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

To follow on from what Deputy O'Callaghan said, to press the amendment would have the effect, as would the previous related amendment, of doing away with the Irish language qualification or the desirability for proficiency in the Irish language. I will ensure that one of our Senators resubmits the amendment in the Seanad because it is a good model, and I appreciate Deputy Daly's comments in this regard. I ask the Minister to consider the model. As I said, it will be retabled in the Seanad. It is based on the premise we discussed at length on Committee Stage that there is scope to change the kind of people, to include lay people, we have on the board. We have lay people on many public boards, but very often they are drawn from people who might have come from particular circles and who might have been involved in particular parts of the public service and so on. All these people have a significant contribution to make, no doubt about it, but what we want to achieve is a greater level of diversity.

The intention is to have a split between three who would be appointed from the traditional process and three who would be appointed through a diversity and social inclusion panel. That panel would have to be nominated from organisations which are on a register maintained by the judicial appointments commission, and they would have to advance the objectives of diversity and social inclusion. I will not push that on this occasion but I will ensure it is returned to in the Seanad. That is amendment No. 29.

Regarding some of the other amendments in this group, I am satisfied that the chair is being kept, as is proposed currently. I note that there are lay chairs both in Scotland and in England and Wales. It is not unheard of by any manner of means. I support amendment No. 40, which I believe will likely pass. I do not see any reason for it not to. I also support amendment No. 38, tabled by Deputies Clare Daly and Mick Wallace, which would delete lines 39 and 40. It makes sense to remove that criteria. That experience is unnecessary for serving on this board. Further to what I said earlier, it is important that people come from a broad spread of backgrounds. It need not be people who just have managerial experience or experience of managing big bodies or anything like that. I do not think it is a necessary qualification for someone serving on a body that appoints judges. Therefore, I will support amendment No. 38 also.

See this speech in context