Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle. I was in my office and had to endure listening to a certain individual across the House using his time to castigate and try to put down the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Shane Ross. I did not like it but the Minister is well able to rise above that type of activity. I do not agree with it and I do not like to see it being done to any Member. I must also say a word to my colleague, Deputy Boyd Barrett. I was not impressed either to hear him castigate the King's Inns as some sort of elitist model, which it most certainly is not. If he knew his facts, he would know that it is a very open and transparent place with various ways for people to get in. One does not have to be an elitist to get in. It is very unfair on people from rural Ireland and around the country who educated themselves and worked hard to get into the King's Inns and came out to earn a living successfully. They are not elitists. There is nothing special about them. I will tell the Deputy what they are; they are ordinary hard workers. They are people who studied and were good at their books, a thing I was not good at, and they bettered themselves. To condemn those people as elitist is unfair, but it is the Deputy's own opinion.

Before I address the Bill itself, I note that I have nothing but respect for and confidence in the abilities of all the judges in this country, be they on the District, Circuit, High, Court of Appeal or Supreme Courts. They are all extremely hard working and highly intelligent individuals with a difficult and challenging job to do. They often give up lucrative private practices at the Bar or as solicitors to serve the State and administer justice in a fair and proper manner. Let me put it like this - rather them than me. The question of how judicial appointments are made is very important and directly relevant to every citizen. The independence of the Judiciary is vital and every person, or poor misfortunate as I see them, who has to appear before the courts must be satisfied and safe in the knowledge that the law of the land will be applied in a competent and impartial manner without fear or favour. It is clear that concerns have been raised in the past about the way in which judicial appointments have been made. That should definitely not be seen as casting any aspersion or doubt over the integrity and capabilities of the people who have been appointed and have served or are currently serving as judges.

The time may have come to review the way in which appointments are made. I have no difficulty with changes being brought forward. In particular, it is vitally important to ensure that the whole process of judicial appointments is carried out in an open and transparent manner so that the public at large can have confidence in the system and be sure that the best man or woman is chosen for the job. While the Bill itself has many positive aspects, the biggest difficulty I have with it is the composition of the proposed commission. What is proposed here is that there will be a lay majority and a lay chairperson. While, of course, there should be some lay persons on the commission, when it comes to picking the best person for a job, who can be better placed to do that than the people who are already doing the job? What we need are people who know exactly what the job entails and who can properly test each potential candidate’s ability to do the job. I do not know of any other job application process where the majority of the persons involved in the appointment process are not directly involved in the area to which the appointment is to be made. The phrase "horses for courses", with all that entails, comes to mind. Not to be smart about it, but the question must be asked as to how the lay persons are to be selected and vetted. While the Bill envisages some form of selection process by the Public Appointments Service, how can the public be sure that these lay people will have the expertise necessary to choose the best person for the job and to choose the person who may be sitting in judgment on them the following week?

I am particularly concerned to hear that it is proposed that no member of the District Court or Circuit Court will be appointed as a member of the commission itself. Those courts deal with a large majority of the cases coming before the courts on a day-to-day basis and they have the real knowledge of what it means and, more importantly, what it takes to be a judge. I see it in my own constituency in Kerry where the District and Circuit Court judges are at the real coalface of the administration of justice and deal with very large volumes of cases on a daily basis. I have huge respect for the work they do in very difficult circumstances to adjudicate in all types of family situations and misfortune. On the positive side, I welcome those parts of the Bill which set out the requisite skills, attributes and capabilities necessary for appointment and which will form part of the selection process. I also welcome the fact that all appointments will be based on merit. I have no difficulty with those parts of the Bill which prohibit the canvassing of support for an application or any form of interference by any person involved in the process. The Bill proposes that only three names will go forward to the Government as prospective candidates for a vacancy, which also makes great sense.

There is nothing as important as the fair administration of justice in this country. I want to ensure that the existing public confidence in our Judiciary is maintained. While there are some positive aspects of the legislation, I have come to the conclusion that this Bill falls short in a number of important areas. Unfortunately, I cannot support it as it currently stands although I welcome the fact that it has been brought forward and appreciate the work the Minister, Deputy Ross, has done on it. It is the usual case of something being rushed through in a panic to deal with a recent crisis and it is another clear case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. In the past few days, the Chief Justice and some of the most senior judges in the country have made public their concerns about certain sections of the Bill. We have to listen to them. In general, judges are very reluctant to make any public comment or become involved in any controversy. It is my humble opinion that the very fact that they have felt the need to voice their concerns publicly in this way means they should be listened to and their concerns should be addressed.

As I understand it, there are approximately ten to 12 judicial appointments each year. There are far more pressing matters that we need to address as a matter of urgency in our country. For example, we need to assist the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, to reduce the number of people, particularly children, who are without a home and the waves of people who are on our social housing lists, including over 5,000 in County Kerry. The health system was never in such a state, notwithstanding the amount of money being pumped into it on a weekly basis. People continue to go blind while they wait to have cataracts removed. The effects Brexit is going to have on this country are still not fully understood. We are having meeting after meeting on Brexit, but no one can clarify the impact it will have on our farming communities, tourism, trade and the movement of people to and from the State. Our infrastructure is light years behind the European average.

Perhaps we could use some of the proceeds from the sale of AIB to pay back our taxpayers for the years of suffering they have endured.

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution on this Bill. While I do not agree with all aspects of it, at the same time that is what Dáil Éireann and Ministers are for, that is, to come forward with ideas. We do not have to agree fully with what a person might be proposing but, at the same time, we can have respect for his or her views and opinions and the work that is being diligently carried out. I do not believe it is fair or right for Members to be personally critical and to use their time here to carry out some sort of personal vendetta that they might have against an individual. I do not like that type of carry on.

See this speech in context