making substantive changes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.

I move amendment No.14:

In page 27, lines 34 and 35, to delete “include a sufficient number of judges with a proficiency in the Irish language to meet the needs” and substitute the following:

"work towards ensuring a minimum of 20 per cent of the judiciary in each court as soon as possible, and 100 per cent in the case of the Supreme Court, are proficient to conduct their functions in both official languages, and guarantee that each court is capable of meeting the needs".

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 39 agreed to.
SECTION 40

I move amendment 15

In page 28, to delete lines 21 to 25 and substitute the following:

"(f) in the case of a nomination for appointment to be a judge of the Court of Justice, an Advocate General of the Court of Justice or a judge of the General Court, he or she is qualified for appointment in accordance with the requirements of the TFEU,".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 16 and 19 are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 28, to delete lines 26 to 31 and substitute the following:

"(g) in the case of nomination for election by the Parliamentary Assembly to be a judge of the European Court of Human Rights, he or she satisfies the criteria for office under Article 21 of the European Convention on Human Rights,

(h) in the case of nomination for election to be a judge of the International Criminal Court, he or she is qualified having regard to the eligibility requirements of that Court set out in Article 36 of the Rome Statute, and

(i) in the case of all offices specified under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) or (h), he or she has not held the office of Attorney General for a period of two years prior to their application under section 43.".

This is with regard to the Attorney General being appointed to the Judiciary. The argument is that a person should have ceased to have been Attorney General for at least two years before being eligible to be appointed to the Judiciary. This would be good practice. As we have seen in our discussion on the Bill, the Attorney General is very much in the centre of almost everything that happens. It would be appropriate to have a period for an Attorney General to be away from the Judiciary prior to being considered eligible. We have had practices in the past and we are trying to introduce legislation that we hope will see a marked change in how things are done. This is no reflection on anyone. We are all trying to collaborate to bring this about. This little amendment would ensure that a cooling-off period would exist and every Attorney General would know there would not be an automatic passage to the Judiciary once his or her term ended. It would be appropriate that this would happen. I hope the Minister accepts the amendment.

The issue with regard to amendment No. 19 is that the Attorney General would be at both ends of this process. The Attorney General would be on the commission that recommends who goes forward to be a judge and would also advise the Cabinet when it comes to selecting who the judge is. Most people would recognise this is an issue that needs to be dealt with. The easiest way to avoid it is to ensure the Attorney General is not a member of the commission. It will come to the Cabinet table and the Attorney General will be involved at that end. It is not appropriate that the Attorney General should be on the commission and he or she should be removed from it. There is an ample number of competent legal minds that could be appointed to the commission without needing the Attorney General to be one of them. I hope the Minister will also accept this amendment.

My understanding of the amendments is that there is no reference to removing the Attorney General in either of them. The Attorney General advises the Government but is not a member of the Government. The 1995 Act puts in place a specific recommendation that Attorneys General applying to the JAAB must recuse themselves from any involvement in the overall process. This would absolutely apply here. Other members of the commission could apply to be promoted or go to another role, be it a president of a court or the two judicial nominees who will be judges themselves. At no stage are we asking that they would recuse themselves. Somebody who provides the service the Attorney General does to the Government should not be at a disadvantage purely because of taking on that role. If we were to apply the logic being proposed it would surely apply to other members who will sit on the commission. They could not apply for a judicial position for two years themselves potentially. This is not proposed. The specific recommendation in the 1995 Act will continue in the Bill. This means if the Attorney General were applying for an appointment he or she would not be anywhere near the process. This will continue. I cannot accept amendment No. 16. Amendment No. 19 would disapply the recusal but would not be required if amendment No. 16 is not accepted.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 40, as amended, agreed to.
Section 41 agreed to.
SECTION 42

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 30, line 4, after “invitation” to insert “, in the Irish language or in both official languages”.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

As Deputy Pringle is not present, amendment No. 18 falls.

Amendment No. 18 not moved.
Section 42 agreed to.
Sections 43 and 44 agreed to.
SECTION 45

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 31, to delete lines 37 and 38 and substitute the following:

“(c) a member of the Commission referred to in section 9(1)(c),”.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 45 agreed to.
SECTION 46

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 33, to delete line 14 and substitute the following:

“(b) the Commission has interviewed the applicant and, where applicable, has completed any other selection process conducted by the Commission in considering his or her application.”.

A mere interview might not be enough in regard to this important selection so this process should also be utilised in the selection of judges. It would be a more active test than a mere interview.

Section 46 deals with interviews only but the addition of “has completed any other selection process” seems to have been taken from section 50, which works on its own. The intention is to make sure that everybody not just goes through interview but comes through the selection process. If we look at the functions of the commission, section 10 states: “The general functions of the Commission shall be ... to select and recommend persons ... and ... to adopt a statement of selection procedures”, so there cannot be one without the other. It is clearly stated in section 10 that the commission's job will be not just to recommend the persons but that they must go through the selection procedures. The element of the interview was only added in the last round of amendments to add that extra layer, so it will not in any way remove the need for that selection process.

One of the key considerations of this Bill is that anybody who applies has to go through the same process, so it will not be the case that someone can skip the selection process, go straight to interview and potentially end up as one of the three. That is why section 10 provides that the functions are to “recommend persons ... and”, so it must be the selection process as well.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: “That section 46 stand part of the Bill.”

I take this opportunity to raise with the committee my intention to consider one or two aspects of the interview requirement which may need an amendment later. The way we had worded it potentially suggests that all members of the commission must interview every person. As that is not the intention, we need to look at whether we will be prescriptive as to who needs to interview or how many need to interview. It is something I intend to bring forward at a later date to make sure it is not the case that all nine members have to interview all individuals, which would be hugely cumbersome for them.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 47

Amendments Nos. 21 to 23, inclusive, are related and may be taken together.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 34, to delete lines 4 to 6 and substitute the following:

“(5) The Commission shall, at the same time as making a recommendation, or informing the Minister that it cannot make a recommendation, under this section forward the name of each person who made an application in respect of the vacancy concerned, with the names ranked according to the Commission’s opinion on their suitability for appointment under section 46.”.

Amendment No. 21 is in regard to the ranking of the names coming forward. As we know, three names are to be brought forward and we feel it would be appropriate to have a ranking as to which is the most appropriate candidate, as well as the second and the third. This would put more emphasis on the commission making a recommendation to Government, which would be more effective in ensuring the person the commission felt was the best person is selected. If the Minister chooses one of the people who was not the number one recommendation, there would at least be a need to put forward the reason why that might be the case. I feel it is appropriate that this happens.

To group the amendments together, the only democratic input that there will be in this whole process after the change is essentially the decision to choose one of the three, and that is based on the fact that under the Constitution, the Government must retain the power to make a decision. If candidates are given a ranking of one, two or three, that obviously takes away any democratic approach and goes against what would be in the handbook, which will be based on the Constitution.

On the second amendment, in any job interview process, whether it is for a teacher in a school or anywhere else, there is no process afterwards whereby a person is told why they did not get the job and somebody else did, or where it is publicly published in that way. I do not think it would be appropriate to do so here.

The main focus is around the numbering. If one was to take away any sort of decision-making power, to me that essentially would require changing the Constitution because it expressly states the Government will appoint judges. By removing that power, one is potentially not going in line with what the Constitution says.

It is absolutely appropriate, where there is an elected Government and an elected Minister, that the Government of the day would retain that power. At the moment, I could potentially receive up to 50 names between the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, expressions of interest and eligible judges, and moving from 50 names down to three is a massive reduction.

I acknowledge the advance the Bill brings about. That said, for most positions or most jobs - I give the example of a school and I have been in many interview processes - there is a metric on which to score people’s various qualifications, abilities and experience. All of that is taken into account and I expect some mechanism would have to be put in place in respect of this process also. In that context, if a metric is put in place and there is some system in place, it would be appropriate that that would be used and would at least be available to the Minister for the three names that go forward. In that context, this is appropriate. It does not remove the ability of the Minister to choose a different person from the three or other number of names that are put forward, given it may be three for one position or five for two positions, or otherwise. I think it is appropriate that this means of scoring is clear and is made available to the Minister of the day.

The whole point of the Bill is to amend the procedures that we have and to make sure that anybody who comes forward is suitable for the job and, first and foremost, that it is based on merit. Therefore, all three will now come based on merit and suitable for that particular role in whichever court, and all three will be capable of carrying out that job. Obviously, there is a provision here so that if there are not three people, and it might be two or otherwise, anybody who comes forward will be suitable for that job. At the moment, people coming forward are suitable but there is a much larger number and there is a more time-consuming and complex way to go through it.

With regard to my previous example of appointing a schoolteacher and a judge, they are two very different things. In saying that, we do not publish where somebody did not get a job or why, or the rankings and markings. There is a process that people go through and the same would apply here. It comes back to the substantial point that the Constitution clearly states that the Government will appoint a judge.

If a list is received with the candidates marked one, two and three, it takes away any discretion. There is an ability to point to any one of them but there also would be a need to give a reason for doing so. The question then arises as to why another candidate did not get the job, even though the commission has just said that all three are qualified for it. I am just not sure how that would work. There would a requirement to explain why one person got the job over the others when all three have come through the same process and been deemed suitable for the job. There must be an element of democratic input in appointing the person. That is clearly set out in the Constitution.

I will withdraw the amendment with the possibility of reintroducing it on Report Stage.

That is noted, Deputy.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 47 agreed to.
SECTION 48

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 34, to delete lines 35 to 38 and substitute the following:

"(5) The Commission shall, at the same time as making a recommendation, or informing the Minister or the Minister for Foreign Affairs that it cannot make a recommendation under this section, forward the name of each person who made an application in respect of the vacancy concerned, with the names ranked according to the Commission's opinion on their suitability for appointment under section 46.".

I withdraw the amendment and may reintroduce it on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 48 agreed to.
Section 49 agreed to.
SECTION 50

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 35, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:

"(d) the rationale for the ranking of names submitted to the Minister or the Minister for Foreign Affairs.".

I withdraw the amendment on the basis that I may reintroduce it on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 50 agreed to.
Sections 51 to 56, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 57

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 37, lines 37 and 38, to delete all words from and including "The" in line 37 down to and including line 38 and substitute the following:

"The Commission shall provide the Minister, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs in so far as it relates to the judicial office of judge of the European Court of Human Rights or the International Criminal Court, with a draft of each statement—".

Section 57 provides for the preparation and publication by the commission of a judicial selection statement, a statement of selection porcedures, as provided for under section 59, and a statement of knowledge, skills and attributes, as provided for under section 58. The amendment proposes that the commission shall provide the Ministers for Justice and Foreign Affairs with a draft of the statements and that it must take into account the views of the Ministers. The provision specifically references the Minister for Foreign Affairs because matters relating to the European Court of Human Rights and the International Criminal Court are under his or her jurisdiction. The purpose of the amendment is to provide greater clarity.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 57, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 58

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 39, to delete lines 2 to 5 and substitute the following:

"(ii) in the case of the judicial offices of judge of the Court of Justice, Advocate General of the Court of Justice or judge of the General Court—

(I) the requirements of the TFEU, and

(II) the criteria used by the panel, established under Article 255 of the TFEU, to assess candidates' suitability to perform the duties of the judicial office concerned,".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 58, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 59

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 42, to delete lines 32 to 34 and substitute the following:

"(i) the judicial offices of judge of the Court of Justice, Advocate General of the Court of Justice or judge of the General Court, any requirements of the TFEU concerning the procedures for selection of candidates for those judicial offices,".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 59, as amended, agreed to.
Section 60 agreed to.
SECTION 61

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 43, to delete lines 31 to 35 and substitute the following:

"(iii) the effectiveness of the procedures, set out in the statement of selection procedures, in achieving the objectives set out in section 39(2) in relation to membership of the judiciary in each court,".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 28 falls because Deputy Pringle is not here.

Amendment No. 28 not moved.
Section 61, as amended, agreed to.
Section 62 agreed to.
SECTION 63

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 45, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

"(10) Any qualified person, in accordance with this section, shall have the capacity to read and understand the Constitution of Ireland in its entirety in both official languages prior to being appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court."

Irish is one of our official languages and it is appropriate that any qualified person, in accordance with section 63, shall have the capacity to read and understand the Irish language version of the Constitution. That version has priority, which is an issue from time to time. Any qualified candidate should be able to read and understand Bunreacht na hÉireann in both of the official languages prior to being appointed as a judge. It should be a prerequisite to being appointed.

This amendment presents the same challenges as previous ones. What the Deputy is proposing goes beyond what the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, Deputy Catherine Martin, is proposing in her Bill on the Irish language. It would preclude anyone who is unable to understand the Constitution in Irish as well as English from seeking appointment to the Supreme Court. The way we are trying to deal with the Irish language issue is without setting quotas or making proficiency mandatory. The avenues I have outlined in regard to diversity, gender and the Irish language are clearly set out in other sections of the Bill. Is there a particular reason the Deputy is proposing that this requirement would apply specifically to appointments to the Supreme Court?

It concerns the interpretation of the Constitution.

For the reasons I set out in respect of the other amendments, I am not minded to accept this proposal.

There is a merit to Deputy Daly's argument in that the Supreme Court almost exclusively deals with constitutional issues. The Court of Appeal may also do so but not to the same extent. However, I agree it would be a bridge too far to require all Supreme Court judges to be fluent as Gaeilge because it would not be realistic and it would be inconsistent with the diversification arguments. Perhaps we will return to this matter on Report Stage for further discussion, modification and compromise.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 63 agreed to.
Sections 64 to 69, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment and received for final consideration.

I thank everyone for their engagement. We have reached a milestone in completing Committee Stage of this significant legislation. The committee originally considered the proposals as part of the pre-legislative scrutiny process and that is reflected in the Bill. I thank the Minister and her officials for their participation in the meeting and the members for their engagement.

I again acknowledge the work done by the committee during pre-legislative scrutiny. It was very helpful even in getting to this point. As the Chair said, that process has worked very well for this Bill. I thank the committee for its work.

I thank the Minister for those remarks. They are appreciated by the committee. Likewise, I note the fact the Minister took on board the committee's recommendations. It is a good example of the system working well. I again thank all those in attendance.

Top
Share