Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Yes. I will respond to Deputy O'Callaghan first. My political views are entirely in accordance with the programme for Government, as a Member of the Government that agreed the programme. This legislation is an important component of the programme for Government. It is challenging to sustain a position that a member of the Judiciary who for one reason or another steps down from that role can suddenly be categorised as a non-legal person. This is a challenge for public perception. I take the point made by Deputy O'Callaghan about retired judges serving the public well after their retirement. It is fair to say that if one looks across the current panel of retired judges in Irish society most of them are actively engaged in some form of commission of investigation or other. The matter of their appointment is associated with their careers as judges. From time to time they are described as a retired, eminent, legal figure or a retired, eminent member of the Judiciary. There is a difficulty in regarding these retired judges as lay persons or non-legal persons. Where Deputy O'Callaghan's amendment is concerned, this perception presents us with a difficulty. I believe that it is hard to sustain a view that having served the State well for decades a retired, eminent judge can suddenly be regarded as a lay person or a non-legal person. It is hard to sustain that view and I would have a difficulty in that.

With regard to Deputy Wallace's amendment, I will look at it again. The Deputy made references to other matters in the latter part of his contribution that I will address later. I will not detain the committee now as we will come back to those issues later in the debate. We are currently discussing amendment No. 69 and I do not disagree at all with the intention of the Deputy. I will look at a similar type of construct in other legislation such as the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014 which I have already mentioned.

In fairness to the Bill as drafted, we have made specific reference to ensuring that the Public Appointments Service considers certain matters, which I believe are robust and meet most of the concerns of Deputy Wallace. In regard to the concerns that are not met, I will consider them between now and Report Stage.

I do not disagree with the intention behind his amendment. I do not want to be unduly restrictive either. Deputy Clare Daly's amendment No. 6 is still under consideration. I am trying to be helpful. I came to this meeting with an open mind and I am listening to the views of members with a view to improving the legislation. If I were to accept the import of Deputy Daly's amendment, we could be faced with a proposition that if the nominees of a number of organisations that are mentioned happened to be lawyers, I do not believe we can therefore automatically regard these people as being lay members of the commission. In terms of the objective, what we want to do is the same but we need to do that without being unduly restrictive or without having consequences that are not intended by the amendment.

I will not accept the amendment but I will look at the issues raised by Deputies Daly and Wallace in the context of Report Stage, having regard to the points they made with which I do not disagree.