Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 26, which was moved by Deputies Wallace and Daly and debated by other Deputies, proposes to replace the Attorney General as a member of the commission with the Chief Commissioner of the IHREC. I cannot accept the amendment. One needs to acknowledge the importance of the role of the Attorney General and the manner in which that officer operates. One also needs to acknowledge the fact that the Attorney General has been a member of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, JAAB, since it was established more than 20 years ago. Given that the Office of the Attorney General is the constitutional legal adviser to the Government and the Government has a constitutional role to play in advising the President on the persons to be appointed to judicial office, it seems that the presence of the Attorney General on the new commission would provide a key line of continuity between the design, oversight and management of the selection process for appointees to the office of judge and the ultimate decision by the Government as to the persons who are to be appointed.

As the Chairman will appreciate, the Attorney General has a unique position as the recognised head of the Bar, plays an important function in both legal professions and is a key user of legal services for and on behalf of the Government. Forming views as part of the commission process as to which candidates are or are not appropriate for appointment to judicial office, the perspective and focus of the Chief Commissioner of the IHREC would be different in nature from the Attorney General's.

With the greatest of respect to the office of Chief Commissioner, that person would not have the same perspective in terms of members of the professions.

Under section 15(7), which outlines the areas of desired professional expertise and experience for the selection of the lay members of the commission, we already have a specific reference to human rights. I am somewhat amused by Deputy Daly's continued reference to this process as being occupied, directed, orchestrated or in the possession of civil servants and officials. I see no reference to that in the legislation. I invite members to examine section 15(7). None of it makes any reference to anyone other than persons connected with areas of importance throughout the NGO sphere as well as agencies and stakeholders across the gamut of appropriate and necessary organisations within our society. To suggest that the Civil Service has in some way an inordinate amount of influence under the new proposals is misleading. Regarding amendment No. 26, though, there is an important role for the Attorney General in the process.

Deputy Daly's amendments Nos. 27 and 28 have been discussed and seem to propose that the practising solicitor and barrister, along with the lay members of the commission, be selected by the PAS. I am unsure as to whether that would be an advantageous position.

In amendment No. 30, Deputy Wallace seeks to remove the lay chairperson selected by the PAS under section 15, but it is the Government's view that having a lay majority and lay chair is important. We should continue along those lines. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept that amendment.