Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I do not accept the amendments for reasons I have already stated. I was earlier accused of engaging in a form of filibustering, so I will not repeat the points raised. The required skills mix of expertise and experience will be best acquired through a specific Public Appointments Service process which will garner all appropriate qualities. The optimum method to independently select the lay chair is through a specific process under the Public Appointments Service. I again reject any criticism of the Public Appointments Service. It has done a particularly good job in recent times and I have not heard any valid criticism of it. It is the ideal mechanism through which to achieve the Government commitment to acquire an independent lay chair of the commission.

The amendments tabled by Senator Higgins may be well-intentioned. She wishes to bring some structure to the existing provisions.In amendment No. 39, Senator Higgins seeks to remove the reference to "academia" in the first subclause and to insert a new subclause which seeks to nail down the academia reference to a requirement for experience in "relevant areas of academic research including the law, or social policy".

Amendment No. 43 seems to express the same intention regarding the same subsection by proposing the insertion of a reference to "relevant areas of academic research including the law, or social policy". There may well be some merit in what is sought to be achieved here and I would be happy to have a look at that in regard to amendment No. 43.

In amendment 40, however, the Senator seeks to remove the reference to "administration" as including public administration. The reference to "public administration" is included so that there can be no doubt that the Public Appointments Service can regard the experience of a lay candidate, a non-judicial candidate, in public administration as experience in that area. References were made in the other House to a suggestion that there may be attempts to have an overconcentration in the lay membership of retired public servants, which I rejected. I do not believe that to be the case. There is no desire to do any such thing. This is clearly evidenced by the wide range of areas of experience in business and other skills we are seeking with respect to the lay membership. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that there are many exceptional people with extensive public administration experience of varying kinds who may fall to be considered in any selection process but that selection process should be conducted by the Public Appointments Service for lay members of the new commission. They should not be excluded from the process simply because of their experience in administration. If that experience of administration is solely in public administration, an opportunity may be lost to facilitate the commission to draw on that experience. I am not in favour of accepting amendment No. 40 which seeks to remove the reference to "public administration".