Gerard Craughwell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The longer that this Bill goes on, the worse I feel for the Minister because this Bill is in his name but it is not his Bill. We are ramming through a Bill to satisfy just one person. There is something terribly wrong when one person can wield this much power over the Houses of Parliament. It is just wrong in every sense of the word but we have to deal with the amendment.

Amendment No. 6 relates to section 2(2) and is directly linked to the definition of a "lay person". Section 2(2) defines the term "relevant period", which is used in the definition of a "lay person". The definition of a "lay person" sets out a number of considerations that serve to disqualify a person from being regarded as a layperson for the purpose of the Bill. This obsession with laypersons gets to me. As I said last week, I would much rather go into an appointment on a cardiology ward with a cardiologist who had been supervised by his colleagues and interviewed by his or her colleagues, and I was sure that that person knew what he or she was doing. I, therefore, do not understand the obsession with laypersons.

One consideration that excludes a person from being considered as a layperson is the relevant period in respect of a practising solicitor or barrister. If one were a high-flying practising barrister or solicitor in this State, would one honestly subject oneself to this selection process that is so daunting? Senator McDowell has alluded to this all the time. The committee is large, unwieldy and all over the place with laypeople making decisions and chairing the interviews. I would love to see how a layperson would react if he or she were in front of a justice committee or the Committee of Public Accounts in the event of him or her being called in to explain what was going on. I take Senator McDowell's point that a member of the current Judiciary being chair may present a problem.

It is proposed that the relevant period will be 15 years, which is an awfully long time.