Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his response. I refer to amendment No. 4 and the interpretation and understanding of the Chief Justice's role. As far as I understand it, we have written the amendment to ensure that the Chief Justice cannot serve as the chairperson of the commission. I will recap briefly on this.

I can see from the way the section is worded, that it is clearly not the intention of the Government that the Chief Justice would serve as the chairperson given that he or she would be in the position to nominate the first chairperson. For clarity, it is to ensure that if the Chief Justice is in a position to nominate the first chairperson, he or she cannot nominate himself or herself to be the chairperson. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding in how we are reading it. When we come to that amendment, perhaps I will withdraw and revisit it.

I refer more generally to the latter amendments in this section. Even with the best intentions in talking about including advisors to committees, we always try to emphasise the importance of diversity not being an add-on and not being something that is tapped into for consultation. It is not just about people's experiences and life, it is about their solutions and ideas, and they do have the expertise. Many communities rule themselves out of the process before it begins because they do not see themselves in those spaces, such as the commission. I sometimes worry when there is a return to phrases such as "but we cannot limit ourselves in being able to access the expertise that is needed". It almost comes with an unintended assumption that the expertise does not exist if a reference to too much diversity is made. I know that is not necessarily the intention, but it feels like it is being closed down and that the expertise does not exist in those types of communities. It very much does exist but we do not always see it.

Sometimes, communities need to be targeted and invited into the space. They need to be included in the process from the offset because, often, they do not look at the PAS website, publicjobs.ie, or envisage themselves in those roles even though they may have the expertise and are carrying it out on a local level, such as social entrepreneurship. They might be involved on different boards and in communities but they do not engage.

The expertise does exist and that is why we must explicitly reference such groups in legislation. The onus is on us not to say that these positions are open to everyone to apply. They are not because they do not go on people's radars. People do not see them because they do not check the websites these positions are published on. They do not know anyone in those roles. They do not have a friend in the Oireachtas or a commission to ask them if they saw the role that came up and tell them that they would be suited to it. They do not have the capital that exists in knowing there is a role that they are fully skilled for and would be amazing at. That message never gets to them.

We should include and outline, explicitly, the types of people and diverse groups that must be targeted, like the Irish Human Rights Commission which strives for equality. We sometimes see equality as advertising a position and saying that it is open to everyone to apply, and somehow meets a bar that is set. However, we should always look through the requirements of equity and consider the efforts we need to make to ensure not just front-facing politics but every strand of political decision making and electoral politics is impacted and enhanced by the representation outlined in the amendments that name the different groups which this legislation, this commission and every other board and State organisation should be targeting. That is on us and we will not do that unless we are explicitly told to.