Dr. Don Thornhill:

That is an interesting question and one that I am conscious of as chair. At the first meeting of the authority, I reminded members that they were there to represent the public interest, not as representatives of their nominating bodies. I am satisfied all members of the authority are conscious of their wider public interest obligations. When it comes to seeking legal advice, we have had, and have, some distinguished lawyers as members of our authority but we do not seek legal advice from them. We seek independent legal advice, particularly regarding our documents. That is one precaution against what one might regard as subtle capture by a particular interest.

We also have other strong interests on the authority from the consumer and legal education spheres. It is often the case that impartiality is helped when one has contending views and opinions. I see it as a particular responsibility on myself to ensure that independence. The episode to which Deputy Clare Daly referred was in itself significant. I shared a sense of severe disappointment when I saw the initial communications from the Department. Those were shared unanimously by members of the authority. We had no hesitation as an authority in dealing openly with this issue, rather than doing it by way of conversations. We felt it was important that we should put the discussion of the authority into the full minutes of the authority meeting and to convey them in writing to the Minister in order the public knew what was going on. That was one instance of where we were conscious of our independence. As chair, I was particularly conscious of that. It is a process of being vigilant and being aware of what the public interest is.