Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

There are a number of threads. The involvement of the Public Appointments Services is part of a broader political debate flowing out of public disquiet over the way in which appointments to boards were previously handled. It is something we have discussed. In this context, I am prepared to see this is a board that will not be a highly sought-after gig with loads of initials after people's names and wads of cash attached to it. Presumably the people who would opt to go to the parole board would do so out of a motivation of public service or an association in a former life or some interest in the area. In this sense, I accepted the point that perhaps mandating the Public Appointments Service to deal with a board of this character, which does not meet weekly, is perhaps a little top-heavy. However, it is there to overcome the difficulty with previous political appointments. I am prepared to stand back from this group of amendments.

With regard to the idea of the nominating bodies being subject to some scrutiny, perhaps this does not apply to this type of board because the people coming forward will be those who will want to come forward, and they will not be stampeded in the queue for the positions. That is probably true. Others, such as judicial boards, would be prestige gigs and we would need to include more caveats. When we say nominating bodies this does not necessarily give a level of transparency. Perhaps the overall balance is met by the various categories.

I am quite adamant about the inclusion of a community representative, whether it is done in Deputy Wallace's way or my way. Deputy O'Callaghan's amendments also speak about community. Deputy Brophy's points are a bit facetious, because the person will define himself or herself and the appointment process will nominate who comes forward. Yes, a Member of the Oireachtas is a community representative as far as I am concerned, but in actual fact what is far more likely in this category, and what is supported by the present parole board, is the idea of somebody who has experience of working with ex-offenders. In this sense, they would be very well placed. They may not have initials after their name but they have street knowledge of risk and how a person's sentence was managed, and they could be a really valuable addition to the professional people on the board. The only point is to have a balance with the high-powered professional-type input because, with the best in the world, people who are professional may not have a broader understanding. They have their own expertise, but it could be blended with somebody who has more of the background. Many of the people up for parole perpetrated their crimes in their own communities on neighbours and friends. If they are going back into those communities it is precisely those people who would be the victims of further crime if they got it wrong. A community representative would be a valuable addition, whether through Deputy Wallace's amendment or mine. I take what Deputy O'Callaghan is saying, that his amendment allows for community also, but it is only an option and not an obligation. I believe somebody such as this would be invaluable to the board. I would like such a person to be there. I accept the Minister's point on amendment No. 21 regarding interviews.

My amendment is probably too detailed. Hopefully, the board deals with that issue. We probably do not need to specify it in legislation. I will withdraw it.