Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. It was introduced in a rush over recent weeks when damage had been done, especially with the public, as to the way appointments are made to the Judiciary. What went on at Cabinet with the most recent judicial appointment was disgraceful. For politicians, who are with the public in their different constituencies, what went on calls into question the whole cronyism and nod-and-wink approach to judicial appointments. This is not good when, over the past year, it was claimed that politics was to be cleaned up along with the systems that were in place down through the years.

The Bill will set up a new advisory body for judicial appointments. I looked at the list of those who will be on it and there is a fair representation right across the board. One can have the most expert people on this body with in-depth knowledge of the whole judicial system. However, at the end they have to go with a list of three names but the Government still decides who it will accept. In my book, this is an unusual way of doing it.

When a person goes for a job in the county council or the Civil Service, he or she does an interview, is rated and is given a placement, be it No. 1 or 1,001. That person knows where he or she stands. Councils have an appointments system, which stands for two years and then it is updated. What is wrong with having a system where an independent body interviews those who apply for a particular court, assigns ratings and then appoints them on this merit, rather than the Government deciding it will pick the third candidate, even though there might be two other names ahead of that candidate?

Sadly, it is undisputed that people with certain leanings in certain ways have got the nod down through the years. Was it the case that whoever composed the list was told what names to put forward? We need transparency in the judicial appointments process. We need to show the public that, for once, these processes are changing and are becoming more transparent. There should be a process where people can google to see who applied and their ratings. It can be done through a letter if one wants to keep it confidential. If one applies to be a District Court, Circuit Court, High Court, Supreme Court or Court of Appeals judge, or even to two courts, one should at least know where one stands. This Bill, however, allows the Government or a Minister to decide which of the three names which go forward will be appointed, be it Tweedledum or Tweedledee. That is not good, especially after the tarnished image portrayed over recent weeks.

The one thing that galls me is the fact we spent 80 days in talks, and new politics, a new way of doing things and more transparency were to result from that. It is sad when I look at people I sat down with who would have gone to bank AGMs, who would have taken on the heads of the banks about the way they conducted their business and the way shareholders were treated, and who put forward the need for transparency in the judicial system as one of their leading agendas in the programme for Government. Those people were in Cabinet two weeks ago and did not speak up. It was not the 11th hour and 59th minute. This Bill could have been introduced nine or ten months ago if it was that urgent. It is possible to delay the appointment of someone and go through the process that is required, but someone should not be given a prize just because they were with one for one year, five years or six years. People have asked me whether it bothers people. On the weekend when this issue blew up, it was the most talked about issue in all our constituencies throughout the country. When someone holds themselves up as believing in a new system for judicial appointments, and it was a pretty tough debate when the programme for Government was being put together, but closes his or her eyes when the harm is being done and the horse has bolted, and then comes back and says we need this Bill urgently and this is how we are going to clean it up, it does not give that person credibility. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport would have been better off concentrating on transport because there is a huge deficit throughout the country that needs funding, and a focus on it is needed. Any Minister has enough to do in his or her own job much of the time instead of minding a few different Departments.

Another issue the Minister needs to clear up relates to the fact there is a lot of chat circulating that he made approaches for certain people to be appointed to certain posts in the Judiciary. This needs to be clarified one way or the other because one cannot bring in a Bill or shout about bringing it in when one did what everyone else did down the years. This issue needs to be clarified.

The Bill needs time and needs to be teased out. We need to make sure it is not just under the control of a Minister. I have read the Bill. The only way we can sort this out is to have a system where there are one or two people on it, because if we do not do that, we will have situations where someone will say to give a particular person the twist, as it were, because he or she leaning that person's way or whatever way. The Judiciary has served the country well in many cases but it is not good that there would be any political influence on the appointments such that they are a reward for being with someone or in favour of a party or group. That is not a good system.

When I talk to people, I can see that much harm has been done at a time when politics tried to gain a bit of momentum and people believed that politics would be pursued in a new way. In respect of what happened two weeks ago regarding the appointment, let me be very clear that I am not questioning the person's ability. I do not question a person's ability because who am I to judge someone's ability? However, that is not what it is about. It is about the system and the way it was done. The system down through the years has been rotten and there is no doubt that we need to change it. I agree with this argument 100%. However, are we changing it with this Bill? At the end of the day, when one brings three names forward, one can pick any of them. I ask the Minister for Justice and Equality to ensure one part of that Bill would ensure a candidate would be on a list and everyone would know where they stand. Everyone would then have the right to say whether they are interested. As was pointed out earlier, there may be ten, 15 or 16 appointments one year and none the next year. That is the way it is. As was pointed out earlier, the other thing we need to watch out for is that we do not have a heap of people wondering what their job title is if there is no appointment because surely there are other things we could get people to do.

I have heard the Judiciary argue that it does not have enough say in it. I have looked at it. In respect of solicitors and different bodies that would be on that board or commission, that is not something I would worry too much about. I still do not think we are solving the problem of the appointment where there are three names. Someone could be the greatest in the world and still not be in it. They could be in three times or be one of the three names the next time and still not be in it. Someone could go on and on. There are solicitors throughout the country who might not lean one way or the other or might not have been politically involved. They will say very bluntly that they never got a crack at the whip. They never got a chance. They might be phoned every now and again to see whether their tax clearance is in order, but that is the end of it. People ask whether this should be said in the Dáil. This is what is being said on the ground. We need to make sure we clean up whatever is wrong and the type of impression it gives.

The harm has been done. The horse had bolted when we started bringing in the Bill. Much harm has been done. It has been one of the most destructive things that has happened to people's confidence since I entered the Dáil. Unfortunately, everyone gets tarnished then. "Isn't it the same craic", is all you will hear from everyone. That is not good. That is not the way it should be done. We have excellent judges in places and many appointments have been good. Let no one criticise that part of it. However, there may be some appointments one would question. That is debatable when one looks at certain cases. Politics has to be taken out of this. There is one problem with the Bill. I know it will be said that we must change something in the Constitution but if we have to change something, let us change it if it is for the good and for more transparency. I am an Independent Deputy but I think Independents have been damaged. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport was asleep at the wheel when that Cabinet meeting took place and he did not block that appointment because it was not life or death and it was not a week, two weeks or a month. We could have let this Bill come in if it was going to come in and then take the high moral ground and say, "Aren't I great?".

The problem is that the damage has been done. Anybody who is speaking of bringing in a Bill now needs clean hands. He who comes seeking equity must come with clean hands and needs to clarify whether he ever made such representations.

See this speech in context