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

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 10, to delete lines 20 to 28 and substitute the following:“10. (1) The Commission shall consist of 11 members being—

(a) the Chief Justice,

(b) the President of the Court of Appeal,

(c) the President of the High Court,

(d) the President of the Circuit Court,

(e) the President of the District Court,

(f) a lay person nominated by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission,

(g) a lay person nominated by the Free Legal Advice Centres Limited,

(h) a lay person nominated by the Citizens Information Board,

(i) a lay person nominated by an tÚdarás um Ard-Oideachas,

(j) a practising barrister nominated under section 13, and

(k) a practising solicitor nominated under section 13.

(2) The Commission shall elect its own chairperson.”.

This is a very large grouping but I will try to simplify it for the thousands of people watching at home. All these amendments are concerned with how the commission is constituted, the number of people on it and how they should be appointed. Following the Committee Stage debate we have a Bill under which, at present, the commission has 13 members. Under the Minister's Report Stage proposals, the commission will increase to 17 members. Just looking at this on pure economic grounds, we are establishing a quango of 17 people that the Government has told us will cost €1 million per year. That information was contained in the explanatory memorandum that was attached to the legislation on Second Stage. The commission is replacing the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, JAAB, which has nine members and which costs less than €10,000 per year. On first principles alone, an extraordinary quango is being established here. We know from the legislation that not only is the commission going to deal with recommending people to Government, there will also be an office of judicial appointments, a director general and no doubt there will be glossy annual reports, the commission will have a PR company advising it and so on. This is the sort of thing that an enthusiastic journalist would have criticised years ago and is a further example of this Government creating an unnecessary and very costly quango.

My amendment proposes to simplify the commission. The Government is proposing to put 17 people on the commission but my amendment provides for 11 members. I ask colleagues to approach this with an open mind. Under the proposal I have put forward in amendment No. 6 there would be five members of the Judiciary on the commission of 11. There is agreement among all of us that the presidents of each of the courts should be on this commission. They are in similar positions to the headmasters or principals of schools in that they know what is required in their courts. What they want most of all is not to have their friends appointed but to ensure that any appointees to their courts are people who can work hard, who know the law and who will be an addition to the courts over which they preside. It is essential, for that reason, that we have the five presidents of each of the five courts on the commission.

It is also important to have lay people on this body. Lay people will bring a different perspective. They obviously do not bring with them the expertise that judges have but they bring a different perspective on how individuals should be selected following the application process which is set out in the legislation. The Government has proposed that the lay people it wants on the commission should be appointed by public advertisement and a competition run by the Public Appointments Service, PAS. That is a very complicated process, particularly given that there will be nine lay people on the commission under the Government's proposals. We will have to go around the country, advertise and look for nine lay people who cannot be lawyers under any circumstances because lawyers might bring some knowledge or expertise to the process. A much better way of finding suitable lay people is to have them nominated by organisations and entities that are well respected. My amendment proposes that a lay person be nominated by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, the Free Legal Advice Centres Limited, the Citizens Information Board and by an tÚdarás um Ard-Oideachas. That would provide a very good contribution to the commission. We would have four strong lay people nominated by each of those respected entities, based on what they think would be appropriate for the commission. I do not think there is disagreement in the House on the need to have a representative of both of the legal professions on the commission. As I have said repeatedly, one can only be a judge if one is a practising lawyer. Therefore, it is necessary that someone from the Law Society of Ireland who knows solicitors and someone from the Bar Council who knows barristers can bring their knowledge of the people who are applying. I heard the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, being interviewed by Mr. David McCullagh on "Prime Time" a number of months ago. Mr. McCullagh made the point to the Minister that the advantage of having people on the commission who have knowledge of and who know the applicants is that they will "keep the eejits out". There are many people who can apply and whose applications will look great on paper. Some will have impressive a curriculum vitae and will do a great interview but the commission needs to have knowledge of the applicants' experience as barristers or solicitors over a period of 15 to 20 years. One will know a lot more about a person and whether he or she will make a good judge from knowing how he or she has been, as a practising barrister or solicitor for 20 years, than from looking at a three or four page application. It is important, in that context, that the commission has that expertise. The Minister will note that in the commission I propose I have not included the Attorney General. That is consistent with the proposal that I put forward in the legislation that Fianna Fáil sponsored a year and a half ago. I must also speak on the other amendments in this grouping but before doing so, I must point out that amendment No. 6 proposes that the commission itself should be able to elect its own chairperson.

I note that Deputy Wallace's amendment No. 7 has been ruled out of order. Parts of that amendment appealed to me but it is now gone. I also note that Deputy Clare Daly's amendment No. 11 has also been ruled out of order. That amendment proposed that the Presidents of the Circuit Court and District Court be put back onto the commission. I would have supported that because it is just not tenable to have a commission without them. The Minister already knows my views on having the Attorney General on the commission and also at Cabinet afterwards, making the political decision.

Deputy Ó Laoghaire and others have to decide how they will vote, but I want to make it clear that if my amendment No. 6 is rejected, I will probably accept the Government's amendment No. 10 as the only way I can get the presidents of the Circuit Court and the District Court back onto this commission.

See this speech in context