Dermot Ahern
Ceist:1 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Taoiseach when it is intended to appoint the members of the new Law Reform Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8821/97].
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Law Reform Commission.
The Law Reform Commission Act, 1975, provides that the commission shall consist of a president and four other members appointed by the Government. The term of office of the current president will expire on 19 October. The terms of office of the three former part-time members expired on 1 January and of the former full-time member on 28 February. The Government is actively considering filling the vacancies which have arisen and an announcement on the matter will be made shortly.
When I raised this matter with the Taoiseach on 29 January he praised the Law Reform Commission and expressed his appreciation of the valuable work done by it since its establishment in 1975. I asked him when the members of the new commission would be appointed. The terms of office of four members have expired. Why have the vacant posts not been filled in the past three to four months?
I expect the posts to be filled within the next week. The Law Reform Commission commissioned Deloitte and Touche to carry out a review of its operations. We were hoping not to make the appointments until the report was to hand but it looks as if it will not be to hand for a little while. We are proceeding to make the appointments straightaway.
The members of the Law Reform Commission were appointed on a non-political basis. I hope the Taoiseach will confirm that the members of the new commission will be appointed on the same basis and that there will be female representation. Given that the outgoing commission was engaged in a review of its own legislative activities and many other issues, why did the Government not do what it did in the case of several other boards and extend its remit by three months to allow it to finish this work, rather than tell its members well in advance they would not be reappointed and then do nothing for three to four months afterwards?
The criteria for appointing the members of the Law Reform Commission will be the same as previously and there will be female representation of a significant proportion. The reasons for the delay in making the appointments have been fully explained. The outgoing commission was in office uninterrupted for ten years and the Government took the view that it was time to bring in new people. Without adverting to the work of the outgoing members, in a matter of this nature there is a case for renewal after a period of ten years. We are undertaking such a renewal. This will improve matters and, at the same time, build on the good work done by the outgoing commission.
I acknowledge the excellent work done by the outgoing four members of the Law Reform Commission during the past ten years. However, they were not allowed to complete the review in which they were engaged, which seems an extraordinary way for the Government to show its appreciation of their work. This shows that the Government does not have much interest in the work of the commission. Will the Government announce shortly the work it would like the new commission to undertake or is this a matter that will be left unattended for another three or four months?
The commission did not undertake a review; the Deputy seems to be under a misapprehension on that point.
It commissioned a body to carry it out.
It commissioned an outside body, Deloitte & Touche, to carry out a review. The Government considered not appointing the new commission until that report was to hand to see if there was anything in it which ought to be taken into account in the composition of the commission. However, as that report is not to hand the Government decided to proceed with the appointments.
The work programme of the commission is a separate matter. The commission has a substantial work programme in hand which will be continued by the new commission. The question of requesting it to do further specific work will be reviewed by the Government in the very near future at the time of the announcement of the new appointees.
I impress on the Taoiseach the need to ensure that the criteria used to fill the vacancies on the Law Reform Commission are not the same as those used for filling the positions on the new harbour boards or the Garda Síochána Complaints Board to which the Government appointed party hacks. Some members of the Law Reform Commission have, very unusually, expressed publicly their disappointment at being interrupted in midstream in terms of the extremely good work they were carrying out. Will the Taoiseach agree a case can be made to allow the body which was working on a number of documents to continue? I am somewhat suspicious of the decision by the Taoiseach and the Government to wait so long to reappoint four members of this body. As a number of its members said, it is crucial that the Law Reform Commission is not politically aligned and that some people who are not lawyers are appointed to the board.
I do not agree with the Deputy's fundamental proposition that political alignment per se should disqualify people from appointment to boards.
It never stopped the Deputy's party.
The Deputy's party is a past master at it.
There is a considerable difficulty in attracting people into political life and if the Deputy takes the view that a person who joins a political party is, to use his term, a "hack" and, therefore, not worthy to serve on a public body he is showing very poor regard for our profession and is probably undermining his party leader's attempts to bring people into political life, which attempts I applaud, agree with and am engaged in myself. I ask the Deputy to withdraw the term "political hack" in regard to appointees. I know appointees to State boards who were chosen by the Deputy's party when in office and were open and honest members of that party and this in no way interfered with the work they did. Rather it helped them understand a wider slice of public life than they might ever have understood if they had not become involved in active party politics. I do not agree with the holier than thou attitude of Deputy Dermot Ahern who wishes to make the point that people who have been involved in politics should not be appointed to State boards. When the Deputy's party was in office it appointed people from among its own supporters and I do not see anything wrong with that.
The point I made related to the Law Reform Commission.
No, the Deputy made the point in regard to other boards.
I said it was important that the Government did not do in relation to this commission——
The Deputy's recollection is faulty.
——what it had done in relation to the new harbour boards and the Garda Síochána Complaints Board.
Correct.
Maureen Gaffney is on record as saying that it is vital and critical for people on the commission not to be politically aligned. That is the basis on which members were appointed by my party when it was in Government; they were not politically aligned——
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Questions, please.
It is vital that the Government does not use this as an opportunity to reward political hacks from its three parties.
As I said to Deputy Bertie Ahern, the same criteria will be used in choosing the appointees to the Law Reform Commission as we used in the past. I do not have the slightest doubt that even the Deputy will not find grounds for criticism of any of the appointees we will make to the Law Reform Commission on any of the criteria he has put forward.
The same cannot be said in relation to the harbour boards.
The Deputy is wrong to suggest in regard to the Garda Síochána Complaints Board, the harbour boards or any other board that people should be disqualified because they happen to have taken a stand politically.
It seems that in order to be appointed they must be members of the Taoiseach's party or the other two parties in Government.
I admire people who take a stand in favour of a party, whether it is my party or a party opposed to mine.
The Government fills the positions.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Let us hear the Taoiseach's answer.
The Deputy is being hypocritical.
The Government is being blatant about the way it is dealing with the matter.
There are an increasing number of——
It is breathtaking.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
No interruptions from either side of the House.
Will the Taoiseach follow the normal practice so that the new members, who should have been appointed four months ago, are not politically aligned and, like previous members, hold positions of expertise? Maureen Gaffney was the only non-lawyer on the commission, Professor Duncan was involved in family law and Mr. O'Leary worked in the Director of Public Prosecution's office. This is the reason they worked very successfully and were reappointed by successive Governments.
The Taoiseach will not tell the House why he will not appoint the members of the Law Reform Commission. I thought he would have welcomed the opportunity to appoint the members so that the commission could continue its excellent work. However, for some reason he saw fit to tell these people some time last autumn that they would not be reappointed. Normally the Government appoints people approximately six months in advance so that it can abolish the old board and put the new board in place. However, for some extraordinary reason which he has not told the House, the Taoiseach told these people last October-November they were no longer needed, had served their term in office — which I accept if their tenure is up — and did not let them complete their work, which I do not accept.
Their remit could have been extended until Easter which would have been the sensible course of action if they were not being reappointed. We are asking if the Taoiseach will appoint people who are not politically aligned and who come from different walks of life, as has been the practice for the past 20 years. One member is on record as saying, "We were all politically non-aligned, that was the success, that was critical. We were not political appointees and we all had experience in different areas". Will the Taoiseach follow that 22 year-old principle?
I have already answered that question. I told Deputy Ahern three times that we would apply the same criteria in regard to the appointments as were applied in the past. I said there would be no grounds on which anyone, including Deputy Dermot Ahern, could criticise these appointees. I can say this a fourth time if the Deputy wishes.
In regard to the harbour boards, the Garda Síochána Complaints Board and the Civil Legal Aid Board, the only criteria for appointment seems to be affiliation to one of the rainbow parties. In a recent reply to a parliamentary question the Taoiseach effusively praised the Law Reform Commission on its wonderful work. If he is so satisfied with it why are the personnel being changed? If he is satisfied with its operations, what is the reason for the review? What are the terms of reference of the review body and what changes are envisaged?
I have also answered that question. The people who are being replaced had been on the board for ten years.
Did they ask to be replaced?
As I said, it was time for a renewal of membership after ten years. If the Deputy asks the question a third time I will give the same answer.
I take it these people were not invited to sit on the new board. Will the Taoiseach outline the work in hand on the commission's books which must await the appointment of a full commission before it can be carried out? The Taoiseach said three of the five members of the commission have not, in effect, been on the board since last January.
The full time chairman has been in office continually and the staff is continuing to work on the existing work programme. There has been no delay in any of the commission's work as a result of the hiatus in the appointment of the some of the part time members.
Will the Taoiseach outline the work in hand?
That is a separate question.