David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Following that brief excursion into the first national language, which carries supremacy when ruling on constitutional matters, I wish to comment on amendment No. 74. It states, "Subsection (1) shall only apply to a legal academic who has qualified as a barrister or solicitor..." and rules out the four consecutive years of practice. That does not go far enough. I do not see why they must have any experience as either barristers or solicitors. After all, these academics are teaching the barristers and solicitors so presumably they know more about it than the barristers and solicitors. Why not let them at it? There is no reason, other than the closed shop professional school nonsense one gets from both barristers and solicitors from time to time, that they should have to qualify as barristers or solicitors. I reiterate that they are teaching the barristers and solicitors. Is the teacher not as good as the pupil? Of course the teacher is. It is absolute nonsense.

I do not believe the Minister answered Senator McDowell's point regarding a high-flying academic. Why on earth would a high-flying academic want to go to the District Court and deal with people cycling on the pavement? It is an absurdity. I cannot envisage a situation where such an academic would demean himself or herself to seek appointment to the District Court.

Amendment No. 76 deals with section 33(4)(a) and (b) which states: "... (a) teaches one or more subjects in the field of law, or (b) carries out, or supervises the carrying out, of research in one or more such subjects, ...". One or more subjects means the person could teach one subject. That subject could be Roman law, which is not of great use in the courts of Ireland aside from an occasional casual reference. With regard to paragraph (b), "...carries out, or supervises the carrying out, of research in one or more such subjects, ...", supervising research is very different from carrying it out. The amendment differs by stating: "In page 24, to delete lines 15 to 17 and substitute the following: "(a) teaches one or more subjects in the field of law, and ...". The word "and" replaces the word "or". It has the two requirements, including "(b) carries out research, or supervises the carrying out of post-graduate research, ...". It requires a higher stage of academic development. It is a change from any kind of research to postgraduate research.

I support Senator Bacik's amendment, which proposes to delete "continuous" regarding the four years required and insert "cumulative". However, I would be much happier to get rid of the whole thing. What is wrong with teachers? Surely to God a professor of law is good enough to be a judge. A professor of law at a reputable academic institution is teaching people and is the instructor of the judges. Surely the instructors are as good as the "instructees".