David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Can I have a break for a little laugh? I think I have done something unusual in that I have unearthed a new point, even though the old melodies are lovely and go to our hearts and we do so much enjoy the repetition of the good old tunes. We were asked what was in-depth. That is like Joxer from "Juno and the Paycock": "What is the stars? That is a darlin' question, Captain Boyle." I believe I have the answer. It comes from the GRECO report:

GRECO recalls that the current recommendation was, inter alia, based upon on-site discussions between its Evaluation Team (GET) and representatives of various interlocutors, including the judiciary, the executive branch, the Bar, the Law Society, the Prosecution Service and representatives of civil society.

That is in-depth, but there is no suggestion whatsoever the Minister for Justice and Equality has conducted anything remotely like that with the Judiciary.

The report goes on to say:

As reflected in the Evaluation Report, it is noteworthy that the perception of a “politicised” recruitment system was not aimed at the pre-selection procedure carried out by JAAB, but rather at the fact that the JAAB, a body of the judiciary, had to produce a list of candidates (at least seven) without priority and sometimes much longer lists without any order of priority to the government for its final appointment. Consequently, the potential risk of political lobbying and favouritism referred to in the Report, was in the second stage, i.e. once the list of candidates had been established and handed to the government for decision.

In other words, what it is attacking is not the composition of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, but rather that it would hand to the Government a list, sometimes consisting of seven members and sometimes of more but without any prioritisation, so the Government could pick and choose from an extensive list. That, in the opinion of GRECO, opened it up to politicisation. That is the point that GRECO makes.

It goes on to say there is no argument at all about the question of merit, that merit should be the basis for all appointments, which I think we are all agreed on. What we do not agree with is the extraordinary notion that a majority of people should make decisions about professional appointments from outside. They are specifically disqualified because of their experience. The very thing that should qualify them, and the very knowledge that should qualify them, has them disbarred. That is completely and utterly farcical.