Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

There is no hierarchy of concern with regard to victims. That should not have been said.

The central point I want to make in the amendment is that, objectively, and I have dealt with many bodies and reviews and so on, it is not appropriate to have the Secretary General of the Department on it. That is not anti-Secretary General; that is daft. It is nothing to do with the personalities. It is a matter of what is the correct procedure. Would we put in any oversight body somebody who had an executive function in terms of the body to be overseen? The whole idea of the recommendations is to have an independent review body. Certainly, the group did include the Secretary General, but we are the legislators, and we are entitled to argue a point of view.

The Tánaiste is not hamstrung to a particular course of action if we can make a convincing argument that it is better for the independent functioning, not only the perception of an independent functioning but the reality of an independent functioning, for no civil servant to be involved in it. That is pure and simple. There is nothing Machiavellian or undermining. There is no agenda. It is simply that if you are setting up any oversight body, you do not put in as an intrinsic member of that oversight body somebody who has a vested interest in the outcomes of its deliberations on that, even in terms of perception. That is the way you would create any other oversight body relating to any other organisation of State or public body.

I know that is the way the Tánaiste would approach it so I would ask him to listen to the arguments on this side of the House and give us a coherent reason, other than that it was recommended. Other than that, is there a coherent reason? Is there a logic about including somebody? Let us hear it, because we have not heard it thus far. What is it?

See this speech in context