Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This is very important legislation which concerns the quality of our justice system. It is not just about the appointment of judges. It is about how people are treated in our legal system, how they end up in court and what happens to them. It is very important when one goes through that process, whether it be as the result of a civil action or a criminal action, that it is fair and transparent, and that anyone who is before a court is treated fairly and properly and judged by one of his or her peers.

The controversy is very narrowly put by my colleague opposite. He puts a very narrowly based argument which does not address the equality of justice, the equality of our society and the equality of treatment of people. Of two people born today, if one of them is born in Castleknock, that person is more likely to be a judge than someone born in another part of Dublin city. The fact is where one is lucky or unlucky enough to be born determines a lot of what happens to a person. There are certain parts of Dublin city where a person is more likely to be a judge, a middle class lawyer, a teacher or a TD, and there are other parts of the city where a person is more likely to die younger, end up in jail or be poorly educated. They are called disadvantaged areas. Our modern society, particularly our Government, must be about equalising opportunity for everyone regardless of where he or she is born or his or her background, in order that everyone reaches his or her full potential.

The question is how we make it a fairer society. The question is how we make that judge a better person. The question is how we make sure all the Judiciary meet the requirement of understanding the lives of ordinary people, of understanding poverty, exclusion, poor education, poor health and the forces that drive people into crime. We all know what they are. It begins with a P - poverty - and with lack of access. As a teacher in the past, I have met very bright and capable people who came to our school but who did not end up on the right side of the law because they never got a chance along the way. We need a society that looks after everyone equally and fairly. If someone breaks the law, then that person pays the penalty, but before he or she comes to that process, or as that person goes through that process, there must be understanding and a commitment to equality and fairness. The Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, is committed to equality and fairness in our society. He is the person who brought in recognition of Travellers as a different ethnic group. To take the number of Travellers in our society as an example, I would ask whether there are a disproportionate number of Travellers in our jails. I think the answer is a definite "Yes" to that. Is there a judge who comes from a Traveller background? I do not know the answer to that, but perhaps it is time there was one, if there is not.

This process the Deputy opposite finds so flawed should address all these inequalities. Obviously, someone must be the chairperson and must have specialist knowledge. However, to imply that such a person is going in for no good reason whatsoever or that he or she will not have or could not have the good of all of society in his or her heart, does not make sense at all. The Deputy's argument is flat and fallacious. In fact, it is rubbish. It is a waste of time talking about the future of society in that way.

The question is how we make sure the Judiciary represents society through the way in which people are brought in to be judges. How do we do that? We do it by making sure, at the very first stage, that every single child in this country has equality of access to health, a decent home, which they do not have in this society, a decent background and supports, if they happen to come from unemployed families or poor families. We need to discriminate positively in favour of those who come from the most disadvantaged part of our society. That is not to be soft on crime or soft on anyone who breaks the law. It is to make sure that those who are most likely to end up before the honourable justice will have the best chance not to be there and also have the best chance to become that judge or that lawyer.

When people go into the court, what do they see? They see someone sitting there with a wig and a gown. If someone is representing them, they cannot tell if that person has hair because he or she has a wig and is dressed in funny clothes. It is alien from society and alien from ordinary life. In the Circuit Court, the Central Criminal Court and the High Court in particular, people meet all these guys who speak with posh accents - nothing wrong with that, but most of them do - and who come from privileged backgrounds. How does an ordinary person get represented in that system? They get represented if we have equality of opportunity, if we pick out the brightest and the best and if we encourage people as they come through our schools. As they come up from primary school, the best and the brightest should be identified and we should make sure they get the opportunity to develop. I know our society is much fairer than when I was young but it still has significant difficulties and disadvantage.

I would have thought that if someone wants to be a lawyer or a judge, there ought to be a special track for him or her to follow. I understand that in other countries, in particular France, and the Minister of State can correct me if I am wrong, one may opt to go into a career as a judge or in the area of what I understand is called jurisprudence. That point is that if I want to be a judge, I should be able to opt in to a special university course and I ought to be put through a course on understanding our society and understanding all the issues I have raised, for example, why people end up in jail and why they break the law in the first place. There should be an important emphasis on understanding and meeting the needs of society. Ultimately, if someone does become a judge, he or she will have gone on a specific training course. This applies to the point made by the Fianna Fáil Deputy about the person with knowledge who is going to make that decision. A person decides to be a judge and then follows a track that brings him or her on that course in order that he or she is skilled, knowledgeable, well educated and has wide experience before he or she sits behind any Bench or judges any human in front of a court.

That is what I would like to see in the passage of this legislation. I would like to see at the core of our judicial appointments process a recognition of equality, transparency, accountability, fairness, equal access and real justice, which is what people want in this country. That is what this Bill has in its heart. It has change. Obviously, it is resisted by some people, eminent though they may be. However, the fact is that the more holistic the approach and the more skills and knowledge one brings into that final decision-making process, the better. We pick people of eminence, knowledge and influence in these areas. To me, that makes the most sense and is the only way to go. Some have criticised this Bill for its inclusiveness. It is inclusive legislation. It is bringing more people into the process and bringing in new skills, new knowledge and a new way of doing business. I understand the Minister for Justice and Equality made it very clear that the President of the District Court, the President of the Circuit Court and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will be in position in the context of these judicial appointments as and when they are being made.

There are many positive things in the legislation before us.

12 o’clock

Many good things could happen but we have to make them happen. We must ensure that this legislation is properly proofed. I welcome the statement from those on the other benches to the effect that they do not want it rushed through next week and that they do not want Committee State rushed through. That is fine; I do not disagree with them. We should consult more on legislation. When the Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, was Chairman of the justice committee, he often consulted different groups about the legislation that was coming before it. I do not know if that has been done with this legislation yet. If it has not, it should be. Ideally, we should identify the type of people, as opposed to the names of individuals, we want in this process.

I once had the temerity to take a couple of builders to the High Court because they had demolished a listed building in the middle of the night. I brought them to the High Court. It was some experience and we won our case. They knocked down the building and we made them build the damn thing up by handmade bricks. The building stands today and represents the integrity of our historic buildings and the determination which I and other people had to make sure it happened. The funny thing was that we had to go through six High Court judges. Some people opposite might have been before a few in the past, but I was before six. Imagine that. The problem when one goes to a law court is that one must win every time. We had to win six times before the different judges.

See this speech in context