Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 May 1996

Vol. 466 No. 2

Civil Service Regulations (Amendment) Bill, 1996: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

I thank Deputies for their contributions. As I said earlier, we are left with no option but to pursue this legislation. We simply must respond appropriately to the Labour Court determination and the unambiguous legal advice obtained. I suppose it could be argued that the reinstatement scheme is something of an anachronism. The climate in which it was first introduced in 1956 and subsequently extended in 1973 was very different from that which prevails today. To say that women's role in public life in those days was peripheral would be an understatement. For example, it would have been almost unthinkable that a woman could have steered either of those earlier Acts through the Oireachtas. Women were completely unrepresented either at Cabinet or among the ranks of Ministers of State or Parliamentary Secretaries as they were called, in those days. It took some 60 years before it was considered posible to follow the example set in the case of Countess Markievicz.

The 1973 legislation, which effectively widened the circumstances in which a woman who had resigned from the Civil Service on marriage could be reinstated, was progressive for its day. Previously only widows could be reinstated. After 1973 and woman who resigned on marriage, even after the lifting of the marriage bar, could be considered for reinstatement so long as she could establish that she was not being supported by her husband. There is a sustainable argument that the scheme could still serve a useful purpose.

In these different times concepts of equality have developed and widened. Actions taken today must be seen not to favour one gender over the other or to give preference on the basis of marital status. Equality must share with its parent virtue of justice a complete blindness to such distinctions.

I am not saying, however, that we could not or should not be proactive in promoting fuller involvement by women in the public service. Far from it. Within the parameters imposed by law, whether Irish or European, the Government is determined to pursue policies which will encourage greater participation rates among women, in particular in the most senior ranks of the public service. It is not simply a question of equality. It is an issue of hard-headed economics. If we see human resources as the most important asset of any organisation, then it stands to reason that it should optimise the benefit of that asset. Under-representation of women in the higher grades of the Civil Service represents the uneconomic use of a valuable resource. As I pointed out on Second Stage, significant progress has been recorded in the Civil Service in the area of fuller participation by women. We are certainly headed in the right direction but the journey is far from over.

It is my hope that any women who have applied for reinstatement and who are eligible on age grounds will now compete for places on the special panels in the clerical assistant and executive officer competitions which it is intended to set up for former civil servants. I referred to these in more detail on Second Stage. Many of these women have much to contribute. They have their previous experience of the work-place rounded by their subsequent experiences of family life. Modern organisations — the Civil Service is, in essence, no different from any other entity in this regard — require flexibility as never before. They want people who are more interested in making things happen than in adhering rigidly to procedure. They want people who value instinct and intuition as well as analysis and rationality.

Charles Handy, an Irishman who has an international reputation in the area of management redesign, has observed:

Women over the generations have had to make things happen and get things done, with or without formal authority. They have had to handle endless variety in managing the home, taking decisions on inadequate information, backing hunch and judgment. They have had to be in turns disciplinarian and loving mother. Not all women do these things well, by any means, but few men have had that much practice.

Organisations need talented women in their core jobs, therefore, not only for reasons of social fairness, important though that is, but because many of those women will have the kinds of attitudes that the new flat flexible organisations need.

We are working towards a more flexible, flatter, customer-oriented Civil Service. We need to avail of all the talent at our disposal, regardless of gender, in pursuit of this necessary change.

I now wish to pick up on some of the points made by various Deputies. I am pleased to note the general concern shown by a number of speakers about the under-representation of women in the upper reaches of the Civil Service. On Second Stage I outlined the situation which prevailed in 1932 when the Brennan Commission reported. Of all the quotations I have discovered in Government documents, the following from the Brennan Commission report is the one which galled me most. It stated:

If a woman recruited to the post married after eight or ten years service, the main purpose for which she has been employed entirely fails and she has, moreover, during that time been blocking the way of a man who could give good value for the service in question.

Any time I need to console myself about the slow rate of progress with regard to matters concerning women in the Civil Service or other areas where women have been discriminated against, overtly or covertly, over the years, I just have to remind myself of what the situation was in 1932 to realise that we have made enormous progress. While there is no point in rehearsing what I said in my opening speech, I will merely reiterate that progress, albeit at a slower rate than one might wish, is being made in this area. I assure the Deputies who touched on this point that there is no complacency on the part of the Government on the question of fuller participation by women in top management in the Civil Service.

I can understand Deputy McDowell's surprise that the reinstatement provisions cannot be retained for women who were forced to resign on marriage. His reaction is one which many, I suspect, would share. I assure the Deputy, however, that the Government was anxious to preserve the scheme for the women who had no choice but to resign under the marriage bar. However, we received unambiguous legal advice that the Equal Treatment Directive does not permit positive discrimination to compensate for past discrimination; discrimination which took place prior to the enactment of the directive is not relevant to its provisions. We have, unfortunately, no discretion in this area. However, it is hoped that the new provision, whereby the next two series of clerical assistant and executive officer competitions will include special sub-panels for former civil servants, will go some way towards facilitating the reentry to the Civil Service of women who resigned on marriage.

Regarding Deputy Lenihan's query as to the number of women who were obliged to resign under the marriage bar, it is impossible to compute an accurate figure at this juncture. However, the number of women who qualified for a marriage gratuity can be used as an indication of the number forced to resign on marriage. In the five-year period 1968 to 1972, inclusive, an average of 121 women qualified for a marriage gratuity. This figure would not, of course, include those women who resigned on marriage but who, because they did not have five years' service, did not qualify for a gratuity. As the Deputy is probably aware, the marriage bar ended on 31 July 1973. In the period 1985 to 1995, inclusive, an average of 29 women per annum qualified for reinstatement under the statutory provisions.

Deputy Lenihan urged me to extend the clerical assistant and executive officer sub-panel arrangement into the future. That option was considered. Having examined the possible pool of candidates, it is unlikely that any of the women who were forced to resign on marriage before 1973 would still be eligible to compete after the second such competition has been held. As it was this pool of women that we essentially wanted to target, there is little point in extending the arrangement beyond the two competitions.

I thank the Deputies who contributed to the debate on this Bill, which I commend once again to the House.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share