Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill. On 27 October last I contributed to the debate on Deputy O'Callaghan's judicial appointments Bill, which was a significant and welcome improvement on the absurdity of Deputy Ross's proposals when he introduced a Bill in 2014.

I will relay some of the things he postulated as representing the way forward.

I congratulate my midlands colleague, Deputy Flanagan, on his elevation to the position of Minister for Justice and Equality. He was a very fine spokesman on justice for his party a number of years ago and he has long experience as a solicitor. He practised in the midlands in the District Court, the Circuit Court and the High Court. I am sure he has appeared in the Supreme Court to give instructions in some cases. He knows that, irrespective of who makes his or her appointment, a judge takes the oath of office extremely seriously once on the Bench. No matter who one appears before and regardless of whatever views he or she might have had, he or she adheres to the oath of office and dispenses justice fairly, impartially, objectively and in accordance with his or her oath and the law of the land, which prevails in respect of and dictates the course of the case he or she is hearing. Political persuasions are cast aside. The legislation before us is now saying that anyone who has any contact with politics or politicians is contaminated. It is incredible that someone would have to live in a cocoon well away from being seen talking to anyone of any political persuasion or none. "Cronyism" is a loose term of banter which has now taken on a particular meaning and which is being used widely to disparage people. That is the purpose for which it is being used. If one has any degree of friendship at all, one is a crony. I look on that as being a friend of someone from whom one might have sought advice in the past and from whom one received dispassionate and objective advice. That is now elevating itself to the level of cronyism, which is completely objectionable. I have appeared in all the courts in the land over the past 27 years and I am sure I never knew nor cared who appointed the members of the Judiciary. I always got a fair hearing on behalf of clients, as did my opponents.

Judges make decisions and, having practised in courts across this land, they are very experienced. People who apply for the Bench are often at the top of their profession, whether it is as a solicitor or barrister. They will have spent a considerable period gaining experience, competence and intellectual ability. Going on the Bench often results for them in a significant reduction in remuneration. When a person applies for a position, he or she does so on a confidential basis. I can foresee a situation whereby the group responsible for recommending people for appointment will be so large, we will not be able to guarantee confidentiality. All it takes is one person to say something. One could tie it up like the JAAB by making it a criminal offence to give out information. Be that as it may, there is always speculation. I cannot say that anyone ever breached the Act, but there was always speculation as to whether Willie Penrose, BL, or some other individual would become a judge. That is fair. It may be either informed or idle speculation but people who make applications do so in confidence. They want to ensure that if they are not successful, it will not be publicised. It is a significant rebuff to individuals if they are not chosen. As the Minister will know, it is a big decision to become a member of the Judiciary. As such, I reject this idea of cronyism.

Deputy O'Callaghan's Judicial Appointments Commission Bill always struck me as sensible, constructive and balanced. It contrasted sharply with the proposals published by Deputy Ross, who is now a Minister, in 2013. He wanted a judicial appointments council to recommend suitably qualified candidates on merit and he wanted a joint committee of the Oireachtas to consider the recommendations and then nominate judges for appointment by the President. Most bizarrely, he wanted the Constitution amended to stipulate that no judge or practising lawyer could have no role in the assessment of the qualifications of the candidates or in recommending their suitability. That was the most harebrained idea. I say to the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Flanagan, who is very experienced, that it would knock one for six. It knocked us all for six, which is why I castigated it. That was daftness on stilts. It was so manifestly absurd that I could not understand how its author could be taken seriously as either a political commentator or a practising politician, let alone as a Minister. It is one thing to come out with gadfly blustering, which is clearly entertaining for a readership in the leafy suburbs, but it does not contribute anything serious to the debate on this issue.

In opposition, Deputy Ross was a noisy distraction. In government, he has become an empty space. If he spent as much time worrying about his Department as he does about another Minister's, we would be all better off. I see Deputy Troy is present. The Deputy is an Opposition spokesman on transport. We would prefer if the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport ensured that there were trains with adequate capacity, speed, comfort and frequency leaving our major towns of Longford and Mullingar for the east. We would rather there were enough jobs to keep people in their own areas, but they need to go eastwards in the morning and to come home in the evening. The Minister should be ensuring that there are buses on the roads. He should be ensuring that the station at Thomastown reopens. If he concentrated on all of those issues, he would be kept extremely busy and would not be distracted.

This Bill has clearly been rushed to accommodate the crusade upon which the Minister, Deputy Ross, has embarked. He spelled out his desire for reform a number of years ago and brought forward a judicial Bill in 2013 which can only be described as a whopper. It sought to eliminate, at a stroke, input from any member of the Judiciary. His judicial appointments council would have ensured that no judge, member of the Bar Council or Law Society, or anyone of that ilk, to use his term, would have an input. In the Minister's view, they are all insiders. He has exhibited an unusual distaste for anybody of any professionalism or expertise. I am not much into getting expert input myself in that we, as politicians, should do our own work without relying on commissions and experts. Surely, however, members of the Judiciary, particularly the Chief Justice and presidents of the various courts, have invaluable insights to impart and contribute to the assessment of applicants by a judicial council. Potential applicants for judicial vacancies will clearly have practiced in these courts on numerous occasions, whether as solicitors or barristers, both of which professions have full rights of audience and advocacy with some excellent solicitors doing so. They are in a prime position to give a view as to the suitability of an applicant's abilities, competence, intellectual capacity and, the most important attribute of all, temperament. The latter is critical to an appointment. On appointment to the Bench, one severs the relationships one enjoyed prior to appointment. It can be a lonely place from that perspective.

The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, could have proposed something that I know the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Flanagan, would like to see. There is no doubt that the JAAB system requires an overhaul. There must be improvements, changes and enhancements, all of which we would welcome. The big thing to do, however, would be to create a judicial council.

The Chief Justice, Mrs. Justice Susan Denham, has been calling for it for at least three or four years. Funnily enough, if people were to read back through the records of this House, they would see that I have called for it on four or five occasions in the past five or six years. I think that is the most important thing. It would have a huge input in terms of continuing professional development and education for everyone involved, but particularly judges. It could also deal with complaints if someone feels aggrieved about any particular aspects or matters, whether he or she is a litigant or a representative. It could be an advocate or an instructing solicitor, or the solicitor might be the advocate. This would be the most important thing. In fact, this Bill should not be coming forward without that being on tow. The example of Hamlet, prince of Denmark comes to mind. Both should be brought forward together-----

See this speech in context