Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I hope I will not need it all. I have had a good look at and put plenty of thought into the key recommendations. First and foremost, I want to thank those who took part in the assembly. Before I move on to the specifics, based on the engagement I have had at constituent level, I want to highlight the fact a citizens’ assembly is not necessarily representative of the population as a whole for a variety of reasons that have been brought to my attention. We cannot, therefore, automatically assume that the assembly is either representative or infallible. I believe some of the recommendations are welcome, others are open to further examination, while others are completely unacceptable.

First, under leadership and politics, there is a recommendation to introduce maternity leave for all elected representatives. I see no issue with this except we must consider that if a mechanism was ever to be put in place to replace a Deputy for the duration of maternity leave, that mechanism would have to be recommended by the public. Many would argue that as they are elected by the public, the public should have a say in that matter. Certainly, it is a recommendation that has potential but needs further examination.

I am most definitely not in favour of the recommendation to enact gender quota legislation that requires private companies to have at least a 40% gender balance on their boards. This is probably a little outrageous and may be a step too far in swinging the pendulum. The State should not be involved in deciding who runs private companies. It should be up to the shareholders and the owners of the companies to decide who to have on their boards. For example, a family business might have three sons who are directors of the company, and it could be difficult in that scenario.

The assembly also made some recommendations on care. One in particular that I am in full agreement with, and that I raised recently on the floor of the House, is to improve terms and conditions for those in paid employment as carers, including access to pensions. A pensions solution for carers was committed to in the programme for Government and it cannot come soon enough.

On domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, the recommendations state:

Cover gender power dynamics, consent and domestic, sexual and gender-based violence within the revised Relationships and Sexuality curriculum.

Develop guidelines and specialist training for judges and lawyers regarding the treatment of victims/survivors, including the exclusion of the consideration of sexual history, character, attire and counselling/medical records.

Appoint a Victims/Survivors Commissioner as an independent advocate and voice for victims/survivors.

I support these recommendations. Too often, we see stories of victims being subject to an unnecessary level of personal scrutiny of their medical records, attire or sexual history, as if this was some sort of reason to excuse the abuser, and that has to change.

A recommendation on pay and social protection that needs further scrutiny is to set targets in legislation to reduce the hourly gender pay gap to 9% by 2025 and to 4% by 2030, with a view to eliminating it by 2035. There are a number of issues with this. The first is the phrase, “Set targets in legislation”. Legislation should not be used to set targets. Our legal system should not be used as a strategic planning exercise. Legislation should be about making clear, precise, objective laws, not about setting targets. It may turn out to be problematic if we go down that road.

Second, the gender pay gap has been explained many times as being caused by a variety of different factors that do not automatically amount to discrimination. There is a wide variety of reasons people are paid differently. The main aim of any Government policy should be to identify and penalise organisations paying men and women with the same qualifications and experience different amounts for the same amount and quality of work. That is where an issue may exist. I would support any measures brought in to deal specifically with that problem if there is further need beyond the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015.

With regard to social media, there is a recommendation to hold technology and social media companies accountable for immediately removing online content that constitutes sexual harassment, bullying, stalking or sexually violent or abusive content. There is a difference between free speech and online abuse. I fully support the idea of free speech in terms of holding opposing views, robust debate and critique of ideas. However, when it comes to bullying, harassment and other abusive online content, we must take a stronger approach. It is not nice to be on the receiving end. It causes plenty of anxiety, worry and stress, not only for the recipient but for those close to the recipient, a subject I am familiar with. However, I do not believe online abuse can be dealt with on a gender equality basis. This is more about common decency and respect for all others, regardless of gender. Where the line is crossed, we need to consider legislation for online abuse in its own right because it appears to be one of the biggest obstacles to women putting themselves out there, front and centre. People make derogatory contributions about them as women, and when they go up online, they may be there for eternity.

To conclude, I hope the debate can bring about positive change and bring balance in the future but, equally, I caution against swinging the pendulum too far. We have a long way to go before we are at that stage.

See this speech in context