Séamus Healy (Tipperary, Workers and Unemployed Action Group) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the publication of this Bill and the opportunity to speak on it because it is an important issue of significant public interest and should not and must not be rushed or railroaded through the Oireachtas. As we all know, rushed law is frequently bad law. Adequate time must be given to proper scrutiny and examination of the proposed legislation at each stage of the process. While I welcome the Bill, it is not the silver bullet to cure all the ills of the system for administration of justice in this country. It certainly does not go far enough.

The Bill will change the way judges are appointed in Ireland. There have been calls for a more transparent appointment system for many years including from the Judiciary, legal professionals, the Council of Europe and various other interested parties and the public at large. The new judicial appointments commission will be made up of 13 members, and will have a lay majority and a lay chairperson. Appointment committees with lay majorities will be responsible for recommending a maximum of three candidates per judicial vacancy to the Minister for Justice and Equality. This replaces the current system where as many as 20 names can be submitted.

While this Bill arrived rather quickly, its roots stretch back some time to a consultation process that started in 2013. Various submissions were made including one from the Judicial Appointments Review Committee which stated:

It is increasingly clear that the relative success of the administration of justice in Ireland has been achieved in spite of, rather than because of the appointment system. The system of judicial appointment in Ireland is by now demonstrably deficient, fails to meet international standards of best practice, and must be reformed if in more challenging times it is to achieve the objective of securing the selection of the very best candidates for appointment to the Irish judiciary and thus contributing to the administration of justice in a manner which will sustain and enhance public confidence.

The appointment of the lay majority and of the lay chairperson is eminently sensible and acceptable and the Law Society review and comment on this states:

The Society notes that the government has adopted an approach that is consistent with the recommendations of the Society’s submission in 2014; an increase in the number of lay members from 3 to 6 lay members and that these lay members will be recruited through an open competition. The Society is strongly of the view that such increased representation of lay members is important for two reasons: the first is that it ensures that there is a measure of diverse public interest represented in the judicial selection process.

The question of a lay chair which is new here is not new elsewhere in Europe and in England, Wales and Scotland. The real problem in the judicial appointments system is at Cabinet level, as we saw in the recent appointment of the former Attorney General to the Court of Appeal. That is where political interference has occurred and there is lack of transparency.

Arising from that, two questions arise. Why must judicial appointments be made at Cabinet level? Should it not be possible for the judicial appointments commission to complete the selection process and be given statutory authority to finalise judicial appointments?

See this speech in context