Rónán Mullen (Independent)

Let it just sit there, in case it is ever needed again. That surely would be the more logical approach. However, I think there is an embarrassment about what is being proposed here, because it is evidence of the nanny state and a kind of mentality about how politics should be controlled - this is why I use the phrase "social engineering" - to bring about a certain desired effect. As I have said already, this is interposing between the people and the decision that only they have the right to make, namely, who they choose to put into politics.

It would be much more appropriate for the parties to agree among themselves that they are going to operate certain gender quotas, but to link it with the issue of public funding is to hijack the public purse and the public will in order to secure a particular political goal that does not reflect the aspiration of every single elector. As it is related to the electoral process itself, there is something particularly invidious about that. There is of course no problem with using public money to secure the objectives that are agreed by the political parties which constitute the governing majority at any one time. However, that is a different thing. That is using public money to pursue certain general policy objectives. What is wrong with this is that it interferes with the electoral process itself. That is the problem as I see it.

A form of sunset clause has been provided for. Perhaps at this point I should move my own amendment, which provides for a more-----