Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I cannot accept the amendment because it would remove two very important elements from the requirements of eligibility of legal academics for appointment to judicial office. First, it would remove the requirement to be a solicitor or a barrister at the time of appointment. Second, it would remove the requirement for practical experience of the courts for a continuous number of years, namely, at least four years. The proposed section 45A to be inserted into the 1961 Act provides the additional basis for qualification for appointment as a judge. It opens up eligibility for appointment to a legal academic of not less than 12 years' standing who, immediately before such an appointment, has been employed as a legal academic for a continuous period of at least two years. In addition, such a legal academic, under the terms of the new section 45A, must (a) be a barrister or a solicitor at the time of being appointed as a judge and (b) have practised as either a barrister or a solicitor for a continuous period of not less than four years. Similar requirements, with some modification, take account of the role applying in the case of a person who may be a head of a faculty. In addressing the amendment I wish to be clear that the Government was persuaded of the need to tighten the provisions of the general scheme in order to ensure legal academics appointed to the Bench would have had an amount of practical experience of the practice and procedure of the courts. The practising qualifier, as it could be called, is an essential supplementary element and I am not disposed to dispense with it. Therefore, I cannot agree to the amendment.