Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 8, line 23, to delete “, and has never held,”.

This relates to the definition of a layperson. The amendment seeks to remove from the definition of "lay person" a person who previously held juridical office. At present the Bill states:

“lay person” means a person who—

(a) does not hold, and has never held, judicial office,

The amendment would remove “, and has never held,”. From the way the legislation is drafted, members will be aware that individuals who are perceived as being non-lay are not eligible for it. When it comes to the recruitment and appointment of lay people, ex-judges are expressly excluded. That means peoples such as Ms Justice Mary Laffoy, Mrs. Justice Susan Denham, Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness and Mr. Justice John Murray, who would be very good on advising the commission as to who would be suitable persons for appointment to the Judiciary are expressly excluded from it. I think it is unfair that they are expressly excluded from it.

Amendment No. 5 is in a similar vein. It seeks to delete certain wording in subsection (c) of the definition of lay person. It seeks to remove the wording “, and in the relevant period specified by subsection (2) for the purposes of this paragraph, was not [a practising barrister or solicitor],”. It should simply state that practising barristers and solicitors are not eligible because they will not be regarded as lay people. However, to go further and maintain that somebody who previously was a barrister or solicitor is excluded is nonsensical.

In response to the earlier amendment the Minister said he was at a loss to understand the logic of my amendment. Similarly, I am at a loss to understand the logic of excluding people who have expertise from this commission. The Bill specifically excludes retired judges and people who formerly were lawyers. Just because they were formally lawyers does not mean they are currently lawyers. As I mentioned in the Dáil, nobody would call the Minister, Deputy Ross, a stockbroker. The fact that he was a stockbroker does not mean that he is a stockbroker. There is no reason to exclude somebody who previously practised or worked as a barrister or solicitor.

Amendment No. 6 is in the name of Deputy Clare Daly. Was that the one that was ruled out of order?