Gerard Craughwell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I, too, support the amendment Senator McDowell and I tabled. Senator Bacik's point on expertise is one I thought about quite a lot in the context of this amendment. I frequently deal with a cardiologist and would hate to think that the people who appointed him knew nothing about medicine. I like to know that he is the best in his field and that is why he was appointed as a consultant.

There is something deeply suspicious and almost mean about the drive to have a large number of lay people involved in this massive 17-member commission. Its size is beyond belief. The Minister, Deputy Ross has been pushing for a lay majority for a long time. We probably should have a way to appoint judges which might be perceived to take politics out of it, although we have not been badly served by the Judiciary. However, it makes no sense to require a majority of lay people. Lay people sometimes do not understand the intricacies of the law or how judges arrive at their decisions. One often hears comments ranging from "hang him" to "shoot him" when a judgment is handed down. I refer to the extremely complex corporate cases that have come before the courts. If there is to be a majority of lay people on the commission, will they have to be accountants, actuaries or God knows what other profession? I do not see the necessity of having a large number of lay people. The people from the Law Library and the Law Society are well capable of working through, in an open and transparent way, the very difficult process of appointing judges.

We have addressed the various issues that will arise in the appointment of judges. On Committee Stage, reference was made to judges of an extremely conservative nature and the point made that if there were too many of them on a particular court one might wish to have less conservative people. I can imagine a situation whereby all hell breaks loose because the Chief Justice or somebody else tells the commission that there are many conservative judges and we need less conservative candidates. There would be leaks to newspapers and so on.

The amendment is perfectly reasonable. It makes the best of both worlds. If it is accepted and the Bill is passed, the majority of the commission responsible for the appointment of judges would have expert knowledge and it would be up to them to convince the lay people, rather than having a majority of lay people drawn from God knows where and with God knows what qualifications. I do not believe that what the Minister, Deputy Ross was looking for would meet the needs of society, although it may meet his needs. I would like to think that those appointed to the Bench are experts in their field and were selected by experts. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.