Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am amused at the thought, in terms of recent developments, that people could self-identify for the purpose of this and be appointed, and become eligible. Why gender is so hugely important in this context, and self-identification is irrelevant, I do not know.

What the amendment proposes to do is to delete lines 27 to 34 and just simply say that if there is a casual vacancy that the Judicial Council can elect one of its number to carry on, for the remainder of that person's term without checking their credentials and seeing were they a solicitor, were they a male at the same time of their appointment and are they still a male. All of this nonsense which is floated as progressive. It is not progressive. It is an unnecessary piece of virtue signalling in an absurd way.

I will go back to the point I made about the last amendment and I will only repeat it once. If it is to be the case that a solicitor and a barrister can form a partnership early on in the first year of their careers, and that a barrister can end up being the chief partner in Arthur Cox then how is it relevant that he went to the King's Inns or a Law Society when it later comes to decide who can and cannot be elected to the judicial appointments commission. It just simply does not make sense. It is antiquated. The Legal Services Regulatory Authority is just about to publish a framework to allow barristers and solicitors to form joint firms and I have no doubt some will do so. To say that it mattered after 15 years of practice whether they went to the King's Inns and ate their dinners or whether they got their parchments in Blackhall Place is just complete nonsense.