Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The purpose of this amendment is to remove section 13(9), which has the effect of saying the approval of the two Houses of the Oireachtas will not apply to ministerial appointments which have been made under sections 6 and 7 of the Act. The Act, as it stands, effectively states that in future the so-called laypersons will have to be on a longlist approved by the Public Appointments Service as comprising suitable people. Their names then go to the Minister, who can choose which to propose to each House of the Oireachtas. That is the standard procedure.

Unfortunately, however, it is the case that for the first number of years of the life of the commission, as a result of combining subsection (7) and section 9, the Minister will not have to seek any approval for people she proposes to appoint for the first time to this commission. Those people will be eligible for reappointment without ever having been scrutinised by Members of the Oireachtas. I cannot see any valid reason why, if on the second term of office of this commission the approval of the nominations by the Houses of the Oireachtas is a good idea, it is a bad idea in respect of the first raft of nominees. Subsection (6) reads, "The Minister shall not make an appointment under subsection (5)unless a resolution approving the appointment has been passed by each House of the Oireachtas." Subsection (7) reads, "The Minister may, prior to the establishment day, designate a person or persons ... to be the first lay member or members of the Commission." Subsection (8) reads, "If, immediately before the establishment day, a person stands designated to be a first lay member under subsection (7), the person shall be taken to have been appointed as a lay member on that day." Subsection (9) reads, "A resolution referred to in subsection (6)shall not be required in respect of an appointment under subsection (8)." Effectively, the Government under this proposal gets one free go to appoint all four lay members of the commission without any Oireachtas scrutiny, and those four members are eligible for reappointment at a later stage, again without any Oireachtas scrutiny. That is a remarkable state of affairs. Why is it that people who are selected in this manner by the Minister should be made members of this commission, with no right on the part of any Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas to challenge their appointment or the choices the Minister has made?

On the previous occasion I pointed out that section 13 is not what it has been trumpeted to be. It has been claimed to be a process whereby an entirely independent group of people, the Public Appointments Service, will come up with a list and that will somehow translate into the four persons who will be the four lay members of the commission, but it is not that at all.It may send forward a list of 20 people, and the Minister will have entire discretion to select four people from them. It will be a political choice, in the last analysis. The strange thing is that, it being a political choice, one would imagine that the first outing of this commission would be an occasion on which the four lay persons would have to be approved of, just as their successors will be in the fullness of time, by the Houses of the Oireachtas. Why is that on the first outing for this commission, they are withdrawn from public scrutiny, especially when they are eligible for a second term without any scrutiny either? I am mystified by this, and I do not see why the Minister is insisting on subsection (9) being there. It is, in fact, a licence to appoint to this commission people who have never been the subject of Oireachtas scrutiny, and they are entitled to be reappointed at a later stage for another term.

I would like to hear the Minister's explanation as to why subsection (9) is there. It slid in under the radar. It was never adequately discussed. It has the effect of removing Oireachtas scrutiny for three to six years in respect of the lay members of the commission, and no explanation or justification has been offered publicly for the inclusion of subsection (9).