Ms Attracta U? Bhroin:

In the first instance, to be very clear, our first recommendation was that the panel system should be improved, particularly in the context of the urgency with which we now need to address this and move on. We heard that very clearly this morning and Mr. Lawlor also referred to it. We need to understand that we have a robust system in place and that much could be done in respect of small tweaks to basically improve the panel system. I would be happy to revert further on that if there is time.

The critical thing I would emphasise is that although there has been much discussion at committee, it is imperative to highlight that in head 5, the proposed section 106(3) refers to the Minister establishing a committee "or other suitable independent" procedures. Therefore, there is no guarantee here that the Minister will establish a committee. He can establish any system he wishes and that is absolutely critical to understand.

One of our alternate recommendations is exactly what Deputy Ó Broin referred to, which is that the committee should be prescribed in legislation to reflect something similar to the panel system. I would suggest there is room for improvement in that regard. It should not just reflect what the panel system is. It should very particularly reflect the Ireland we have today in terms of ethnicity, diversity, equality and balance while also seek to address the core set of skills and perspectives. It should be very prescriptive in the Act and much more robustly specified than is set out here.

We have made detailed recommendations in respect of that and would be happy to revert further if that would be of assistance to the committee. That is fundamentally the issue but there is also the output, the panels of nominees, as the Chairman very helpfully clarified in his question and previous remarks. The panel that becomes output can potentially be very problematic because it is a static panel and continually drawing from it depletes what might have been a very balanced composition. If that is what is going into the board, the outgoing from the board may be highly variable. At least with the panel system, different perspectives are exiting and coming in at different times. That allows for the maintenance of that balance whereas with this, people are being pulled from a static panel all the time until the Minister decides he wants to refresh the panel. We have multiple concerns with this.

There is also a further level of discretion in that the Minister may involve the Public Appointments Service in respect of any matter. This could all end up being decided by the Public Appointments Service and the committee seems to have discretion. There are multiple layers of discretion here. With the greatest of respect to the Public Appointments Service, one needs to look at the composition there and question whether that will even create the appearance of independence here given the involvement of the Departments within that. While it has always been important, everybody acknowledges that it has never been more important to clearly maintain the independence of the board. Indeed, the very first paragraph of the Minister's action plan refers to the importance of the independence of the board. I will not quote from it in the interests of time, but it is there. Ms Graham made those comments about it today and it was very much welcomed by everybody here.

There are multiple issues with what is proposed here. We have an urgent requirement to address. I ask the committee to question the Minister as to why he has not fulfilled his duties to move as soon as possible to replace people when they have exited under the system, including under panel A, before recent matters emerged.