Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

-----to adjudicate on it. I know that Senators McDowell and Boyhan will be aware of this. For a very long time women, and indeed other groups, faced difficulties in this regard. Senator Norris referred to class bias in the system, which was absolutely a fair comment. Disadvantaged groups are so called because they face existing disadvantages and there is not an equal playing field. If a woman applies from a position of disadvantage to a position in which women are under-represented, she is at a disadvantage. There is not a level playing field to begin with, and speaking about the Holy Grail of an objective system of merit neglects or overlooks this difficulty with the pre-existing disadvantages. We have written on this before in the case we made in the justice committee in 2009 for gender quotas in politics, which culminated in the 2012 legislation. In that we talked about the five c's, that is, the disadvantages women face: lack of cash, confidence, childcare, culture and, of particular relevance in the case of politics, candidate selection procedures. The first four c's also apply to disadvantaged women in terms of career progression in law. Again, this is documented in our study, in which we did qualitative and quantitative work on gender bias in the legal system - structural biases, not necessarily prejudice. This is why we need to be careful when we talk about merit. There is the literature to which I have referred and we are well aware that merit can be a very fluid concept. It is not a fixed or predetermined concept, and we must take account of pre-existing disadvantage. It is in this spirit that we table these amendments.

I have very much supported the Minister's Government in the affirmative action measures, such as the women-only professorships the Minister of State, Deputy Mitchell O'Connor, has proposed. They are sensible ways in which to address an existing gender imbalance. Our amendments, taken as a package, seek to do the same thing for the Judiciary, that is, to ensure there is a sustained gender balance in the Judiciary and that this objective is front and centre throughout the legislation, not just in section 7. It is in this spirit that we table the amendments, but I will withdraw them at this Stage. I do want the opportunity to debate this further on Report Stage because I am keen to ensure we have a wording on which I might get more support from colleagues on both sides, so I will bring the amendments back on Report Stage but I am glad to have had the opportunity to debate them at this Stage.