Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister to indicate why the amendments made in the Act of 2002 to the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board provisions in the 1995 Act are to be done away with and the requirement for appropriate experience of the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court and the High Court to now be dispensed with as a criterion for eligibility. Why would we do that at this stage, with this having been part of our law for 16 years? This anticipates our amendment to section 35. Listening to the discussion here about legal academics and such, it is slightly worrying that insufficient emphasis has been put on the fact that one should know what one is doing, how courts function and that one should understand what makes a good judge and a bad judge. One of the best ways is to watch judges in practice. It is very hard for somebody who has never seen a judge adjudicate in any case to have a clear understanding of what makes a good judge or a bad judge. That applies to the lay majority aspect of the Bill.

Senator Bacik has a number of amendments. She is keeping her powder dry with them, which is an option she has and so be it. I am not satisfied that the Bill in its present form is sensible. I do not believe that two years of experience in the District Court should render one eligible to go to the High Court. It is not a good idea.