Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Provided, of course, that other conditions of application were met. I acknowledge what appears to be agreement on the part of Senator Norris. I am not inclined to accept the proposed change in this instance.

If I may return briefly to Senator Ó Donnghaile's amendment No. 74, it would have the effect of removing two important elements from the requirements for eligibility of legal academics. It would remove the requirement to be a solicitor or barrister at the time of appointment, and it would remove the requirement of a practical experience of the courts over a number of years, whether that be continuous or cumulative. The Bill stipulates a period of four years. I am not inclined to accept the amendment on the basis that I do acknowledge that the Bill has evolved somewhat from the general scheme published two years ago. In the general scheme, head 26(3) proposed to enable a legal academic of not less than 12 years' standing who qualified as a barrister or solicitor to be considered for appointment regardless of whether that person had practised at all as a solicitor or a barrister. In the proposed new section 45A we are opening up eligibility to a legal academic of not less than 12 years' standing, provided that such a legal academic is a barrister or solicitor upon their being appointed and has practised as a barrister or solicitor for a continuous period of not less than four years.Similar requirements for the role apply in the case of a person who might be a head or dean of faculty. The reason for the departure from what was in the general scheme to what we have now was a feeling that it might have been more desirable to ensure legal academics appointed to the Bench had an appropriate level of experience of the practice and procedure of the court. Senator McDowell referred to this early in the debate in the context of the importance of having that practical experience and being knowledgeable of the procedure of the court. The practising qualifier is an important additional element with which I am not disposed to dispense. I do not see a wholly convincing argument for the amendment but I appreciate the intention behind it. I invite Senators McDowell and Bacik, both of whom have considerable practical experience, to go as far as to agree with me on the point I make in that regard.