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

I will accept the Minister's invitation to speak. He is correct; I did comment publicly on the fact that a small grouping such as that proposed in the Bill had been used in making appointments to the Office of Chief Justice and the Office of President of the Court of Appeal. I welcome the appointments. I congratulate the Minister on making what are good appointments. However, what has to be said about the amendment being put forward by the Minister is that it illustrates the incoherence and inconsistency at the heart of the Government’s proposals in this area. We have spent weeks discussing the fact that when it comes to judicial appointments, what the Government wants is a commission or body with a lay majority.

We know that this is at the insistence of the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, but when it comes to the appointment of members of the Judiciary to certain senior positions, the Government does not want a lay majority. In fact, it expressly wants what the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport would refer to as a legal majority comprising the Chief Justice or a president of one of the courts, the Attorney General and one lay person, namely, the chairperson of the judicial appointments commission. At no stage has the Minister for Justice and Equality or anyone else in government given an explanation as to why it is deviating from stated policy in respect of this particular form of appointment. Why is it that when it comes to the offices of Chief Justice, President of the Court of Appeal and President of the High Court that this wonderful new commission proposed by the Government is not good enough and cannot be used? Instead, when it comes to those particular judicial appointments, the Government has decided to go back and rely upon a body with a lay minority, one which will comprise the Attorney General, a president of the court and one lay person. I have consistently stated my belief that having what is referred as a lay majority is going to damage the administration of justice in this country. It is going to result in a lowering of the quality of people being nominated for judicial office. I am not prepared to bail out the Government's inconsistency on this issue. No explanation has been given as to why, for these three offices, we should not rely on the judicial appointments commission. It is instructive that there is such an inconsistency at the heart of the Government's proposals. It is for that reason, as well as the reasons I gave on Committee Stage, that I will not be supporting amendment No. 87.

The Minister is correct on one point, however. If we were just starting and if we had rational, coherent legislation, I would have no objection to a separate process for appointments to senior office. What we have here, however, is completely irrational and inconsistent legislation. In respect of three offices, the Government is effectively stating that those roles are so serious that it cannot allow the mess that is the proposal from the Minister, Deputy Ross, to be involved in those appointments. The offices are so important that the Government cannot allow this commission to advise in respect of them. This is the Government's commission. The Minister for Justice and Equality has put it together and said it is suitable for the appointment of judges in this country. If it is suitable for the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court, then the Minister must explain why it is not suitable for the appointment of the most senior judges in the country. The Minister knows the reason for this. The commission that he is proposing is a nonsense and the objective of having a lay majority is going to damage the process. He is prepared to risk it when it comes to the appointment of judges to the superior courts but not when it comes to the appointment of the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal and President of the High Court. I am not going to bail the Minister out on this one.

See this speech in context