Mark Daly (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

She is proposing to bring forward a gender option providing that there would be a choice and that it would not be left up to the Bar Council and Law Society to pick only one nominee. That is where this section is relevant. If the amendment tabled by Senator Bacik were accepted on Report Stage, although I do not think we would agree with all of it, I would certainly see merit in the requirement to nominate two people. That is where section 13 does not contribute to the gender equality that we should be aiming to achieve in this and all legislation.

While the Bill is indeed suspect in its origins, we must nonetheless deal with it by putting forward reasonable amendments and proposals. We must try to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear we have been bequeathed. I understand the Minister's point but there is merit in what the Labour Party and Senator Bacik have proposed in respect of the requirement for better gender balance achieved in a reasonable manner.I believe Senator McDowell missed the point. It is not the case that the Law Society would be ringing the Bar Council and asking the gender of members it would be putting forward. Under the amendment put forward by the Labour Party they would both be required to put forward one member of each gender. One would assume the nominees would be of equal capacity and have equal knowledge of the law and that it would therefore be up to the Government to decide between the two. It could end up that all the appointees could be of one gender or other, but it would certainly give a better chance of there being more voices at the table representing 54% of the people in the country. That 54% of people are not represented in an equal manner on any number of State boards, private enterprises or Government agencies. I commend Senator Bacik for bringing forward her proposed amendment, which is very reasonable and in which I hope the Government will see merit.