Vol. 409 No. 2
7 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Labour when the new Bill to amend the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, and the Employment Equality Act, 1977, which was promised in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, will be introduced; if he will outline the areas likely to be covered by the Bill; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
35 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Labour if he will consider extending the provisions of the Employment Equality Act, 1977, to the Defence Forces as sought by a number of women's groups in submissions to the Commission on the Status of Women; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
36 Mr. Taylor asked the Minister for Labour if he will outline his plans to amend the employment equality legislation in order to prohibit discrimination on grounds other than sex; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take questions Nos 7, 35 and 36 together.
Proposals to amend the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, and the Employment Equality Act, 1977, are being finalised and will be introduced this year in line with the commitment given in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. I do not wish at this stage to comment on the detailed provisions of the proposed amendments, other than to confirm — as I indicated to this House on 20 November — that I intend to bring forward one single updated Act and that the matters raised by the Deputies were being examined in the process of updating the legislation.
Would the Minister agree that one of the problems with the Pay Acts is that where staff consists entirely of women, they find it very difficult to prove a case for equal pay because there is not what is known as a male comparator involved in the employment? Does the Minister propose to rectify this anomaly in the legislation he is bringing forward and ensure that at the very least the concept of a "notional man" is incorporated in the legislation so that women who find themselves in this position will not continue to be discriminated against?
It would be wrong to discuss the details of the legislation as it has not been finalised and the matter is still being discussed with the various agencies. As the Deputy has said, difficulties are being encountered due to the lack of a male comparator. Where there is no male comparator it is difficult to compare the work being done by two people in the same line of work. There is merit in the argument therefore that one should look for a male comparator or a former employee who filled the post now filled by a female so that one can make a fair comparison. With regard to the examples cited by the Deputy, I am considering the suggestion that where there is no male comparator, one should try to compare the work done by the female with the work being done by a male comparator in another company.
Given that women's pay lags so far behind that of their male comparators in industry, would the Minister agree that the legislation has now largely served its purpose? Would he also indicate if one of the areas being considered is the burden of proof to establish cases? It is unfair that the employee is required to establish the case. Does the Minister believe he will meet the deadline envisaged in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress?
I hope I will be able to do that but I have been asked by the employment equality officers, the Labour Court and the Council for the Status of Women, to await their submissions. The burden of proof is one of the issues on the agenda.
The Minister did not respond to Question No. 36. With regard to the male comparator, while I accept the points made by Deputies De Rossa and Rabbitte, I believe there is an implication here that the work done by women does not have the same value as the work done by men. It is dangerous to use the work done by men as a yardstick because, in effect one is assuming that the work being done by women is of less value. That matter has to be addressed in considering any anti-discrimination legislation.
I was not sure what point Deputy Taylor was trying to make. I understood he was referring to discrimination on grounds other than sex but was not sure whether he was referring to sexual orientation, family status, age and so on. Perhaps he would enlighten me on what he meant.
A final question, Deputy Rabbitte, as I want to make worthwhile progress on other questions.
I accept that. May I ask the Minister in relation to Question No. 35 if the new legislation will encompass the Defence Forces?
As the Deputy is aware, I have been encouraging the Department of Defence to adopt this policy with some success. However, the Department of Defence are concerned that the total removal of this provision could lead to difficulties. While they have appointed female officers and apprentices, they are considering ways in which they will be able to comply fully with the terms of the legislation. According to information recently received, it would appear that the Departments of Defence in other countries seem to adopt the same view. However our Department of Defence are moving in the right direction. We started this process in 1988.
