Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank everybody who contributed on the Bill so far. It contrasts markedly from debates in the House over the last few years which have been very divisive and witnessed a unity in opposition to exactly the proposals included in the Bill. The only group to do anything about judicial independence and judicial appointments in the past was the Independent group. In the past, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Labour Party have united in opposition to Bills of this sort. As such, I congratulate Deputy O'Callaghan for introducing a very constructive and radical departure for a major political party in this debate. It has taken a great deal of courage and imagination to put forward such an encouraging change. For a barrister to do it is remarkable and should be noted. Having said that, the Bill is not radical enough. It should be more radical, but a major step has been taken in this discourse by all the parties in the House and it is indicated that something is happening which is different, albeit not everything. Something is happening in the Judiciary which is being resisted, but which people in the House have the courage to take on board. While there are differences between the Fianna Fáil Bill before the House today and the Bill the Government will introduce shortly, we will also see if we are mature about it a unity of purpose. We will be able, not in a very short period of time, to have a completely new system of appointing our judges.

One or two speakers have taken up the reasonable point that it is wrong to block or oppose the appointment of further judges until the legislation is introduced. Deputies Brown and Penrose made the point. I understand what they are saying about some justice being delayed, although I do not think the problem is as acute as it might be because not that many judges are due to be appointed. However, the history of this particular subject has been cursed by delays, pretence and Governments continuously coming forward to say they are looking at this, will address it and have commissions sitting here, there and everywhere on it. However, nothing ever happens.

My fear, which is justified by the evidence of the past 20 years and before that, is that if delays are allowed, permitted or encouraged, nothing will happen. There is already a major backlash against the sort of proposals contained in Deputy O'Callaghan's Bill and those the Government will introduce. The powerful voices the Judiciary are already being heard and are mobilising against this. We must ensure that this goes forward and that radical change is enacted. The only way to do that is to appoint judges quickly. The only way to pass legislation quickly is to take that stance. I fear, with justification, that delay will mean it will never happen. By insisting on this course, things will happen very quickly.

This particular problem arose in and around 1995 when the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, JAAB, was established. Deputy O'Callaghan knows the make-up of the board because he has suggested some substantial reforms to it. However, I do not think people realise that the current composition of the board is a stitch-up. It comprises political appointees and lawyers. Let me remind the House who is on the board. It has 11 members. The Chief Justice chairs it, there are four court presidents, the Attorney General, a political appointee for the past 20 years and, before that, a nominee from the Bar Council and a nominee from the Law Society, all of whom are either political or legal insiders.

The only three people who do not come under that category are what they so cosily call three lay nominees but they are also political appointees. They were appointed by successive Governments that chose people with whom they felt safe. This was done in the same manner in which all political appointees are nominated in this country. They are people who, almost invariably, have identifiable political colours. That is the system that we must reform. This is a carve-up between lawyers and politicians. No wonder there is resistance to that reform from lawyers and politicians. That is what is happening today. It is very difficult to break what is an appointments cartel of lawyers and politicians. The first step is being taken here today.

No doubt Deputy O'Callaghan and any other barristers in the House will be aware that the JAAB is known in the Law Library as "JAABs for the boys". It is ridiculed by its own people. In this House I have heard for many years lawyers who are also politicians saying that political connections do not matter. People on these benches have said that. It is patent nonsense. I will not dive into the depths of breaking the protocol in the House by naming those who have been appointed judges because, as has been admitted very honestly by Deputy O'Callaghan, of their political colour. Everybody knows them and knows that this is happening. It is happening because it is Buggins' turn. It happens under Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Labour Party. That is what we are trying to break and we will break it. If it takes another month or two to do so, that is all right. It must be done quickly.

Rural politicians have told me that they have queues outside their clinics and people knocking on their doors asking if there is any chance of an appointment to the District Court. If people in this House are honest, they will confess that is what has happened to them and has been the normal route to the District Court. They come through the JAAB system, which is a farce.

I understand that the board has to nominate seven members for each appointment. The clear evidence is that the numbers have gone up to 40, 50 or 60. The names go to the Minister via the system by which people are chosen by those who are politically appointed. The decision goes to the Cabinet and the Minister who, no doubt, has been lobbied in turn picks someone who is from his or her political colour. That is what has been happening. Does anybody in this House know how many interviews the JAAB has held over the past 20 years? It has the power to hold interviews, but in 20 years it has not held a single interview held for a judge's job. That is what we are trying to reform and what is so important about what we are discussing. That is why it is so important that the main political parties accept that.

The Bill tabled by Deputy O'Callaghan is a tremendous step forward. I said it is not radical enough because the programme for Government specifies something which is loathed by the judges - but patently necessary - namely, that there must be not just a reduced number of legal personnel but a lay majority on the board. We can no longer have an arrangement between political nominees and judges. Not only must there be a lay majority on the body choosing judges, there must also be a lay chairperson. There is a difference between our Bill and that proposed by Deputy O'Callaghan. I understood his Bill states that the Chief Justice will remain in place. It is a reasonable point of view but I do not agree with it. The power should not rest with the Chief Justice in this particular area.

I would like to take up one point made by Deputy Mattie McGrath. Judges should be subject to far greater scrutiny, not just in terms of being able to make them leave office in different ways than is currently the case but they must also be subject to disciplinary action. The idea that they should not be obliged to make declarations of interest is totally and utterly wrong. It would serve their purpose if they did not see themselves as above this sort of transparency.

See this speech in context