Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I apologise for not being here last night. I appreciate the opportunity to resume the debate where we left it last week. I thank Senator Ward for tabling amendment No. 19, which seeks to amend section 13. The Senator's amendment provides for similar matters concerning lay expertise and knowledge in an amended subsection (4). This version simply provides for a reordering of the four criteria. The way they were set out was for no particular reason. I can appreciate why Senator Ward has put them in a particular order, but I am reluctant to accept the change given the potential effect of having to send the Bill back to the Lower House. There is no weight placed on the criterion in subsection 4(a) merely because it is the first on the list. It is not considered to be above any of the others. It is just the way the provision has been drafted. I will not be supporting the amendment for the reason that it is just how the provision has been drafted. I appreciate we should have looked at putting the criteria in order and considered what being first might indicate.

Amendments Nos. 20 to 25, inclusive, have been tabled by Senators Higgins and Ruane. Amendment No. 20 would add administration, civil society and trade unions to the list of knowledge and expertise to be brought by lay members of the commission. In terms of trade unions, I am satisfied that a person with experience in the worker representation field is not at all precluded under the criteria that have been set out in the Bill. A person with public service experience, as provided for in paragraph (a), might well have experience in worker representation. Similarly, the involvement of a person who has human resources experience is provided for in paragraph (b). The same is true in subsequent paragraphs of a person with experience of the courts system or a person with experience of human rights. We have tried to keep it broad and inclusive without being specific. The moment we start to get specific, we potentially exclude people as well. That is why we have set out the four areas.

Amendment No. 21 would delete "business" and "finance" but leave "public service" on the list of matters that are relevant to the section. The term "business" is broad and would include commercial activity, so that term would comprehend this aspect of the amendment. It would be a positive contribution to the commission to have a person who would have that type of financial experience or knowledge.

Amendment No. 22 would have the effect of adding as a criterion "relevant areas of academic research including the law or social policy ".We were minded to include law or legal references in this provision concerning lay knowledge because we know there will be significant legal knowledge and knowledge of the law given the overall composition of the commission and the other members who will fill the other positions.

Amendment No. 23 would have the effect of adding a criterion concerning the environment, sustainable development and environmental law. Again, I appreciate where the Senator may be coming from on this considering that we are moving to specific courts and looking at specific areas. I would ask the question then of whether we would not include family law or other types of law as well. Being so specific potentially excludes others. Currently, a person with a background in the environment or sustainable development is not precluded from putting himself or herself forward. It speaks to the point that we have tried to keep the criteria broad so that nobody is excluded.

Amendment No. 24 would have the effect of adding a category relating to international law and international agreements. This is another area of the law the Senator wants to the prescribe and I do not propose to do that for the same reasons.

Amendment No. 25 would change the phrase "protection of human rights" to "protection and promotion of human rights" as one of the criteria. While I see where the Senator is coming from, I suggest that what I have proposed and what is being proposed here get to the same point and the overall objective is the same. The most important point is that the Public Appointments Service, PAS, could select a person with experience in human rights and equality.

Amendment No. 26 picks up the earlier discussion about the nomination of a representative from the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC. We spoke about this matter last week. While I considered specifically having a member from IHREC, on further consideration the fact that we are not nominating representatives from any other type of body with a human rights focus makes it hard to justify why one would be picked over the other. I appreciate the significance and importance of IHREC but there is nothing to prevent members of IHREC putting themselves forward. Given that the criteria for lay members clearly refer to persons with a human rights background and persons who will promote or protect human rights, I fully anticipate that we will have members of that standing. Perhaps somebody from IHREC will put themselves forward and be successful.

Amendment No. 27 would have the effect of no longer requiring the Minister to appoint from among persons nominated by the PAS but allowing discretion on the matter. Whether it is the judges having to go through the commission or the lay members of the commission having to go through the PAS, what we have tried to do is ensure we have a clear, transparent, visible and coherent system. That is the logic we have tried to apply throughout the legislation.

Amendment No. 28 would have the effect of replacing part of the text in subsection (5). The existing text provides that "the Minister shall appoint lay members from among the persons recommended by the Public Appointments Service". No lay members can be appointed outside this process. The amendment would also have the effect of providing that the Minister can appoint such other lay members as he or she thinks suitable and who have not been recommended. As I said, we are trying to keep everything within a specific structure so that every individual on the lay side of the commission will come through the PAS. I think I have covered all of the amendments. I apologise for missing the discussion the other evening.