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

Unfortunately, I did not expect this amendment to be dealt with at this point. Deputy O'Callaghan has mischaracterised the amendment, which contains several qualifications. Section 7(2)(a) addresses the objective that the membership of the Judiciary should comprise equal numbers of men and women and 7(2)(b) provides that the membership of the Judiciary should reflect the diversity within the population as a whole.

As regards expertise, it is probably true that there is greater hostility and there are issues in terms of the attitudes people have towards expertise in society as a whole, but that is not necessarily a feature of this debate. No Member is suggesting that any of the lay members of the commission would not be experts and the amendment does not suggest that any appointee to the Judiciary would be anything less than expert. Anyone to be considered for appointment under the diversity principle would also have to satisfy the merit principle. All persons considered for appointment would have to reach a certain minimum standard.

I disagree with Deputy O'Callaghan that one would have to satisfy both subsection (2)(a) and (2)(b) because the wording of the amendment is that "under this Act shall include at least one person whose appointment would further the objectives of the Diversity Principle". That is not the same as having to satisfy both those subsections. The amendment provides that the appointment of at least one of the candidates would be in furtherance of the objectives of the diversity principle, that is, either (2)(a) or (2)(b), which is quite a low threshold. For example, if the majority of the Judiciary were male, as is the case, at least one of the candidates would have to be female. That would very clearly be in furtherance of the diversity principle. Numerous other examples could be given. It is not an unreasonable expectation and would be very easily satisfied. There is no obligation to appoint a candidate who satisfies the provisions. Rather, the requirement would be that the appointment of at least one of the eminently qualified people would in furtherance of the objective of diversity but the decision on appointment would be for the commission. It is not a particularly radical provision but it is important.

See this speech in context