Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

My Labour Party colleagues and I had tabled two amendments to section 46. We withdrew amendment No. 93, which related to the issue of seeking to ensure an adequate gender balance on the Judiciary. We called a vote on amendment No. 92, which sought to insert the phrase "in the order of the Commission's preference". Not only would regard be had to the objective that membership of the Judiciary should comprise equal numbers of men and women, but amendment No. 93 also called for the names recommended by the commission to be considered by the Government "in the order of the Commission's preference". This concept was crucial and should have been included in the text of section 46. Without this additional element, the section is lacking. This point has been made in numerous critiques of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, JAAB, namely, that the JAAB should be empowered or required to rank its recommendations in order of preference, as this would significantly improve and reform the system of judicial appointments. Without having that concept or principle in section 46, we see a section that is a missed opportunity for the reform it could have represented.

We called a vote on amendment No. 92.We have reserved the right in amendment No. 93 to resubmit it with a different wording, but with the same principles, on Report Stage. We will have another opportunity to debate that then.

I would ask the Minister in the interim to examine the text of section 46 again to see whether it could be amended to incorporate either, and preferably both, of those principles - first, that the names the commission recommends should be considered by the Government in the order of preference recommended and, second, that there should be a specific reference to the need to ensure gender balance in the Judiciary.

As it currently is, it is a flawed provision. As I have said, it is a missed opportunity for reform.