Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister is making these arguments. Our argument for taking the Attorney General out of the first stage process is based on the fact that the Attorney General is involved in the second stage process. It is not a question of undermining the Attorney General. We simply do not see why the Attorney General should be involved in both stages. It does not seem to stack up.

The Minister made a comparison between the expertise of the Attorney General and the chief commissioner of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. First, we are not doing away with the expertise of the Attorney General given that the Attorney General will be involved in the second stage. Second, given that we are keen to get extra bodies on the full commission, namely, the President of the District Court and the President of the Circuit Court, I am prepared to look at whether we insist on the chief commissioner of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission being part of the final commission when we go to Report Stage. This is because we have no wish for the commission to get any bigger than it needs to be in order to be workable. Certainly, we will consider that concession given our determination to ensure that the presidents of the Circuit Court and the District Court are involved.

I wish to address amendment No. 30 as I have not yet done so. The amendment removes the proposed Government provision to appoint a chairperson through the Public Appointments Service. The Minister has addressed this already. The Minister has expressed his dislike for our questioning of the position of the Public Appointments Service. I do not believe any of us has undermined the service. Having said that, the service is made up of political appointees.

If Napoli were playing Torino in a cup final next week, and Napoli were allowed to appoint a commission from which the referee would be picked, we would be a little bit concerned as to which side the referee might be on. The proposed amendment to section 15 envisages that the commission shall elect its own chairperson from among its membership and that the chairperson may or may not be a lay person, depending on how the members vote. I am not overly concerned about whether the chairperson is a legal or lay person. The point is that I think it would increase the independence of the commission to allow its members to elect the chairperson. If we did that, I would lay money on it that the members would pick a lay chairperson in the first instance. It would give the members a greater sense of ownership and a greater role in the direction of the commission, encouraging a more independent and original statutory body rather than having the commission steered from the outset by a possible career civil servant, which would be the likely outcome of the Public Appointments Service, PAS, competition envisaged in the Government's proposals. Given the membership of PAS, there is the potential of channelling political influence, directly or indirectly, through the selection of lay members by the Public Appointments Service. Although a chairperson elected in this way may or may not have the same experience of effective board management and corporate governance as one selected by PAS in accordance with section 15, as drafted by Government, the elected chairperson would have the assistance of a full-time director and staff of the commission, if there were gaps in this regard. We argued in the earlier days as to whether this was overkill, given the cost involved, but now that we are considering getting rid of the subcommittees, there will be more work for them. That gives it more merit.

The inclusion of the President of the Circuit Court as a permanent member of the commission reflects the recommendations and concerns of both the Association of Judges of Ireland, the Law Society and the majority of the committee at this stage. The Law Society submission in March 2017 on the proposed heads of the Bill emphasised that it is in the Circuit Court and District Court where most citizens meet the justice system, a point which Deputy Jim O'Callaghan raised at a previous meeting. These courts are where most of the vacancies are and to which appointments will be made. There must be range of judges with suitable skills and personalities to meet the needs of these courts and to deal with the volume of people competently and sensitively and that the input of the relevant presidents would thus be of major importance to the commission.

We will stick with our amendment at present but we will review it for Report Stage in order to accommodate the need to prevent the commission from getting too large.

Will I get a chance to speak on amendment No. 39?