Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I know Senator McDowell will also want to respond. I am disappointed that the Minister will not take on board at least the principle expressed in Senator McDowell's amendment No. 91g. It makes sense to me. The Minister says he wants to leave this matter to the commission. Again, we are being unduly prescriptive and bureaucratic in some provisions of this Bill. For example, section 45, about which I spoke the last day, requires the commission to "provide to the Minister a statement setting out the reasons the Commission is of opinion that the person is suitable for appointment". If the commission is required to provide that statement to the Minister, I do not see why it should not similarly be required to provide a statement explaining why certain persons are not suitable for appointment. Moreover, where there is a dissenting member, as envisaged in Senator McDowell's proposal, I do not see why the commission is not required to provide a dissenting statement as well. The Bill seems rather selective as to what information the commission is required to provide to the Minister. Why require the commission to provide the Minister with a statement at all? Why not simply require the names? If one follows the logic of what the Minister has said, all the commission should supply to the Minister is the names of those recommended for appointment. However, that is not what section 45 says. In respect of each person it requires a "statement setting out the reasons the Commission is of opinion that the person is suitable for appointment".

As I said, it does not seem logical that a statement of reasons of this nature is required whereas a statement of reasons a person is not suitable for appointment, or reasons certain members believe that a majority recommendation is not suitable, is not. This is an example of an unduly bureaucratic and a fundamentally illogical procedure of the kind we see too often. I wish to reserve the right to bring an amendment forward on Report Stage, addressing more specifically the issue of a statement of reasons that a person is not suitable for appointment. Alternatively, I would like time to reflect on whether it is preferable to change section 45 more fundamentally, so that the commission is not required to provide any statement of reasons but rather simply to provide the names. Does the Minister have a view on that? Is that preferable given the issues that the Minister has pointed out, that is, he does not wish to see minority reports and different statements of reasons? In that case the obvious answer is to change section 45.