I want to raise a few matters, all of which are related to one central theme, namely, the business of this House. I was very disappointed to have reported to me - I do not tweet or receive tweets - that the Minister for Justice and Equality had stated that the conduct of the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017 in the Seanad underlined the urgent need for root and branch Seanad reform or a second referendum. I was disappointed to hear that from the Minister, especially since he is conducting the Third Stage of this legislation in this House. On 27 February, the European Commission published a report on Ireland, which stated the following:

The proposed composition of the Judicial Appointments Commission, which - according to the amended proposal - would comprise only five judges out of 17 (including a lay chairperson 'accountable to the Oireachtas') would not be in line with European standards (Council of Europe, 2010) and with the recommendation of the Council of Europe's Group of States against Corruption (Group of States against Corruption, 2018) which require that an independent and competent authority drawn in substantial part from the judiciary be authorised to make recommendations or express opinions which the relevant appointing authority follows in practice.

Second, it stated:

As to efficiency, the Court of Appeal, set up in 2014, has a considerable backlog and appears to be under-resourced as regards the number of judges.

A draft Bill providing for an increase in their number has been approved by the government.

It complains that this has not been progressed.

With regard to the first one, this is, yet again, a condemnation of the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill before this House. Yet again, the European Commission is warning us that what we are doing is in breach of the GRECO report and in breach of the Council of Europe recommendations, yet it is being persisted with. We have been told consistently in other places that, somehow, the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill debate is holding up other legislation. That is false. It is not true that it is holding up any other legislation and if there is any other legislation the Leader wants to get through, I am sure the majority of Members of this House will accommodate him.

One of the Bills which is waiting to be dealt with in this House is the Judicial Council Bill, which was passed on Second Stage without division in this House, having been introduced here. It has been deliberately stalled by the Government and taken hostage because the Government wants the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill done first and the other second. I would point out to my friends in Sinn Féin in particular that they are anxious to have sentencing standards as part of the Judicial Council Bill and I believe the great majority of Members agree with them on that.

Hear, hear.

Therefore, let us get on with the additional judges Bill, which the European Commission has said is there, and let us get on with the Judicial Council Bill, which is also there, commands cross-party support in this House and is of particular interest to the Sinn Féin party, which is interested in sentencing guidelines. Let us do that collectively.

I propose that, instead of dealing with the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, we deal with Committee Stage of the Judicial Council Bill. It is being deliberately held up. Its passage is being obstructed by the Government, which is saying we will not get to that unless we deal with the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill first. Let us make time available for it.

Is the Senator proposing an amendment?

I am proposing an amendment to the Order of Business. We on these benches will be proposing that repeatedly until such time as Sinn Féin, in particular, comes on board and gets the Bill it is interested in and its sentencing guidelines pushed through against-----

There they are, Senator Conway-Walsh - new coalition partners, Senator Boyhan and Senator McDowell.

Order, please.

-----pushed through against one Minister's glove puppet manipulation of the Government.

That coalition will go down well.

I am proposing such an amendment.

Thank you. I regret I must rule Senator McDowell's amendment out of order. Scheduling the Bill on Committee Stage without any effective notice would deprive Senators who have not tabled amendments of the opportunity to table amendments in time for the debate. I understand one Senator tabled a number of amendments some time ago which have not yet been circulated since Committee Stage has not been scheduled. There would not be time to allow for the preparation and circulation of those amendments to Senators for a debate today. I am sorry about that.

I accept the guidance of the Chair on that matter. I am serving notice that, at the next available opportunity, we are going to do this and we are going to continuously do this.

On a point of order, we gave notice last week that we would be amending the Order of Business to take the Judicial Council Bill on Committee Stage.

That does not arise at this stage. I have dealt with that proposal. The amendments can only be made on the day. I have ruled. I call Senator Rose Conway-Walsh.