Joanna Tuffy (Labour)

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 11, to delete lines 29 to 32 and substitute the following:

"(7) At least 40 per cent of the members of the Authority (and of the Appeal Board or an advisory committee) shall be men and at least 40 per cent shall be women.".

The Labour Party has tabled this amendment as we consider subsection (7) to be too weak. I am not sure what its effect would be if the Minister is to have regard to the extent to which each sex is represented in its membership. Would it be sufficient to have a person of each gender on the board? It is my understanding that it is Government policy to try and achieve a minimum of 40% of either gender, which is not the case at present if one looks at the figures for various State boards. Why does the Minister not make the provision clear-cut by specifying 40%?

I am not in favour of gender quotas when it comes to the electoral process, because people have to choose to put themselves forward. However, I favour them in the case of boards where a person has the power to appoint people. It is important that this type of requirement is in place. Perhaps in future it will be required to ensure men are adequately represented, but at present there are not enough women on State boards. There may even be cases where the balance goes the other way. We should also do something about that. The legislation is balanced equally between favouring men and women being represented on different bodies. That is a general principle which should also be applied in many other areas of life. We should be careful to ensure that both genders get to participate equally in different areas of life. It is possible for the Government to do this. It is supposed to be an objective of the State. Why does the Minister not spell it out fully and properly in the legislation? This would ensure that both he and the boards will comply, as well as those who put forward nominations to the boards.