Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator for putting this forward. This group of amendments is proposed in respect of sections 39 and 56. Section 39 specifically deals with the recommendations of the commission being based on merit. Subject to that requirement, account shall be taken of other objectives, which include meeting the needs of users, as the Senator said, of each court in the State with respect to proceedings being conducted in the Irish language. Section 56 deals with consultations and submissions or observations at the request of the commission, including about the needs of users of the court with respect to proceedings being conducted in the Irish language.

The effect of these amendments would be to add to these provisions matters relating to proceedings being conducted in ISL. The Irish Sign Language Act 2017 provides for the use of ISL in legal proceedings, including the right of a person to use ISL in any court. It is already the duty of the court to make sure any person may be heard in that language and there is provision of interpretation of proceedings into ISL. What has been set out in these amendments is already set out very clearly in the 2017 Act and there are already provisions whereby this objective can be achieved through an interpreter. A consequence of this proposition could be that proficiency in ISL should be a statutory requirement on members of the Judiciary. I am not sure if that is what is intended but I do not think it would be practicable as a statutory requirement when appointing people to the courts. What we are trying to achieve here is to make sure everyone who has access to the court has access in their own language. The use of interpreters, as already set out in the 2017 Act, will be able to achieve that same overall goal. I fully appreciate the intention behind these amendments but I think what we have in law already makes sure that can be achieved.