Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. I thank Senators Norris and McDowell for speaking on the Labour Party group of amendments and, in particular, Senator Norris for proposing the amendment. These amendments are somewhat self-explanatory and I will wait to hear the Minister's response. Essentially, they seek to adjust or tweak some of the provisions in section 33 of the Bill around eligibility and qualifications for office, specifically to deal with issues around District Court judges and promotion to the High Court, and whether the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court should be included in section 33(1)(b). Similarly, with regard to the appointment of legal academics to judicial office, they seek a certain tweaking of those provisions.

I propose to adjust these amendments somewhat for Report Stage so I may withdraw them from the House on Committee Stage today. I will also be bringing forward on Report Stage further amendments to section 33 relating to a separate issue. While I will speak on it further when we come to section 33 itself, the separate issue I want to deal with is around the eligibility of in-house counsel to judicial appointment, an issue that was raised with me but too late for me to get amendments in on Committee Stage. It is around the expression "practising barrister" and whether that is aligned with the understanding or definition of "practising barrister" in the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. It is a serious issue and a particular issue in the context of gender balance and judicial appointments, given we in the Labour Party have put forward amendments later in the Bill on the need to ensure gender diversity or, more properly, gender balance in judicial appointments.

I am conscious, from research I and others have done, that many women gravitate towards in-house counsel roles where there are more protections in regard to maternity leave, greater entitlement to leave for childcare purposes and so on. Therefore, it is for traditional reasons and reasons around culture at the Bar and among self-employed persons. I can go into this in more detail when we come to discuss section 33, although it is perhaps not appropriate to speak about it on these amendments.

I will not speak at length on amendments Nos. 72 to 77, inclusive. They are self-explanatory and seek to adjust or make various tweaks to the arrangements currently set out in section 33. I will await the Minister's response.