Deputy Ahern has 12 minutes remaining.
Employment Equality Bill, 1996: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
It is 20 years since the Employment Equality Act, 1977, was passed by the Oireachtas. Since then a raft of legislation has been passed, much of it to prevent discrimination against women. The work environment has changed a great deal since 1977 — according to figures in this morning's newspapers 37 per cent of the workforce are women — and in many respects has changed for the better. Some jobs held by women are part-time but more of them are full-time positions. Women have full equality and that is reflected in the increasing number of women moving up the promotion ladder into senior positions. It is a good trend because a great deal of talent was wasted when women could not pursue their careers. Now, however, an increasing number of women are the sole breadwinners in their homes.
While we have solved the problem of discrimination against women, I am concerned that we have created other discriminations. In many respects we have created a two tier society, the haves and the have nots. In some suburbs of Dublin, for example, there are two jobs per family while in other suburbs there are none. In solving one type of discrimination we have, perhaps, created another.
This is a complex Bill but some issues have been omitted. The Bill refers to discrimination based on gender, marital and family status, age, race and so forth. However, the greatest form of discrimination in Dublin is what I call geographic discrimination. The city is riddled with it. The other forms of discrimination outlined in the Bill are real but they affect small numbers of people. Geographic discrimination is a major problem and affects more people that other forms of discrimination. I hold clinics four days each week and I encounter cases of such discrimination every week, yet it is ignored in the Bill.
Many of the benefits some people have gained in the last 20 years have been on the backs of the new unemployed. We have created a new category of socially excluded people who live in the newer suburbs of Dublin. People who live in certain suburbs cannot get a job because employers believe their postal address is bad. People are thus obliged to use the addresses of their friends and relations when applying for jobs. They hope somebody in the family has an address that is deemed respectable so they can use it as a first step to employment. I hope this issue can be dealt with by amendments on Committee Stage. I do not understand how it could have been ignored.
The Bill is appropriate if it is just an attempt to address EU directives. However, it should attempt to address real forms of discrimination. If gender and disability quotas apply on State boards and in various other areas of employment, we should have similar quotas for people who live in certain parts of Dublin where our policy of human set aside has had its greatest impact. The State should tackle this problem. I do not know how it could be defined. Perhaps it could be based on area partnership addresses. The State should take the first step by allocating a certain number of positions to people who live in certain parts of the city, after which it should try to apply the system in private sector employment. It should not just apply to low grade jobs. The saddest cases are where families have struggled to educate their children and put them through college. On qualifying, however, and having made the effort their children cannot break into their chosen careers simply because they do not have the right address, contacts or school tie and their father is not in the right golf club. That is a big problem which I would like addressed.
On the overall situation of women we have made progress, but much still remains to be done. The system seems to work against women who stayed at home, reared their families and are trying to come back into the workforce. They are not eligible for some of the community employment schemes and work options which are available to other people.
Women in single sex or segregated employments find it difficult to compare themselves with other workforces. A real problem area for women is the lack of crèche facilities. Until we provide proper crèche facilities women will not be on a level playing pitch. In the next budget I hope there will be some move to provide tax relief towards the cost of crèche facilities for parents who have children up to the age of four or five. This would be a tangible sign of our commitment in that direction.
In his contribution last evening Deputy Eric Byrne complained specifically about section 37 which allows certain religious educational and medical bodies to be excluded from parts of the Bill if they can show their decisions were essential to maintain the religious ethos of the institution concerned. I agree fully with section 37 and congratulate the Minister on it. Deputy Byrne may have difficulty in understanding some people's desire to maintain tradition. That his party has changed its name three or four times in the past ten or 15 years shows he has difficulty finding an identity for himself. It must be remembered that the ordinary members of educational, medical or religious institutions helped to pay for the facilities provided. As taxpayers they are enabling the State to put more money back into the education or medical facility. If I want to send my children to a Catholic or a Buddhist school because I want them to benefit from that ethos, I do not consider it a luxury or a privilege. It is something that as a taxpayer I have a right to do and since I am paying the State through my taxes, the State has a duty to assist me. Equally, no matter what my religion, the State should not discriminate against me or put any obstacle in my way if I want to send my children to a school which caters for my religion. The vast number of religious institutions are tolerant and respect people's private lives. Generally they are more interested in their employees' willingness to uphold the principles of the institution.
Employers make judgments all the time when giving jobs. As legislators our job is to try to set up fair principles. If I was the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, and was sending somebody to France to sell beef, as an employer I might deem it an asset or even essential that that person be able to speak French. Equally, if I am a principal of a Buddhist school I might consider it essential that a teacher be a Buddhist. That is understandable and the principle is reflected in the Bill. It is common sense and I go along with it. This applies even more in the case of the medical institution. Any hospital has a right to expect an ethical outlook from its employees that conforms to the ethos of the hospital. Ethics is at the root of medical attitudes. We must accept that various religious groups have a right to do their own thing and the State should not put obstacles in their way. Objections such as those raised by Deputy Byrne indicate unreasonable political correctness.
This Bill is trying to outlaw discrimination against minorities. In doing that we must not go overboard. Deputy Byrne probably felt as usual that this was an opportunity to have a crack at the Catholic Church. The minority churches will be much more interested in this Bill because they are more likely to be discriminated against than the Catholic Church which is bigger here. The Tallaght hospital case was at the root of Deputy Byrne's intolerant comments, which I hope others will not repeat. I respect people regardless of their religious views. We should not all try to be agnostics or to find only one common denominator so that we are afraid to enshrine sections such as this in a Bill. In some of the Eastern bloc countries where there was no religion some denominations are now flourishing.
I notice that trade union membership or political affiliation is excluded. I experienced harassment because of my political leanings and because I was also a shop steward. This type of thing affects a number of people and it should be addressed.
Discrimination on age grounds is a big issue. The Minister referred to it in his speech but section 34 seems to backtrack from the principles he enunciated. He is giving excuses to the people who want to discriminate. The section should be reconsidered. One of the points in that section is that it should be unlawful to relate wages to age. In many respects that was one of the few ways in which seniority was acknowledged. A 40 year old would get more than the person who was 30. It was a positive discrimination. The Minister seems to suggest that one person cannot be paid more than another on age grounds. That section, as I read it, is pulling back from what the Minister has said.
There is no doubt that people with disabilities have been discriminated against. I listened to Deputy Woods speak about the medical definition of disability. I agree with his assertion that we should concentrate on ability to do the job rather than on the medical certificate.
Sexual harassment is a growing problem and is being addressed in this legislation. All rights bring responsibilities. I wrote to the Minister about a case where a supervisor felt there was an unfair charge of sexual harassment against him. As we put more protections into legislation we have to ensure they are not abused. People such as supervisors who may be accused of discrimination also need to be protected. I support the protection of people's rights but we must equally ensure that these rights are not abused.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill which provides for the promotion of equality between employed persons and outlaws direct and indirect discrimination in employment. It also endorses many of the provisions in earlier Acts which deal with unlawful discrimination in employment on the grounds of sex, marital or family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race and membership of the travelling community. I agree with some of the reservations expressed and we must make whatever amendments to the Bill are necessary to further improve equality. All Members are united in support of the main thrust of the Bill which is employment equality, and we must ensure that there are no gaps or exclusions which would prevent this.
The progress made in employment equality in recent years has been due mainly, if not entirely, to directives imposed on us by the EU. There is a host of European equality legislation measures but the Commission chose directives as the primary method of instituting equality legislation. The main equality directives introduced to date have dealt with issues such as equal pay, equal treatment, statutory social security, occupational social security, the self-employed and pregnancy. In some cases recommendations were used when unfortunately there was a lack of political will to implement a directive while in other cases they were used as a preliminary step before the introduction of a directive. In this respect the most effective recommendation was on the protection of the dignity of women and men at work. I am glad EU directives are binding as there would probably be delays or deferrals if this was not the case.
The Commission was wise to leave the choice of forum and method of implementation of these directives to national authorities. Protection is provided for individuals in that they can rely on the provisions of a directive in legal proceedings before a national court or tribunal, even if a directive has not been implemented by the national parliament within the permitted time or has not been properly or fully implemented. Ireland has a good record in the implementation of European equality directives. The 1973 Equal Pay Directive was implemented by the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, while the 1976 Equal Treatment Directive was implemented by the Employment Equality Act, 1977. Ireland has occasionally been subjected to proceedings in the European Court for the non-implementation of directives but equality officers and the Labour Court have been imaginative and reactive in their approach to European developments.
However, there the glory ends. The progress made in employment equality over the past 20 years or so has been due entirely to directives imposed on us by the EU. We must be honest and admit that no equality legislation was introduced as a result of our initiative. Where would women be without EU directives? Women in particular must thank the EU for the improvement, protection and enhancement of their employment opportunities and status of their work. We should be ashamed of our failure to take the initiative in this area. It is a pity some Government did not, of its own accord, decide to provide equality of opportunity or to provide for equality in areas where there was blatant inequality. The benefits or otherwise of EU membership can be debated but there can be no denying that employment equality has been bred, nurtured and imposed on us by the EU. The equality dimension has gradually become part of politics. Gender balancing and gender proofing must continue and positive discrimination must be applied if we as a society are not willing of our own accord to recognise the rights of women and minorities.
While welcoming equality legislation it is important to look at the progress women have really made. Have they made the progress they are worthy of and are entitled to on the basis of merit and ability? We can change our laws but the real question is how we can change attitudes which are still firmly entrenched in the Irish mind. I welcome the labour force survey results published yesterday which show a massive increase in the number of women in the workforce. While they account for 37 per cent of the workforce, no doubt the majority of them are employed in low paid or part-time work. How many women, even with the support of equality legislation, have succeeded in climbing the promotion ladder to the top? A study on women in management in local administration undertaken by the Joint Committee on Women's Rights makes interesting and compelling reading. All Members should read, study and digest the results of this study. While legislation has opened the gate to the workplace for many women, there are still huge barriers to their promotion. The results of this comprehensive study are a revelation in terms of what is happening not only in local administration but in many other areas.
The study makes interesting but depressing reading. It confirms that even though more women than men are employed in local administration there is not one woman in the senior grades. There is no female city or county manager out of a total of 37 and no female assistant city manager or assistant county manager out of a total of 27. There are two female county secretaries out of a total of 26 and one female finance officer out of a total of 27. There is one female administrative officer out of a total of 23 and no female principal officer. It is a justified conclusion that men occupy the top positions in local administration. I remind the House that this report was published in 1996, when we still had a massive amount of equality legislation. What progress has this equality legislation achieved? There is still a serious barrier within the system which prevents women from climbing the promotional ladder.
This report showed that the absence of women on interview boards was a crucial issue. Vertical promotion within our local authorities starts with interview boards drawn up by them and progresses to the Local Appointments Commission. The report showed that none of the interviewing boards included women from middle management. Interviewing boards must comprise people at the level of the position advertised. Women are not reaching the higher positions and, therefore, are not qualified to be on the interviewing board. It can be concluded from this study that the Local Appointments Commission has a serious problem. Women are not reaching the levels of county secretary, finance officer, assistant manager and county manager and cannot represent these positions on interviewing boards.
This study was a revelation. Another report carried out by the Mid-Western Health Board investigated the progress of women in the promotional stakes and showed once again a dismal and depressing account. Women continue to fail to obtain promotion within the higher levels of local authorities. Female members of local authorities sit at meetings looking at the top table where all seats are taken up by male personnel. I accept there is an absence of women seeking promotion to the higher levels, which is not the fault of the women involved. They cannot make it through middle management to be qualified or to have a decent chance of success at senior management level. We presented the committee's report to the Minister and I hope there will be an improvement in the promotion stakes for women within our local authorities.
We can legislate to provide for equality of opportunity but how do we provide equality of outcome? There will not be true equality unless equality of opportunity is matched with equality of outcome. Under equality of opportunity, women are given the same starting opportunities as men. They are expected to participate as men in society, working within a system based on male norms. We must accept women are not the same as men in many respects, most fundamentally in the area of childbirth and family responsibility. Equality of outcome will be provided only when we can ensure men and women are equal despite their fundamental differences. While I am glad there is equality of opportunity, I am disappointed it is not permeating throughout the careers of women. There is no equality of outcome.
We do not have to look beyond this House to see the problems facing women in achieving promotion. The maximum number of women in Cabinet in any previous Government was two. Is there a hidden understanding that two is sufficient and will prevent any justified complaints that women are not getting their place at the Cabinet table? Why can it not be three or four? It is amazing that only two women have ever sat around the Cabinet table, irrespective of the welcome increase of female Deputies. Perhaps the reason Ireland did not take initiatives in introducing equality legislation of its own accord, without waiting for a directive from Europe, is in many ways due to the fact that there is not a sufficient number of female voices in this House. They do not have a say on decisions taken in relation to legislation. It would be a great day for Ireland if we could say we took steps of our own accord and were to the forefront in employment equality.
There are, however, many problems in ensuring women have equality of opportunity. The main areas in which Irish law does not provide for equality is in social welfare and maternity leave for self-employed women. As a rural Deputy, I speak on behalf of farmers' wives, who cannot make voluntary contributions to a social insurance fund. They are completely reliant on the self-employed worker's contribution, which means they are not entitled to a maternity allowance, nor do they have access to a replacement scheme during pregnancy. It is regrettable that no effort was made in the Maternity Protection Act, 1994, to bring these women within the scope of that legislation.
Providing equality of pay for equal work is not enough. We must break down the barriers which prevent women from participating in certain types of employment. We must accept that discrimination in education and vocational training was a barrier to women's participation in the labour market and a reason for a disproportionate level of female long-term unemployed. To break down these barriers, we must ensure women have better access to vocational training, better childcare facilities and better participation in the decision making process.
The only tangible decision made to ensure women are represented in the decision making process has been the gender quota introduced on State boards. Ministers making appointments to such boards are required to achieve a minimum representation of not less than 40 per cent of either sex. In 1991, 81 per cent of these boards consisted of men. The few women employed in the boards were in the lower levels. Much work remains to be done in ensuring we have equality of outcome. Women, while having equality of opportunity in employment, must ensure that equality does not end the day they get a job.
Many changes have been introduced. The FÁS action programme for women has been a tremendous help but there is still progress to be made in the area of childcare, a fundamental responsibility of women. Many women would make far better progress within their chosen career but for the lack of childcare facilities. I welcome the legislation. It is a precious opportunity to make further necessary changes in this area and to ensure that we have not only equality in employment legislation but in reality.
The Bill has had a long gestation period and many of its provisions are laudable. The Minister's role in equality and law reform is removed from other Departments and the Government within which he works. I am concerned about a number of issues that relate to other Departments which signal discrimination and inequality in the State sector. The Minister should be aware that while the Bill is laudable, the public will perceive it as the State putting in place legislation while other arms of it do not comply with the objectives of the Minister's Department.
Deputy Woods ably referred to the section on women and discrimination. He said that women face man-made barriers in recruitment, promotion, admission to training which leads to advancement and, more importantly, that they are locked out of State training schemes and work options, especially if they are homemakers. Many of these women are currently up in arms because of the discrimination and obstacles that prevent them from returning to the workforce, particularly under community employment schemes. In the past few months many of them have told me that when they applied for a place on community employment schemes they were informed that because they were not in receipt of unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit or a lone parent's allowance they were barred from participating in such schemes. In opting to stay at home and rear their children rather than go out to work these women have done an excellent job for the State, but when an opportunity arises for them to return to the workplace the State places obstacles in their way.
In reply to a Dáil question, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment indicated that the community employment scheme is geared towards the long-term unemployed and I accept that it is laudable to give persons who have been out of work for 12 months an opportunity to return to the workplace. However, as lone parents are allowed participate in the scheme, married persons wonder why they are barred, especially having made commitment to the State in rearing their children. The Minister must examine the barriers placed in the way of married women who want to contribute to the economy by participating in work schemes and training programmes.
We should cherish all our people equally. The lone parent's scheme introduced by the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, particularly the scheme he proposes to introduce in the 1997 budget, is inequitable in terms of married persons. Does the Minister consider it equitable that a lone parent working with a married person, whose husband is unemployed, should receive an extra tax free allowance of £6,000 per annum and continue to receive lone parent, rent, back-to-school and fuel allowances and a medical card? Does he accept that in such circumstances the married person would receive a much smaller wage than the lone parent? If the married person's husband received unemployment assistance it would be means tested and probably reduced and tax would be assessed on the combined income. Does the Minister accept that in such circumstances the married couple would automatically lose the right to a rent allowance, their medical card would be reviewed and the back-to-school and fuel allowances would be removed? I acknowledge that the Minister for Social Welfare is trying to get one parent families back into the workforce and out of the dependency trap, but does the Minister accept that we cannot discriminate against a particular sector in this manner? Surely the onus is on the Minister for Equality and Law Reform to ensure that if such allowances are extended to lone parents, married persons receive similar benefits. It would be interesting if a constitutional issue were made of this case. It is ironic that the Minister for Social Welfare readily admits that some married persons are disadvantaged but nothing has been done about it.
I am sure all Members welcome a Bill that proposes to remove barriers placed in the way of people with disabilities entering the workforce. The Minister's objective is laudable. However, the practicalities of the issue are such that the State itself is letting down the disabled. I would like to give a few examples. According to public service statistics regarding the employment of disabled people in various health board areas, the notional 3 per cent employment figure is being met only in the case of specialist agencies. The figure is not met by any health boards, barring the Southern Health Board of which I am a member. That did not happen by chance but as a result of our pursuing vigorously with the health board all matters relating to the employment of people with disabilities.
The percentage of staff with disabilities in various areas are as follows: 0.49 per cent, Mid-Western Health Board; 0.41 per cent, South-Eastern Health Board; 0.092 per cent, voluntary hospitals; and 0.76 per cent, North-Eastern Health Board. As for the State sector itself, the figure is 0 per cent in the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of the Taoiseach while in other Departments the number of disabled people employed is extremely low.
Some figures for local authorities include: 0.027 per cent, Westmeath County Council; 0 per cent, Longford County Council; 0.5 per cent, Kildare County Council; and 0.42 per cent, Carlow County Council.
Listening to this debate the disabled will be aware that the Minister is introducing legislation to ease discrimination that applies to them in obtaining employment. However, 80 per cent of people with disabilities are unemployed. It is an extraordinary figure about which we have done nothing for years and past Governments must also share the blame. The Minister cannot introduce legislation with an objective which other Ministers and Departments do not share. The Minister must ensure far more interaction between what he hopes to achieve and the reality of what his Cabinet colleagues and their Departments are doing.
Why are the Defence Forces exempt from the legislative provisions? Of all groupings within the State sector one would have thought that Defence Force personnel need and deserve protection against discrimination. In the overall context of the Bill it is ridiculous to omit them. By the very nature of the Defence Force regime's regimentation, autocracy and authority, regulations to ensure its members are protected would be appropriate.
Earlier, the word "paternalism", which is synonymous with autocracy, was mentioned. Do those who look after our Defence Forces, including the Naval Service, as well as the Garda Síochána and prison officers, still think they know what is best for those who work under them? If the Minister is asking the private sector to ensure the legislation is taken on board, it is extraordinary that a major arm of the State is being excluded from the Bill's provisions. It must sound ludicrous to them and ironic that it is allowed to happen.
It is also ironic that the Bill outlaws sexual harassment but fails to outlaw homosexual harassment. There is a total imbalance there which should be re-examined by the Minister on Committee Stage.
Indirect discrimination, which was touched on by Deputy Woods, concerns employers who often place requirements in a job advertisement which may appear innocuous but which make it far harder for certain sections of the population to obtain employment in such enterprises. The age old example is the height requirement for applicants to the Garda Síochána. This presupposed that if someone was not of a certain height they would not make a good garda. It caused severe difficulties, particularly for female applicants. We have all seen examples of such people who came through the interview system but were turned down on grounds of insufficient height at a medical examination. Similar problems still exist in the private sector and the Minister should examine them.
The undue hardship clause needs to be reviewed and facilities for people with disabilities need to be provided. Health boards and local authorities are often remiss in providing proper access for the disabled to various offices. The Minister is allowing a total-cop out for private sector employers who will be able to continue discrimination in the workplace against the very group the Minister is trying to protect. It would be more appropriate for the Minister to accept the reasonable accommodation arrangements suggested in the NESF report on equality proofing.
The medical model of disability is one of major controversy, and rightly so. The provision in the Bill defeats its own purpose and will effectively outlaw a person who, for example, has had a nervous breakdown but who has completely recovered. During the week I was approached by someone who had suffered a nervous breakdown six years ago. He had been open and honest about it but was convinced that the disclosure of his illness would prevent him from obtaining full-time employment. The Minister should look at the section which allows a health witch-hunt in such cases. Those provisions are extreme, unfair, unprogressive and should be reviewed on Committee Stage.
I welcome this important legislation. I support Deputy O'Keeffe's remarks about women in the home participating in community employment schemes. While we determine access to those schemes in regard to the long-term unemployed returning to work, I hope that under the terms of this legislation, various sections of which emphasise positive discrimination, it will be easy to provide flexibility to encourage and provide the necessary resources and back-up services to allow women in the home enter the workforce to a greater degree. However, one must be encouraged by the Labour Force Survey results published yesterday which reveal a new cohort of workers in the labour force. The number employed has increased by 45,000 of which 33,000 are women and 12,000 are men. There is almost a 4:1 ratio in the increase in employment in a gender specific area and that is welcome. The existing measures are bringing women into the workforce. However, most of the jobs created are in the service industry, a sector notorious for low pay and non-organisation in terms of trade unions. That area must be carefully examined.
This is fundamental legislation which has been a long time in gestation. I regret that Deputy O'Keeffe's party did not see fit to introduce such legislation before now and that it took the Minister, Deputy Taylor, to put this Bill before the House. I am glad there is all-party support for it. It has been long-standing policy, a key feature in our 1992 manifesto. Our party leader, Deputy Spring, introduced a Private Members' Bill on this subject in 1990. I regret it did not receive the support of Fianna Fáil or the Progressive Democrats at that time. While not wishing to harp on that, it is a telling point in view of the attacking remarks made by the Fianna Fáil spokesperson, Dr. Woods.
There are a great number of positive aspects to the Bill. It describes discrimination as the treatment of one person in a less favourable way than another. It is simple and straightforward. Nine distinct areas of discrimination are listed. They include gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religious belief, age, disability, race and membership of the travelling community. Those are broad areas where discrimination can occur and has been known to occur in the past. The Minister should consider adding a further area to the list. He indicated he will be happy to revisit sections on Committee Stage and I am sure he will welcome amendments. The category of refugee should also be added to the list. In the past there has been considerable discrimination against refugees seeking asylum and once achieving refugee status many of them have found it difficult to get employment. We have covered this area recently under the refugee legislation and there are specific measures dealing with employment in it. However, as this is a type of consolidation legislation, I would welcome the inclusion of that category as one that is at risk and where discrimination has been known to occur in the past and could occur in the future, particularly as guidelines have been drawn up and there are statutory provisions dealing with granting asylum in terms of refugee status to people from other countries. As more people in that category will be coming into the country, we should ensure this fundamental legislation includes that category.
The scope of the Bill is broad. It outlaws discrimination by employers in regard to access to and conditions of employment, training and promotion and discrimination in relation to any collective agreement with regard to access to and conditions of employment and equal pay for equal work.
It deals with the important aspect of advertising where any intention to discriminate could be adjudged. It also deals with discrimination by an employment agency against any person seeking employment under its service. It deals with discrimination in the provision of vocational training or instruction. It also deals with discrimination by a vocational body whether a trade union, professional body or trade association.
The provisions in regard to equality between men and women have been harped on widely during the debate. They will bring us into line with European Union equal pay and equal treatment directives as well as strengthening and protecting the Employment Equality Act, 1977 which, contrary to what Deputy Woods said earlier, is not being weakened or undermined by the provisions of this Bill.
Equal pay for work of equal value must be a fundamental guiding principle, irrespective of sex or any other factor that acted as a discriminating measure in the past. It must be a term of every employment contract and if it is excluded in any such contract it is deemed to be included. The Bill codifies for the first time in Irish law indirect discrimination in terms of remuneration — a welcome first. This is also the first time sexual harassment is defined in a Bill and incorporated into Irish law.
The Bill allows an employer to put in place positive action measures to promote equal opportunities. This will be welcome in removing existing equalities which might affect women's access to employment opportunities or training.
This is the first time in Irish law that a Bill extends protection to the Defence Forces. Considering the extent of the controversy in Britain and the United States in this arena, it is welcome that protection is included.
The Bill also allows for positive action in the non-gender sector through specifically providing for the integration into employment of those over 50, people with disabilities and members of the travelling community. It outlaws harassment in the workforce on discriminatory grounds and in the course of employment.
The Bill is broad-ranging, fundamental, has cross party support and is implementing and fulfilling the best international practice. It will put us ahead in most areas. We will be ahead of the United Kingdom and up to par with, if not ahead of, our European partners.
Section 16 deals with savings and exclusions. It provides that a person "who engages in or has a propensity to engage in any form of sexual behaviour to which an employer or any of the employer's employees, clients, customers or other business contacts might be at risk of exposure or might reasonably object will not be protected from discrimination in this legislation". Perhaps this wording could be improved. I am particularly concerned about the words "any form of sexual behaviour to which an employer or any of the employer's employees". An employer could employ thousands of people and any employee could object to the sexual behaviour of another employee. Such behaviour would be difficult to monitor and the section could, therefore, be open to abuse. This section refers to unwanted sexual behaviour but perhaps we should consider what is already deemed to be legal behaviour. Perhaps the Minister could define the type of behaviour which would be exempt from the protection of the legislation.
As a former secondary school teacher, I am concerned about section 37 which needs to be examined thoroughly. The provisions in this section are subject to constitutional requirements which must be adhered to. Section 37 refers to employment by "religious, educational and medical institutions run by religious bodies where discrimination is essential to maintain the religious ethos of the institution or is reasonable to avoid offending members". It is difficult to draft legislation for individual members. If I am a member of a religious community, I could be offended by the behaviour of someone looking for employment and whose sexual behaviour might be deemed to be a sin under my religious teaching. Such a person could lose the job, irrespective of their ability to do it, because they offended a member. It is another matter as to whether that person is entitled to be employed in other circumstances. The phrase, "to avoid offending members", is too wide and it will make this provision difficult to implement.
I welcome the Minister's suggestion that he will consider amendments on Committee Stage. The teachers' organisations are concerned about the religious ethos because the vast majority of people employed in education are from one denomination. It would, therefore, limit the scope for employment in terms of equal opportunities if the net is cast too widely in section 37.
I am also worried about employment in the Defence Forces, the Garda Síochána or prison service in so far as discrimination on grounds of age or disability are concerned. I am glad that discrimination on grounds of gender or sexual orientation, which has occurred in other countries, is not included. That puts us ahead of other countries which are experiencing difficulties in this regard.
It is important to provide resources and support to eliminate discrimination. One of the major obstacles facing women who want to rejoin the workforce, for example, is the absence of créches. If there are no places where children can be looked after, it will be a huge obstacle for women who want to go back to work. Although it may not be the Minister's responsibility, he should discuss it with the relevant Department.
I welcome this legislation which will benefit the workforce and other people who should not be discriminated against. When this legislation is passed, it will not only bring us into line with the rest of Europe and the United States, it will fulfil our international requirements and pave the way for good practice in other countries.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation. We have come a long way in the past quarter of a century in relation to anti-discrimination legislation. Many people, particularly women, could legitimately claim we have not come far enough or quickly enough and that their feeling of second class citizenship is still not without foundation. The events of the last few weeks, particularly the recent performance of the Minister for Health in this House, must once more cause women to question how much they are valued by the Government and society as a whole. Such events cast a shadow over the view women have of themselves and their value to society. I do not propose to rehash all the events leading up to the appointment of a tribunal of inquiry or indeed the disgraceful comments of the Minister for Health, but how can people have confidence in the Government to deliver equality when individual Ministers seem to have no concept of the principle?
The Minister has defined nine areas of discrimination in the Bill. I do not propose to repeat them, but I note he has left out the most important and widespread category discriminated against, people who, having returned to the workforce through economic necessity, are made pawns of in the most cynical fashion and used as cheap labour because they cannot afford to complain. There is nothing in the Bill to relieve their distress. Is the Minister aware where the real discrimination lies in society? There are thousands of workers, mainly women, who daily suffer the most humiliating experience, surrendering their labour for a pittance, knowing that their economic necessity is being exploited. The aspirations of the Bill are acceptable. Its deficiency lies not in what is included but in what is omitted. Without the will and the means to take positive action, its provisions are simply waffle.
There is sufficient legislation to ensure that women, including married women returning to work, are given a fair deal and are not subjected to blatant economic discrimination. It is obvious that there is lack of will to take action and of resources to ensure that is done. The Minister may not know what I am talking about and may not be prepared to accept what is going on, but low paid workers who depend on their supplementary income will readily identify with what I am saying. They do not enjoy security of employment, are denied access to unions and when they are dismissed for questioning their treatment they continue to be harassed and intimidated by employers in a manner which is almost impossible to prove. Their miserable wage keeps the home fires burning so they grit their teeth and get on with life.
The previous speaker, Deputy Costello, alluded to low pay for women, particularly in the service sector and the tourism industry. It is no surprise that when there are, supposedly, many more people working, a large number of them are women. Many of the jobs created in the service sector and the tourism industry are notoriously low paid jobs and, unfortunately, there is a huge turnover of staff in those areas. There is nothing in the Bill to outlaw the practice of paying women approximately £120 per week and in many cases much less. Theoretically, they can refuse to be part of such a system, but with dependent families they have few choices. There is a long queue of women waiting to take over, whose only employment prospect is low paid work. It is all right to talk about lofty principles, but if there is discrimination against women all the legislation in the world will not help unless it is properly implemented.
I would be a hypocrite if I did not welcome this and any other equality legislation that comes before the House. This measure is, however, typical of much of the legislation the Government has introduced. It suffers from what I would describe as the 3D syndrome: it is defective, delayed and deficient. I am prepared to give the Bill a cautious welcome on the grounds that some of its provisions are beneficial.
I am particularly pleased with the provision under section 9 to outlaw the practice of discrimination in the matter of remuneration where two people do exactly the same work but receive a different financial reward. I hope the Minister gave a copy of this Bill to his party and Cabinet colleague, the Minister for Education, who presides over a position where school secretaries who are jobsharing, for which they waited years, are paired with substitutes who are paid substantially less than their permanent colleagues. Worse still, the wrong is perpetrated under the guise of training by State agencies. That practice brings the Minister and her Department into disrepute. It is blatant discrimination. I raised this matter with the Minister for Education earlier this year and her lame reply was that if the school was interested in equality in the case of these employees, who are mainly women, it could make up the difference in remuneration, which she is not prepared to pay.
That is not a great commitment to equality. It rings very hollow against the background of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, which, if I remember correctly, was introduced by a previous Labour Minister who was subsequently leader of that party. The day of the yellow-pack job in the Department of Education has apparently arrived and, according to the Minister, is here to stay. Perhaps the Minister for Equality and Law Reform will take up this matter with his colleague, the Minister for Education, to see if the practice over which she presides is legal.
Section 16 provides that an employer may not be required to promote an individual who is not fully competent to undertake the duties attached to a particular position. It does not, however, specify how an individual may be deemed not to be fully competent to do a job for which he or she presents themselves. It may be difficult to prove.
I welcome the definition in section 23 of sexual harassment. In the present climate, with the large number of claims of harassment and the possibility that there are many cases yet uncovered, it is necessary to define sexual harassment and address the subject generally. Without getting bogged down in the details, I wonder if the Minister has his As and Bs in proper order in terms of this section. This is a matter which may be dealt with in detail on Committee Stage.
Section 26 excludes pregnancy and maternity from the grounds on which discrimination may not be practised. That is not only reasonable but necessary. I would ask the Minister to consider going further by giving the same status to a proposal by an employer to grant paternity leave. While I realise this is not yet a common feature of the social fabric, there are employers who may wish to grant such a right to those who have just become fathers. It would be unacceptable, however, for the remaining employees to demand similar leave entitlements without qualifying as parents.
The Bill provides for redress in discrimination cases in that it envisages the appointment of a statutory officer of equality investigations. The appointment of equality mediation officers is a very important part of the process and will be a welcome addition to the provisions already in place. In the case of previous appointments to agencies, the necessary resources were not made available even to start the work, let alone make a genuine contribution to the process. I trust the Minister will properly resource the new agency and that the director will not have to type reports because of lack of staff. If this new measure is to achieve worthwhile goals it must be given every opportunity to work. I welcome the provision for independent officers of the State to police the new measure, thereby creating a reasonable possibility of prosecuting cases under the legislation. I look forward to seeing how the legislation will be implemented in practice.
I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate and compliment the Minister on bringing the Bill forward. This is an important discussion in which there have been some good contributions and out of which many new ideas will come. I have no doubt that the Minister will be amenable to accepting whatever amendments backbenchers feel should be made, although many will not necessary.
The Minister is — and has been — extremely concerned for a long time about equality in the workplace, an issue about which I have often spoken to him. I have no doubt that he will receive the full support of the Cabinet, the Minister for Health in particular. From experience, there has been no more caring Minister for Health since I entered public life. He has visited my constituency on a number of occasions to give his time to the less fortunate, for whom he has shown consideration.
I wish to refer to the three sections in Part IV dealing with the rights of women, people with disabilities and workers. On the rights of women in the workplace, according to reports in today's newspapers at the time of the last census there were 488,000 women in the workforce, an all-time record. I am delighted with this. Approximately 37,000 of these entered the workplace in the 12 months up to April this year, a tribute to the efforts of the Government.
Women have proven themselves in many fields. The President is a shining light and carries the torch for women worldwide for which she is to be commended and respected.
Last Sunday I attended the women's All-Ireland football final between Monaghan and Laois in Croke Park. I also attended the drawn game. It was an excellent game of the highest standard, unlike the two games played between the men of Meath and Mayo who could learn much from the women concerned. It was first class entertainment and highly skilful.
The Deputy is biased.
I commend the Monaghan ladies on their great victory and hope they had a celebration. Five years ago, perhaps less, there would not have been more than 100 people present. Last Sunday there were over 17,000 in attendance, most of them men, who were there to pay tribute to the skill and sportsmanship of the ladies concerned.
If a woman wants to stay at home to mind her family she should not be looked upon as someone who has failed and, likewise, the woman in the workplace should not be looked upon as someone who does not want to mind her family in the home. Both have a role to play in society. If a family is fortunate enough to be able to support the home without the woman having to enter the workplace, she is extremely lucky.
There is a case to be made for granting recognition to the woman in the home whose work in tending the family is never seen. It was Garret FitzGerald who came up with the idea of a weekly payment of £9.50 but this never materialised. Many women were happy with this proposal, it would have been useful pocket money for the women concerned.
There should be sufficient flexibility to allow the woman in the workplace to spend as much time as possible with her family. The last thing I want to do is hurt women in the workplace but the role of the mother in the upbringing of children cannot be overstated, it is more important now than ever. A system should be put in place — flexitime or special leave — to allow this to happen provided it is not abused. While it has to be recognised that there is a need for continuity from the point of view of the employer, this aspect must be looked at to ensure that the woman in the workplace will have an opportunity to spend as much time as possible with her family, especially her young children during the years when the influence of the mother is so important.
Deputy Costello referred to the need to provide crèche facilities. While I accept that those who care for the children of working mothers do an excellent job, a mother cannot be replaced. This should be borne in mind if our society is to develop with the family at its centre.
The reason many women feel they have to work is that the cost of providing a home is spiralling. In many instances it is not possible to meet the cost of a mortgage with only one bread-winner. More than any other race, Irish people like to own their own property. I am totally opposed to residential property tax. It is outrageous that those who aspire to owning their own home should be penalised in this way, rather they should be encouraged and compensated. In many instances a second income is necessary. I have no objection to a wife who is either career-minded or feels she has to work being in the workplace but the role of the woman in the home is equally important.
All the voluntary organisations dealing with people with disabilities or a mental handicap will accept that tremendous progress has been made. The regulations state that 3 per cent of places in the public sector must be reserved for people with disabilities. By and large, local authorities and semi-State bodies have complied with this regulation. I am not sure whether there is a similar regulation governing the employment of people with disabilities in the private sector. While more and more people with disabilities are entering the workplace, problems are still being encountered. If the person with the disability experiences difficulty in gaining access to the workplace, the job will not be available to him or her. Much work needs to be done in providing convenient parking areas, ramps, lifts and suitable toilet facilities for people with disabilities. Such measures would not be costly but they are extremely important. In many cases these facilities are not available simply through an oversight.
Another important point concerns the floor covering in the workplace. Many outer door entrances and exits are extremely dangerous for people with disabilities. The design may look attractive with perhaps marble around the doorway but that can become extremely slippery and pose a great danger to people on crutches or in wheelchairs. Floor coverings with a certain amount of grip, such as carpeting, should be used so that people with disabilities can feel confident and maintain their integrity in the workplace. I know the Minister will take note of these points.
On the question of the rights of workers, a prolonged strike over a number of small issues occurred in my county recently in an industry which offered good employment and excellent wages. The business concerned employs approximately 500 people; I do not intend to name it because the strike was settled and the business was saved. Those workers did picket duty despite being reasonably happy with their employment and conditions of work. The strike came about because the workers were not fully involved with their union. Shop stewards in the factory decided to call a strike. Approximately 30 members of the workforce dictated to the other 500 how they should act. The workers went out on strike against their will and continued for almost three months. It may be difficult to believe that could be the case but it happened.
I pay tribute to the role of the media in strikes. Reporting by the local media in my county on the strike I mentioned was balanced and constructive. After several pleas to the workers to be courageous and defy the people who were dictating to them, the industry was saved.
Workers must be fully informed of what is happening in the workplace. The majority of them want to work and if the working conditions and wages are reasonable, they will be satisfied. Unfortunately other people want to pursue their own agenda and become known as persons who can force the pace. A lesson was learned in the case I have mentioned and an industry was saved.
Workers can become too complacent. They elect somebody to represent them and leave it to that individual to do their business for them. That is not good enough. In every walk of life people must ensure the representation they are getting is what they want. They must not allow themselves be dictated to by a handful of individuals with an interest in climbing the union ladder at the expense of workers who may be cast aside.
The points I have made are important to me. I have every confidence the Bill will be of major benefit and will ensure that people get fair entitlement to jobs they are seeking.
Since passing the Employment Equality Act, 1977 Ireland has taken great steps forward in the provision of equality legislation. The Employment Equality Agency has been efficient and effective in the way it has realised the law and superintended its implementation. The Employment Equality Bill is to be welcomed in that it has the best of intentions and contains some welcome provisions. However, it fails to address the key employment issues of concern to people with disabilities. This area has been raised by many speakers in the debate. The Bill does not contain any adequate measures to help people with disabilities overcome exclusion from employment opportunities which has led to the unemployment rate of 80 per cent.
Many speakers raised the issue of the 3 per cent quota of people with disabilities in the public service. Deputy Batt O'Keeffe pointed out this morning that the Departments of the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste do not employ any people with disabilities. There is a general requirement to have a 3 per cent quota, and some Departments have an excellent record in this regard, but Departments are not obliged to adhere to it. The Government seems to hold the view that if there is a general 3 per cent quota it does not matter that the Departments of the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste do not employ any people with disabilities. That is wrong. It behoves the Minister to ensure that every Department employs a minimum of 3 per cent of people with disabilities.
Other speakers referred to the health boards and the local authorities. Health boards and local authorities are not obliged to implement the 3 per cent quota. That is wrong when one considers that the health boards provide many of the medical treatment services to people with disabilities. Each local authority and health board should be obliged to employ 3 per cent of people with disabilities. I agree with other Members who stated that the private sector should employ a minimum of 3 per cent of people with disabilities. That would ensure true equality in employment.
The consolidation and extension of equality law is welcome but following a delay of three and a half years the Government should have produced a Bill which would deal effectively with the obvious problems confronting people with disabilities. It is intended that the Bill will introduce a ban on discrimination on the basis of disability. That is commendable but there is no specific provision to help this to become a practical reality.
Many of the proposals in the Bill are fine in theory but what will the Government do to ensure they are implemented? It is not good enough to pass a law saying that all people must have access to employment if one has no way of getting into or around the workplace itself. The savings and exclusions section of the Bill is symptomatic of this misguided attitude. In section 16 (1) (b) the Bill states that there is no employment obligation if the individual concerned is unable to carry out the duties attached to the position. The section says: "having regard to the conditions under which those duties are, or may be required to be, performed". In other words, if facilities are not there to accommodate a person with a disability, the employer is off the hook. The individual is then condemned to an existence on welfare. That is not good enough and the elements of the Bill dealing with this are not strong enough. This element will have to be approached again because people were hoping to see some type of positive action and reality in the Bill in regard to accessing the workplace.
A total of 80 per cent of disabled people are unemployed because of the inaccessibility of the workplace, not because of their disability. This Bill does nothing to ensure that will change in practice. All international experience shows that one must include a framework of positive action if disability legislation is to be effective. This would deal with adapting buildings, provision of accessible transport and a balance between public and private responsibility. The Minister cannot simply wave a legislative wand and hope the Bill will magically eradicate the gross inequity that has left a huge proportion of people with disabilities unemployed. In itself, the legislation is not enough.
The same objection arises in relation to section 16 (3) which states that a person who has a disability shall be considered fully competent to undertake any duties "if, with the assistance of special treatment or facilities, that person would be so fully competent or capable". Is there any chance of this provision being effective in the absence of a framework for positive action?
The Minister can promise the earth, moon and stars to these people but without funding and enforcement the Bill is likely to exist in theory but to be of no great value in practice to people who want something to happen. Perhaps the Minister would consider a straightforward tax incentive for employers to assist them in the provision of the special facilities mentioned in the Bill.
Section 35 (4) (b) provides, inter alia that the Bill does not apply to discrimination on the disability ground if special facilities would be needed to undertake employment, the cost of which “would give rise to undue hardship to the employer”. This was mentioned by other speakers but clearly “undue hardship” runs contrary to the concept of reasonable accommodation. It is open to the widest possible interpretation and offers a handy opt out clause to employers lacking the will to accommodate people with disabilities. It also absolves the Government of any responsibility for the provision of meaningful funding in this area, as other speakers mentioned. If the Bill was to provide for positive action in access to buildings, transport and education there would be far less discrimination for the Equality Authority to deal with. We are not giving enough teeth to the Bill when we establish the Equality Authority and as a result there will be numerous cases before it.
There has been much debate here on the social versus the medical aspect of definition and it is very important. The definition in section 2 of the Bill gives considerable offence to people with disabilities. For many it is not just offensive but far too complicated. The addition of disability as a new area of competence within employment equality legislation is welcome but it is crucial that it is brought into that remit in a sensitive way. The social model of disability envisages the removal of disability as a description for many people by the proper provision in workplaces of facilities such as ramps. A person is only disabled, in many instances, because there may be stairs in the way or a lack of pedestrian crossings or transport facilities. The social model of disability is aimed at preventing thousands of people from being described as disabled in relation to employment. Unfortunately, the Bill uses the medical model of disability. It is an insensitive and unfortunate misconception which further marginalises the issue and reinforces prejudices among employers and members of the public.
I also seek the Minister's commitment to reassess the working of the legislation relating to section 37 (6), which concerns the Defence Forces, the Garda Síochána and the prison services. This has also been mentioned by other speakers. There is no conceivable reason that a host of administrative and other duties carried on in these services should not be scrutinised as other employers might be. With a little more imagination, these services could take a lead in accommodating people with disabilities within their staffs.
Another concern with the Bill is how it affects women. There are ongoing barriers to recruitment and to State-run training schemes faced by women in the home as well as continuing low rates of pay. Deputy Kenneally spoke on the issue of low pay for women. Those in the private sector face low pay but there are also examples of low pay for women working for the State. Women in the home help service are paid £1.45 per hour.
These issues must be addressed with positive action. The Employment Equality Agency has done an excellent job to date on the gender element of employment equality. We are changeing it to the State's Equality Authority. It must cover all equality issues and has new responsibilities concerning people with disabilities, of different ethnic origins, etc. However, the Authority has not been given advance funding for this and there is no recognition of the need for additional staffing and research. There is one very basic problem with the Equality Authority taking over the area of disability in that the existing building is inaccessible. The minute the legislation is passed and people with disabilities attempt to contact the new Authority, they will be unable to access the existing building. The Minister said we must wait until the legislation passes before providing funds but as soon as the legislation is passed people with disabilities will telephone the Employment Equality Agency and expect it to understand what they are talking about. They will want to access that building. These are immediate practical problems.
The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights is researching the existing position of the Employment Equality Agency, its future role as the Equality Authority and how it addresses equality for women. The committee contacted the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, suggesting research be carried out by his Department on areas outside the committee's remit. It is essential that this takes place now as this Bill will pass, even though it needs a lot of work. We need to identify how adequate funding and resources can be provided to the agency for the transition period before the legislation comes into operation. I appeal to the Minister to look at this again. If there is a lack of funding and commitment from the Government on implementation of elements of the Bill, then we are talking about what may be good in theory for women, people with disabilities and other groups, but we may be going nowhere. We need positive action and practical reality instead of theory that is no good in reality.
When this Bill is passed, the Employment Equality Agency will be responsible for implementing it. I want the Minister to announce today that he intends to allocate a certain amount of money to the agency to enable it to research its new role and begin its work. It is necessary also that the agency should move to a new building. We cannot support a position where the equality authority of the State continues to operate in an inaccessible building when it has to deal with people with disabilities. All of this needs to be addressed now. It will be a bit late when the Bill is passed.
It has taken three and a half years to produce the Bill and the process is not over yet. We will be bringing forward amendments, especially with regard to the element of positive action as opposed to what we might like to see in theory.
It is customary in this House to begin one's contribution with the phrase "I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate". This phrase is as much a courtesy as it is a useful entry into a speech, but not on this occasion. I am delighted to speak on this Bill. I am delighted it is before this House, and I am delighted but not surprised that it has been introduced by a member of my own party, Deputy Taylor, Minister for Equality and Law Reform. This Department is only a new one, but in its short life it has done more to update our civil laws than any other body in the history of the State.
There are those who say that Bills like this are not important, that the public do not get excited about them. Perhaps that is so. However, Bills like this are essential to confirm our standing in the wider world. After the implementation of this Bill and the Equal Status Bill Irish men and women will be able to hold their heads up high in the best of foreign company.
The Minister has stated that the passing of this Bill will place Ireland among the most open and pluralist states in Europe. With the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the correct decision by the then Minister for Justice, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn regarding the age of consent for gay people, this Bill will do more for Ireland's international reputation on human rights than any Bill before it. By making it illegal to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation in the military, the Minister will succeed in going one step further than a President of the United States who is about to be re-elected.
Some people suggest that Bills like these represent a victory for liberals over traditional Catholic values. This is not the case. They represent a victory for tolerance over authoritarianism, for inclusion over divisiveness. In his speech the Minister outlined a brief history of equality legislation. Those involved were no mere liberals. They have been socially concerned people, if not socialists, and their concern has not only been for individual freedoms but the welfare of society as a whole.
We have made huge progress since another Labour Minister introduced the first Employment Equality Act over two decades ago but we still have a long way to go. The Minister outlined a number of instances in which discrimination continues to take place. While reports like the EU Labour Force Survey of 1989 are welcome, they only confirm what we already know. The Minister has led the way in addressing the issues of gender equality. His establishment of a gender quota on State boards is a purposeful attempt to address the absence of women at decision-making levels. I welcome the improvement of 11 per cent in terms of representation by women on State boards from 15 per cent to 26 per cent, but I urge the Minister to press ahead to achieve the stated goal of 40 per cent. He is right to suggest that there are few people who can justify active discrimination. That does not mean these measures are not being put into practice. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that they are, and as more and more women come into the labour market the effect of this distorting practice increases and the problems it causes grow all the more.
I welcome too the emphasis the Minister has placed on addressing discrimination by age. This is an important issue which has become considerably greater following the decline in employment opportunities in the 1980s. Although we have thankfully turned that particular corner, I suspect that the continued young profile of our labour force continues to facilitate discrimination against those of more mature years. Nobody should underestimate the impact on an individual who is told that she or he can no longer contribute actively to the welfare of their own families or society at large. The Minister is correct to point out that the real losers from this kind of discrimination are employers. By overlooking somebody of mature years, somebody who is a traveller or somebody who is disabled they often overlook somebody who could make a huge contribution to their enterprise. This kind of employment practice which has increased of late is a further indication of the short-term perspective of many employers today and reflects a problem which goes beyond a just discrimination. Traditionally, we have had difficulties in implementing our equality and labour legislation. I welcome the establishment of a Director of Equality Investigations to ensure that people who suffer discrimination have as simple a recourse to law as possible.
I listened with interest to the contribution of Deputy Michael Woods to this debate and I welcome his party's conversion to the equality cause. Deputy Woods raised a number of points. In effect, his contribution represented a piecing together of various press statements by interest groups. There is, of course, nothing wrong with that if one understands the purpose of the Bill. I listened to Deputy Woods's criticism of section 37. I have my reservations about it too, but I am honest enough to recognise that we are bound by the Constitution. Are Deputies Woods and Ahern prepared to sponsor an amendment to the Constitution to remove the constitutional protection for denominational education? Is this what they will do if returned to office? Could this be why so many of their rural Deputies are no longer keen to carry the Fianna Fáil flag in the forthcoming election?
Deputy Woods objected to the definition of equality in the Bill. This says more about his lack of understanding of the Bill than anything else. The Minister has already apologised for the delay in publishing the explanatory memorandum. It would appear that Deputy Woods has suffered substantially for its absence.
Deputy Woods complains that the definition used by the Minister applies to everybody. Why should it not? Surely that is the purpose of the Bill. Who would Deputy Woods exclude if ever Fianna Fáil got round to producing an Equality Bill of any kind? As Deputy Costello has already stated, if Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats were so interested in legislation of this kind, why did they vote down my party's Private Member's Bill almost seven years ago?
Similarly, Deputy Woods states that we are changing the legal definition of discrimination under the 1977 Employment Equality Act. From my reading of Deputy Woods's contribution, it seems that what we are doing is confirming in statute what is already the position in common law.
Deputy Woods raises concerns about section 64. Here he is on firmer ground. I recognise the necessity for the section. There are forms of sexual behaviour to which this Act should not apply. I do not need to spell them out here. However, this section would be considerably strengthened if the Minister were to accept an amendment which differentiated between legal and illegal sexual activity.
Deputy Keogh said her party will support the legislation. No doubt it will do so grudgingly, as it has grudgingly supported any regulatory measures in the labour market. Deputy Keogh would do well to enunciate more strongly at meetings of her parliamentary party, her concern for groups who find themselves on the margins of society. The Progressive Democrats cannot have it both ways; they cannot ask for measures to protect people with disabilities or the less well off while seeking to cut the guts out of the social support system. As the Minister of State, Deputy Burton, said in a letter to The Irish Times this morning, if we are serious about these issues there is a case for more and not less social spending. The Progressive Democrats are against such an option and that is their choice. Deputy Keogh should spare us the crocodile tears. They are wasted on Deputy McDowell and Deputy Harney so she has no business shedding them here.
I welcome the Bill. It is complex legislation and no doubt there is room for improvement. To that end I welcome the Minister's commitment to view amendments with an open mind. He has done so in the past and it has led to improved legislation.
Fáiltím go ginearálta roimh an Bille seo ach caithfidh mé cúpla ceist a chur. An mbainfidh mórán daoine tairbhe as? Cén fiúntas atá ann do dhaoine nach bhfuil ag fáil cothrom na féinne in a gcuid fostaíochta i láthair na huaire? An bhfuil Achtanna Oireachtais ann cheana nach bhfuil ag obair go maith? Cén difríocht a dhéanfaidh an Bille seo?
There is widespread acceptance, which has existed for some time, of the need for this legislation. A number of speakers have complained that despite such acceptance the legislation has not been introduced until now. Nobody knows better than the Minister how difficult it is to frame legislation which successfully addresses the issues at hand which is constitutional, workable and manageable. It is generally accepted that the Minister has made a decent attempt to fulfil those criteria in this Bill. The Minister appreciates the views of Members who have referred to possible difficulties with the Bill. In my experience he has been willing to accommodate, if possible, the views expressed on all sides of the House.
One reason for introducing the Bill is the need to ratify EU and UN conventions and agreements. I sometimes take a jaundiced view of their interventions in State affairs. Sometimes they are positive but sometimes they are daft. Their effect can be to undermine rather than support and in many instances they are unsuccessful and do not work for the good of society. On this occasion, in so far as they have spurred us to take action, they are welcome and the outcome will be positive.
Having conceded that the Minister had a difficult job in framing this legislation, we must ask if it will work. Will it do the enormously difficult job for which it is drafted? Is legislation the best way to do that job? The need to introduce this type of legislation is sadly well established. It has been the experience of every Member of the House, as has been clearly enunciated by several speakers, that there are appalling examples of mistreatment of employees and inequality in the treatment of employees in certain sectors of employment. We must attempt to address the problem. However, we must also ask if legislation will be the most effective means of doing so. We have conceded that it must be part of the means. It is only reasonable and proper that the parameters regarding equality and other issues addressed by the Bill should be clearly set out. However, it would be a great mistake to believe that just because that has been done, even if it is in the most effective way possible, it will be enough. We will discover that it is not. We will have to be prepared to invest substantial State resources in supporting the legislation. Previous speakers have referred to that.
Members of the House have often made the mistake of thinking that because we have enshrined certain principles in legislation and established them as targets to be achieved, they will be achieved automatically. It will most assuredly not happen on this occasion. While it is agreed that the aims of the legislation are worthy, people who have encountered practicalities in this regard will have a nagging doubt that legislating for such principles will be enough. Resources and more than just bodies must be put in place. The Minister proposes as much and intends to create new positions. I have sympathy for the people who will fill those positions. Their work will be extremely important and we must concede that we have been slow to recognise the need for that work. Despite the fact that each Member is aware of issues which ought to have been and could have been dealt with, we were not able to do it. It was not always simply because the legislation was inadequate. More frequently it was because the resources were not available.
A number of speakers referred to the forthcoming report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. We look forward to it with considerable interest. I have no difficulty in confessing that had I not been approached by people working in that area and by people with disabilities, I would not be as well informed about the difficulties they encounter in their daily lives. I would also not be as willing to come to the House and declare that their difficulties ought to be addressed. Indeed, I would not be sufficiently informed to do so. That is probably common to all Members of the House although perhaps not every Member would admit as much.
The Minister has great commitment in that area and is probably somewhat embarrassed when Members of the Opposition press him for the publication of the report. However, both in this House and in society there is greater understanding and commitment to doing something worthwhile and far reaching for people with disabilities. There is also a slow realisation that many people with disabilities have as much, and perhaps more, to contribute than those who are fortunate to be able bodied. I am glad my job has given me the opportunity to meet people with disabilities and to appreciate what they have to contribute. I look forward to the publication of the report. In so far as this legislation addresses problems encountered by people with disabilities, I welcome it, despite my doubts about it necessarily being successful.
Tourism is one of my areas of responsibility in Fianna Fáil. A number of speakers have referred to the appalling pay and conditions in some areas of the services sector and the tourism industry. It is a fact and a scandal. The people who suffer as a result of such conditions and appallingly low wages are, by and large, women. Sadly, almost all of them are working in such jobs not from choice but because they must support their families.
It is notoriously difficult for the State to intervene in this area and to enact legislation which effectively deals with the problem. The more I have raised the matter by way of parliamentary question the more I have become aware of the inadequacies of the system. As late as yesterday a question I had put down to the Minister for Tourism and Trade was transferred to the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Richard Bruton. The answer sets out how poorly equipped we are to deal with the difficulties in that area. He said among other things that where disputes arise the services of the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court are available to the parties. It is very fine for all of us in the House to know that but for the people who have difficulties that is virtually of no advantage. Under various industrial relations Acts from 1946 to 1990 he informs me that trade unions or other organisations claiming to represent a category of workers may make application to the Labour Court for the establishment of a joint labour committee, known as a JLC. That is in place and it ought to be able to address the problems. The essential point I am making is that many strong provisions already exist of which people are aware but they are not working.
The function of the JLC is to draw up proposals for fixing the minimum rates of pay and conditions of employment for the workers involved. The proposals are submitted to the Labour Court and are confirmed through the making of an employment regulation order which governs the statutory minimum pay and conditions of employment for the workers concerned. That is a good start and it has established the benchmark but in practice this procedure is not readily open to workers in individual premises. I was surprised to learn there are three JLCs in operation which impact on tourism related employment, two cover the catering area and the third covers hotels. In the case of the hotel JLC Cork city, Dublin city and Dun Laoghaire are not included. I do not represent those areas but I am surprised they are not included in something which is important to their pay and conditions. A labour inspectorate of the Department of Enterprise and Employment enforces these requirements. The Minister said: "In the final analysis any decision to set up a JLC or to extend the remit of a committee would rest with the Labour Court". While the system in place appears to be a good one we all know it is not working particularly well.
I hope the enactment of this legislation will go some way towards addressing the problem but I am not confident. When the legislation is in place I hope that will not be the end of it, that there will be an active pursuit of its aims and objectives and that the resources will be in place to ensure it is enforced.
A matter which has come to my attention is the type of accommodation which is made available, particularly to young people who work away from home in the hotel sector. In some instances the accommodation is truly appalling. I do not know how exactly that should be addressed, under what legislation or under the aegis of what Minister. Certainly it is an area where equality is not extended to a particular element of the workforce, be they male or female, but generally they are female. They are vulnerable people and in some cases are working appallingly long hours. Part of the excuse is that accommodation is provided. Surely some minimum standards in relation to accommodation should be in place. Regular inspection is an absolute prerequisite. This matter is of grave concern since I have become aware of its extent.
Previous speakers referred to the difficulties married women encounter when they try to return to the workforce. It is an area which is difficult for the women involved and there are many reasons for this. Besides the lack of opportunity many married women say that having been out of the workforce for eight, ten or 12 years they have a difficulty in terms of their own confidence about returning to employment. Virtually all of them feel the Houses of the Oireachtas and people in power pay no more than lip service to their position. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to do much more than is proposed in the Bill but he will have been impressed by the number of people on all sides who have been prepared to draw attention to this matter.
On the issue of women working and the conditions under which they work, we need to realise that a substantial number of women in the workforce would prefer to be in the home at a particular time in their lives but they do not have that opportunity because of the economic reality for their family. Likewise many women who would like to have the opportunity to work part time or full time are confined to the home because the conditions of employment which might be available to them are simply unacceptable. There are two sides to the issue: those who are working and those who are not working, both of whom are at an equal disadvantage and equally dissatisfied with their situation. It would be a great boost to them and the country in a great many ways if the matter could be addressed. I accept the Minister has not much leeway to go further than he has gone on this occasion. More than anyone else on the Government side I look to him with confidence to address this issue. However difficult it may be and however impossible one may consider the obstacles it is a difficulty for a large number of people and one which could hardly be beyond the ingenuity of the State to address over a period.
I am interested in an EU statute of 1980, SI No. 306 dealing with the protection of employment and the transfer of undertakings legislation. I think it was subsequently enacted here. Under this legislation people who are employed by a company which is carrying out a contract have a right to transfer to a new company which is successful in gaining that contract when it comes up for renewal. It appears that the statutory instruments and the legislation are in place but there are examples where it has not worked. A recent example in my area involved the air, sea and rescue service where a UK company was successful in winning the contract previously held by Irish Helicopters. In that example the end result was favourable and the workers who are specialist people were taken on by the new company.
There was one previous occasion in regard to the contract in the Celtic fields where people who were equally specialised were not taken on by the new company. When they sought the protection of the legislation of this country they found either that it was not adequate, that it did not do what it was required to do or that an employer could with impunity ignore it. At the end of their period of employment these people are hardly in a position to pursue a big multinational company through the courts. When I raised the matter earlier in the year by means of a parliamentary question that is what I was told. Despite the fact that this legislation is in place and that these workers have certain rights in relation to the new contract — which in this instance happens to be a State contract — the only way they could ensure they have that right is by going through the courts through a very expensive and long drawn out process which they could not afford.
Fortunately, on the last occasion the company opted to take on these people. In future more people with specialised knowledge will be employed on a contract basis over a period of three-five years. Many people will have to move to different areas and acquire accommodation, thereby incurring substantial expenses. If the company is unsuccessful at the end of the contract period these people will have much less protection than I have been led to believe or the legislation would lead one to believe. This relates to my earlier comments about the real protection offered by legislation.
I ask the Minister to look at this area. He may say he cannot accommodate it in this Bill but he will have future opportunities to deal with it. I wish him well with the equal status legislation. I am sure that, like me, he has received conflicting recommendations from different groups, but he will find a way of dealing with all these concerns. I have also received representations on the Unfair Dismissals Act and I might take these up directly with the Minister. While the judgments in the vast majority of cases are sensible and justified, there are undoubtedly some vexatious ones. Many employers believe employees who take cases are guaranteed some payout as otherwise the legal team will go without. This perception may be unfair but it needs to be addressed.
There is a huge number of women in the teaching profession, yet there are very few female school principals. I do not have time to deal with this issue as the Chair wishes me to conclude.
Many people have been waiting a long time for the introduction of this Bill which was always "just about" to be published. I congratulate the Minister and his officials for introducing legislation which is an important marker on the road to ensuring equal opportunities. The equal status legislation is another important aspect in our attempts and work over a long time to ensure that equal opportunities become part of the mainstream of life.
I welcome the vision shown in extending protection in employment to many different groups and, in particular, to minority groups. Many people believe minority groups are well protected but their experience is hidden and it is very difficult for their members to articulate what is happening to them. There have been some changes and these experiences are coming into the open to a greater extent.
The Bill makes a clear statement on the Government's approach to discrimination. It states that employers cannot discriminate on the grounds of sex, marital or family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race and membership of the travelling community. These incredibly important provisions affect a huge number of people in many ways. The Bill sets a standard for the treatment of all people in employment and clearly states that discrimination will not be tolerated. The introduction of this legislation is the mark of a developed democracy.
This long awaited Bill puts us to the forefront in Europe in terms of equality legislation. We must ensure it takes us forward in all the areas it addresses. I hope the Minister will be open to considering the concerns expressed about the legislation. Some groups have expressed concern about ambiguities in the Bill and these must be teased out on Committee Stage so that the intention of the legislation is absolutely clear. If the legislation needs to be amended this can be done.
The difficulties experienced by employees can sometimes be hidden or overlooked in a booming economy. This is another reason the legislation is very important. It is difficult to believe women are still congregated in huge numbers in segregated low paid employment in certain sectors of the market. Much of the work done by women, for example, caring, continues to be very poorly rewarded and in most cases is unwaged. We must look at ways of making progress in these areas.
The Bill breaks new ground in our law. In the past 20 years the debate on equality has broadened beyond the scope of existing law which is confined to sex and marital status. However, these issues will remain central concerns in any equality legislation. Last week a conference was held in Dublin Castle on "mainstreaming equality". This means asking all Government Departments to outline the impact of their policies on women and men and to look in detail at these. For example, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry will be asked the effects of his policy on rural women while the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications will be asked the effects of transport policy on women and whether these take into account special needs.
While mainstreaming equality is very important, at the same time we must continue to build on specific legislation, as has been done in the Bill. The two issues go hand in hand and it should not be about one issue to the exclusion of the other. It is important to continue developing the law. In this context I am delighted with the inclusion in the Bill of a provision on positive action.
The Bill radically extends the scope of existing law, bans discrimination by employers, employment agencies and vocational bodies. I am very pleased it deals also with the issue of training. People can be very vulnerable while undergoing training and they need the supports and protections provided by the Bill. Discrimination in collective agreements and vocational trainings as well as discriminatory advertising and indirect pay discrimination will be banned. There will also be a prohibition on sexual, racial and other harassment at work.
I welcome the extension of the equality law to the Defence Forces but it should be extended also to the Naval Service.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.