Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

My amendments are Nos. 84 and 85. The rationale for removing the requirement that the Chairperson be lay was explained earlier. Similarly, the other amendments allowed the commission to regulate itself for the reasons set out earlier as well. The Bill focuses too much on having a lay majority. We may well end up with a procedural committee with a lay majority and a sub-committee with a lay majority. However, I do not see the need to require them in advance in legislation. My colleagues and I have proposed that the chairpersons are selected by the committees themselves thus giving them a bit more independence.

The Bar Council submission refers to the committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and its statement that the procedure for the appointment of judges should be transparent and independent in practice. The authority taking the decision on the selection and career of judges should be independent of the Government and the Administration. In order to safeguard its independence, rules should ensure that, for instance, its members are selected by the Judiciary and that the authority decides itself on its procedural rules. That shows that the Bar Council encourages greater independence.

I believe that there has been a deliberate focus on the lay versus legal aspect. Obviously this Bill was very much driven by Lord Ross. He argued that this legislation would de-politicise how judges are appointed and diminish the legal powers over same but, in fact, that completely depends on the lay people appointed. If we want to stop this but have the usual types and civil servants, then they will be creatures of politics. The measure will not remove political influence from this area.

While we may diminish the legal influence over who becomes a judge and when, we may increase the political influence in the whole area. I would argue, and I would have thought Lord Ross would have argued the same a year ago-----