If I was to bring forward a name now obviously the list of eligible judges or the list of those who applied is set out as well and available for people to see but obviously there is Cabinet confidentiality. That applies in the same way but they are not going to be published prior to Cabinet. They are not going to be made available. As I said we actually had in the Bill that every person would be told and, on further engagement with the Judiciary and with others, it was amended so that if a person asked and wanted t…

The Bill sets out that the three names must be given to the Minister for Justice. The Minister will engage as is set out in the handbook and the rule book with the leaders of the coalition or whoever is in Government, with the Attorney General and with Cabinet colleagues. However, names going to Cabinet are bound under Cabinet confidentiality.

We are looking at that in the reverse so that is not somebody canvassing, that a person is free to understand who the individual is or to ask the question, that is currently the case. Names are put forward and there has to be an understanding of who is being put forward, particularly if people do not know all the names, especially as a large number of names are often put forward or a name that has been recommended by myself, just one name. We are not talking about the leaders of parties canvassing. We are talking a…

It is outside the scope of this Bill but this specific section is very much around canvassing and individuals taking it upon themselves to talk to somebody else or to canvass. What Senator McDowell is talking about is making a decision. I am not sure if the leader of a party or anybody else is going to make a statement that he or she is asking about an individual who may or may not be on a list. That is a process that is outside the scope of this Bill. I do not see that as canvassing. I see that as somebody making …

What I would say is that people are not put off by the current process. What we are talking about in section 41 is specifically on the issue of canvassing and does not relate to where a person has been put forward or names have been put forward and decisions have to be taken. We are bound by Cabinet confidentiality and the commission is bound by confidentiality as well. I have not seen a scenario where names for a High Court appointment are on the front of a newspaper where people have not been appointed. I do not …

We previously discussed the word "may" but a situation has arisen even in my case where a decision was taken not to fill a particular vacancy or a decision was taken by the president of the relevant court that it was not required, so that allows for that discretion. That is not to say that a Minister might randomly decide not to fill positions in the District Court or elsewhere when they might clearly be needed. This just ensures that the Minister may do so if that is what is necessary. On the question of reasonabl…

Yes, that is the process that happens now, particularly for the type of vacancy mentioned by the Senator. It ensures there is no gap, particularly for such significant roles. I do not propose to change that. It very seldom happens that a person promoted to a position from one court to the next is automatically appointed or takes up that position immediately for the very simple reason that we must work with the President. A process can start quite quickly and leave a relatively short gap between when a person vacate…

The answer to the Senator's first question is, "Yes". The second most senior person will take on that position. Obviously, we make no reference to voting and it is "take no part in the performance by the Commission". The performance of the commission is not only to vote but also to discuss the recommendations and the names at hand. That is why the Attorney General would be included. Essentially, this section is around recusal and making sure of that where a conversation takes place. I suppose it would be a decision…

It still applies. Secondly, in response to Senator Ward, it is in the next section.

It refers to the make-up in a separate section, which I do not have-----

The intention is that it would still be maintained.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I am pleased to bring the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 before the House. This is a significant Bill that will update our existing legislation on incitement to hatred and provide for hate crimes for the first time in Irish law. The development of this legislation has been long awaited by many and is a key commitment in the programme for Government. In introducing this Bill, the Government will deliver on its commitm…

I thank colleagues for their contributions. I will try to respond as best I can to what has been discussed in the ten minutes I have. I will start with some of the criticism around the timelines. I am not sure there was a crossover; it was not requested. There is certainly no intention to rush this Bill through. I appreciate the Deputy mentioning that the committee spent one day on the legislation. That was obviously a decision of the committee. As a Department, we have spent the last two years plus engaging in var…

I did not set that deadline. I am not sure why that crossed over or how that happened. It was not intended.

As I said, I am happy to be here all evening for debate.

I do not think it is within my power to do that. That is done through the Bills Office.

Committee Stage is planned for next week. I am very open to amendments. No date has been set for Report Stage. I reassure colleagues that the intention is not to prevent Members from putting in amendments. I am very open to amendments, but at the same time, I want to get the Bill passed. I really think that given-----

If I could continue-----

I have ten minutes to respond. Everybody has had their time.

We need to get this legislation passed, notwithstanding the fact that there are challenges involved. People have different views, but in the round they support the need for this legislation and want to see it passed, but they want to see it done right. There will not be any attempt to rush this through without listening to views and opinions. We will ensure that we have the legislation right. I want to be very clear on that. On the point about education and other policy measures, I fully agree that the legislation …