Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 9, to delete lines 30 to 34, and in page 10, to delete lines 1 to 6 and substitute the following:“7. (1) No person shall be recommended, under this Act, for appointment to judicial office unless they are of sufficient merit to discharge with distinction the responsibilities of the office to which they are appointed (the “Merit Principle”).

(2) Subject always to the Merit Principle described in subsection (1), recommendations of persons for appointment to judicial office under this Act shall have regard to the “Diversity Principle”--

(a) the objective that membership of the judiciary should comprise equal numbers of men and women, and

(b) the objective that the membership of the judiciary should reflect the diversity within the population as a whole.

(3) Subject always to the Merit Principle described in subsection (1), a list of persons recommended for appointment to judicial office under this Act shall include at least one person whose appointment would further the objectives of the Diversity Principle described in subsection (2).”.

I apologise. I had misread the grouping. As I reflected in my contribution on the previous grouping, it is vital that the Judiciary reflects greater diversity because that would benefit those who appear before it, be they complainants or accused. The amendment would not change the fact that everyone appointed to the Judiciary should be adequately skilled, qualified and experienced, which is important. Rather, it would adjust the Bill slightly so that the commission would have regard to the diversity principle as outlined. On Committee Stage, the Minister, Deputy Flanagan, spoke in opposition to this idea on the basis that it would be too restrictive. As I pointed out then, there exists the objective of the Judiciary reflecting the diversity of the population as a whole. This amendment would make that a firmer principle, subject to the merit principle.

I was not properly prepared, as I misread the grouping, so I might contribute again in a moment.

See this speech in context