Section 14 (2) (c) states: "consult persons concerning the suitability of applicants to the Board,". Will the Minister elaborate on this as it does not appear to provide a safeguard for the individual being considered? Will he or she have access to the list of people contacted about their suitability? Will he or she be able to obtain any information on negative comments made about them? The provision is a little vague and perhaps the Minister will elaborate on who will be contacted in relation to an applicant for a position.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."
Section 14 (2) (a) to (f) are suggested procedures the board may adopt to carry out its functions. Such a board would include the Chief Justice, the Presidents of the Courts, the Attorney General and three lay people. They will decide the board's procedures. I have no reason to doubt they will carry out their business in a fair and judicial way; this is the nature of their calling. I cannot say who they will consult as they must formulate their own procedures on how they will do their work.
The Deputy will recall, in relation to the previous Bill, that there was a reference to forming subcommittees. This is not included in this Bill but the board may decide to do this to deal with the different courts. People may be appointed to subcommittees to report back with recommendations to the full board. I cannot indicate to the Deputy who or how the board might consult, or even if it will consult. This is a matter for the board. In view of the nature of its composition, I am sure they will carry out their work by following fair procedures.
I neglected to answer a question raised earlier by Deputy O'Donnell. She asked if it was possible that somebody might take a judicial action against the board if their name was not recommended to the Government. Judicial review actions may be taken by a person in society and the board must adopt procedures which are fair and free. If somebody decides to challenge procedures, they can do so and the board is open to this as in any other sphere. I cannot stop that, nor can I anticipate how it can be done. I cannot take away people's rights in that way. The board must do its work in a fair and open manner and I am sure that will be the case.
I appreciate the Minister's comments but does she accept this is a weak area open to interpretation? Will an individual on the commission contact people? The provision is not clear. We do not know what will transpire and it is an important part of the function of the commission. I agree it must draw up its own procedures, but this area must be tightened up. It is very loose and may cause controversy in future. This matter should be considered further to examine whether it is possible to formulate some guidelines in this area. It is too open as it stands. People may contact certain individuals on a confidential basis on behalf of others.
In relation to paragraph (e), which states the board may arrange for the interviewing of applicants, etc., will canvassing disqualify? If not, I envisage a situation where people will, more than likely, ring the ministerial appointees to the board and tell them how they wore out three pairs of shoes canvassing for Deputy Shatter — although that might be a disadvantage — or somebody else and it might be of advantage if a person gained judicial appointment. Will the Minister clarify this aspect?
It is an advisory board which exists so that people can say they are entitled to be considered and want their names put forward. They may suggest other names or members of the board may say they have particular knowledge about a person in whose court or with whom they have worked and they wish to interview them. The board will adopts its own procedures which will allow it to have the best possible way of assessing who is available, their qualities and whether they are suitable to recommend to the Government. This is the point of an advisory board. I will not lay down procedures on whether canvassing will disqualify.
Given its purpose, the board will want people to approach it and make a case for themselves. The board may want to consult people who worked with others to consider whether they are suitable. Ultimately, the board will make recommendations to the Government and it will decide whether it wants to accept the recommendations and advise the President accordingly. The board is not the Civil Service Commission which appoints people and I do not want to tie its hands and impose strictures which will not allow it to examine the general availability of people who may make good judicial appointees.
The Minister may have misunderstood my question. The Civil Service Commission appoints important people, such as clerical assistants. This board only advises on the suitability of people for judicial office.
The Deputy should not diminish such workers.
I have no concern about people applying. It is obvious in the Bill, as it was in the previous legislation, that people can write to the board to tell it they are interested in being appointed a judge. I am talking about canvassing when there is a vacancy and the filtering system is triggered into operation with regard to somebody who has written in initially and wants to be on the list of those suitable to be considered by the Government for appointment. Does the Bill contain anything to prevent that?
Is that canvassing by the person making the application?
Yes, directly to members of the board.
I am sure the board will establish its own procedures as to how the system works when people are in it. The Deputy is worried that a person who submitted their name will meet somebody over a drink or at a function and mention that their name is in. They will not have to say that because the person will know their name is in.
Is that a reason they should be put on?
I am sure discussions of why people should be in various places goes on all the time at social functions. It is an advisory board, I am not putting any bar on what procedures it might adopt, nor am I saying that it can or cannot adopt a no canvassing policy. The board will decide the most appropriate ways. The board does not have to do any of the things contained in the provision. It is an indication of how it will do its work.
It is a new body. There has never been a judicial advisory board, we should respect the eminence of the people who will be on it and trust the way they will do their work.
The Deputy may find that hard to believe but these are eminent people appointed by Governments of all hues through the years. They serve the Judiciary well and we should at least trust them to do their work in an open and fair way. I am not suggesting the Deputy is saying they are not doing so.
With regard Deputy O'Donnell's fear about canvassing, they will be able to set their own procedures as to how they will seek applications and the method they will use.
We do not know who will be on the board; 30 per cent of its members will be appointed directly by the Minister.
We know who the justices are.
There is an element of unreality about this discussion in many ways. We all know how the system works at present. Informal canvassing goes on in the Law Library on a regular basis and to attempt to prevent informal canvassing of some sort is unreal. We could equally talk about the famous case to which we alluded earlier and suggest that conversations in the ministerial dining room should be offside also. It is not realistic given the relatively small pool of people from which we are drawing. I am happy to leave it to the board to decide whatever procedures it wishes. Matters should be kept above board and as transparent as possible. However, I am not sure if it is a realistic prospect to outlaw canvassing absolutely.
I presume the provision to allow for the interviewing of applicants is just a permissive section and is not intended to oblige interviewing.
None of the provisions are obligatory on the board. The verb "may" is used.
The further we go the more we seem to see how irrelevant the board will be in relation to the functions for which it is to be set up. The board will get together to decide on a certain course of action and there are no guidelines for them. Setting up the board in the form proposed will be useless.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.