Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will speak briefly to amendments Nos. 82 and 83. There may a drafting error in one of the amendments. I do not know if it came from my office or if it happened along the way. My key concern was the issue of health, as it is inappropriate that there be health tests for those being considered for the Judiciary. It is something not done in many other areas and the danger is this could potentially be deeply prejudicial, for example, to those who may have a disability or an ongoing illness. People would not necessarily be coming into a role where physical health will be tested. We certainly do not want a position where the comparative health of candidates would be a key or adjudicating factor in consideration for an appointment.

Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 are complementary and I now see they were separated by the Bills Office. Amendment No. 83 deals with the deletion of the requirement to effectively prove a bill of health. It is not appropriate that candidates for office should, for example, have to produce medical certificates or other information. As we have discussed, this is a special category of information and falls under the General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR, as such. The information should only be sought in very specific circumstances where there is real public interest and other concerns.

As a potential alternative, in amendment No. 82 we have suggested the addition of the phrase "and capacity". The original intention in the drafting of the Bill was to get at the question of capacity and whether the person would be present for meetings, be in courts and deliver on requirements. Past proven competence is importance but current capacity is also important. I suggest that capacity may be a better way to get at whatever the original intent was with "in respect of the health" of candidates. However, I would also be happy to decide to delete the text and leave it as is in terms of character and temperament. I feel very strongly about amendment No. 83 and it is very important. It is extremely inappropriate for us to set such health criteria. The Minister understands the sensitivity around such information.

I know my colleague, Senator Dolan, is not able to be here but he also feels strongly about the health issue and that it should not become a de facto disadvantage if somebody has chronic or ongoing health concerns that are managed. Perhaps they are managed well enough to deliver on their role. Amendment No. 83 is a priority for me and it is very important. Amendment No. 82 is perhaps a suggestion that the Government may choose to accept to get what was hoped for in the original line on health.