Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

As stated on previous occasions, it is unfortunate that there appears to be no compromise possible in respect of this Bill. There would not have been any need for a guillotine - nor would it have been necessary to choose that option - had the Government been a little bit more open to compromise on amendments of this nature that are constructive that are constructive. The Bill will have to go back to the Dáil in any event. The Minister could be more disposed to accepting amendments such as this, which are sensible and which seek to support or facilitate a constitutional finding in respect of this legislation. Otherwise, it may well be the case that the President will see fit to refer the Bill under Article 26.

Senator McDowell is quite right. If there is a suggestion that persons who apply for appointments as lay members of the commission may do so in order to in some way influence the interpretation of the law or the Constitution by the courts, or if they, in the course of the appointment process ask people who apply for positions to provide information about political opinions or religious or philosophical beliefs, then will be very problematic. That is very danger that amendment No. 21 seeks to guard against. As stated, the latter is a constructive and sensible amendment which would help to uphold what is proposed in the Bill. It is unfortunate that the Minister does not see fit to accept it or to engage with us on a compromise approach that might encompass the issues with which I am seeking to deal in amendment No. 21 and which Senator McDowell seeks to deal with in his later amendments that have been grouped together. Instead, we are being faced with a guillotine in just over an hour.