Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The Minister's only remaining contribution, and I am astounded by it, is a threat to personally veto all future judicial appointments until he gets his own way. That is a disgrace. He regards the need to fill his political trophy cabinet as taking precedence over the constitutional principle of collective Cabinet Government responsibility. He seems to think nothing about standing in the way of the Government discharging its basic constitutional functions as and when required.

Does the Minister know about the Court of Appeal position as it stands? It will get worse if his tantrumic posturing is given any attention. Some 660 criminal cases were inherited from the old court of criminal appeal. All cases that were ready for hearing have by now been heard. The remainder have been given a date for hearing before the end of the year. That is on the criminal side. However, on the civil side, the new court is overwhelmed by appeals, not just appeals against final judgments in decided cases, but appeals against summary judgments, discovery orders and procedural orders of all sorts and sizes. There are 600 new civil appeals each year, and the court has capacity to deal with about 350 of them. What does that mean? It leaves a shortfall of 250 cases a year. In addition, the court inherited a backlog of cases that were transferred to it from the Supreme Court list. There was 1,082 of those. There are still more than 700 of these cases to be heard. So, when one adds the arrears that accumulate annually to the backlog of old cases, it is clear that the new court cannot ever clear its list. That was referred to recently by an eminent academic from Maynooth.

The old maxim that justice delayed is justice denied is clearly relevant in this situation. I am sure that the Minister, Deputy Ross, does not want anyone to be denied justice. This is not the fault of the six judges on the civil side of the Court of Appeal under the presidency of Mr. Justice Seán Ryan. No matter how hard they work, and they are working extremely hard, their backlog will continue to increase. The solution is obvious and is staring this Government in the face. It needs to appoint new judges to the Court of Appeal. It does not need any kind of grandstanding or anything else. It needs them to be appointed. The people need them to be appointed. The people who have the cases need them to be appointed, not anybody else.

I am a barrister but I have no interest in being before the courts. However, I know as a practicing barrister what is happening and I think I can give an opinion on it. This is no time for ifs, buts or maybes. It is no time for showboating or histrionics. We in the Labour Party demand that the Government discharges its constitutional duty and deals with this accumulating crisis in the administration of justice, by making new appointments immediately to the Court of Appeal. I know myself that there are at least four to six judges required immediately.

Turning back to the sanity of the Bill before us, it would establish a judicial appointments commission to recommend and rank three individuals for each judicial vacancy based on merit. That recommendations must be merit-based and that the number of recommendations should be reduced from seven to three are proposals which are universally accepted. I have no problem with these provisions and am happy to accept them. They are endorsed by the judicial appointments review committee, established by the judges themselves, and by everybody else. We are all on board. Therefore why the delay?

The Bill also proposes that if the Government fails to nominate someone from that recommended list, it must publish a reasoned written decision for not doing so. This is stronger than the current provision and I agree with it. The Bill would repeal Part IV of the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995, under which the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board advises the Government. That arrangement was part of an emergency deal struck between Labour and Fianna Fáil, arising from the Harry Whelehan controversy. In the circumstances in which it arose, it is perhaps not surprising that the package was not entirely thought through. I accept that. Defects in the current regime include the requirements that the board must make at least seven recommendations for each vacancy and that the recommendations are not listed in order of preference.

However, while the Act seems to give the board discretion to choose between candidates where there are more than seven, in practice the board does not operate the Act in this way. Instead of seven names being forwarded, all applicants who are not considered unsuitable have their names sent forward to Government. This means that in some cases dozens of names go to Government for each vacancy.

Deputy O'Callaghan's Bill provides for a commission with a well thought out mixture of competencies. As well as the Chief Justice and the presidents of the Court of Appeal, High Court, Circuit Court and District Court, there would be nominees of the Citizens Information Board, the Higher Education Authority, the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, the Free Legal Advice Centres, the Law Society and the Bar Council. There is also provision for gender balance on the commission. I am pleased to see the Bill lists as qualities needed in a judge integrity, independence and intellectual skills, as well a sound temperament and common sense, which are most important attributes, composure, courtesy, consideration and communication skills. The commission should also have regard to the importance of promoting gender and cultural diversity, and of ensuring a sufficient numbers of judges with proficiency in the Irish language.

There are one or two issues that I hope we have an opportunity to consider on Committee Stage. One arises from the fact that a judicial career is embarked upon after a career in practice. I fully support this. I believe it is a feature which enhances judicial independence. Our judges are not schooled before appointment.

The State cannot and should not compete against the market in terms of the remuneration it offers to judges, but the State can compete in terms of its pension offering. The salary package for judges should make it an attractive option for practitioners to consider well into their 50s and even early 60s. The recent changes we made to that offering were a mistake, particularly since the savings made, in the overall context, were insignificant. If agreed on Committee Stage, perhaps the Bill could become a vehicle for reversing those changes, particularly with regard to pensions. The judges recommended that an advisory board or commission should be empowered not just to rank candidates but to designate any particular candidate as outstanding. They also said it should be empowered to inform the Government when it considers there are not sufficient candidates of sufficient quality. I would be interested to hear Deputy O'Callaghan's view on these two recommendations.

I see no need to wait any longer for a Government alternative to the Bill. We have more than just the bones of a workable solution here. With a bit more work on Committee Stage, incorporating what Deputy O'Brien and other contributors, including those from the Government have said, we can have a new system up and running within a matter of weeks rather than months. Therefore, I have no hesitation in joining other Members in commending the Bill to the Dáil. I call upon the Minister to expedite the introduction of a judicial conduct Bill, which I have called for on numerous occasions and which the Chief Justice has also sought in recent speeches. The Bill before us should also be expedited to ensure two important Bills are passed in the House, which would make a massive contribution to the administration of justice in the country.

See this speech in context