Dr. Jennifer Carroll MacNeill:

I wish to make two points in respect of the lay members. The evidence from the research is that the lay members on the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board have a very minor role on the board, speak very little, and have very little influence in terms of the decision making. It is dominated by the judiciary. The practice is the members look at the applicants and the senior judges speak first. The lay members speak last. In contrast, in Scotland, where there is a lay chair and a majority of lay members, different practices are adopted which give the lay members a more meaningful role. For instance, when the applications are considered, there are no photographs or names. They are reviewed in the first instance blind, just on qualifications and experience. The lay members are allowed to speak first. This results in a totally different objective assessment. In Ireland, the name is known and a photograph is provided so that a person can be absolutely sure he or she knows who is being spoken about. If, for example, the Chief Justice were to open the conversation by saying she knows Jennifer and she is a wonderful so and so and the President of the High Court were to say something similar, by the time the lay members are reached, it is very difficult for them to have an influence.