I ask the Leader to organise a debate on the current state of the economy as we will not have much time to discuss the budget provision. The economic policy being pursued by the Government is akin to economic Darwinism because it involves the survival of the fittest. Those who have get richer and those who have not get nothing. Those who are on the outside of our society keep looking in and those who are on the inside of our society keep getting more.

I would also like the Leader to organise a debate on the judicial system. It was widely reported during the week that a non-custodial sentence was applied in an horrific rape case. Some 69% of people are not satisfied with the way the Judiciary hands down sentences. A gender quota is needed in the Judiciary. Even though we have women at the highest ranks of the justice system, including the Garda Commissioner, some Supreme Court judges and the Attorney General, the judicial ranks are full of white middle-aged conservative men who hand down appalling sentences, unfortunately based to a large degree on prejudice.

That is an outrageous statement.

They pass judgment on women.

The Senator has to respect the role the Judiciary plays and the separation of powers.

What we are hearing is unbelievable.

I am not casting aspersions on any particular judge. I am talking about the judicial system.

The Senator is impugning the whole Judiciary.

There is no problem with addressing sentencing in general but not a specific case.

I am talking about sentencing in general.

No, the Senator is not.

I am talking about how judges pass judgment on women, people who have been victims of child abuse and minorities. I can give some examples.

Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?

I am asking for a debate on the judicial system because there needs to be a gender quota in the appointment of judges. It is as simple as that. We have gender quotas in politics and other areas, but we do not have such a quota in the Judiciary. As I said, some 69% of people are not satisfied with our sentencing regime. There are mandatory sentences for murder, which is as it should be. The same thing should apply in areas like abuse and rape. A two-year sentence was handed down to a principal. I am not identifying anyone.

The laws made in these Houses are interpreted and implemented by the Judiciary.

That is why I am calling for a debate on it. Eleven pupils were abused by one principal and he only received a two-year sentence.

The Senator cannot speak about specific cases.

These are unidentifiable children.

They can be identified, as the Senator knows well.

Another sentence was handed down in the case of a baby who had been abused.

I call Senator Ivana Bacik.

I am sorry, a Chathaoirligh, hold on.

The Senator is completely out of order.

I am sorry; I am not identifying anyone. I am talking about sentencing in relation to-----

The people in question can be identified.

I am generalising about sentences handed down in cases of child abuse.

The Senator is way over time.

I am asking that the Minister come to the House and speak about the Judiciary and why it is that someone who is convicted on drugs charges gets seven years, while someone who abuses 11 children gets two. What is wrong with the Judiciary that it allows this? Why is it that when judges are sentencing people to jail for abuse and rape, they talk about the background of the perpetrator and how he came from a good family and how he is held in high regard, yet we do not see maximum sentences that are appropriate to a crime?

Will the Senator, please, resume his seat?

I ask the Leader to arrange for a debate on a gender quota in the Judiciary.

The Senator might look at the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality and the work we have been doing. In fact, we had a debate on appointments to the Judiciary in the past few months, at my initiation, looking at the work of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board and gender breakdown among the Judiciary. I tabled a matter on the Adjournment on this issue a short time ago. In recent years we have had a significant increase in the proportion of women in the Judiciary. I ask the Senator to look at the figures. Anyone who is interested in this area, before he or she starts shouting about it, should look at the figures. Up to one third of the Judiciary are women at different levels and in different courts. Certainly there are some imbalances, but it is a huge improvement on the number of women in the Judiciary just ten years ago. In 2003, my colleagues and I in Trinity College Dublin produced a major report, the first and only one of its kind in Ireland, entitled Gender InJustice, looking at the gender breakdown among the legal profession and among the Judiciary. At that point we were concerned about the low levels of women among the Judiciary, but I think that issue has been addressed in more recent appointments and we have seen a much better balance in members of the Judiciary.

With regard to sentencing in rape and sexual offence cases, of course, there has been concern. I am one of the people who expressed concern at some recent reports. It is important to note that since 1993 there has been a provision whereby the Director of Public Prosecutions may apply to review a sentence handed down on grounds of undue leniency. We have seen that review mechanism applied in quite a number of cases where concerns have been expressed, and sentences have been altered at the Court of Criminal Appeal on the basis of reviews. The Director of Public Prosecutions has 28 days from the handing down of a sentence to initiate the review procedure. In any current case, it would be wise to remember that review process may well be utilised.

In the justice committee, we have taken a stand against mandatory sentences, as has Rape Crisis Network Ireland, regarding the maximum sentence appropriate for rape, which is life imprisonment, and pointed out that judges should have discretion. I do not agree with mandatory sentencing for drugs offences either, with the presumptive minimum sentence. Certainly a debate on sentencing would be useful, but the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Defence is currently looking at judicial appointments and has done some work on the issue already.

I commend all those involved in yesterday's debate on the Gender Recognition Bill 2014. It was a good day when the Bill was finally passed in both Houses and came back to the Seanad for us to agree Report Stage amendments. The Bill changed significantly and was improved during its progress through both Houses of the Oireachtas, particularly during the Seanad debate. As the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, and the Minister of State at the Department of Social Protection, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, pointed out, the Seanad has been instrumental to the positive changes made to the Bill. Last week I organised a seminar in Trinity College Dublin at which Senators David Norris and Katherine Zappone were speakers, with Ann Louise Gilligan, Professor Mark Bell from Trinity and Brian Sheehan from GLEN. We talked about the positive impact that legal advocacy - through particular cases, but also in the form of legislation and referendums - has had on the progress of LBGT rights. Yesterday's Gender Recognition Bill marks another stage in the development and progress of rights, particularly for transgender persons. I look forward, as other colleagues will, to the outcome of the two-year review that was built into the Bill. That is the outcome of an amendment from the Seanad, and it strengthens the Bill because it will allow us to deal with issues that were raised during the debate and are not addressed in the Bill.