Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. I will touch briefly on a couple of the amendments I tabled. Amendment No. 32 is a technical amendment on the role of the Minister in triggering the selection of a lay person by the Public Appointments Service. Amendment No. 35 is more substantive and it may not have been entirely clear what my intention was. I suggested in this amendment that the members of the commission shall select a chairperson from among their membership who should be a lay person and, in making their selection, the members should endeavour to ensure that such a chairperson selected has both a strong legal understanding and a proven capacity to communicate in a clear and accessible manner. What I am attempting to do is build bridges between what has become a rarefied, separate and divisive discussion on the question of the chairperson and whether a person from the Judiciary should automatically be appointed to that role whether a person who would be appointed separately, with or without a ministerial role in that regard.I have attempted to ensure that the lay and judicial members of the commission have the independence to select a chairperson they believe suitable. The Public Appointments Service would have a role in that regard because it puts forward the members of the commission and it is to be hoped that one or more of its appointees may be suitable for the role of chair. Many commissions and boards select their own chair.

Amendment No. 35 proposes two criteria in regard to the selection of a chair. I am conscious that the criteria originally in place in that regard were removed by the Dáil. Even if the Minister is not happy with the process, I hope he will consider how he might incorporate the criteria I propose, which are that a chairperson - a lay chairperson in this context - would have "a strong legal understanding and a proven capacity to communicate in a clear and accessible manner". I am trying to ensure that the chairperson will be an effective bridge between committee members, able to understand the concerns and legal matters pertaining to the decisions made and issues raised by members of the committee who may be members of the legal profession or Judiciary, and able to communicate those issues and ensure they are understood and engaged with by the lay members and that the lay members are supported in expressing their views. This amendment could be a healing compromise in what has become a very divided discussion.

I am open to some variation on the proposal. For example, the Minister may think it preferable for the Public Appointments Service to suggest to the commission three persons from whom a chair would be chosen. For the Public Appointments Service to put forward one candidate is very limited and gives it extraordinary power. I would rather that it would put forward several candidates, one of whom would be selected by the commission. Alternatively, the chair could simply be chosen from among those selected as lay members of the commission by the Public Appointments Service. Another alternative would be to remove the requirement that the chair be a lay person. In such case, the members of the commission would select a chair from among their number. I am sympathetic to the idea of the chair being a lay person. An appropriate lay person would have the necessary skills for the role. If those skills were outlined as proposed by the amendment, it may allay the concerns of other Senators regarding the exclusion of judges from the role of chair. I have tabled the amendment and have indicated two alternative approaches to the issue. I am seeking a compromise amenable to the House which would allow us to move forward. The seeds of such compromise may lie in this amendment.

On amendments Nos. 39 and 40, I am concerned by the reference to "public administration" in terms of the skills required of a chairperson. The preceding reference to "administration" in the subsection should suffice. Administrative skills are important but I am concerned that the specific reference to public administration may result in public servants in the employ of a Minister or Department becoming lay members of the committee. I would rather that the reference to "public administration" be removed. However, if it is to be retained, it should stipulate that such persons must no longer be engaged in public administration. Senator Bacik also tried to address the issue of who should or should not be excluded from the role of chair and amendments Nos. 39 and 40 touch on that matter.

Section 12(6)(f) lists academia as a desirable area of expertise. Academia has a very wide meaning and could be construed as referring to university administration or work in any department of a university. Academic experience may be more desirable than having worked in academia in terms of the qualities sought in members of the commission. Amendments Nos. 39 and 43 propose that, instead of referencing academia, the Bill would reference "relevant areas of academic research including the law, or social policy". Legal academics should be represented on the commission. The law is framed by and frames our social policy in Ireland and, thus, a person with a background in social policy may have a very good sense of the impact of case and other law. The replacement of "academia" with "relevant areas of academic research including the law, or social policy" would be of benefit as it would allow a legal academic, sociologist or social policy expert who may have a very good understanding of the law and contemporary best practice in regard to the law, its administration, judicial practices and so forth to be considered for appointment to this important role.

Amendment No. 39 combines amendments Nos. 40 and 43. I would appreciate if the Minister were to indicate if he is willing to accept any part of the amendments.