Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

-----which will have the effect of requiring every nominating body to come forward with a candidate of each gender, so that in the end the result will be gender balanced. The Minister will appreciate that if she simply rolled over on this particular section and said that it could remain part of the Bill, it would be inconsistent with that ambition, on her part, because it would allow a singular nomination from the Bar Council and a singular nomination from the president of the Law Society. That is all I was saying. I think I was bang on point in understanding exactly what was happening. I do not think that I was, in any sense, trying to reopen territory that had been decided, on the contrary. What has been suggested by Senator Bacik is entirely consistent.

I am in favour of gender balance but I believe the Bar Council and its chairperson are entitled to put forward a person they trust, in terms of this matter.Achieving gender balance in their heads is a matter for them. By the same token, achieving gender balance in the Law Society is a matter for it. We cannot really ask the Bar Council to be telephoning the Law Society to ask if it is putting a man up or if it should put up a woman. If gender balance is to be achieved, it should be achieved among the appointment of laypersons other than those directly appointed by these bodies. These bodies are going to select somebody presumably on merit. They are going to make their own decision on their own nominees to put the best person forward. They cannot really be looking over their shoulder at other bodies or querying whether those other bodies are putting forward people of different genders to make up their minds about who they put forward to represent them on this body.

I suggest that there is a problem here, even doing my best and leaning over backwards to support Senator Bacik in her ambition to have gender balance on the commission itself. If corrective measures are necessary at the end of the day, having regard to what has been done by the human rights commission, the president of the Law Society, the Free Legal Advice Centres and the Citizens Information people, it is unfair to ask a professional body that is putting somebody forward ex officioto represent its interest to put forward two people and to give the Minister the discretion as to which of them goes forward onto the commission, just to achieve gender balance. It is unfair on the Bar Council to tell it to propose two people, one of whom the Minister will reject. That is not going to happen in respect of the Judiciary. Whoever happens to be the president or the Attorney General under the Bill as it stands will all have their assigned genders. It is unfair to ask the two professional bodies effectively to run two horses in the race and give the Minister the right to choose between them. I have a difference with Senator Bacik on this matter which cannot be disguised, well-intentioned as I can fully see that she is.

There is a reference at a later stage to a person appointed by the Bar Council or a person appointed by the Law Society. It seems that the text should make it clear whether the appointment is to be made by the chairman of the Bar Council or the president of the Law Society, or whether it is the nomination of the body in question. Later in the Bill an assumption seems to be made that it is not the chairperson's personal nomination but that of the body over which he or she presides, and likewise in respect of the president of the Law Society. Will the Minister consider amending the legislation at this or a different point to make it clear that it is somebody who is representing the Bar Council or nominated by its chairman or nominated by the president of the Bar Council? It should be a nomination of the council of the Law Society and the Bar Council itself, not just somebody nominated by the presiding officer of either of those institutions.