Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Out of order but correct.

The first group of amendments we are looking at relates to the amendments that were made on Committee Stage as a result of amendments I put down and which were passed by the committee. The purpose of those amendments was to remove from the commission the overly complex structure of committees that had been put into it by the Minister.

In considering all amendments to the legislation, in particular this group of amendments, we should take into account what is the purpose of this legislation. One cannot consider the amendments without considering the purpose of the legislation. The purpose of the legislation is to establish a commission, an advisory body that will provide advice to the Government on individuals who should be appointed or nominated as judges. It is important to note it is not a regulatory body. It is an advisory body. As it is an advisory body, it requires expertise. The reason it requires expertise is because in Ireland, as in virtually every country in the world, one can only be appointed as a judge if one is a lawyer. The Minister, Deputy Ross, may object to that. Maybe his next proposal is to insist that judges cannot be lawyers and we should only have other individuals appointed as judges. However, at present, the law is that one can only be made a judge in Ireland if one is either a practising barrister or a practising solicitor. Therefore, the whole purpose of the legislation is to try to ensure that there is a group of expert individuals who can give advice to the Government as to who is a suitable person for nomination for appointment to the office of judge. As a result of that, it requires expertise.

Notwithstanding that, when one looks at the commission that is being proposed by the Government, for some reason the objective of the Government is to ensure that the advisory body contains a majority of persons who do not have expertise. On numerous occasions, I have asked the Ministers, Deputies Flanagan and Ross, and other Deputies, can they identify what is the public benefit or purpose in having an advisory body which has a majority of persons who do not have expertise in the area of who are suitable persons to be appointed to judicial office. If this were a regulatory body I would understand perfectly why it would be appropriate and necessary to have a majority of persons who did not come from what the Ministers, Deputies Flanagan and Ross, refer to as the legal side of the house but this is not a regulatory authority. The reason one has a lay majority in a regulatory authority is because one wants to instill public confidence that the regulatory authority will not be making decisions based on the fact that they are members of the same group. Here it is completely different. It is an advisory body. One wants persons who have expertise to advise the Government in respect of who are the best persons to be appointed to the position of judge in Ireland.

The Minister, Deputy Ross, had a good point - regrettably, he is like a broken clock in being right only once or twice a day. His good point related to the mischief. I agreed with him on this. The problem the legislation needed to resolve was that in the past individuals had been appointed to judicial office because they had a political association. Deputy Ross overstates that problem but he is right in stating that occurred. I stated that occurred. The reason I brought forward legislation, and I thought the reason the Minister, Deputy Ross brought forward legislation, was for the purpose of dealing with that mischief.

Where that mischief occurs is in the Cabinet. It is the problem with the political decision-making in Cabinet. The problem, that was identified and is correct, is that too broad a number of individuals were being recommended by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board to the Government. The solution to that problem is not to attack the advisory board. The solution is to cut down on the numbers of persons who can be recommended to Cabinet. Instead, however, the Minister, Deputy Ross, has gone off on a completely irrelevant and unexplained tangent. Instead of concentrating on the mischief, which is politicians appointing persons because of their political connection, the Minister, Deputy Ross, has got another target in his sight, namely, to attack the Judiciary. Nowhere has the Minister, Deputy Ross, ever explained what is the purpose behind that particular targeting. What is clear is that the legislation and the amendments, which are being put forward in many cases by the Government, will not deal with the problem.

In fact, they will set up an advisory body, a commission, that has as its sole objective that there must be a majority of lay persons on it. This is disrespectful to the Judiciary which is not uncommon from this Government. I do not recall a Government that has ever been so disrespectful to the Judiciary. The purpose of their contentions is to suggest that judges and lawyers are all the same and in it together when, in fact, a judge is a former lawyer. Judges are independent of the legal profession. It is disrespectful to the Judiciary and wrong to suggest that judges and lawyers are the same cabal. It is completely incorrect.

The Minister for Justice and Equality is correct in stating that the amendments in this grouping are technical amendments which all arise from the deletion of the committee structure on the Committee Stage of the Bill. I will be supporting the amendments. They are mainly drafting amendments. They make sense.

It was beneficial to the Government that the committee made changes on Committee Stage. In fact, the amendments that were made on Committee Stage improved the Bill and the Ministers should recognise that.

See this speech in context