Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

We are debating a series of amendments proposing to amend section 12, which deals with the recommendation of lay persons for appointment as members of the commission or as chairperson of the commission. It is important to say at the outset that currently we do not know how many people we are talking about. Under the amendment passed by the House last night, there are to be 13 members of the commission. We know that five will be judges and three others will be lawyers, so I assume we are talking about having five laypersons. However, one of the downsides of the Government running with the legislation in the way it has is that we know it will try to increase the number when the Bill gets to Seanad Éireann. We really do not know how many members will serve on the commission. We know the Government wants a commission of 17 people but if there are to be eight from the Judiciary or legal profession, the Government will need to appoint nine lay people on to this commission. It is important to point out these people cannot be members of the legal profession or retired judges, for example. One would think it would be useful to have a retired judge on a commission to advise on the appointment of judges. It could be somebody such as Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness, who would be an excellent choice for the commission, or Ms Justice Mary Laffoy. They are not allowed on it because they have been "contaminated", as the Government sees it, by previously being a member of the Judiciary. It is easy for us in the House to try to put together legislation that will put lay people on this commission but we must understand and assess whether the section drafted and proposed by the Government would be feasible in terms of attracting individuals as lay members of this commission.

We are dealing with a batch of 20 amendments, from amendment No. 25 to amendment No. 44, inclusive. Like Deputy Clare Daly, I would like clarity on her amendments Nos. 25 and 26. It is unlikely that they can be moved. However, I am conscious that the Ceann Comhairle gave a very detailed written ruling to the House when Report Stage resumed. Much consideration has gone into it and there is no indication that amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are not appropriate to be moved. If they are not on his list, I suspect we will have to move them. I will be supporting amendments Nos. 25 and 26.

We know that amendments Nos. 27 and 28 have been ruled out of order. Amendment No. 28 has the objective of having the members of the commission electing their own chairperson. This was contained in my amendment No. 6, which was defeated by the House, and it is a very good idea that the commission should be able to elect its own chairperson. How will we distinguish as to who will be the appropriate lay person to be nominated by the Public Appointments Service as the chairperson? I do not know how those different characteristics will be assessed to determine a chairperson. It is worth pointing out that in the North there is an equivalent body that makes recommendations to government on the appointment of judges in Northern Ireland. The chairperson of that body is a judge. For the past 23 years, the chairperson of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board has been the Chief Justice. For some reason a decision was made by the Government that it had to have what it referred to as a lay chairman; in effect, they want somebody who is not a judge or lawyer to be the chairperson.

I have never got an answer to the question of what is the public policy benefit in having a person who is not a member of the Judiciary or a lawyer - it should be a member of the Judiciary instead of a lawyer - as the chairperson. I do not believe in deference to any group in society but if the Taoiseach was asked to serve on a committee but he would not be allowed to chair it, there would be outrage. That would arise because the Taoiseach is the head of the Executive branch and it would be inappropriate for him to be on a committee but not chair it. Similarly, if this House set up a committee to deal with procedures in the House and the Ceann Comhairle was a member, he would end up as chairman. I do not know if there is a committee in this House of which the Ceann Comhairle could not be the chairman. I do not know why the Government insists that the Chief Justice, who will be on the commission, should not chair it.

This seems again to be an obsession of the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport to the effect that the commission cannot be chaired by a judge. It is the wrong decision. The person on the board with most insight into what it takes to be a judge would be a judge. There is nothing controversial about that. I mentioned last night that if a panel was to interview people to pick the next editor of a national newspaper, surely we would want people chairing the panel who would understand newspapers and what it is to be an effective editor of a newspaper. For some reason, it is presented in this debate as though the last thing we should have is the Chief Justice chairing this commission.

Amendment No. 29 is from Sinn Féin and I do not know if it is being pursued. I do not want to put Deputy Ó Laoghhaire on the spot. I am conscious that it refers to general lay appointments and the diversity and social inclusion appointments. We debated Sinn Féin's amendment last week.

That amendment was withdrawn by Sinn Féin on the basis that the diversity and social inclusion appointments had the effect of removing the provision in the Bill which states that there had to be proficiency in the Irish language within the courts. That is an amendment I put down, and I know Deputy Ó Laoghaire supported it on Committee Stage, but I am not sure whether amendment No. 29 is being pursued. If it is, I will reassess it, but perhaps Deputy Ó Laoghaire could address us on that, if he gets the chance, to let us know if the amendment is going ahead.

The remainder of the amendments are minor consequential amendments that seek to insert the word "lay". I will support amendment No. 30 which is solely in the name of Deputy Daly. I will support the other amendments which are in the name of both Deputy Daly and the Minister. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about amendment No. 41, which provides that the people on the commission would have knowledge of board membership and corporate governance. What does that mean? Are we going to have the great and the good and the same people against whom the Minister, Deputy Ross, used to rail for years as being the insiders in Irish society? Is he now going to allow the insiders in Irish boardrooms to pick one of the most important public offices in the country?

See this speech in context