Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I revert to the original point on diversity. The Minister used the word "obligation". I do not think that objectives are obligations. Objectives set out what we would like to achieve in the best-case scenario of us fully executing and implementing this Bill in the way it is supposed to be, which is to increase diversity. I do not see how the suggestion that the provision would be rigid or would involve an over-reliance can only be in respect of diversity. Let us consider the Irish language. It would be a little easier to increase the diversity of candidates than have an over-reliance on judges or laypersons with the Irish language. The answer the Minister gave me was insufficient. If this was a single objective then I would say, "Yes, fair enough". If the other two objectives also included that clause, then the provision would make sense.

I am dissatisfied with the answer given by the Minister with regard to the health ground. It is completely inappropriate to include health in the provision. The term "health" is an extremely holistic word. The provision does not only require people to be in good health. When people consider a person's health, they assess whether the candidate has a disability. For example, a person may have lost his or her hearing or be partially deaf and need to use sign language or he or she may have issues with his or her sight. Another example is a person who may be in remission from cancer. So many different grounds fall under the banner of health. We have no idea how that ground will be used in terms of a person having to be in good health. How does one determine health? How does one assess a person's health? What deems a person to be in good health? What qualifies a person as being healthy enough to be appointed a judge?

In all the years I have worked in the addiction sector, I have never been asked about my health or been asked to undertake a health assessment or needs assessment. Even if health has always been a ground that does not mean it should remain so. Things evolve because as times passes one can realise that things are inappropriate. Plenty of people have an ailment that the rest of us would deem to be a health issue but that does not mean that the ailment affects his or her capacity or ability to do a job. We cannot have somebody with a physical disability or whatever participating in an interview, and perhaps he or she uses a wheelchair, yet stipulate a ground in legislation that the person will be judged against what the appointing body determines to be an able-bodied and healthy person. Such a provision is inappropriate and, therefore, should be removed.