On the last day I indicated that I would look more closely at this matter on Report Stage.
Anti-Discrimination (Employment) Bill, 1975: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 13a:
In page 4, lines 19 to 23, to delete subsection (6).
—(Deputy G. Fitzgerald.)
I am satisfied with that situation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
This section covers descrimination by employers and its prohibition. This is a very desirable and fundamental part of this legislation. However, we must be careful to the extent that when we are introducing anti-discriminatory legislation, we must be absolutely sure that under its terms we do not create further problems.
Subsection (4) refers to discrimination against employees or prospective employees in relation to conditions of employment. Is it the intention to amend the legislation which bans women from shift work? If we are eliminating discrimination, and I am assuming from reading subsection (4) that this is the Minister's intention, what is the position with regard to the ILO Convention? Does the reference to shift work conform with the ILO Convention?
My second point deals with subsection (6). As it stands, I believe this subsection to be impractical, unrealistic and will present massive problems in employment. At present industrial relations in this country are at the worst stage ever. In fact, they could be referred to as industrial chaos. We do not seem to have any form of industrial relations. In every field we have threatened strikes, rumours of strikes, strikes in progress and so on and the Government are standing back allowing all this to develop at a time when our unemployment figures are so high and jobs are so scarce. Any legislation that might create further industrial problems or issues of dispute must be handled very carefully indeed.
In my opinion this fundamental section has not been adequately researched. I have referred to this legislation many times as being a fire brigade introduction of a Bill prior to the West Mayo by-election to present an image of a Government that has since proved to be false and was seen to be false. At that time the Government were trying to pledge a commitment to women, equality for women, equal pay for women and equal opportunities for women. I would prefer to see a branch of the Labour Court in this Bill rather than the agency mentioned.
The Bill was introduced merely for political expediency rather than providing equal opportunity, to create an image of a Minister and a Government. Legislation so introduced, and for the wrong reason, can only be very bad.
I support entirely the equal opportunity entitlement of women. My party support it and have been committed to it for many years. But let us, in introducing sections such as this one, realise that they must be introduced for good, peaceful, harmonious industrial relations as well and not merely create further issues that can cause more unrest. I submit that subsection (6) of this section will do just that unless it is substantially amended. In this section equal opportunity is safeguarded but creates the problem that people equally entitled and similarly qualified must all be promoted. Furthermore, it creates the anomaly that if there are not available sufficient vacancies or opportunities for promotion a person who is unsuccessful—despite the fact that there may have been only one or two vacancies and three or more suitable and equally qualified people for them—has a complaint or grievance to take to the equality agency. This is absurd and just not practical at all. How any Minister could have allowed such a section to appear without having it amended already amazes me.
I have queried the question of shift work. The amendments we have discussed in relation to remuneration and superannuation present a more realistic situation in particular No. 8 where it is said: "(other than remuneration or any condition relating to an occupational pension scheme)". That is understandable and the reasons for it are fully appreciated. Might I ask the Minister also what is the position in regard to service pay? I presume that, in circumstances where one sex is entitled to service pay, the second sex is equally entitled.
Section 3 is a very important section. Its purpose is to lay down the general principle that it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee, or prospective employee, on grounds of sex. The section goes on to list all the areas in which that is applicable. As I said in a previous discussion on this section, we have looked at figures in relation to the number of senior decision-making positions held by women in industry. We know that it is a bad situation. We know that women, in proportion to their numbers in industry, do not hold the same number of senior positions their numbers would seem to deserve. Surveys carried out by the Irish Management Institute some years ago suggest that a good deal of prejudice exists in very influential circles throughout industry. That goes some of the way to explain the fact that women, apparently, are not promoted even when their qualifications seem to deserve such promotion, that they are relegated to a particular grading throughout industry. I believe this Bill must have something to say on equalising opportunity at promotion level for women in industry. That is why we have the section. Deputy Fitzgerald has felt that, to some extent, the drafting here was impractical. In drawing the lines of the section we have had in mind similar legislation in the United States, in Britain and other European countries. We are convinced that if there is not a section seeking to equalise opportunity between the sexes at the point of promotion then our legislation in relation to equality between the sexes will not alter for the better the dismal picture revealed in the figures of women holding senior positions in industry.
The Bill is not intended to assist a situation where people, because of their sex, are lofted into senior positions merely to correct an imbalance obtaining already in favour of one sex. We are suggesting that where women of equal competence seek promotion we must ensure that prejudice does not bar their promotion. That is the intent of the section. In response to a detailed question posed by the Deputy, service pay is covered by the Equal Pay Act.
That needs more explanation. We are not sure what is covered by the Equal Pay Act.
The provisions of that Act are quite clear. If the Deputy wants any information on what is or is not covered there are several explanatory booklets available and I will be available at any time to clarify any misconceptions he may have about it.
Is the Minister saying that the full terms and provisions of the Equal Pay Act have been implemented?
Of course. The Equal Pay Act has been on the Statute Book since we enacted it almost two years ago.
And the Minister is absolutely certain that he has not reneged on his commitment in that respect?
No, the Equal Pay Act is in full conformity with any directives laid on us by the European Economic Community.
It is in line with the Minister's own wishes?
This is a separate subject. The Minister's wishes in laying down equality between the sexes in the matter of pay are fully complied with. I know the Deputy has some strange idea in his head that they have not been complied with.
I am sorry to say that more than the Deputy have that idea.
If the Deputy examines the matter he will see that they are fully complied with. At any rate, service pay is covered in the Equal Pay Act itself. What I think is worrying the Deputy is the marriage differential which is a separate matter from the provisions of the Equal Pay Act.
Of course, it is only part of the principle of the Bill as introduced by the Minister.
We do not want to go back into the whole history of the marriage differential in the public service but it is part of the negotiations between unions and the authorities in the public sector. It has not anything to do with the Equal Pay Act as such.
Deputy Fitzgerald asked me also about shift work. We do not intend to repeal that legislation at present. I think the employers' organisation suggested earlier this week that it should be repealed. We have not proceeded to such repeals as yet and it is not covered in this Bill. It is a matter that can be considered on a later occasion. However, I would point out that any legislation that would open up night work to women would necessitate consultation before hand with employers and unions. This week we are clear on what is the attitude of the employers in relation to this matter. At present what the attitude of the trade unions is, is very unclear. But, from what I have seen of public reports of the union position, their attitudes are far from being unanimous in this respect. Some say that such night work should be opened up to women. Others say that the present protective legislation should continue in full force. If we do proceed to changes in this area—from what I can see of the lack of agreement between the social partners and the union group itself—we will require further consultation with them.
If, for example, the person wishes to avail of shift work and is not allowed to do so by the employer, does he not have a just case to bring before the equality agency under this section?
I should like to see the thing tested.
There should be consultation with the social partners and particularly with the people most deeply concerned. To my mind an anomalous situation will arise. The thing to have done was to have had these discussions before the legislation was introduced. I am not telling the Minister he should revoke the ILO convention on shift work. If he decides to do it I understand that still another anomaly would be created and the more anomalies we create the more difficult it will be to administer the legislation. I should like to emphasise again the importance of this Bill. I was reading a Press correspondent's report on the debate and he referred to it as a Bill making its laborious, uninteresting way through the House.
The word used was "uninspiring".
The fact that it does not inspire such a person does not detract from its importance. The Bill affects the working lives of many people and it may well cause further difficulties in our already chaotic industrial relations. It is therefore important that we should eliminate or refuse to create anomalies and I suggest that before Report Stage the Minister would examine section 3 very carefully. It is a fundamental section from the point of view of eliminating discrimination. If we allow contradictory legislation to get into the Statute Book there will always be further controversy.
I am particularly concerned about the practical effects of subsection (6). Am I right in assuming that if there were not differences in sex, that if it were all female or all male, this subsection would apply in the same way? We are talking about anti-discrimination, about eliminating discrimination against women. Let us assume that a promotional opportunity arises within a job and that the only people qualified are all of the one sex. Is it not true to say that whether such persons were male or female, or all male or all female, subsection (6) would apply in regard to equal opportunity? If it does, it creates a completely ridiculous situation.
"Discrimination" for all purposes is defined in section 2 where it is spelled out.
Paragraph (a) of section 2 refers to a person who by reason of his sex is treated less favourably than a person of the other sex and paragraph (b) states:
where because he is married a married person is treated less favourably than an unmarried person of the same sex,
We have amended that.
That is so. The paragraph now refers to a situation where because of his married status a person is treated less favourably than a person of the same sex. Let us say there are four females or four males applying for promotion where there is only one opportunity or vacancy. It can be argued that because one was single and the other was married the married person got the promotion, that the employer was inclined to lean towards the married person because, for instance, the person had a large family and heavy domestic responsibilities. If it were between a married woman and a single woman, the married woman may have had longer service. If the married person got that promotion could it not be alleged against the employer that it was because of the marital status?
All the employer has to do is to give equal consideration.
That is very fine in the confines of this House. Who defines "equal consideration"? In Britain there has been a superabundance of trivial claims. This is the danger and that is why I suggest that section 3 should be drastically amended and simplified as much of our recent social legislation has been simplified and is easly understood. We do not want to provide here a bonanza for lawyers.
I am not satisfied that section 3 does not need thorough research and substantial amending in order to introduce what we both support and prevent further anomalies or difficulties being created. This is a fundamental section and we all want to prevent discrimination by employers but I do not want to see a situation created whereby trivial cases, charges or allegations are made to an equality agency thereby overburdening the agency and costing the State, the employee and the employer money. We want to eliminate that and simplify the governing legislation and the processing system afterwards.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 4, before section 4 to insert the following new section:
4.—(1) If the terms of a contract under which a person is employed do not include (whether directly or by reference to a collective agreement within the meaning of the Act of 1974 or otherwise) an equality clause, they shall be deemed to include one.
(2) An equality clause is a provision which relates to terms of a contract (other than a term relating to remuneration or an occupational pension scheme) under which a person is employed and has the effect that where the person is employed in circumstances where the work done by that person is not materially different from that being done by a person of the other sex (in this section referred to as `the other person') in the same employment—
(a) if (apart from the equality clause) any term of the contract is or becomes less favourable to the person than a term of a similar kind in the contract under which the other person is employed, that term of the person's contract shall be treated as so modified as not to be less favourable, and
(b) if (apart from the equality clause) at any time the person's contract does not include a term corresponding to a term benefiting the other person included in the contract under which the other person is employed, the person's contract shall be treated as including such a term.
(3) An equality clause shall not operate in relation to a variation between a person's contract of employment and the contract of employment of the other person if the employer proves that the variation is genuinely a consequence of a material difference (other than the difference of sex) between the two cases.
(4) Where a person offers a person employment on certain terms, and if on his acceptance of the offer any of those terms would fall to be modified or any individual term would fall to be included by virtue of this section, the offer shall be taken to contravene sections 3 (1) and 3 (4)".
This amendment is consistent with a similar provision in the Act dealing with equal pay. It provides that if the terms of a woman's contract of employment do not include an equality clause they should be considered to include them. This is to provide against the position whereby a woman in her initial contract of employment might have accepted at that stage a contract which was inferior in many respects to her male counterpart. It is to prevent the anomaly occurring when this becomes law and where its provisions could not apply automatically across the board to women in employment because of the existence of prior individual contracts of employment which would include inbuilt disadvantages. It is to ensure that this Bill has priority over any such contracts that this new section is necessary.
The reasons for this new section are understandable. If under existing contracts a woman accepted conditions that could prevent equal opportunity to the woman it is important that the Bill eliminate any such conditions. We have come a certain distance in accepting the role of women in society and their ability to take their rightful place in business life, political life and their ability to establish themselves equally in any area to which they have the ambition to aspire. There still exists in some areas a situation where this is frowned upon. I have often made the point that women, by their attitudes, can often be their own greatest enemy in this respect but it is generally established now that all public representatives and women engaged in business can succeed. Women have succeeded in establishing their own capabilities and proved how adequately equipped they are to do almost any job. It is important that the commitment of Members in this regard be established and that nothing is done to prevent any woman heading a section in the public service or in the private sector if she so wishes.
There are many excellent girls in the civil service and employed by local authorities and health boards and they are gradually establishing themselves. I accept the necessity for the new section and the message should now go to employers to ensure that any old fashioned or out-dated conditions that may exist in any agreements are eliminated.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 15: In page 4, line 28, to delete "A body which is a trade union" and substitute "A body which is an organisation of workers".
The purpose of the amendment is to bring staff associations within the scope of the Bill. We have been advised by the draftsman that they would not be automatically covered in the previous reference to "A body which is a trade union". It was our intention that staff associations would be covered. The amendment deletes this reference and substitutes "A body which is an organisation of workers". That will include staff associations without any dispute.
If I keep prodding the Minister often enough he will come to realise that I am providing a very useful service for him. At least we are seeing a little opening up of the closed shop that he has been creating in a lot of the legislation introduced here. For example, there was a measure in the Bill dealing with worker participation which I did not agree with.
Did the Deputy say that he did not agree with that Bill?
The Minister would like me to say that but it is on record that not only did I agree with it but I pointed out to him the many inadequacies in it.
The Deputy will agree that the best thing we can do now is to give a reasonably rapid passage to this piece of legislation.
I am sure the Minister's rush is speeded up because the Taoiseach is sitting in his office, after last night's performance, ready for the off. The Minister wants to be able to tell the women of Ireland that he put this legislation through. While the Minister is entitled to gain any kudos he can from this, it is important that we are permitted to make our points. We are entitled to do that as elected Members and as Deputies belonging to the party who represent the majority of Irish women.
I am not suggesting that the Deputy should not exercise fully his right in this regard.
I was referring to a condition in the Bill dealing with worker participation which confined the placing of a representative of workers on the board to a trade union member. The important point is the right of the individual. The majority of Irish workers are members of trade unions but if a person does not wish to be a member of a trade union I maintained they were being denied a right under that Bill. I welcome the amendment. The phrase "organisation of workers" has a wider interpretation than that propounded by the Minister, but I know the Minister's concern. He is widening the scope to include staff associations and, in doing so, he is also including possibly organisations of workers in small rural industries who are not really affiliated to any particular body but may have good spokesmen to act for them and a good relationship with employers. I have no objection to the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Amendment No. 16 is a ministerial amendment and amendment No. 16a, in the name of Deputy Fitzgerald, is an alternative so I suggest the two may be discussed together. It is clear that if amendment No. 16 is agreed, then amendment No. 16a cannot be moved.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 4, to delete lines 34 and 35 and substitute "5.—(1) Any person".
"Person", as defined in the Interpretation Act, 1937, covers a body corporate whether a corporation aggregate or a corporation sole and an unincorporated body of persons as well as an individual. It is believed that "Any person" does the job more expeditiously and the Deputy should be reasonably satisfied it meets his point.
I have no doubt what the Minister says is true from his point of view, but from the point of view of simplifying legislation, I believe my amendment is the more acceptable. It will assist the Minister and it is in accord with the sentiments expressed by him. There is no serious difference between us but I believe it is important to spell out "Any person or educational or training body".
Technically "Any person" covers the very same ground as that suggested by the Deputy. I am prepared to accept the Deputy's amendment and to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 16a:
In page 4, subsection (1), to delete lines 34 and 35, and substitute:
"5.—(1) Any person or educational or training body".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 4, line 49, after "occupational activity" to insert "and which may be considered as exclusively concerned with training for such activity".
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the section cannot be interpreted too widely. The intention is that only vocational training would be covered.
I see no objection to this amendment. If the Minister and his advisers are satisfied as to what is connoted by occupational activity and consider it to be exclusively concerned with training for such activity, then it is probably important that there should be this knitting of interpretation.
Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 17a:
In page 4, line 52, to delete paragraph (b).
First of all, this is a section which has given me a great deal of concern. As it stands, I believe it could be detrimental to the future of employment agencies. The Minister has an amendment also to this section, amendment No. 18. We cannot discuss that amendment at the moment but I believe it will worsen the situation for employment agencies. What is an employment agency? What are its functions? Whom does it serve? There are different types. There are the numerous small employment agencies and there is the national manpower service. The latter will be affected by this section. I was critical of the substantial increase in January in the licence fees of these agencies. The increase was almost 2,000 per cent.
Now these private agencies perform a useful service. Some are specialists in a particular field. All undoubtedly help employment. They provide a valuable service to industry generally. One very important aspect of these private agencies and the national manpower service is that of confidentiality. For instance, a senior executive may be needed by a company. The company approaches an agency and that agency issues an advertisement. Replies are received and a short list is made and submitted to the employer. I submit that that function can no longer be carried out in the same efficient way for the reasons to which I referred when we were dealing with section 3. Under the provisions of section 2 relating to sex and marital status, when those advertisements appear and when the full list is received by the agency difficulties will arise. The agency will have been instructed by their employer to produce a short list of three, six or whatever the figure might be. Among the vast majority of applicants for any vacancy there will be a certain degree of competency and suitability and I have no doubt that very often the employment agency will have difficulty in deciding between a number of people.
Under this Bill a person may allege discrimination against an agency. The allegation may be correct or it may not be, but there will be a queue of cases being taken to the Employment Equality Agency set up under the Bill. That agency's heart will be broken and the time of the employment agencies themselves will be absorbed because of cases being continually taken before this body. It will be alleged against the agency that discrimination was made within the terms of this Bill. Instead of shortlisting for the employer from 40 down to ten, the agency may short-list from 40 down to 20 in order to ensure that no charge can be laid against them. This will make them an inefficient and useless organisation providing no worth-while service for the employer, and that employer will in future do his own recruitment and the employment agency will close their doors.
The point I am making about the private agency could equally be applied to the National Manpower Service. In many cases they will be put in a very invidious position. I fully accept that the Minister must include employment agencies within the terms of the Bill, but I am afraid they will become a target where they are used. There is the old situation under subsection (6) that I referred to earlier in regard to marital status, that perhaps one of those short-listed was selected because she was married or because she was not married, and another person not selected may allege discrimination on either of those grounds.
By the deletion of paragraph (b) of section 2 I want to ensure an easing of the situation, because it would appear to me that under paragraph (b) as it stands, if an employment agency operate as such they cannot refuse or omit to provide a service. I trust I am in order in referring to career guidance, since it is mentioned in the Minister's amendment. I am satisfied that it is the Minister's intention to encourage the introduction of career guidance within an employment agency. That in itself may be very desirable. Career guidance is probably one of the most important aspects of youth training. Our own State guidance has improved but it is as yet entirely inadequate. It needs to be extended and introduced at a far lower level of education. However, paragraph (b) can be interpreted as meaning that an agency must provide career guidance. I would consider that as very dangerous because I would seriously question the capability or the experience of persons involved in these agencies to do that. They can do a certain amount of guidance within the employment opportunities available. If they are selective about the type of employment or job they recruit for— and surely in a free society they are so entitled if they wish—then under this paragraph they must provide an employment service in all fields and at all levels of employment, and I would think that only the National Manpower Service would be as comprehensive as that.
I believe the deletion of paragraph (b) would improve the section. I fully understand the necessity for covering the employment agency but difficulty will certainly be created as to who will say what is selection and what is discrimination. I have no doubt that, whether it be the Minister or his successor in this House from either side, he will fully appreciate in years to come the point I am making now, that that provision will introduce more alleged cases of discrimination than any other part of this Bill. Many of them may be trivial; many of them may be justified, but they will put a great burden in regard to time, duty and finance on the agency who will be set up by the Bill and who will be hearing the cases brought before them.
I have often referred to the £50 settlement that exists in England at present and which I regard as a crazy arrangement. When a trivial offence is brought before one of the tribunals, because it is trivial and because the investigation of it and the research and so on would be costly for both sides agreement was reached on what is called the £50 settlement. This is haphazard social justice which can be abused. I would encourage the Minister to accept my amendment.
If one were to carry that subsection to its logical end one could draw all sorts of conclusions on it. One could ask an employment agency to do almost anything within the terms of the law. Surely in a free society an agency are entitled to decide what services they will provide. I would impress on the Minister that there is a grave necessity for deleting paragraph (b) and for examination of that section for the reasons I have mentioned.
There are alternatives. I have referred to what a future Minister would see in practice after this Act has been in operation for a few years. One is that there may be many cases brought under this Act because of the difficulty of deciding between selection and discrimination. A second alternative is that the employment agencies may become inefficient in their service to industry because they will be afraid of short-listing, and because of that and of their inefficient service to the needs of industry they will eventually be dispensed with. So the alternative in a huge number of cases is that we will see a closure of employment agencies. It is desirable, particularly in the situation of employment in Ireland at present, that any agency or any way in which people are encouraged and assisted back to work should be helped and assisted rather than hindered. The section is necessary. Control must be exercised, but paragraph (b) is so allembracing and far-reaching as to have serious and harmful effects on employment agencies and how they work.
It is clear on the section, and the Deputy agrees, that we must include reference to the employment agencies because they have an important function in this area. I want to make it clear that nothing in this section binds the employment agency to do otherwise than select the best person available. The agency will not be prevented from selecting on grounds of competence. The criteria of the agency, as before, must be that the job goes to the best qualified. What we want to ensure is that the agencies should not discriminate in lists supplied to employers, that lists should be in conformity with this Bill and should give fair reference to candidates of either sex. Women equally competent with male counterparts and suitably qualified must be included in lists supplied to employers. We want to ensure that employers for their part cannot utilise agencies' services by asking for candidate lists to be drawn up of one sex only. That is the intent of this section. I do not think the Deputy is in disagreement with the necessity for the inclusion of such a section, but I understand he is worried about the drafting of paragraph (b), that it is too comprehensive and extends in too many vague, undisclosed, undefined directions.
We have looked closely at the comparable section in the British Sex Discrimination Act, and all I can say to the Deputy is that I feel there is not any great difference between us. He and I are both agreed that we must have a section on these lines. He is concerned lest there be too wide an interpretation of paragraph (b) in the terms of services offered. We are clear in our intent that we want to see the agencies act in fair fashion between candidates whatever their sex. Agencies should not be debarred from deciding and advising as before on grounds of competence. We have a later amendment in section 18 which adds substance to this intent of ours as expressed in the section.
I can undertake to the Deputy to have a look at this again on Report Stage and see whether I can be convinced that some of his fears as expressed here have any grounding in fact. If I am so convinced I will certainly wish to alter the drafting as put down here. For example, I want to be absolutely convinced by Report Stage that the employment agency has clear protection from liability where an employment agency may have been misled by a false statement from an employer. It is important that an agency should not find themselves at the wrong end of the law because of a misleading statement from an employer who seeks the services of that agency. I will look at that point again before Report Stage.
I welcome the Minister's comments. I detect his concern also that he is not entirely satisfied with the section as drafted. I am not entirely satisfied with the amendment I have submitted as being the desirable improvement. I have endeavoured to point out to the Minister the pitfalls and dangers for an employment agency. To substantiate what the Minister said, I see the dangers of the employment agency being used as the fall guy for the less scrupulous employer, but fortunately there are not many of them in our society. However, there is a danger that an employer may wish to hide behind the employment agency who may suffer the charge of alleged breach of this legislation. For example, an employer could phone an employment agency and say, when the staff member of the employment agency asks what is needed to fill this position "Well, it is heavy work, it is this and it is that and because of that I do not want a woman." In other words, the employment agency being employed by the employer could be used also as a shield. I fully realise and appreciate the necessity for the section, but that section should not be open to any wider interpretation than is intended under this Bill. At present the life of employment agencies is difficult enough without anyone making it completely unbearable. The provisions of section 6 will make it more difficult.
I have recommened the deletion of paragraph (b). The Minister has said the section has followed more or less the lines of the Sex Discrimination Act in Britain. That may well be so. However I believe that, as a nation of thinkers and probably with legislators nearer to the people concerned and nearer to the roots of business, we know the real problems perhaps more thoroughly than our English counterparts. I feel there are no kudos to be gained by diligently following legislation they may introduce. I can appreciate the Minister mentioning it; he must have a guideline and it understandable that he should be familiar with legislation being introduced there. The entire section 6 should be looked at. I am not sure my amendment even solves the problem in relation to the section, although it will improve it. When the Minister is looking at paragraph (b) before Report Stage he could tighten that up so as not to give it the wide interpretation it has at present. On that basis I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 4, after line 53, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) References in subsection (1) to a service of an employment agency include guidance on careers and any service related to employment."
There should be no disagreement about this. From the Deputy's contribution I gathered that he is in agreement that career guidance is an important element in this matter.
There is no disagreement. Am I right in assuming that the Minister is not saying that the employment agency cannot fail to provide a career guidance service?
They can include career guidance.
It is not a question of having to, as part of the agency.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I have already stated the fears and concerns that arise under section 6. I am sure the Minister when taking a look at my amendment on Report Stage will look at section 6 as a whole, and I would encourage him to define the intention of the section more clearly. Nobody wants trivial cases being presented or allegations being made confronting everybody with more difficult problems, and leading to more bad industrial relations. Legislation at present should not include or encourage trivial claims that would upset the balance of industrial harmony between employer and employees. In any social legislation we must guard against the problem of disputes and industrial unrest being created. If common sense had prevailed in the past a lot of man days would not have been lost and the resultant benefit to both sides, the increased productivity and the overall saving to our economy, would have been a substantial bonus. The loopholes in any legislation passed here should be closed up as tight as possible in the interests of the service provided by the employment agencies, whether by the National Manpower Service or a private agency. That service must be controlled but not unduly interfered with. As a result of my plea I am confident that the Minister will re-examine this section so that it will be of greater service in eliminating discriminations without creating more problems.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 5, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), where in an advertisement a word or phrase is used defining or describing a post and the word or phrase is one which connotes a particular sex, or which, although not necessarily connoting a particular sex, is descriptive of or refers to a post or occupation of a kind previously held or carried on by members of one sex only, the advertisement shall be taken to indicate an intention to discriminate unless the advertisement contains a contrary indication."
The section makes it unlawful to advertise jobs in such a way that the advertisement could reasonably be interpreted as intending to discriminate. The amendment clarifies what is meant by unlawful discriminatory advertise— ments. For instance if a job for a manager or a typist was advertised— occupations that would normally convey the impression that members of only one sex could apply—the amendment seeks that the advertisement should be further clarified by including a statement that men or women could apply.
It is the intention of the amendment to have a sort of dual encouragement to reply?
Yes. In a job for manager, for instance, without reference to sex, there would be a public impression that this was for men only.
I am not happy with that approach. One of the problems against women in our society has been based on a frame of mind. Introducing a "men or women can apply" situation to an advertisement is continuing this attitude. I would prefer to see it as an advertisement accepted by society generally as equally applying to men or women. Surely enough publicity has been given, through campaigns conducted by women's rights organisations, to maintaining equal rights for women. That is also a commitment of all sides of the House. Admittedly attitudes may have to be broken down still in some fields of industry but generally I believe that opportunities are now being afforded to women. I will not oppose the Minister's amendment, I am merely stressing a point of view. Pressure may have been put on the Minister by some women's organisations for this amendment. I would like the impression to be created for our general public that an advertisement for a manager could be advertised inviting men or women to apply without the necessity of adding "women may apply" to the advertisement. The vast majority of society have accepted that and would be prepared to accept that when an advertisement appears for a managerial or any other such position, the application of a woman would be acceptable equally with the application of a man. However, the use of the phrase "men and women may apply" seems to be continuing a differential between the sexes, a differential which in this Bill we are endeavouring to eliminate. Consequently, I would urge the Minister to reconsider the amendment. Regarding the publicity given to the Bill, one correspondent has referred to it as an uninspiring piece of legislation.
I think the accusation was that the Deputy and I were uninspiring in regard to the Bill's passage through the House.
It is a very important piece of legislation. Perhaps, though, if it were a more controversial subject that was being discussed, it would be given more publicity. I should like to hear the Minister's explanation why this amendment is deemed to be necessary.
The Deputy will appreciate that, for instance, in regard to an advertisement for a typist, a man would be reluctant to apply because he would consider the job to be intended for a woman. Our aim here is to convey that a job may be applied for by either a man or a woman.
I would not object to that. There are some men who undertake typing duties in the course of their work but I expect there will always be some men who would not apply for the position of typist. What I am seeking is an explanation for the introduction of the amendment. Its inclusion in the Bill is not a step forward but continuing a sort of male-female difference. I should prefer that the legislation would be sold generally on the basis that no man or woman would be prevented from applying for any job for which they were qualified.
The Deputy's view is valid in that in an effort to prevent discrimination there would be no reference to sex in job advertisements. On the other hand there is a kind of constructive discrimination in a situation in which an occupation has long been identified with members of one sex. This gives the impression that unless a potential applicant is of the sex with which the position is identified there is no point in applying. Our aim is to break down this division of jobs on the basis of one's sex and to make it clear that people of either sex may apply for any job so long as they are qualified suitably to undertake the work involved. That is the intention of the section and that is why I consider the provision to be necessary. I might mention that similar provision was found to be necessary in the majority of countries in which legislation of this kind has been introduced.
In those circumstances would the Minister be prepared to insert a provision whereby this part of the section would be subject to a time limit? I appreciate his wishing to convey to the public that members of either sex may apply for jobs that are advertised. I have no objection to that but I would have thought that it is a step backwards in regard to the elimination of a male-female difference to provide for reference to men and women in advertisements. But if the Minister is convinced of the necessity for the amendment I am prepared to go along with him except to request that he put a time limit on the provision, say, for a year in the hope that by then there would be no need for its continuance by reason of the public taking it for granted that there would be no distinction in terms of sex. I should think that once the legislation is passed there would be general acceptance that no discrimination would exist.
Unfortunately, the amendment is necessary. Regarding the question of a time limit, it is difficult to legislate attitudes away. It is anybody's guess how long such a requirement would be necessary. In any case, I would not have the power to make that kind of charge under any regulatory powers. However, the provision will be open to amendment at such time as it is regarded not to be necessary.
The Minister knows from experience that if a termination date is not applied to the provision it will be likely to remain on the statutes for the rest of this decade and perhaps for most of the next decade. Perhaps he would include an amendment for Report Stage which would provide that at any time the provision could be terminated by ministerial order.
We could do that.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I have no objection to section 7. In sections 6 and 7 we are talking about discriminating advertisements. I am glad that the Minister has accepted the suggestion of an amendment providing for a date of termination. We must make every effort possible to acquaint with the legislation such people as personnel staff within industry, small employers and those running employment agencies because in the early stages there will be room for offences under the Act although these offences may not be deliberate but due to people inadvertently disregarding the legislation. In other words, an employer may forget that this legislation had been introduced and as a result may submit a discriminatory advertisement. I would suggest that there should be a certain amount of leniency for a first offence during the first few months of the operation of this Bill. Possibly a warning could be issued. I appreciate that the Minister has powers under this section. If such an advertisement did appear, a rap on the knuckles could be given to the employer; but I would have no sympathy for a second offence. A small employer who errs and introduces an advertisement that may be discriminatory should get a brief respite and should not have to pay a fine. A rap on the knuckles would be sufficient for a first offence. I am not saying that there should be a general amnesty for the first few months and I would have no sympathy with any major employer who would have personnel employed to follow up new legislation. I would certainly have sympathy for the small employer and I am satisfied that these discriminatory advertisements will occasionally appear. The phrases "men may apply" or "women may apply" are a kind of catch-cry and I will not be happy until they are removed from advertisements. Hopefully, they will not have to be retained for too long a period.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
I am concerned about the wide interpretation of section 8. The section states that a person shall not procure or counsel another person to do anything which constitutes discrimination. That is very wide; it embraces anybody. If you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, in West Limerick or I in Mid-Cork held a "clinic" and in a moment of forgetfulness unintentionally gave some wrong counsel or advice to someone as a result of which they committed an offence under this Bill, would it be possible that you or I could be brought before the tribunal here on a charge? There could be a very wide interpretation of this. There is probably a necessity for it. I presume that the Minister has seen this provision in legislation in other countries, but I should like to ask him if there is such a section in the Sex Discrimination Act in Britain to which he referred and if he has any knowledge of the operation of this section. I am of the opinion that this has the widest possible implications for people who could be charged with having contributed to discrimination without any intention to do so.
I am very wary of this kind of power. I know that certain members of my party would allege certain things about the Minister if they were speaking here today, saying that he was proposing dangerous legislation and saying that we could all be apprehended in certain circumstances. I know this is not the Minister's intention and I should not like the Minister to be given this image, particularly during the last few weeks of this House and the run-in to a general election. I should not like the Minister to have this real tough fascist image in his approach. I would advise the Minister to water down this section between now and Report Stage. It is a dangerous section. People could run into all sorts of problems through discriminating, however unintentionally. I should not like the Minister to have this sort of image at this time.
I will bear the Deputy's remarks in mind.
I think this is a very comprehensive and far-reaching section. The majority of our people are not offenders. They do not set out deliberately to break the law.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendment Nos. 20 and 21 in the name of the Minister are cognate and may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 5, lines 16 and 17, and lines 19 and 20, to delete "made after the commencement of this section".
If there is a clause which is discriminatory on grounds of sex or marital status in any collective agreement, such a clause will be null and void at the time when this section comes into operation.
Obviously the necessity for this is understandable. I have no objection whatsoever. Naturally this section should apply to existing agreements.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 5, lines 24 and 25, to delete "after the commencement of this section" in both places.
This amendment is similar to amendment No. 20 and relates to a contract of employment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 5, before section 10, to insert the following new section:
"10.—(1) The Midwives Act, 1944 (No. 10 of 1944), is hereby amended by the substitution for the definition of `midwife' in section 2 of the following:
`the word "midwife" means a woman or man registered in the roll of midwives and, accordingly every word importing the feminine gender shall be construed as if it also imported the masculine gender;'.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, it shall not be a contravention of this Act for a person to give access to training or employment as a midwife or as a public health nurse to persons of a particular sex.".
This is to remove the statutory bar on men becoming midwives.
Where did the Minister get that one?
I have no objection at all to this amendment. Deputy Moore expresses an interest. There is a tradition where midwives are concerned that will probably die hard. The service this profession gave in many parts of rural Ireland was tremendous. I have no objection to a man being registered if he so wishes and if society accepts him but I believe it will be some time before we will see a male midwife. If the Minister feels there is a desirability that the profession should be open to males— how they will perform in the profession I am not sure or whether their standards will compare with some of the excellent midwives we all know of —I have no objection.
I am sure the first midwife was a man. In that respect we are carrying on a good tradition.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22a:
In page 5, lines 30 and 31, to delete paragraphs (b) and (c).
My amendment proposes to delete paragraphs (b) and (c). This section deals with employment excluded from the terms of the Bill and the first one is the Defence Forces. One can understand the situation that exists there but why the Garda Síochána and the Prison Service? We are introducing a Bill to eliminate discrimination in employment but this is discrimination. During the period of office of a Fianna Fáil Government the Ban Garda force was introduced. The only fault I have with that force at present is its size. They are an excellent group and do great work. They gave a great image to the Garda Force but regrettably it has not been expanded in recent years. We rarely see a ban garda on our streets. Why should the Garda Síochána be excluded from this Bill? There may be sections that it would be difficult to comply with when recruiting but when talking about promotion through the ranks is the Minister saying that we should never have a female Garda Commissioner? If we are to be consistent we must bear these things in mind.
The same thing applies to the Prison Service. We have heard a lot about prison conditions and problems in prisons in the last eight weeks. There is an excellent staff of female workers in this service and they play an important role, but under this Bill we are saying that the governor of a prison must be male. Is that correct? Why such an exclusion? It is desirable that these exclusions are deleted from this section. It may mean amendments to specific sections in order to facilitate entry or access or control of entry or access to promotion in these services but I would prefer to see that done rather than the total exclusion of the Garda Síochána and the Prison Service.
I wish to support Deputy Fitzgerald. I can understand the exclusion of the Defence Forces but not that of the Garda Síochána and the Prison Service. It sets a bad headline to exclude the latter services. The fact that women could rise to the position of governor of a prison might have a good effect on the prison where she is based. Women may understand the problems of prisoners from a different point of view and that might lead to an improvement in the general conditions of a prison. I visited Mountjoy recently and I was impressed by the female prison officers I met. They should not be excluded from the highest possible promotion in that service. I agree also with the previous speaker about the ban gardaí. The fact that this section of the force was not expanded is a disappointment to us all. The ban gardaí can do great work in areas where men are not suitable. I cannot see any valid reason for these exclusions.
These amendments would have the effect of bringing the Garda Síochána and the Prison Service within the scope of the legislation. Reasons have been given by the people in charge of gardaí why this is not possible at present. There is the scale of prison security operations in which both services are engaged, the problem of night patrols in relation to police, and the difficulty of dealing with riot situations. Those objections relate to the duties of gardaí. In relation to the Prison Service I should like to state that our prisons are segregated at present in terms of prisoners held and little progress has been made to date in integrating staff of both sexes in our prisons. However, as the pace of prison reform advances—we hope it will be possible to advance after this period during which our prisons are being used for other purposes than dealing with the ordinary cases they have been accustomed to in previous years—it may be possible to see a reform in the service. This situation will be kept under review but at present I cannot see my way to accept either of these amendments.
Since the the Bill was introduced the Minister talked a lot about the elimination of discrimination. I do not think the ban gardaí should be excluded. When Fianna Fáil were in office ban gardaí were promoted to the position of ban sairsint. I feel strongly about this because ban gardaí cannot be categorised and therefore, they cannot be told to do a certain job within the Garda Síochána or that they cannot cope with a riot situation, as mentioned by the Minister, or the present security situation. In Galway we have two members of that service and we are lucky to have them. Ban gardaí are entitled to equal opportunity with the male members of the force in regard to promotion. The purpose of the Bill is to eliminate existing discrimination but this section promotes more discrimination. I urge the Minister to accept that the Garda Síochána and the Prison Service should come under the terms of this section.
I presume silence means consent, that the Minister is accepting the amendment? Coming from Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, I think the plea was irresistible.
I will explain to the Deputy afterwards.
The Minister should bow to the opinion offered by her. I cannot agree with his argument with regard to the rights situation. The question might be asked, how many rights situations were caused by people of both sexes? The rights were not confined to only one sector. The Minister's argument was not valid.
This Government and the Minister were critical in the past of the private sector which they considered was opposed to change. We should ensure that the headline is set in the public sector. In the two sectors referred to there is no serious problem that cannot be overcome. Both services should be open. Historians will claim that this Minister continued discrimination against women.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 48.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Creed, Donal.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Halligan, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Spring, Dan.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- White, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Begley and Halligan; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.
|
Allen, Lorcan.Barrett, Sylvester.Brady, Philip A.Brennan, Joseph.Breslin, Cormac.Briscoe, Ben.Brosnan, Seán.Browne, Seán.Burke, Raphael P.Callanan, John.Calleary, Seán.Carter, Frank.Colley, George.Collins, Gerard.Connolly, Gerard.Crinion, Brendan.Cronin, Jerry.Daly, Brendan.Dowling, Joe.Fahey, Jackie.Farrell, Joseph.Fitzgerald, Gene.Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).Gallagher, Denis. |
Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.Gibbons, Hugh.Gogan, Richard P.Healy, Augustine A.Hussey, Thomas.Kenneally, William.Kitt, Michael P.Lalor, Patrick J.Leonard, James.Lynch, Jack.McEllistrim, Thomas.MacSharry, Ray.Meaney, Tom.Molloy, Robert.Moore, Seán.Murphy, Ciarán.Noonan, Michael.O'Connor, Timothy.O'Leary, John.Smith, Patrick.Timmons, Eugene.Tunney, Jim.Walsh, Seán.Wilson, John P. |
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 5, to delete lines 32 and 33, and substitute the following: "or
(d) in a private residence or by a close relative.".
The effect of this amendment is that employment by a minister of religion or a religious community is no longer excluded but is within the scope of the Bill.
Perhaps the Minister could repeat that. We are finding it difficult to hear because of background noise.
The effect of the amendment is that employment by a minister of religion or a religious community is no longer excluded but will be within the scope of the Bill.
We are eliminating subsection (e). I bow to the Minister's superior knowledge and his research of the situation resulting in this amendment—in other words, eliminating the exclusion of employment by a minister of religion or a religious community. However, I must question very closely how the Minister can reconcile this exclusion and his non-acceptance of the previous amendment relating to employment in the Gárda Síochána or in the Prison Service. In my opinion this amendment makes this legislation interfere with the religious life or religious communities. What is needed from the Minister is a definition of what is meant by employment by a minister of religion or a religious community. Were it to cover the broad field of people working for a minister of religion or for a religious community then it would be very undesirable.
It was not our intention that that would be the consequence of the exclusion referred to in subsection (e)—by a minister of religion or a religious community.
Fears were expressed that such a consequence might be read into it, that the employment of nurses, teachers and so on might not come within the scope of the Bill if employment by religious was excluded. Since it was not our intention that such categories be excluded we are deleting that subsection. But, in respect of enclosed religious communities, where all members of the community are religious—a religious or monastic community or something of that sort —we believe that subsection (d) will cover it. That is why we think it unnecessary to retain subsection (e), especially if it gives rise to the idea that teachers, nurses and others employed by religious might be excluded.
That would be my intention also. But the Minister's amendment is misdirected. I entirely agree that the categories of laity referred to by the Minister must be included in the terms of the Bill. May I now put the opposite side of the story, as I see it. For example, I would regard a bishop as a minister of religion. If we take the Catholic Church, which is the dominant faith in this country, it would appear to me to apply to priests, parish priests, curates especially, in their religious life. I am sure that was the original intention of an exclusion in the Bill. Of course this would apply to any religion. I would regard this entirely as a decision of ministers of religion or of religious communities themselves with regard to their internal employment. Naturally the Minister is including teachers, nurses and other members of the laity employed in schools, hospitals and elsewhere by religious communities.
Basically I have no objection to the Minister's amendment, to what he intends to convey by it or what he hopes to achieve. I am not satisfied with the way he has worded it. Paragraph (e) having been included in the Bill initially, the impression is given that it is designed to cover specifically members of religious orders. If that were so we would all agree with that exclusion. Now the Minister wants to ensure that the laity employed by religious are not excluded. But there must be some qualification to show that it does apply to laity employed by religious rather than infer that it applies to both laity and religious. Between now and Report Stage the Minister should tidy up the section to get that message clearly across.
This Bill was hastily prepared— not a lot of thought was given to it, as is illustrated by the number of amendments down. While I fully subscribe to the inclusion of the people to whom the Minister has referred, we must realise that legislation, once it has left this House, will be vetted by the legal profession, indeed by any citizen on the advice of any legal person, and various constructions put on it. We entirely agree with the non-exclusion of the laity but this could be interpreted as meaning that members of religious communities are included in the terms of the Bill. I know that is not the Minister's wish but I think he must clarify the position. The amendment itself could convey the wrong impression and I would ask the Minister to examine the position between now and Report Stage in an endeavour to eliminate any possibility of wrong interpretation.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 5, subsection (1), after line 33, to insert the following paragraph:
"(f) in lighthouses, light vessels and lighthouse tenders operated by the Commissioners of Irish Lights".
The situation in isolated rock lighthouses, in lightships and tenders is that sleeping and sanitary accommodation are on a communal basis and there are many stations, like that at Fastnet, where it would not be possible to provide individual or separate sanitary accommodation. The purpose of our amendment, therefore, is to exclude the Commissioners of Irish Lights. The Bill could apply to the depot in Dún Laoghaire and to head office in Pembroke Street but it would not apply to isolated lightouses far removed from home base. The Commissioners should be able to operate in such a way that there would be no disruption of the lighthouse service whether it be maintained on rocks, in light vessels or light tenders where it is not possible to provide additional accommodation.
The IT & GWU expressed opposition to this amendment. I would say it was because they misunderstood its terms and believed we were aiming at exclusion of the Irish Lights Commissioners on a blanket basis. That is not so. The amendment refers only to isolated lighthouses, light tenders and vessels. It does not in any way attempt to exclude employment in the depot or in the head office at Pembroke Street.
I support this reasoned amendment and the case made for it so excellently by Deputy Dowling. He is a Commissioner of Irish Lights and I am an ex-commissioner. I have never yet seen a woman appointed as a commissioner and, perhaps, Deputy Dowling will make a case for that. I hope it is not our intention to exclude women from promotion at head office. Grace Darling had her father as a helper but I am afraid Irish Lights cannot provide fathers to help women employees even if the day will come when women will be able to take over the service. There may have been a misunderstanding in some quarters about the effects of this amendment but Deputy Dowling has made a very clear case for it.
I refer the Deputy to section 14 (2) (e) which states:
Where because of the nature of the employment it is necessary to provide sleeping or sanitary accommodation for employees on a communal basis and it would be unreasonable to expect the provision of separate such accommodation or impracticable for an employer so to provide,
The case the Deputy makes is fully catered for in that provision where we deal with exclusions in certain circumstances.
I do not accept that it is covered in section 14. If the Minister feels that a valid case has been made for the amendmment, there is no reason why he should not accept it, or is it his intention to stuff young women into lighthouses in isolated places? If that is so, it is a very serious matter. I have been in lightships and I know the discomforts and the problems attached to communal living and to providing adequate sanitary accommodation, even now. I do not see why women should not be excluded. Perhaps the Minister has some reason for including them. If there has been pressure through representation, he should let us know that so that we can discuss it fully and factually.
Does the Minister feel females should be recruited into the lighthouse service and that they should go to isolated posts where there is communal living? If he does, he should say so to the House and then he must exclude the lighthouse service. If the Minister feels it is not on for females to be sent to isolated posts where the sleeping and sanitary accommodation is on a communal basis, he must ensure females are protected and that the Commissioners of Irish Lights are protected. Does the Minister feel Irish Lights would be acting properly in recruiting females if somebody insisted on it? If the Act were contested and the case won, what would the situation be? If the Minister wants to protect the commissioners he must do so now on the question of lighthouses. Is the Minister satisfied that where sanitary and sleeping accommodation is on a communal basis the commissioners would be right not to recruit females?
There is a case for an exclusion where sleeping and sanitary conditions of employees are on a communal basis and it would be unreasonable to expect the provision of separate accommodation. Paragraph 14 (2) (e) provides:
Where because of the nature of the employment it is necessary to provide sleeping or sanitary accommodation for employees on a communal basis and it would be unreasonable to expect the provision of separate such accommodation or impracticable for an employer so to provide.
That would cover the case of the lighthouses in the circumstances referred to by the Deputy. He asked me the reason for my reluctance to accept his amendment. If we give a specific exclusion related to Irish Lights vessels and their operations, we would begin to open up the possibility of the exclusion of smaller fishing ships generally. One of the purposes of this Bill is to open up jobs to women which have hitherto been closed to them by custom. For that reason, we have kept exclusions to the minimum. In general. I do not favour the exclusion of shipping and the fishing industry from the scope of the Bill. If they wish, women should be free to get jobs on board ships. In the fishing industry there are indications that already a few women are taking on jobs. It is not because of any particular representations but because of my desire to see that we do not lay a basis for the exclusion of the fishing industry from the scope of the Bill, that I do not want this exclusion.
I take it the Minister feels a reasonable case has been made for the exclusion of lighthouses.
It is covered by section 14 (2) (e).
The Minister feels a reasonable case has been made for the exclusion of lighthouses. Is that right?
The Deputy has certainly made a case for it.
Is the Minister satisfied a reasonable case has been made?
I am satisfied the Deputy has made a very good case.
As the Minister is well aware, light ships and lighthouse tenders are purpose built boats. In a general way I feel shipping should not be excluded. There is a vast amount of expenditure on the service. There is movement amongst the personnel. Some of the personnel are displaced when maintenance personnel proceed from one station to another to carry out repairs on light ships. The situation in relation to the tenders differs from that of fishing as does the question of light vessels. While lighthouse tenders may in some way differ from light vessels and lighthouses, personnel are there for a considerable period of time while the tenders may be able to move in and out of port. Would the Minister agree that lighthouse vessels and lighthouses should be considered as distinct from lighthouse tenders which can move in and out of port?
I believe section 14 (2) (e) covers the cases mentioned by the Deputy and provides for an exclusion where those conditions apply.
If the Minister feels they should be excluded, would he not exclude them?
The commissioners can invoke section 14 (2) (e).
If somebody decides against the commissioners they have no case unless it is written into the Bill.
I do not see the circumstances outlined by the Deputy arising.
This is a reasonable amendment.
The Deputy has made a good case but it is covered adequately by section 14 (2) (e).
It still leaves the commissioners at risk. It is not possible to alter the sanitary and sleeping accommodation due to the limitation of space.
The commissioners have nothing to fear.
Then the Minister has nothing to fear by accepting the amendment. It will not harm the Minister and the commissioners will feel protected.
The case is already covered.
A third party will be adjudicating on it at some stage.
There is another argument in favour of Deputy Dowling's amendment. I should hate to see such a disputed case being referred to the agency being set up under the Bill. In effect, the agency would have to go out to one of these rock bases to investigate the communal sleeping and sanitary arrangements. It could happen that they would be marooned or stranded there for months and we could not use their services. That is a very valid point.
I do not claim to know much about the future technology of lighthouses. It may be that at some stage they will be extended in size and the present problems will disappear. While we have lighthouses, as we know them now, they will be adequately covered under section 14 (2) (e) and the Deputy and the commissioners need have no fears.
The Minister cannot change the size of Fastnet Rock or the Tusker Rock. They are constant factors.
I referred to the future technology of lighthouses.
The limitation on accommodation of rock stations is very great. The Minister should be sensible on this occasion. He can be as irresponsible as he likes on the other amendments.
I do not know how many people would fit on Fastnet Rock.
The Minister should inject a little sanity into the matter and accept the amendment.
The exclusion exists in the section I have mentioned. It is logical to keep it that way.
Business suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.