Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I apologise that I will not be able to stay for reasons beyond my control. I will be here 100% of the time next week. I did not think this business would happen this evening.

We spent five sessions over many hours deliberating in committee. The Minister, Deputy Ross, might not think we were genuine but there was no bias against one side or the other. I agree 100% that reform of how we appoint judges is really important. It is crucial we do that. I am 100% in favour of reform of the way we appoint judges. I am sure the Minister read the Official Report of the proceedings of the committee. Before the Minister, Deputy Ross, went into government he said political paws had to be taken off how we appoint judges. What was presented to us in committee was not doing that. We were doing anything but taking the political paws off it and, in some way, even increasing them. I disagreed with that and I have said so. The way we have done it in the past is not good. I agree that it does not reflect society as much as it should. We all accept that one needs a certain amount of ability to do the job. We all know a such-and-such a judge was appointed by Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil or the Labour Party and that should not be the case. We are all conscious of the fact that it is what transpired. We are in favour of changing it. I am not hung up on a lay majority either. Who are the lay people that will be in the majority? We argued a lot about that at the committee. If they are from the political stable or the Civil Service, then I would be just as comfortable with the legal crowd picking them. Our amendment No. 7 was ruled out of order because it was deemed it would result in a cost on the Exchequer but it is not true. I put two judges on to sit in the District Court and the Circuit Court and we all agree the District Court judge and the Circuit Court judge should be on it. They are getting paid by the State already. They will not get a salary from the commission. I took off a lay person who would get a salary. The result of my measure would be to save the State money. The Government had 13 members but I put forward 14 members. I had two extra judges who would not get a salary from the commission and I took off a lay person who would have been getting a salary. How can the Government or the powers that be deem that to be the case? I am not saying it is the Minister's fault. I do not know where the decision comes from. I do not understand this process.

See this speech in context