Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I was referring to Michael Gove and his now infamous comment that "people in this country have had enough of experts" in the context of the Brexit debate. It is a comment that equally applies to the position being taken by the Government, driven by the Minister, Deputy Ross, in arguing for a lay majority. The difficulty is that we do not have provision for the appointment of hospital consultants, for example, by a lay majority. No one is arguing that a lay majority should appoint hospital consultants. Quite rightly, there is minority lay representation which ensures integrity, even-handedness and a stake for lay persons in those appointments. However, the assessment of the professional experience and expertise of medical candidates should be a matter for medical professionals. That is how we appoint engineers, architects and, indeed, academics. We need to reflect on the central point on the Bill and the need to ensure that there is lay representation but that it is not a majority. That would be the effect of the amendment.

The Labour Party does not impose the reform of judicial appointments and neither do I. Indeed, we welcomed the reforming Bill brought forward by Deputy O'Callaghan. I am sorry that he did not remain in the Public Gallery for long enough to hear it being praised. Clearly, it took a sensible approach to reform of the appointments process for judges and the Labour Party very much welcomed it when it was introduced in the Dáil. It is unfortunate that, instead, we are seeing populist anti-expert rhetoric being employed in driving forward this Bill and, in particular, this aspect of it. I support the amendment. We will be debating this issue further as I and other Senators have tabled amendments which address it. It is also central to some of the amendments tabled by the Minister.