Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 86:

In page 28, line 22, after "persons," to insert "at least one of whom must be of each gender,".

Amendments Nos. 86, 87, 91 and 93 all deal with the same general principle of seeking to ensure gender balance among the Judiciary.Amendment No. 86 proposes to amend section 40 by inserting in subsection (2) the words, "at least one of whom must be of each gender", after the words, "the Commission shall, in accordance with this Act, recommend to the Minister, in respect of the judicial office concerned, the names of 3 persons". These names are to be ranked in the order of the Commission's preference. The amendment specifically seeks to ensure there is an adequate gender balance among the nominees for the Judiciary or those recommended.

I will not go through all of the other amendments in great detail. Amendment No. 87 proposes to make a similar change to section 41(2) by insert after the word "concerned" the words ", having regard to the objective that the membership of the judiciary should comprise equal numbers of women and men".

Amendment No. 91 is to section 44, which deals with the appointment as Chief Justice, President of the Court of Appeal, and President of the High Court. The amendment uses the same formula in providing that at least one of the nominees for these appointments must be of each gender. Similarly, amendment No. 93 proposes to change section 46 and refers to the objective that membership of the Judiciary should comprise equal numbers of men and women.

Before I speak about these gender balance amendments, I should note that amendment No. 92 is somewhat different, although it is related to the other amendments. It does not refer to the issue of gender balance but seeks to change section 46 by inserting a specific reference to the need for the commission to make a ranked recommendation. Section 46, as the Minister will see, refers to recommended persons to be considered first. It is the section that refers to the Government's consideration for appointment of those persons whose names have been recommended to the Minister. There is no reference currently in section 46 to the Government having to consider those names in the order in which they have been ranked. This seems to be an omission given the reference in section 40(2) to persons being "ranked in the order of the Commission’s preference" and an identical reference in section 41(2). While this may seem a somewhat technical point, as the Minister is well aware, every critique or criticism of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, JAAB, and the current judicial appointments process has tended to refer to the flaw that JAAB recommendations are not currently ranked and, as a result, a group of names may be submitted to the Government for consideration. It would be preferable if JAAB were to rank the names, thus making the shortlisting process more real in the same way that we rank at interviews and so on.