Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 12, line 25, to delete “each of subsections (2) and” and substitute “subsection”.

There might be an error in those two because if memory serves me correctly, our amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are consequential on our proposal that the chairman would be elected by the members of the commission, rather than appointed by the Public Appointments Service, PAS, and given that the proposal has fallen, we will probably have to withdraw these amendments. While that is something on which the Ceann Comhairle can adjudicate when he has a minute, I do not think they can be pushed at the moment. I am not sure if they can be tabled now although we would be happy if they could.

I am sorry that Deputy O'Callaghan's amendment No. 24, which is also consequential on his amendment No. 6, cannot be moved now either. This is key because that was to get rid of the Public Appointments Service as the body to appoint lay members and he was proposing that it be replaced with a system whereby lay members would be nominated by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, the Free Legal Advice Centres, the Citizens Information Board and so on. We had something similar on Committee Stage. While that cannot be moved, the discussion and the problems with the Public Appointments Service have to be re-echoed. It is not ideal. It is unsatisfactory that the PAS has been given the role of appointing the lay members. There is huge potential for that in indirectly rechannelling ministerial influence through the PAS. It is also the case, and the point was well made on Committee Stage, that the type of expertise that was being sought for commission members came from the commerce, business or senior civil servant type of background, which could be far more susceptible to political influence and far more connected to the political classes, than any members of the Judiciary in many instances. What we would get would really be an optical replacement of, mar dhea, lay people but which would be just as susceptible to political influence as any other body. In that sense, it is really regrettable that those amendments cannot be tabled.

I refer to Sinn Féin's amendment No. 29. It seeks to change the criteria by which PAS selects lay members. It is broadly similar to what is in the Bill already, with the key difference that it proposes a diversity and social inclusion appointment category. It is more complicated to involve the PAS. I note a technical problem with it, in that it is called "the public appointments commission". I do not know if that will be a problem with it going further but the PAS is being maintained with a list of nominating bodies called the diversity and inclusion panel. Those bodies would nominate three of the lay members of the commission. The bodies on the panel would have to demonstrate their relevance to the objectives of diversity outlined in amendment No. 3 or on the nine grounds in the Employment Equality Acts. It is a very novel and good idea, even though it is a little complicated. I am willing to forfeit its complexity in deference to the important contribution it could potentially make towards encouraging and expanding diversity. In light of some earlier amendments that were not moved, it is important that this amendment would be moved and consequently, we will be supporting that Sinn Féin amendment No. 29.

Although it is complex, it would, as I said, add to the Bill.

Amendment No. 38 is quite important as well. We will certainly be pushing it, particularly if Sinn Féin's amendment No. 29 does not pass. We are proposing to delete the provision that lay members of the commission would have knowledge or experience of processes and procedures for making appointments to public office or to senior positions in public or private sectors organisations. In other words, it is a kind of automatic pass on to the commission for retired senior civil servants. It is not what the intent behind the legislation was when we spoke of appointing lay people; we were talking about people who reflect the most diverse aspects of Irish society.

Amendment No. 40 is in this group and it is still in order. It is our tidying-up measure relating to an amendment we successfully tabled on Committee Stage providing that one of the areas of knowledge or experience that commission members should have is of "civil society, trade union activity and academia". Our tidying amendment would change this to "or academia" as our original amendment could have had the consequence that one of the criteria for the appointment of lay members is to have knowledge in all three areas, which was not envisaged. This amendment makes it clear it would be one or the other.

Government amendment No. 41 reinserts "board membership and corporate governance" as one of the skills the lay members must possess. We got rid of this on Committee Stage and it is incredibly insulting to committee members that the Minister would try to reintroduce this now. There were incredibly strong arguments made as to why this should not be the case if we are to reflect a more diverse and real sort of background. It is regrettable that the Minister is sneaking it back in here. We will strongly oppose that.

Amendment No. 42 is a Government tidying-up measure in respect of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. As we have already voted to accept a member in other parts of the Bill, the amendment is absolutely fine.

The other amendments in this group are out of order. I believe they were all tabled by Deputies O'Callaghan and Wallace and myself, although I am not completely sure. We had much discussion on Committee Stage on this and we feel strongly that there must be a check on the role of the Public Appointments Service in appointing lay people. Either our amendment No. 38 or, preferably, Sinn Féin's amendment No. 29 should be part of that, although only if linked with the rejection of amendment No. 41. That amendment is trying to prescribe the type of lay person we are to get, which if the amendment is accepted will not be diverse at all.

See this speech in context