Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister has very briefly and tersely proposed amendment No. 7. The effect of his amendment is to remove three existing paragraphs and substitute four. The fourth paragraph is the new point in this debate. It would appear that the Government, following Committee Stage in the House, suddenly got the bright idea that the definition of "lay person" was too loose and that what was needed in the definition that it had already proposed was an additional disqualification from being regarded as a lay person, namely, a person "does not hold or occupy, and has never held or occupied, an office or position in a place outside the State equivalent to an office or position referred to in paragraph (a) or (b)", which means judicial office or the attorney general, director of public prosecutions, chief state solicitor or a law officer of another state.In other words, if a person is a civil servant in Britain whose position depends on having a qualification in law, he or she should never, ever be capable of being appointed to the Irish judicial appointments commission. Likewise, if one is a civil servant in Northern Ireland whose job involved having a legal qualification - and let us be clear about this because Senator Ó Donnghaile might have some interest in this - no matter what one does for the rest of one's life, and it could be 20, 30, 40 or 50 years later, one still stands disqualified under this provision from being eligible to be appointed to the judicial appointments commission. Does Sinn Féin really believe this is a good idea? If a person serves two years in a position in the civil service in Northern Ireland, for which a legal qualification is required, and should thereafter come south of the Border - or even remain north of the Border - this amendment would mean that he or she may never be capable of being a member of the Irish judicial appointments commission.