Professor Yvonne Galligan:

I thank the Chair. My statement will focus primarily on three themes and recommendations. The recommendations on politics are encompassed by recommendation 20. The recommendation on public boards relates to recommendation 21 and the recommendation on family-friendly practices relates to recommendation 23. I will then make some brief comments on social media, to which recommendation 24 refers and workplace equality to which recommendation 25 relates. Recommendation 22 is addressed in my written submission.

Looking first at politics, the gender quota recommendation came in two parts: one was to extend the candidate gender quota to all political electoral contests, and the second was to increase the candidate gender threshold from 30% to 40% and apply it to all elections. An analysis of gender patterns of candidates at general, Seanad, local and European elections concluded that a relatively small number of additional female candidates would be required to reach the 40% threshold. Therefore, based on the most recent set of elections, it would be feasible for parties overall to meet the 40% candidate gender quota. It is also realistic to have this quota extended to local government elections.

A related recommendation focuses on increasing penalties for party non-compliance. This issue has not arisen to date in a general election context, so no change is required at the moment in the current provision. In regard to local elections, a financial penalty could be linked to party funding in that regard. Seanad elections are somewhat more complex given that parties do not directly nominate candidates but looking at the balance of candidates on the panels, it appears that the Agricultural Panel is least gender-representative with only 20% female candidates.

In regard to public boards, there are 194 public boards with an overall female membership profile of 45% as of February 2022. This masks wide variation in board gender representation. For example, 63 of those boards had less than 40% female members at that time. Some boards have a tiny membership and that militates against a 40:60 gender balance - for example the Army Pensions Board and the Credit Union Restructuring Board have only three members each. At any time there are a number of board vacancies. In February 2022 this amounted to 165 vacancies. Were these vacancies filled only by females the overall gender proportion of board members would come closer to equal that it is at present.

Recommendation 21a is to make funding to these boards contingent on achieving gender balance by 2025. Boards at risk of a funding penalty need to examine closely ways of improving their gender balance. This requires targeted action by all involved. This could include encouraging nominating bodies to put forward female nominees or signalling interest from female applicants through a strong statement in the advertisement for members. It also requires a risk analysis by each board on the viability of its work in the context of reduced funding consequent on not reaching the 40% target. My main conclusion around this is that the consequences of applying that recommendation in terms of reducing the funding to public boards needs to be teased out a little bit more to understand the effect it would have on different boards if it was applied. Some more work needs to be finessed there.

In regard to family-friendly practices, my comments here are an update note to my written submission because on 28 June 2022, the Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Peter Burke, received Cabinet approval to introduce maternity leave for city and local councillors.

This goes some way to implementing recommendation 23a and is a positive beginning to bringing elected representatives into the ambit of family-friendly practices that apply to all other working parents. Applying this provision to Deputies and Ministers could require a referendum on Article 15.11, and, possibly, on Article 41.2, which I know the committee has already considered. Lessons and practices derived from Covid-19 on remote meeting attendance and decision-making could offer a way of making flexibility in parliamentary working practices routine and disrupting gender stereotypes before a referendum is undertaken, especially if Article 15.11 were the subject of that referendum. I say that because the clause deals with in-person voting in Parliament.

Turning now to social media, recommendation 24 addresses the urgency of providing a legislative and policy framework for making technology and social media companies accountable for their publication and dissemination of online sexual harassment, bullying and other abusive behaviour targeted at women and girls. The Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020 addresses the individual experience, but there is further safeguarding work to be done by making social media sites accountable for the publication of such abuse. In that regard, the Online Safety and Media Regulation Bill 2022 being considered by the Oireachtas could address this recommendation. I look forward to the debate on this legislation in the weeks to come.

Recommendation 25 relates to ensuring that workplaces implement gender-neutral recruitment and promotion policies. It would be helpful in promoting gender equality for the committee to reiterate the importance of this recommendation to employers, unions, employees and the public. Encouraging widespread adoption of good practice in this area would enhance equal opportunities between women and men in the workplace, especially as women are more likely to work part time and, post-pandemic, also being more likely to work remotely. I look forward to questions and comments.