Michael Harty (Clare, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The provisions in this Judicial Appointments Commission Bill represent key commitments in A Programme for Partnership Government and should come as no surprise to the Judiciary or anybody else. Reform of the judicial appointments process is to ensure it is transparent, fair and credible. A Programme for Partnership Government proposes to address the process of judicial appointments and makes a number of recommendations: to replace the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board with a new judicial appointments commission; to appoint an independent chairperson, selected by the Public Appointments Service and approved by an Oireachtas committee; to consist of a lay majority, including independent members with specialist qualifications; to reduce the number of suitable candidates shortlisted for appointment for any vacancy by the judicial appointments commission to not more than three; and that the chairperson of the judicial appointments commission will be asked to attend the justice committee annually to report on its statutory remit. It is very important to point out that the new commission will include the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court, the President of the Court of Appeal, the Attorney General, a Bar Council nominee and a nominee of the Law Society. Thus, the Judiciary and the legal profession will have a substantial and significant influence on nominees for appointments.

There must be a separation of judicial and Executive powers once appointments are made. However, it is the constitutional right of the Government to make appointments to the Judiciary and to enshrine that process in legislation which is clear and transparent but which is also competent and fair. The main areas of conflict seem to be around the following questions. Should there be a lay chairperson? Should there be a lay majority? Will lay members be suitably knowledgeable to make a proper judgment on the suitability of nominees? It is open to the Judiciary to try to influence the proposed legislation but it should also be conscious of the separation of powers. Statements, including references to serious implications for the administration of justice, or stating that the process is seriously flawed, does not accord with international standards, is ill-conceived or ill-advised, are incorrect and unfounded. This reform has been in the programme for Government for 14 months and it should not come as a bolt from the blue.

We often criticise this Government for not introducing promised legislation or implementing items in the programme for Government. Much criticism is directed at the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Shane Ross, accusing him of having some spleen against the Judiciary. Any commentary should concentrate on the legislation and decide if it stands on its merits and is an improvement on the existing Judicial Appointments Advisory Board. It should not be directed at any one individual.

Appointments to the Bench have been highly politicised in this country, even if appointees in most cases leave their party political trappings behind them and distinguish themselves in office. It was not unknown for rising stars in the legal profession to make themselves useful to a political party in the hope they would get the nod for the bench when the time was right. Previously, the politics of Buggins' Turn was in place, and whoever was in power got to make the plum judicial appointments. Cronyism was rife. The Judicial Appointments Advisory Board made recommendations and, often, many names were proposed, allowing the Government to choose from a large list. In the new system this will be limited to three nominees. The new process will be open, transparent and accountable. It is a modernising development that will enhance public trust in our judges, whose appointment must be above reproach. I believe that the Judiciary's misgivings are misplaced and that the appointed judges through this new system will be equally impartial and as distinguished as their predecessors, but that public confidence in the system of appointments will be strengthened by making the process more transparent. Recommending a member of the legal profession to the Judiciary based on merit and experience will not be weakened by having a lay majority or by having a lay chairman. I believe it will be fair, and safe and just.

See this speech in context