Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

What we are debating is how laypersons are appointed. This could be done by asking the PAS to select the individuals but we are proposing that they be nominated by particular bodies. For example, the Act which currently governs the appointment of the Garda Commissioner states that the PAS shall run a competition to select a new person for the role. We all would be very fearful of that but, fortunately, within that legislation is a role for the Policing Authority. It is important to have a body with the experience and expertise to advise on the type of person for which the PAS should be looking. If we allow a situation whereby the PAS can nominate a person based on competition or open application, we will not then be able to mould the commission in a way that is reflective of society. It would be much better to have bodies that are reflective of different aspects of Irish society yet have a knowledge and involvement in the courts nominate who they would wish to be a member of the commission. It is a role they would take very seriously. They would be able to cajole people who may in the ordinary course of events not apply to the PAS to take on the role.

I support amendment No. 26, which seeks to do two things, the first of which is to remove the Attorney General from the commission. I recently put forward legislation on behalf of Fianna Fáil that provided for a judicial appointments commission of which the Attorney General would not be a member. The reason for the latter was not that the Attorney General lacks the relevant expertise or knowledge but because we thought it was inappropriate for him or her to have two bites at the cherry.

The Attorney General would not only be a member of the commission, which would recommend to the Government who should be nominated to a position, but would also be present when those names came to the Cabinet, advising the Government on who should or should not be appointed. That would have entailed too much of a governmental involvement in the commission.

The Attorney General, whoever that may be, has significant expertise in terms of advising on judicial appointments, but that is a function played by the Attorney General in Cabinet when he or she is advising the Minister on who or should not be appointed. If the names that come from the commission are not adequate or acceptable or if the Attorney General believes that they are not appropriate for appointment, he or she can say so and the Government can refuse them. Notwithstanding all of this structure, the Government maintains the prerogative to appoint or not appoint people recommended to it.

Amendment No. 26 proposes to replace the Attorney General with the Chief Commissioner of the IHREC. I would have preferred that body to be able to nominate someone. Notwithstanding that, I will support the amendment and may table a further amendment on Report Stage.

Regarding the other significant amendments, I note with surprise Deputy Wallace's amendment No. 30. I support it fully. He is proposing to include the President of the Circuit Court on the commission. I note it with surprise because my amendment No. 25 was ruled out of order. However, I am pleased to see that Deputy Wallace's proposal has not been ruled out of order.

I have concerns about Deputy Ó Laoghaire's amendment. It would complicate the process a great deal if some members were appointed under the diversity and social inclusion heading while others were appointed under the general lay person heading.

I will support Deputy Daly's amendment seeking to reduce the number of lay people from six to four.