Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank my colleagues for having taken the time to consider these amendments in such detail. In my initial speech I acknowledged the increase in the number of women serving as judges. I gave my current count of approximately 37% of our Judiciary being female, which is a huge increase from the time when we did our study some years ago. It is certainly a very positive sign in my view and, I think, in the view of most people - everyone, I hope. However, we want to ensure that this gender balance is sustained, and that is the approach we are taking in these amendments. Section 7 sets out this policy objective and we use the same language in our amendments Nos. 87 and 93, so I do not think anyone can object to these amendments, given that they simply encapsulate the policy objective the Government has already stated in section 7, and in the same terms. Yes, we seek to go further in amendments Nos. 86 and 91, which, while still providing only for an opportunity quota, state in respect of each clause referring only to three applicants on a shortlist "at least one of whom must be of each gender". I have already indicated that I wish to withdraw these amendments in any case to look at them again, in particular at the grammatical issue Senator Norris raised. These amendments, however, simply strengthen the Government's policy objective to have this additional provision included.

I have listened to what my colleagues have said about merit and that appointments must be merit-based. Of course, we all agree with that, but there is a large body of contested literature on what merit means, how we determine it and the criteria we use-----