Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 May 1974

Vol. 78 No. 5

Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Bill, 1974: Second Stage.

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

Minister for Labour (Mr. M. O'Leary)

As part of their overall programme the Government are committed to the introduction of legislation to eliminate discrimination against women. The Government have already indicated their general acceptance of the recommendations contained in the

Final Report of the Commission of Inquiry on the Status of Women. As Senators will be aware, the Commission recommended, among other things, that legislation should be enacted to ensure the implementation of a policy of equal pay for work of equal value.

I am afraid that too little attention has been given in the past to consideration of the measures necessary to improve the status of women in employment and indeed in society in general. Much needs to be done through legislation and otherwise to eliminate unfair discrimination on grounds of sex where it exists and so help to change the prejudiced attitudes which give rise to it. The Bill now before the House is a significant step along the road towards removing discrimination against women in our society.

It is our objective as an administration to allow women to play a full part in the life of the State and to eliminate those barriers which prevent them from doing so. Whilst it is true that many women may not wish to see their family role basically altered, women are going out to work in far greater numbers or are returning to work at an earlier age after their children have gone to school. The proportion of women in our work-force has been increasing in recent years and it now amounts to 26 per cent of the working population.

The legislation before the House follows on a number of other measures which have been introduced by this Government. In this connection I would mention the removal of the marriage bar to employment in the Public Service, the improvement of facilities for deserted wives, the introduction of benefits and allowances for unmarried mothers and the vesting of the entitlement to childrens allowances in the mother.

I must emphasise that this is a Bill to deal with equal pay. It covers therefore only a limited, though significant, area of discrimination and will not in itself ensure equality of opportunity for women. In the preparation of later legislation I propose to consider making unlawful certain practices in employment which impede the progress of women and tend to restrict them to the less skilled and more poorly paid jobs. Such legislation should also provide a means of redress for individual women who feel they have suffered unfair discrimination in employment. This present legislation will not provide the complete answer to the subordinate position of women in employment. More fundamental problems such as the nature of their work in industry, the availability of training facilities and of access to these training facilities, all these are matters which will require consideration and which may require legislative treatment.

The Bill before us provides that a woman will have the right to the same pay as a man who is employed by the same employer in the same place of employment if both are employed on "like work". The definitions of "like work" follow broadly the definitions set out in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on the Status of Women and used in successive national wage agreements. These criteria are a good deal wider in scope than those contained in the equivalent British legislation of 1970 and should ensure that the fairest possible comparisons are drawn between jobs being done by men and women.

In this area of equal pay both sides of industry will have to work together and secure by their joint efforts the smooth transition to equal pay. I visualise the vast majority of equal pay claims being settled through direct negotiations between employers and trade unions. Where agreement cannot be reached the easily accessible machinery provided for in this Bill will ensure that disputes can be settled without undue delay.

Where settlement of equal pay claims cannot be reached by direct negotiation the Bill provides that a party to a dispute can refer it to an equal pay officer of the Labour Court who will investigate it and issue a recommendation. The equal pay officers will be trained in the techniques necessary to enable them to give informed and authoritative guidance to the parties involved. If a party to a dispute is dissatisfied with the recommendation of an equal pay officer there is provision in the Bill for appeal to the Labour Court, who will then issue a binding determination enforceable by law. Appeals may be made to the High Court on a point of law in any such recommendation.

I have deliberately selected the Labour Court as the body to be the final arbiter of equal pay cases rather than setting up a separate tribunal as has been done in a number of other countries. In our situation the Labour Court enjoys a high reputation at the centre of our industrial relations system as a body trusted by both employers and unions. I would hope that this would contribute towards the acceptability of decisions in this area.

Where it appears to me that a particular employer has failed to comply with the provisions of the Bill and where for one reason or another it is not reasonable to expect an employee to refer her case to an equal pay officer, I will have power under the Bill to refer cases to the equal pay officers for investigation.

I have included a provision in the Bill making it an offence for an employer to dismiss a woman on the grounds that she sought equal pay.

In a prosecution for an offence of this kind the onus will be on the employer to satisfy the courts that the dismissal did not arise solely from the making of the claim for equal pay. A woman who has been dismissed in the circumstances I have referred to should not be placed in the position of having to incur legal expenses in order to assert her rights as given under this legislation. The Bill therefore provides that she can if she wishes lodge a complaint with the Labour Court that she has been dismissed from her employment because she sought equal pay whereupon the Labour Court will consider the complaint. If the court is satisfied that the complaint is well-founded it can, by order, direct the employer concerned to compensate the woman for loss of earnings. An employer who fails to comply with a Labour Court order will be guilty of an offence.

I have considered whether in the case of a woman who is dismissed on grounds that she sought equal pay there should be a provision in the Bill which would make compulsory her reinstatement. The legal advice available to me however is that compulsory reinstatement would involve some constitutional difficulties. In the course of the debate on the Bill in the Dáil, I indicated that I was examining the entire question of reinstatement in connection with an Unfair Dismissals Bill which I hope to introduce later this year.

I may add that the Bill will apply equally to a man who seeks equal pay with that of a woman who is doing like work in the same place of employment.

I gave careful consideration to the question of the date for full implementation before deciding that the Act should be brought into operation on the 31st December, 1975; in other words, that women should be entitled to full equality with a man who is doing like work in the same place of employment from that date. As a Government we were convinced that there could be no further delay in nominating a final date for the implementation of equal pay.

The decision to proceed to full implementation of this measure by December, 1975, has been the subject of criticism, notably by the employer organisations, since it was two years in advance of the latest date for implementation recommended by the Commission on the Status of Women. In social legislation of this kind it is of course the right of nationally representative organisations to make known their observations, either of opposition or support, but in the last analysis it is for the Government of the day to take the necessary legislative decisions after consideration of all the factors.

During the course of the Bill's passage through Dáil Éireann a number of important amendments have been made. Many of these were as a result of representations made to me by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. As a result I believe that both the scope of the Bill and its effectiveness as an instrument for achieving equal pay have been greatly enhanced.

The following have been the main changes:

(a) the field of employment within which a person may draw comparisons in support of an equal pay claim has been extended to include associated companies;

(b) the geographical area within which a person may draw comparisons for equal pay purposes has now been defined as "city, town or locality";

(c) all collective agreements and all forms of statutory wages orders will now be subject to the provision of the Bill after 1975;

(d) in the case of a woman who was dismissed on the grounds that she sought equal pay, the Bill now provides that she can obtain up to two years' arrears of remuneration as compared with six months' arrears as originally provided.

Despite these important amendments I would not contend that this Bill constitutes the final legislative sortie into this area. It is inevitable that despite the amount of thought and attention that has been given to the preparation of this measure flaws and unforeseen difficulties will emerge in time. To ensure that I can make a speedy and flexible response to these problems I propose as soon as this Bill passes into law to establish an equal pay review committee representative of trade unions and employers whose function it will be to monitor the progress being made under this legislation. This committee will recommend to me in the light of the experience gained the steps necessary to correct any deficiencies which may emerge. I envisage having this group in operation very shortly and I will arrange for adequate secretarial and research support for its operation.

The Bill fully meets and in some respects goes beyond the requirements of the EEC Draft Directive on Equal Pay. The enactment of the Bill will also enable us to ratify ILO Convention No. 100 relating to equal pay.

While this first piece of legislation in the field of equal pay may not give complete answers to all of the problems connected with discrimination in employment, I trust that it will be looked on as a practical contribution to the improvement of the status of women. As I said at the outset, this Bill is only one of a number of measures which will be required if we are to make progress towards the removal of discrimination in all its forms against women.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Yeats

We on this side of the House welcome this Bill, even though its scope is very limited. We believe it will achieve some results, though in the whole context of the struggle which has continued over many years to obtain equal rights in employment for women, this Bill will only be a relatively minor step along the road. This and other Bills, which we hope will come from the Minister in this field, stem essentially from the initiative taken by the former Fianna Fáil Government when it was announced in the budget of 1972 that the Government had taken a definite decision in principle to achieve the situation of equal pay. This Bill is to a considerable extent based on the draft directive recently produced by the Commission of the EEC. Indeed it is reasonable to suggest that when the Minister refers in his opening speech to the question of the exact date on which this Bill is to come into force— the original date suggested was the end of 1977, and now incorporated in the Bill is the 31st December, 1975—the main factor in changing the Minister's mind was that the date at the end of 1975 was laid down quite clearly in the draft directive of the EEC. The Minister stated in his speech:

The Bill fully meets and in some respects goes beyond the requirements of the EEC Draft Directive on Equal Pay.

There are a couple of points—I am not suggesting that they are of great importance—which are laid down in this draft directive and which are not incorporated in this Bill. I should be interested to hear the Minister's explanation why they are not. These are essentially matters for the Committee Stage but I might as well mention them now.

Article 7 of the draft directive provides that provisions adopted in pursuance of this directive and those already in force shall be brought to the attention of workers in an appropriate manner at their places of work. This is a relatively technical matter. It is important that suitable notices should be put up in places of work so that all the workers involved will be quite clear—they will pass these notices every day—that they have these rights under this legislation. This is a valuable requirement in the directive. While there may be some reasonable explanation, on the face of it it seems a pity that the Minister has not included it in his Bill.

There is also the question, perhaps of more importance, under Article 6 of the draft directive, where it is stated:

Member States shall ensure that the application of the principle of equal pay is supervised at the level of the undertaking.

The Minister is not proposing to do this. He proposes to appoint equal pay officers who will ensure that the provisions of this Bill are carried out. I do not know how many equal pay officers he proposes to appoint, but obviously the number will have to be limited. There are many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of premises which will be affected. While I can see that there will be difficulties in having supervision at the level of the undertaking, that is no reason for not attempting it. I suggest that the Minister consider if some form of provision should not be introduced into the Bill for supervising, as laid down in the directive, these matters at the level of the undertaking as well as having the equal pay officers. It will be very difficult for equal pay officers to keep the day-to-day supervision at the level of each small undertaking. But that would be possible if the matter was more localised. As I said, these are essentially Committee points.

Taking the general matter of the position of women in the industrial and commercial life of the country, the main problem is not one of wages. We all know the general figures, not only in Ireland but in other countries, showing that women consistently get far lower wages than men. This is due in part to the problem dealt with under this Bill: that in cases where women and men are employed at the same work the women are paid less. But the big discrepancies in the average earnings of women and men are due to more than this simple matter. The Report of the Commission on the Status of Women, at page 26, gives a detailed list, which I do not propose to read in toto, of the earnings of women as a percentage of those of men.

The figures throughout industry given for March, 1972, are fairly consistent. Women's wages are in general between 55 and 65 per cent of those of men, in other words, less than two-thirds of those of men in comparable industries. The position is similar in other countries. Again I quote from the Commission on the Status of Women, and these figures all apply to October, 1966. In Belgium, for example, although the total number of women employed in manufacturing industry is 25.8 per cent of the total number of workers, they have only 4.1 per cent of skilled jobs. In Germany 29.7 per cent of all workers in manufacturing industry are women and they have only 1.6 per cent of skilled jobs. In France 29.3 per cent of all workers are women and they have 3.6 per cent of the jobs. In Italy the figures are 30.6 of all workers and 5.6 per cent of skilled jobs are held by women. Luxembourg has a small number of female workers—only 5.9 per cent—and they are one-fifth of 1 per cent of the skilled workers. The Netherlands have 16.8 per cent of the total workers and 2.0 per cent of the skilled workers are women. The general picture is one where, generally speaking, the women are unskilled or semi-skilled workers. The skilled jobs are almost exclusively reserved for men.

The reasons for this are numerous. One of the main reasons why it is so difficult for women to obtain adequate employment is the lack of training. This is not the only problem, as the sad fact is that, even where women are adequately trained, they face similar problems. In Germany, for example, a female graduate in chemistry earns far less and is offered comparatively less interesting positions than men. This also applies to other countries. While 47 per cent of the female employees in the various Government Ministries in Bonn have a fairly high standard of school or university education, they have only 8.9 per cent of the higher grade jobs. We all know this position exists in this country. Very few higher civil servants are women.

In Germany 26.6 per cent of all civil servants and 59.1 per cent of all other salaried employees in the public sector are women. Only 5.3 per cent of Government administrators and 1.4 per cent of executives are women, there being at this executive level of the public sector only one woman to 137 men. This is a general pattern which is to be found in all countries. It is not entirely a matter of training —though that aspect is very important and I should like the Minister to introduce legislation to ensure that women have equal access to training —but it is also a matter of tradition and prejudice which is as strong in this country as in other countries. There is a feeling that any job of importance must be given to a man. One way of overcoming this is to have more women on interview boards and as recruiting officers. The Minister should take action on this in due course.

Many people fear that with more jobs available to women and the willingness of employers to recruit them, women may suffer because this Bill provides for compulsory equal pay. It is feared that, if employers are given the choice of employing a woman or a man at the same wage, they will inevitably choose the man. I would have worried about this a few years ago, but in present economic circumstances in Ireland this fear, if it ever had any validity, is no longer valid. It may have been valid at a time when there was a very large surplus of labour, heavy unemployment and emigration. It is not valid now because in many spheres of the economy there is a shortage of labour. If an employer is looking for a person to fill a responsible position he will take whoever is efficient, irrespective of their sex. Women need not worry that although they will have theoretical equal pay under this Bill, they will have less access to jobs.

So far as it goes, one can support this Bill. The Minister must realise that it only touches the surface of the problem. Many more things need to be done. Unless women have equal access to jobs of responsibility and jobs requiring skill, this limited provision for equal pay will have little effect.

Miss Owens

I, like the other speakers, welcome this Bill. It is a landmark in the history of the women of Ireland that this Bill has reached this stage even if rather belatedly. This campaign for equal pay for women began in 1888, therefore, it cannot be said that the Bill is premature in 1974. There has been considerable movement in Europe, America and eastern countries towards the elimination of discrimination against women in all its aspects. This has always been highlighted by the campaign for equal pay. In his statement the Minister appears to accept that equal pay of itself is a small step in the direction of eliminating existing discrimination. Legislation of itself is only a small step towards achieving the state we wish to attain. This area falls within the scope of Parliament. I am pleased to be here today making this small move towards eliminating what has been a ridiculous situation. This type of legislation has been in existence in other countries for many years. The first Equal Pay Act came into force in 1919 in the State of Michigan in the USA. Yet today American women do not enjoy full equal pay.

The women of Ireland would be very silly if they felt that any part of this Bill, or similar Bills, is going to control economic equality. There is much more than that involved. Indeed I take the comment of Senator Yeats and what the Minister said in introducing the Bill about the importance of having full anti-discrimination legislation on this matter. There was the case in England very recently where they got equal pay legislation through in 1970 which was to become fully operative by 1975. In fact, because they did not proceed with an anti-discrimination legislation in other areas, that legislation has proved remarkably ineffective in many ways. The Americans have had the same experience. Their big impetus towards equal pay came after they adopted a portion of the civil rights legislation in 1967.

I would urge the Minister at this early stage not to wait beyond the end of this year before giving us the draft of the next Anti-Discrimination Bill. Experience all over the world has proved that one without the other may mean next to nothing.

In this country in recent years— due, I think, to pressure from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the women's organisations—we have made some important steps forward. Indeed the publication of the Report of the Commission on the Status of Women was a landmark in history. When that was debated in this House —and I was grateful that we had the opportunity of debating it—I, unfortunately, was not able to participate in the debate. I should like to take this opportunity of recording my appreciation of the work that commission did. The report certainly alerted a lot of people because it is such a well-documented, objective and factual account of the situation in Ireland. Indeed, it was an indictment of our society.

However it was in the recent national wage agreements that, perhaps, we took positive steps forward. These were negotiated at the Employer-Labour Conference and by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. The wage agreement currently in operation for many people provides for a 17½ per cent narrowing of the gap in some areas. The Minister has taken the definitions from the national wage agreement and written them into the Bill. This covers areas of unequal pay which, perhaps, might not have been covered otherwise. It covers, for instance, the marriage differential which applies to civil servants and in some local authority areas, but is mostly confined to the public sector. That 17½ per cent has meant that the vast majority of women working in the Civil Service have moved towards equality. Indeed the current national wage agreement includes provision for the further narrowing of the gap by 33? per cent.

However, we have had an indication of what happens even under freely negotiated agreements and legislation. The number of women who have actually benefited by that 17½ per cent are relatively few. It might surprise people to discover that even in the public sector it has not been conceded in many areas. In the local government sector, for instance, where married and single scales operate for the clerical officers, the City and County Managers' Association have refused to concede the 17½ per cent on all points of the scale, even though the marriage differential exists on all points of the scale. I do not want to bore the House with the details of that situation; but the problem is far from being settled, as far as I can see.

Turning to the Bill itself, I think in many ways it is more a Committee Stage Bill, but there are a few points on which I should like to comment. The Minister says it has gone further than the British Act. That is the one with which we are most familiar. We are certainly familiar with the way it operates because the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, both at executive and at advisory committee level, are in close contact with their colleagues in the North of Ireland. We know of the difficulties they have experienced in the operation of their Act and where the pitfalls are likely to arise. This Bill is in many ways much better than the English Act. To that extent I should like to compliment the Minister.

I agree that, no matter how carefully a Bill is drafted there can be loopholes. I want to refer to one section of the Bill particularly because the Minister might be able to give some comments in reply. It is section 2 (3). It seems to me that that section, as it stands at the moment, is wide open to abuse. It would not take a very clever employer to use that section as a basis for discrimination. Experience of employers indicates that they are quite remarkable at thinking up grounds, other than sex, for different rates of remuneration. Some tightening up of the wording in that section might be in order—for instance, the insertion of a clause indicating that payment must be related to actual differences in the performance of service.

The biggest criticism of the Bill is that when it becomes operative in 1975 it will have but a limited effect. Senator Yeats read out figures relative to the differences between male and female wages I do not want to go over those figures again. There has been a lot of fuss over the title of the Bill. As far as the majority of the women of Ireland are concerned they would not care if this Bill was called the "Barbed Wire Act" or anything else so long as it gave them economic equality. The Bill is confined to an equal pay concept and therefore it has left out the vast majority of workers, and mostly the lower-paid workers. The Bill will achieve its purpose in respect of what one might call the "white-collar worker" because equality is going to be fairly easily established there and in some other areas in industry.

The situation in the Irish work-force at the moment is, of course, that women are confined to jobs traditionally held by women and men are in male jobs. By some marvellous coincidence, which I am sure the House will appreciate, men's wages just happen to be that much higher than women's wages. There will be little basis on which we can establish equal value or light work. Therefore the vast majority of women in industry will not be dealt with by this Bill. The Minister spoke about another Bill in his introductory speech and said this Bill will be the most important part of this anti-discrimination legislation.

The section of the English Act which has proved most effective has been one in which they allowed for the women's rate being brought up to at least the minimum male rate. This may mean that in England you could have a semi-skilled woman getting male labourer's rate, but that is still a vast improvement on the previous situation. In this area the trade unions have been able to negotiate most effectively in narrowing the gap.

I was very glad to hear the Minister say that he intends to set up a review committee to monitor the progress of the legislation. It will be a review committee representing trade unions and employers. This is one of the matters on which many of the other countries have fallen down. Once we get a piece of legislation we say "That is fine. The employers and trade unions will see to it that that is implemented". In fact the statistics already read out by Senator Yeats prove that they have not done that.

I welcome the idea of the review committee monitoring the legislation. I would be very happy if I had the terms of reference of that committee, but I presume it might be too early for the Minister to give them now. I would also be very concerned to know whether this review committee will have the power to look at the areas of employment which I have just mentioned. It will be relatively easy to monitor the progress in the public sector, but it will not be easy to know what is going on in the private sector of industry. This is where the big wage gap occurs. This is where the Minister will find that the Bill is doing little towards achieving its objectives. Perhaps we could get an annual report, which we could discuss, which would give an indication of how effective this legislation is and where, if necessary, it needs to be remedied. I know this is not covered by the Commission on the Status of Women. If the Minister is ever to do anything to help the lower-paid section of women in this community he needs to have something similar to what is in the British Act.

I welcome the fact that the operative date will be 1975. I think this is quite a remarkable achievement. The commission were set up in 1970. At the time the Irish Congress of Trade Unions felt that the operative date here should not be after the operative date in Britain, and their operative date is December, 1975. The commission did not accept that, but I am very glad the Minister has been able to make the Bill operative by 1975. More important than the actual money involved is the fact that it shortens the time in which, as our friends on the radio say, diversionary action can be taken. It is true that already because of the introduction of this legislation some employers in the city have taken diversionary action. What is called the "all-female" grade is being brought into existence. This is to make sure that work of equal value and like work will not be easily demonstrated or negotiated. Therefore, the sooner this legislation comes into effect the better. As a trade unionist who is not necessarily anti-employer, I studied the "druidery" they got up to in England to avoid the implementation of the British Act. I think the review committee will play a very important role here.

What we are getting from this legislation is important. First of all, it is very important for the people it will affect. I think they will be a limited number. I welcome also the indication that we are to get further legislation on discrimination. Perhaps the next legislation will be comprehensive legislation dealing with all the areas of education, training, promotion, access to jobs and access to some unions, which is still denied to some of us.

It is important for the country's point of view that we can now ratify Article 100 of the ILO Convention and that we can fully adopt the European Social Charter. Up to now we have asked for exclusions. These exclusions meant that we retained the status quo. These are important and welcome amendments to our legislation. It was part of the 14-point programme of the National Coalition Government that they would look at areas of discrimination and do something about them. The improvements in social welfare benefits and this Bill are a firm indication of the Government's intent in that regard.

Mrs. Robinson

I paused, hoping it would not be a majority of women Senators who would be discussing this Bill. I welcome the Bill in the framework in which the Minister has placed it: as the first in a series of pieces of legislation to remove discrimination against women. As such it may be regarded for what it is: a first limited step. It is clear that this Bill when it becomes operative in December, 1975, will not affect the lifestyle or the status of the majority of women workers in this country. It is a welcome Bill, but it is only a very preliminary step. I am pleased that the Minister places it in that context. Also, I should like to commend the Minister for his flexibility while this Bill was being debated in the other House and his willingness to bring in amendments which have improved the scope of the Bill.

There is a danger in beginning with a Bill of this nature, called the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Bill and referring to the recommendation of the Commission on the Status of Women on equal pay, that it tends to distract attention from the reality. The reality is that this Bill will not improve the working conditions of the vast majority of women workers. It will have impact only on the skilled workers in certain areas and on those who have reached a certain level on the scale and who are, as Senator Owens said, to some extent the "white-collar" women workers in the country.

It is necessary to refer specifically to this broader context and to press for more comprehensive measures which should come into effect at the same time as this Bill. I agree very much with Senator Owens that we must benefit from the experience of other countries, particularly Britain, Northern Ireland and parts of the United States, where it has been found that a limited measure of this sort can be evaded unless it is set in the framework of broader measures to eliminate discrimination.

It would be preferable if the first step had been directed towards creating job opportunities for the whole range of women workers, beginning with the introduction of a minimum wage. In this way there would be less disparity between the working conditions of women within the scope of operation of this Bill and those who are totally outside its range altogether. In Ireland we must be aware of the fact that there are only a very small proportion of women in skilled occupations, in managerial and executive work, or in the various professions. At the moment there is widespread discrimination in recruitment for a job and in job allocation. Despite the title of this Bill, that sort of discrimination is completely outside its range. The average hourly earnings of women generally are considerably lower than the average hourly earnings for male workers. Once again, except in a very narrow range of employment, that position will be unaffected by this Bill, although the situation is being improved gradually as a result of successive national wage agreements.

These are realities which we must face lest we become complacent about this measure. It is necessary to face such realities and to press for other measures to be introduced on a similar timescale to this particular Bill. These would remove discrimination in the hiring for a job, discrimination in promotion within employment and discrimination in job training. Also, the whole question of advertising for a job is one for which there is a need for specific legislation.

To achieve the objective of this legislation it is necessary to cater for the specific responsibilities of women by introducing legislation guaranteeing paid maternity leave for women workers, to provide for particular child-care services, creches, and so on, which make a reality of equality of opportunity in employment. These are a necessary complement to the particular aim of this Bill which deals with the question of equal pay.

While welcoming the indication of intent on the part of the Minister in his Second Reading speech, I should like to see a firmer commitment by him on behalf of the Government that these other areas will be legislated for in the same time scale: in other words, a specific undertaking to introduce the other Anti-Discrimination Bills which he promised. I believe this is essential to any genuine endeavour to bring about equality of opportunity and equality of pay. These measures should be introduced in a time scale which will make them operative by 31st December, 1975.

Senators Yeats and Owens mentioned the influence of the European Community on the timing of this Bill. It is appropriate that we note that in this area, as a result of the social action programme of the Community and the draft directive on equal pay, there is a positive stimulus to bring about better social conditions in Irish life. We are obliged to bring forward the date on which we meet the commitment to introducing equal pay in employment from the latest date of the recommendation of the Commission on the Status of Women, 31st December, 1977, to the date in the Bill, 31st December, 1975. Sometimes there is a tendency to regard the European Community as a cold, economic capitalist plot, but it is pleasing to affirm that in this area our membership has had a positive effect on social conditions here and on the conditions of the work-force in this country.

I join with Senator Owens in welcoming the fact that we will now adhere to the ILO Convention No. 100 and also to implementing in full the European social charter. We have been sadly negligent in adhering to several ILO Conventions. We must advance rapidly towards the social conditions in other countries in Europe in order to provide for full freedom of movement and for equality of social conditions between ourselves and other countries of the European Community.

Looking more precisely at the Bill itself, I would like first of all to join with Senator Owens when she asks whether section 2, on the entitlement to equal pay, is drafted in sufficiently precise terms to prevent its avoidance, between now and 31st December, 1975, by employers who wish to evade the implications of this Bill. The danger is that jobs will be redefined so that the discrimination is not on the basis of sex but on some other basis. Where this is done sufficiently in advance of the date of operation of the Bill the employer should be able to discharge any burden of showing that this was not on the grounds of sex. In other words, a careful programming by employers in anticipation of this Bill could allow a sufficiently determined employer to avoid its implications. The solution is to provide that the minimum scale for the female employee will not be below the minimum for the male employee.

There is a weakness in the Bill in that investigations by the equal pay officer will be either at the request of a party to the dispute, under section 7, subsection (1), or at the request of the Minister under subsection (2), but no other person can be the initiating party. If it was possible to allow some other person or body, appropriately a trade union, provided that the union have authority in writing from the individual, it would be a much more realistic way of authorising the equal pay officer to deal with the particular complaint. The reality very often is that an employee who feels that she is discriminated against in pay conditions may fear she will be prejudiced, not perhaps in the short term that she will be dismissed because of certain safeguards in the Bill, but that it will prejudice her long-term employment opportunity in that firm and prejudice her promotion.

As well as that it takes a certain level of independence and determination to bring a claim in this way which is akin to a legal action. It would be preferable that the individual concerned could authorise a union or authorise another body on behalf of that party to bring the dispute before the equal pay officer for investigation, and similarly where it is proposed to bring the investigation before the Labour Court.

I welcome the fact that the Bill now extends to collective bargaining, and also that the definition of "place" has been extended to include a city, town or locality and that the meaning of "employer" has been extended to include an associate employer so that it will encompass a holding company or different companies operating under similar management. These are improvements in the Bill which have been brought about by amendments after discussion. It would be a further improvement to make the definition in section 2 a more precise one which would prevent evasion, and, secondly, to allow a person to authorise either a union or a group to proceed with the written authority of that person and take the complaint to the equal pay officer or to the Labour Court.

There are one or two other points on the Bill which are largely Committee points. Another matter which has aroused interest is the statement by the Minister that he proposes to establish an equal pay review committee. I join with Senator Owens in welcoming some monitoring committee of this kind. However, I wonder whether it would be possible to give this committee a statutory basis by incorporating it in the actual terms of the Bill itself? This would have several positive advantages. Firstly, the committee could be given specific statutory functions. It would be of great assistance if the review committee was not confined merely to a monitoring of the actual operation of the Bill itself but if it had specific statutory authority to make recommendations to the Minister in relation to other areas of discrimination, and as to how they might be removed.

In addition, it would be helpful if the committee had a statutory duty to report annually to both Houses of the Oireachtas. These reports give an opportunity for a parliamentary scrutiny of the operation of social legislation of this sort. The disadvantage of the Minister setting up an equal pay review committee outside the structure of the Act is that the Oireachtas has no specific role in relation to it, and the terms of reference of the committee are at a much lower level and are totally at the discretion of the Minister. The actual status, the functioning of the committee, is less secure and less independent than if it were incorporated in the Bill itself.

The value of incorporating such a review committee in the Bill would be that it would allow an independent assessment of the extent to which this Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Bill was having an impact on employment, the extent to which there were attempts to evade its implications on the lines that have been suggested, and the extent to which it was really making a substantial difference to the life style of female workers.

Finally I join with the other two Senators who have spoken on the Bill in welcoming it as a first and, admittedly, limited step on the road to equality of opportunity and equality of pay for the women of this country. I seek—if he is prepared to give it— a more specific assurance from the Minister that the other measures which he has hinted at will be implemented within the same time scale to prevent the sort of evasion which this Bill is otherwise open to, and to prevent its being a Bill with a rather grandiose title which, in effect, has little impact on the vast majority of female workers.

Mr. Dolan

I, too, should like to join with other Senators in welcoming this Bill. It is true to say that, probably during the whole history of the world, down through the centuries, women have been placed in a very different category from that of men. This applied in particular to employment, conditions of employment and remuneration. This country was no worse than any other country. With few exceptions women have seldom been given the same opportunities as men to reach the top in various forms of employment. Of course we have a few striking examples of women who made the grade and who established themselves. They have gained for themselves a page, a line, or a chapter in the history books. Generally speaking, the conditions under which women workers lived and worked, not alone in this country but in other countries, were much lower than the conditions which obtained for men.

This applied, in particular, inside my own organisation, the INTO. For years and years there were two, three or four different pay structures within that service. People were discriminated against on grounds of sex and also on grounds of marital status. As a trade unionist I tried to fight against this injustice all my life. I am glad to say that the present Leader of the Opposition was the man who, as Minister for Education, eventually acceded to our request and allowed women teachers the right to remain in the service after marriage. That was a type of discrimination which we thought was very unjust all down the line: we were aware that women who were teaching small children and women who had children of their own had a much better understanding of the problems of younger children and of family life in general. I am very glad to see that that has been rectified, and that the thinking, in general, throughout the country has moved in that direction.

Before we on this side of the House left office, this very measure had already been announced. It was long overdue. Many people do not realise the part that women play in the life of the community and particularly in the family life of this nation. It has been said that: "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world". It is an undeniable fact that the influence of the mother on children, and on the nation as a whole, is very great. We, as a people, should ensure that women are not discriminated against in any way if they are working and that they should get their entitlements and have conditions on a par with —or even better than—their opposite numbers. I welcome the Bill that aims at doing that.

We have a lot to be thankful for to the women of Ireland. On one occasion I heard the late Dan Breen being interviewed about his escapades during the fight for freedom, and the narrow escapes he and his comrades had. When he was asked who were the people he thought did most in those days, his answer was very remarkable. He said: "The ordinary women of Ireland". This nation owes a deep debt of gratitude to them.

There are sections in the professions who will have an opportunity of benefiting immensely from this. It is only right that this should be the case. I would always campaign for equal pay for equal work. In many spheres women are on a par with men. In particular, since the last war, they have gone into the professions and into many other employments such as driving buses and working machines. Indeed many of them have been out in some of the wars which were fought since World War II.

Therefore it is right that such a measure should be before this House and that we, on this side, should support it. It is only part of the social justice to which women are entitled. To have them doing the same work as men and not getting the same pay is ridiculous. This immediately creates a type of inferiority complex among them. That should not be, because they are the people who will be rearing the nation's families and they could pass on that type of inferiority complex to their children. If anything bedevilled the people of Ireland in the past, it was this type of inferiority complex. We had a feeling that we were not as good as our neighbour, or that we were not as good as other countries. This should help to stamp out that inheritance which has been handed down to us who were an oppressed people for so long.

I wonder what effect this measure will have on recruitment into the Civil Service where the majority of the employees are women. Will it create better openings for men and will it reduce the number of women employed? I should like if the measure could be extended to those women who perform very important jobs even if they are not of a professional nature, for example, people who work in hospitals, buildings such as this, and various other institutions.

In the past there was a great deal of discrimination throughout the country. We were educationally starved in our youth. The primary schools did excellent work, but there were very few facilities for post-primary education. Consequently many of our people with brains and talents, through no fault of their own, were not able to get secondary or third level education and are now, in uninteresting positions. I should like to see this legislation applying to the lower-paid workers.

This is a good piece of legislation. It will probably have its teething troubles. As a member of a party which successfully piloted through the Oireachtas social legislation for the benefit of our workers and which tried to improve the lot of the less fortunate members of the community, I think this is an excellent piece of legislation and I am very happy to see the Minister introducing it.

Mr. Markey

The slogan "Equal pay for equal work" has been much discussed. The wording has been changed to "Equal pay for like work", but the discussion will continue even after the acceptance of this Bill.

I am sure Senator Owens and Senator Robinson would like it to go on record that their fellow-Senators are overwhelmingly in favour of such a Bill. Senator Robinson expressed that hope that a male Member of the Seanad would speak on the Bill. There are very few men who would oppose the principles embodied in the Bill which the Minister for Labour has laid before us.

There is still something of an idealistic aura about this Bill. To make it something more than an ideal, to apply it in practice to the people it is supposed to benefit, is the nub of the task which lies before us. Lip service to the principle of this Bill has been paid for a long time. Senator Owens and Senator Robinson referred to diversionary and evasive tactics in the next 18 months to frustrate or delay the implementation of the Bill. While I have no doubt that the terms of the Bill will be implemented in full within State and local authority services I see certain difficulties in regard to its application in small and private concerns.

The Federated Union of Employers made some comments in this connection. They mentioned that the period before implementation was not long enough. Perhaps the Minister, in his reply, could elaborate on this matter and tell us if he would recommend to the Labour Court that pay officers, under the terms of this Bill, should sympathetically consider such cases as will inevitably arise in small firms and private businesses.

We must bear in mind that there could be an inflationary aspect. The fact that the proportion of women in our work force has increased, as the Minister said, to 26 per cent of the working population would on its own be sufficient reason why we should at long last tackle in practical terms the principle of equal pay for like work. It is good to see a Bill such as this coming hot on the track of legislation already introduced to alleviate the lot of the opposite sex, such as the removal of the marriage bar in the Public Service, assistance to deserted wives, and the vesting of entitlement to children's allowances in the mother. These measures have all been very welcome. This Bill will also be welcomed. The Minister has tried as far as he can to see that the terms of the Bill will be applied as far as practicable.

I should like if the Minister would say when replying what he thinks the attitude of the Labour Court and the pay officers should be to difficult submissions and cases which will inevitably be put to them by very small firms who will face the inflationary aspect to which I referred.

Dr. Martin

I should like unreservedly to welcome this Bill and particularly to compliment the Minister on the tone of his speech, which was realistic, tactful, modest and accurate. It acknowledged that the Bill does not do everything, but it described precisely what it will do. Its whole tone was an earnest of the determination of the Minister and Government to carry through the necessary reforms in this large and complicated area of our industrial, commercial and administrative life.

Perhaps in a tone of levity I must take exception to a sentence in the second paragraph which seems oddly worded: "Much needs to be done through legislation and otherwise to eliminate unfair discrimination on grounds of sex where it exists and so help to change the prejudiced attitudes which give rise to it." There seems to be almost a reflection on the Creator. Surely the sentence should read: "Much needs to be done through legislation and otherwise to eliminate unfair discrimination where it exists with regard to sex"? I presume the Minister does not set out to abolish this unfortunate biological phenomenon which goes under that three-letter word.

However, after that note of levity I should like to go on and say that when the Civil Service (Employment of Married Women) Act, 1973, came through the House there was a great deal of what I felt was undue self-congratulation about the fact that the marriage bar had been removed in the Civil Service area. I probably struck the only truculant note that day in saying that there was so much more to be done that it would be a dreadful failing and misapprehension if one were to consider that particular enactment to be sufficient in itself, that there were a great number of things involving the semi-State bodies, and property rights, and the situation of deserted wives, which had to be dealt with. I said on that occasion that I hoped there would be action on them, and I chose to see the Bill as a stepping stone. I can see now that my truculence and perhaps some of my cynicism, which was occasioned by what I thought was too large a celebration in the House, has been proven to be misjudged.

This Bill, in itself, and particularly the tone in which the Minister has couched his introduction of the Bill, promises that this whole area of discrimination within our society will be pursued methodically, gradually and intelligently, and with the skill which the Minister has shown on so many occasions so far in his short term in office. Particularly admirable in the Bill is the fact that it does not content itself with mere aspiration, with the enunciation of a slogan. For instance, the Minister points out that there will be equal pay officers and that they "will be trained in the techniques necessary to enable them to give informed and authoritative guidance to the parties involved. If a party to a dispute is dissatisfied with the recommendation of an equal pay officer, there is provision in the Bill for appeal to the Labour Court who will then issue a binding determination enforceable by law."

That is good, clear, forthright language. It is the kind of language in which this kind of reform should be couched. It is the language of a Minister who really means what he says and who is not simply window-dressing. I should also like to applaud his tact in laying the responsibility for this on the Labour Court. Special courts to deal with women's complaints have been set up elsewhere. That would seem to me to be discriminatory and to be against the entire spirit of the Bill, which is towards equality and which avoids that kind of condescension.

Therefore I should like to welcome the Bill and I should also like to welcome the attitude of the Minister towards the amendments which have been put forward. These amendments are good and they enhance the Bill. The acceptance of them is again a further earnest of goodwill in the entire field. There is just one cautionary note on which I should like to end. Within a society which has grown up in western civilisation, as we are pleased to call it, recently there is a very strident assertion of the role of women, and very properly so. I do not like the stridency but the importance of woman and her equality and the need for her equality and her contribution to be recognised are all admirable.

When the Report on the Status of Women came forward I had only one reservation about it. It did not say anything about the role of motherhood. It seems to me that there are certain things that women are very good at and certain things that men are very good at. That is a fact that should be recognised. It should also be recognised that one of the very great vocations that falls to women is to be wives and mothers. In the climate that I have described or hinted at, there is a certain rhetoric in the air today which makes many women feel that the role of home-making and of motherhood is somehow or other a less glamorous and maybe in the end a less worthy profession.

Miss Owens

It could not be paid for.

Dr. Martin

It could not be paid for. It is so invaluable that it could not. What salary could you offer to a woman for properly rearing her children? It could not be done. You could not assess it in any terms. Senator Owen's remark buttresses my point that this particular vocation of womanhood is of enormous importance. It is being downgraded in certain areas of the whole journalistic world today.

It would be a very great pity if the admirable and commendable zeal which is being shown, particularly here and now, to eliminate disabilities and inequalities should overwhelm that central and very important function which has so much to do with the health and the furtherance of our people. I should like to echo my colleague, Senator Dolan, who said that, "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world". While it goes on rocking the cradle it should be content and confident that it is doing perhaps the greatest job that can be done in the world. With that reservation which is, perhaps, more in the rhetoric of a Redemptorist homily than in the rhetoric of Seanad legislation, I should like quite unreservedly to welcome the Bill and indeed to compliment the Minister on the manner in which he has introduced it.

Minister for Labour (Mr. M. O'Leary)

I wish to thank those various Senators who have spoken on this legislation. The points that have been raised relate to certain questions involved in it. I agree with Senator Robinson and Senator Owens—the point has been made by other Senators also—that this legislation will only be truly effective when other legislation dealing with related areas of discrimination are also in operation. This current legislation will come into effect in December, 1975. I would envisage that the legislation which I have in preparation dealing with the area of unfair dismissal, on the question of recruitment, training and promotion of women, will be operative by the time December, 1975, comes around and this is implemented.

Senator Owens made the important point—and I agree with her—that. while she conceded that the section in the comparable British legislation which provides for an equation between the unskilled rate of male and female employment in industries would not be appropriate to this legislation, the provision in the British legislation has proved of great assistance in raising the pay of women. I believe however that this current legislation has all the elements necessary to prove the case of equal pay for work of equal value. I placed a great deal of hope on the formation of the committee I mentioned today, which will be representative of both employers and unions, as a monitoring agency to see that this legislation will prove effective. It may happen that events will bear out those critics of the legislation who say sincerely that they do not see it as being of great assistance to those women in industry who are lowly paid. I hope that the committee which we will set up immediately this Bill is enacted will start to work at once to survey the area and begin the work which will be necessary to ensure there is no evasion of the provisions of this legislation. Senator Robinson suggested that the committee should be on a statutory basis. That necessity does not arise as both bodies from which I would expect nominees to be sent to this committee would be very vigilant to see they are entering a committee which will have some authority. The need for under-pinning it in this statutory fashion will not be necessary in that situation.

I propose to give the committee secretarial assistance and we will together look at this area and see what other legislative steps, what other measures may be necessary to see that the intent of this legislation becomes a reality for the majority of women working in industry. The Bill commits the community through legislation to the principle of equal pay and setting out comprehensive definitions which will establish entitlement. It provides a structure within which equal pay claims can be processed and determined should they not be resolved by direct negotiations. It provides sanctions against those who are found to discriminate in the matter of pay.

Senator Markey raised the question of small employees. There is no provision of this type made in this legislation. After December, 1975, where it can be proved that there is work of equal value, demanding equal responsibility, being performed by a woman, she will have to obtain pay equal to that of her male colleagues. This is the sort of debate which goes on interminably—whether our social objectives must be price-tagged to the point that we cannot legislate improvements in the social policy area. One often hears—not so much in these days—of the economic advantages on the prices level, of our entry into the EEC. Here is one of the social obligations contingent on our admission to the EEC. Many of those who were to the fore in stating we must join Europe may not have sufficiently emphasised that there were social obligations in our membership of the EEC. The price of cattle was not to be the sole reason for joining Europe: anybody looking at the price of cattle at present might not see the applicability of that argument. There were social obligations and we are serious about living up to them. Small businesses as well as large businesses must fulfil their obligations in this area.

Senator Yeats questioned whether we lived up to the EEC directive. This legislation does, in significant respects, go beyond that directive. As I have stated it provides compensation for dismissal which is not included in the EEC directive. There is provision in it for a remedy through the Labour Court without any cost to the litigants, the women concerned, and this is not included in the EEC directive either.

When speaking about fulfilling our obligations in EEC social policy one must not forget that we contribute to the development of EEC social policy. I sit on the Council of Ministers dealing with social policy. We have had a good influence on the development of European social policy. It would be wrong to suggest that European social policy evolves without our active participation because we do participate in the development of policy in Brussels in the Social Affairs Committee. The question of whether it will benefit the majority of women was raised by Senator Robinson. I have answered this by stating we will have other anti-discrimination measures in operation by the time this legislation comes into effect in December, 1975. Senator Robinson was worried lest a trade union could not bring a case, on behalf of a woman, to the equal pay officer. The Bill will permit a trade union to bring a case to the equal pay officer.

Senators Robinson and Owens were concerned that employers might reclassify jobs before the implementation of this measure. As Senator Owens stated, this has been the experience elsewhere where such legislation was in operation without accompanying anti-discrimination legislation. This situation should be met by this other legislation being in operation before then. I also hope the committee to which I have referred will take an active part in notifying unions and employers of such measures before December, 1975.

Senator Owens was worried that section 2 might introduce unnecessary vagueness. This section is necessary to ensure there could be payments based on increment and service. There is, of course, the basis of appeal in all cases where a woman feels there is some injustice occurring under the terms of this legislation. Senator Yeats and other Senators stated that until women are performing more skilled jobs in industry there will not be a change on a large scale in their status. While their numbers in the work force are increasing, it is true that they mainly occupy lowly-skilled jobs and therefore the less well-paid jobs. Whatever we do in the legislative area, even if we brought in the most wonderful legislation imaginable in this area there remains a great body of public opinion which must be influenced. The minds of organisations must be changed so that jobs with a high-skill content can be opened up to women. There devolves on the State a great responsibility to see that the necessary training is provided so that women may participate fully in responsible jobs in industry.

The legislation on recruitment, training and promotion which it is hoped will be introduced later this year, should help in that direction. Finally, there is a limit to what any type of legislation may do in this area. It is not possible to legislate into existence a change in human nature; I do not cherish that illusion but legislation in this area can have an important influence on the formation of public opinion. That is why I think it is not sufficient for the State to await a change in public attitudes; the State must actively assist in bringing these into existence.

I accept Senator Martin's gracious comments with thanks. I did not set out in my speech to abolish sex; I have no prejudices in the matter. I am not the best qualified spokesman on the virtues of marriage or the lack of them. These larger questions involving the role of women in our society to which other Senators have referred must be dealt with by degrees.

We cannot overnight change certain outmoded attitudes in regard to the role of women in society. I agree that no legislation of ours should seek to deprive women of their family role— that will always be a decision for the individual—but I think that our legislation and our facilities must permit women, as citizens to join other citizens in society on a basis of equality in regard to jobs and occupations. In other words, they must be given their full status as human beings in our society. Regrettably, this has not been their lot up to now and this Administration, as Senator Owens remarked, is committed since the last election to introduce whatever legislation may be helpful or necessary. In the measures to be introduced later I hope to see that commitment honoured.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 5th June, 1974.

Mr. Yeats

Perhaps I might raise the point that, in view of the holiday next Monday, Tuesday morning will be time enough for amendments since they obviously cannot be lodged on Monday?

An Cathaoirleach

If nobody is here to receive them on Monday they will be accepted on Tuesday.