Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

At meetings of the Dáil reform committee and others, I often hear it said that there is weak Opposition legislation going through and that detailed pre-legislative scrutiny must be done. It is said we must be very careful not to put through legislation that is ill thought out. I do not believe there is a more ill-thought-out Bill than that before us. It would almost be entertaining if it were not so serious. The Attorney General's dog's dinner is set out before us in a proper fashion. It is almost like a fantasy football arrangement whereby one asks whether one should have 11 players on one's team. I cannot believe the Minister is putting forward an amendment suggesting a commission of 17 advisers to deal with this. There is a reason football teams are no bigger than 15. Once one goes above that sort of size, it does not work. A committee of 17 is too large. Any psychological analysis of how to get something done shows that one should not have 17 people involved. If this is still being done purely to pander to a certain political hypothesis - I am being kind when I say that - that our system of appointing judges has been a disaster and that we must introduce six lay people in order to have a majority without which the whole process would be polluted, it just beggars belief.

Section 12, which deals in such length with how one would actually appoint the people who would advise one how to appoint the other people, just beggars belief. If I introduced this as a Private Members' Bill, the Minister would say to me that I would not get it to Committee Stage, that I would not get a money order and that I would not get anywhere with it. That is what is remarkable.

I agree with Deputies Clare Daly and Wallace that we all know this is not Fine Gael's intention. Surely it does not believe our appointments to the Judiciary have been so flawed and that our legal system is so toxic that we have to implement a new regime with a lay majority. I do not believe Fine Gael believes that. It would be more honest to admit that at this stage and opt for an alternative. Would I opt for the Jim O'Callaghan 11 or the Mick Wallace 14? To be honest, choosing between one and the other is dancing on the head of a pin. I would not opt for 17, however. More than anything else, I would move away from the whole narrative that we have to do what is proposed because we cannot trust our judges, Chief Justice and the system which, by and large, has actually served us very well.

There may be significant issues at lower court level in respect of political appointments and so on. We have to address that to depoliticise the system. The last Government might not have been as good at this as most previous Administrations. We have managed to avoid the politicisation of judicial appointments. This Bill is politicisation to satisfy the Independent Alliance over a thesis that no one here believes except one Minister.

Cabinet government works to the strength of our country because of collective responsibility. That sometimes leads to difficulty and it requires collective honesty. We should be honest and say that no one in this Chamber believes what is being said, not even Sinn Féin, whose members I hope are changing their minds because the absurdity is surely apparent. We should put a stop to it. I will not choose between 11 and 14 because, as I stated, we are dancing on the head of a pin. One thing is for certain, however: I will not be voting for a 17-member commission because that is stretching credulity beyond belief.

See this speech in context