James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Bill and thank the Minister, Deputy McEntee, and the Minister of State, Deputy James Browne, for bringing it forward. I also thank the members of the justice committee, two of whom, Deputies Martin Kenny and Carroll MacNeill, are present, while others have contributed, for their work on this Bill. Shortly after the Oireachtas Committee on Justice was established, this Bill came to it for pre-legislative scrutiny. It might have been the first Bill to do so. We now see it on Second Stage in the House. I note that a number of the recommendations we made following pre-legislative scrutiny have made it into the Bill. It is a good example of collegiate, constructive work across the Houses through the committee system. As chair of the committee, I thank the members for their constructive inputs throughout.

As Deputies Jim O'Callaghan and Carroll MacNeill mentioned, the Bill has taken probably the best from both previous Bills while removing some of the more problematic aspects that were attempted in the previous Dáil. The former Minister, Mr. Shane Ross, was particularly culpable, shall we say, despite not being the Minister for Justice, in driving certain views. Some of those issues have been addressed in this Bill and some have been removed where appropriate. The good in that Bill and, indeed, in Deputy Jim O'Callaghan's effort is taken forward in this new composite Bill. That is very welcome. The Bill is not a panacea and there is still much to do - "A lot done, more to do", as a famous previous Member of this House said, which is true of many things. It is certainly progress and I welcome it. It is important that we move it forward.

One thing struck me at the outset of this consideration to my great surprise. I had always imagined the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board to be a type of selection or assessment process, and I had understood that it would make recommendations, prioritise and present a slate from which the Government could choose. I was surprised to find that it really served as largely a form of clearing house, akin to no more than a Garda vetting, whereby somebody was eligible for a role as opposed to being particularly suitable or particularly useful, and there did not appear to be any ranking or assessment, which was a pity. I understand the freedom and power of the Government to appoint judges has always been constitutionally guaranteed, but that issue has been addressed in the Bill in terms of the far more rigorous, useful and practical process to shortlist and make a number of recommendations. The Government will then choose from those recommendations, as opposed to having a process and procedure, going around the houses and ignoring it by picking somebody off the bat, which was an issue previously. We know it happened. It happened many times in many jurisdictions. Perhaps many of those appointed worked out very well in the end, but a process to screen candidates, shortlist them and present them for appointment in an assessed manner makes far more sense. It is very welcome.

I mentioned that the Minister has taken on board some of the recommendations from the committee. One in particular, recommendation 6 made by the committee, referred to the definitions of experience required for academic selection. The concept of appointing academic practitioners or academic personnel to the Bench is not new. We have some very eminent jurists and legal scholars on the Bench in Ireland and we have benefited from their expertise, but what they have in common is that they have practical experience as well. That is very important. Something that is perhaps not always understood fully is that our appellate courts have a panel and a division. They have a number of judges sitting in parallel together. They consider an appeal on a point of law. It is very technical, detailed, scientific or academic.

However, the majority of decisions in the first-instance courts, which include the High Court, Circuit Court, District Court and all courts below the Court of Appeal that the majority of cases come through, are far more practical. They are all about inquisitions into fact-finding and also on any morning of the week managing a list, managing quite an unruly room at times, trying to put some type of structure on a number of cases that are being put before the court, trying to second-guess or read the room, trying to decide whether some ex parteapplication takes priority over some motion that was filed two weeks previously, whether some other matter is urgent and needs to be heard or whether a witness can give evidence or whether it is on affidavit only. There are all these practical considerations to manage a courtroom. For an academic non-practitioner to come in, who might have a fine and thorough knowledge of the law at academic level but has never set foot in a courtroom in his or her life, it would not be very practical and would not lead to good management of that courtroom. The point I made in the committee is that it is akin to taking a very eminent medical scholar who had never practised medicine and appointing the person as the head of a busy emergency department on a Saturday night, where the person with the least experience would be the most senior person in the room. It would not have good results. We made the same point in this context. Certainly, academics are very welcome and will enhance the Bench, but the requirement that has now been incorporated in the Bill is that they have a minimum of three years' experience. Three years is actually quite low, but that there be some degree of practical experience present before coming in is very welcome. I thank the Minister for taking that point on board.

Another point to be made in this debate is that we need to look at our per capitarate in terms of the numbers we have in the Judiciary to serve us. Ours is quite low compared to elsewhere in Europe and internationally. It is a fact that emerged in a number of inquiries in the committee, among many unexpected topics.

A point made by many stakeholders is that we need more judges. We need more people to hear court cases, hold proceedings and pass judgment because there are many matters to be dealt with. For example, a victim who is waiting time and again to come back to court and who sees matters delayed is being re-traumatised every time they have to appear in the court. Sometimes, a complex area of law has to be clarified for the benefit of this House or of other stakeholders or a particular sector, and there can be logjams in the employment courts and across the board. It is very important that we address that. I would say to the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, and the Minister, Deputy McEntee, that we need to do that. The Government is doing that and it has made a number of appointments over the last year, but we need an injection to get us up to the level that would be seen in comparable jurisdictions.

On a point that is not covered by the Bill, I believe the Judicial Council is considering the issue of judicial conduct. There is a lot of talk these days about safe spaces and dignity at work. Sometimes, particularly in the lower courts, one can be a king or queen of one's own castle. Dignity is not always afforded to those practising or appearing as witnesses, or to gardaí or officials. The Judicial Council is looking at some form of disciplinary or internal complaints procedure. It is needed and is something we have in every other walk of life. Just because somebody is sent to the Bench, they should not be immune from being asked to be accountable in that regard.

See this speech in context