Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am referring specifically to amendment No. 92, which seeks to amend section 46. The reason I have singled out this amendment is that it is somewhat different from the other amendments in this group. I will speak more generally about the gender balance considerations in the other amendments when I have explained the reasons we tabled amendment No. 92. We did not do so to change the nature of the Bill but to strengthen the provisions of sections 40(2) and 41(2), both of which require the commission to rank the names of those it recommends in order of preference. There appears to be a gap or an anomaly in the Bill because whereas sections 40 and 41 include a requirement for ranking, the Government is not required to consider for appointment in the order of the commission's preference when the recommendations come to it, as provided for in section 46. Amendment No. 92 simply strengthens what is already contained by way of a principle in the earlier sections. The amendment is related to the other amendments because it concerns how the commission is to make its shortlist. However, it differs from them in that it refers not to gender balance but to the issue of ranking in order of preference.

Some argument has been made by Jennifer Carroll MacNeill and others that the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board could have ranked applicants before now but had not done so. One of the strengths of the Bill is that it requires ranking in sections 40 and 41. The new body will have strengthened powers in the sense that it will be required to rank applicants rather than only having the power to do so. That will strengthen the position of the commission because it makes the process more real and similar to other interviews.

Amendments Nos. 86, 87, 91 and 93 refer to the important policy objective of achieving a balanced Judiciary, in particular that the Judiciary should represent the balance of women and of men. I table these amendments as the author, some years ago, of the first and only major study of gender in the legal professions in Ireland, which I conducted with my colleagues, Eileen Drew and Cathryn Costello in Trinity College Dublin. The study, which published in 2003 under the title Gender inJustice, examined the issue of gender balance in the Judiciary. We took note of processes that were being implemented in other jurisdictions to try to encourage more women to seek promotion to the Judiciary and to ensure more women were appointed to the Judiciary. We noted at the time that Ireland was not the worst among common law countries in terms of the proportion of women in the Judiciary. From memory, I believe the proportion here stood at between 20% and 25% at the time. Ireland now leads in terms of gender balance in the Judiciary. I am conscious that two appointments made to the High Court last week slightly skewed my figures because I had looked at the data beforehand. I understand women now make up 37% of the Judiciary, that is, the District Court, Circuit Court, High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Women make up three out of eight judges in the Supreme Court, which is 38%, and 50% of the Court of Appeal, which is the highest proportion. That is much better than we see in comparable common law jurisdictions but it is still not as good as in some civil law jurisdictions where there are career judges and a different method of appointment.

I will not dwell on the difference between the legal systems. Women make up 51% of the population and in recent years, as the Minister will be well aware, more women than men have qualified as solicitors and women have joined the Bar in much larger numbers than before. It is important that we at least sustain a figure of 37% or 38% of our Judiciary being female. For this reason, it is important to place that in our legislation when we are reforming judicial appointment processes. The Minister will see that the provisions have been drafted in such a way to be gender neutral in the same way that our legislation on the gender quota in politics is gender neutral. The section of the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Act 2012, which provided for a gender quota for political parties is also framed in a gender neutral fashion. It requires parties to select at least 30% of their candidates of each gender. We saw the difference that legislation made in the 2016 general election when the proportion of women Deputies increased significantly from 14% to 20%.

It is very important that we are proactive when it comes to our commitment to ensuring gender equality and gender balance. It is in that spirit that my colleagues and I put forward these amendments. They build on the work that has already been done in terms of research and on the policy objective framed in the political funding legislation. They also build on the very good work done on ensuring greater gender balance in the Judiciary. I have outlined the figures. The increase since my colleagues and I compiled our study in 2003 is very welcome but we need to ensure it is sustained and we have a diverse Judiciary generally.