Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS debate -
Thursday, 26 Mar 1998

Vol. 1 No. 3

Courts Service (No. 2) Bill, 1997: Committee Stage.

I welcome the Minister and his officials, Mr. Ken O'Leary and Mr. Kevin Condon, to the meeting.

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 5.

Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 6 are related and may be discussed together. Amendment No. 1 cannot be moved as Deputy Upton is not here.

Amendment No. 1 not moved.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:

"(c) establish and oversee a research and statistical unit,".

We want to establish a hard body of facts on judicial statistics. The Bill provides us with a golden opportunity which we should not waste to address one of the greatest deficiencies in the legal system - the absence of hard information. As I said on Second Stage, this is particularly evident in the criminal justice system where information is scattered, chaotic and incomplete. Deputies from all sides of the House have often received replies from the Minister that it would take too much time to garner the information or use too many of the Department's resources, yet the information we are seeking is not frivolous but hard information on statistics.

How can any Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform purport to formulate policies on matters such as sentencing and imprisonment, as the present Minister is planning to do, when there is such a yawning information gap in our system? How can there be reasoned and informed public debate when crucial information is unco-ordinated or outdated by the time we get it? On Second Stage I said that we often hear complaints about the level of court awards for personal injuries. I do not know if those criticisms are justified because although the judicial system deals with such cases on a daily basis, it is difficult to get reliable information on them.

We need annual judicial statistics. We should avail of the opportunity this welcome legislation presents to create a research and statistical unit within the Courts Service. It would involve additional minor costs but it would bear rich dividends in terms of providing us with hard information which is indispensable from the point of view of formulating sound policies on civil and criminal cases.

I support Deputy Jim Higgins. This Bill was drafted as a result of the commission's study of the court system. It would be a great pity if the Minister lost this opportunity to provide the information which is in the system but which needs to be collated and managed in the public interest. Anyone, like myself, with no experience of the legal system would be shocked at the lack of statistical information in all areas relating to that system. There is a shortfall and this is an opportunity to ensure that the new Courts Service is established on a proper footing and that it is a modern, progressive development. If, by the Minister not accepting this amendment, we fail to deal with a necessary part of the service's work, it would be unfair to the Courts Service and damaging to the public good. It requires information technology but that is something we should be enabling rather than avoiding. Will the Minister take this amendment seriously? It is easy for him to say no but he should see the potential of what is being proposed. It is the missing piece of all the elements from management to information to the public. It needs to be inserted to make the functions of the service complete and I urge the Minister to look on this favourably.

I thank Deputy Higgins for his amendment. Section 5 sets out the proposed function of the Courts Service and it goes without saying that this function is to manage the courts. The amendment would include the function of establishing and overseeing a research and statistical unit. I appreciate the philosophy behind the amendment inasmuch as it reflects an appreciation of the importance of maintaining comprehensive and up-to-date statistics. However, the amendment is unnecessary and would not improve the Bill. It is not a part of the purpose of the Bill to attempt to prescribe in every detail how the Courts Service is to be managed. That would defeat the purpose of the establishment of the service.

If, for example, the Bill was to provide that a research and statistical unit be established, the argument could be made that a finance, technology or personnel unit should be established and so on. That is not to say that I do not recognise the need for comprehensive and up-to-date statistics. This function is clearly comprehended by the legislation in the sense that managing the courts in a new, effective and efficient manner must, of necessity, mean the utilisation of modern technology to maintain the statistics which will be required.

I remind members that, under section 8, there is a requirement on the Courts Service to submit an annual report to the Minister which, in turn, will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. These reports will include information on the performance of the functions of the service during the year to which they relate and such other information in such form as the service thinks fit or as the Minister may direct. Obviously such reports would include statistical information of the kind described by Deputies Higgins and McManus.

I accept that over the years the criminal justice system has suffered woefully from a lack of adequate research. Opposition spokespersons find it frustrating that when they seek information they are often told that it would take too much time and resources to access. I experienced the same frustrations and annoyance in Opposition. The ESRI was commissioned by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to look at the question of research in this area. As a result of my interest in this issue and the fact that I recognised the necessity for research, I have been able to include £250,000 in the Estimates for the Department for research into criminal justice issues. I envisage that this research will be carried out by a number of outside agencies. For example, there are research departments in universities which are well equipped for this kind of procedure. I mention this as evidence of my commitment to comprehensive and high quality research in the criminal justice area and one of the key issues is the keeping of statistics by the various agencies referred to by Deputy Higgins.

While the commitment is there, and I understand the philosophy behind it, I have difficulties with the amendment. First, for the reasons already outlined I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. Second, it could distort the balance of the Bill if we sought to include provisions to micro-manage how the Courts Service should carry out its functions. In the circumstances I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment.

In accordance with section 8, there will be an annual report to the Minister on the activities of the Courts Service. The amendment would seek to impose a statutory imperative to deal with a specific issue in the annual report relating to the provision of a comprehensive set of judicial statistics for the period in question. The section as it stands does not purport to contain a comprehensive list of headings under which that report is to be compiled and, having consulted with officials, I am satisfied that this is the correct approach. In those circumstances to include one specific heading, in this case relating to judicial statistics, would distort the balance of the section.

I am somewhat surprised at the Minister's invitation to withdraw the amendment. I would be inclined to do so if he had given some assurance as to what plans are afoot to provide accurate judicial statistical information. The Minister alluded to the fact that an annual report in envisaged and will be placed before the Dáil and debated. This is to be welcomed. However, any annual report in relation to the performance of the board must be incomplete if it does not contain hard information on the range of cases dealt with by the judicial system. Surely it is fundamental in setting up a board to manage the Courts Service that we should not muddle along in the absence of accurate, up-to-date statistics which would indicate what is happening and offer criminal analysis. This will not be nearly as costly as the Minister would have us believe. The fact that this would take up too much resources is one of the arguments he advances for not accepting the amendment. What kind of examination of resource implications has taken place within the Department? What cost are we talking about?

I welcome the provision of £250,000 for research. Deputy McManus and I had a useful meeting with officials in the Department and we thank the Minister for that. We welcome a specific subhead allocation for research for the first time. However, the degree of research required in the Department in all the various areas is huge and the sum provided is minuscule in terms of the actual demands. However, it is a welcome start.

By comparison with other countries the number of cases going through our courts is relatively small. In England, for example, they spend millions of pounds on research each year. A substantial amount of the money spent in England goes on establishing hard core information on the various areas under the Department.

I do not accept this amendment would distort the balance of the Bill. How could it do so? We are talking about inserting a provision which is fundamental to the operation of the service in the context of cross checking and monitoring what is happening. I urge the Minister to reflect on the matter. We are not setting out an establishment date, but asking that it be inserted as an aspiration which will come into effect in due course, hopefully relatively early. However, we are not obliging the Minister or the Department to implement it on the implementation date of the legislation.

There is no difference between what Deputy Higgins and I are trying to achieve. I did not say that provision of the necessary technology would absorb too much resources, but the opposite. Replies to Dáil questions sometimes state that resources required to ascertain the information being sought would be too great as against the importance of the information being elicited. The difference between Deputy Higgins and myself relates to whether this amendment should be included in the Bill. I fully accept that the objective he specifies should be attained. I do not believe the legislation should include a specific provision to cover this matter as the argument could be made by several other Deputies that items under various other headings should also be included. Nobody envisages that the annual report should be prescribed in terms of what it should include.

A fail safe mechanism is included in the Bill by virtue of the fact that the Minister can direct that certain information be provided. In 1997 Coopers & Lybrand was commissioned to conduct an IT scoping study on behalf of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the report of which was published in October 1997. On foot of the report I have provided an additional £2.5 million for expenditure on information technology for the courts in 1998, bringing the total spend for 1998 to £3.7 million. I hope this will help to allay the concerns of Deputies. We have recently gone to tender, via the EU journal, for computer systems for the courts. Therefore, the development of comprehensive systems for collating and interpreting statistical data is being addressed as part of the planned extension of IT in the courts. Clearly, it would be a redundant act to establish a new Courts Service to manage the courts while providing it with Victorian facilities.

The problem which Deputy Higgins has addressed is being resolved in so far as is possible. I do not believe his proposal is necessary for the reasons I have outlined. In these circumstances I trust he will withdraw the amendment.

I welcome the Bill which is a long overdue initiative. I know the Minister wishes to provide for the best service. Continuous evaluation is needed of the process of dispensing justice, from the point of view of both those dispensing and those receiving it. An area which has caused much concern to Deputies and organisations dealing with clients and victims is that for many reasons, some of which we support, many family law and sexual abuse cases must be held in camera. One difficulty is that there is no real public evaluation or perception of what happens in such cases. There was a time when such an evaluation was possible due to much more publicity, including newspaper coverage. This was before it was thought desirable to hold such cases in camera. There is huge concern about what may be happening regarding judgments and allocations of moneys, etc. as the public is unaware of how money is dispensed and how judgments are handed down.

This amendment would enable the Minister to ensure that such evaluation is done professionally and that the annual report would give a professional, ongoing evaluation of cases which do not come to public notice but which we, as legislators, need to know about in the context of whether they are working or not. It is important, therefore, that the amendment be accepted.

I welcome the Bill. On Second Stage I made a number of suggestions to the Minister regarding it. I am interested in Deputy Higgins's amendment. Section 5(c) refers to providing "information on the courts system to the public". The manager or director of the Courts Service should have the latest technology available to him under this section to allow for the provision of information. I have already said that the courts system must be brought into the 21st century. In this context I was glad to hear the Minister speaking about information technology. I hope the annual report of the Courts Service will include the types of cases dealt with over the year, the cost of cases - I understand there are enormous costs involved in bringing a case to trial - and other statistics. I support the Minister's assertion that the Bill provides for this as the service will have to produce an annual report and I do not foresee a situation where it will not include such information.

There is an annual set of statistics for the prison service and for the Garda in terms of crime. However, the other main instrument of the system, which we are now establishing on a new, more organised and better administered basis, is going to be deprived of something fundamental and essential to its functioning and efficacy. It will also be deprived of the opportunity to provide a comprehensive picture of what is happening. I will not press the amendment but will return to it on Report Stage. In the meantime, will the Minster tell us how much money will be required to establish this unit in his Department and how does the Department see it in terms of size or scale of costs?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 7, subsection (2), between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:

"(f) make proposals to the Minister on what it considers to be appropriate scales of court fees and charges,".

Section 6 (1) of the Bill states:

Subject to this Act but notwithstanding any other enactment, the Service may do anything necessary or expedient for enabling it to perform its functions.

The section sets down these functions and provides in subsection (2)(e) that the service may, at the request of the Minister, recommend to the Minister appropriate scales of court fees and charges. My amendment allows that the service may recommend appropriate charges but not specifically at the request of the Minister. I am not asking that this subsection be deleted but that the service could take the initiative and recommend appropriate scales of court fees to the Minister.

In view of the Minister's stated reluctance to interfere in the working of the Courts Service, it is extraordinary that the words "at the request of the Minister" are included in this subsection and in no other. They indicate a pro-active approach by the Minister which is contrary to the ethos of the Bill. I cannot imagine a more eminent or a more appropriate group of people to manage the Courts Service than the members its board. I strongly support Deputy Higgins's amendment.

I have listened carefully to what Deputy Higgins and Deputy McManus have said. When Deputy Higgins spoke on this matter at Second Stage, I indicated that the matter of the service being in a position to recommend appropriate scales of court fees and charges would be examined. Section 6(2)(e) provides that, at the request of the Minister, the service may recommend to the Minister appropriate scales of court fees and charges. As the Deputy rightly points out, the issues related to court revenue are significant and must be seen in the context of the cost effectiveness of the new service.

It is appropriate that the Minister of the day should be in a position to seek the recommendations of the service with regard to the level of court fees and charges. The question is whether the initiative should lie with the Minister alone. I can agree that the initiative or power should not rest with the Minister alone. It is true that the working group recommended that the Courts Service should be in a position, at the very least, to advise the Minister on the question of fees.

The powers set out in section 6(2) are without prejudice to the generality of section 6(1) which provides that the service may do anything necessary or expedient for enabling it to perform its functions. I am advised that section 6 could not be construed as precluding the service from making proposals to the Minister on what is considered to be an appropriate scale of court fees and charges on its own initiative. The reference in section 6(2)(e) to making proposals to the Minister in relation to fees at the request of the Minister was included simply to ensure that the service would be obliged to respond to such requests from the Minister. It was not intended to preclude the service from making recommendations on its own initiative.

However, since Deputy Higgins has tabled an amendment and feels that the matter should be made more clear, I am prepared to accept, perhaps at Report Stage, an amendment to the effect that the whole question of the initiation of this matter should be at the Minister's discretion or, alternatively, at the discretion of the Courts Service itself. I ask Deputy Higgins to withdraw his amendment and re-submit it at Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Section 6 agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
Section 7 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.
Sections 8 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 11

Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are out of order as they involve a charge on the Revenue. Both amendments would add additional members to the board of the Courts Service, in the case of amendment No. 8 a person who has knowledge of and practical experience of working with children's welfare organisations and in the case of amendment No. 9 a person who has relevant knowledge and experience of the effective delivery of services through the medium of Irish. At the moment the number of board members is set at 17 and these two amendments, if made, would increase that number to 19.

The cost involved would be minimal. Am I correct in assuming that not only can these amendments not be moved but they cannot even be discussed?

Because section 16 of the Bill provides for the payment of expenses and remuneration to board members, which money will be provided by the Oireachtas, the effect of both amendments would be to increase the charges on public money in accordance with Standing Order 1423, therefore both amendments are out of order. The Deputies may argue their point when we discuss the section but the amendments may not be moved.

There is an inconsistency here. A previous amendment called for the establishment of a research and statistical unit which inevitably would cost more than the inclusion of an extra member on the board. The cost of an extra board member would be minuscule compared to the overall cost of the service. I cannot recall any occasion when additional members were proposed for newly appointed bodies that this excuse was used to rule an amendment out of order.

The research and statistical unit referred to by Deputy McManus would have been paid for out of the Courts Service grant. The addition of members to the board would immediately add——

Ferocious expense?

Let us not mention expenses.

The ruling of these amendments out of order defies logic. We do not know if the research and statistical unit will come within the budget of the service. Amendment No. 9, which was ruled out of order, sought to have the services provided bilingually. That would obviously have incurred additional cost. We now have a situation where notification for someone to attend a meeting is being used as a guise under which to disqualify this amendment.

While I cannot move the amendment, I want to point out the merit of what we are trying to establish. We wish to insert into the Bill provision to appoint some people from various backgrounds to a board which is overloaded with judicial wigs and gowns. A considerable and increasing volume of cases going through the courts deals with women, children and family matters. All we sought was to add to the board, by way of a nominee, somebody with knowledge and practical experience of welfare organisations dealing specifically with women and children. We acknowledge the wisdom of limiting the number of people on the board but this area is crying out for representation and does not have it. In view of the fact that we are disqualified from doing so, the Minister should move an amendment to that effect in view of its merits.

I cannot help Deputy Higgins in terms of what would or would not constitute a charge on the Revenue. It is a matter for the Chairman to determine. I assure the Deputy that I had no part in excluding the amendment. It is entirely a matter for the august Chairman to make those decisions and he has decided that it has a potential to be a charge on the Revenue. In those circumstances he has excluded it. I cannot help and I do not have an amendment in relation to that matter.

There is an explicit provision which prevents the amendment from being moved and, therefore, we cannot accept it.

Can we ask for a ruling that some discussion might be allowed so that the point can be made with regard to an amendment on Report Stage?

We can have all the discussion we want but the amendment cannot be formally moved. We can ask the Minister to look at it on Report Stage.

If it is of any assistance to Deputy Barnes, the legislation already provides for committees to be set up by the Courts Service. They can advise the Courts Service in relation to specific matters. I do not know if that would be of some assistance, but the power is certainly contained in section 15(1).

We welcome that, but input is different from having a physical presence and practical experience on the board. Deputy Higgins and others made salient points regarding the total exclusion of women's groups and female personnel, who often represent children's rights. It is Government policy to take affirmative action to ensure gender balance and experience on every new State board and panel established. I hope the Minister will be able to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage to meet this point.

I fully appreciate Deputy Barnes's considerable interest in women's issues through the years. My chief adviser on the courts commission working group is Mrs. Justice Denham, a woman as distinguished as Deputy Barnes herself.

The Minister does me a great honour.

I can assure Deputy Barnes that Mrs. Justice Denham will take into account many of the matters which the Deputy has mentioned. However, a later amendment, tabled by Deputy Higgins, deals with gender balance. It might be more productive to move to that in due course because the Chairman will not allow this particular amendment. We can have a fuller discussion on the matter when the subsequent amendment is moved.

I do not wish to pry but is it the norm to disqualify amendments which concern adding to board membership? Can no committee entertain an amendment to add membership to a body if it involves a charge on the Exchequer?

That is provided for in Standing Orders, unless it is moved by a member of the Government. The relevant Standing Order states:

An amendment to a Bill which would have the effect of imposing or increasing a charge upon the Revenue may not be moved by any Member, save a member of the Government or Minister of State.

It does seem very strict but that is the Standing Order. I gather there is much precedent for this.

Would it have been in order if we decided to delete one of the honourable members of the bench and substitute a member?

The sky might have fallen.

Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 10, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) The Minister, in making nominations under this section shall have particular regard to the need to ensure that membership of the Board includes both men and women, and shall ask each nominating person or body to have similar regard.".

When I set about looking at this question of gender balance on the board, my preferred option was to put forward the amendment moved by Deputy Higgins in relation to 40 per cent female representation. It is important to maintain the principle that has been established, at least in part, of 40 per cent female representation. It is rather a pleasure to be outflanked in the feminist stakes by Deputy Higgins on this point.

If the Minister is in the mood to support Deputy Higgins's amendment, I would happily withdraw mine. I suspect, however, there are difficulties with that approach because of the particular nature and make up of the Courts Service board. It is loaded in favour of judges, although I appreciate that judges should be included on the board. We suffer under the handicap of not having a sufficient number of women within the Judiciary to be able to automatically provide the 40 per cent gender balance.

It would be a grave disservice to the commitment of Mrs. Justice Susan Denham, in particular, and the people who worked on the commission, if the matter was ignored and there was no reference in the Bill to establish the principle that women must be on the board from the very beginning and must continue to be on it in future. The work done by the commission is a wonderful achievement. It should be honoured by the acceptance of this amendment. The Minister's approach should be to ensure that women will be on the board. We must establish that principle now.

Women make up a majority of the victims of crime but I doubt if they make up a majority of defendants who appear in court. Certainly they do not have equality in terms of their number working as barristers or judges. The representative of Women's Aid, who worked extremely hard on the commission, was Ms Róisín McDermott. She has shown just how effective female representation can be in bringing out issues that have not always received equality of hearing and attention.

It is disturbing that there has been an increase in the number of crimes against women. It is disturbing that the impact of gender balancing and equality legislation has been shown to be limited. The Minister has an obligation - it is not a question of choosing whether or not he should - to ensure there is female representation on the board. If he can achieve the 40 per cent, I would be more than happy to withdraw my amendment. However, if he cannot achieve that, I ask him to accept this amendment.

It is a difficult matter when so many representatives on this board are elected by other authorities outside the Minister's control. If anything, that concentrates the responsibility on the Minister to ensure that the make-up of the board will not be narrow, that it will not exclude 51 per cent of the population from having a say in decision making in what is such a crucial authority for the future operation of justice.

I cannot add anything to what Deputy McManus has said. I might have outflanked her with my amendment, that is amendment No. 11. However, she has outflanked me with substance and argument. I support the amendment.

I compliment Deputy McManus on the substance of the case she put forward. It is accepted Government policy that that quota be upheld. It is particularly appropriate given that the committee dealing with this Bill is also dealing with women's rights.

While we would all aspire towards 40 per cent representation, it becomes impossible in situations where there are specific categories who must be appointed to boards. In the case of a governing body of which I am a member, for example, where the bishops must nominate three or four of their representatives, it is no surprise that the four happen to be men. That means that in the case of the other categories which must be filled the bodies involved are being forced to appoint women.

Where there are certain categories which are filled by men at present, it puts too much pressure on people to find women to satisfy the other categories because they are women and not because they are the best persons for the posts. Every State board should aspire towards 40 per cent female representation.

It is policy.

Yes, it is policy to aspire to that and we have seen moves in that direction. As of Christmas, the lowest level of women membership on State boards was 36 per cent. Although it is policy, I am not sure it should be put into the Bill.

I should have mentioned earlier that Deputy McManus had tabled an amendment also. Her amendment seeks to ensure that membership of the board of the Courts Service includes both men and women. That amendment would require the Minister to have such regard in nominating the three members of the board which the Bill provides are to be nominated by him, that is, an officer of the Minister, a person to represent consumers of courts' services and a person representative of commercial, financial or administrative interests. It would also require the Minister to ask all other nominating persons or bodies to have regard to the same need.

I am sympathetic to the objective which Deputy McManus's amendment seeks to achieve. It is important that those who are appointed to the board of the Courts Service should be chosen with regard to the commitment of successive Governments to the entire question of gender balance. I am in agreement with that.

It is important that membership of the board will include both men and women. As Deputy McManus accepts and as Deputy Hanafin endorses, it is not straightforward in the context of the Courts Service board and the way it is structured under this Bill. However, in view of what has been said and in the light of strong views which I hold in this regard, not least of which have to do with my upbringing, I will undertake to examine between now and Report Stage the feasibility of making an appropriate change which recognises the need to have both men and women on the board but which must take into account the particular structure of what is involved.

Deputy Higgins's amendment, in certain, if not direct, contrast to Deputy McManus's, seeks to ensure that the board would have a minimum women's representation of 40 per cent. Section 11 establishes the board of the Courts Service. The board is not appointed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. That is in contrast, for example, to the Civil Legal Aid Board and a number of other boards where all of the members are appointed by the Minister. The Civil Legal Aid Act, 1995, for example, provides for minimum numbers of women and men members of the board.

However, in the case of the Courts Service the Minister appoints only three of the 17 members. These are the representatives to which I have already referred. The Bill provides the Minister with no role in relation to the appointments which will be made by bodies such as the Law Society and the Bar Council. In view of the composition of the board it would not be practicable to provide that a certain number or percentage of members of the board must be men or women as this would obviously be a matter over which the Minister could not have control.

However, I appreciate the commitment of the members of the committee to ensuring that there should be adequate female representation on the board. While I cannot obviously make that a statutory imperative, I will look at it in the context of Report Stage to see if there is something we can do which would ensure that, in so far as we can do so in statute law, the objective would be achieved in the context of the manner in which the board is structured pursuant to the legislation. In other words, I will try to see if we can find a formula which would adequately address the concerns expressed by members in relation to gender balance.

Wearing my hat as Minister for Equality, I stress that I am committed to achieving equality between men and women, whether in the workplace, in society or in the decision-making process. We are pursuing an ambitious programme of equal opportunity legislative and non-legislative measures. This is a crucial and essential part of the Department's agenda. I hope I have reassured Members that we intend to consider this matter to see if a formula can be found. I will return to the matter on Report Stage.

I welcome the fact that the Minister is considering this point, but I am not sure why he is not accepting the amendment tabled in my name. I would be happy to withdraw it and, if necessary, resubmit it on Report Stage following the outcome of his deliberations. It is surprising that this modest amendment is not acceptable, given the access the Minister has to qualified experts on his staff who should be able to consider an amendment of this sort and provide Members with information in respect of its shortcomings. It is not long since the Minister was in Opposition and he understands the difficulties of framing amendments without access to that expertise and support. It would be helpful if we were informed why the amendment is not acceptable.

If it is the case that I am being outflanked by the Minister in respect of the feminine state, I would be delighted to withdraw the amendment. However, I doubt that is the reason. I accept the Minister's point in respect of the 40 per cent gender balance and everyone understands the difficulty he faces. What is the difficulty with the amendment tabled in my name? If it is the case that the Minister wishes to go a step further than the amendment suggests, he should inform the committee of his intentions.

The Deputy has been outflanked again.

As in all things golden, Deputy McManus's amendment is modest. The reason it is not being accepted is that I intend to see if it can be improved upon. If it cannot be improved upon, I am prepared to consider accepting it, with appropriate drafting changes, on Report Stage. I ask the Deputy to allow me to discover if there is a more watertight formula. If such a formula cannot be found, Deputy McManus's amendment can be reconsidered.

I thank the Minister for his reply.

I tabled my amendment in order to underline and emphasise the point made by Deputy Hanafin. In this instance, the 40 per cent gender balance represents seven places. The composition of the board under the provisions of section 11 means that four of the places will be filled by the Chief Justice, the Presidents of the High Court, the Circuit Court and the District Court. Therefore, the 40 per cent allocation of places under the gender balance will have to be allocated within the remaining 14 places.

The gender balance does not seem to have been a consideration when the composition of the board was drawn up. It is obvious that a certain number of cases were already spoken for in terms of the male monopoly. This goes against, as Deputy Barnes stated, any attempt to achieve the requirement for a 40 per cent gender balance. In trying to improve Deputy McManus's amendment, the Minister need only remove the term "both men and". The amendment will then read "the need to ensure that membership of the Board includes women".

With respect, Deputy Higgins is missing the central point. Life is a continuum and it is in a constant state of flux. Therefore, at a given point in time, the Chief Justice, the Presidents of the High Court, the Circuit Court and the District Court might all be women and the majority would be female in composition. Deputy McManus predicted that this will happen. In those circumstances I am sure the Deputy will accept the assurance given by his colleague and withdraw his amendment.

Does the Minister envisage that happening when the Archbishop of Dublin is a woman?

We should not get carried away.

I welcome the Minister's positive support for the amendment. I recognise the constraints in place at present in respect of the statutes and structures. However, since Members accept that gender-proofing represents the future of legislation, perhaps we need to consider those constraints. I am aware that I am shifting the goalposts but we should take this issue on board. With regard to the reference made by Deputy Hanafin, I hope the Minister will use his influence in every area with the exception of appointing bishops.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 11 not moved.
Section 11 agreed to.
Sections 12 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
Sections 19 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 23.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 23 stand part of the Bill."

Deputy Upton is not present but he tabled amendment No. 13 which suggests a drafting change. I propose to bring forward an amendment to deal with this matter on Report Stage.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 24 agreed to.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
Sections 25 to 43, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Top
Share