Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I invited Senator McDowell to make a contribution, having regard to his knowledge and experience. I am pleased I did because I think he has made a reasonable contribution. As far as the health ground is concerned, I would have thought it was not unreasonable in most job applications to have regard to the health of the applicant. For example, if somebody's tasks included the driving of a mechanically propelled vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle for and on behalf of a transit company, I would have thought that these are questions that would be asked in the normal course. I now learn, however, that in circumstances these questions may be out of bounds. I am somewhat surprised at that, especially as a reading of the section leads me to believe that it may well be a straightforward requirement or a simple requirement for a candidate to self-declare that he or she is in good health and note is taken of that.

If this is an issue that is causing some distress to Senator Higgins, let me point out that in respect of section 53 on the preparation of statements, the statement setting out the requisite skills and attributes could well refer to the health issue at that stage to ensure that it was not going to be an issue that would ultimately result in an unfairness of a type that is giving rise to anxiety for Senator Higgins. I agree with Senator McDowell. I do not see it as an unreasonable requirement that in the circumstance that might be no more than a mere reference to health suitability.

We can continue on all night on this issue but I say in response to Senator Ruane's point on the comparison of the three different areas and objectives that while she says there is a different standard in terms of diversity, I would say it is more challenging to reflect the diverse composition of society than to achieve gender balance among the Judiciary. It is not a straightforward requirement and it is one that will give rise to a challenge. That is why I do not think it is unreasonable to qualify it by putting in the words, "feasible" and "practical". I am not sure it dilutes the objective but it does ensure there is not an unfair rigidity that might cause more difficulties than were intended.

I am not inclined to accept the amendment. Senator Higgins has said that she will reflect on matters and I await her further reflection in this regard.