Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the strong lobbying engaged in by the Deputy on behalf of the solicitor profession. She has made an important and serious point.

However, I cannot accept the amendment for the following reason. It is essential that any lawyer seeking appointment as a judge, and particularly as a judge of the superior courts, must be in a position to demonstrate knowledge not only of that court but also knowledge and experience of the practice and procedures of the court. That is probably best garnered from working on a daily basis within the ambit of the superior court. Deputy Clare Daly's amendment No. 120 seeks to delete the text of sections 37(4) and 37(5), the purpose of which is to give guidance to the commission in assessing whether a person has the appropriate knowledge of the decisions and the appropriate knowledge and experience of practice and procedure. Section 37(4) allows for a disregard of the necessity for Court of Appeal knowledge and experience in respect of a serving judge candidate who was appointed to the bench before the Court of Appeal came into existence in 2014. I note, however, the point made by the Deputy that in order to ensure there is a breadth of legal experience on the bench, it should not in all circumstances be confined to one arm of the profession. I have some sympathy with that. I would say that is changing, there is no prohibition in law to preclude such a change as is now taking place, particularly in recent years. As legislators, we need to be conscious to reflect certain diversity in our courts system and those who preside over it, but I do not accept that this amendment is the most appropriate way of so doing.