Before the debate was adjourned I was speaking about the status of women generally and pointing out that this Bill, if enacted, would help to raise that status. In the early part of this century James Connolly wrote of women that "in Ireland female workers had hitherto exhibited in her martyrdom an almost damnable patience". That was long before women had any right to work, except in the sweet factories of Ireland or Europe. Irish women still show a damnable patience in some things. I am referring mostly to the housewife and mother who has seen many avant garde movements for the so-called liberation of women. They have not done very much to raise the standard for the housewife and mother who stayed at home from choice or because of family cares.
This legislation must ensure that while we stop the exploitation of women in industry and commerce we do not allow exploitation in the homes. Industry needs women today and encourages them in various ways to go back to work in the factory and the office. One can appreciate that this can happen when we are short of skilled personnel. This could be an indictment of our training system in trades and industries. On the one hand we have many untrained workers and on the other a great shortage of workers. In our crazy way of doing things, we go to the homes and take the mother from her children to work the machine in the factory or thump some typewriter. That is all wrong.
I hope the Minister in his promised legislation will go so far as to say that the State will pay women who stay at home and look after their families properly. A decision was taken in the EEC about the rights and status of women. Results are expected by June next. Have we done our part to ensure that our legislation will be of the same standard as that of the EEC countries? In a trade union information sheet issued by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in April, 1973, it was said that the EEC advocated the setting up in member states of national committees on women's employment problems and a permanent committee to assist the commission in co-ordination at Community level. This committee would report by 30th June, 1974, with suggestions for improvement in such matters as access to employment, promotion, training and retraining, paid maternity leave, child care facilities, flexibility in hours of work and social security provisions.
As can be seen, a very full programme has been laid out. This may be an indictment of the standards for women in those countries, but I doubt it. It sets a headline which we must aim for in our legislation. We must legislate for the minority if we are to achieve the common good. In recent times we have been allowing ourselves to look after a minority in employment. Yet we have ignored the majority of women who do not seek liberation but who want to feel free to serve their husbands and children better. They want to be moved from the poverty line and live as dignified human beings. The State must ensure that no mother must leave her home and go into industry unless she wishes to do so. If the State does not legislate for this, it is failing in its duty.
Section 2 (1) of the Bill states:
Subject to this Act, it shall be a term of the contract under which a woman is employed in any place of employment that she shall be entitled to the same rate of remuneration as a man who is employed in that place and by the same employer if both are employed on like work.
This is discrimination. The difference between the sexes is being emphasised. It should be amended to say that equal pay will be given for equal work. Section 2 (2) says:
Nothing in this Act shall prevent an employer from paying to his employees who are employed on like work in the same place of employment different rates of remuneration on grounds other than sex.
Again there is discrimination there. Are we putting the idea into the employer's mind: "I do not want to take on women—or men—so I will use some other grounds to discriminate against them." Therefore in my view those two sections should be amended. They are ambiguous and clumsy as they stand. Section 10 reads:
...shall be construed as applying equally, in a case converse to that referred to in those sections—
that is, section 2—
to a man in relation to his remuneration relative to that of a woman.
That is even hard to read. Emphasis should be laid on equal pay for equal work. A female chauvinist may insist that this be left in but I can see no reason for it. I do not know of equal work being done by both sexes where a man would be discriminated against on grounds of sex. The Bill could be tidied up by the amendment of sections 2 and 10.
Section 2 states:
Subject to this Act, it shall be a term of the contract—
Does the Minister envisage in this regard a contract in the strict sense of the word or the term loosely that when a person accepts employment he is making a contract which is sacrosanct, which cannot be broken without breaking the law? Does he envisage at some stage that each worker would have a binding contract which both sides might find irksome at times? The Minister should endeavour to tidy up the subsections of section 2.
I welcome the Bill not because of what is in it but because it promises something more in later legislation. Those who have been pressing for some action on equal pay may be helped by this Bill. I should like to pay tribute to the employers who have implemented equal pay for equal work and to state that the Minister, and the Government, should put their own house in order before they start lecturing private employers. They should make sure that the temporary clerks in the Civil Service receive pay and conditions equal to those on the permanent staff. Apart from the fact that women are affected because of the present system which does not provide for equal pay, some of them are also affected because they are in temporary employment. The State should set a good example in pay scales and conditions of employment. If they did so they would then be in a better position to face the employers, pointing out to them that the headline had been set and they should not drag their heels.
As long as there are people in the Civil Service who are suffering because they are female or temporary something should be done to rectify the matter. There was provision under the last national pay agreement to help these people. Women who also need help are those who sacrifice their jobs to look after aged parents or relatives. We should think of these women before career women although some career women take a career not out of choice but because of compulsion or economic circumstances. I hope I have contributed something in the effort to improve this piece of legislation.