Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

We are sometimes inclined to think that because the Patten commission suggested a course of action in Northern Ireland, we should adopt it in the Republic. We should consider similar jurisdictions to ours. The police complaints commission for England and Wales and the public complaints commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police each have more than one member. If one looks around the world, one sees it is not necessarily the case that only one ombudsman can be appointed. I prefer the idea of appointing three members to the commission.

While I suppose I agree with Senator Tuffy that a single appointee would become more identified with the job, I am not sure it would be a wonderful advantage. A person's attributes come into focus in such cases. If a male appointee wore a particular shirt and tie combination one day, it might be asked if a flashy dresser was the kind of man we wanted in the job. If he were to drink in a certain place, would it be asked if the act had implications in the context of the identity of the commission. It is better to depersonalise the commission. That is one of the advantages of the Supreme Court. People do not ask which members of the Supreme Court hand down particular judgments. Such judgments are deemed to be handed down by the court. We do not ask who are the Revenue Commissioners. We know very well what they do to us and do not contend it would be great if there were only one whom we could identify and love dearly. The appointment of a number of members to a commission is preferable. It is not unprecedented internationally.