Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am inclined to agree with the Minister's last point. For example, at the moment if we avail of a former judge to chair a commission - and we are running out of them for commissions of investigation currently - we still regard them as being legal. If they are a former judge, we assume and we see them more on the legal side than on the lay side. I would agree with the Minister's point in that respect.

On amendment No. 69, I was a bit surprised that my amendment was put in this group of amendments, although there is a link with Deputy Daly's amendment. From my point of view they are actually linked to other amendments that I have tabled. Amendment No. 69 provides that the Public Appointments Service, PAS, should have regard to "... the objective that the membership should comprise equal numbers of men and women". That may be a consideration in the overall commission, including lay and legal members. This part of the amendment is pretty self-explanatory and it ensures that we try to have equal numbers of men and women as lay members. The second part of the amendment says that consideration should also include "the objective that the membership should reflect the diversity within the population as a whole”. That is very broad and I have dealt with it more specifically when dealing with other parts of the legislation. I thought those amendments might have gone together.

For example, in section 15(5) there is a provision that when selecting the six lay members for the judicial appointments commission, the PAS will have regard to whether the candidates have knowledge or experience of the matters set out in section 15(7)(a)to (g). Subsection (d) refers to the processes and procedures for making appointments to public office or to senior positions in public or private sector organisations. Subsection (f) refers to board membership and corporate governance. The amendment to propose the removal of subsections (d) and (f) was drafted to remove any requirement or desire by PAS for candidates to have experience in public sector appointments, board membership and corporate governance, with a view to broadening the potential for the PAS to pick outside of the usual career civil servants or retired civil servants who would be likely to have experience in these areas. This would encourage as broad and diverse an approach as possible by the PAS rather than restricting the PAS only to candidates who have such experience, and it would minimise the potential for public sector groupthink within the commission.

We do not want the commission to be stacked with civil servants. The Minister, Deputy Ross was at pains to tell Deputies that one of the driving desires behind this Bill was to depoliticise the selection of judges but I am afraid that it could make it even more politicised. If the lay members of the commission are going to be creatures of government, and we would argue civil servants tend to be such creatures, then the paws of government may be strengthen in how judges are to be selected.

The judicial appointments commission is unique and would be best served by a diverse membership with a dynamic and innovative approach to decision making. The inclusion of lay members with little or no experience of public sector appointments processes or board memberships would be preferable. This is also the reasoning behind the amendment affecting (e), which is amendment No. 67, to remove reference to public administration and to include civil society and trade union activity. I understand that we will deal with this amendment later on. This would encourage the PAS to cast the net wider for lay members from these backgrounds rather than seeking lay members from the finance, commerce and public administration sectors as is currently proposed in subsection (e) drafted by the Government. I argue that this would avoid and move away from the amount of political influence in how judges are appointed. I believe that taking this approach will be positive.