Deputy Frances Fitzgerald was in possession and has some 12 minutes remaining.
Employment Equality Bill, 1996: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
I welcome this legislation and congratulate the Minister on bringing it forward. It is complex legislation but it does not roll back the progress made in the past 20 years. I have some concerns about the Bill which I would like to address and ask the Minister to consider them on Committee Stage. I hope, as indicated, he will be able to accept some amendments. My comments on the sections are in the context of welcoming the Bill.
The Bill refers to employment and vocational training and has an effect on up to 150,000 non-employed persons seeking training or enrolling with recruitment agencies. Perhaps the Minister will comment on this.
I am concerned at how sexual harassment is dealt with in the Bill. I urge the Minister and his team to look again at how this section has been drafted. The Bill introduces new tests to sexual harassment despite well established juris prudence and practice by employers and unions in the workplace with good codes of practice. It introduces new tests in relation to the intention of the alleged perpetrator. It has been suggested — again I would welcome the Minister's views on this — that the new tests will make it harder to pursue sexual harassment in the workplace because of a fear arising out of questioning of the complainant's lifestyle to demonstrate that the accused had reasonable grounds to believe she would not take offence. It is important to look again at section 23 because it may contravene the European Council of Ministers' recommendation on sexual harassment and the directive currently under discussion which we are supporting under our Presidency. It would be unfortunate if we inserted something into this Bill which contravened that recommendation. This section may need to be reworded and the intention made clear. It would be unfortunate if it meant we were to roll back on progress already made in this area. The Employment Equality Agency continues to have cases of sexual harassment referred to it. It is important that what we are doing in the legislation is in accordance with what we support at European level. That is an area on which I would like some further discussion on Committee Stage.
I ask the Minister whether there should be a section dealing with political opinion, for example in Northern Ireland and South Africa. We want to ensure people are not discriminated against because of a political opinion they may hold. Perhaps a section should be included providing there would be no discrimination because of a political opinion. That would go some way towards committing Ireland to ratify the ILO Convention III on non-discrimination. Luxembourg, the UK and Ireland are the only countries which have not ratified this convention. This is another issue we need to deal with on Committee Stage.
A section on religious institutions raises very interesting questions which will have to be teased out on Committee Stage. Under this section religious, educational or medical institutions are entitled to discriminate where this is said to be essential for the maintenance of the religious ethos of the institution or is reasonable to avoid offending the religious sensitivities of its members or clients. The opt-out clause does not apply where the discrimination is on the basis of gender, age or disability grounds but it applies to discrimination on the grounds of family status, marital status, race, membership of the travelling community, religious belief and sexual orientation.
The Bill refuses to allow discrimination on certain grounds but not on others. It is clear this provision permits any religious school or religious run hospital to discriminate on the religious ethos or sensitivities ground on the basis of a teacher or health worker's marital status, family status, race, sexual orientation or other characteristics. I question why this needs to be included in the legislation. I can understand when one is recruiting somebody to teach religion that this would apply or in certain institutes set up for particular religious aims or religious bodies but why should it apply to all hospitals or other institutions? I would like to hear the thinking behind this. There are many people working in Ireland who would not have protection on these grounds. This Bill updates the Employment Equality Act, 1977, to a huge extent. Thirty-five of the 56 sections are being changed as well as the terms of reference and the scope of the 1977 Act. The 1977 system of the way in which equality works has changed. Should this Act be completely repealed and the two put together to become one Bill? Otherwise the two Acts will have to be read together. It makes sense to consider this point.
The Bill is only one of a number of measures aimed at ensuring equality in the workplace and we must continue to pay attention to many other issues. One of these is the Fourth Action Programme of the EU which will run from 1996 to 2000. It talks about promoting changes in attitude through education, training, culture and the media, desegregating the labour market and promoting the value of women at work. We have a long way to go in this regard. It also talks about encouraging women's entrepreneurship. Many men and women who own small businesses still refer to the difficulties they encountered in setting them up. Last year in the budget the Government went a long way to remove some of the barriers which prevent people from becoming entrepreneurs. Obviously the growth in jobs in the future will take place in the services areas. Women are particularly active in this area and it is important to look at the supports provided for the people who create the jobs. There is much more we can do in terms of providing information, creating local networks and supporting more creative links between Government structures. I am continually surprised when people say they do not know whether to approach the local employment initiatives or local boards for help.
The way in which Structural Funds are spent is very important in the context of how equal opportunities affect women and the other groups referred to in the Bill. These funds should be targeted at those groups which are in danger of being excluded from society. The concept of equality proofing has been accepted but we have yet to see many examples of it in practice. I would like to know how the budget is equality proofed and how the concept of equality proofing has worked in Departments in terms of how Structural Funds are spent. While the acceptance of principles is important, we must ensure that they are applied in practice. This is being done in other countries. For example, Australia equality proofs its budget. There is nothing strange about this; it is part and parcel of the way social policy should emerge and develop.
Another important issue is how men and women combine work and family life. We must create a society which is more supportive of people who combine work and family life. In the future more people will avail of job sharing and flexitime arrangements or will be employed on a contract basis. These developments are being driven not by any political ideology but by the demands of the workplace and the changing nature of work. This will require us to look in a more comprehensive way at issues such as child care, care of the elderly and community needs. It is necessary for people who look after elderly members of their family or children to feel fully supported.
It is important to make available a high quality information leaflet on the Bill. It will be difficult for people to understand some of the complicated provisions and we must provide as much information as possible on them in an easy to read form. The delay in publishing the explanatory memorandum shows the difficulty of explaining the Bill in simple terms, but we must do so in an information leaflet.
The Employment Equality Agency will require more resources to carry out its work. We must consider the research facilities available to it and how it will cope with the extra demands placed on it by the Bill. It is important to put the necessary supports in place so that the agency can carry out its functions under the Bill.
I congratulate the Minister and his officials on the publication of this long awaited Bill. Careful consideration must be given to those provisions which might have a slightly different impact from the one intended and may make it easier to discriminate in a number of areas.
Deputy Fitzgerald in her excellent contribution suggested that an information leaflet on the Bill should be published. However, from my reading of this complicated Bill at least 50 leaflets would be needed to explain it. I am not saying that the subject with which it deals is simple but I do not understand why the Bill is so complex. People will need to be educated on the provisions of the Bill if it is enacted in its present form. The Minister indicated that he would be willing to consider Opposition amendments and suggestions. Hopefully the Bill can be amended on Committee and Report Stages so that it will be less complicated.
Deputies usually begin their contributions by welcoming Bills. It would be great if we were in a position to say that this Bill was unnecessary but unfortunately we are not in a position to do so. All Deputies welcome the principle of the Bill, notwithstanding any reservations they may have about it. However, we should address our minds to its complicated nature and any bureaucracy it may give rise to.
The necessity for this Bill should lead us to hang our heads in shame. We all subscribe to the principles of equality, equal treatment, anti-discrimination, etc. but many of us merely pay lip service to them in the workplace and other areas. If we were genuine about these principles we would not need the legislation. This Bill also appears to be paying lip service to that concept. It aims to eliminate discrimination on grounds of marital and family status, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, age, disability, race or membership of the travelling community. Will it achieve this? Having examined the Bill, the answer is a simple "no". This Bill will, in some cases, make it easier to discriminate or make it harder to prove that there is discrimination.
The section on sexual harassment in the workplace seems to have turned a well-tried principle, accepted by the Labour Court since 1985, on its head. A different test as to what constitutes sexual harassment will now apply. This is a retrograde step and an example of where the Bill will make it more difficult for a person to prove there was discrimination or sexual harassment in the workplace.
The Bill makes a virtue of the fact that we are legislating to prevent discrimination. However, it seems to legislate completely for the private sector and adds another layer of regulations, rules and bureaucracy aimed directly at it. There are few exemptions in the Bill for the private sector. This Bill is remarkable for the exemptions applied. Various Departments get exemptions from the Bill and are allowed do things other Departments will not do. One of these is the Department of Justice, which seems to call on the national interest and security as an excuse. They seem to want to be exempt from many Bills because of their remarkable attitude on national security. They want to be exempt from tendering procedures, the provisions of this Bill, and practically every Bill that comes before the House.
They are not alone in this aspect. The Department of Equality and Law Reform and the Department of Defence have successfully included exemptions applying to themselves in the Bill. I note from information received from bodies outside this House that the Department of Finance and the Department of Enterprise and Employment also have their finger in the pie and have watered down this Bill to ensure it is less effective. Local authorities and health boards are also specifically excluded from certain provisions. We talk about discrimination and wanting everyone to be treated equally, in employment or outside it. Yet we pass legislation that exempts a whole range of public bodies, who should be giving the lead in this matter, from the provisions of the Bill. Who is going to take us seriously if we continue to do this? The public, industry and those affected by the exemptions in this Bill will not.
The Departments, the State and the Civil Service should be giving the lead to ensure that nobody points a finger at the public sector, politicians and the Government and says they have one set of rules for themselves and another for the rest. The time has gone when we passed legislation like this for everybody else and exempted ourselves. It does not just apply to equality. Legislation is passed in other areas such as my brief, the environment, where different standards apply to local authorities and State Departments. This has to stop because we are bringing ourselves and the civil and public service into disrepute.
In this Bill, more regulation, rules and onerous responsibilities are placed on the private sector. I am not saying this should not be placed on the private sector, but it should be placed on the public sector also. If we do not start doing that rapidly, we cannot blame people who say we are paying lip service by exempting the areas over which we have control.
I fear this Bill may have the opposite effect to that intended and will encourage people to use age, disability or sickness as an excuse for discrimination. Age will be used to discriminate against people, especially the under 18s and the over 65s. There are regular advertisements in the newspapers which often exclude even those in the 18 to 65 age group from applying for jobs in the public service and local authorities.
Discrimination on the grounds of gender will not be improved by this Bill, but rather could be disimproved. My party leader has already adverted to the original proposal he had in 1987 for a comparator to be used in relation to discrimination in the workplace and deciding on the level of wages paid. It is amazing that this concept has been dropped, whether it is a real comparator or a hypothetical one. In a so-called left wing dominated Government — according to the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, we are all on the left — it is strange that this particular notion has been dropped. If anything I would have expected the two parties on the left to have championed this measure and ensured it was agreed by Government. It would mean that women, in particular, would not be discriminated against in the pay stakes. We are all aware that what is considered women's work is paid at a low rate. It is no accident that cleaning, domestic chores and a variety of other jobs are regarded as women's work and the women who carry out such work are paid less than the subsistence rate of pay. I am disappointed that the idea of the comparator or using an industry basis for deciding wage levels was deleted from the original draft of the Bill.
The Minister has made enormous strides in relation to the physically and mentally handicapped. Will he consider introducing a quota for the private sector in terms of employing people with disabilities? As the public sector has met its 3 per cent obligation in this regard — I am not saying that should not be increased further — we should set a time limit for the private sector to reach a certain quota. What are the Minister's plans in that regard?
The Minister should reconsider his proposals to exempt the Defence Forces from the provisions of the Bill. The exemption is based on the old notion that the Defence Forces have a separate structure of discipline and that they deal with matters within their military structure. I am sure the Minister has received all those arguments in memoranda from the Department of Defence.
Nobody knows that better than the Deputy.
It would not make sense to exclude the Army from this legislation. It should applies to the military structure in the same way it applies to the public sector. I accept it may be necessary to treat the military structure in a slightly different manner, but the provisions of the Bill should apply to them in the same way as they will apply to civilians. The Minister should re-examine this matter in detail before Committee Stage.
The Bill defines disability in strict medical terms and Deputy Woods dealt with this in great detail. Will the Minister ensure this definition is changed before the Bill is enacted?
Deputy Theresa Ahearn talked about the number of female county managers, county secretaries and so on. We can pass all the legislation we like, but if we do not change the Local Appointments Commission system the gender of the top people in that commission will not change significantly. People complain vociferously about politicians or Ministers being in charge of appointments, but if a Minister were responsible for the appointment of county managers, county secretaries, town clerks and others in the local government system, the force of public opinion would have ensured many years ago that there were more top class women in top positions in local authorities. Women have not been able to come through the system because of the way it is structured. This could be the best legislation ever enacted, but we must do more that merely pass it. We must put in place systems that will ensure everybody is treated equally and that an old boys' network does not operate.
The Minister did not hear my positive comments on the Bill. In general, I welcome its principles. It is slightly complex but I hope that can be amended before it is enacted. The Minister will have my support in improving it.
I welcome the Bill. It is interesting that it is almost 20 years since the Dáil considered major legislation on equality. At that time I was a young student in UCD and during the latter part of the then Government I started my teaching career. One of my strongest motivations for getting involved in politics was the untimely and unseemly end in 1977 to an outstandingly good Government, particularly in terms of reforming legislation. Many have come to repent the errors of 1977, it has become part of folk memory. With that Government went a significant group of people who enthusiastically embraced the new expectations of European law and applied them to a society that was unwilling to receive them. The matter of equality legislation was then postponed for many decades.
Women inside and outside the House are conscious of how much Europe has done for them in terms of choice, moving forward our position and fundamental legal changes. It is no accident that what is being inserted in law today is another European directive which encompasses and updates the provisions of earlier legislation. This is stronger legislation and it must be welcomed. It is interesting that we are discussing it on a day the labour force figures are being analysed. They show a fascinating growth in employment yet the numbers of unemployed remain static. The largest group that make up that section are women entering the workforce, not always in full-time employment but employment nonetheless of value to households where older men find it hard to obtain work. Because of their caring abilities women tend to find work in the fast growing area of caring for children and the elderly, home duties and services generally.
Given the transformation in society, many of us do not know where we will end up or how we will achieve the desired balance. Even after 20 years of legislation to ensure equal pay, women are still getting only 80 per cent of a man's average income. The Minister identified some of the issues relating to that, including the fact that men achieve higher salaries related to their skills and to overtime worked.
Women have not solved the problem of how to combine family life with work but have moved from doing one defined task to trying to do two totally separate tasks. The suggestion is that flexible working hours may solve the problem and, to a degree, politicians have flexible working hours. This means, for example, that I could see my children to school this morning and spend an hour at home with my baby. I nipped out at lunchtime during the sos, saw the children in from school and sorted things out for the afternoon. I then did some other magic act for an hour which enables me to continue working until 11 p.m. When I come home at night I can think about tomorrow's lunches. I have a supportive husband who works an eight hour day and can fill the gaps in the evenings. There is no doubt, however, that women still carry the bulk of the burden in rearing their families and it will take an enormous societal change to alter that.
An attempt is being made to bring about such changes in northern Europe by going further than the minimum we agreed in the EU Maternity and Employment Directive, which was a compromise. The Danes did not want to join the EU because they said it would lower their standards, whereas it had the opposite effect on us, dragging us forward. Some European countries have moved much further and in place of having optional parental leave they have led the way by introducing compulsory leave for fathers. In some countries paternity leave comprises a couple of months in the first five years of a child's life and that is the direction for the future.
So many issues are raised by an analysis of what has happened after 20 years of legislation that should have achieved certain things but did not. The critical aspects are childcare and family responsibility yet this country has the worst childcare provisions. Regular analyses produced by various European organisations show that we give the lowest financial support for children, with a total absence of tax relief and no State provision for childcare other than minimal support in deprived urban areas. In such areas it is used as a family support mechanism for those in greatest difficulty to avoid taking children into care.
If the Minister wants to give shape to the intent of the Bill, I hope he will also press for the kind of positive action that is needed. One of the most critical decisions in the next three months will be whether something will be done for families and for childcare in the budget. Having spent months analysing this and having rightly devoted a major section of the Bill, and huge sections of his speech, to the continuing problems of gender inequality, the Minister's voice should now be heard at the Cabinet table.
An improvement in the forthcoming budget would be the single biggest thing the State could provide to ensure women will be able to take up more employment opportunities and that families will be supported by men and women being able to exercise a full range of choices.
Overtime is important for women and is a key to success in putting an extra effort into work even it means staying for a few jars with the people who matter. Being willing to take on the extra task is important. I worked in schools where the priority of most of the female workforce was to get home and sort out their domestic arrangements. To provide childcare their precious salaries went either in being taxed again through PRSI or by hiring a child minder in the black economy. I welcome the section that exempts all kinds of positive action but a range of such actions is required to change the balance in favour of supporting women who are trying to work and rear their families. That job should be made easier financially as well as in terms of time management to reduce stress.
A wider package of education and other incentives should be developed including obligations on men to participate more as parents. Rearing a family is more than a job for one person and one would almost need three people to perform all the functions involved in having a challenging career as well as a family.
In addition to gender, the legislation deals with the handicapped, travellers and the issue of age. In his reply to this Second Stage debate I would like the Minister to deal with how the section on age discrimination will work. The last speaker said that one will not be able to discriminate within the age group from 18 to 65 years, so what will still be allowed? The Minister should spell out clearly how the section will work. There is enormous discrimination and the Minister identified the group comprising men aged over 45 who find it impossible even to get a job interview. Does the Minister anticipate that many of the exemptions will apply in the context of age?
The disabled and handicapped face huge difficulties. Many Deputies recently received correspondence from a group involved in developing employment opportunities for the disabled. It has identified how far we are behind other countries where in many workplaces there is not only a 3 per cent employment target for the disabled but also a growing practice of making large sections of employment available to the handicapped as well as supports. The Minister said there would be an obligation to provide that where possible. Will that sort of practice, which is a feature of the workplace in other countries, be encouraged more here? Does the Minister see a role for his Department in some of these positive action programmes?
Travellers await this legislation with interest, as they awaited the provision of the Equal Status Bill, but for them equality in employment is a dream which is a generation or two further on than it was for women. Travellers, in their study groups and through representatives of the Irish Traveller Movement and Pavee Point at meetings with members of the Select Committee on Social Affairs, have identified specific initial steps taken by local authorities and other Government bodies to employ travellers in services. While many of the exemptions may be controversial I welcome the exemption which allows for positive action in areas of traditional discrimination where there is a lack of representation of certain groups, whether at different levels or in the workforce in the case of the disabled and travellers. Inevitably this Bill will need to be revised many times because, as changes occur over time, many of the exemptions that are appropriate now will not, I hope, be appropriate in the future.
I was interested in a point raised by Deputy Batt O'Keeffe this morning about illness, in particular mental illness, and how a person suffering from it can be burdened and tagged. It is an interesting issue to which I would like the Minister to respond. We are only now modernising our thinking from our traditional attitude towards people suffering from any form of mental or psychiatric illness and it is worth considering whether that category should be included in the Bill. Those suffering from mental illness can experience real problems at work. If people feel they cannot be open about the problem of mental illness, it may lead to secrecy that is bad for the health of society and has further negative effects on the workforce. The more openness there is about it, the more people will become used to it. The Bill can be helpful only if it provides for positive action in dealing with discrimination against travellers, the disabled and the handicapped.
I was particularly pleased to hear on today's Order of Business that the equal status Bill will see the light of day before Christmas. It is very much part and parcel of the same body of legislation as this Bill. We look forward to its introduction and to enthusiastic support for its important provisions from all sides of the House. It deals with a wider area than employment, where there is extreme direct discrimination against people who are deprived of equal opportunities not only by default or indirect means but specifically on the grounds of sex or being members of the travelling community. Occasionally disabilities are excluded from normal areas of recreation in terms of finance and other factors. In welcoming this Bill, we will help to begin to address such discrimination. We look forward to the next debate on equality legislation which I hope will be early in the New Year. I hope the Minister will confirm that these interconnected Bills will be on the Statute Book in the lifetime of this Government.
I warmly welcome the Bill. Like other Deputies, I have received representations from individuals concerned about the exclusion provisions and how they will work, particularly in the area of education. As they have been thrashed out by a number of speakers, I will not go into them in detail, but I will listen with interest to the Minister's response to them. I am sure those difficulties which will not be easy to resolve will be tasted out on Committee Stage. The desire of some institutions to maintain a certain kind of ethos is understandable, but squaring it with the rights of people to their individual freedom is difficult. The Solomons in the House will be bending their minds to it during the next few weeks and it is an area that will be discussed actively on Committee Stage. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the initial questions raised. I welcome the Bill, look forward to it passing into law and to our moving on rapidly to deal with the equal status Bill.
I join Members in welcoming this legislation. Having listened to my party leader speak when he was dealing with this matter in the initial stages in 1987, I am aware that this is a long awaited Bill. However, I hope the wait has been worthwhile and that improvements have been made in the legislation down through the years. As Deputy Bertie Ahern said, consideration was given to the inclusion of a comparator clause, particularly in regard to differentiation in pay between men and women and conditions of employment. Like other Deputies, I would like to know why that clause, which was included in the original provision for legislation which dates back to 1987, has not been retained.
I compliment the Minister on the Bill and our spokesperson, Deputy Woods, for his contribution. We will be able to have a more productive debate on Committee Stage because while all Deputies generally welcome the Bill there are many issues we will want to discuss. I admire the Minister for many of the initiatives he has taken in areas in the past in addressing discrimination and dealing with inequalities in our society, whether in the area of occupational injury, the disabled, travellers or other similar issues. I hope he will deal with amending the electoral Acts which was discussed on the Order of Business.
The Department of Equality and Law Reform can integrate a good deal of the work undertaken by other Departments and can be a great catalyst for change. If the Minister introduces welcome legislation, that is good, but in some instances other Departments seek changes in legislation which may chip away at the legislation the Minister wants to bring before us. Some semi-State bodies are not availing of opportunities for equality, whether in the area of employment or within regions of the country. For example, industrial policy is not equal and as highlighted by the Western Development Partnership Board, which deals with the area from Donegal to County Clare, including the province of Connacht, there is a particular neglect of the western region.
I am a great supporter of the Industrial Development Authority but I, as I am sure most Deputies, consider that it would like the most effective distribution of development across the country. We are dealing with employment equality legislation, but we have a serious unemployment problems. The chairman of the IDA stated in its 1995 report that there are large projects which, by their nature, need the scale and range of people's skills and the support services and infrastructure of large urban areas. He also stated that as the infrastructure and support levels required to operate such industries arise and as the diversity of skills required increase, such investments gravitate towards the larger population centres. That type of statement is worrying because the chairman stated that we must provide jobs in the larger urban areas which have big populations. I am not trying to start an east versus west debate this evening but if 20 per cent of the population lives in the western region, we should seek to locate at least 20 per cent of all IDA Ireland jobs there.
The west is already getting approximately 30 per cent.
We are not getting that amount.
We have done specific research in the Dublin area.
Figures from the Western Development Partnership Board show that we are not getting the type of investment necessary for the population of the region. Some 57 major investments were announced by IDA Ireland in 1995, excluding the financial services in Dublin. However, only eight were located in the Western region from Donegal to Clare. There is a major growth in Galway, Letterkenny and Castlebar, but we must look at the rural areas if we want equality of opportunity. In fact, only two projects were located in the Western region if we take Galway city out of the equation. I support the Minister's statement about access to employment and equality of opportunity, but the first thing we need is investment.
I make the same point about our road structure. Two major roads, the N17 from Galway to Sligo and the N16 from Sligo to Blacklion, are not included in the roads programme up to 1999. We should not forget our national routes when planning a national roads programme. The Minister has a difficult job because he must deal with other Departments and agencies in the public sector which have a different type of policy.
The Minister referred to the difficulties in trying to get work faced by people over 45 years of age and who have been over two years unemployed. They have a chance of one in ten of being re-employed. This legislation is trying to tackle that area. In addition, people with disabilities find it even more difficult to get works. I hope a quota system can be put in place in the private sector to help these people.
Harassment at work was mentioned by many Ministers in the past and I am glad this Bill refers to it. Harassment or bullying often starts in schools.
The Minister referred to women's status in the workplace. Deputy Bertie Ahern mentioned the difference between men's and women's earnings. It is scandalous that women receive only 80 per cent of men's earnings. There are few women in management positions in local organisations and finboards, public and private organisations and financial institutions. I was a member of a Galway local authority where there were no women in the management structure. There has never been a woman chief executive officer, programme manager or hospital manager in the Western Health Board. Every hospital matron in the Western Health Board region is a woman.
Is the Local Appointments Commission preventing well qualified women from getting good positions? For 21 years the Western Health Board was unable to get an orthodontist for Galway, Mayo and Roscommon. Eventually, after 21 years, a woman was appointed to that position. I blame structures such as the Local Appointments Commission or, in the case of consultant staff, Comhairle na nOspideal for this because it delays appointments. Many people feel these organisations should be abolished but others think that if a decision is made locally, the best qualified people will not get the jobs. I do not agree with that view. It is disgraceful that there are delays in making appointments. The Local Appointments Commission must change its procedures if we want well qualified women to get good positions, particularly in local authorities and health boards.
The Minister referred to the difficulty of reconciling work and family life, which has been discussed over the years. The question of providing childcare facilities for working parents needs to be taken more seriously than it has been up to now. Some Minister or Department must provide funding for childcare facilities to help working parents if we want it to be a success.
The Minister mentioned the number of women on State boards, which stands at 26 per cent but which he hopes to increase to 40 per cent. He also referred to European Union requirements. I do not want to be branded a Euro sceptic, but I hope we do not change things because of EU law. It would be nice to think we made changes ahead of Europe.
I support all measures in relation to equality. However, there is some concern that when we try to tackle these problems we will introduce more regulations which will lead to inequalities. That point was brought home to me by Army representatives. PDFORRA feels it is totally excluded from the Bill. The Minister should not exclude certain groups. I know there are security concerns but this legislation should apply to the Army, the Garda Síochána, the prison service and religious, educational and medical institutions, which are excluded. I do not see why, except for security reasons, they are omitted from the Bill.
I referred earlier to the Department of Enterprise and Employment and IDA policy and the Minister raised the issue of access to employment. I refer to this matter particularly as it relates to the tourism industry. There are many jobs in tourism and as we move towards the end of this century there will be even further jobs in that area. Public transport is very important in terms of tourism as well as access to work. I do not know if the Minister is aware that it costs more to travel from Galway to Dublin than from Dublin to Galway. I am sure the Chair is aware of that because the position relating to southern and south western areas is probably similar. Those involved in public transport are not as keen to transport people to the west or south as they are to transport them to Dublin.
The west got Teilifís na Gaeilge.
I am talking about transport.
We will be watching Galway.
Perhaps Departments put forward schemes about which the Minister for Equality and Law Reform is unaware. There must be equality in promoting areas and jobs, particularly in tourism. These issues have been taken up in the past by Deputies, particularly those from the west, and I hope the Minister, who is the catalyst for change in many areas of equality, will communicate with the other Ministers in this regard.
The Minister should consider the position of people with physical and mental illness. I hope the Minister for Social Welfare will bring in legislation to deal with inequality in pensions, which is not covered in this Bill and which is of great importance, particularly to the self-employed.
Having listened to Deputy Kitt's interesting speech perhaps the Minister will consider a tenth category, that is discrimination against Dubliners. Down the years Dublin has been grossly discriminated against, perhaps in favour of the midlands.
Much of the midlands has been by-passed.
I welcome the Employment Equality Bill, another major milestone in the remarkable career of the Minister, Deputy Taylor. In the last four years key elements of equality have been brought into law by this outstanding Minister whom I congratulate. There has been a long struggle for this type of legislation. Down the years the Labour Party tried to move forward on aspects of equality but was held back by more conservative parties. In 1974 our former Leader, Michael O'Leary, introduced the first Bill dealing with equality. In the last quarter of a century we have moved away from an unequal, patriarchal, authoritarian society and the Labour Party played a fundamental role in that regard. This legislation is another outstanding achievement in that area.
It is appropriate to introduce the legislation at this time. A recent labour force survey shows that up to 37 per cent of the workforce is occupied by women. With the number of women going into the workforce increasing by 20 per cent in recent years, women now represent almost 500,000 of the 1.3 million people at work, the largest number in the history of the State. In many cases however there is still discrimination against women. As the Minister said, women working in the manufacturing industry receive only 70 per cent of the earnings of their male counterparts. A recent ESRI study showed that overall women's earnings are only 80 per cent of those of men. The difference was attributed to discrimination and inequality. On behalf of all women, this is a historic day.
The world of work is changing dramatically, with different work structures, such as job sharing, part-time work and so on. I agree with the Minister that we have come to a fundamental crossroads in terms of gender equality. Constant vigilance is required because there is prima facie evidence of widespread discrimination on pay and conditions, particularly in low paid jobs. The Minister has been responsible for much legislation in this area such as the Maternity Protection Act and the Adoptive Leave Act and he supported the EU directive on parental leave. He took the initiative in terms of getting women into key decision-making positions on State boards and as a result of his efforts the role of women has increased to 26 per cent.
The question could be raised — this is a matter for which all of us have responsibility — of why women make up only 13 per cent of the membership of this House, a much lower percentage than in countries such as Denmark, Finland and Sweden where about 45 per cent of members are women. This legislation is a further step in bringing about greater equality.
I welcome a number of the provisions of the Bill, particularly section 10 dealing with advertising. Two years ago Dublin Corporation published an advertisement in the press stating that the competition for firefighters was restricted to men. An initiative taken by the Labour Party at the time resulted in that practice being ended. This legislation is very clear in that regard.
Section 11, which deals with training, is closely associated with the introduction by the Minister for Education of the programme, Breaking the Cycle. Under that programme, introduced in Darndale and Belcamp in my constituency last week, an attempt will be made to bring children from deprived backgrounds, girls and travellers in particular, into mainstream education, for which the Minister deserves to be congratulated.
The Bill which is wide-ranging will outlaw discrimination on the grounds of gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religious belief, age, disability, race or membership of the travelling community. It deals with such issues as access, conditions, training, promotion, advertisements and collective agreements in the public and private sectors. It also deals with the issue of membership of professional bodies and trade unions. This is an indication that the Minister has tried to resolve some of the major problems.
The National Women's Council has criticised certain aspects of the Bill. It has complained that no reference to pensions has been included. As others have indicated, remuneration covers both pay and pensions. This is a matter which will be addressed by the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa.
The council has expressed the view that section 23 which deals with sexual harassment in the workplace should be extended to include sexual harassment outside it, which may involve people of the same sex. The Minister deserves to be congratulated as this is the first time such a comprehensive definition has been included in legislation. This can only be described as the most despicable form of discrimination and has to be stamped out. Strong measures are being provided for which will be enforced by the director and new Authority. I, therefore, ask Noreen Byrne and her colleagues on the council to look at the Bill more carefully. It is a triumph for the women's movement in the cause of gender equality.
I welcome the detailed and precise way in which the Minister defines indirect discrimination on the gender ground in section 22. If a person in any of the categories mentioned in the Bill is discriminated against, the matter can be dealt with.
I wish to refer to three categories in particular on whose behalf we can take positive action. I welcome the attempts made in programmes such as the jobs initiative to discriminate in favour of the over 50s who are unemployed. Is it possible in legislation outlawing discrimination to specify particular age groups? There is an old saying in sport that if somebody is good enough they are old enough. In Norway, to address the pensions problems retirement age has been extended to 67. A number of our colleagues, particularly in the Fianna Fail Party, have announced that they will retire from politics at the next election — this is a specialised and unique job — but in the longer term should there be a blanket retirement age? Is ageism another form of discrimination?
On the employment of people with disabilities in the public service, the 3 per cent rule has not been adhered to. Are the Houses of the Oireachtas a microcosm of the public service in that one will not see many disabled service attendants, ushers or general workers? When they appeared recently before the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs representatives of the Rehabilitation Institute and the Centre for Independent Living made a strong case for proper access to jobs throughout the public service. While I welcome the measures provided for in the Bill we need to look at the matter more carefully.
The Commission on Travellers, under the chairmanship of my colleague, Senator Mary Kelly, has produced a fine report. I come from an area in which there is a large number of traveller families who are being housed and integrated slowly into local communities while retaining their own culture. I welcome the measures provided for in the Bill.
My own trade union, the Association of Secondary Teachers of Ireland, has expressed reservations about the Bill. In a lengthy response the Minister indicated it is not true that Church-run first and second level schools are exempt under the provisions of equality law; they are subject to constitutional restraints. There is a fear that young teachers in particular will find it difficult to make a start in their chosen career and may be discriminated against. The Minister has tried to reach a reasonable accommodation in a sensitive area where there are competing rights.
I welcome the establishment of the new Authority and the clear definition of victimisation. If it can be demonstrated that a worker was dismissed or penalised for taking action he or she will have the right of redress. The decision to create the new position of director of equality investigations is reasonable. In conjunction with the Labour Court and the Circuit Court, the person appointed will attempt to resolve issues as they arise. Provision has also been made for the appointment of an equality mediation officer. If both parties to a dispute are willing, it can be resolved quietly and privately with assistance.
Provision has been made for collective agreements which may have an adverse effect on the grounds of gender. This is a valuable part of the legislation. The Minister has given a proactive role to the Employment Equality Agency. It will be valuable to have the agency examine current practice in industries and identify low pay industries where there seems to be widespread gender discrimination in terms of pay and conditions. It should be possible to draft codes of practice and insist on equality reviews, audits and action plans.
A colleague on Dublin Corporation, Councillor Mary Freehill, has pursued this issue. Our equality sub-committee examines on an ongoing basis the advancement of the 6,500 female staff in Dublin Corporation. An equality audit was carried out recently which noted the progress women are making to senior positions in our local authority. I recognise the value of this and I welcome it in the legislation.
There is a comment about cost in the briefing documentation on the new legislation but cost benefit analyses can be done in regard to any development. Many of the more egalitarian societies, particularly some of the Scandinavian countries, do not discriminate on the basis of gender, disability or ethnic origin. That is the type of society to which we must aspire.
I congratulate the Minister on this excellent legislation which adds lustre to an outstanding ministerial career.
I too would like to join the congratulations Deputy Broughan extended to the Minister on the introduction of this legislation, although I did not share total enthusiasm for his Kim II Sung descriptions of the achievements of the Labour Party in recent years. I congratulate the Minister on the amount of constructive legislation he has brought forward in the current session——
The Deputy's party had 70 years.
——and in previous sessions of this Dáil. In relation to the 70 years, Deputy Broughan's party has been in Government for the last 30 of those years. I am sure he will become fully aware of that in the coming months.
We never had a majority of Ministers.
His party never had a majority of Ministers but it came close in recent years——
We will get closer yet.
——and the general public perception is that it has been pulling most of the strings. However, what we are witnessing in the Strand in London may cast further light on that in the coming days.
The Deputy is not being called as a witness.
I welcome this measure and congratulate the Minister on introducing it. I was somewhat sceptical of some of the rhetoric at the beginning of the Minister's contribution when he talked about the open, pluralist and European society in which we now live in contrast to the closed and homogeneous society over which I presume our party had the honour of presiding in previous decades. With all Members of the House I recognise that life today is made up of very diverse elements and measures such as this are essential to establish for the population a standard of citizenship, particularly in an increasingly secular age. When traditional, moral and religious assumptions have changed so much it is of vital importance that measures like this are put forward in this House to establish a standard of citizenship, mutual respect and tolerance that will allow Ireland to evolve as a stable political entity.
When I heard Deputy Broughan talking about conservative parties and patriarchal societies——
Authoritarian.
——I wondered to whom he was referring because the founder of my party, when he brought in the Constitution of this State in 1937, listed the fundamental rights of the citizen. The first clause inserted was an express declaration and recognition that all citizens as human persons are equal before the law. There has been a considerable gloss of judicial interpretation on that clause through the years but it is clear from our experience with that provision that judicial enforcement of equality guarantees is not the most satisfactory method of addressing this particular problem.
In the 1950s the United States Supreme Court sought to establish, correctly, the principle of racial equality and equal racial access to schools in the famous decision of Brown and the Board of Education. There was a huge reaction against the United States Supreme Court among certain sections of American opinion. One view is that the legitimacy and authority of the court was damaged, although I would have welcomed that decision. The measures which had to be adopted to implement it were far reaching and caused great difficulties for the Executive.
If we are to provide for equality by installments it is preferable that we do so through a practical thought out measure such as this which spells out in details for employers, workers, trade union organisers and other persons concerned with access to the workplace the precise rights and duties of persons in this context. The practical enforcement measures the Minister has provided for in the Bill and which build upon the measures already in place in the Employment Equality Act, 1977, afford an easier method of access for the aggrieved individual than recourse to the courts. I welcome that aspect of the measures without reservation.
I want to ask the Minister the reason we must have an employment equality Bill this year, which I assume will become an Act in due course, and refer to a previous Act of 1977. Why was the opportunity not taken on this occasion to consolidate the two measures? In our computerised age the consolidation of legislation must be a far easier task than in former times. Whenever a measure comes before us which is substantial in character, as this measure is, consideration should be given to consolidating the measures on the topic. That ensures ease of access to the legislation for the individual citizen who wishes to study it. It means also that legislation becomes less and less the happy hunting ground for lawyers and more and more information which is intelligible and understandable to the individual citizen.
In regard to this legislation I presume it is too late at this stage, given the procedures of the House, to recast the measure in that form but it is important to consolidate legislation so that the code of rights and duties in any particular branch of the law is easily available to the citizen.
In regard to discrimination on the grounds of gender and marital status, the Minister is building on the work already done in the 1977 Act. I note he has taken into account various comments and suggestions that have been made about the operation of that Act through the years. This debate affords us an opportunity to review progress made in that area.
There has been a movement towards the greater participation of females in the workforce and towards more flexible patterns of employment at the workplace but much work remains to be done if we are to secure real and substantial equality in this area. Substantial inequalities remain in relation to patterns of pay, conditions of employment and promotional opportunities. Much of that ground has been covered already in the debate and I do not want to go over it in any great detail other than to say if we are to make progress in this area it is important to encourage the greatest possible participation by the female population in the workforce, whether on a part-time or full-time basis or whatever basis is most convenient.
I want to refer to the operation of the FÁS schemes in relation to community employment and their impact on the question of female participation in the workforce. All of us agree that the community employment schemes have been marvellous, encouraging greater participation in the workforce. They correspond to that third sector which economic commentators have recently argued must exist in modern society, where the public sector — as we in Fianna Fáil know too well after the 1977 election manifesto — is unable to absorb the demand for full employment, while there is a paucity of employment in the private sector because of increasing technology.
I object to the existing discrimination against married women and widows regarding community employment schemes. The present arrangement means that a married woman who wishes to return to the workforce, having cared for her children for a number of years, has to be in receipt of unemployment assistance or benefit before she qualifies for such a scheme. That is highly discriminatory. If that requirement was abolished and a requirement put in place that such a person should sign on, it would be equally discriminatory. The honest person signing on is doing so with the intention of making him or herself available for employment. That may not be the case in regard to a married woman whose option is to care for her children at home for a period of years but more should be done to ease the path of married women who wish to resume employment in the workplace and community employment schemes are a vital bridge in achieving it. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Section 12 of the Bill purports to extend the prohibition on discrimination to vocational training. Does FÁS fall within the scope of that section? The Minister may not wish to incite dispute or litigation or foment dispute through an interpretation of the measure but does this bind FÁS? It is an important issue in relation to female participation in the workforce. It may seem somewhat removed from the more abstract point of comparators and their use in this legislation.
As an aside, I was fascinated by the style of statutory draftsmanship and the use of alphabetical descriptions.
I thought the Deputy would like that.
We are moving towards a very abstract style of legislation. If Deputy Broughan were still here I would point out that it is a first for the Labour Party which is introducing novel forms of parliamentary draftsmanship.
Disability is another topic that naturally arises under this measure. I dealt with gender and marital status and now turn to where the Bill breaks radical new ground on disability. A number of Members raised the issue of participation of disabled persons in the workforce. I share the concern that while a measure has been adopted for the public sector, none has yet been proposed for the private sector. I appreciate it does not strictly arise on this Bill but it appears to be the Government's declared intent to attempt the renegotiation of a programme between the trade unions, employers and the Government on pay, conditions and work. There should be a definite commitment from the private sector to introduce a quota or guaranteed section of private sector employment for persons with a disability in that programme. It would be disappointing if the anxiety of the present Government parties to introduce measures of reduction in taxation for all taxpayers obscured this vital need to reserve a definite allocation of job opportunities in the private sector for disabled persons. This is an issue all Members meet every day in their daily work and a great deal of progress could be made on it. This is another group, like the married women I mentioned earlier, who need practical measures to ensure their participation.
Discrimination on the grounds of age is another area raised in this Bill and the Minister's selection of the ages 18 to 65 as the basis for the group to be protected. Our school attendance requirement ends at 16 and there a great number of persons in the workplace over that age. The Minister should look at that before Committee Stage. One does not have full citizenship rights until the age of 18 but the Bill is concerned with the workplace. In that context the Minister should look at the younger age definition in the Bill.
The Minister should also look at those over the age of 65 because many of them are fully fit and capable of employment. Why should discrimination against them not be dealt with in this measure? Is it necessary to the Bill? There may be practical problems——
I might have to declare my interest.
We would never believe that of the Minister.
I had not realised we had moved to the era of gerontocratic statesmanship.
Religion is another aspect of this Bill. I am disappointed Deputy Broughan is not here because this was presented as a very radical, reforming, socialist measure. However, one of the great features of Irish life is the traditional respect for and place of religion. The Labour Party has drawn a line in the sand with which I do not disagree. It is understandable but strange to hear the Labour Party describe it as a radical reforming measure when it recognises certain realities. The Minister might also look at a code of practice for the regulation of denominational bodies in consultation with them.
Section 6 contains the definition of discrimination and the discriminatory grounds. Religious belief is expressly stated as a discriminatory ground. I welcome that. In recent years, as Ireland becomes more diverse, we have seen new religious sects with laudable objects and spiritual purposes, not just those with which we are familiar from the public press. At times they can be discriminated against because of their novelty. This Bill contains valuable protection for these groups but why does the definition of religion not extend to conscientious belief? Discrimination against a person on religious grounds must necessarily extend to discriminating against a person on conscientious grounds. I find it difficult to draw that distinction. In addition, without elevating ourselves too much, the Minister might examine the associated issue of discrimination against a person on the grounds of political belief. Again, I would like to hear the Minister's views on whether that issue might also be looked at. I appreciate that in drawing up a measure of this type a Minister must proceed with great care, and entertain the views of a great range of persons, associations and organisations. I would like to hear the Minister's views on the points I have made. I welcome the measure, if not some of the exaggerated rhetoric associated with it, and I wish him well.
(Laoighis-Offaly): I will not be exuberant or outrageous in anything I say. My contribution will, in many respects, be in the same vein as that of Deputy Lenihan. I welcome this measure but seek to tease out a number of the issues contained in it.
This legislation comes from a Department of Equality and Law Reform which was set up by my party in Government. The fact it has taken almost two decades to make advances on the legislation introduced in the 1970s shows that the establishment of that Department was very much needed. There would not have been any great degree of political dissent in the House on any of these issues. At the same time, there was no great political priority being given to them. The types of measures which my colleague, Deputy Broughan, listed would not have been introduced without expressly establishing a Department to deal with them. When they were introduced they received a large measure of political consensus and agreement which is reflective of the fact that our society is becoming much more open, much more pluralist in practice, and much more at ease with itself in dealing with a range of opinions.
I am glad this legislation, which relates to employment, forbids discrimination on nine specified grounds — gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religious belief, age, disability, race and membership of the travelling community. In principle none of us would disagree with that but in practice we can see clear cases of discrimination in our constituencies on all those grounds on which this Bill, when it becomes law, will give people some method to redress discrimination.
Regarding setting up the Employment Authority, as I said in debates on similar legislation, it is an easy matter to pass legislation but quite another to make the members of the public aware of it and ensure there is back-up, resources, support and access points to allow people to enforce the rights we confer on them through legislation. It is important to address that as much as the terms of the legislation. I welcome that the Employment Authority is being set up and ask the Minister to ensure that when this Bill becomes law the positive message regarding rights of employment which is contained in it is disseminated widely and quickly to people through local trade union offices, citizens' information centres, unemployment resource centres and the many different community information and community service organisations. I hope access to the Authority and to forms of redress will be available on a local basis without people necessarily having to go to Dublin, Cork, Galway or any of the other larger cities to avail of it.
I also welcome the extension in this Bill of the scope of the legislation. Not alone are we increasing the grounds on which discrimination will be forbidden, we are also increasing the range of areas which are covered by it. We are including in the Bill employers, collective agreements and advertisements in relation to employment. Very importantly, in this day and age, we are including employment agencies and vocational training, an area I worked in for a number of years before coming to this House. Although many training courses are set up with funds from Europe or from the National Exchequer to address specific forms of discrimination and disadvantage in our society, in many respects it is important to look at them to ensure that they are achieving what they are intended to achieve and that they are not having unintended side effects in other areas. It is important that the various courses run by FÁS, Rehab, the NRB and other agencies are subjected to a fair amount of scrutiny as are the areas of employment that are covered in it.
I welcome the widening of the scope of comparison for equal pay compared with the 1974 Act. Like existing legislation, we are talking here about equal pay for work of equal value. I am glad it is being made expressly a term of every employment contract. In the 1974 Act comparison had to be made now with a person in employment at the same place. This Bill extends that. The comparison will be made now with the person who is employed to do like work by the same employers or by an associated employer. Criticisms have been levelled at this Bill that it does not extend the basis for comparison widely enough. However, in practice in other countries one finds that, while in theory many of them aim to extend the basis of comparison, in practice that has not happened. What is proposed here is a practical step. I hope it will be implemented and if it is, can be examined to see if it can be widened further.
I am glad the Bill includes a definition of sexual harassment in Irish law for the first time. I am aware of criticisms that this only extends the protection beyond the workplace to employment in its broader sense. We are, after all, talking here about a Bill which relates to employment. I am confident, now that the Minister has defined sexual harassment in relation to employment, that this or a similar definition can be taken up in other areas of law and in Bills produced by the Department of Justice and other Departments. The Bill outlaws sexual harassment in the workplace and in the course of employment. That is very important. The definition of sexual harassment is broad. It includes all sexually offensive, humiliating or intimidating actions involving acts of physical intimacy, spoken words gestures or the production, display or circulation of written material or pictures, or requests for sexual favours. I ask the Minister to look at the concern raised in relation to the definition in section 18 (1). It appears that what is covered is sexual harassment by a person of the opposite sex. I ask the Minister to re-examine it to ensure that the small but equally objectionable number of cases of same sex sexual harassment are also outlawed.
Those of us who had the opportunity to visit the JFK when it was moored off Deputy Keogh's constituency in July will have seen that an organisation such as the US Navy has no problem with this, and I would like to see the Minister give a time commitment for the removal of that exclusion.
I welcome the specific provision which allows for special beneficial treatment of women connected with pregnancy and maternity. There has been some misunderstanding of this provision in some of the criticisms I have read of the Bill. I do not believe the Minister is saying here that men should not get adoptive or parental leave. His record shows quite the opposite. It is allowing that women who are having children or adopting children have special needs and it should not be against the law to provide for this. It is a simple and sensible provision. The Minister has already put an Adoptive Leave Bill through this House. I welcome his commitment regarding the EU directive on parental leave. As somebody who would have liked to avail of such leave in the past number of weeks, I hope that measure will be forthcoming and that it will apply also to Members of the Oireachtas.
Part IV of the Bill is a most significant development. I compliment the Minister on stating specifically and clearly the wide range of grounds on which discrimination in employment will be forbidden. I am also glad it provides for positive measures to be taken. When equality legislation is introduced its interpretation can sometimes prohibit the positive actions which must be taken to promote equality in society. I welcome the express provision for proactive measures to promote equal opportunities between men and women and to integrate into employment people over 50 years of age, people with disabilities and members of the travelling community.
It is important, in the context of prohibition of discrimination on grounds of race, membership of the travelling community and family status, that harassment in the workplace is outlawed. I hope this provision will be included in other legislation. We have all heard of cases where people were harassed or subjected to bullying in the workplace because, for example, they were born outside the marital relationship. Where travellers have been lucky enough to secure employment it has not been easy for them to sustain it because of the remarks and behaviour sometimes directed at them. The small number of people whose skin colour is different from the majority of the population have been subjected to harassment in education, employment and society. This is an important measure and the protections for these people in employment should be extended to them in all other aspects of their activity in society.
Obviously, exclusions are necessary in areas such as personal health or social services. We must be open to people's sensitivities in those areas and provide for them. However, I am aware of a person who was refused entry to the Garda Síochána as a result of the differential height requirement for men as opposed to women. There is no reason that differential should be continued. It is a relic of the past. It is accepted that male and female members of the Garda Síochána are equal in all respects and it is unwise to continue that discrimination. The Minister should consult again the Minister for Justice and the Garda authorities in that regard.
I have reservations — but few helpful suggestions — about the exceptions on religious grounds. The Bill makes provision for discrimination by religious, educational and medical institutions run by religious bodies where discrimination is essential to maintain the religious ethos of the institution or where it is reasonable to avoid offending religious sensitivities of members or clients. Religious bodies and institutions play an important role in society. Historically, they have been important in education and medicine and currently they play an important role in social awareness and community activity.
This House should make proper provision in legislation for members of religious organisations and people with religious beliefs to exercise their beliefs as freely as possible. However, "religious ethos" should be better defined. The word "ethos" is comparable to a piece of elastic and I am concerned that the Bill's provision in this regard will be a means for lawyers to make plenty of money in endeavouring to decide what is covered by the term. Attention to this section on Committee State could avoid problems in the future.
To complicate matters further, according to my inexpert reading of the Bill, discrimination by religious bodies will not be permissible in the cases of gender, age or disability but will be allowed on the grounds of marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religious belief, race and membership of the travelling community. It is hard to understand how a religious body might wish to discriminate on most of those grounds. The provisions, although well intentioned, are wide and could be open to abuse. There have been cases in the spheres of education and medicine where religious institutions have overstepped the mark.
The provision should be clarified and that can only be done by basing the exception on grounds of religious belief because the other criteria on which discrimination is permissible involve some sort of judgment of external appearances by others. Religion is about one's belief and spiritual outlook on life. They are internal but expressed in various external ways. To make judgments on the basis of whether a person is married, their family status, whether they are gay or straight, black or white, a member of the travelling community or a settled person will prove extremely difficult in practice. That provision should be teased out on Committee Stage and something more specific should be brought before the House on later stages. It should, on the one hand, recognise religious freedoms and the importance of religious institutions and, on the other hand, balance individual rights against it and ensure that genuine exceptions on religious grounds are not used improperly or stretched to the point where people's individual liberties are not protected to the extent they should.
I welcome this important legislation. The tenor of the debate so far indicates that it will have a constructive passage through the Oireachtas. The Minister must ensure that when the Bill is law it will be made widely known and that the forms of redress available will be inexpensive, accessible and effective.
I welcome the Bill although I express reservations about certain provisions, particularly section 37 which deals with exclusions. The Bill is an improvement on earlier equality legislation. Fianna Fáil has always been anxious to promote equality in employment legislation and other areas of life and in ensuring social progression and equality of opportunity for people in all sectors of society, irrespective of religious belief or marital status.
A number of speakers have spoken about women participating in the workforce. There is still considerable concern about the lack of progress in that area, particularly with regard to equal pay. The Bill does not adequately deal with that issue and does not strengthen obligatory conditions to ensure that employers pay proper wages and so forth. More importantly, we do not yet have the infrastructure to facilitate the increased participation of women in the workforce. Denmark, for example, has a sophisticated and comprehensive early childhood education infrastructure. The provision of childcare is at a sophisticated level and well resourced. There is a correlation between that and a high participation by women in the workforce. The two are directly related.
Early education and childcare in this country is still at an embryonic stage. There have been State initiatives through Early Start but the great momentum in early education has come from women in communities through the IPPA and community pre-school playgroups, of which there are over 1,800. They receive little State support in the shape of meagre funds from the health boards. The figures for 1994, which were the latest available, show that only £2.5 million was provided for the 1,800 community playgroups throughout the country. That does not take into account the number of Montessori schools, private or otherwise, naonraí and other such facilities.
If we are serious about increasing participation of women in the workforce we need a radical and dynamic national policy on early education and child care. There is no co-ordination between Government Departments and no harmony between the voluntary community sectors and the early start programme. We all know the history of the conflict that developed between the early start programme and the community playschools. There could have been proper facilitation of both programmes had there been proper consultation in advance and if people had not felt threatened by the imposition of the early start programme. It is important that we adequately resource early childhood education and bring all strands under the one umbrella under a definitive co-ordinated State policy. The Denmark model is worth looking at. That country has a high percentage of women in the workforce and operates an effective child care system.
I endorse the comments of my colleague, Deputy Brian Lenihan, about the difficulty experienced by many women in accessing community employment projects and other FÁS programmes. Access to a course or to a place of employment at FÁS is dependent on social welfare record, the length of time one has been unemployed and the length of time on the live register. For historic reasons many women would not have a long record. It is important that people are trained but many women find it difficult to re-enter the workplace through a training process. We need to broaden the FÁS provision to facilitate the involvement of women. Widows who do not draw lone parent allowance find it extremely difficult to access FÁS courses and community employment programmes. There are specific courses but they are not adequate to cater for the numbers who apply. We have all had representations from women who are anxious to participate in courses but there were no places.
In regard to age discrimination I echo the earlier sentiments expressed by my colleagues. It is important that we make this statement so I welcome the provision in the Bill. In the past 20 years there has been an appalling age discrimination. As the economy developed with the decline of smoke stack industries and traditional large manufacturing concerns, many people aged 40 and 50 were made redundant. Their depression was exacerbated considerably by the reality that they need not apply for any more jobs simply because of their age. Society and employers generally were foolish in that regard.
Age and experienced still counts for much. Before I entered the House I worked in a secondary school. The principal fought a long battle to retain his position but eventually he had to give way at the age of 70. This gave me an insight into the value of age. That man's life was his school and his contribution was outstanding. When he passed away the school lost its dynamism and its spirit and closed a short time after. Modern society tends to write people off after a certain age.
A former leader, Mr. Charles Haughey, mentioned the Chinese who have a totally different perception of age. It is dangerous to dwell on the Chinese in terms of political leadership. Some people were worried when he stated that Chinese leaders go on and on. It is important that we reevaluate age profile and the contribution older people can make in the workplace. New industrial concerns can benefit from experienced older people. They can help set up industry and get it off the ground.
The section on disability is disappointing. We have received considerable representations from many people complaining about the medical definition of "disability" and should scrap it. The provisions outlined here could reinforce inequality and lead to abuse and unnecessary harassment of workers generally. The definition needs to be clarified.
The public sector should lead the way in terms of equality and opening up more opportunities for people with disabilities. It has failed to do that in a number of areas. The success rate of some local authorities varies in terms of meeting the 3 per cent quota. It is a disgrace after all these years that we still have not achieved that target in the public sector. I support our spokesperson's amendment to the effect that we should extend that 3 per cent target to the private sector, but it would have to be discussed in the context of the social partnership. If we are serious about the issue this is a laudable way to proceed.
There is much concern about the section dealing with disabilities and access to the workplace. While there is talk about integrating disabled children into schools and enabling teachers with disabilities to teach in schools it is pathetic that some schools do not have basic access ramps. I have heard the most appalling stories, as has Deputy Keogh who is the education spokesperson for the Progressive Democrats, about children being unable to go to school because of lack of basic facilities to enable them to get into the school building and to be comfortable in the classroom. I do not understand why the Government does not fund the installation of the most basic facilities in schools and other public buildings such as hospitals to allow people with disabilities proper access. Unless a clear commitment is reflected in the provision of adequate resources we stand indicted and our sincerity on this issue is open to question. As with all legislation, we must provide the resources to ensure its objectives are realised.
Section 37 excludes certain religious, educational or medical bodies from the provisions of the Bill. In education there is considerable concern about this section. If an employer can show discrimination is essential or reasonable in the maintenance of the religious ethos the employer can discriminate on the grounds of religion, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, race and the travelling community. It is difficult to understand how such a wide-ranging provision is included in this Bill.
The Minister would do well to inform the House what negotiations or consultations took place which led to this provision. What representation did he receive, from whom and what was the content of those representations? We need that type of transparency to understand the arguments and see whether we can arrive at a reasonable model that protects the rights and concerns of all involved. In education we have come a long way from the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s in terms of a religious bar on people entering the workplace. People are concerned that this provision could be open to abuse and that ethos could be used to debar someone from a job. Many religious bodies who control schools have a much broader approach to the issue than the one proposed in the Bill. Some of the provisions on marital status, etc. are extraordinary and we need to know more about them. The INTO and the ASTI are extremely concerned about the implications of this provision for teachers in the primary school sector. Will it lead to a moral witch-hunt to ensure that only people who behave in a certain way, have a satisfactory status, etc. are employed? I do not want to be alarmist but much concern has been expressed about this provision.
The Bill deals with equality but this provision could lead to inequality and practices not envisaged by the Minister. We must tease out the matter further on Committee Stage and consider the various arguments. I have no difficulty with the maintenance of a religious ethos. The position of the INTO — the general secretary has made this clear on a number of occasions — is that people who accepts a job in an establishment should respect its ethos. In the case of schools, parents may be involved in determining the ethos. A school's ethos is precious to it and nobody would wish to undermine it, but we are fooling ourselves if we think we can maintain the ethos or moral order of a school, etc. by way of legislation. These can only be retained and fostered in a collegiate way by the management and staff of schools, parents and pupils.
Serious reservations have been expressed about this provision and it needs to be teased out further on Committee Stage so that we can understand why it was drafted in its present form. The key issue is that institutions can maintain a particular ethos which can be used to discriminate against people, perhaps for the wrong reasons. We all know people who have not been offered jobs for a given reason which may not have been the real reason. We do not want this provision to be used as a cover for the practice of wholesale discrimination and abuse. This is a major concern in the education and medical worlds.
I congratulate the Minister on the Bill which hopefully can be amended on Committee Stage to improve the level of equality in the workplace.
I pay tribute to the Minister for the introduction of this Bill. Fianna Fáil is firmly committed to the elimination of inequality in our society. This is a complex Bill and I hope on later stages the Minister will further clarify some of its provisions. The Minister said he envisaged it would be a simple task to implement the Bill but, having looked at some of its provisions, I believe it will be more difficult than he thinks. What consultations has the Minister had and what submissions has he received since the publication of the Bill? These matters must be thrashed out on Committee Stage so that there is clarity on the implementation of the Bill. While much welcome employment legislation has been introduced it is important to consider the practicalities of implementing it.
The Minister may be aware of the concern expressed about the proposed legislation on the maximum number of working hours per week. It is important to acknowledge that it is not possible to legislate for all areas of employment. We must also take into account the challenges facing the economy and, in particular, those facing employers and employees. The factors which impinge on competitiveness for employers are the cost of implementing the legislation, the tax wedge, the levels of PRSI and VAT and other direct and indirect taxes. In the case of employees, consideration must be given to issues such as Sunday trading and the effects on the future prospects of employees who decide not to work on a Sunday.
While endeavouring to remove the obstacles to equality in employment we must ensure that we do not inadvertently put other obstacles in place. Many companies require flexibility in their working arrangements, for example, the use of short-term contracts, part-time work and other arrangements. This flexibility is required to enable companies to respond as effectively as possible to changing market circumstances and to match increased demand with additional employees. Labour legislation does not always allow for such flexibility. I accept the Minister is making a genuine attempt to improve equality in the workplace but there are many issues which have not been addressed to date. I hope I have the opportunity to discuss the Bill in greater detail on Committee Stage. I look forward with interest to the Minister's contribution. I ask the Minister to respond to all the areas covered, particularly disability. There are huge shortfalls in areas of physical or mental disabilities, especially in obtaining employment. There are also serious obstacles to continuing in employment.
I have dealt with a case in my constituency where people took someone, who was not given any hope by the institutions caring for them, under their wing. They guided that person through an educational programme and a physical development and training programme. Regrettably, there is no provision in place to ensure that person can travel to and from their place of residence to their place of training. This person would not have been able to achieve this if not for the encouragement of these two people who loved this individual so much. They have gone so far and find there is no transportation or support system in place to encourage that person to continue in employment or training. These are areas which are not covered in the employment equality legislation.
The Minister is aware of voluntary organisations and transport systems who are not receiving adequate funds to ensure they can provide a service for those with a disability, who require it if they are to be given equal opportunity. I know there are different options and avenues available to those who wish to avail of such services, such as special arrangements with employers and using supplementary welfare to avail of taxis. I have seen the great work done by the health boards in the special hospital care programmes, sheltered workshops and training programmes. People given this opportunity have progressed from such a sheltered workshop into the workplace, which they would not have had the opportunity to do in the past. We are putting work and effort into such development and then we witness the collapse of the individual. This warrants our special attention.
I ask the Minister to take account of the sentiments expressed by Members. I look forward to improving the Bill, perhaps by toning down sections and making it more simple. I welcome its development and look forward to participating on Committee Stage.
I thank Deputies who have contributed and assure them I will review what they have said in the coming weeks.
Having listened to the debate, I feel some Deputies may have lost sight of the ground breaking nature of this Bill. This Government, in striving to provide protection from discrimination on a very wide range of grounds, must address many complex legal, social and economic considerations. This Bill balances these various considerations and I make no apology in seeking to bring forward a measure which is sensitive to the many issues involved. In doing so, the Government has adopted a sophisticated rights based model which has been tried and tested in the gender area over the past 20 years, both in Ireland and Europe.
The Bill has been shaped in response to a wide consultation process. I know some, among them Deputies in the House, consider the Bill might have been developed further in some directions. Other groups regard the Bill as over generous in some of its provisions. It is a matter of judgement to strike the balance necessary to ensure viable legislation. I am always pleased to consider alternative proposals geared to refine that balance. I look forward to examining in detail any such proposals for amendment to the Bill on Committee Stage. In view of the time constraint, I confine myself to thanking Deputies. I will reply in detail to the points raised on Committee Stage.
I thank the Minister for the detailed reply he has circulated which will be helpful in consideration of the different elements of the Bill before Committee Stage.
Question put and agreed to.