Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I pay tribute to the Committee on Justice and Equality, particularly Deputies Mick Wallace, Clare Daly and Jim O'Callaghan and the other Deputies who have worked very hard in analysing this Bill. I have not spoken on this Bill in recent times, although I spoke initially. What struck me when I looked at it in the first instance was that we were going down a very populist road based on populism rather than on evidence. I have the distinct feeling that the Minister has to be cringing given his own background and the very valid arguments made here by various Deputies. I feel for him and would not like to be in his position because there is no rational basis for the changes proposed here. When I went back to my first speech, I looked at the system that was in place. On many occasions, the members of the existing board made recommendations and called on the Government and, indeed, were instrumental in asking, for reform to stop political interference. This was the judges themselves appealing to successive Governments to stop the political interference. They put it slightly differently when they spoke about ensuring that there was less interference from the Government and more independence.

Here we are today. On top of no evidence for the change and no evidence for the cost of it - the Government cannot tell us what it will cost, although the existing board is doing it on a very tight budget - we are here today and we do not even know the make up of the commission in terms of numbers. Is 17 or 13? We do not know. We have a Minister pushing this for his own motives when I can think of many things he could be doing as Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. On a personal basis, I like the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport but he should focus on the job he has. The Minister's job is to be courageous enough to say the Government cannot go through with this Bill in its current form and to embrace the amendments that have been put forward.

I have sat on the Committee of Public Accounts for just over two years. I must declare that I am a former member of the Bar. I will come back to many problems with the Bar but they certainly do not involve the Judiciary. Watching public body after public body and different organisations appear before the committee over the past two and a half years, which are experts in the language of corporate governance, procedures and processes and yet where there is no accountability, I cringe when I read that language.

Despite the limitations of the appointments system, the Judiciary has gone up in my estimation as courageous and independent-minded people. I am delighted that the gender balance is improving all the time.

As Deputy Wallace has pointed out what is proposed in the Bill would allow for more political interference in the type of people appointed. As Deputy Fitzmaurice pointed out, we could get more local authority chief executives and men or women of that type. In this Bill we are not looking for people who can think independently, can stand up and say exactly what is wrong or right without fear or favour.

A substantial number of the problems with the legal profession relate to the limited access for people at point of entry and the scandalous cost of legal education in both branches - solicitors and barristers - something the Minister should look at.

The Minister should address the lack of guidelines on sentencing. We could take serious action to address the lack of support for victims in court who are left wandering around courthouses without assistance and are brought in simply as witnesses.

I briefly mentioned the Public Appointments Service. I have absolutely no confidence in section 12 which provides that the Public Appointments Service would also pick the chairperson. At the very least good governance would dictate that the commission would determine who the chairperson would be on merit. I have an open mind as to who should be chair; my preference obviously would be for a member of the Judiciary given my experience. However, the chair should definitely be picked by the commission.

Judges' lack of training could be addressed very quickly. Access to courts is too costly for ordinary people. Members of the Judiciary have frequently said that the ordinary person without resources has very limited access to the courts. All of these are urgent issues the Government should address: they should have been addressed by the previous Government. Instead we are introducing the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill which is simply not fit for purpose. More than that, it is twisting language on its head. I am disappointed that Sinn Féin is colluding with this type of misuse of language. It is suggested that it will bring more openness and accountability into the appointment of judges when the very opposite will occur.

There is no analysis of what we have learnt from the weaknesses and faults of the existing system. Most of all we have utterly failed to recognise that the members of the Judiciary have been the most vocal in calling for changes to the existing system, not the Minister, Deputy Ross.

When the Minister, Deputy Flanagan, deals with the fact that he is most uncomfortable with what is being proposed, I ask him to take courage in his hands and to learn. He will make his mark in history if he stands up and says, "We've made a mistake, but we're going to stop and not persist with this mistake."

See this speech in context