Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will raise two points. First, the suggestion, as Senator Ward pointed out, that the Judicial Council members will somehow represent the diversity of the professions is just not statable as a proposition because the two nominees will be one male and one female nominee, one of whom, at the time of his or her appointment as a judge, will have come from the solicitor’s profession while the other will have come from the barrister’s profession. The Judicial Council could be appointing somebody who has been out of the profession for 20 years and who has about as much connection to the solicitor’s profession or to the Bar as anybody.

I am talking about granular, real understanding of the kind of people who we will have seen writing letters as a solicitor. We will have seen that a certain person is rude, offensive and all the rest of it and we will know that he or she has let down his or her partners on five different occasions. Things like that go to one’s reputation. That reputation should be just completely thrown out it is foolish, especially when there is an easy means to have at least some chance that a person with a poor reputation does not wander through the system and get selected.

The fact that a member of the Judicial Council has been elected by his or her colleagues and was a barrister or a solicitor 15 or 20 years ago will say nothing as to whether some young person who has been in practice for ten years is or is not suitable to be made a District Judge. It just simply will not speak to that issue at all, and it is of no help whatsoever.

It is a bit strange that my efforts to keep the lay and non-lay balance by reference to these amendments was ruled out of order on the basis that this might put a charge on the Exchequer. I just cannot understand it at all. It seems to be on the basis that they could get expenses and that there would be more expenses if there were one or two more people on the commission. That shows how ludicrous the Standing Orders of this House have become, that you cannot suggest that you are going to balance something without being told, “Oh they could claim expenses for turning up to a meeting so therefore you cannot make that balancing suggestion”. Therefore, it is effectively the Minister’s position that nobody can increase the size of this commission because to do so requires a balancing exercise which could give rise to expenses. This is something I find a bit difficult to swallow, but there you are. The Chair has so ruled, and I am stuck with that.

The difference between nine and 11 people is not all that important. Will they all turn up on the day? They may or they may not. Some may be on holidays. Some may be on maternity leave. You can never know; they may not turn up on the day. The difference between nine and 11 on this commission, therefore, is not some horrific difference in numbers. I have to reject the argument that it would make it in anyway unmanageable to have 11 rather than nine people on it.

While I am on that subject, I point that of the nine, the Bill as it stands at present states that the Attorney General cannot vote, so that is eight. You have four judges and four lay people. The Bill does not even give anybody a casting vote, which is even more remarkable.