Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 Dec 1993

Vol. 437 No. 4

Interpretation (Amendment) Bill, 1993 [ Seanad ]: Second Stage.

Minister for Equality and Law Reform (Mr. Taylor)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Bill is intended to facilitate the drafting of legislation and statutory instruments in the feminine gender.

The Interpretation Act, 1937, defines the meaning and construction of words and expressions used in legislation. Section 11 (b) of that Act provides that, in the interpretation of legislation generally, every word importing the masculine gender shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be construed as if it imported also the feminine gender. The converse of this rule, however, does not apply. In other words, "he" can include "she" but "she" cannot include "he".

As a result, legislation is drafted in the masculine gender, unless it relates exclusively to women, as is the case with the Maternity (Protection of Employees) Act, 1981. However, legislation which affects both women and men is couched in the masculine gender even if it primarily relates to women. This was the case with the Employment Equality Act, 1977.

The predominance of the masculine gender in our legislation has been widely criticised in recent years and there have been calls from many quarters for an amendment to the 1937 Act. The Act has been criticised by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights and has been the subject of Private Members' Bills in the past. The Second Commission on the Status of Women described the present position as sexist and one that could "contribute to stereotyped and limiting images of the respective roles of women and men". The commission recommended that the Interpretation Act be amended to enable the adoption of the feminine gender in legislative measures clearly and primarily addressed to women.

I share the concerns which have been expressed about the predominance of the masculine gender in legislation. We are all aware nowadays of the importance of terminology in shaping perceptions of particular groups. It is no longer acceptable to use language which is sexist or which reinforces sexual stereotypes.

I am convinced that the present predominance of the masculine gender in our legislation is distorted and offensive to women. It is simply not acceptable that legislation which is primarily but not exclusively directed at women should be framed in the masculine gender. It is sexist and reinforces stereotyped views of the roles of women and men. It is time for change.

Section 1 of the Bill provides that, in the interpretation of legislation generally, every word importing the feminine gender shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be construed as if it also imported the masculine gender. This is, of course, the converse of the existing provision in section 11 (b) of the 1937 Act. It will mean that use of the feminine gender in Bills and statutory instruments will no longer be confined to measures directed exclusively to women. This provision will apply to Acts passed on or after the date of enactment of the present Bill and to statutory instruments made under such Acts.

Section 2 of the Bill is a standard technical provision which provides for short title, construction and collective citation.

I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that, to complement the provision of the Bill, the Government has decided that, in general, Bills and statutory instruments should be drafted in gender-neutral language as far as possible. In other words, legislation will be framed, as far as possible, in terms which can apply to either gender rather than in terms which are specifically masculine or feminine.

This Bill may be short but it represents a significant advance in improving the status of women in this country. It makes a fundamental change to the Interpretation Act. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Shatter

I welcome the Bill, which implements the recommendation of the Commission on the Status of Women, but it is bizarre of the Minister to claim that this Bill substantially improves the status of women in Ireland. This is a modest measure and I am glad it is before the House, but claims that cannot be substantiated should not be made for it.

The relevant issue here is not so much what is in the Bill but the language used by Government Ministers and the approach taken by Government in ensuring that stereotyped images of men and women, particularly women, are not part of the language of Government or legislation. I have no doubt that what the Minister says in his speech is well intentioned and I am not criticising him or the Bill. However, if the Bill is to mean anything it requires changes of attitude at the highest political levels.

It is ironic that debate on this Bill happens to coincide with sexual stereotyping in which the Taoiseach engaged in the Dáil on Thursday last when he launched an attack on the women members of the Opposition and sought to dismiss them as if they had no place in this House. Despite the uproar his remarks created, the Taoiseach did not have the good grace to apologise either last week or this week. If we are going to gender proof legislation and it is to mean anything, perhaps the Minister for Equality and Law Reform and his Department should in future gender proof comments by the Taoiseach. Years ago there was a TV show called "Jukebox Jury" and if a pop tune to be adjudicated upon was labelled a miss as opposed to a hit an offensive buzzer was hit and the tune was consigned to the bin. Perhaps the Minister for Equality and Law Reform should have a buzzer beside him here so that when the Taoiseach puts his foot in his mouth, as he did last week, the buzzer can be pressed and gender proofing can immediately apply.

This Bill is implementing a change which should have been made many years ago but it is legislative candy floss unless there is a change of attitude in the Government. The Minister in his speech said in relation to legislation that in so far as possible legislation will be drafted in gender neutral language. If this Bill means anything at all, if it is necessary to refer in legislation to people as "he" or "she", why is the Minister not telling us that 50 per cent of Bills published in the future will use the terminology "she" where it is necessary to do so and 50 per cent will use the terminology "he"? Such gender proofing will have a real effect.

The Government is not serious, although the Minister might be. What the Minister is about and the recommendation of the Commission on the Status of Women are being blissfully ignored by every one of the Minister's colleagues from the Taoiseach down. It is with some irony that we must look at the legislation today in the House. The Minister tells us that the Government has made a decision — and he also told us that in the Seanad, so obviously the decision was made a couple of weeks ago — that the Government has decided that in general Bills and statutory instruments should be drafted in gender neutral language. The Bill with which we are to deal today, the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) (Amendment) Bill, 1993, was published yesterday. Presumably there would be some mild exception that at the very minimum gender neutral language might have been applied. One does not have to go much further than section 2——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry, Deputy, I thought we were dealing with the Interpretation (Amendment) Bill. The Deputy is referring to another matter which is to come before the House later.

Mr. Shatter

I am not referring to it in any detail. If the Chair listens to what I have to say he will realise I am dealing directly with the Bill before us.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is deviating, he is anticipating a measure which will come before the House later.

Mr. Shatter

If you, Sir, had the courtesy to listen to what I have to say you would know I am dealing with the matter before us.

An Ceann Comhairle

I listen to the Deputy and he referred to a measure which has yet to come before the House.

Mr. Shatter

This Bill deals with allowances to chairmen of Oireachtas committees. The Government is supposed to be drafting gender neutral legislation, but a Bill published yesterday refers to the chairperson of the Joint Committee on Women's Rights as chairman. It will come as some surprise to my colleague, Deputy Theresa Ahearn, to learn she will be chairman of that committee.

In that context, where is the example of gender neutral drafting of legislation? Why could that legislation which was published yesterday for debate today not use the term "chairperson" as the Minister stated is to be applicable in all future legislation? If ever there was a flagrant example of a Minister stating that his colleagues should do something and then have them ignore him that is it. Was that Bill sent to the Minister for gender proofing? If this legislation is to be worthwhile it should state that all legislation Ministers intend publishing should first be sent to the Minister for Equality and Law Reform. I understand that in most cases before legislation is published Ministers to whom it is relevant have an input. Perhaps the Minister for Equality and Law Reform might tell us how this Bill which relates to chairmen of committees of this House escaped his notice. Does he intend to amend it so that it will contain gender neutral language?

While I welcome the legislation there is another aspect to it, namely, that there is a great desire on the part of politicians from all sides of the House — I am sure I succumb to this as much as anybody else — to do what is politically correct. Occasionally, what is politically incorrect might be more beneficial, but on this issue that is not the case. The Minister's colleague blissfully ignored what this Minister tells us is Government policy.

I do not wish to speak at any length on this legislation. While I welcome it and believe this measure should have been adopted a long time ago, I do not attach the same importance to it as the Minister seems to. A great deal of other legislation is required to improve the position of women in Ireland which will have a more immediate and direct impact on their lives than this legislation. It is regrettable that legislation such as this has been given precedence over legislation to ensure better protection for women who are the victims of violence. As the Minister is aware, legislation is in place that allows the courts to make barring orders in circumstances where a husband assaults his wife, but not in circumstances——

An Ceann Comhairle

It is clear the Deputy is deviating considerably from this relatively short and concise Bill. It comprises only two sections.

Mr. Shatter

I understood from the Minister it related to the position of women.

An Ceann Comhairle

It does not give room for wide ranging debate.

Mr. Shatter

I will not succumb to the temptation to engage in a wide ranging debate other than to say that this legislation will not impact greatly on the lives of a large number of women in the real world. Far more substantive legislation to implement a broad range of recommendations put forward by the Commission on the Status of Women is required. Nevertheless, the Bill is before us and will pass through the House today. I hope we can then move on to the agenda of other legislation which is much more important.

I do not wish to leave myself open to attack by my colleagues who will speak after me by giving a male perspective on the matter, but the Minister might wish to expressly amend some of our present legislation which could have been dealt with in this legislation. It is my understanding this Bill refers to future legislation. For example, legislation is in place which provides for the setting up of the office of Ombudsman. I do not know if the persons appointed to that position so far have been male.

In many countries throughout the world women have been appointed to that position. That term was developed at a time when a male-orientated view of life existed and when there was an in-built presumption that a man would always be the appropriate person to be appointed to such positions. That is wrong. There is certain terminology in our language which we cannot change. However, there are other issues of relevance to this matter in the context of what the Minister proposes. This matter is really about shaping perceptions of people, groups and individuals. That is the terminology the Minister used and it is very important we ensure people are seen to be equal regardless of gender.

We should examine the manner in which we have approached positions in office and legislation in the past. Perhaps the Minister might request the officials in his office to review all existing statutory legislation with a view to discovering if a more detailed Bill should be published at a future date to incorporate amendments into legislation which shows a gender bias towards men that is detrimental to the position of women, or creates a perception that for some reason women should be excluded from particular offices. That is not stated expressly in any legislation at present but it is evident in Irish life from positions at the top of the Civil Service right down. There is a relatively small number of women in top positions in Government Departments. That is an important matter which should be addressed. I hope when we reach the year 2000 at least 50 per cent of ministerial secretaries — secretaries to Ministers as opposed to typists — are women. Recently a newspaper carried a picture of the top officials in the Department of Education and, despite the large number of women involved in the teaching profession and contributing to education, it was extraordinary to note the number of males in those positions. While women play a leading role in aspects of Irish life, when it comes to positions of seniority an ethos has developed here which excludes them from playing a part in the top roles. That matter needs to be addressed.

Ms Keogh

I welcome this legislation which follows on the recommendation of the Commission on the Status of Women which recommended that the words "she", "he" and "chairperson" should be used in all legislation. I take on board the Minister's statement that to complement the provisions of the legislation the Government decided that Bills and statutory instruments should be drafted in gender neutral language as far as possible.

I agree with Deputy Shatter in that there is a degree of imbalance in regard to this matter that must be corrected. When I first secured a seat in the Seanad some years ago I was amazed at the terminology endemic in legislation which was impossible to change. When the first Bill was introduced in that Seanad in my naivety I asked if the term "chairperson" could be used. I thought I could change the terms of the Bill. Of course, that was not possible. Therefore, I welcome the provision being introduced today.

Language is extremely important. While this is a short Bill it is also significant. Language has an impact on conditioning, as those of us who have taught young children and who are mothers and fathers are aware. I have two young daughters. Following a visit to the doctor recently the younger of the two had a conversation with some of her school friends. She later asked me: "Mum, how come when people ask you how you got on at the doctor they always use the word `he'?" I explained, once again, that there was a bias in society. It is ironic that this statement was made by other girls and we are talking here about 12 year olds. That is the way they have been conditioned but this must change. There must be a change in attitudes. That is the reason I welcome this Bill. It is important that we use gender neutral language in all legislation and give a lead.

I always find on boards and committees that the chairperson is referred to as the chairman. I find this offensive as it gives the lie to the fact we are living in the 20th century. It also means that our attitudes have not changed and that we have a long way to go. In drafting legislation the term I would like to see used is cathaoirleach as it is gender neutral and causes no offence. This would be of help to those men who cannot understand the reason women have a difficulty with the term chairman. Let us make it as easy as we can for them. It would appear that for many men something that is relatively simple and straightforward creates a difficulty but this is due to their conditioning.

Earlier this week on the steps leading to the Seanad we had a lovely ceremony when we unveiled a portrait of Countess Markievicz. Subsequently we were treated to an interesting address on her place in Irish history. This is relevant to the Bill because she was the first woman Minister and the first Minister for Labour. This is not widely known about this extraordinary woman. If one were to take a tour of the House I do not think that one would see a portrait of any other woman. It is extraordinary that it took 75 years from the date of her election to recognise her role in society and the contribution she made on behalf of women and the nation.

Deputy Shatter referred to the Taoiseach's unfortunate remarks earlier this week. What is more unfortunate is that the Taoiseach and other Members did not realise just how offensive those remarks were. I am dissatisfied that he did not apologise to the women of the House and, through us, to women in society. Unfortunately, this is typical of a certain generation of Irish men who are dismissive of women and their role in society. I hope that through this legislation we will be able to change that attitude.

The Minister is well aware of the recommendations of the Commission on the Status of Women and wishes to implement them so far as possible, but I do not know if he will have the whole-hearted support of his colleagues. In this regard he must be pro-active. Women know that in Ireland nothing happens through osmosis; things must be made happen. We need to remind each other constantly that equal status legislation will only be implemented when this is demanded by women. Unfortunately, if we were to wait for our male colleagues we would be waiting a long time.

While this is a short Bill it marks an advance and represents a genuine effort on the part of the Minister to change attitudes. I do not know if it will be successful but it marks the first small but necessary step. It would be most unfortunate if no signal was sent through the media that there was a change. I hope in the future when I object at a meeting to the term chairman I will not be looked at as if I had two heads. People should realise that it is reasonable for me to hold this view and it is not right that I have to be defensive. We should be proud, active and alive to the needs of women. It should also be realised that language can signify changes in society.

It is ironic that Deputy Shatter referred to the Ombudsman. While the word doctor seems to imply to many people that the person concerned is a male the word Ombudsman seems to suggest that only a man may apply for the position. The term originated in Norway from the word Ombud. At the stroke of a pen the Minister could knock three letters off and send a signal in the process.

The Minister should gender proof all legislation and nothing should go to print until this has been done. All existing legislation should be proofed. While this may be a small step it would be welcomed by women.

Much more needs to be done by the Minister for women. We cannot elaborate on the many issues that confront us but we should send a signal that the Minister is serious. He in turn, should convey the message to his Cabinet colleagues in particular that there is a need for gender proofing and to recognise the role of women in public life. We know what the figures are and that at top managerial level women are still under-represented.

The Minister attended a function which Deputy Shatter and I also attended to mark the end of Dublin County Council last night. Owing to a vote in the House I was delayed and when I arrived everyone was seated. Although many elected representatives on the council are women, when I looked around at those gathered I saw mainly grey suits. It is remarkable that at a function where one would expect a 50 per cent representation of women there were so many men. That can be explained by the fact that, in the main, the senior officials in Dublin County Council are men. Up to recently I understand there were no women senior officials on the council but now a small percentage of women have such posts.

I hope a study will be carried out by the Joint Committee on Women's Rights to examine the number and role of women in local authorities. That will add to the sad statistics in regard to the involvement of women in Irish society. There was talk of a great breakthrough for women when 20 women were elected to this Dáil. It was a breakthrough in the sense that there are more women in the Dáil now. I would not regard the election of 20 female Deputies out of a total of 166 as a big breakthrough. I will be happy when 84 women represent the women of Ireland and the Irish people. That would represent a true gender balance in Parliament and would be in line with the introduction of gender proofing in our legislation.

Ms McManus

Democratic Left welcomes the introduction of the Interpretation Bill. It sets right a distortion that exists at present. It took the development of the women's movement to challenge not just the substance of discrimination but also the language of discrimination and we now see another step, albeit a small one, being taken to redress the balance. We should not underestimate the power of language to define our politics and our attitude.

George Orwell made the point that, "if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought". Reflecting on how language has been used against women there is no doubt that his words are still apposite today.

However, the Bill recommends that the term "she" can be constructed as if it also imported masculine gender. I am somewhat concerned about that as it might be presenting the other face of the same coin. For years women have been described as if the term "man" was a generic term to cover both sexes. Now this Bill states that the feminine gender should be construed as if it also imported masculine gender. I have no desire to find that men are being discriminated against by the use of language. There is a danger that if this Bill is passed unamended we will use gender specific language inappropriately.

I welcome the Minister's statement that the Government intends to draw up legislation in language that will be gender neutral, but this is a principle that should be enshrined in law. It is not good enough to be dependent on the goodwill and the political fortunes of the Government of the day. At present we have a Government which is committed to dealing with inequality, but this may not always be the case. Attitudes may change and they often take longer to change than is generally recognised. In the future we may have a different type of Government. The Fianna Fáil Party in the previous Government was a different animal to the Fianna Fáil Party in the present Government and there is no reason to presume that a further transformation will not take place.

Last Thursday's incident in the Dáil when the Taoiseach disgraced both himself and the House is an indication that many of the changes are simply a veneer. We all know that veneers have a tendency to peel off unless they are well secured.

The report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women recommended the redrafting of the Act with a view to ending discriminatory and unnecessary gender specific language in Bills, Acts and instruments of the Oireachtas, for example, by using "s/he" and "chairperson". The commission proposes a recognition that it is not enough simply to include two sexes under one umbrella term and that the difference between the two should be expressed in our legislation and language. That may seem a minor point but minor points are often the markers which indicate something much larger. Language bears the same relationship to the concept of mind that legislation bears to the concept of Parliament. What we say is the concrete expression of what we think and what we put into legislation is the concrete expression of what we do in this Parliament.

I have tabled an amendment in line with the commission's proposal. It is also in line with what I believe is the reality, that our society is made up of two sexes who are equal. If we do not describe that reality in accurate terms we could end up back in the quagmire of gender specific language which distorts reality and corrupts thought.

I make no apologies for pursuing the matter of how language defines women. I have read many tirades from the Sunday Independent school of bitchery that use the term “PC” as the ultimate form of abuse. Under that new tyranny one cannot seek changes without running into the danger of being treated as a humourless harridan who is caught up with notions that are both PC and passé. To disregard the importance of language is to disregard the way that we communicate as human beings.

The Taoiseach came into this House last Thursday and inadvertently offended many women. If he made such a comment about, for example, black people, Vietnamese people, Protestants or Northern Unionists there would have been absolute uproar. The fact that he made it against women makes it no less significant. At the end of the day we women are governed primarily by men in this Parliament and in the courts of law. Male attitudes determine how we are governed.

The Bill is welcome. However, the larger context within which it is set concerns me. While the legislation sets out to redress the imbalance between the sexes all legislation is subject to our Constitution. Article 40 of the Constitution guarantees that all citizens shall, as human beings, be held equal before the law. It states:

This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.

That is a statement of qualified equality and is one which has serious implications for the principle of equality.

Who decides how social function affects the rights of a citizen? Presumably judges do and we all know that judges in the main come from the middle class, middle aged male cohort in our society. They do not bear children, they have not been at the receiving end of discrimination and they have not known what it is like to be termed a chattel or a second-class citizen.

We are going to have an opportunity soon to alter the Constitution to vote on the issue of divorce. I urge the Minister for Equality and Law Reform to also address Article 40. The Article is important because it is open to interpretation as to what one's social function is and how it might militate against one's right to equality.

I appreciate the Minister has stated publicly that the Government will use gender neutral language in future and that is welcome. However there is always the possibility of a reaction or a failure to live up to Government decisions. We have seen this failure already in the less than impressive approach adopted by the Government to the 40 per cent gender balance promised for State bodies. Nothing was done on that score until there was uproar. I support the Bill and the sentiment behind it. We cannot underestimate the importance of language. Last Thursday the Taoiseach made disparaging remarks about women which, if one were to take it seriously, would apply to all women — even to the President of Ireland. Then he explained that he did not mean to cause offence and I believe that to be the case. I do not believe he realised what he said, but that is the kernel of the problem. Unless we are specific in how we use language offence is caused.

The way to ensure this matter is dealt with is for the Government to enshrine in legislation the commitment made today by the Minister for Equality and Law Reform. If this is not done, we may well end up with Bills that are a bit like the presents Santa Claus gives us in the shops, wrapped up in blue for a boy and in pink for a girl. Bills relating to engineers, for example, may well end up framed in masculine terms while those relating to nurses may be framed in feminine terms. Surely we have moved beyond that state in the development of equality.

Mr. Power

Since Deputy Taylor became Minister for Equality and Law Reform the subject of gender-proofing of Bills has been much debated in the House, but the debate has not been balanced. We have gone over the top on it. Let me explain what I mean. Most people would agree with the idea of gender-proofing. However, the people of Ireland are just laughing at the attempts to do so during the year. We have what seems to be an annual debate about what to call a lady farmer when the ploughing championships take place. Do we call her a "farmerette"? Some seem to be happy with the term "farmer" which can be male or female. The term "chairman" has been used and accepted for a great many years. Many ladies are happy that the term should continue to be used although the tendency of late is to use the term "chairperson" rather than "chairman". Now the word "manager" is going out the window. Some of the changes are necessary and will make it easier to communicate but in many cases the changes do not do that.

Recently a racecourse in my own country advertised annual badges for the races with male badges offered at a certain price and female badges offered at a reduced rate. I did not see anybody jumping up on their high horse to protest that ladies were to be allowed into the races at a reduced rate. I would like to see a little bit of balance in the debate. I listened to Deputy Keogh saying she longs for the day when we would have 84 ladies in this House.

Ms Keogh

Women.

Mr. Power

Women or ladies, whatever. We are lucky to have 20 here in this House and I am more concerned with the quality of the people we elect, whether male or female. Broadly speaking, the ladies we have elected here are very good representatives of the country.

Ms Keogh

Thank you.

Mr. Power

I do not think they are doing their own cause any good by going down this avenue. I would like to see more female Members in the House and I am sure that will happen at the next election.

I want to bring to the attention of the Minister a word that is being used, mainly in the context of education, that is, "bullying". Bullying seems to be creating many problems in schools and has received much coverage in recent months, but I have not seen anyone climb up on their high horse and say that the word "bullying" is sexist. Can we not think of a more suitable word to use? If one were to analyse that word it could not be seen as anything other than sexist. It just goes to show the ridiculous state we have got ourselves into. I think we have gone over the top on this, that we are losing the run of ourselves——

Ms McManus

Speak for yourself.

Mr. Power

——and that it would be nice to see a little bit of common sense in the debate for a change.

Mr. Shatter

It is good to know that Fianna Fáil rears them yet.

Ms Keogh

And he is the younger generation.

Minister for Equality and Law Reform (Mr. Taylor)

I would like to thank all the Deputies who contributed this morning. I do not suggest that the Bill is the panacea to secure all the advances in the area of gender that we want to achieve. However, it is long overdue. It is a short, simple measure and I am pleased that it has been welcomed. It should have been brought in a long time ago, but there has always been the tendency to think that one should, perhaps, not take up the time of the Dáil on such a matter. I imagine that was probably the response whenever it was suggested. I took the view that it did warrant taking up the time of the Dáil. It is one element of conditioning for change. One cannot achieve everything one would like to achieve by legislation alone. I agree with those Deputies who made the point that attitudinal change was a key part of the mix.

Legislation also has a role; there must be a mix of the two and the Oireachtas must set down parameters. This short Bill is the signal and is a reasonable response to the very fair criticism that has been levelled at the Interpretation Act, 1937. It complements the Government decision that henceforth legislation is to be drafted, in so far as that is possible, in gender-neutral language. That has been conveyed to the parliamentary draftsman's office. I think perhaps the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) (Amendment) Bill may well have been in gestation before that Government decision was taken but that is no reason the legislation should not be gender-proofed on Committee Stage. I will convey the comments made about it by Members to ensure that it is in like manner to the gender-proofing we all did to a much greater extent on the Matrimonial Home Bill which reads all the better for having had that done.

The idea of reviewing all existing legislation to gender-proof it is a nice one but it would be gargantuan task; I wish I had the resources in my Department to undertake it, but unfortunately I do not. If I were to undertake that, we would have to put aside what we would all agree should have a much higher degree of priority, the equality legislation that is in the course of preparation and which will have a major impact henceforth. However, as measures come up for amendment from time to time the question of adjusting the lack of balance from the gender-equality point of view should be progressively tackled.

At least we have made a start with the combination of the Interpretation Bill and the Government decision on the drafting of future legislation and statutory instruments. It represents a sea change. It is high time we did it in this country. I know it will be welcomed by the overwhelming majority of our people, both men and women. It is a good sign for the future. Conditioning, of course, must commence at a very early stage and that is where the education system comes into play. It is most important that that conditioning is commenced at the earliest years of the education system. My colleague, the Minister for Education, Deputy Bhreathnach, who has been a staunch advocate of gender equality for many years will be taking those considerations into account in ensuring that the education system makes the necessary adjustments in this regard.

I wish to thank the Deputies who contributed to the debate. Even though this is a minor measure nonetheless it will have a significant impact so far as the verbiage is concerned and the signal it will send out to the public. I would like to think in the new atmosphere which prevails in the Oireachtas in regard to the use of gender neutral terminology in legislation that incidents like the one which occurred some time ago in the Seanad to which Deputy Keogh referred will not occur in the future. That type of comment should be immediately accepted rather than automatically dismissed out of hand, as apparently happened on the occasion to which she referred.

Question put and agreed to.