Seanad debates

Wednesday, 11 December 2019

Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage

 

10:30 am

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I also support the amendment. It would be completely wrong to discriminate against anybody on the basis of gender, sexual orientation or any of these other things. Amendment No. 23 in my name proposes the deletion of lines 32 to 34 on page 9. That is quite important because it would get rid of the entire provision. I am seeking the deletion of section 7(2), which sets out a number of matters that must be considered when a decision is being made on whether to recommend a person for appointment to the Judiciary. Section 7(2)(a) refers to the need to achieve gender balance, section 7(2)(b) refers to the need to reflect "the diversity within the population as a whole" and section 7(2)(c) refers to the need for judges with "a proficiency in the Irish language". All of these aspirations are honourable, and nobody could possibly have anything against them, but they should not be factors which determine whether a person is suitable for appointment as a member of the Judiciary. If the Minister accepts my amendment, section 7(1), which provides that "A decision to recommend, under this Act, a person for appointment to judicial office shall be based on merit" only, will remain in the Bill. That is the position I hold. It should only be based on merit. To my mind, merit should be the sole basis on which a candidate is assessed as being suitable for recommendation for appointment. We want the best judge. His or her sexual orientation or membership of the Traveller community should be completely irrelevant.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.