I do not think that is right.

I agree with the Minister that subsection (4) is not supposed to be a wish list of attributes for particular agendas. The purpose is to get reasonably rounded people with a good handle on what they are being asked to do, which is to assist in the recommendatory process and to perform that function. As the Minister said, there are important areas of law that have not been mentioned in any of the amendments, such as intellectual property law, family law and land law. We cannot just cherry-pick our favourite aspects o…

I move amendment No. 29: In page 13, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following: “Practitioner members 14. (1) The Law Society of Ireland and the General Council of the Bar of Ireland shall each nominate one practitioner representative for appointment by the Minister as a member of the Commission. (2) A practitioner representative shall be a practising solicitor or a practising barrister. (3) A person nominated under subsection (1) shall hold office for a period of 3 years from the date of his or her appointm…

It is the first time I have ever asked for that to be done.

This amendment proposes that we should flesh out in the Bill the concept of diversity. I think it would have very unsatisfactory consequences if it were adopted. To ask the commission to try to work out whether there is adequate diversity in religious opinion, if that is to be a criterion for selection, would inevitably involve asking people for their religious views to see whether this criterion is satisfied. I do not know what "civil status" means. Gender is fairly obvious, or I hope it is. Regarding sexual orien…

The Equal Status Act is there to protect people from unfair discrimination. It is to assist people who are discriminated against on those grounds in seeking redress and requiring others to protect them from unfair discrimination. However, there is no logical connection between the criteria for unfair discrimination and a process whereby members of the Judiciary are selected by explicit reference to the characteristics mentioned in the Equal Status Act. I know that my colleague did not draft this amendment, but it s…

I move amendment No. 33: In page 25, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “ 39. Nothing in this Part shall be construed as limiting the advice that the Government may give to the President under Article 35 of the Constitution with respect to the appointment of a person to be a judge.”. These amendments are intended to go the heart of what this legislation is saying. It is important that the Minister give the House some clarity on the intended purpose of the Bill. Will she tell the House whether it is t…

That being the case, it seems the effect of the Bill and the refusal to accept this amendment is to say that, under the Constitution, the Oireachtas can tell the Government that it may not appoint certain people who are eligible to be made judges because they have not been recommended by a body that is not the Government. The Constitution refers to eligibility as a matter determined by law. I have no problem with statute stating that somebody should have seven, ten or 15 years' experience as a lawyer to be deemed e…

A number of things have to be said. There is a presumption of constitutionality when a Bill emerges from this House and the onus of proof of its unconstitutionality switches. If a Bill has two possible meanings it is impressed with a constitutional meaning rather than an unconstitutional meaning. However, there is no presumption of constitutionality at all for a Bill that is before us for consideration. Therefore, it is not merely our right but our duty to test whether something that is put before us is consistent …

That is not in the Bill but maybe the Minister will assure me that it is not intended to deal with Senator Ward's matter on Report Stage because I have a funny feeling it may be. That is what I am worried about. Are we to be in a position that if the commission divides four against four on an issue, no decision will be made or will we be in a position where there is a casting vote? I notice that the legislation states that the commission can determine its own procedures. However, this is a matter of significance. F…

What is to happen if there is no casting vote? Are they to say they cannot make their minds up on it and they cannot send a shortlist to the Government? Are they to reason it out among themselves or browbeat the Ward or Martin faction into withdrawing their positions? None of this is provided for in the legislation, which is worrisome. If we are giving an entity, namely, this commission, the effective capacity to tell the Government who it can appoint and who it cannot appoint, and if that is the sum and bottom lin…

I agree with that.

I am glad the Minister said what I suppose was blindingly obvious, which is that the Attorney General has been involved in the background discussion of the legislation. I am interested by what she said about international standards because they do vary. We only have to look to Washington to see one standard that is radically different from any other standard. We are the only major common law jurisdiction with a written constitution that provides for the mode of appointment of people to judicial office. The British …

Supreme Court, or whichever they are interested in. We cannot ask the Government and it cannot be compelled to answer it, and we are not entitled to know, as far as I can see, which of them was short-listed and which was not. I agree with Senator Ward and nobody is against transparency. When somebody stands up in this House and says he or she is a champion of opacity as opposed to transparency, that will be the day. I always recall Charlie McCreevy deriding openness, transparency and accountability, “the goddess OT…

I move amendment No. 5: In page 10, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following: “(d) 2 practitioner representatives appointed in accordance with section 13,”.

As Senator Ward said, it seems that this has been ruled out of order on the basis that it might impose a charge on the public if an extra member is added to the commission.

That being the case, if the Senator says on Report Stage that no expenses shall be paid to any such member, he will be able to get the amendment back in.

On this matter, I have to respectfully disagree with Senator Ward. I do not believe that IHREC should be represented on the judicial appointments commission. The legislation that established IHREC states that one of its functions is to develop law and to make proposals on the development of law on the protection of human rights. It is a quasi-political body. I do not believe it is appropriate for somebody who has membership and a part to play in law development from a particular perspective, which is the human righ…

I move amendment No. 11: In page 11, to delete lines 5 and 6.

There is just one point I would like to make. We had a discussion about civilian employees of An Garda Síochána and I do not know what happened with regard to that.