This section has no relevance to the Bill. Last year the Tánaiste said he was opposed to the appointment of Mr. Harry Whelehan because he was too conservative and did not have experience as an ordinary judge of the Supreme Court. This board has no teeth. Last year everyone thought that the divisions between the Tánaiste and the then Taoiseach over the appointment of Mr. Whelehan would mean that something would be done about it in this Bill. However, there is no provision in the Bill to deal with such a situation which could be repeated next week. The Chief Justice should be appointed by the members of the Supreme Court and the President of the High Court should be appointed by the members of the High Court. This section has no relevance to the events last year.
SECTION 23.
It would not be possible to do what the Deputy suggests, that is, allow the members of the Bench to decide who should become the Chief Justice. Under Article 34 of the Constitution the Government must advise the President on those appointments. This section puts an obligation on the Government, when it proposes to advise the President on an appointment, to take into account the qualifications and suitability of the persons. I ask Members not to colour everything in this legislation on the basis of last year's circumstances. The Deputy is concerned this might happen again, but I cannot make contingency plans in legislation for certain circumstances which might arise between two, three or four partners in future Governments. The difficulty the Deputy mentioned arose because of an appointment to a certain judicial post. However, it does not take away from what we want to do in this section. I could not write legislation to take into account, and to try to avoid, what happened last year.
I am not suggesting that the Judiciary should make the appointment; the Government will make the appointment. The Minister said she does not want to talk about what happened last year and I understand her position. However, those who were concerned about this issue last year are now in Government and they do not seem to be as concerned as they were. The goal posts have changed and the openness and transparency which was supposed to be there last year no longer exists.
Amendment No. 32 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.