Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

In some ways, we are probably trying to do the same thing by reconfiguring the lay membership and striking a better, more representative balance as part of that. Amendments in the preceding group - they could not be moved because Deputy Sherlock was not present - overlapped with this in some respects.

I am not sure what the final configuration will be and so we probably will not be able to deal with this issue until Report Stage.

Under the current system, lay people are very much particular types of individuals and they come, in the main, from the commercial and financial sectors and their curricula vitae would reflect those of senior civil servants or business big-wigs, which is fine but we need more than that. The amendments deal with some of the aspects around how laypersons are configured. As Deputy Ó Laoghaire stated, Fianna Fáil has said that all of the laypersons should come from organisations. However, we would prefer a mix, with some coming from organisations and others coming by way of appointment through the PAS. I acknowledge there is a bit of a middle ground in that proposal. In our rush to get the amendments in, which is many months ago now, we may not have properly added up our sums. For example, the four should perhaps be a three to ensure balance. However, we are not fixed on that for the moment. The PAS, for all its good work, cannot be viewed as being entirely independent. There are issues of potential explicit political influence and, moreover, the subtle influence of a particular world view of the types of people who would meet the criteria. Our amendments seek to correct the current loading of the commission with a certain type of person that the PAS would have to consider. We want to ensure that the commission is a lot more diverse and has a range of views and voices.

I agree with the point made by Deputy Wallace. We are proposing to replace the Attorney General with the Chief Commissioner of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, which may have to change in light of the consensus for the inclusion of the presidents of the District Court and the Circuit Court. As Deputy Wallace pointed out earlier, the elimination of the Attorney General would free up a space for one of them. We would be happy enough on that score. However, the fact remains that there is no reason that the Attorney General should sit on this commission. I do not see what expertise he or she could bring to the role of appointing judicial members. The Attorney General is already involved in the appointments process at Cabinet in any event. No other model replicates that.

In light of the changes made earlier, I do not think any of these amendments will achieve what we are trying to do. However, we remain adamant on the Attorney General not being a member of the commission. If he or she is not a member, it would free up space for others to serve on the commission. We are not overly hung up on the lay versus legal issue, rather we are more concerned about the type of layperson that would be appointed in order to ensure the diversity needed.