Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 May 1976

Vol. 290 No. 5

Anti-Discrimination (Pay) (Amendment) Bill, 1975: Statement by Minister for Labour.

When the matter of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) (Amendment) Bill, 1975, was raised on the Order of Business on 28th April, I undertook to make a statement to the House on the Government's intentions in relation to that amending Bill after we had received a formal communication from the Commission in Brussels on the limited derogation provided for in the proposed Anti-Discrimination (Pay) (Amendment) Bill from the EEC directive on equal pay. That formal notification of the Commission's decision has been received by us and our limited derogation from the provision of the equal pay directive have been rejected by the Commission.

Deputies will recall that we made the aplication of derogation under Article 135 which allows us in exceptional circumstances to seek protective measures. As the Commission has formally turned down our application the Government will not be proceeding with the proposed amending legislation. Deputies will recall that the major power of the amending Bill introduced here was that where employees in an undertaking were convinced that job loss would be a consequence of the implementation of the 1974 equal pay legislation such employees would have the right to decide on their own phasing-in of the provision of the 1974 Act, subject to a time limit of two years.

Could I interrupt the Minister to ask if a copy of his statement is available?

I do not have a written statement. What I am saying is on the basis of information. That was the core of the 1975 amending Bill. No employer could have availed of its provisions without the agreement of the workers concerned. The provisions of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) (Amendment) Bill, 1975, together with the scrutinising power of the Labour Court, would have ensured full implementation of the equal pay Act, 1974, in all cases save those where the workers had genuine grounds for concern about the future of their employment.

It is the view of the Government that the decision of the Commission to refuse us procedures which would give us the right to agree on the speed of implementation of the equal pay provisions of the 1974 Act compels us to seek special financial aid to deal with the employment consequences which could follow immediate implementation of equal pay in the case of certain firms. The question of such aid has been discussed with the Commission officials, and following the Commission's rejection of our proposals, a formal submission will be made within the coming week.

First of all, could I ask the Minister when this communication was received from Brussels, in view of the fact that I was told in this House only yesterday morning that the communication had not yet been received? I presume the information given was not incorrect in view of the Minister's rather haphazard and confusing statement here this afternoon. I presume we are to take it now that the 1974 Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Bill, in spirit and principle, as passed and accepted by both Houses of the Oireachtas is now law and that sex and marriage discriminations will disappear in all our services. I take it that is what the Minister is telling us in this rather ambiguous statement that was prepared in a very hurried manner.

We fully understand the difficulties that exist and may be created in the private sector. When the amending Bill was introduced in the earlier part of this year we suggested that the solution to it was the soliciting of financial aid from Europe for the private industries which would possibly be affected by the implementation of equal pay. The lack of preparedness of the Minister in introducing this statement and the confusion as to when the communication was received from Brussels is a further indictment of this Minister and this Government in their handling of the equal pay situation from the beginning.

I asked a question of the Minister and I expect an answer.

Formal notification was received in my Department last Wednesday.

On a point of order, I would like to know why the Taoiseach informed the House yesterday that the information had not yet been received.

There are strict rules governing the issue of statements.

True statements.

The Taoiseach, therefore, yesterday informed the House of something that was totally untrue. It is a serious matter.

No. 13, Broadcasting Authority Bill.

Are we to take it that the 1974 Bill, as accepted by this House, now becomes law?

As the Deputy is aware—he was here when I was introducing this proposed amendment with which we are not now proceeding—I explained at that time that if the Commission turned down the basis of that amendment, of course, the 1974 Act would operate without qualification. I might add that it remains to be seen what financial aid will come to us from the Commission now that our procedures have been turned down.

Could I ask the Minister to elaborate on his last statement?

If Deputies want to debate this matter they must put down a motion.

All I am asking for——

It is not usual to continue a debate on the issuance of a statement.

You will agree, Sir——

I have sought to assist the Deputy in securing clarification.

I still believe it is a most unorthodox way of handling what has been legislation up to now. We did have amending legislation introduced into this House earlier in the year which was postponed until such time as we heard from Brussels. Now we have had this communication and have heard an ambiguous statement from the Minister. Is the Minister saying to us now that the full spirit and principle of the 1974 Bill will be implemented——

The Deputy has already posed that question.

He wants an answer to it.

Irrespective of financial help from Brussels.

The Government will plead inability to pay.

To get the message into the Deputy's head I would need an electric drill.

I take it from the Minister's confused, disorderly and haphazard statement that some approach is now being made to the Community for financial assistance by the Government. Would the Minister indicate to us on what basis this financial assistance is being sought? Can he indicate to us the level of assistance or the amount of money involved, or could he give us some information about the situation in regard to this financial assistance? In giving that information would he indicate clearly that the full implementation of the legislation is in no way dependent on the level of financial assistance forthcoming from Brussels?

I want to dissuade the House from attempting to debate this matter. It would not be in order.

I thought I had made it clear, but I want to emphasise it once more. If we are not proceeding with the terms of the amending Bill then the Act operates fully. I would have thought that was quite clear. I am sorry that Deputy Haughey finds my presentation ambiguous but I thought I had made that clear.

I understand. The Minister is doing his best.

I know we do not all reach the excellence that Deputy Haughey achieves. We do our best.

The Minister does his best.

On the other matters that the Deputy has raised, these do not come within the ambit of the statement. We have had consultations with officials of the commission. It is clear, and the Deputy knows from his knowledge of the community, that none of the existing instruments of the community would appear to assist us in the question of people losing their jobs as a result, in certain cases perhaps, of the full implementation of equal pay without the possibility of the employees deciding on the speed of implementation which was the kernel of our own procedure. That has been rejected by the Commission. Following their rejection we would be looking for financial aid to assist in maintaining the jobs of those who might be without them because our procedures were turned down.

(Interruptions.)

Order. Next business.

The Minister brought in a statement which apparently he had prepared——

Deputy Colley, the Chair has allowed a lot of latitude.

May I submit, because the Minister found it necessary to produce his statement in a hurry, that there are important aspects of it which he has not clarified. I think the House is entitled to ask for clarification.

The House will have to find another time.

Is the House not entitled to be told? If the Minister says the Government have decided to apply to the Community for financial assistance are we not entitled to be told whether that financial assistance related to the public or private sector, or both?

The Deputy knows well that the terms of the original Act apply and have applied from the start in the public sector. I am sure the Deputy knows that as well.

That is not an answer to the question.

Will the women get retrospective pay from 1st January?

(Interruptions.)
Top
Share