Vol. 526 No. 1
93 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the plans he has for reform of the system of appointing members of the Judiciary; if he will amend the legislation to reduce the number of candidates put forward by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board; his views on whether it is satisfactory that a candidate should remain indefinitely on the panel once put forward by the board; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25760/00]
I refer the Deputy to the fourth progress report of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution which stated that our present system of appointing judges should be retained. As I have already indicated to the House on a number of occasions, the Government has approved the drafting of the necessary legislation to address the recommendations contained in the report of the working group on qualifications for appointment as judges of the High and Supreme Courts and certain other matters. Central to that report is the recommendation that solicitors with appropriate qualifications and experience be eligible for appointment as judges of the High and Supreme Courts.
The Government legislative programme indicates that the necessary Bill entitled the courts and court officers Bill will be published in this parliamentary session. In that Bill I propose to deal not only with the eligibility of solicitors for appointment to the superior courts but with a range of other court related matters. Some modifications in respect of aspects of the operation of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board are in contemplation. However, the details of my proposals will be announced in the usual way on publication of the Bill, following approval from the Government.
On the question of the board's procedures, the Deputy will be aware that under section 14 of the Courts and Court Officers Act, 1995, the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board adopts its own procedures to carry out its functions under the Act. I am satisfied the board has and is carrying out its functions in an efficient and effective way and, accordingly, I do not propose to comment on the detail of its operations.
While we will await publication of the Bill, does the Minister accept it is a watering down of the intentions of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board to have unsuccessful candidates remain on the ever-broadening panel which gives a huge range of options to the Government in making a selection, rather than the narrow selection choice envisaged when the panel was originally established? How will the vetting procedure operate when we extend the number of available candidates for judicial appointment from the couple of hundred of barristers to include the several thousand solicitors? Will an interview system be an integral part of that procedure?
The Deputy will be aware that the board is made up of very eminent people from the legal profession and includes representatives of the business community and court users and is chaired by the Chief Justice. My difficulty is that the board is responsible for its own procedures and I may not interfere in its operation. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the modus operandi of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board other than to say I know the numbers who apply to become District Justices, for example, can be quite significant. The Judicial Appointments Advisory Board has its own vetting procedure in that respect. It makes a list available to the Minister and to my knowledge no individual has been appointed other than from that list.
Is the Minister satisfied the current shortlisting of seven members, with the unsuccessful candidates remaining indefinitely on an ever-widening panel, is an acceptable way to present a list to the Government for consideration?
There have been occasions when the board has presented more than seven names to the Minister. My understanding is that the interpretation of the legislation is such that the advisory board should keep as close to seven names as possible. Parts of the legislation are, to say the least, difficult to interpret from my perspective. Perhaps if it were more watertight I might be able to give a more definitive answer to the Deputy.
Will the Minister indicate how many people are aware of the names listed by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board and given to the Minister? Can the Minister explain why Deputy Conor Lenihan boasted in the House three weeks ago that he had somebody, on whose behalf he made representations, appointed to the District Court Bench? Why is it that some Independent Deputies on whom the Government is dependent have publicly made similar boasts? Why is it the overwhelming majority of persons appointed to the District Court have been favoured by representations made directly to the Minister by either Cabinet or back bench colleagues or Independent Deputies?
Including the Taoiseach.
Including the Taoiseach.
No person who was not on the list has been appointed as a judge by this Administration.
That was not the question. Those on the list get preference if representations are made on their behalf.
The Minister, without interruption.
The Judicial Appointments Advisory Board will obviously put forward names of eminent people whom it regards to be suitable for appointment to the Bench. I must take it that each of the individuals is suitably qualified. Deputy Shatter has been chewing on this bone for a considerable time, so I will give him a little meat to eat with it. There were 70 representations made by backbenchers and Ministers of the rainbow coalition to the then Minister, Deputy Owen, in relation to judicial appointments.
What has that to do with the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board and the Minister exercising his powers?
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
