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

I spoke earlier today about the need for diversity in our Judiciary. We need to bring about change in a constructive way so that the Judiciary represents, in the broadest possible way, all of our society and all our communities. We have made very significant progress in one area of our Judiciary in recent years. In 1996, some 13% of judges were female, but that figure has now increased to 38%, which is very close to the critical mass of at least 40% we need to have proper gender balance in our Judiciary.

I spoke earlier about minority communities, particularly the Traveller community, which accounts for a disproportionate proportion of those who are confined in our prisons. I am not suggesting anything other than that we should strive to finds ways of supporting, nurturing and encouraging members of all of our minority communities and our diverse and different ethnicities to get involved in becoming lawyers and to strive to be judges within our legal system.

Another issue that arises is the question of part-time judges. I know that in some jurisdictions, judges are not necessarily full-time lawyers. They can be part-time lawyers. It depends on the level at which they operate. The arrangements that are in place in other jurisdictions allow judges to bring a new dimension, new opportunities and new insights to judicial decision-making. I think the issue of career breaks for judges is also an important one.

Ultimately, we must have trust in our Judiciary. It is a core part of our legal system that all our judges must be seen to be independent, highly educated and informed. They must be capable of independent and enlightened judgments. We should support anything that helps to bring about that outcome. If we can attract more people at an earlier stage into the career of becoming a judge in our courts, for example, by providing for a particular career path which guides them and allow them to make progress, we will help them to grow into this hugely valuable position at the heart of our democracy. It is important that our judges are seen to be independent at all times.

Some of the criticisms that have been levelled at this legislation relate to the proposal to provide for the commission to be chaired by a lay member. In other jurisdictions like England and Wales, a lay person chairs these commissions. The same thing applies to the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland. However, the Northern Ireland body is chaired by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. It is very clear from our adjoining jurisdictions that the role of a lay person in acting as the key person on these commissions, obviously advised by other lay people and by legal people, is a proper and reasonable outcome from the appointments that are made. I understand from the Oireachtas briefing note that throughout the British Commonwealth, 71.8% of equivalent heads of court serve as chairs of the judicial appointments bodies.

According to the British Institute of International and Comparative Law:

The administrative logic of this argument is clear, and in jurisdictions where there are real concerns about political interference in judicial appointments it may be best to ensure that responsibility for scheduling meetings and ensuring that vacancies are timeously [this is a word I am not quite clear on] filled is in the hands of the judiciary. Where this is not the primary concern [it is not the primary concern in this Irish jurisdiction], different considerations may support the introduction of a lay chair; such a person could bring experience of management and human resources to the operations of the commission.

The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe has recommended the election of a chair from among the non-judicial members of the appointments body to "bring about a balance between the necessary independence of the chair and the need to avoid possible corporatist tendencies within the council". It is exceptionally clear, therefore, that the involvement of lay people as chairpersons of commissions like that proposed in this legislation is reasonable and practical and works. It will bring a new insight into what should be happening.

I note that significant comments have been made by the Opposition and judges have expressed strong reservations about the lay majority proposal. Our court system trusts lay people who are selected from the register of electors to decide whether somebody is deemed to be guilty of the crimes with which they are charged. This is particularly relevant in criminal cases where it is very important for the right decision to be made. Like everyone else, judges have full confidence in the manner in which this important part of our democracy works.

I do not see any reason suitability qualified people should not be members of the lay commission. Equally, I do not see why it should not be chaired by a lay person. I believe this approach will add to public trust and to diversity among those who are deciding who these judges should be, what skills and what capacity they should have and what personal qualities they should bring to the decision-making process.

I mentioned earlier that this is a question of representing all the people. There is a belief in many quarters that the members of our Judiciary tend to come from a particular socioeconomic background and from particular schools. It is believed that this tends to be their sole and only career path of a specific kind. It is good for our society that we create as many variable and equivalent paths of progress to become members of the Judiciary as we can. We should be selecting people who represent the broad ethnic diversity of our society. This is necessary so that people can have absolute faith and trust in our Judiciary.

I have been in the courts. I appeared before six wonderful justices in the High Court when I took a civil case. I still have my house because I won every time. It might have been the worry of losing that made my hair turn grey. I fought a great civil battle some years ago to protect our heritage. We won because we had good free legal advice and good free advisers who stood up for the principles we believed in. Most of all, we got fair, balanced and honourable judges who listened to our case time and again with great wisdom.

See this speech in context