Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 14, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following: “(3) There may be paid by the Commission such allowances for expenses (if any), incurred by lay members on a panel established under section 46(2), as the Commission may, with the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,determine.”.

The amendment makes provision for the payment of allowances for expenses, if any, incurred by lay members on a panel established under section 46(2), with the new subsection to be inserted by amendment No. 10. These will be paid by the commission as it may determine with the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.

Amendment No. 10 is the substantive amendment in the group. It makes additional provision for the conduct of interviewees and inserts a new subsection. The amendment proposes that an interview shall be conducted by a panel of no fewer than three members of the commission, at least one of whom shall be a lay member and one of whom shall be a judicial member. The composition of the interview panel shall be selected by the commission. Without this amendment, which I flagged on Committee Stage in our previous debate, there is an unintended implication that all nine members of the commission would be required to conduct the interview or indeed all interviews, which I do not think any of us think would be appropriate. This of course would not be practicable or desirable and having discussed the matter with the Chief Justice, I am satisfied that the change to clarify this position is necessary. It is not the intention of the legislation, however, to micromanage the commission process and it will, therefore, be a matter for the commission to decide which members will conduct the interview. The amended section will prescribe one thing, that the panel of the commission for the purpose of this shall have no less than three members and, importantly, at least one layperson and one judge.

Amendment No. 12 relates to section 50 and provides that the commission when it is recommending a person will provide certain information as set out to support the recommendation. Section 50(c) provides for the communication of the interview and other selection process results to the relevant Ministers. This is a technical drafting amendment that provides for a new cross reference from this requirement to the new section 46(2) inserted by amendment No. 10. The interview results, therefore, referred to in section 50 will now cross-refer to the new provision in section 46(2), which clarifies that the interview was conducted by a panel of the commission.

Amendments Nos. 13 and 14, taken together, make a necessary technical drafting adjustment to section 59. Amendment No. 13 removes the repeat interview condition from section 59(3)(c)(i) and amendment No. 14 replaces it with a simpler cross reference to the interview requirement in section 46. To summarise, all five of these amendments clarify in section 46 that a panel of the commission will conduct interviews as opposed to the commission as a whole and that lay members may receive necessary expenses and may make related necessary drafting adjustments.

See this speech in context