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

We all agree on how important it is that the objective behind this legislation should be to try to ensure that the best people are nominated for appointment as judges. Consider the legislation that I introduced and the Bill that is before the House. Section 7 of the latter refers to the fact that people should be selected based on merit. Regarding Sinn Féin's amendment, I have no objection to inserting a specific principle called the "Merit Principle".

I also agree that we should make efforts to ensure that there is greater diversity on the Bench. As Deputy Clare Daly stated, however, that requires more diversity in the legal profession. One can only become a judge if one is a lawyer. That makes sense. It is required to have expertise to be a judge. Sometimes people believe it is just about making a decision based on a judge's preference for these facts over those facts, but lawyers are appointed to be judges because judges need to have expertise in the law. They must understand the Constitution, statute law and the rules of evidence. In this anti-expertise world, it is sometimes presented as though anyone could do the job. In many respects, being appointed as a judge is like being appointed as a consultant oncologist, in that one would need to be a doctor and have expertise first. We must recognise that the merit principle is necessary.

I have a slight concern about the diversity principle. I agree with Deputy Ó Laoghaire on the importance of ensuring diversity, but the diversity principle in Sinn Féin's amendment is unambiguous and has two requirements:

(a) the objective that membership of the judiciary should comprise equal numbers of men and women, and

(b) the objective that the membership of the judiciary should reflect the diversity within the population as a whole.

There are two parts to this principle, not one. Subsection (3), however, places an unambiguous requirement that at least one of the three people who are going to be recommended by the commission must be a person whose appointment would further the objectives of the diversity principle. In my reading, the principle would not necessarily be complied with if the commission simply recommended a woman, as a woman only complies with half of the diversity principle. I would be interested in the Minister's comments on this point. We should note that section 7 of the Bill contains a set of requirements:

(a) the objective that the membership of the judiciary should comprise equal numbers of men and women, and

(b) the objective that the membership of the judiciary should, to the extent feasible and practicable, reflect the diversity within the population as a whole.

The Ministers may not be aware - I hope that the Minister, Deputy Ross, does not object to the fact that I have some knowledge in this area - that trying to attract top lawyers, highly qualified lawyers and lawyers who would make good judges into applying for the Judiciary is difficult at the moment. If we are to ensure that the high standard of the Judiciary continues, we must make it more attractive if we are to get better people to apply.

The other amendments in this grouping relate to a matter on which my amendment was accepted on Committee Stage. I thank the Minister, Deputy Flanagan, for his generous comments about the contributions of all members of the committee. My amendment was on the necessity of ensuring proficiency in the Irish language among the Judiciary.

I tabled it not because I love the Irish language, which I do, but rather because it is important to recognise that people in this country have a constitutional right to have their case heard through Irish if that is feasible. It will not be possible in all circumstances. There have been attempts to have criminal trials heard in Irish, some of which attempts have failed. We must recognise that people should have an entitlement to have their cases heard through Irish if that is feasible and we should try to facilitate people in that regard. That right would be watered down by amendment No. 5 tabled by the Minister. One must also consider amendment No. 102 in that regard because it proposes that in order to ensure proficiency in the Irish language among the Judiciary that "The Commission shall consult with the Courts Service for the purpose of keeping under review the needs of the users of the courts with respect to proceedings being conducted in the Irish language".

It is important to recognise that not everyone who applies to be a judge must be proficient in the Irish language and very few applicants will be. There must be, however, a sufficient number of judges on the High Court, appeal courts and, in particular, the Circuit and District Courts who are able to hear cases through Irish. I note the Minister's amendment but I would like to know the purpose behind it and whether in some respect it waters down the clear wish of members on Committee Stage in accepting the amendment now contained in section 7(2)(c). It is important that we recognise that entitlement of people to have their case heard through Irish and we should try to facilitate that.

See this speech in context