Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

My amendments are in this grouping. I support Senator Ó Donnghaile's amendment. I will speak to amendment No. 11 first. I welcome much of section 7, particularly that judicial appointments are to be made based on merit and that gender equality will be a key objective. However, feasibility and practicality should not be a consideration when setting out aims, especially in terms of diversity. That is what the amendment intends to change. The gender equality objective does not have a provision attached to it that it be feasible but the diversity objective does. It is a key strength of the Bill. At this early stage, when the general principles and objectives of the process are being set out, why should such an important aim be given such a huge qualification and watered down so much? As neither the aim that judicial appointments are to be made on merit nor the objective of gender equality is given a massive qualification, why should we attach one for diversity? We recognise that the objectives are possible and we should be striving for them. The Bill should reflect this. The phrasing comes up twice more in the Bill in section 12 in respect of laypersons and section 53 in respect of judicial appointments and in those instances does not have this massive qualification attached which weakens it so much. The purpose of the amendment is to align with its usage elsewhere in the Bill and to be uniform and consistent. I hope the Minister can accept the amendment.

Amendments Nos. 81 and 83, which are also in this grouping, propose to remove character, temperament and health as grounds that have to be satisfied before the commission can recommend a name to the Minister. These grounds are important for new judges but I am concerned by the meaning of their inclusion here and how they will fit into the process. Could a health ground be invoked against a candidate simple because he or she is older or has a visible or invisible disability? Could character or temperament become problematic in the context of someone who has minor mental health issues or any mental health issue? How do we inquire about someone's temperament and character? Earlier in the debate Senator McDowell spoke about asking questions about socioeconomic background or other qualifying factors but how does one assess someone's character and temperament in an interview? Will it be based on previous court hearings or how one is as a solicitor? How exactly is that determined? Apart from temperament and character, I do not understand why health would be included as a ground. It should be taken out as it could be used in a discriminatory manner. I would like these grounds to be removed from the Bill and the Minister to come back on Report Stage with grounds that better reference the sort of attributes we are referring to here and which would be grounded in accountability and verifiable factors rather than broad, vague terms as it is drafted at present. Competences and ability better reflect what we are looking for rather than temperament and health.