Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The Cathaoirleach Gníomhach knows I would not want to do that but I acknowledge that I tabled this amendment as No. 17 on Committee Stage, so I cannot but agree with what has been said about it. Again, I believe there is a move here within the Bill to continue what has been provided for in the initial Stages in terms of what I consider to be preposterous purported balances between the two professions in light of the make up of the Judicial Council.

Section 12 currently provides that, obviously, there would be consideration in terms of balancing the persons who are members of the commission in light of their previous professions. Again, as I have already said, I do not that is a reasonable basis on which to balance the commission. Balance is of course important but actually there are much more important balances to be achieved, and some of which have been referred to in terms of the make up of the commission than what the previous profession was. I reiterate what I said in the context of amendment No. 11, that judges are judges and what profession they carried out before they were judges is irrelevant to their role as judges, and it must be so. Were that to cease to be the case, then we would have much bigger problems in terms of the operation of the Judiciary.

Section 12(6) addresses the issue where a casual vacancy arises. It continues the requirement for that balance in a number of respects. Gender being one, in section 12(6)(a). Section 12(6)(b) refers to membership "of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal or the High Court ... or of the Circuit Court or District Court" in terms of the court from which they came. Section 12(6)(c) refers to the previous profession that they had. There are two issues. First, I do not agree with the false balance that is being created here. On the paragraph pre provision, I do not particularly have a problem with the paragraph in terms of the courts because that is already laid down in section 12 and I am not sure that they could go beyond that anyway. The difficulty that I have is that this is also seeking to remedy a problem that would only exist for a finite amount of time in any event. So in the event that a casual vacancy arises, first and foremost you are going to have a situation where that judicial commission is only going to endure for a certain period. Consequently, even were this pseudo- imbalance to arise in the context of the person who takes over that position, it would be a short-lived thing. That is not likely to arise on a regular basis or for a long time.

Returning to what I said on Committee Stage about amendment No. 11, I do not agree with this purported balance that is being creating by the Bill. I do not think it is balance at all. It fundamentally misunderstands what judges do and where they come from when they do their job well. I do not agree with this notion that where-----