Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Jul 1973

Vol. 75 No. 7

Civil Service (Employment of Married Women) Bill, 1973: Second Stage.

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

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. P. Barry)

First of all I apologise for the absence of the Minister for Finance, who is engaged in another place. This Bill provides for the removal of the marriage bar in the Civil Service by the amendment of the Civil Service Commissioners Act, 1956, and the Civil Service Regulations Act, 1956. The Commissioners Act enables the Commissioners to provide in regulations governing competitions that "a female candidate to be eligible for selection shall be unmarried or a widow"; the Regulation Act requires in general that women civil servants must retire on marriage.

The repeal of these restrictions was recommended by the Commission on the Status of Women both in their interim report, published in October, 1971, and in their final report, published in May, 1973. In accepting the final report I said that we would make every effort to abolish the marriage bar by October, 1973, the date recommended by the Commission, and it is further witness of the Government's commitment to end all forms of discrimination against women that when the Bill passes through this House it will become law when signed by the President—well in advance of the period recommended by the Commission.

Speaking of the Commission, I should like to place on record my sincere thanks to the members of the Commission. In determining the strategy for social reform the Commission's contribution is a very important one and will be of immense help.

Apart from removing the marriage bar the Bill will enable married women who served in the service before marriage to be reinstated in their former positions where hardship considerations warrant this—for example, cases of desertion or where the husband is permanently incapacitated. This type of reinstatement is already available to widows under the Regulation Act.

I have pleasure, therefore, in introducing this Bill, which has been well described as the women's Magna Carta and which will abolish an old injustice while not forgetting the less fortunate members of our society. This Bill represents a new deal for women and is a step in our plan towards abolishing all discrimination against women.

Mr. Lenihan

Very briefly, the Bill represents of course the first step in a new deal for women. We in the Fianna Fáil group are very proud to have been associated, first of all, with the establishment of the Commission and secondly with the preparation of this legislation which has now been introduced by the new Government.

It is only right and proper that married women, who have a contribution to make, be it in the Civil Service, the teaching profession—where earlier on we as the then Government removed the marriage ban—in nursing or in any other area of activity, should not be debarred in any way from so doing. This is the civilised attitude. I look forward to the fuller implementation of the recommendations in the Commission on the Status of Women, which will be debated later on. I regard this Bill as a first step only. I hope we will have much more legislation along these lines. We will have a fuller debate on this matter later on the motion in the name of Senator Robinson.

Dr. Browne

I just want to make a small point. As Senator Lenihan pointed out, we will debate this matter at greater length on the motion. I just want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he could enlighten us on one question which could arise. Naturally I welcome this development, with qualifications to which I shall refer later on in the discussion on the motion. What is the position about the civil servant who resigns on marriage and gets a marriage gratuity and then decides she wants to become re-employed in the Civil Service?

The Parliamentary Secretary probably knows that the Commission's report deals with that question at paragraph 291. To some extent it points out the value of the marriage gratuity in reducing the rate of turnover in the service, but at the same time there is the difficulty, apparently, that if somebody is given a marriage gratuity and wishes to re-enter the service she may have to repay the gratuity in some way or other or compensate for having got the gratuity. That is one point on which I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to enlighten us: what will happen or has it any relevance in this set of circumstances, because I presume it will become quite an important consideration if this type of legislation is extended to other parts of the State or semi-State service?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I want very briefly to welcome the Bill. I should also like to welcome the Minister for Transport and Power here on his first appearance in the Seanad, even though he is only deputising for the Minister for Finance. The legislation is one which will be widely welcomed on all sides of the House. It is one which commends itself to the people generally. The Minister has made it clear in the concluding portion of his speech that this Bill should be regarded as a step in fulfilling the announced intention of the Government, which was one of the principal planks on which this Government were formed, to abolish all discrimination in these matters against women.

Senator Lenihan expressed the wish, and I am sure all of us would feel the same, that it should be regarded as a first step. The Bill is a first step, but it is a very valuable step in the right direction.

Mr. Dolan

I should like to join with the Leader of the Opposition in extending a welcome to the Bill. We, in this party have recognised this claim for quite a long time. We, in the teaching profession were the first people who campaigned openly and successfully to have this marriage bar removed and the then Fianna Fáil Government removed it.

In the teaching and nursing professions married women can contribute immensely to the wealth of the nation because their experience is invaluable and they have contributed very greatly since that bar was removed. Though I welcome this step, at the same time it is true to say that in rural Ireland in particular there are often many complaints brought to me and I am sure to others about the fact that young girls after completing their leaving certificate may find themselves having difficulty in securing positions, and their parents are very worried about them. The Government, having done this, will now have to consider what means they can adopt so as to ensure that those young girls after leaving school will have some hope of getting a job in their own country and that they will not have to emigrate to foreign countries to seek positions while leaving the married elderly women at home in these positions. I want to make that point because it could be relevant.

Mrs. Robinson

Like the other Senators who have spoken I, too, welcome this Bill. It is long overdue and I reserve my comments on the general situation for the motion which we will be taking later. I should like to make two more specific points on this Bill. I think it is not adequate that there be provision for readmission to the Civil Service of certain women who were forced to leave on marriage, only of hardship cases where the person has become a widow or has been deserted or where a husband is failing to support her under section 4. This seems to me to be a very limited right of readmission.

I should like to see quite a different approach by the Department so that women who were forced to leave the Civil Service because they married in the last five years would be contacted and asked if they would like to be readmitted. When the assessment is made of the numbers involved, then a fair procedure could be adopted to do this. There are a number of recently married women who were forced to leave because of marriage and this Bill does nothing for them. There are a number of women who, although they have left in the last three or four years, either have not had children or are in a position where they would like to resume their employment and they have not been sufficiently long out of it to have lost their particular skills. I am thinking of, for instance, those who were employed in the National Museum in a specialist capacity and who have very real skills to contribute. They ought to be sought out, now that we have changed our policy, and asked if they would like to be re-employed, and they should be reinstated and without loss of seniority.

The second point I should like to make is that neither does this Bill do anything for the people who are employed temporarily. There are many married women in this country who are exploited by being employed temporarily in the Civil Service. I think this is very important. I know this of my own knowledge, and I know that other Senators could speak for many highly qualified married women in temporary positions in the Civil Service renewable every six months. They ought to have a guarantee now in this Bill that they will be employed on a full-time basis. They should not have any more worry about their status. Not only should they be employed on a full-time basis but they should have compensations in the sense that they should be given their full pension rights and their full seniority status. They have been temporary for five, six or perhaps ten years because they have been married and this should all be taken into account so that they would come in on the full scale as though they had always been able to be employed as full-time persons.

These two points are not met in this Bill. It is essential that, if we really have changed our policy, we change it fully and make provision for readmission of women who were forced to leave on marriage in a recent period and who would like to be re-admitted. Secondly, let there be a guarantee to married women who are temporarily employed but who have been carrying out a particular job and who have had no status or no security of tenure simply because of their marriage that they will be employed immediately as full-time persons and also that they will have the status which is commensurate with the actual time they have held down that post.

Mr. Markey

Like all Senators, I welcome this Bill and I am sure that all the activists and supporters of the Women's Liberation Movement will regard it as possibly one of the first steps in seeing the Walls of Jericho come tumbling down. The Minister is to be complimented on the prompt implementation of the Commission's recommendation in regard to this matter. The recommendation was very well received by the public at large when it was first made public 12 months ago. Indeed, one is left a little breathless in wonder as to why it has been left on the stocks so long, since 1956. Perhaps the economic factors of present day life was one of the reasons for this. I am inclined to believe that the principles of demand and supply in regard to labour have been instrumental, particularly in Dublin and the other large cities, for this matter being implemented now. Having said that, one must again wonder why it was left so long on the stocks because the actual regulation in the 1956 Act was permissive, in a sense, but it was interpreted, I am afraid, in a rather restrictive manner to the detriment of females.

Having welcomed the Bill, there are two points about it which I feel could give a warning to us. The first is in regard to the actual re-appointment of married women in the Civil Service. It is essential that the trial period envisaged in this Bill should be seen to operate justly. After all, a person who has been employed for a number of years and has gone away for a while and seeks re-employment stands with a certain preferential position over a young girl seeking employment in the first instance. There is a natural temptation for employers to take back a married woman in these circumstances. In fairness to all applicants in the future, particularly to young school leavers, the principle of the trial period must be seen to operate justly all round.

The second point has already been hinted at by Senator Dolan and I must join with him in regard to making a distinction between urban and rural as regards the implementation of this Bill. As I mentioned earlier, demand and supply for female labour has been largely, I believe, instrumental for the introduction of this Bill in regard to the cities. But in rural Ireland the scarcity of female labour is not such a pertinent matter as it is in the cities and large towns. There will always be a ready supply of young girls seeking appointment in local authority and other State and semi-State concerns.

Whatever about the hardship clause being applied at local authority level, I think we would want to go easy with regard to the implementation of the first part, namely, reappointment of married women, because it could create a certain amount of difficulty to young girls seeking positions. These are the two points I wanted to make. There is a note of warning in both of them but, having said that, the Bill must be welcomed.

Cáit Uí Eachthéirn

I just want briefly to welcome this legislation. I think we are just giving a civil right to married women. Any woman should be allowed to choose to work or not to work if she is capable of so doing after marriage. I think it takes a very good woman to be able to carry on two jobs, but if a person is able to undertake two important jobs at the one time she should be allowed to do so.

There is a certain amount of weight in the warning that has been voiced here by Senator Dolan, and echoed by the last Senator who spoke, that in our rush to let married women enter employment if they wish, it may mean fewer jobs available for a number of people.

This is not a very nice prospect for school leavers, I admit, but two wrongs do not make a right. We need not expect that there will be a headlong rush of married people looking for work, and I think this is what most people are afraid of. On the Continent and in Britain it has been shown that, even though the ban has been removed, there are not all that many married women taking up employment. In some cases the women have damaged their own case, but this is beside the point. I think this is a proper piece of legislation and I welcome it. I must ask the Minister when does he intend to apply this legislation to those working in local government.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

I also welcome the Bill. In regard to the clause concerning hardship—for example, cases of desertion and where the husband is permanently incapacitated—it seems to me that, if one is to change the degrading position which women have been subjected to in this country during the years, one must develop one's argument from a rights perspective, as other Senators have said. In the case of desertion one is speaking of the consequences of the action of a husband. In the case of the husband being permanently incapacitated one is again speaking of a characteristic of the husband's position. It seems to me that the legislation should be better prosecuted from a rights perspective and people should say that this is a first step towards changing the position of women in our society.

I also want to make the point that I find the idea of proving hardship a rather degrading notion in itself. It could be very difficult. What is hardship? Many people are now looking at Irish marriages in a far more critical and honest way than they have ever looked at them before. It is true that a great number of marriages are not satisfactory for a number of reasons, a point I hope to develop on another occasion. The point is that anyone who wants after getting married to resume her position should be able to do so. I would welcome a statement by the Minister that he might reconsider this entire clause. However, I do not want to delay on it. Everybody has been welcoming this Bill and we will probably have an opportunity on another occasion of debating the more general points of the position of women in our society.

Mr. Yeats

This is perhaps one of those rare Bills on which all of us on all sides of the House are able, at least to a limited extent, to congratulate ourselves. The Minister, I am sure, is happy in being able to bring it in and we in Fianna Fáil, of course, can feel that it is essentially in its general purpose our Bill. Deputy Colley, when he was Minister for Finance, in the course of his budget speech in 1972 said that this Bill would be brought in, that talks had to be held with the various Civil Service staff associations but that he expected that within an 18 month period it would be possible to introduce it, and so it has.

Generally speaking, I think we can all be pleased that it has come before us and is a very considerable step forward. I think it is only a step forward. It is quite clear that there are further steps that need to be taken. We have, for example, the position that while women may now stay on even when married and there are certain rather limited provisions, as Senator Robinson has pointed out, allowing married women who were forced to leave the Civil Service to come back, there is nothing to prevent the Civil Service Commission from continuing to advertise positions in the various branches of the Civil Service for men only. We are, in this Bill, eliminating section 16 (c) (ii) of the Civil Service Commissioners Act, 1956, which states that an eligible female should be unmarried or a widow. We still have paragraph (b) which says that:

The Commissioners may provide for the confining of the competition to a specified class of persons defined in such manner and by reference to such things including service in the Civil Service, sex and physical characteristics as the Commissioners think proper.

In other words, it is still open to the Commissioners to limit competition to any particular post to men only. This is quite contrary to the recommendation of the Commission on the Status of Women. In Recommendation No. 283 they state:

We recommend accordingly that the Government should in relation to employment under its control ensure that job openings are not advertised in a manner which expressly or impliedly limits them to male or female applicants except where sex is bona fide occupational qualification or where women are not permitted by law to be employed.

I think it is regrettable that the Government have not taken this opportunity to include this recommendation in the Bill.

There are one or two other things I should like to say on the Bill, which perhaps could also be said on the forthcoming discussion of the motion, but I think they relate perhaps more directly to the subject matter of this Bill. The first relates to both the semi-State bodies and the local authorities. It is obviously highly desirable that they should follow the example set in this Bill. I appreciate that the Government can say they have no control over the day-to-day affairs of the semi-state bodies and also that the local authorities to a considerable extent must be allowed to run their own affairs without interference from the Government. However, when it comes to wage increases, for example, in a particular year, clearly no Government could allow semi-State bodies and local authorities to hand out increased wages without any regard to national wage agreements or other matters of this kind. Governments, in other words, inevitably have to interfere in matters of this kind in both the semi-State bodies and the local authorities and therefore it should be made quite clear to them by the Ministers concerned that they are expected within a very limited period to follow the example set by this Bill.

To quote one very minor example, I am not sure what the position is now but certainly until very recently the Radio Telefis Éireann Symphony Orchestra and Light Orchestra, allowed married women to remain on, not, I regret to say, as a matter of principle but because it was impossible to get a sufficient number of adequately trained musicians, at least until comparatively recently, and it may still be the position. Married women, though permitted to play in the orchestras were not allowed to be established. The Government should make it quite clear that discrimination of this kind will not continue.

The other matter I should like to raise on this Bill is a very important one. I refer to a recommendation of the Status of Women Report about promotion of women in the Civil Service and the local authority service:

Interview boards formed in the Civil Service and the Local Authority service and by the Civil Service Commission and the Local Appointments Commission for a selection of staff for promotion should, where possible, be composed of both men and women.

This, I think is a very viable point because it is quite clear that, no matter what kind of legal changes may be made in a matter of this kind, women will not get equal rights unless something more is done. There is, I am afraid, in Irish male public opinion, a very considerable prejudice against employing women in the higher type of administrative jobs. We all come across it constantly. There is no doubt but that when it comes to the higher type of jobs, the better paid jobs, it is very difficult for a woman to get employment. Take, for example, Table 16 in the Report of the Commission on the Status of Women. The proportion of women in the general service grades in the Civil Service makes really remarkable reading. We find that in January, 1960, taking all the principal and higher grades of the Civil Service, 2.6 per cent of all those in these grades were women and, to make matters worse, on 1st January, 1965, this 2.6 per cent had fallen to 1.5 per cent and on 1st January, 1972, 0.6 per cent of all those in the principal higher grades were women. In the footnote the report says that on 1st January, 1972, there were only two women in this category, both at principal level. There was no woman amongst the 82 heads of Departments and deputy or assistant heads of Departments.

Since 1st of January, 1972, the position has steadily worsened each five-year period since 1960. That makes this kind of exercise ludicrous unless there is a change of view amongst the people who make the appointments. Judging by the 11 that we had nominated to the Seanad recently, one wonders whether changes of Government makes much difference.

The only ray of light—and there is, fortunately, a ray of light in this particular table—is in regard to administrative officers in the Civil Service. Whereas apparently there were no women in the grade on 1st January, 1960, there were as many as 16 per cent on 1st January, 1972, which suggests that in the lower levels of the administrative grade far more women are coming in and that possibly in the future when it comes to the higher grades there may be more women. There is a very serious problem there and I think that possibly the only way of really dealing with it all would be to insist that all interview boards for this type of position had both men and women on them.

Other than these points, this is clearly a Bill which we should welcome. It is not a complete answer but it is certainly a step on the right road.

Mr. Boland

I should like to welcome both the Minister and the Bill to the House. They are both equally welcome and indeed overdue. I am particularly interested in the position of widows re-entering the service. For a long time now a widow re-entering the Civil Service was obliged to enter at a point one point below the scale which she had originally left on marriage. I notice from the table, section 4, subsection (2) (d) (i) (I) that the widow can now be reinstated in the same grade as that of her original position or in such grade or rank as is equivalent to or lower than her original position. I suggest to the House that it is unfortunate that this should even have been repeated or contained in any way in the Bill. It appears to me that, if the woman is unfortunate enough to be widowed and obliged to return to work, she should at least be allowed the privilege of returning at her former rank and there should be no quibbling or any shades of grey in relation to this.

I would also suggest that there should not be any shades of grey in relation to the position which has been mentioned here of married women wanting now to return to the Civil Service for reasons of hardship or personal family difficulties. It might be a good thing if the Minister would clarify in his reply the method whereby it will be decided, if a married woman wants to return to the service at the moment, whether she will be allowed to do so. I do not think there should be any shades of grey left in the minds of those who have to decide. There should be a clear obligation on them to accept married women back into the service.

Like other Members, I am interested to know when the provisions of this Bill will be extended to the public service generally and to the semi-State bodies. Senator Yeats referred to the Local Appointments Commission. It would seem to me that it would require amending legislation to allow the introduction of similar provisions as this in the local appointments sphere.

I do not accept the suggestions of Senator Dolan and somebody else that it may possibly create a shortage of jobs for young school leavers if this Bill and similar provisions in relation to the local authority service were to be introduced across the board. It is the experience of any of us here who are members of local authorities or have been attached to them that there has been in the past few years quite a degree of difficulty in recruiting young girls into the public service. Many of us in the House, including the Leas-Chathaoirleach, would probably know very well that the recruitment of officers in these grades has not been easy in the last few years. It would seem to me that the passing of this Bill and similar provisions in relation to the local authority service will help to bring vacancies that exist to a normal level. In many fields in the public service quite a number of vacancies exist at the present time, perhaps because of the general method of working the service.

Finally, I should like the Minister to clarify another point. As I understand it, at present once a male member of the Civil Service marries he then receives an increase in salary from the date of his marriage. If his new wife were killed on the honeymoon, or even if he decided to do away with her, he would still receive for the remainder of his service his pay on the basis of a married man's scale. I assume this will not happen to the single woman in the Civil Service who marries and stays on in her job. It would appear to me that this seems to clash with the second anomaly which the Minister might clarify for us and that is the fact that so many single girls in the public service are entitled to a gratuity on leaving the service to marry. Is this gratuity to be continued if the right to continue in their position in the service is to be afforded to them and, if it is to be continued, when a girl leaves the service on marriage takes her gratuity and afterwards applies for re-admission to the service, will she have to pay back the gratuity or will it be deducted. These points have been made to me and I make them here in the House now because this is the time when these things must be clarified.

The general principle of this Bill is welcomed by both sides of the House. That is quite obvious from the way in which Members of the Opposition have been falling over themselves to claim that the Minister is really introducing their Bill. It is not important whose Bill it is. It is a self-evident fact that this is a piece of fair play that was not afforded to women for a long time, and whether the Bill was prepared or drafted under the previous Administration or this one is not important. What is important is the date on which the President signs it and the date on which it comes into effect and takes an injustice out of our society. That is the importance of the discussion here today.

Mr. McGlinchey

I believe that by the very inclusion of the hardship clause this Bill will not provide the equal rights for women that I think was intended. For that reason I should like to support the points made by Senator Robinson. When the bar on married women teachers was lifted it was suggested at that time that this could result in young girls failing to get positions. The Minister at that time gave an undertaking that if he found that this was taking place he would review the matter and if necessary re-introduce the bar. The fact that this was not done suggests that the removal of the bar had no effect on young single teachers. I should like the Minister to introduce something similar in the hardship clause of this Bill. Apart from major cities there will be no problem. Married women will only seek employment provided it is available within a reasonable distance from their homes and for that reason only a limited number of married women in rural areas will wish to take up their old positions. To prove hardship would be a degrading exercise for them and, apart from widows, they would not risk this embarrassment.

I ask the Minister to remove the hardship clause at this stage with the right to re-introduce it if it is found in a year or two that the number of married women retaining their positions is such that young girls are unable to obtain employment. Senator Cáit Uí Eachthéirn asked a question concerning women in local authorities. As I understand it, it will be left to each local authority to decide whether married women can be re-employed. The decision should be taken on a national basis. We could have one local authority dominated by old bachelors, with no great concern for women, refusing to allow married women to return to work and possibly on an adjacent local authority allowing them in.

I ask the Minister to consider the point I have made concerning the hardship clause.

Mr. Halligan

I trust the Minister for Transport and Power will not feel embarrassed representing Deputy Ryan rather than Deputy Colley. In respect of every piece of progressive legislation which comes before the House, as Senator Boland has observed, it is claimed that it originated on the other side of the floor.

Mr. McGlinchey

Is Senator Halligan suggesting this did not?

Mr. Halligan

As I understand the Bill, it does three things. First, it removes the necessity for a woman in the Civil Service to resign on marriage; secondly, it permits her, if she has resigned, to re-enter on open competition for places within the Civil Service on the same plane as everyone else; and, thirdly, in certain conditions of hardship, it enables her to be re-instated in her former position. If I am wrong in this I should like to be corrected. This position of re-instatement lends importance to the definition of hardship. In regard to hardship, the following point is made in paragraph (c) of the Table contained in section 4 (a): If the Minister for Finance is satisfied that a woman is not being supported by her husband he then considers that a position of hardship arises. I should hope that the conditions for desertion here would be no less stringent than those which apply under the social welfare code, for example, which are stringent enough in themselves. Under the income tax code there is a different period for desertion: I think there should be conformity in respect of a definition of desertion.

There appears to be rather tougher treatment of the person than would appear to be necessary. For example, it states in the Table that she may be required to serve a trial period. As Senator Boland observed, she may be appointed to a position lower than her original position. It may happen that while the position she originally occupied was an established position she could be re-instated to a position which is not an established one. This does not appear to conform with the canons of uniformity.

As I understand from the Dáil debates, it is intended that the marriage gratuity shall be abandoned. If so, and if married women are to continue to work within the Civil Service, it is to be expected they will have children. There should, therefore, be proper provision for pregnancy leave on full pay. Otherwise, one of the objectives of the Bill is being defeated.

I join with those Senators who have made the point that the Government should request local authorities and other statutory bodies to follow suit. I understand some local authorities and statutory bodies have anticipated the Bill and I think there should be uniformity in the entire public service and it should not be confined to the Civil Service.

Dr. Martin

I would not have spoken at all but for the fact that there seems to be what one can only call undue self-congratulation about this Bill. It has been described in the hand-out given to us by the Minister "Women's Magna Carta”. As we know, it is by and large a revision of section 15 (c) (2) of the Commissioners Act, but it has not that force of reverberation. If it is seen as a symbolic enactment, it is to be welcomed with all the force and self-congratulation evident today. But if it is merely seen as a step we have taken to establish the rights of women in our society, after which we can sit back and feel happy and complacent that these ills have been righted, then I suggest it is very far from achieving what a society must set itself to achieve.

I wish to say more, on the level of exhortation rather than of criticism that it is a small step but it leaves untouched an enormous area, particularly an area hedged around by legalities, an area which involves the sufferings of deserted wives, the property rights of women, of unmarried mothers and the area of semi-State bodies and local authorities. A continuous move should be made: the ball is rolling and it should be kept rolling. Senator Boland made a very good and symbolic point in regard to this niggling provision that the woman coming back has to go down one year. A Magna Carta does not operate in that way. Senator McGlinchey's motion about the degrading aspect of having to prove hardship is also relevant.

If this kind of legislation is to be effective throughout the body politic it should be pursued actively and magnanimously in the spirit of a Magna Carta and these things should not be handed out piecemeal or in any spirit of condescension. The reforms should take place before a great body of strident, divisive and rhetorical opinion builds up behind them from the whole female sex of the nation.

This is a firm step forward. The Government have a very big programme in front of them. This should merely be seen as a sop and the whole notion of the status of women in our society should be generously and strenuously pursued.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

I certainly disagree with the Senator who has just spoken, if his political principle is that you do not do anything unless you are able to do everything in one gulp. I certainly join with the other Senators who have welcomed this Bill in seeing it as a step in a direction which has been described by the Minister in what was not a hand-out but a speech to this House.

Having done so, I would express considerable sympathy for the criticism that has been expressed by different Members of the Seanad with regard to what has been described as the hardship provision. As I understand it, it is merely empowering the proper authority to take back women who retired on, before or after marriage but it does not oblige them to do so if the particular case does not suit. I agree with the speakers who have said that it seemed personally objectionable for a woman to have to produce evidence of the misery of her situation, which might be the reason why she was looking for the job back. It might even be difficult for her technically to prove that the husband in question is failing to support her, but getting her job back might be good for her and perhaps good for the State, too. For example, her husband might be a civil servant who drinks his money but she could not very well tell the Minister for Finance about that. She might yet be forced to seek extra employment and what better job should she look for than the job she was skilled in doing during the years of her employment in the Civil Service. It might be that there is a special hardship situation among her children. This might not be evidence that her husband had failed to support her but that the best efforts of her husband could not support her and her children.

There is a further point on this. It may well be that it is not the most miserable and unhappy of married women of whom we should be thinking in relation to this matter. It may well be that the people whom the State ought to be ready to receive back into employment are, perhaps, contented married women whose husbands are providing for them but whose whole psychology might be affected by being able to pursue the occupation that they are skilled in and who may be found, as private employers find, to be particularly responsible, able civil servants. I need to be convinced of the necessity for a restriction when the position is that the authority need not take any of them back. I understand this is an enabling measure and I presume it will turn on the availability of employment and so on. I should like to think that the State would— perhaps it has to be the next step in that gradual progress—think of the social situation which will develop and seems to have been developing where more and more married people, for the very success of their marriage, may require to be in employment. It may well be that after their children are reared this would make for a happy life for both of them.

I should like to end my contribution by repeating what I have said on the Charities Bill, as I think it is of some importance. I hope Senators will bear with me while I draw their attention to it. We are interested in legislation as such and the form it takes. I should like to think that we shall become more competent in dealing with it. We are witnessing what seems to be a revolution in drafting. I direct attention to section 4 of this Bill which first amends section 11 of the Regulation Act in a particular manner and then proceeds to tell us what the effect of these amendments is by setting out in full the amended section. This is such a welcome development that the Seanad ought to take note of it and congratulate the Minister and the draftsmen who have assisted him in preparing this legislation.

Mr. Yeats

It is a pity the Finance Bill is not like that.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

Agreed, but the Charities Bill was. After all, we can only move towards our goal as quickly as we can reach it. I should like to welcome the Minister on his first appearance in this House.

Mr. McCartin

Very briefly, I should like to say that I cannot welcome this Bill in the spirit of a Magna Carta but I see it as an important step on the road to progress. In saying so I should like to point out that I grew up in a society and in an area where a Government job, with a guaranteed salary, was looked upon as something worth having. A person who had such guaranteed employment, with an income and security for himself and his family, was looked upon as a very lucky person indeed. When we noticed that in some instances two people in the same household had such a security we said it was certainly more than luck.

I should like the House to remember—in all their talk about liberation, rights, the Magna Carta idea and all the other nice phrases that are being used here—that the situation did exist in Ireland where a woman because she was married or about to get married was denied the right of a job in the Civil Service. I should like people here who have suggested that this principle should extend right through the local county councils and corporations to come down to some of the western counties and take a look at the lists of girls who are still seeking employment in those jobs. They should ask themselves what they want these girls to do. The people in the West of Ireland know that they will have to go to Dublin or perhaps to London to seek employment. The bachelors of Dublin city have a fine choice at the expense of the poor bachelor farmers of the West of Ireland.

I do not agree that this country has reached the stage where we can throw open the gates and follow our ideas through to the ultimate. I should love to see the situation develop where there were jobs for everyone and where there would be the maximum number of people qualified to fill those jobs. Nevertheless, I am glad that we have made sufficient progress to enable us to open the way to employment for a married woman in the Civil Service. Most of those jobs exist in Dublin city, as we all know too well.

Senator Boland mentioned the fact that a man in the Civil Service when he married was entitled to a higher rate of pay. This takes us back to the stage when we looked to the husband as the breadwinner of the family. We regarded him as being under an obligation to keep his family. We thought it only just that he should get extra money when he took on those obligations. I would agree that this situation should be looked at. If we are to follow things through to their logical conclusion only a married man whose wife is not in a position to earn money should be entitled to this increase in wages.

We must be realistic about this. We should not have too much regard for all this high falutin', airy-fairy talk about great ideals, progress and freedom. I do not believe any Member of this House regarded the bar to a married woman holding a job in the Civil Service as something against a woman as such. It was there because the husband was regarded as the breadwinner of the family. If there were a limited number of jobs available the husband, as the breadwinner of the family, should get one.

I hope the day will come when there will be jobs for everybody who is qualified to accept them. At that stage the individual first, and society later on, will have to come to some consensus about the position of the home and the family and other aspects of the matter which we have not touched on here today. They are matters which should be in the minds of most Senators in relation to this Bill.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. P. Barry)

I am glad of the welcome this Bill has received from the Seanad. Most Senators who spoke welcomed the Bill. I was disappointed by the contribution of one Senator who dismissed it as a grudging admission by the last Government, by the present Government and the Civil Service generally that something had to be done to keep a body of people quiet. This is to think that the civil servants, the Fianna Fáil Party, the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party are composed of something less than human beings. Because they are in fact human beings they are concerned about women in employment. To dismiss the matter as the Senator did was to do less than justice to the Commission on the Status of Women, Members of the Seanad, the Civil Service, the leaders of the Fianna Fáil Party and of the present Government.

I should like to refer briefly to the contribution of Senator McCartin. He raised points about rural Ireland which perhaps some of us had forgotten. There was no reluctance on our part to have married women working but the situation was that the number of breadwinning jobs was so few that if a married woman worked she was keeping a man, who had, perhaps, a family to support, out of a job. This was something we had to cater for. Thank God, we are moving out of that situation now. As Senator Alexis FitzGerald has said, there may be other reasons besides hardship. We may come to recognise that it may not be from physical illness but from mental illness that the necessity for a woman to take up a job may arise.

This is a major piece of legislation. No Senator can say otherwise. It removes a prohibition on women who marry from retaining their jobs in the Civil Service. This is very important. There were four aspects which seemed to worry Senators. One was the hardship clause. This clause applies to widows, deserted wives or people who are financially embarrassed. Senator Alexis FitzGerald raised other aspects of hardship, but at this stage I could not legislate for them. The only criteria which could be applied at the moment is financial hardship. I am assured by the Minister, with whom I discussed this point—he mentioned that it also came up in the Dáil—that this will be interpreted in the most liberal manner possible. There will not be any detectives prying into the circumstances of people, nor will there be any interrogations which would be embarrassing to applicants. There will be a liberal interpretation of this section. I hope Senators will accept the Minister's guarantee while recognising there must be some clause in the Bill which would cover ex-Civil Servants suffering from hardship. They can apply on different terms from people who have left and, as they are suffering no hardship, would not wish to return to the Civil Service.

The marriage gratuity granted to Civil Servants who retire on marriage is not a statutory one. At the moment this matter is under discussion with the staff associations. The Minister had hoped that by the time the Bill came to the Seanad the results of these negotiations would have been available, but that stage has not been reached yet. However, it is under discussion with the staff associations. Hopefully, the outcome will be a happy one.

The conditions for recruitment into local authorities are governed by the Minister for Local Government. They are not statutory. The feeling in local government has been that married women should be allowed to continue working but the general policy was that all conditions which applied to the Civil Service should apply to the local authorities. When this Bill becomes law Senators can take it that it will apply to local authorities also. The Minister will make the necessary orders to allow married women back into the Civil Service.

Senator Halligan raised the question of maternity pay for married women. This matter is also being negotiated with the staff associations at the moment. We are also hopeful of a happy outcome on this point.

I hope I have covered all the points raised by Senators. I should like to thank Senators M.J. O'Higgins and Lenihan for their personal words of welcome on my first visit to the Seanad. Unfortunately, I am wearing another man's shoes. I suppose I cannot expect that same ease of treatment when I return to the Seanad wearing my own shoes.

Mr. Yeats

Could I ask the Minister a question? With regard to his own shoes, in this case will all the various semi-State bodies, for a large number of which he is responsible, follow suit?

Mr. P. Barry

I am sure they will all follow suit in this regard. The Minister for Finance, in winding-up the debate in the Dáil, said he would see himself as the pacemaker in this regard and encourage others to follow his example.

Senator Yeats raised the point about the necessity of having women on interview boards for appointments within the Civil Service. Up to this, women had to retire on marriage. They did not, therefore, rise to the level at which they would be eligible to sit on these boards. There was one outstanding example in the Civil Service and that was the previous Secretary of my own Department, who was a woman and who was responsible for setting up the boards as well as sitting on them. There has not been any prejudice against women except that because of the fact that they were obliged to resign on marriage they were numerically very small.

Dr. Browne

May I first apologise to the Minister for calling him a Parliamentary Secretary? Oscar Wilde said that no gentleman is ever unconsciously rude. Could I ask him does he know the Minister's thinking on this question of a gratuity? Has he any idea whether the Minister would favour a lady appointed under the old dispensation who wishes to stay on for one or two years? May she wait and then take the gratuity on retirement a few years later? Has he any idea of the Minister's thinking on that?

Mr. P. Barry

I am afraid I have not. It is being negotiated at the moment. I will bring the point raised by the Senator to the Minister's attention.

Mrs. Robinson

Could I ask about the position of the many married women who are temporarily employed in the Civil Service? They are holding down jobs usually because there is no other applicant. They are employed on a six-months' renewable basis, with no security and at the lowest rung of the ladder. I raised two points. First, was there any guarantee that they would be fully instated immediately; and, secondly, would they be instated at the level as though they had been, permanently employed during the years they held this temporary position?

Mr. P. Barry

I am not very sure of the category of people to which the Senator is referring. If the Senator could let me have a note on this matter I will bring it to the attention of the Minister for Finance. Is the Senator referring to widows who are working on a six-month contract?

Mrs. Robinson

I am talking about married women who are in jobs. For instance, one is known to me personally and is a child psychiatrist. She is in a temporary position on one of the health boards because there is nobody else to take her job. Every six months she gets a renewal notice. She is on the lowest rung of the ladder. She has no security. Others are architects employed temporarily who are married women because there is nobody to fill their positions. There are a number of these women employed. Their terms are renewed every six months. They have no security and they are on the lowest rung of the ladder. They ought to be immediately fully reinstated in the jobs they have been doing, often for years. I should like to know whether the Minister will consider this.

Mr. P. Barry

My understanding is that the first lady mentioned, the child psychiatrist, is employed by a local authority. There will be no statutory bar on her, as a married woman, being employed full-time.

Mrs. Robinson

I do not think she is in a permanent position.

Mr. P. Barry

It comes under the local authorities.

Mrs. Robinson

She is temporarily employed because she is a married woman.

Mr. P. Barry

She does not have to be. She can be permanently employed as a married women by a local authority. It is only the Civil Service which has the bar. I do not know what the reason for that is.

Mrs. Robinson

There are civil servants also who are temporarily employed.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take the remaining Stages today.