Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

That instinct is not where we should go but unfortunately it is where the Bill is coming from. There is nothing wrong with being popular but when it moves into enemies of the people territory, which is what I fear we are doing with the calculated attack on the Judiciary to which I referred, I start to have concerns.

I am proud of our courts system and Judiciary. I am proud that our constitutional system has, at its core, the republican courts established at the foundation of the State which were from and of the people. The reason we must be careful to protect the independence of the Judiciary is that its role is to protect the people from us. That is the strength of our constitutional system. Since the foundation of the State, the Judiciary has been independent and has proved itself adept at protecting the power of the people that derives from the Constitution, as opposed to a monarch or this House. The Judiciary protects our constitutional republic. These are the reasons I am concerned about this vicarious kick, a Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness described it, that has been aimed at the Judiciary.

While the legal system is archaic and has its failings, including in the King's Inns and benching systems, it also has strength. I do not deny that we derive some benefits from the traditions of the English system. It is not all bad when one considers other international systems that we could adopt. The universal view among Deputies who spoke in this debate, including those who support the Bill, is that, by and large and with some exceptions, the Judiciary has served people well. For this reason, the attack on it presented in this Bill is a cause of serious concern.

There has been undue political influence on judicial appointments over the years. The current and previous Governments have a case to answer in this regard because, from what I have heard, the level of political influence on judicial appointments in recent times has been slightly higher than average. The controversial issue is not only who secures judicial appointments but also who can get work. While I am not directly connected to the legal profession, this is what one hears. There is truth in the argument that the system is not sufficiently inclusive of people from different backgrounds. While the system is by no means perfect, it is not all bad either.

It is right that the political system has responsibility for appointing judges. There are, naturally, connections between the judicial and political systems. The legal and political professions, if politics can be described as a profession, are similar. In any event, legal professionals and politicians engage in similar tasks to the extent that we speak, are interested in public affairs, seek to win arguments and are constitutional office holders. This is all the more reason that it behoves politicians to be careful in how we manage this issue.

One of the other failings of the judicial system is that it is, like this House, too adversarial. We should seek ways to find mediated and other solutions. We should use this opportunity to rethink, reconsider and give some steer to how the Judiciary or courts system could achieve a more mediated approach. I will suggest one form of mediation that may be warranted.

We should accept the suggestion of former Supreme Court Justice Mrs. Catherine McGuinness and consider an amendment on Committee Stage to restore the role of the Chief Justice as chair of the proposed commission, accepting that the broad parameters of the technical issues in terms of appointments need to be modernised, but that we do not need in that process to give a vicarious kick to the judicial system. Such an amendment might have to be accepted in the Seanad if we cannot get it through this House; we will have to wait to see what are the numbers. Perhaps some Fine Gael Members might agree with me that we do not necessarily need to give a kick to our constitutionally independent Judiciary at this moment in time. Who knows what the numbers will be?

A mediated solution would achieve agreement and defuse this unnecessary row that has evolved. It is not the key issue, given that there is not a crushing need for us to address this among the range of issues that we have to face. It is an unnecessary fight that has been brought on for unnecessary purposes. As a mediated solution, I suggest that we consider such an amendment or an amendment to the effect that the numbers do not have to be stacked up one way versus the other to show that this is a lay or political triumph for some over the Judiciary. We will be suggesting such amendments on Committee Stage and looking for support for their acceptance across the House. If we did that, this Bill would sail through and be a good service to our democratic, constitutional Republic.

See this speech in context