Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I want to speak to this amendment but before I do I preface my remarks by welcoming the Minister here and thanking him for his indulgence and patience. I know it is frustrating for the Minister but it is also frustrating for us.

In preparing an opinion piece today, I took the time and trouble to look at the amount of judges this Government has presided over and appointed. Without reading that whole list onto the record of the House, because I hope my opinion piece will be published in the newspapers in the next few days, the Minister has appointed 58 judges under this Government, of which the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, is a member. That is the same man who made the various statements my good colleague, Senator McDowell, referred to. I want to endorse everything Senator McDowell said because we have to ask ourselves what we are doing, what we are trying to achieve and who is behind all of this. I feel sorry for the Minister and I am sympathetic that he has had to spend over 100 hours in here. I share his frustration because I do not particularly fancy being in here but this is the Upper House. We would be failing in our job if we did not scrutinise this. We are here because we are engaging in the system. There are many empty seats here tonight so what am I to take from that? Are Members disinterested? Do they not give a hoot? I do not know. Look around at how many people are in this Chamber. What does that say? We are here to do a job. The Taoiseach came in here last year and talked about our role and he wanted us to rigorously pursue and tease out all the issues with legislation. That is what we are doing. It may be tiresome, time-consuming and frustrating but we are doing the right thing.

I want to set out that I support reform of the judicial system and I support lay involvement in the process but I do not support the removal of the major function of the Chief Justice. Looking at the list of the 58 judges appointed by the Minister, they are an impressive list of people throughout all ranks of the Judiciary. The Government can be proud of its achievements and it can be proud of the men and women it has entrusted the judicial system to be in the hands of. This is good news. Why change it? The Minister and I know what the story is. Everyone on both sides of the House knows what the story is. We will be here for many months yet as far as I am concerned. This will not just blow away. The people who have stuck with this have to be encouraged, supported and acknowledged because they are doing the work they are paid for, which is to come into this House, tease out legislation and make a case for amendments to legislation. I accept the Minister has a prerogative to accept, reject or amend any of those suggestions.

Amendment No. 6 states: "In page 8, line 21, after “chairperson” to insert “where the chairperson was a lay person at the time of his or her appointment”." It is under the name of myself and my good colleagues, Senators McDowell, Craughwell and Marie-Louise O'Donnell. The amendment would have the effect of changing the definition of a lay member, as the Minister well knows, to include: "where the chairperson was a lay person at the time of his or her appointment". This amendment sensibly removes the overriding theme evidenced in this Bill and in the Government's new amendments put forward on Report Stage that anyone who is even touched by the non-lay influence should have no say. That is madness. Such a person can have no say and could never be a chairperson of the judicial appointments commission. Why? What is the logic behind that? Explain that to us. This is complete folly. There is no comparable body in this country where someone with such responsibility would be bound to have so little experience over the role he or she is tasked with overseeing and managing. What would be so wrong about a retired solicitor, barrister, a legal academic who might have practised or a former judge who may now be a lay person in ordinary life being chairperson of the commission? Those people would be banished from ever participating in the commission. It does not make sense.

This has all come about because of the suspicions of the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross. The Minister for Justice and Equality and I know that and the dogs on the street know it. This amendment should be considered. I hope the Minister will reflect on it and agree with it.