Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I understand the purpose of the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill and I welcome the fact that the Bill fulfils another objective of A Programme for a Partnership Government. I am aware, however, that a number of aspects of the Bill have received a great deal of attention, both inside and outside this Chamber. In particular, I refer to the membership of the new judicial appointments commission proposed by this Bill. While I must make clear that I have no issue whatsoever with lay members serving on the commission, I believe there must be greater discussion on whether lay members should have a majority on the commission. I would go so far as to say that in the time remaining to debate this Bill, even with the pre-legislative scrutiny of it by the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality, of which I have been a member for six years, further discussion should take place.

Furthermore, I have concerns regarding the chair of the commission in that the Chief Justice would not be chair. My main issue in that regard is that, as everyone in this House would know, the Supreme Court is the highest in the land and has the final say in terms of the interpretation of the law in line with the provisions of our Constitution. I believe we cannot, and should not, implement any legislation that may detract from the importance of the Supreme Court, which is a branch of our democracy, in undermining that role in any practical way or in terms of public perception. On that basis, I am not convinced that it would be appropriate for any person but the Chief Justice to be the chair of the judicial appointments commission, given that we must ensure that the authority of the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court is not detracted from in any way with regard to public opinion.

While there may be many examples of a lay chair on such boards, examples alone do not necessarily mean that such provisions constitute international best practice. That has been borne out in this debate by the examples given of other jurisdictions aside from those introduced in the Chamber during Leaders' Questions yesterday.

This is a matter that will require further and more thorough discussion. As a member of the justice committee, I look forward to the detailed debate on the provisions of this Bill when it comes before us in the near future. I must clarify that I believe lay members should be involved in the judicial appointments commission, and it is of the utmost importance that their views carry the same weight as those of other members of the commission. Perhaps we could better examine how such a commission would work with an equilibrium involving lay members and those from a judicial background, or those from lay and non-lay backgrounds, ensuring that neither group has a particular majority.

It is essential in this debate to note that this Bill in no way constitutes a criticism of the Judiciary. Sadly, however, the narrative proffered by some suggests otherwise. We have separation of powers in this country, which is essential to having a functional and effective democratic system. One of the main questions that arises in the context of this Bill is that of why it is necessary, particularly when neither the independence nor the calibre of our judges has been called into question. That has been repeated on a number of occasions in this House. If there is a desire to amend the arrangement for carrying out judicial appointments, why do we not simply amend existing legislation? Why do we not update it given the review that the Department began in 2014? As a member of the justice committee, I have never seen any output from that review. I have never seen any documentation presented to the justice committee or proffered for discussion in this House since the review began. One of the most favourable attributes of our country in recent years has been the ease with which business can be conducted. One of the main issues with regard to the ease of doing business is access to justice and decisions of the court. While there are delays from time to time, there are never any questions as to the decision-making process or the independence of those who make the decisions.

What is rather troubling, however, and what should be tackled as a matter of utmost importance, is ensuring the general public has access to justice. That requires the appointment of more judges, however, in order to ensure our courts can operate effectively. If any Member in this House contemplated holding our justice system to ransom by preventing the appointment of judges, he or she would be holding the public interest hostage by preventing those who require the assistance of our courts from gaining access to them. This is reflective of remarks made to me recently by an eminent children's rights lawyer who found that accessing the courts system to assist children in foster care is becoming increasingly difficult. The needs of the most vulnerable in society must be the foremost concern of Members of this House, not grandstanding.

This Bill proposes reducing the number of candidates recommended to the Cabinet from seven to three. This is a positive attribute but again I must revert to the possibility of amending existing legislation to do this. I prefer the focus this affords the Cabinet in scrutinising a candidate properly in making its decision.

Section 7 focuses on merit. While Deputy Broughan stated the detail on what constitutes merit in the section is weak, we have a number of weeks in which we can bolster it. I look forward to Deputy Broughan putting forward amendments in this regard on Committee Stage. As I stated, the recommendation to include the merit of persons appointed to judicial office under section 7 is all well and good but it must be stated not every member of the Judiciary would not be in place if they did not merit being there.

The quality and calibre of our Judiciary must not be called into question, nor should there be any reason they should be. While I understand that changes are required to update the process by which judges are appointed, I am not convinced this is the most effective way to make such changes, considering the time remaining in the current Dáil term and especially when there have been no instances, to my knowledge, in which the integrity, independence or calibre of the Judiciary has been called into question.

If the Minister is so committed to pushing this legislation through the House, we must give serious consideration to the inclusion of a judicial council amendment. That is probably of more importance to the Judiciary and Members of this House than an attempt to suggest that this Bill will change the manner in which members of the Judiciary are appointed. I remind Members that this is covered in the Constitution. Unless the Minister wants to hold a referendum to delete the relevant provision, I believe an amendment in such regard would be of benefit.

The narrative in terms of criticising the Judiciary is an extremely populist one and it must not be accepted. I have heard a number of comments made both yesterday and today that the Judiciary is in some way hell-bent on meting out justice or on making inappropriate remarks to members of the public, as was just proffered by Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan. Such commentary is neither appropriate, fair nor true.

The system by which we currently focus would not be abnormal in a common law jurisdiction. While I agree there should be some reform, I believe reform for populist purposes or political grandstanding with regard to our justice system would signify nothing other than blatant disrespect for the very people we represent and, of course, past and present judges in terms of ensuring access to justice for those who need it most.

The D'Hondt system is generally very beneficial in allowing Members from all parties and none to join significant Oireachtas committees. All are significant but in this context the justice committee takes particular priority. As I said yesterday evening, a majority of members of the justice committee are opposing this Bill. Thus, I suspect it will most likely be significantly amended on Committee Stage. There does not seem to be willingness on the part of certain parties to change the nature of the Bill, which willingness would afford the Government side and the Chairman of the justice committee an opportunity to weigh in to this Bill in a more meaningful way.

I wish to revert to my very first point, on the progress on the programme for Government. I understand the Taoiseach said yesterday that he believed it was possible this Bill may not be passed before the summer recess on the basis that Members may require additional time to discuss, debate, amend or improve it. While I fully understand the political imperative of the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, in particular, in pushing this Bill through before the summer recess, I believe there are very few Bills that warrant being pushed through at such a pace. This Bill should not be rushed, nor should it be guillotined or passed without a great deal of amendment, not just to improve it or comply with the views I and others have expressed but also to ensure it is not a bad Bill, to echo Deputy O'Dea's comments. I do not believe it is a bad Bill; I believe it just does not comply with what Deputies O'Dea, O'Callaghan and others wish to proffer in this House. Nobody is suggesting, I hope, that it is not a good legal Bill; it is just not sitting well with the ideological views of the party opposite. I ask that the language in question not be used because it suggests the legislation we are putting forward is somehow inappropriate or creates legal difficulties. I do not believe it will create legal difficulties. It is going to create ideological difficulties which in the main I appear to share with Members opposite.

Having served under the current Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, when he chaired the justice committee in the last Dáil and as somebody who has taken a keen interest in all matters regarding the Judiciary and the much discussed Legal Services Regulatory Authority and the Act we worked on extensively in the last Dáil, it is very clear to me that there are priorities in the Department of Justice and Equality that do not include this Bill.

See this speech in context