It is important that I refer to them. Members might then respond, if the Chairman agrees it is appropriate to do so. The group includes a number of important amendments to which specific reference has not been made.
The committee will be aware of the commitment in the programme for Government to replace the JAAB with the new commission, which would have an independent chairperson selected by the PAS and approved by an Oireachtas committee - presumably, that would be this committee, which I would regard as the appropriate one - and a majority of laypersons, including persons of independent disposition, all of whom would have some form of specialist qualification to which reference has been made.
It is essential that the reforms open up the process to ensure a more meaningful and effective input for and on behalf of those persons who are effectively consumers of the services of the courts. They rely, on an ongoing basis, on the fairness of the judicial system and on those who, through the expertise and specialties, can make a substantial contribution to the selection process.
When considering the chairperson role for the new commission, it must be acknowledged that the role of the commission goes beyond the rather narrow remit of the current Judicial Appointments Advisory Board regime. All those wishing to be considered for appointment, including serving judges, will be required to go through the commission. The shortlist work will be far more onerous and will reduce what is practically an unlimited number of names at present down to only three names for one vacancy. A range of new procedures, skills and attributes will be drawn up in the form of published statements. Relevant committees for appointment will be expected to engage in the associated operations. Commission members will design the requirements as the commission takes foot.
I envisage an important role for the new chairperson. I believe it is important that the role is undertaken by a person with an appropriate skill set.
The board is changing into the commission. I believe the lay involvement in the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board currently is inadequate. I welcome the contribution of members in respect of the lay or non-legal contribution to the commission and the status of the non-legal or lay chairperson. Again, it is important at every remove to acknowledge that the functions under the Bill are far more extensive than the existing functions of the appointments board.
We have considered the neighbouring jurisdictions of England, Wales and Scotland. The appointment boards in those jurisdictions are chaired by persons who are accepted as being eminent non-legal or laypersons. I acknowledge that in Northern Ireland the chief justice presides over the appointments commission there. England and Wales have non-legal and non-judicial chairpersons of their appointment commissions. In Scotland, the judicial appointments board has a non-judicial, non-legal or lay chairperson. These systems are working well. I am not suggesting they are perfect or ideal, but they are working well. It is important to look to designs, models and systems that have been working well.
I believe that we are striking at the heart of the legislation. We need to address certain issues to ensure that ultimately we bring about the best in this endeavour.
Section 15 provides for an independent, detached and objective process that will secure the services of the appointees. A Public Appointments Service model has been operating in our public services for some years now. Appointments to State boards are open to scrutiny. The system is effective and transparent. I do not subscribe to the views that I have heard that appear to question the integrity or process in the matter of the work of the Public Appointments Service.
Moreover, I believe that the Public Appointments Service is the appropriate body in the selection of lay members. This ties in with what I said earlier in respect of section 15(7).
The Opposition amendments do not provide for a role for the Public Appointments Service and their acceptance would involve the deletion of section 15. They envisage a mechanism for securing the lay membership of the commission based on a nominating body approach. The bodies referenced include the Citizens Information Board, the Free Legal Advice Centres or the Top Level Appointments Committee. I am concerned at Deputies putting forward a nominating body mechanism that is focused on specific number of organisations, including the Citizens Information Board, An tÚdarás um Ard-Oideachas, the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, the Free Legal Advice Centres and the Top Level Appointments Commission. It is fair to say that there are many other mechanisms that may well be considered. I hope that we could do so in a way to ensure the broadest possible base of participation. Vital bodies in this context include, for example, the Legal Services Regulatory Authority, victim support groups, Traveller representative groups, community Garda divisions, the Rape Crisis Centre, Amnesty International, domestic violence action organisations, the Immigrant Council of Ireland, refugee networks, the Children's Rights Alliance, Ruhama and many other similar groups that one could consider. I do not believe that the best approach involves going for a list of nominated bodies, as suggested in the amendments. Indeed, at one stage Deputy O'Callaghan indicated that potentially a number of bodies could be considered as appropriate nominators. It is important that, in the context of these amendments, we give appropriate consideration to these points.
