Brendan Ryan (Labour)

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 13, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following subsection:

"(6) 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.".

All I have ever asked for is consistency on the issue of a gender balance. I do not have an enormous issue with it, but governments insist on it in some places but not in others. The teaching staff in my place of work at CIT elect two members to the board of governors. We are instructed that one of them must be female. When this was first mooted, about 85% of the staff were male and it was difficult to find a woman who wanted to do it. However, it was public policy. If we believe it is appropriate, we should either make it universal or drop it. The suggestion in the amendment is that not less than 40% of the members of a body should be men and not less than 40% should be women, the joke being about what to do with the other 20%.

There should be an attempt made at striking a gender balance. Many of these professions are dominated by men. About 80% of the INTO membership are female, but not the executive. I am not sure it is enough to say women who are able will rise to the top. Conflicting demands impose more on women than on men. If institutional space is not created for them, these conflicting demands will not be met. If 40% of a body's membership are women, it will have a willingness to respond to the extra demands placed on women owing to domestic circumstances and so on. If there is no significant presence of women on the board of a body, the minority of women will have to put up with the male way of doing things.