Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 29 is in the name of Deputy Ó Laoghaire. He will be aware from my amendments how best I see the composition question on the commission being approached. Under my amendments lay members will be drawn from the Public Appointments Service process, as will the chairperson, similar to the Deputy's own view. IHREC will nominate its own lay person. I made the point before in regard to the Deputy's approach that his amendments would make it difficult for the comprehensive framework of knowledge and experience in subsection (7) to be referenced. If the Public Appointments Service was confined to only making a small number of selections from these categories of experience and knowledge, I believe we would risk losing valuable inputs in the appointments framework. I am concerned that by narrowing the selection of lay people under Deputy Ó Laoghaire's approach, we are losing out on important inputs.

Deputy Charles Flanagan: Amendment No. 29 is in the name of Deputy Ó Laoghaire. The Deputy will be aware how best I see the composition question on the commission being approached. Lay members will be drawn from the Public Appointments Service process, as will the chairperson, similar to the Deputy's own view of that. IHREC will nominate its own lay person, which we have touched on already. I made the point before, in regard to the Deputy's approach, that his amendments would make it difficult for the framework of knowledge and experience in subsection (7) to be referenced, in particular if the Public Appointments Service was confined to only making a small number of selections from these categories of experience and knowledge. I believe we could risk losing valuable inputs in the appointments framework. I am concerned that, by narrowing the selection of lay people under Deputy Ó Laoghaire's approach, we are losing out on critical inputs.

I believe amendment No. 30, in the name of Deputy Daly, undermines the position of the selection of the chair given there are specific requirements in section 12 underscoring the special position of the chairperson. I am concerned about that and, therefore, I am not in a position to accept the amendment.

With regard to amendments Nos. 31 to 36, inclusive, these are in Deputy Daly's name and in my name, so perhaps they can be taken together. I can defer to Deputy Daly in respect of them but Deputies will be aware these are merely necessary tidying-up amendments that make it clear that the relevant position as set out in section 12(5)(a), (b) and (c) can relate only to the lay members. Those provisions concern the three objectives set out in the subsection, that is, knowledge and experience of the matters set out in subsection (7) and the objectives relating to having an equal number of women and men and the diversity of the population as a whole.

Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 together remove from subsection (5)(a) the reference to the members of the commission appointed pursuant to paragraphs (e), (f) and (h) of section 10. In other words, it deletes references to the practising barrister, practising solicitor and lay members but realigns the wording to relate only to the lay members. Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 serve the exact same purpose in respect of subsection (5)(b). Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 repeat the process in respect of subsection (5)(c).

On amendments Nos. 37, 39 and 41, the fundamentals of section 12(7) are retained because these will be essential to the success of these measures. It acknowledges the pivotal role of the Public Appointments Service as the acknowledged leading recruiter for the public service in the State and that it will manage the process. My proposed amendments Nos. 37, 39 and 41 are on the criteria set out in section 12(7). On amendment No. 37, in Deputy Daly's name and in my name, Deputy Daly has spoken on this and I am with her on it. In amendment No. 39 I am seeking to reinsert in the Bill the words therein which were deleted by the committee, and the position is similar in amendment No. 41.

I can accept amendment No. 40 in the name of Deputies Daly and Wallace. With regard to amendment No. 39, I do not believe the reference to "administration" should be dropped as I believe it was an important part of the composition under the current Judicial Appointments Board. I can think of very many public and other institutions which, and, indeed, also eminent individuals with an administrative background in the public or private sphere who, could make a very substantial contribution to what the commission will be seeking to achieve.

With regard to Deputy O'Callaghan's amendment No. 43, I am aware we separately have similar requirements in section 12. I think we will need another member who will be more familiar with board procedure and governance. It may well come into play in a situation where the chairperson's role, for example, needs to be filled on a temporary basis.

On amendment No. 38, in the name of Deputies Daly and Wallace, apart from the actual recommendation function of the commission, the members will be required to engage in a substantial manner with procedures, practice and policies. This trait is captured in paragraph (e) and I believe it is important. As a result of that, I have a difficulty with amendment No. 38, which seeks to remove that. I caution against it.

My amendment No. 42 proposes the deletion of subsection (8), which I believe is superfluous as subsection (5) already mandates the Public Appointments Service in selecting the lay persons to have regard to the diversity issue and the equal number of men and women objectives. I am not sure that it needs to be repeated at this stage.

Amendment No. 43 is consequential on Deputy O'Callaghan's preference as to the manner of securing the chair of the commission, which we discussed in the previous grouping. I have a difficulty with that approach.

See this speech in context