I move amendment No. 13: In page 11, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following: “(4) The Attorney General shall not, as a member of the Commission, play a role in the selection or recommendation of persons for appointment to judicial office in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal or High Court.”. I will withdraw the amendment. I reserve the right to bring it back on Report Stage.

I move amendment No. 14: In page 11, after line 38, to insert the following: “(5) The Commission shall not appoint a person as a consultant or advisor where— (a) that person is a member of the Houses of the Oireachtas, or has been a member in the preceding 2 years, (b) that person has served as a Minister of the Government in the preceding 5 years, (c) that person has served as Attorney General in the preceding 5 years, or (d) that person has served as the Secretary General of a Department of State in the preceding…

For limited periods of time, just to clarify.

It is important to clarify that I never used the phrase “cross-contamination”. I talked about the separation of powers, which is quite different. I have huge respect for the work that we do in the Oireachtas and the political work the Government does. It is because of that respect and recognising that it is a separate role that it is important for it to be able to be done, and have the confidence of the public that it is done in a way that is clearly separate from the other arms of the State. I would note that this…

While I do not think there is an issue of confidence in relation to the Judiciary, there has been an issue of confidence and concern in relation to persons in senior roles in Government moving into other roles of influence. That is the concern. We have also had senior former members of Government telling us they are not answerable to the Standards In Public Office Commission, SIPO. In those contexts, there is an understanding that we need to work collectively. I say that with absolute respect for colleagues from al…

I will speak to amendment No. 17. While I am in favour of clear measures on gender equality in general in legislation, and we have been waiting a very long time for incremental progress, there is a problem with the way in which section 12(6) is worded. That is the subsection Senator Ward is proposing to amend. It is possibly inadvertent but it addresses the fact that a number of intersecting criteria are being applied. The subsection provides that when somebody stops being a judge, or when a judge ceases to be a me…

The Minister of State has not addressed the concern I highlighted. Under section 12(2), there is one nominee who is coming from the Supreme Court, the High Court or the Court of Appeal, and one who is coming from the Circuit Court or the District Court. One these is female and one is male. The danger in how the Bill is set out at the moment relates to what happens at the beginning. If it happens that the initial appointees are a female from the Circuit Court or the District Court and a male from the Supreme Court, …

I move amendment No. 18: In page 13, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “(4) In developing such criteria under subsection (3), the Minister shall demonstrate regard to section 42 of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons.”. I urge the Minister of State to consider between Committee Stage and Report Stage the strong cross-party call for the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, to be asked to nominate one…

There are several issues and I reserve the right to table further amendments in this respect on Report Stage. Even the wording of section 13(4)(d) is weak. It refers to matters concerned with the importance of the protection of human rights and equality. There needs to be expertise and persons who can properly represent these issues. Simply stating somebody can say it is important is weakly worded. It is not consistent, even with the language of the legislation, which is not just about protection but also promotion…

I have tabled a number of amendments to section 13 which are in this grouping. I think the point in amendment No. 19 about the ranking is interesting. If it is construed as a ranking, then that becomes an issue, because having business and finance placed above the operation of the justice system seems strange if that is the case. I am concerned about the tension in subsection (4) with the aspirations in subsection (3). Subsection (3)(b) contains an idea of reflecting "the diversity of the population of the State as…

I do not think I am the ultimate word. I am following some very powerful and true speeches about what poverty is and they are pointing to one of the key asks. I have heard the Minister of State speak about poverty, but the nub of what we are asking for here is the idea of the independent voice on poverty: the Combat Poverty Agency. I want to bring us back a little bit and talk about why we are looking to bring back the Combat Poverty Agency, and not just that is a nice idea. I remember when this agency was closed. …

Strong cases have been made by Senators McDowell and Ward. This area is not my focus, which tends to be on human rights representation and the very important layperson's perspective. I have always been an advocate in general, in all areas of public service, for 360° references, whereby not just those who have worked above a person but also those who have worked below and alongside him or her would give references. I think that is a great idea and there is something to be said for those who have argued cases before …

A truism that is constantly put forward in the context of all boards is that we need boards to be much smaller. It is a message that comes out again and again but without evidence. In general, with regard to "nothing about us without us" and all these other principles for which we argue in different ways, there should be an openness to moving to 13 if that is the case. It is not so much to the Minister solely but I have noticed a pattern in State appointments. There is a narrowing and I worry about the weighting of…

I move amendment No. 4: In page 10, line 30, to delete “2” and substitute “3”. I will speak to the grouping because amendment No. 4 is consequential on the other amendments in this grouping. The core of this grouping is amendment No. 6, which would delete the provision in the Bill as stands that the Attorney General would sit on the judicial appointments commission. During the pre-legislative scrutiny of this legislation by the Committee on Justice, the committee heard from a number of key stakeholders including th…

Returning to my amendments, which relate to the Attorney General, if amendment No. 6 is not successful, I will not move amendment No. 11 so you will have it all to yourselves. I will certainly be opposing it if amendment No. 6 is not successful. The statements here have made the case for my amendments. I have not opposed the political stage of the process. My amendments do not seek to remove that discretion of the Cabinet between the three persons. As has been described, it is very likely that there will be multipl…

I will be brief because I have several amendments that will give me an opportunity to discuss the specific issues. As said by others, it is right to recognise that many households are facing an emergency regarding energy costs but I believe more could and should be done to ensure that while we address the energy crisis, we also address the associated crisis, namely the climate crisis, and the transition we need. We do not have the luxury of a single crisis but need to move forward in ways that act on both. While su…

These are good amendments. It is interesting that in the amendments there is a recognition of some of the nuance on this issue. As I mentioned previously, a decision was made in May this year, which was when the energy crisis was well flagged and very much under way. There was a clear understanding that by May energy companies were making large profits and were not struggling in any sense for profits in that area. The decision was made to remove the low rate standing charge. The low rate low-usage standing charge w…

I warmly welcome the motion and congratulate Senator Pauline O’Reilly on it. It is great. It is very long - at three and half pages - because it is filled with practical, specific and real measures that could be implemented and would make a great difference to women and to breastfeeding. As the Senator has mentioned, the recommendations in the motion relate to matters like accessible HSE spaces, the availability of breast pumps and very important things like lactation consultants. I want to pull back a little bit t…

Yesterday, the Minister spoke about wanting future legislation that deals with students' unions. If the desire to move forward is to be credible and if we are to strengthen how we think about students' unions and their role, it is important that we not move backwards. The Bill refers to a student member on the boards of governance. There is a danger that this will be a backwards step. The Universities Act refers to elected representatives of students' unions and the Technological Universities Act clearly refers to …

I second the amendment.