Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. Like others, I recognise the origins of the Bill, coming as it does from the issues identified by the public consultation regarding the independence of the Judiciary on the one hand, as well as the importance that the Judiciary would reflect the eligibility and diversity of our population and that there would be clear transparency in the judicial appointments process. I welcome the broad thrust of the Bill. The increase in the levels of transparency and accountability in the process of appointing judges is welcome overall. I also strongly welcome the achievement of diversity in the Judiciary as a goal for the commission. However, I have concerns that while diversity and gender balance are strongly emphasised in section 7, section 36 which relates to the appointment of individual judges may lack the same emphasis in putting that into effect. A good point was made by Senator Ó Domhnaill that lay members are not witnesses solely alone but there is a question of adding value. In that section, there is a clear emphasis on the kinds of experience and skills, including experience with the Courts Service, rehabilitation and a wide range of other skills, which can add understanding to the debate. The lay member is not there as a witness but as a contributor.

On particular skills which are necessary and stated as goals, for example, human rights skills, I am concerned the requirement not to have practised law for 15 years could inadvertently serve as a barrier to some human rights experts. I refer to Irish Centre for Human Rights at NUIG. Many people who work in the human rights sphere rather than in the legal system come from that background. I welcome the clarity in the Dáil debate on the specificity of the IHREC, Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, nomination. I have some concerns around the question of legal academics. There is a slightly different category which does not relate to our Judiciary or practising barristers or solicitors but to legal academics who have a useful insight to bring into the mix. Lay persons who were legal academics could serve as a bridge. We do not want to see the full component of lay persons represented but I am concerned that the 15-year bar may potentially serve to deny credible candidates in that regard. I may table amendments seeking one role for a legal academic in the mix.

My other concern is in respect of the appointments of judges. I recognise and applaud the conveyance towards diversity. I am concerned how health is invoked as grounds in that regard. It is unusual, and somewhat out of date, to put in a health test, or anything that could be construed as one, as one of the grounds for the appointment of a judge. Competence is reflected in the requirements. There may be a case to be made for ensuring somebody who has the competence also has the capacity. A key test should be, however, whether the person can do the work rather than the abstract idea of the state of his or her health and what it might be. I am concerned that it could lead inadvertently to an ageist component or prejudices in terms of disability or ability. We should rank the health of candidates in that regard. The key question is the candidate's capacity to perform the functions. There are better ways to capture that. Senator Dolan is also concerned about this.

I welcome the idea of a full-time director of the commission and the provision of training. The lack of training schemes within our Judiciary has been a key problem. The role of the director in facilitating and supporting legal analysis and resources for lay members will be crucial as will the role of the chair. While it was rejected by the Dáil, the chair may need to be specific characteristics who can both understand the law but also be that bridge in bringing everybody with them in that discussion. If the chair were to be a lay person, then he or she should have a good legal grounding.

I intend to table a few amendments on Committee Stage.