Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 13, to delete lines 30 to 32 and substitute the following:

"(13) Not less than 40 per cent of the members of a Body shall be men and not less than 40 per cent shall be women.".

This amendment will ensure there is equality of representation between women and men so that at least 40% of members of the body shall be men and 40% shall be women.

This is the quango of quangos, it brings all the other quangos involved in social partnership together, and it is extraordinary that the Government would not rush to embrace a situation where, given the bodies and people party to the partnership process, we would not need to keep an eye on the number of women to be on these bodies, and we could look naturally for strong representation from men and women, with at least 40% of each.

The Government has a poor record of promoting equal participation of women in bodies under its control. Following long arguments with the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, the position in the financial sector improved marginally. However, the proportion of women on many bodies is 20% or less. We are still at a stage when Ministers seek to appoint to bodies a couple of women who may have come to their attention through party organisations. It is unacceptable that this should be the case in the type of economy we now have and at a time when women participate at every level of society, whether at home, in the workplace or through caring agencies.

It is difficult to argue for this amendment in the House given that it ranks close to the bottom of the international league in terms of the proportion of women in Parliament and that the major Government party, Fianna Fáil, has few women in its ranks. Unless women are strongly represented, one will not enjoy the full benefit of their participation, advice and expertise.

In commenting on neglected areas of public policy such as the crisis in the provision of housing, particularly for those who could traditionally acquire social housing, I was not trying to start a debate. The quango structure the Taoiseach is establishing to facilitate social partnership is meant to be representative of the whole population. There is no reason at least 50% of the body's members should not be women. It would be a cause of considerable surprise if only four or five of its members, who will number approximately 100, were men. People would sit up and ask what was going on, while Kevin Myers would have a rush of blood to the head and worry that men were losing out in society.

The amendment seeks only that the quango structure include a critical mass of women from all strands of life. I cannot understand the reason the Government will not agree to this proposal. While I accept it could cause some soul searching and necessitate looking beyond the party lists to find candidates, there are many lists of non-affiliated women who are available and willing to assume such roles. Why should candidates have party affiliations when women are involved in many organisations throughout the country?

Although the Minister of State is undoubtedly sympathetic to the objective of the amendment, it is time to recognise in legislation the need for significant numbers of women to be active in the policy formulation process.

See this speech in context