Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach. Last week I called on the Minister to honour the commitment he gave to tender openly for the position of independent chair for the review of the abortion legislation and I did so because it had by then emerged, by way of a reply to a parliamentary question, that the Department had not fulfilled the commitment but had contacted a small number of persons inviting them to express interest in the position. Yesterday, I said that it did not augur well that the eventual appointment that was made came on foot of such a closed process. I repeat my call for the Minister to come before this House to explain his and his Department actions in the matter.

The issue is independence and the perception of independence are crucial to that as is the issue of perceived impartiality. There was considerable support for me in this House, including I believe from the Leader, when I stressed the importance of independence in the role to be filled by this chairperson. In the past a judge in this country had to recuse herself from an abortion-related case not because she would have shown bias but because there could have been a reasonable perception that impartiality could be wanting because of her previous professional role. Like Caesar’s wife a person in that situation has to be above any doubt or suspicion. That is why an open process is needed to ensure that the choice made would not just be but would be seen to be so.

Let us suppose then that a person had shown prior support for the repeal of the eighth amendment, for example, by retweeting a post in favour of repeal, including the hashtag of the repeal campaign at the time of the referendum.Let us suppose there was a pattern of tweets showing a preferred view on abortion, maybe disagreeing with the intervention of Pope Francis on the subject, agreeing with former President McAleese's criticism of the Catholic Church on the subject or joining in an online conversation criticising illegal "No" campaign posters on the N11 during the abortion referendum campaign. The point is that the moderate expression of all of those points of view would be legitimate but it would mean that the poster of such tweets would not be the right choice of appointment for the role of independent chair of the review of operation of legislation in such a sensitive area, however decent a person he or she might be. I am afraid there is no supposing in this case. It is my unhappy role to point out that the appointee in this case has engaged in a pattern of social media intervention along the lines I have described. I, therefore, say that she should honourably withdraw from the role to which she has been appointed, that the Government should re-advertise for the role by way of an open tender process and that the Minister should come before the House now to explain his and his Department's role in all that has led to this undesirable situation.