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

The amendment I tabled proposes a body of 11 people and four would be lay people. It is invaluable to have lay representation on a body such as this. I said previously that the importance of having lay people on regulatory bodies is different from this situation. The reason a majority of lay people is needed on regulatory bodies is to inspire public confidence because the public does not think the regulatory body is looking after the profession. I fully accept that when it comes to a regulatory body there should be a majority of lay people. This is an advisory body. The Minister has not explained why there has to be what he refers to as a lay majority on this advisory body. The function of it is to advise the Government on who are appropriate people to be appointed as judges. The only people in the country who can be appointed as judges are barristers or solicitors. I did not make that law. It is a law that exists around the world. The only people appointed as judges are lawyers. Nobody is suggesting that consultants should come from people who are not qualified as doctors. It makes a nonsense to suggest that there should not be a level of expertise on this. It is very easy to suggest that in these anti-expertise times we do not need anyone who knows anything about this and that the ordinary person is able to identify who is a suitable person. If there was a job going as editor of a national newspaper, would it be of advantage to the newspaper or the public to have a body full of lawyers on the commission deciding who should be the national newspaper editor?

See this speech in context