Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister to explain to the House why Fine Gael now believes that a lay majority and a lay chairperson, rather than the Chief Justice who is the current chairperson of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, JAAB, are essential to the process. Why does the Minister propose a reduction in the percentage of judges on the commission, as compared with the percentage on the JAAB? Why does the Minister not trust members of our Judiciary to select and recommend candidates based on merit? Why does he believe that our judges must be outnumbered by a lay majority to keep them in check? Where is the evidence that this is necessary? I am not so sure that there is any logic to the Minister's argument and I am not even sure it is based on a dearly held view in Fine Gael. The Minister should answer my questions. It would be disingenuous of me not to point out that the Minister is not being genuine in his approach to this Bill. I have serious issues with what is going on here.

I have tabled amendment No. 7a, which has been accepted by the Ceann Comhairle's office, for which I thank him. I have taken the barristers' representative off the commission to deal with the fact that my original amendment, which was an even split of 14 members, was deemed to be out of order because it would incur a cost to the State, which I pointed out last week was not true. I had to deal with that issue but I hope that amendment No. 7a will be supported by the other parties in the House. I would be in favour of the barristers' representative being put back onto the commission during the Seanad debate on the Bill because it makes sense to do so but I had to deal with what was before us. In my original amendment I had proposed including two extra judges, who would be paid expenses but not a salary, and removing one lay member, thus doing away with his or her salary. My amendment would actually have saved the State money. The Government then came up with the magical figure of 17, which would make the commission unworkable. Where has common sense gone? Can the Minister stand over that? It beggars belief.

See this speech in context