Dr. Jennifer Carroll MacNeill:

On the judicial council, the issue goes way back. The first Bill came out in 2005 and, as I understand it, sat with the Judiciary for some years. It was eventually negotiated to a point at a judges' conference and has now come back as heads of a Bill, but it is very slow.

On the technical specifications, it is a fact of life that legal practice has become very specialised. It is very rare to find somebody at the top of the Chancery lists and at the top in family law practice. It is matter of concern to judicial education that one will not have somebody at the top of every list - criminal, commercial and everything else.

To respond to the Deputy's question, the safest way for me to approach it is to take something from the research carried out. The difficulty was raised by all of the Government contributors. The universal concern was that, in exercising its Executive functions, the Government would end up appointing somebody totally unsuitable without being aware of it. A pre-1995 Minister for Justice said: "Our Attorney General used to say to me that you just never know what you are going to get. You have the most eminent solicitors and barristers and they turn out to be the most dreadful judges once they are appointed and then the more moderate lawyers can turn out to be simply brilliant judges." The point is that one does not know what one will get. Just because one is an excellent lawyer does not mean that one will be an excellent judge. Just as important as legal education and professional skills are temperament, character and the capacity to turn around judgments quickly so as not to leave litigants waiting for years and years for judgments. It is complex, but that is the safest way of addressing the Deputy's question. The fact that one does not know what one will get is another good reason we should look at how candidates are assessed by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board. I have mentioned that in England and Wales there are various methods used. There is situational questioning, as well as moot courts where a judge is placed in a pretend court and has to give a judgment. They are assessed on that basis.