Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The overall purpose of these provisions is to exclude from the definition of "lay person" a person who is currently employed in the service of the State in a role where it was a requirement to have been a practising barrister or solicitor. I am not inclined to accept that there is any need for this refinement of the definition. I am satisfied that the definition is sufficiently wide to encapsulate any person irrespective of whether he or she is a member of the forces mentioned in Deputy Sherlock's unmoved amendment or a member of the Civil Service, and that any such person will not be considered to be a lay person in the context of the Bill and to be in a position to be appointed as a lay member of the commission.

Amendment No. 4 in the names of Deputies O'Callaghan and Chambers seeks to delete the provision that a lay person shall not have held any judicial office. I thank the Deputies for their amendment. Its purpose seems to support a later amendment on behalf of the Deputies relating to the designation of the chairperson of the commission. We are not discussing the substantive matter of lay chairing or, indeed, lay composition of the commission per sein this grouping, but I cannot accept an amendment that has as its objective the inclusion in the definition of "lay member" a person who has formerly been a judge.

Amendment No. 5 seeks to amend the definition of "lay person" and would have the effect of allowing, in conjunction with amendment No. 11, that a lay person shall not be a practising barrister or solicitor. I cannot accept this amendment. A reading of the section will show that it has been carefully structured to allow a lay person who was practising as a barrister or solicitor in a period of 15 years or more prior to the appointment to be considered to be a lay person. On balance, this is a proportionate provision and appropriately reflects what I believe to be an accepted sense of what we mean by "lay person". I would have thought that one of the requirements for someone to fulfil the definition of a lay person would be for him or her to be a non-legal person. That is the import of the legislation. A lay person cannot just have been a practising solicitor or barrister. That would not be in keeping with the careful balance around which the commission is structured.

It is my belief that, when we refer to lay people, we are discussing people who are separate and distinct from the legal profession. Some people could regard section 2(2) - "The relevant period for the purposes of paragraph (c) of the definition of "lay person" in subsection (1) is the period of 15 years immediately preceding the latest date on which a person may apply to participate in the selection process" - as unduly harsh. In the circumstances, it represents a balance on the basis of what we might consider to be a lay, or non-legal, person.

I would rather not respond to amendment No. 6 in the name of Deputy Daly until after I have heard from her unless the committee desires otherwise.