Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Senator Ward has tabled an amendment to do that. It is amusing because the Bill, as it stands at present, means there will be a deadlock. The four lay people will obviously listen carefully to the judges as a group. They will not come in say, “We are the lay people, and we have this candidate” and the Judiciary will not say, “Well this is our person”. I believe that the practitioner representatives would tend to assist the lay people rather than the establishment Judiciary in ensuring that there will be an openness to the whole thing. If I were a layperson who was appointed through this system and if I were one of eight people who could vote on this issue, I would much prefer to have somebody else who was not a judge saying, “I am with you on that person. I agree with you on that”. The notion that somehow the practitioners would all align with the Judiciary is in my view mistaken.This is a point of fairly fundamental importance. I did not table this amendment just to make a point or to hear the sound of my own voice. It is a huge, fundamental error in this legislation that the professions are being railroaded out of it. It is a big, fundamental mistake.

I heard what the Minister said by way of reply, but I do not accept the rationale of what she said. She has not said that professional representatives or practitioners would be a bad thing. She has not said that they would tend to be part of the status quo. If we are talking about old boys’ clubs, the Judiciary is far more likely to be an old boys’ club together, than the Judiciary with two practitioner representatives looking at what they are doing. I believe that it is a fundamental mistake not to accept this amendment.