I move:
That the Order for the Second Stage be discharged and that the Bill be withdrawn.
Conditions of Employment (Equal Pay) Bill, 1973: Motion to Discharge Order for Second Stage.
The Taoiseach has moved that the Order be discharged for a Second Reading of the Conditions of Employment (Equal Pay) Bill, 1973. I wonder if the appropriate Minister would give an explanation as to why this is being done.
The reason is that the original title of this Bill was the Conditions of Employment (Equal Pay) Bill, 1973. Since the introduction of that Bill under that title I have examined the entire area of discrimination somewhat more deeply and I consider that the purpose that I intend to discharge over this area of discrimination in employment would be more accurately described as the Anti-Discrimination Bill. This would more accurately describe the intent that I have. That is why I sought this particular change. It will be linked with legislation later this year relating both to unfair dismissal and to the general question of discrimination in employment. I wish to indicate in the title of the Bill that it is part of a trinity of legislation dealing with discrimination in all its aspects in employment.
I fail to see the necessity for the change of emphasis. We have operated our Conditions of Employment Acts for almost 40 years under that title and it would seem to me that any changes required, whether by way of eliminating discrimination or otherwise, could well fit into the continuation of that title. However, the Government are entitled to change the emphasis if they wish.
I should like, Sir, to put another question to you—whether in view of the fact that the apparent content of the proposed new legislation was widely debated in today's newspapers, some person on behalf of the Minister or the Government is in breach of the privileges of this House in permitting these matters to be debated in this fashion before this House had the opportunity of seeing the Bill in question?
It would be naive to think that the subject matter of equal pay legislation has not been the matter for serious discussion in the media. As the Leader of the Opposition will be aware, this legislation has been on the books in the northern part of this island for some time and, therefore, the main elements of such legislation are well known. I have simply sought permission of the Dáil to introduce it under a different heading today. The Bill will be circulated to Deputies and I would hope to proceed to the Second Stage next week. Therefore, I think the Leader of the Opposition need not be worried about any confidential information having been given to the Press. Most of the elements of this legislation are well known to members of the Press and, indeed, to Members of the House.
I am not asking the Minister to justify his action in permitting features of the Bill to be released to the Press. I am asking you, Sir, to consider whether the fact that it was done on the Minister's behalf, by somebody at his direction or with his permission, means that he or she is not in breach of the privileges of the House. We now note that the Minister wants the Second Reading of this Bill next week. This Bill was largely prepared before the Minister came to office. He moved the First Reading of the Bill several months ago and he comes into the House now, on 26th February, asking for a Second Reading next week. I still fail to see the terrible urgency of this matter. The Minister was dilatory in proceeding with the Bill as originally presented to the House, yet he now asks for a debate on a matter that seems to have been widely debated already in the Press. The Press would not have had access to the material without somebody on behalf of the Minister communicating it to them. I want to make it perfectly clear that we are anxious to see enacted as quickly as possible the provisions of this Bill.
The previous Government endorsed the spirit and intention of the Bill; not only had we endorsed them but we had initiated their implementation by introducing the idea of equal pay in the public service with a view to its ultimate implementation in the private sector. I come back to my point—it is a matter for you, not for the Minister or me, to consider whether there has been a breach of privilege in the fact that all this matter has been disclosed in the Press by reason of somebody giving them the particulars in advance of the publication of the Bill.
In so far as the Chair has any function in the matter I will investigate it.
You will forgive me for saying that I consider it to be neck on the part of the Opposition to talk about dilatoriness on my part. When I came into office I did not find any legislation on this matter before me, even though it had been described as a national objective by the former Minister for Finance as as long ago as 1972. However, you said that you will investigate this. I quite understand the Leader of the Opposition being annoyed——
Without discrimination, I did not attribute neck or anything else to the Minister, but since the Minister has attributed neck to me, let me say that I suspect that the whole purpose of this is to remove the aura of Fianna Fáil and Seán Lemass from conditions of employment.
Might I ask the Minister whether in view of what he said about the change of the title of the Bill there are any other changes involved in the Bill he wishes to circulate, other than the title?
The definition of "lightwork" is considerably wider than in the parallel British legislation. I think it inaugurates a welcome departure in our legislation here that we do not have to imitate the British legislation any more now that the present Opposition are where they are.
It is the same lady with more gaudy clothes.
Perhaps the Minister did not understand my question or perhaps I did not phrase it properly.
I understand it perfectly.
I asked the Minister if he would indicate whether there is any change proposed in the Bill as originally introduced in October other than changing the title.
The title of the Bill points very seriously to a change in emphasis in this entire area. I should like to reassure members of the Opposition that it is legislation which is in the best traditions of industrial relations. It seeks to face up to certain deeply felt discrimination problems in the area of industrial relations. The Title of the Bill is changed to mirror more accurately the nature of this and consequent legislation.
Is it good or normal parliamentary practice to have a piece of legislation beginning with the word "anti"? If so, are there any other instances of such terminology on our Statute Books?
Question put and agreed to.