In terms of judicial conduct and that process, everything that has been done or needed to be done by myself, the Department and the Government has been done. The terms of reference are now being set out by the Judicial Council. It has a certain period to do that. I am assured it is working on that and will have that done as soon as possible. I assure the Deputy that everything that needed to be done on our part has been done. The terms of reference are now being set out by the Judicial Council.

I can confirm that no one is blocking it. There is a process. There is a timeframe. It is with the Judicial Council which is setting out the terms of reference. I am assured it will come back as soon as possible. From the perspective of this House, everything that has or could be done at this stage, has been.

I can only refer to my previous comment. It is often the case where legislation is signed into law, there is a period of time before it is enacted. In this case, it is with the Judicial Council. It is setting out the terms of reference and I have no doubt that when it is done, this process and procedure will get up and running.

The Minister of the day asks the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board to set the wheels in motion to make recommendations. However I only do so when I am asked either by the president of the relevant court or the Chief Justice to fill that vacancy. In this instance, there were two; the second only arose only a very short time before I came into this role on 27 June. I was asked to fill one role. In the time since, I was not asked to fill the second role. However, if the Chief Justice asks me to do that, I will, of …

I can only assume that when the board met that all members of the board were there. I have outlined those who sit on it. I cannot tell the Deputy otherwise, but I assume that each time it meets, a full complement of members meets. That is their obligation.

Formerly, before 2014 or 2015, the process was that the names came directly to the Minister. That has since changed where they go directly to the Office of the Attorney General, but then come directly to my office. I cannot confirm or deny but it is my understanding that they do not stay in the Attorney General's office and that they come directly to my private office.

My understanding is that they come directly from that office to mine. I do not know whether the Attorney General sees them. These five expressions of interest dated from as far back as 2017 to as recently as June of this year, which, obviously, the former Attorney General would not have been privy to. I understand, again, they go directly from the Office of the Attorney General to mine. They are not held there. I cannot respond on behalf of someone else.

The process is what it is. As I said, it has changed. The names go to the Office of the Attorney General. Regarding the legislation, the JAAB may recommend the Attorney General for appointment to judicial office. It is clearly stated that this is allowed. As I have said, we all believe that the current process and legislation should be updated, which I am working to achieve. The Tánaiste said he thought Séamus Woulfe would make a good judge. There were no further discussions about other names because at that stage …

If I may respond to the last comment-----

I hope I have clearly stated that a process is followed when appointing a judge to any court, not just the Supreme Court. As Minister for Justice, I have adhered to that process. I will outline it again for absolute clarity. I was appointed as Minister for Justice on 27 June. The following day I received briefings from my Department, one of which outlined that there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court. I was asked to fill that as soon as possible. I was also made aware a JAAB recommendation was already in my private…

I move: That, pursuant to Standing Order 187, it be an instruction to the Committee on the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2020 that it has power to make provisions in the Bill in relation to the continued application, after the end of the transition period, of the defence of qualified privilege, in a defamation action, to the publication of certain statements concerning certain events in, or connected with, the United Kingdom, and to make other consequential…

I move amendment No. 2: In page 11, line 13, to delete “18 and 19” and substitute “18, 19 and 20”. This amendment is necessary because of the insertion of a new Part 20 into the Bill which provides for amendments to the Defamation Act 2009. Amendment No. 17 inserts a new single section Part 20 into the Bill, which amends a number of provisions in Schedule 1 of the Defamation Act 2009. The amendments essentially aim to ensure that post-Brexit fair and accurate public interest reporting of certain statements, meeting…

They will, but I will need to confirm that for the Deputy.

There is an issue with resources but delays are matters for the courts to adjudicate on. We are studying the correspondence from the Commission and are taking the matter seriously. As the Deputy outlined, this part of the Bill is important. It deals with extradition and provides for amendments to the Extradition Act 1965. One of the key issues that has been identified by my Department is the need to ensure that we have efficient arrangements between Ireland and the UK in place and that they can be maintained. In a …

The process will not go through diplomatic channels. It will go to the Minister for Justice by electronic means.

The extradition and international protection arrangements will operate in a reciprocal fashion, as will the common travel arrangements, to which the next section relates. The arrangements will not necessarily be done using the same mechanisms as we are proposing in this section, but there will be some form of reciprocal arrangement in place.

I am informed that the regulations will not be exactly the same as the Dublin Convention's, but they will be similar. I am unsure of whether they have been implemented yet.

If I can.

I move amendment No. 17: In page 94, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following: “PART 20 AMENDMENT OF DEFAMATION ACT 2009 Amendment of Schedule 1 to Defamation Act 2009 122. Schedule 1 to the Defamation Act 2009 is amended— (a) in Part 1— (i)in paragraph (11), by the substitution of “under the law of a Member State or of the United Kingdom” for “under the law of a Member State of the European Union”, (ii) in paragraph (12), by the substitution of “in a Member State or in the United Kingdom” for “in a Member …

I move amendment No. 18: In page 9, line 27, after “Gibraltar;” to insert the following: “to make provision for the defence of qualified privilege to a defamation action to continue to apply to the publication of certain statements concerning certain events in, or connected with, the United Kingdom;”.