Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

If people had to pay for things such as facilitating the Minister, Deputy Ross's, great plan out of their own pocket, they would not be half as quick to dream up complicated schemes which always end up involving expense on the public. This provides for a doubling of the lack of transparency. There is a process here where the Commission for Public Service Appointments will be responsible for appointing suitable lay people to form a lay majority on this judicial commission, and we do not yet know who they will be. Within that process, the commission is to be allowed to farm out elements of its responsibility. I would have thought that if the Minister really had confidence that he is doing the right thing in establishing a commission in this way, he would have confidence that the people he is appointing to the commission, whether full-time or part-time, are people who have enough expertise to be able to go through a process themselves, to apply their intelligence and expertise to the winnowing of applications to make the best recommendations.

We see a lack of transparency here and evidence of this disease involving consultants and advisers at every level at further expense to the public. Does it in some way facilitate the appointment of lower-quality personnel to the commission because there is a comfort blanket that they will engage consultants and advisers? I am concerned about this. The Public Appointments Service has a prior process that it has to go through, of recommending lay persons for appointment to the commission. Is the Public Appointments Service in a position to appoint consultants or advisers at expense to the State? Does it already happen within its role? Is there no need to provide for it in legislation? Does it need the consent of the Minister? Is there a disconnect there? Perhaps the Minister will say there is not because the Public Appointments Service consists of full-time staff but I do not think that answers the point. There is also the question of ministerial control of the appointment of consultants or advisers. The clause in subsection (b) provides that the commission may "with the consent of the Minister, appoint consultants or advisers." Does that mean that ministerial consent is required for the appointment of consultants or advisers but which consultants or advisers are appointed is exclusively a matter for the commission? Does it mean that the particular personnel to be appointed as consultants or advisers are subject to the sanction of the Minister? I would like an answer to that. Maybe I misread it but I think there is ambiguity there and would welcome clarification on that point.

I wonder about some of the things that have been pointed out by Senators Craughwell and McDowell relating to the complex task of winnowing out applications, selection, and how it will be done. What kind of work is involved? It is worded in a very strange way. The commission may, without being subject to the Minister in any way, it seems, enter into contracts or arrangements with any person. It is with the requirement of ministerial consent that they may appoint consultants or advisers. I presume those contracts or arrangements refer to people who are not consultants or advisers. It is presumably less sensitive. Will the Minister tell us why ministerial consent is not necessary, and maybe illustrate by example, because that always brings clarity where confusion abounds? It would be good if the Minister were to make concrete either tonight or tomorrow, as the case may be, what type of consultants or advisers are to be involved, in addition to telling us why it is necessary and answering the charge that this is about the relentless delegation of responsibility, as I have suggested, and the relentless removal of accountability to a more and more remote place. It would be helpful to know what the Minister means and intends by the words "consultant" and "adviser" in that context.

In the context of what is or is not enabled, there is a remarkable phrase that has been adverted to by my colleagues, that the contract "shall not enable the person, consultant or adviser, for the purpose of performance by the Commission of that function, to do any other thing (other than a thing which facilitates such performance)." When one breaks it down, that means that it enables everything that can possibly be put down under the heading as facilitating the performance, by the commission, of its function. Why is there this apparent restriction on the role of the person, consultant or adviser when, in the next breath, the Minister appears to give them carte blanche? What does "any other thing" mean? Does it mean that they are not enabled to stand on their heads? Presumably, they are in a position to stand on their heads and it is not necessary for the performance of the function. It would be a great help to us, if this is something more than gobbledygook or a dog's dinner, if the Minister gives particular examples of the type of thing he is trying to include and the type of thing he is trying to exclude.

I do not know the detail of the controversy in Poland relating to the appointment of judges and the termination of appointment of judges. I am not saying that what is happening with this Bill is directly comparable but, at a time when there is controversy about the interference by Governments with the independence of the judiciary in states of the European Union, the Government should be much more careful in what it is doing in bringing forward legislation of this kind, which seems to add enormously to ministerial power, in an indirect but nonetheless real way that is opaque as to its meaning in certain key areas.However, at a time when there is controversy about the interference by governments with the independence of judiciaries in EU states, our Government should be more careful in introducing legislation of this kind, which seems to add considerably, albeit indirectly, to ministerial power, in a way that is opaque in its meaning in key areas.