I thank the Minister for adopting a helpful and constructive approach to our discussions and she is entitled to some time to consult with colleagues. I emphasise the Chairman's view which was expressed as we drew to a close yesterday. The issue is of importance in the context of the future of our courts system and the widening of the pool of lawyers eligible to be selected for appointment to our courts.
This issue is also important for the integrity and credibility of the committee system. When I first came to the House in 1981 I was appalled by the lack of a committee structure. Like many others — some of whom are here today — I sought to extend the committee system so Deputies on all sides of the House could play a genuine role in the legislative process. This is the first occasion I have been at a meeting where there has been unanimity on an issue which has been based on a perception of the public good and not on anyone taking a partisan political stance; I hope no one would do so on this issue or try to score party political points. We are trying to improve this Bill.
It would be a bad day for the credibility of the committee system if the Government did not accept what we propose. I do not see why it should cause a clash or a conflict between members of the committee and Government. The previous Government and this one made an input into this Bill. Unfortunately, this issue was not fully teased out because the concentration from the Government side, of different political persuasions, has been on dealing with other aspects of the appointment process, primarily the Judiciary.
The Minister is entitled to discuss with colleagues the debate the committee has had. I consulted with the Bills Office on the best way to deal with this matter. I understand we cannot postpone this, but I am entitled to withdraw amendment No. 2 and resubmit it so it can arise for formal decision by the committee at a later stage. I assure members it will be resubmitted. I have been advised there are no technical or procedural problems of any nature in doing so. On that basis I intend to withdraw the amendment. It will be recirculated to appear at a later stage in the Bill, which will allow the committee to make the proper decision on this issue.
The Minister has been constructive and helpful in taking this on board and I urge her to make known to the Government the strength of the committee's feeling on this issue. I am conscious that each Minister is responsible for their own areas of legislation and it is often difficult to get colleagues to fully understand that particular issues need to be addressed or examined. The Minister should have the full support of the committee in doing that. I hope — if not today, perhaps some time early tomorrow afternoon — the Minister will be in a position to come back to us and confirm this matter can be addressed on an all party basis, without conflict either within or between parties, and that we will put in place a reform which has been needed for many years.
This will finally ensure that all practising lawyers, whether barristers or solicitors, of experience and appropriate training, aptitude and insight are available in a pool of lawyers from which judges may be selected for appointment not just to the Circuit Court but to the High and Supreme Courts. If the committee achieves this at the conclusion of its deliberations, we will have done a good day's work for the country in general. We should not deal with this issue from the narrow perspective of one or the other profession. In the context of the equality legislation members mentioned and future legislation, it is quite nonsensical to maintain to an anachronistic anomaly with regard to judicial appointments which is a throwback to colonial days pre 1922. I thank the Minister. I intend to withdraw the amendment and I assure the committee it will be recirculated for a later portion of the Bill.
