Allow me to join the chorus of commentators, including members of Parliament, clamouring for an increase in the retirement age of our judges, and magistrates, for that matter. We have also had a Justice Ministry official holding that this retirement age should not be increased “to give others a chance”.

We have recently lost some of our finest judges due to retirement at the age of 65. All men in their prime, who have so much more to offer in the service of the judiciary. Why do they have to be packed off in what is basically middle age in these times of ours? We see and have seen some of our finest and most erudite lawyers successfully practising well into their 70s. To lose this talent is indeed risky. To find suitable replacements at their same level is not easy.

There is nothing particularly attractive in joining the Bench, other than prestige and a deep sense of service, perhaps. “To give others a chance” seems to suggest that there is some sort of queue in waiting. Certainly not the case. Remuneration is relatively paltry for that level of service. Conditions of work and, particularly, the court environment is unattractive. Pension is miserable. Some have independent means of income, say, family related, which helps them live a decent life, becoming of their position.

When they do retire, many judges are appointed to government boards and commissions, where they serve admirably. So why not remain on the Bench in the first place? This all needs a lot of rethinking.

Yet, as for the requirement that a judge or magistrate requires to practice as an advocate for a specified minimum term, this should stand. Appointment to the Bench requires experience.

Independent local councils and independent schools.

I was, many years ago when local councils were launched, like many others, an opponent of councillors being elected on political party tickets and of political parties being involved at all. Recent events have proved us right. There have been a spate of irregular or alleged irregular activities undertaken by mayors from both sides, and, as a result, resignations have been largely provoked by the political parties, which host these persons, which parties have placed tremendous pressure on their ticket holders.

This does not mean that independent mayors or councillors should not resign if they have been found guilty of wrongdoing but this should result from their own independent free will and sense of etiquette, not from the views of a political party. We must let local councils function independently for the good of the community and the community alone, not for the policies or interest of a party. Ultimately, a vote of no confidence can always come from their independent colleagues. We have enough political control at national level. Let us be free at the local level.

As for independent schools, we have read recently about the bid by private independent schools and an eminent parent of children attending such a school to obtain government aid. The request is not for direct aid but some system of vouchers to parents.

Aid is long overdue and should really be direct but then these independent schools do not want to lose their autonomy by being directly dependent on the government in some way or other; although, with the introduction of a voucher system, they will be indirectly dependent.

I have always held – and one does not need to be clever to do so – that the fact that the government gives direct aid to Church-run schools is blatantly discriminatory in the face of the independent schools and no excuse about the famous state-Church agreement can deny this. I had, many years ago, then having three children at the same time in an independent school (and I can assure all that it is no joke for the pocket), sought advice from a leading constitutional lawyer with the intent of possibly filing a human rights suit. Unfortunately, his advice was that there is no basis in our human rights provisions in the Constitution to file this particular case.

We now have comments online attempting to belittle the independent schools’ efforts, with claims that these serve as schools for the wealthy and that these children should be sent to state schools. Why don’t parents of children in Church schools send them to state schools? There are many, many parents who send their children to independent schools at great personal financial sacrifice, foregoing certain pleasures in life, like a trip abroad, for example, for many years. Further, I wonder whether the state would cope if its schools were the only ones in the country. Private independent schools are providing a service to the state and, as such, should receive support, just as the Church schools are. There is a small tax rebate for parents but that is far from sufficient.