Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Mar 1992

Vol. 417 No. 2

Private Members' Business. - Equal Status Bill, 1990: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mrs. Barnes

The Equal Status Bill is to be welcomed not just by women but by all those who seek to end discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, age, handicap, religion, race or membership of the travelling community. It may be a sad indictment of our society that this legislation is necessary to remove such discrimination and ensure that equality of opportunity is a reality rather than a pious hope. Much of this Bill concentrates on the area of training, employment and equality of opportunity for women and others, giving them the same status, pay and protection as that afforded to male employees.

The Minister for Labour claimed last night that Ireland had been rightly credited with developing one of the most effective and accessible legal mechanisms in the EC with regard to equal pay and equal opportunity legislation. In fact we have a sad history of women who had been denied basic justice here having to go to Europe to seek what should have been available to them in Ireland. The Minister also mentioned the discussion document circulated in 1987. It was welcomed by interest groups who responded with urgency and consistency. These included the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Women's Rights. Five years later when I asked the Taoiseach when the legislation based on this discussion document would be introduced, he replied that it was at an early stage and very unlikely to be ready for this current session. If the Minister for Labour is claiming effective mechanisms and crediting us as outstanding in the EC he should consider this dire record, of which we should be ashamed and embarrassed.

Amending legislation must be introduced which will place the onus on the employer rather than the employee and which will allow women to take cases based on what a man would earn were he in the same job. Until such legislation is introduced women will still be earning 68 per cent of the rate enjoyed by men and they will be locked into part-time working due to lack of training, lack of equality of opportunity and career development and above all lack of child care facilities and supportive maternity and paternity leave. We are so far behind other European countries that we should feel a sense of shame and embarrassment. Up to now our record has not been good.

We should take special cognisance of the fact that for many traditional reasons women have not had the same opportunity as they have had in other countries. There was the denial of the right of married women to work, thus cutting back for years on all career development and even educational opportunities. There is still a reluctance to introduce any mechanism to allow married women who have been in the home to be retrained and to come back into the workforce. This is not a priority, although in other countries it is strongly encouraged.

There are overt discriminations on a social level. I spoke yesterday about the denial of credit facilities. One of the most overt and least acceptable discriminations is in the area of sporting facilities and recreation. Golf clubs have been mentioned because many of them deny full membership and voting rights to women. For 60 years women fought for universal suffrage. It is remarkable that full membership and voting rights should still be denied within golf clubs. People may regard this as a frivolous and trivial point but the fundamental denial of rights in this area is socially acceptable. I have seen some American advertising showing that over 80 per cent of tenders, contracts and business deals are completed at golf club level. Women were absolutely excluded from that network which has benefited male golf club members. Another dramatic and serious point is that representatives of management, the decision makers, the Judiciary, the Church, those who feel they have the wisdom and power to set standards and impose laws, are members of such clubs. The Joint Oireachtas Committee on Women's Rights in 1991 contacted 208 golf clubs, of which 174 replied. Fifty-five clubs, mostly in rural areas, indicated no discrimination. Fifty-three indicated discrimination, some of them with offensive insolence, and 53 were considering changing the rules. That is an incredible indictment.

I want to remind the House that in welcoming the Equal Status Bill and in asking the Government to take it on under the broad umbrella of social and employment rights Deputy Taylor when introducing the Bill said it may not necessarily be perfect, but it is open to amendment. That is something with which we would all agree. Other legislation is needed in this area which is part and parcel of the status and freedom of women in this country. I would remind the House that not alone are the outstanding discriminations, which we had some time to allude to in this debate, alive and well but they are thriving in Ireland. In 1992 the right to abortion information, non-directive pregnancy counselling and the right to travel outside this country is prohibited to women. That cannot continue.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. T. Kitt)

I am pleased to have this opportunity to contribute to this debate on Deputy Spring's Equal Status Bill, 1990. With your permission and with the permission of the House I propose to share the 30 minutes which are available to me with my party colleague, Deputy de Valera.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. T. Kitt

Following on the contribution of Deputy Barnes the former chairperson of the Joint Committee on Women's Rights, on which I served, I fully sympathise with the views she expressed on the golf clubs issue. I will refer to it later in my contribution.

The last time I had the opportunity to participate in a debate on the issue of equality between the sexes was less than a year ago when, as a backbench Teachta Dála, I contributed last April to Deputy Gay Mitchell's Private Members' Bill on the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution. Deputies will be aware that this Bill sought to insert a new equality clause into Article 40 of the Constitution. In that debate, I concluded my remarks by saying:

Let us collectively take the best proposals from the many positive issues which have been referred to during this debate. In co-operation with the Second Commission on the Status of Women and the Office of the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, who since her election to the Dáil has been constantly to the forefront in promoting equality for women and currently co-ordinates Government legislation in this area, we should get down to building on the progressive steps that have been undertaken by this Government and bring about real equality for women.

When I spoke at that time I little knew that I would myself now have the singular honour of performing the pivotal role of representing the concerns and interests of Irish women within the overall Government structure by occupying the same Office at the Department of the Taoiseach to which I refered last year. But while my status within this House has changed since that last debate, I am pleased to have the opportunity now to underline the consistency of my own views on the equality issue and to say that my response to Deputy Spring's Bill is exactly the same as that outlined in the earlier debate. The difference is, however — and I believe it is an important difference — that it is now open to me as Minister of State for Women's Affairs to make a full contribution in the combined effort to promote equality which I recommended last year.

The Bill before us has the objective of prohibiting discrimination on grounds of sex, marital or parental status, sexual orientation, religion, age, handicap, race, colour, nationality, or national or ethnic origins, including membership of the travelling community. Coming from the perspective of my responsibilities as Minister of State for Women's Affairs, my primary interest in the proposals before us lies, of course, in the question of discrimination between the sexes and I propose to concentrate my remarks on this subject. Indeed, I was interested to note from the debate in the House last evening that the contributions also concentrated on the issue of equality between the sexes.

I would like from the outset to acknowledge the fact that much thought and good research has been put into the proposals before the House this evening. Indeed, as a legislator committed to the principles of social justice and of equal opportunity for all our citizens, I can subscribe to the underlying philosophy of the Bill and confirm my personal empathy with its objectives.

What I do have problems with, and it is for this reason that I will be opposing the Bill, is the fact that I do not believe that these objectives can be achieved by the means now proposed by Deputy Spring in this Bill. My colleague, the Minister for Labour, Deputy Cowen, has in his contribution last night dealt in detail with the significant flaws in the Bill as drafted in so far as the amendments to our employment equality laws — and the crucial functions exercised by the Labour Court and the Employment Equality Agency which complement these laws — are concerned. I will not repeat the Minister's critique of these particular proposals, but propose to concentrate on broader issues.

As the explanatory memorandum to the Bill before us acknowledges, the Bill is far broader than that covered by existing legislation on discrimination. But it is the very fact that the Bill is so broad that presents problems for me as Minister of State for Women's Affairs.

My firm conviction is that the question of discrimination on grounds of sex is of such fundamental importance that it must be addressed in legislation in its own right. Women represent half of our population and women's concerns and interests should not, in my opinion, be addressed as a part of a catch-all measure which seeks to eliminate discrimination against a number of groups in our society. I have no hesitation in saying that all the groups cited in this Bill deserve the full protection of our laws against discriminatory acts. I would posit the view, however, that the odious discriminatory treatment of women in our society deserves a focused rather than a confused and blurred approach to its resolution.

I believe that if we were to address the very serious issue of discrimination on grounds of sex by way of Deputy Spring's proposals before us, we would quite simply lose the very focus of what I believe should be the primary and overriding priority of this Legislature — the promotion of equality and equal opportunities between the sexes. To the extent that discrimination against other groups in our society exists — groups which, I would emphasise, involve both women and men — I believe these issues can and indeed should be addressed by separate legislative and administrative arrangements.

In making this point, I would refer Deputy Spring to the arrangements which are in place in other jurisdictions to deal with the issue of discrimination against the categories of persons covered by this Bill. In Northern Ireland, for example, discrimination on grounds of sex is dealt with by the Equal Opportunities Commission, while there is the separate Fair Employment Agency to deal with religious discrimination. In Britain, the Equal Opportunities Commission are also the statutory agency dealing with discrimination on grounds of sex, but there is a separate Race Relations Commission to deal with racial discrimination.

While I have no detailed information available to me for other jurisdictions, the existence in Denmark of an Equal Status Council, in Portugal of a Commission on the Condition of Women, in Spain of an Institute for Women, in Greece of a Secretariat-General for Equality, in the Netherlands of an Emancipation Council, and, in Finland, of a Council for Equality, points to the fact that most western societies have acknowledged the need to address the question of equality between the sexes as a separate issue.

My information is that all of the equality bodies abroad which I have just now referred to have, to a greater or lesser extent, functions, which are similar to those currently exercised by our Employment Equality Agency. While I am not an exponent of a slavish copying of arrangements pertaining in other jurisdictions, I would nevertheless suggest to the promoters of this measure that there are compelling reasons to believe that, notwithstanding the bona fides of their intentions, the Bill as presented could in fact do a disservice to all our efforts to achieve equality between the sexes if it were to be enacted.

The Government decided not to oppose the introduction of this Bill because they were happy to give the House the opportunity to discuss discriminatory practices in our society and to place their own firm commitment to the principle of equality between the sexes on the record of the House.

I believe that any objective assessment of the structures which have been maintained or put in place to combat inequality between the sexes by this Government since taking office in 1989 would conclude that they are comprehensive and effective. These structures involve the explicit assignment by the Taoiseach to all Government Ministers of responsibility for the promotion of the status of Irish women within their own areas of responsibility; my appointment as Minister of State for Women's Affairs with the important task of complementing the activities of all Government Ministers and all Government Departments by exercising a monitoring and co-ordinating role on all aspects of Government policy as they affect women; the re-establishment of the Joint Committee on Women's Rights, on which I myself had the honour to serve — and I would remind the House that it was on the personal initiative of the Leader of Fianna Fáil in Opposition at the time, Deputy Haughey, that this committee were established in the first place in 1983; the establishment of the Second Commission on the Status of Women in November 1990; the progressive increase of the order of 24 per cent in the funding of the Employment Equality Agency since 1989; the continued funding of the Council for the Status of Women, which is the umbrella organisation for over 80 women's groups in Irish society and whose pivotal role as an effective lobby for women's concerns is recognised by this Government; indeed, it was in recognition of this role that the council obtained a 19 per cent increase in funding last year and that the 1991 grant has been repeated this year.

I believe it would be helpful to this debate to give the House some flavour of the types of initiatives which have been taken by this Government since 1989 in the equality area, initiatives which very often do not attract the attention they deserve. The types of initiatives I have in mind are: the increase in the number of women being appointed to the boards of State bodies from 225 in 1987 to 299 last October; the enactment in December 1990 of new legislation on rape which introduces new offences with more severe penalties and abolishes the martial exemption in relation to rape; the enactment of a pension Act in 1990 which provides that every pension scheme and every other scheme providing any kind of occupational benefits payable on termination of service or interruption of service by reason of sickness, shall comply with the principle of equality treatment; the enactment in 1991 of new legislation to protect part-time workers, the majority of whom are women; the continued promotion of equal opportunities in our educational system; measures include the existence of specific working groups within the Department of Education aimed at eliminating sexism and sex stereotyping in post primary schools and, with the same objective, the review of the primary curriculum handbook by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment; the introduction of a new carer's allowance in the 1990 budget payable in respect of certain relatives who care on a full-time basis at home for relatives who are permanently ill and elderly persons; the extension of the carer's allowance in the 1991 budget to include carers of recipients of disabled person's maintenance allowance; the special allocation of £0.5 million in the 1990 budget for programmes for women, which was repeated in 1991 and again this year; only last week, my colleague the Minister for Social Welfare invited applications for assistance for this year's scheme of grants for locally based women's groups, and I know that Deputies on all sides of the House have acknowledged the very worth-while benefits the scheme brings by way of seed funding to women's self-help groups; a special tax allowance for widowed parents with dependent children, to apply for the three years following that in which the spouse died, and the extension of payment of the higher rate of monthly child benefit to include the fourth child in each family.

What I have attempted to do in the foregoing is to give the House a flavour of the types of initiatives taken to promote the status of women in our society, but it is no more than a flavour, and I am happy to inform the House that I will — within two to three months at the outside — be in a position to publish and submit a detailed report on the equality initiatives taken by all Government Ministers and all Government Departments since September 1988. My predecessor, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, had published a first report covering initiatives up to that time. My first act when only recently appointed Minister of State with responsibility for women's affairs was to arrange for the priority publication of a second report and this is now in train.

In this connection, I am happy to anticipate criticism from the other side of the House which would point to the more than three-year time lag since the last report. In the debate last evening, Deputies Taylor and Barnes very rightly emphasised the crucial need to change attitudes if we are to promote de facto equality between the sexes. I fully agree with this viewpoint and I believe that one key component in the changing of attitudes and in sensitising all our citizens to equality issues is by means of communicating what is going on and what is being planned across the whole spectrum of Government activities. For this reason, I am happy to inform the House of my intention not only to publish a comprehensive overview of equality initiatives taken since 1988, but to continue this communication process by means of annual updates and publications for the future.

In the short time since I have been appointed to my office, I have also established a new tier or structure within the overall Government machinery. In my message to Irish women on the occasion of the United Nations International Women's Day last Sunday, I pledged to establish a strong and formal liaison with all Government Ministers and to ensure that the interests and concerns of Irish women are reflected in the schemes administered by them and the policy proposals being advanced by them. I also emphasised my willingness and commitment to act as an effective channel for conveying their considered views on issues across the Government system as a whole.

In order to give practical expression to the pledge I have made to Irish women, I have already established an interdepartmental committee on women's affairs, comprised of senior civil servants, who will serve to inform me of all policy initiatives being undertaken by Government Departments. In this way, I hope to be in a position to exercise a strong pro-active role in integrating the concerns and interests of women into all such initiatives as they proceed through the normal policy making steps of Government.

But, clearly, I can only exercise this role if I have the staff resources to support me. Here again, I think the House should accept the practical commitment of this Government to promote equality between the sexes as expressed by the fact that, since my appointment, the Taoiseach has increased the number of staff reporting to me specifically on women's issues by three. The Taoiseach himself announced this increase in staffing resources to the House on 25 February and I can inform the House that the extra staff involve an assistant principal officer, an administrative officer and an executive officer. I am confident that these additional resources will enable me to carry out my functions effectively and to the concrete benefit of Irish women over time.

In my remarks last year I spoke of the pivotal role which my office and the Second Commission on the Status of Women could play in securing the objectives which are now being sought by the Bill before us, in so far as discrimination between the sexes is concerned. I was disappointed to hear Deputy Taylor seriously downgrade the importance of the second commission in his contribution last night. Not alone do I believe that his remarks fly against the views of all women's groups in our society, who universally approved of the second commission's establishment in November 1990, but I also believe that the Deputy's allegations of inaction which, he implied, underpinned the establishment of the second commission simply do not stand up to scrutiny.

I say this because, almost uniquely in so far as the deliberations of Government commissions are concerned, the Second Commission on the Status of Women decided not to wait for their 18 months mandate to expire before putting their own stamp on the equality debate, the Second Commission published their first statement containing seven interim recommendations. These seven recommendations addressed issues of key concern to Irish women, including the ownership of the family home; the appointment of more women to State boards; equality proofing in memoranda submitted to Government; the withholding of national lottery funds from private sporting, social or recreational clubs which operate discriminatory policies; the appointment of a woman to the Top Level Appointments Committee for the most senior posts in the Civil Service; age limits; and sexism in primary education.

I think the House will agree with me when I say that Deputy Taylor, in suggesting that the Second Commission on the Status of Women was a receipe for inaction, was conveniently ignoring the fact that all seven interim recommendations of the commission were immediately accepted by this Government and are being progressively implemented, including the appointment of a woman to the Top Level Appointments Committee which is being pursued by the Taoiseach. In ignoring this reality, Deputy Taylor is not simply refusing to give the Government credit where credit is due. He is, in fact, performing a disservice to the second commission and to the wide range of expertise across all sections of our society which is represented on the second commission.

I would suggest to the House that, before deciding what elements of the Bill before us warrant our considered attention, what we need is precisely the considered opinion of the Second Commission on the Status of Women, having regard to the very expertise which is available within their membership. The very complex and wide-ranging Bill before us has already been submitted to the second commission by the Labour Party. The second commission is chaired by an eminent High Court judge, Justice Mella Carroll. They include among their ranks the chairwoman of the Employment Equality Agency, Catherine McGuinness, who is an eminent lawyer in her own right. They also include the chairwoman and chief executive of the Council for the Status of Women. The second commission are reporting not in two years time, but within a matter of some three months. They are charged in their terms of reference with the task of recommending the means by which women will be able to participate on equal terms and conditions with men in economic, social, political and cultural life.

For all these reasons, and particularly in view of the imminent report of the second commission, I suggest to the House that it would defy all reason to give serious consideration to this catch-all measure proposed by the Labour Party.

In my capacity as Minister of State for Women's Affairs I have no hesitation in saying that much remains to be done to secure real equality between the sexes, notwithstanding the structures put in place by this Government and the many initiatives taken by them since 1989. With the full support of the Taoiseach, I propose to use all the resources at my disposal to secure sustained progress in this area by ensuring that women's concerns, women's interests, women's aspirations and indeed women's apprehensions are conveyed across the Government system.

I agree with the contributions made last evening which emphasised the need for a change in attitudes; for more positive action in favour of women in the employment and other fields; for a greater recognition of the dual responsibilities of parents in the home; and for practical support for women wishing to return to the labour force by such means as the progressive provision of training and childcare. I will place a particular emphasis in my own work on these issues.

I unreservedly condemn the odious practice of many, but by no means all, private sporting and recreational clubs which, on the one hand, willingly accept subscriptions from women to bolster their financial resources while, on the other, offensively exclude these women from the option of full membership of their clubs. I believe that such a patronising stance is no longer tenable in an Ireland which is fast approaching the next millennium. It represents an affront not just to all women, but also to the vast majority of men who are committed to the principle of equality and who also take exception to the fact that certain forces in our society continue to deliberately restrict the opportunities available to their partners, their mothers, their daughters or their sisters.

In conclusion, I can inform the House that, last December, my office requested the advice of the Attorney General as to the status of Ireland's outstanding reservations to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. One of these reservations refers to the question addressed by the Bill before us, namely discrimination in the field of goods, facilities and services, sports and other forms of recreational activity. I can assure the Deputies opposite that, if the Attorney's advice suggests that specific legislation is required in this area, I will be happy to bring forward proposals to Government for approval as a priority.

In the meantime, I am unable to support the Bill before us for the detailed reasons I have outlined in this contribution.

Miss de Valera

I thank the Minister and indeed the House for allowing me to share his time. This Bill attempts to do too much too quickly and in so doing will pose a threat to the effective operations of well established mechanisms and procedures. The Bill over-emphasises the efficiency of legislative enforcement in combating discrimination. Despite the increased participation by women in the workplace — and the existence of laws prohibiting discrimination at work based on gender — major differences still exist in the treatment of men and women in employment. These differences relate to the distribution of work and pay structures. Although the new generation of Irish women are well educated in a broad range of disciplines, the majority of those in employment are in traditionally female occupations which offer limited prospects for career advancement.

It has already been noticed that women are grossly under-represented at management level; it has also been recognised that legislation and the monitoring of same is not sufficient to eliminate discrimination against women. The levels of women's employment in many countries is worsening yet all these countries possess the basic statutory framework so, obviously, we need a more radical and fundamental change. Real change can only be brought about by a change in attitudes. This will necessitate a change in social attitudes by women towards themselves and towards other women and by men towards women and indeed towards themselves.

Equal opportunity is not just a woman's issue, it affects the whole community, the fear that equal opportunity is giving an unfair advantage to women and, therefore, is a disadvantage to the male workforce must be eliminated. To form a whole society approach is to the benefit of all those who wish to take part in work, both male and female. It makes good business sense to encourage and insist that all employees should develop their full potential which, again, necessitates the promotion of motivation and the concept of affiliation.

The Government in 1989, through the State-sponsored bodies, put a positive action programme in place which was also designed to encourage leadership in the private sector. This was done through policy formation, training, monitoring and evaluation and sought to introduce flexible working arrangements to allow for the reconciliation of professional and family responsibilities. With regard to the last point, it is essential that properly standardised child care facilities are provided and that they are accessible and affordable. I encourage the Government to follow the EC recommendation on child care which was adopted last month by the Council of Ministers. I recognise that this was a recommendation, not a directive, and, like every other Member in the House, I recognise that a recommendation does not necesarily imply an obligation on the part of the Government. I hope that the Government will be encouraged to implement the recommendation with regard to child care because providing such child care facilities gives practical help to the many women who would like to play a part in the workforce but cannot because of the lack of such facilities.

Training and education play a major role in trying to get rid of any discrimination based on gender. It is well known that positive action programmes embody a demonstration effect; this is where pioneering women, performing successfully in non-traditional occupations and at management level, pave the way for more women to follow their lead.

I am sure we would all like to praise the great work which FÁS have done for women; their programmes have indeed given greater opportunities to women and to their participants generally. They have encouraged women to enter a broader range of occupations.

I should like to refer to the NOW initiative which aims to promote equal opportunities for women in the field of employment and vocational training, lending practical and immediate help to many women already in the workplace or who wish to enter it, or to give help to those who wish to return to the workplace.

I also wish to refer to the whole area of sexual harassment and to mention the Rubenstein Report which has correctly identified sexual harassment as an obstacle to the proper integration of women in the labour market. I am, therefore, surprised that sexual harassment is not explicitly referred to in the Bill before us. If it had been incorporated in the Bill it would have been a tremendous advance on the Employment Equality Act, 1977. I am disappointed that it has not been referred to. However, I am pleased to note that during the Irish Presidency of the EC, a resolution was adopted in May 1990 by the Council of Ministers for Social Affairs which led to a code of practice on the subject of sexual harassment. That was published on 4 December 1991. Because of this publication the ICTU and the FIE have taken practical steps to ensure that their members are fully informed on the issue.

As I said at the outset, this Bill, however well meaning, lumps too much together and, therefore, the fundamentals are in danger of being lost. It is cumbersome and could well be bureaucratic. A far more positive approach can be found in consensus between the social partners and in harnessing the careful deliberation of the Second Commission on the Status of Women. All Members, particularly women, know that change is slow but I ask the Government to continue their consistent efforts to eliminate discrimination in employment. This can be done by achieving a fine balance between legislation and other promotional and educative policies.

Proinsias De Rossa

This is a fairly ambitious Bill which contains a number of inadequacies to which I propose to refer initially. Nevertheless, it seeks to tackle an area which has been comprehensively neglected.

One of the more unfortunate aspects of the Bill is that it continues to use the legal word "he" even though many Deputies have indicated on more than one occasion that whatever about the legal status of the word "he" in our current legislation, one would expect a Bill which deals with the question of equal status to use the word "she" as well. As I said, this issue should not be overlooked in terms of how we address the question of equal status. Of course, the Bill does not merely address the issue of equal status for women; it deals with a much wider range of issues.

There is a number of other deficiencies in the Bill. Section 38 (3) (d) would appear to perpetuate discrimination in education on the grounds of age. This is unfortunate because given the structure of our population this will become much more of a problem. We should avoid adding to this discrimination at all costs, particularly as it is linked to the issue of discrimination against women who for a long time were discriminated against in the Civil Service. Women in the Civil Service had to retire from work as soon as they married and in many cases could only return to work late in life. In terms of improving their education, this would also discriminate against them because in many cases women like to rear their families before returning to education. This is an issue which should be addressed on Committee Stage, which I hope we reach.

The exemption for private clubs under section 45 is unfortunate. I realise that this is a difficult area to address but the Bill refuses to face the fact that some of these clubs hold very powerful positions and influence, for example, the Fitzwilliam Lawn Tennis Club. Sections 45 (2) and (3) do not deal adequately with the discrimination which exists in clubs. The second exemption simply perpetuates a fairly invidious kind of discrimination. The question has to be asked: how can women ever participate in football teams if they are discriminated against in the first instance? It is a vicious circle which needs to be broken.

The Bill attempts to deal with discrimination and proposes to make discrimination unlawful in certain circumstances. It approaches the issue of discrimination from the point of view of equal opportunity. From a socialist point of view, I have to say that equal opportunity is not sufficient. We also have to address the question of equal access because in many respects simply having equal opportunity, whether one is disabled, a woman or a traveller, does not guarantee that the discrimination will be removed. The question of access and giving preferential treatment, reverse discrimination, to a number of sectors of our community must be seriously taken on board.

As I said, the Bill falls down on a number of points. Having said that, it is an ambitious Bill which seeks to address the problem of discrimination under a very wide variety of headings — sex, marital or parental status, sexual orientation, age, handicap, religion, race or membership of the travelling community. This Bill should have been introduced by the Government. The Labour Party are to be congratulated for their initiative in bringing the Bill forward.

Of course, it is not possible to end prejudices which lead to discrimination by legislation alone. This can be done only by a process of education in an attempt to change social attitudes. It must be said that many of our major institutions have an important role to play in changing social attitudes. I would argue that Churches in particular have a role to play in this regard in Irish society. The statement by the Roman Catholic Bishops today on the question of abortion is not at all helpful in that regard. Instead of giving a lead in terms of this issue it seems that the Roman Catholic Church are trying to retrench and batten down the hatches and in some way warn legislators that they may not step over a certain threshold. Given this strength and role, I believe the Roman Catholic Church and the other Churches in our society, as well as politicians of whatever political hue, have a special and specific responsibility to give a lead in this area.

It is possible through legislation to make sure that actual discrimination is made unlawful and that potential victims of discrimination are afforded the protection of the law. Over the years, attempts have been made to deal with problems of discrimination by measures such as the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, the Employment Equality Act, 1977, and the Prohibition of Incitment of Racial Hatred Act, 1989. This Bill seeks to fill many of the gaps which remain in this area.

The existing legislation is inadequate in many respects. For example, I understand that no prosecutions have yet been taken under the Prohibition of Incitement of Racial Hatred Act since its enactment two years ago. Yet statements continue to be made which sail very close to the wind and articles continue to be published which reflect the most offensive form of locker room racial prejudice. For example, last year, at the height of the Gulf War, one columnist in a Dublin evening newspaper wrote an article in which he referred to "sand-for-brains Jordanians" and made derogatory references to the Muslim religion. The article was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions who decided that it did not constitute a breach of the Prohibition of Incitement of Racial Hatred Act even though section 2 of that Act specifically says, "it shall be an offence to publish or distribute written material if it is threatening, abusive, insulting and intended to, or having regard to all the circumstances, likely to stir up hatred".

Irish people are quite rightly indignant about insulting references to Irish people when they appear in the British media. We have a responsibility to ensure that our media is not used to stir up racial hatred against other nationalities or intolerance against other religions. Imagine our reaction if a London evening newspaper had referred to "bogs for brains Irish". We cannot, on the one hand, complain about offensive racial comments about Irish people and, on the other, turn a blind eye to similarly offensive attitudes on our own doorstep.

As a society we sometimes tend to clap ourselves on the back and say there is little or no racial prejudice in Ireland. Unlike many other European countries the number of people of other races living among us is quite small. Therefore, our attitudes are not put to the test all that much. However, the way in which we deal with the small number of illegal aliens of other races living in this country reflects a more underlying level of intolerance and prejudice. The approach of the aliens section of the Department of Justice is quite appalling, and illegal immigrants are shown no tolerance whatsoever. People in this position can be arrested and held in custody pending deportation, without any entitlement to legal aid or advice. If the tens of thousands of Irish illegals in the United States were dealt with in a similar manner there would quite rightly be an outcry.

I would like to draw to the Minister's attention the report of the European Parliament whose committee of inquiry on racism and xenophobia made some very interesting recommendations in relation to Ireland as well as to member states generally. It pointed out, for instance, that Ireland was the only European country that had not yet signed the United Nations Convention on Discrimination, and recommended more than a year ago that we should do so. I am pleased to note that the Minister has finally indicated in the House that the areas which prevent us from ratifying that convention have been identified — I understand that we have signed it but it has not been ratified. I hope that the Minister will move as quickly as is practical to eliminate those final obstacles to the signing of that convention.

The report analysed the degree to which discrimination on racial grounds existed in each member state and pointed out that Ireland was remarkably free of such discrimination. However it indicated that that was probably primarily because there were only about 18,000 non-EC people living in Ireland. It listed the incidents of discrimination that have been reported in recent years such as discrimination against a Moroccan family and the refusal of a Dublin hotel to allow travelling people to enter it. The report took the view that precisely because we had such a small non-EC population to accommodate in Irish society the number of incidents therefore indicated that there was a basis for concern about discrimination on racial or indeed religious grounds. It was felt that steps should be taken to ensure that we dealt with the problem.

I do not propose to read all the recommendations for member states — there are about 20 in all — but it is interesting to note a number of them. Recommendation No. 51 specifically referred to the only member state that has not ratified the United Nations convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination, that is Ireland. No. 52 recommended that an anti-discrimination law be enacted condemning all racist acts and enabling legal persons such as associations to bring prosecutions for racist acts or appear as joint plaintiffs. No. 54 recommended that member states take the necessary measures to ensure that an immigrant population has access, within a reasonable period, to legal status as residents and workers. No. 57 recommended that member states work against the ghettoisation of their ethnic minorities and adapt their housing policies to provide inexpensive and adequate housing to encourage integration. Obviously that recommendation could very well apply to Ireland's travelling community.

No. 62 recommended that member states adopt measures to permit the application for nationality by immigrants who have legally resided in the Community for a continuous period of five years, keeping the costs and administrative procedures to a minimum and permitting applicants for citizenship to maintain passive citizenship in their country of origin where loss of citizenship would entail problems in relation to ownership of property, inheritance and so on, and to give those born in a member state the nationality of that state at birth. No. 64 recommended that member states consider granting the right to vote and stand at least in local elections, first, to all Community citizens and then to all legal immigrants with five years continuous residence in the country. No. 66 recommended that member states respect the traditional way of life of gypsy and other travelling communities, encouraging the provision of the necessary facilities to make this possible at external frontiers as well as within the Community.

No. 71 recommended that member states introduce teaching against racism into the curriculum of their primary schools as a compulsory subject. No. 72 recommended that member states adopt policies enabling children from the majority population and from ethnic minorities to be educated together. No. 73 recommended that member states step up the support that education systems can provide for the campaign against racism, anti-semitism and xenophobia through the teaching of human rights and history at school, through teacher training and through university research. These are just a number of the recommendations from the Committee on Racism and Xenophobia in which I had the honour to participate. It would be well worth while for this House to take on board these recommendations and implement them in legislation.

Our attitudes in relation to homosexuals need to be addressed by Irish society in a very calm and urgent way. I do not think we can draw comfort from the attitudes we have shown to our travelling community or indeed homosexuals. Irish citizens are still refused service in public houses and in shops by virtue of the fact that they are members of the travelling community, a situation which is quite unacceptable and which should be made unlawful under this Bill. We are almost the only remaining European country which regards homosexual activities between consenting adults as a criminal offence. It is three and a half years since the European Court of Human Rights found that the relevant sections of the Offences Against the Persons Act, 1861, were a breach of human rights. Yet we are still waiting for amending legislation. That legislation was promised by the last Government, it was promised again in December 1990 by the then Minister for Justice and again in the review of the Programme for Government, but there is still no sign of it. The latest information from the Minister for Justice in reply to my question of 4 February last was that legislation was expected by the end of this year. I would ask the Minister to accept that it is time that Irish society and this House stopped treating adult homosexuals as criminals or potential criminals. This sort of foot-dragging is simply not good enough. The fact that the law may not be used very often is no excuse. As long as that law remains on the Statute Book those against whom it is directed are discriminated against and indeed live in fear and this country remains in breach of internationally accepted standards of human rights.

The group in Irish society who are most frequently disadvantaged and who suffer discrimination most often are not the minority; it is the 51 per cent of the population who are female. I listened to the speech of the Minister for Labour last night which gave a glowing account of the position of women in Irish society. I found it hard to relate that speech to the real world inhabited by Irish women. Almost 20 years after the enactment of the anti-discrimination pay legislation the gap between male and female pay is still huge — more than £100 per week. In June 1991 the average male industrial wage was £269.90 per week while the figure for women was £161.14. Female weekly earnings represent less than 60 per cent of male earnings. This is almost exactly the same ratio as ten years ago. The existing legislative framework is simply not adequate to even narrow not to mention eliminate the gap.

Decisions are made every day in every walk of life which have a particular impact on the position of women. Yet as often as not women have no input into the decision-making process. Women constitute only 14 per cent of the total membership of State boards. Of the 200 State boards 69 have no women members. Currently there is no woman Secretary of a Government Department and no women have reached the top in local government administration. While two thirds of the clerical and administrative employees in local government are women, no woman has been appointed a county manager, an assistant county manager, a county secretary or a finance officer. Women are grossly under-represented in the House, with only one member of the Government being a woman. That is a problem that needs to be addressed by all parties, including those of us on this side of the House. Indeed, as everyone knows, there is no woman TD in either the Labour Party or my party. It is obvious that we have to address that issue. A proposal in the formation of my new party is to incorporate immediately a gender quota in relation to election to executive bodies and for candidates for local, Dáil and European elections.

There are many important lessons to be learned from the developments of the past 20 years since the first Commission on the Status of Women assessed the position of women in Irish society and made a number of recommendations. Perhaps the most important lesson is that specific steps must be taken to redress inequalities that do not disappear of their own accord. That is very clear when one reads the recommendations of the first commission. By and large, the areas in which there has been little or no progress are those in which either no particular remedial measure was suggested or no particular mechanism for change was established on foot of the recommendations made.

Another lesson is that any legislation designed to deal with discrimination and remove inequalities must be exceptionally tightly drafted if it is to be effective, otherwise loopholes will be found and exploited and good intentions circumvented by many of those at whom the legislation is directed.

The other major lesson is that however effective the legislation might be, in the sense that it compels even the most unwilling to cease sex discrimination, much more than legislation is required to place men and women on a genuinely equal playing pitch.

Our party's commitment to women's equality is part of a broader commitment to social progress and betterment of all those men and women who are disadvantaged or discriminated against. My aim, and the aim of my party, is to build a society that will bring freedom, equality and betterment for everybody, regardless of sex, status in terms of employment, religion or any handicap, whether mental or physical.

If the Bill was enacted as it stands it would constitute a considerable move forward in regard to ending discrimination in a wide range of areas.

Earlier I mentioned that I felt there were several gaps in the Bill. The question of age is one of them. It may still be possible for women to be discriminated against on the basis of age in entering education.

There is also no obligation in the Bill on advertisers to avoid sexism in their advertisements. My belief is that advertising is a potent factor in the maintenance of sexist attitudes in Irish society. As the advertising industry is self-regulatory, it is important for us to impose statutory obligations under this Bill in order to ensure that the industry avoids the worst excesses of that form of discrimination.

Payment of compensation for loss of jobs is not an adequate response to the question of discrimination in jobs. Too often young people, both men and women, who lose their jobs, take a case to the Labour Court and end up with perhaps a few hundred pounds or even a few thousand pounds in compensation but no job. In most cases the person concerned took his or her case to court in order to try to hold on to a job, not merely to get a few hundred pounds. It is important that we try to ensure that there is an obligation on employers found to have dismissed a person improperly to restore that person to his or her job rather than simply back out of that on the basis of making a payment of a few hundred pounds. The other eventuality that has to be legislated against is the procedure whereby some companies against whom cases have been successfully taken simply go into liquidation and re-form under another name, thereby avoiding their obligations under the results of a court case.

There are many issues that need to be examined. The Bill has attempted to cover a wide area and any criticisms I make of it are aimed not so much as an attack on the Bill but as an attempt to indicate ways in which I feel it might be improved.

The cop-out factor incorporated in this Bill that allows an employer to discriminate against a handicapped person on the grounds that the cost involved might be prohibitive is one that would be turned into a fairly wide loophole if it was enacted. That provision should be eliminated or, certainly, circumscribed. As we know, in the labour market, with unemployment running close to 300,000, there is a very real problem for people with a physical handicap to get employment and if they lose their job it is virtually impossible for them to get another job. The public service has traditionally been considered as an organisation in which people with a physical handicap have a hope of getting jobs but the public service are not taking on as many people as before. That issue needs to be addressed, not so much from the point of view of legislating against discrimination but to positively discriminate in favour of people with a physical handicap; in favour of women, who have been traditionally discriminated against, and in favour of many sectors of society, such as travellers, who have been specifically discriminated against in the past.

I welcome the Bill. The New Agenda will be voting for the Bill. I hope the drafters of the Bill will take the criticisms I made in the spirit in which they are intended.

Dr. Fitzpatrick

With the permission of the Chair, I wish to share my time with Deputy Roche.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that proposal agreed? Agreed.

Dr. Fitzpatrick

The concept of equality of opportunity between men and women has been enshrined in law for over 15 years. Yet the experience across the European Community has clearly shown that translating those legal rights into reality is difficult. Nonetheless considerable progress has been recorded.

Legislation relating to employment equality is contained in the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974 and the Employment Equality Act, 1977. The Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974 established a legal right to equal remuneration where women and men employed by the same employer in the same place are doing "like work". The Employment Equality Act, 1977, makes it unlawful to discriminate on grounds of sex or marital status in relation to access to employment, conditions of employment, training or experience relating to employment, promotion, regarding or classification of posts. That is the law. Yet on a weekly basis people must take cases against their employers pressing for their rights, some 20 years after some Acts were passed.

Since the introduction of employment equality legislation the position of women in the market place has improved. Yet there is no doubt that further progress is necessary if the current imbalances in the labour market are to be eliminated. Legislation alone is not enough. Most women still work for less money and in jobs with poorer prospects than men. Average female hourly wages in manufacturing industry are still only 68 per cent of those of men. However, it must also be remembered that figures for average industrial earnings relate only to the small and declining proportion of women working in manufacturing industry — about 20 per cent of the total industrial workforce in 1992, compared with 24 per cent in 1971. Women still work mainly in "female-only" jobs, and very few women make it even into middle management, let alone top management. This is a sheer waste of talent and skills. We cannot afford this waste if we are to make the most of the opportunities ahead in the Single Market. We need a committed, motivated workforce with everyone keen to operate to the best of their ability, not only for the sake of the nation but on a humanitarian, purely personal development basis.

Improved legislation has an important role to play in overcoming present imbalances. The Minister for Labour is committed to introducing a Bill to amend the legislation later this year. To achieve progress positive action initiatives which complement the legislation are of the essence. Institutional measures have a role to play in countering inequality in the labour market. Training and education are necessary to stimulate and further the development of increased access to employment particularly for women whose skills need upgrading, and for those re-entering the labour force taking into account new technologies and industrial developments; to progressively eliminate traditional role stereotyping in curricula and to provide a full range of educational and training choices for women and men, both for further education and skill qualifications for employment.

In the area of education, it is ongoing Government policy to eliminate sexism and sex-stereotyping. This is stressed at "pre-service" and "in-service" training courses for teachers. The issue has been examined in the context of a review of the curriculum at first and second levels. Yet very few girls enter what would be considered "male only" occupations, such as engineering, fitting, mechanical engineering and so on, much of it due probably to peer pressure but also to lack of encouragement of girls. The level of sexism and sex-stereotyping in textbooks and teaching materials at primary level is being examined. Girls are being encouraged to take up non-traditional subject choices. Subject availability and choice play an important role in influencing career decisions, a development much to be welcomed.

In the training area, FÁS, through their positive action programmes, actively seek to promote equality of opportunity for women. They have adopted a specific equality policy for their activities. They promote women's access to non-traditional areas of work, for instance, through programmes to encourage women to gain skills in the new technologies. More broadly, they promote women's participation at all levels of the labour market.

Apart from the direct advantage of these positive efforts to enable women to enter non-traditional work areas and reach the top levels in their occupations, these policies embody a "demonstration effect" in that the presence of women in sufficiently large numbers, performing successfully in non-traditional occupations and at management level, paves the way for more women to move forward. FÁS, through their range of training and apprenticeship schemes, seek to provide the opportunities women need to extend their career choices and improve their occupational mobility.

The Government recognise the important role the social partners must play in the achievement of equality in employment. The Federation of Irish Employers and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have developed important guidelines on several aspects of employment equality. The level of collaboration between Government and social partners is an important factor in promoting equality in the workplace and is reflected in their membership of very many of the important public bodies who have a role in that aspect of public policy. The FIE issued policy guidelines on equal opportunities and sexual harassment to their member companies in 1990, the ICTU already having had such policies for some years.

Organisations today must be open to change, particularly in this increasingly open and competitive market environment. Therefore, it is important for individual employers to review labour market policies and to develop work-forces which enhance their competitiveness.

Adopting a positive approach to employing women is sound business sense. It will help to build a pool of employees with suitable skills and qualifications and, equally important, to retain those employees in whom they have made a considerable investment in recruitment and training.

In order that positive action initiatives at enterprise level can succeed, senior management must be committed to the theory that equal opportunities is not only a right for all workers but is necessary in order to ensure that the human resources of a company are given every chance to develop and to contribute effectively. Commitment is not established if management just "says it"; there must be commitment to finding the means to achieve it. Responsibility for the policy must be allocated to a high level manager. Senior management must be encouraged to adopt a pro-active approach to progress equal opportunities, rather than merely confirming their efforts to compliance with legislation. The Government recognise the important leadership role the public sector can play in relation to new concepts of positive action.

In this regard the Government have given a number of commitments in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. In particular the Government gave a commitment to a policy of substantially raising recruitment age limits throughout the public sector having regard, however, to the need to hold competitions for school leavers, trainees and graduates. This commitment has been implemented in relation to the Civil Service, local authorities and health boards. As a result, age limits for many posts in these public sector organisations are now 50 years. This type of approach is more appropriate than the legislative approach adopted in this Bill.

The Programme for Economic and Social Progress also provides for the introduction of childcare facilities on a progressive basis in the public sector, with the State providing the physical facilities and staff paying running costs. In the context of the Civil Service it is hoped to open the first crèche in coming months.

Women are under-represented in decision-making. Recognising this fact, the Second Commission on the Status of Women recommended that as the boards of State-sponsored bodies are reconstituted or set up, Government policy should guarantee a minimum of 40 per cent of both men and women among direct Government nominees. The Government are committed to implementing this recommendation as far as is practicable. I go further than that: I contend that the boards of every State or semi-State body should be comprised of equal numbers of men and women. In this day and age, after 20 years or more of what was supposed to have been, and what I hope will be in the future, free secondary education, I am not convinced there have not developed in our society women of outstanding ability who should be appointed to the boards of such semi-State bodies. After all we saw recently an example of male-dominated boards who, to put it mildly, did not distinguish themselves in their decision-making. Perhaps 50 per cent of women serving on such boards might have brought an air of reality into their deliberations.

The active participation of women in the decision-making process is one effective way of achieving equality of opportunity between men and women and of bringing about a lasting change in attitudes. For example, workplaces and board rooms would benefit from an input of women's skills and abilities. Equally important, the specific interests and needs of women in employment would be addressed more comprehensively.

The Employment Act, 1977, provided for the establishment of the Employment Equality Agency. The main functions of the Agency are to work towards the elimination of discrimination in employment; to promote equality of opportunity in employment between men and women; and to keep under review the operation of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, and the Employment Equality Act, 1977, and, where necessary, to make proposals for amending either or both of those Acts.

The EEA discharge this function through the development of positive approaches to equality at organisation level in the public and private sector. In particular, the EEA provide advice and assistance to various public and private sector companies in drawing up equal opportunity policies and statements and on methods of developing actions designed to improve the balance of male and female participation in the workforce.

The EEA are active in promoting networking among State-sponsored bodies. Five networks classified on the basis of size and type of business are now in operation. The EEA provide support as required. The progress made by the organisations actively participating in networking underlines the value of this initiative and should serve to encourage the less active ones to reconsider their level of activity and commitment. Networks function as support groups, educational forums, and meeting places for women who aspire to power in business and the professions. Women teaming together consciously in groups which stress professionalism can learn through experimental techniques the responsible uses of power. The Employment Equality Agency provide advice and assistance to persons who believe they may have experienced discriminatory treatment in their job or a job they have applied for.

In summing up it must be emphasised that the specific issue of equality in employment is best served by ensuring that women: have the skills needed to obtain employment in the higher paying sectors of the workforce; are given appropriate training to allow them to advance and be promoted within employment; and a variety of working arrangements are afforded to men and women which will allow them to participate in the workforce in a way which meets their varied needs and which permits role reciprocation and the breakdown of traditional attitudes and work patterns.

Mr. Roche

This Bill was originally presented on 10 April 1990. It has been overtaken to a significant degree by some statutory and non-statutory developments in the interim. It has been overtaken for instance by the Pensions Act, 1990, the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, and the Worker Protection (Regular Part-Time Employees) Act, 1991, all of which received support from all sides of this House, although with a certain amount of criticism in some cases.

Since the Bill was introduced the most significant development was the establishment of the Second Commission on the Status of Women in 1990. That illustrated the importance of non-statutory measures. The commission had a wide ranging mandate and they were charged with making recommendations to the Government on the means by which women would be better able to participate on equal terms in employment. The commission's terms of reference incorporated two main elements. They were to review the implementation of the recommendations of the first commission and they were to produce new recommendations for consideration and implementation.

The commission have already made considerable strides in discharging their task within their allocated time. They issued their first interim report in April 1991, identifying a series of recommendations which complement the thrust of Government policy as outlined in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.

It seems that the re-emergence of the Labour Party Bill at this stage could be portrayed as being some semblance of an attempt to pre-empt recommendations in the commission's final report which is due out in July next.

In his speech last night the Minister suggested that catch-all measures along the lines proposed in this Bill could deflect attention from real problems of equality and inequality. There is a strong case for awaiting the outcome of the deliberations of the second commission. To proceed as the Bill proposes puts inordinate emphasis on the role of legislation as a catalyst and an instrument for change. The commission's approach as reflected in their first statement in April 1991 is evidence of a more rounded perspective. The reality is that discrimination, whether based on gender, age, creed or colour, is fundamentally stupid and one cannot really legislate against stupidity. The positive outlook of the second commission is reflected in the Government's view that while legislation has a crucial role to play in achieving equal opportunities in employment, it needs to be complemented by positive action and initiatives in the workplace. One area where initiatives are needed and are being taken is in training. In this area FÁS have quite properly expanded opportunities, opportunities specifically for women, to take up careers in non-traditional areas. This has been achieved through the FÁS positive action programme, a programme which includes amongst its features precise target setting and pre-apprenticeship courses. All concerned with it are to be complimented. The initiatives being taken by FAS are supported on all sides of the House. A range of practical actions designed to contribute towards a better balance of men and women in the labour force are being developed by this FÁS programme.

Measures to assist married women to return to employment is another important area, because for many years we had this extraordinary discrimination of the marriage bar. The Programme for Economic and Social Progress provides that the live register requirements in the case of women applicants for training courses should be relaxed to facilitate women who wish to return to the workforce. The Government are taking steps to give effect to this.

As a result of this combination of initiatives the level of women's participation in FÁS programmes continues to increase annually. In 1971 only 5 per cent of all FÁS trainees were women. The figure for 1991 was 42 per cent. We are approaching the target of equality.

Promoting equal opportunity in the public service is another commitment in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. The public service can be a proving ground for new concepts of positive action. The public service, because it is the public service, has an obligation to give leadership in this area. The process of monitoring equality of opportunity initiatives was started in the Civil Service by the unions and management in 1987 and it continues. In 1989 this process was extended to the State-sponsored bodies and in accordance with commitments given in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress the monitoring process has been extended to the health boards and the local authorities. The Government and the public service have a role in giving a lead to the private sector. In fairness, in recent years, there has been a realisation that this is the case. Within the private sector, a number of companies are operating positive action programmes, and support and guidance in this area are being provided on a practical basis by the ICTU and the FIE. There is some official support for the scheme in the form of the Minister for Labour's award, the Equality Focus Award Scheme. The idea is at workplace level to focus attention on operating as a catalyst for change at this level.

The previous speaker referred to a particular type of discrimination which I regard as being odious. This was discrimination which existed throughout the public sector by dint of artificially low age limits on public sector recruitment. One of the good elements of this Bill is that it proposes to prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of age except in specific circumstances. As was said by the previous speaker, the Government have taken a number of very important steps in this area on a non-statutory basis and have moved to introduce more realistic age limits, thereby giving job opportunities to long term unemployed people and to women who may have left the labour force and wish to come back into the public service, without militating unduly against new entrants. The Government are committed to equal opportunities in all areas of employment irrespective of age or gender.

I would like to deal briefly with child care.

Debate adjourned.