Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)

I do not think there is any irony in a Member of the House advocating for the representation of women in politics, whether the Member is in a party or not. There is nothing ironic about me standing up here at all. In terms of political form in this country, it is the single most important thing we need to do, although I think there is a lot we need to do. I believe passionately in it and I will continue to support the Minister on it, but there is certainly no irony in me advocating for it.

I have a concern about the Minister's statement that the parties may exceed the quota themselves. Perhaps they will. I hope they will, but let us look at what is going on in the culture. We are moving backwards. Were we on a path that had already 20%, 25%, 30% and looking at 35%, then I would say that they may exceed it, but we are not on that path. We are going backwards. One of the things that has really surprised me in my time as a Deputy is some of the hostility towards greater female participation. When we were discussing this one day, a TD told me that a woman's place is in the home and that politics is a man's business. This was not a member of the old guard in politics for the last 30 years. I have heard some horrific comments on the culture. I accept that this is not necessarily the norm, but it is there and it is strong. Let us look at the future politicians from Young Fine Gael and Ógra Fianna Fáil as examples, because we know how they voted. They voted against quotas. If we look at the culture and where the system is going, then we must conclude that the system, sadly, is going in the opposite direction to that which the Minister and I hoped it would go. That is why we need an enforcing mechanism. It would be great if we did not need quotas. My concern is with where the system is going.

This is historic legislation and I congratulate the Minister and the Government on it. This amendment was not tabled on Committee Stage but it arose during debates at that Stage. It comes down to a simple issue. Do we want to wait 14 years to move to 40%? The legislation states that the threshold shall be 40%, so we are going to 40%. This amendment is all about momentum and it is about a very clear signal to the system which states that we are moving to 30% and five years later we are moving to 40%, as opposed to moving to 30% and 14 years later moving to 40%. That is all it is. We agree absolutely on where the system needs to go. As somebody who has spent time looking at how to change cultures, I believe strongly that waiting 14 years to go to 40% is just too long. We could wait nine years. That would be a small but very important change in shifting and building the momentum. That is what this is about. I ask that it be considered.

See this speech in context