Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Dec 1979

Vol. 93 No. 7

Employment Equality Agency Report: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Seanad Éireann notes the First Annual Report of the Employment Equality Agency and in view of the specific reference in the Report to the fact that "the Agency felt constrained in its activities in the period under review by the limitations imposed upon it by the insufficient Exchequer Grant under which it operated" calls upon the Government as a matter of urgency to provide adequate funding to enable the Employment Equality Agency to carry out its important functions which are essential to the achievement in practice of the principle of equality enshrined in the Employment Equality Act, 1977.—(Senator Robinson.)

Minister for Labour (Mr. G. Fitzgerald)

I attach the greatest importance to the work of the Employment Equality Agency who are entrusted with the task of helping to achieve basic employment rights for one-third of all workers in this country.

I would like to make it clear at the outset that the Government are fully behind the agency in their work. In fact, the record of my own Government in relation to the achievement of equality speaks for itself. I want to remind the Senators that it was under a Fianna Fáil administration that the Commission on the Status of Women was established and that it was under Fianna Fáil Governments that the implementation of many of that commission's recommendations was effected or set in train. That the Coalition were not wholeheartedly committed to the principle of equal treatment for men and women workers is proved by the manner in which they attempted to delay the introduction of equal pay in the public sector. I can assure you of the full commitment of this Government to the achievement of equality, and not just in the field of employment.

The important role of women in our society is evident: 28 per cent of all women over 15 years are in the labour force and that figure is increasing; 27 per cent of the total labour force are women; and 33 per cent of all employees, that is excluding the self-employed, are women.

Their contribution will become even greater as their participation in all areas of economic activity increases. Already there is one female employee to every two male employees; from a purely economic point of view, apart from any question of personal rights, we cannot tolerate a situation where the development of the skill and talent of half of the population is neglected.

It is unhappily true that, due to the traditional attitudes to work, training and education, women are still effectively, if not legally, barred from a range of jobs, even in sectors where there is a shortage of workers to fill existing vacancies. It takes time to change attitudes. We cannot expect in a few years to change the face of society. We must encourage that change. We all have a role to play in that. We can take the essential steps which will lead ultimately to the goal we seek: society does not change fundamental attitudes overnight.

Progress is being made and there is evidence that the situation as regards employment for women is improving. As regards training, a total of 4,418 women were trained by AnCO in 1978, an increase of 64 per cent on 1977. The proportion of women trainees rose from the level of 5 per cent in 1974 to 30 per cent in 1978. Over 15 per cent completed courses in traditional male skills.

AnCO plan to increase the number of places available in their training courses to 3,260 by 1983. I hope to see many more girls availing themselves of the better opportunities for training which will result from the expanding facilities being provided by AnCO.

CERT, too, are making a valuable contribution in the promotion of the employment of women workers. All their training courses are open to both men and women and more women are being encouraged to become managers. Hitherto only about one-third of the managerial positions have been held by women.

The National Manpower Service of my Department are aware of the important role they have to play in the employment of women in areas which have traditionally been considered as totally male preserves. Employers are made aware in the first instance of the rights of women under the 1977 Employment Equality Act. Women who register with the service are advised of the opportunities available to them outside the traditionally female employment areas. They are encouraged to broaden their horizons in their search for suitable employment. It is of interest to note here that over 6,000 young people participated in the work experience programme since it was introduced in September, 1978, and about two-thirds of that number were girls.

Apart from progress in the areas of training and placement, two Acts are on the Statute Book which give women a right to redress where there is discrimination in relation to pay, access to employment training and promotion. Under the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974 almost 300 equal pay cases have been referred to the equality officers of the Labour Court. A further 30 cases of alleged discrimination in conditions of employment have been referred to the Labour Court under the Employment Equality Act, 1977. To date, the Acts have benefited many thousands of women workers.

The operation of the Acts is being monitored by the Employment Equality Agency from whom I have just received a report with recommendations for the amendment of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974. I am having these amendments studied at the present time.

It would be wrong of me, however, to suppose that the enactment of legislation outlawing inequality in regard to pay and conditions of employment could be relied on to eliminate all discrimination in employment. Traditional attitudes towards women and work have tended to condone discrimination. Changes in these traditional attitudes will involve a long-term educational process to which legislation can only be a contributory stimulus.

That attitudes are beginning to change is beyond doubt. Women are now beginning to enter occupations which were traditionally held by men. A striking example is the relatively large number of female applicants—30 out of 170 applications—for a trainee fisherman's course, an occupation which in all countries up to now had been a male bastion. This I believe is a desirable move. It is encouraging to see that in this area of activity there will be a worthwhile percentage, and this is an indication of the progress that is being made.

As I said earlier, I attach the greatest importance to the task given to the Employment Equality Agency under the legislation. The most important task to be tackled now is that of changing attitudes to employment so that women can in future enjoy equal opportunities with men. The annual report of the agency records the dedication and success with which they have approached the difficult responsibilities imposed on them under the 1974 and 1977 Acts, namely:

To work towards the elimination of discrimination as between men and women in employment and to promote equality of opportunity between men and women in relation to employment generally.

The research role of the agency is of considerable importance. They have commissioned the Economic and Social Research Institute to study institutionalised sex differences in subject choices and examination performance in Ireland's Post-Primary Schools. This project is costing £114,000 over a period of four years.

The purpose of the study is to find out to what extent inequality in the employment and career opportunities open to boys and girls might be caused by the curricular choices available in post-primary schools. I believe that this study should provide us with concrete evidence of how to remove certain inequalities in the matter of preparation for the world of work. In this respect girls are placed at a disadvantage in competing on an equal footing for employment when they leave school. I believe this study can be of tremendous help in that respect.

The agency have applied for a substantial increase in their grant for 1980 and the Government will, of course, consider the application as favourably as possible, having regard to the many demands from Government Departments and other agencies on Exchequer resources in the present economic climate.

Mrs. Robinson

That sounds very complacent, a lack of realisation of the need.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister without interruption.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I take Senator Robinson's point.

Mrs. Robinson

It is a comment rather than an interruption. It sounds very complacent.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I did not interrupt the Senator when she was making her contribution. I would have expected more manners from the Senator.

Mrs. Robinson

It was in the parliamentary tradition. I do not think I have been outrageous.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Unmannerly, perhaps, not outrageous.

Mrs. Robinson

The Minister sounded very complacent. I am wondering if there is a real appreciation of the need.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I suggest to the Senator that if she thinks she knows my moods or what my mood might be, then I do not know how she would appreciate whether or not I am being complacent.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair would be grateful if the Minister woud continue his speech without interruption.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

If the Senator, in her typical attitude, will put another interpretation——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair would be grateful if the Minister would continue his speech and without interruption.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Thank you. Members of the House must realise there are, of course, many calls, many demands on Governments, from Departments and all agencies. The Government will consider the applications as favourably as possible. That is what I would say in respect of any agency or any Government Department when asked about it prior to Estimate time. If the Senator wishes to comment on my phrasing or my method of speaking, I do not know how she could refer to it as being complacent or otherwise.

I take Senator Robinson's point. She has given me the courtesy of staying in the House. I take her reference to "fixed costs" to mean administration expenses such as salaries and rents. Normal incremental increases and increases under national pay agreements mean that the salaries paid in 1979 are higher than in previous years. Rents have been increased. Senator Robinson is therefore correct in saying that fixed costs are higher as a percentage of total expenditure in 1979.

As regards separate accommodation for the agency, I would support the agency's contention that it is desirable that they should be housed elsewhere than in Davitt House, the headquarters of the Department of Labour. A balance has to be struck here as to when it is achievable. The same applies to the Labour Court who have had that desire for years and it is only now being accomplished. I accept and support the contention that it is desirable that the agency should be housed elsewhere than in Davitt House.

Senator Hillery raised the points that there is a link between equality in employment and job creation. The Government have spared no effort to reduce unemployment levels, and significant progress has been recorded. In the strict sense, however, "full employment", however defined, is not a prerequisite for equality of opportunity. First, even with a limited number of job opportunities, these opportunities through positive action could be made equally open to boys and girls. Second, even with full employment and abundant employment openings, discrimination could lead to a situation where a very narrow range of occupations would be open to women.

Nonetheless, an overall shortage of employment opportunities is likely to have severe adverse consequences for marginal groups in the labour force, and particularly for new entrants. Married women returning to work after a period of child-rearing fall into this group. I am therefore generally in agreement with Senator Hillery in that full employment, and rapidly growing employment, provide more opportunities for such women.

A point made by both Senator Robinson and Senator Hillery is that the court is not the most appropriate body to deal with equality claims. This is also an opinion held by the agency as is clear from their submission to the Commission on Industrial Relations. I listened with great interest to the points of view put forward by both Senators. As of now, I have an open mind on this subject. I would not at this stage like to come down on one side or the other. It is a question which I would expect to be dealt with by the commission and which will therefore be considered in due course. However, the role given to the Labour Court by the 1974 and 1977 Acts corresponds to the recommendations of the Commission on the Status of Women.

Senator Robinson raised the question of adequate staffing of equality officers and delays in hearing cases, including her own case. As regards the equality officers, the numbers and grades of equality officers are kept under review in the light of changing work-loads. I am, however, at the moment arranging for the introduction of an improved organisation structure for equality officers and for an increase in their numbers from three to five.

As regards delays, it is important to note that the vast majority of claims are settled by direct negotiation between employers and employees. The hearing of actual disputes, however, takes time. Equality officers cannot get the investigations under way until they have job descriptions, details of disputes and, where possible, submissions with supporting arguments from both sides. The vast majority of cases are investigated quickly when the necessary documentation is available.

Senators might like to know that at 30 November there were 84 cases in hands, falling into the following categories:

No submissions from employer's side		33
No submissions from union side		1
No submissions from either side		13
Direct negotiations resumed		4
Actually under investigation		33
		84

Senator Kennedy pointed to the scarcity of resources and to the fact that the Department of Labour also needed staff to do their work adequately. I agree fully with the Senator that the Department have many important tasks in hands which require adequate staffing, but I might point out that since I became Minister in July 1977 the number of staff in the Department has been increased by 42 per cent, underlining the great deal of new work which has been undertaken in the various areas which are the Department's responsibilities.

I mentioned at the beginning, and I will repeat, that this Government support the agency's efforts, and I want to take this opportunity to compliment the agency members and staff on what has been achieved to date. I also want to wish them well in their work in the coming year and in the future.

Mrs. Hussey

I would like to congratulate the Employment Equality Agency on this historic first report and also to congratulate Senator Robinson on putting down this motion and allowing us to debate it. I consider it is an historic report. It is also a very hard-hitting report which is unlike a lot of official documents of this kind. This is, perhaps, due to the fact that the previous Minister in the last Government who appointed the chairperson and staff of this agency was courageous. Perhaps there were circumstances enabling him to be courageous at that time but the chairperson of the agency is an unusually committed woman and is surrounded by an extremely efficient and committed staff. They have not been daunted by the magnitude of the job which faced them.

I consider that the establishment of that agency and the issuing of their first report in fact represent a milestone in the social evolution of this country. Having said that, I consider that it is a pity we have to have such an agency at all. It is necessary because the injustices against women have been so extraordinarily marked and so enormous over the years that it required a separate body like this to begin to tackle them.

I was disappointed with the Minister's speech which we have just heard. I agree totally with Senator Robinson who thought it extremely complacent. It did not indicate to me any commitment to undo the wrongs which the agency feel and state are stopping their work.

The implications of the establishment of the agency and the kind of work they are doing for Irish society both economically and socially are enormous. If you create, as this agency sets out to do, decent conditions of work for women and decent wages for women then you will obviously create a desire to work. You will obviously attract more women into the work force. More and more women have been going into the work force in the last few years because of two major developments in Ireland and in other countries—the education of women and the possibility now for women to control their fertility. These have been two major factors in encouraging women to take up occupations outside the traditional occupation which they have always had.

Whether we like it or not—and I know very well that the Minister and most male politicians do not like it—the agency's work will be responsible for attracting more and more married women back into the work force. That trend has been visible over the last 15 years and will very soon double and treble if the agency are allowed to do their work properly.

In 1966, the number of married women gainfully occupied was just over 25,500. In 1977, that number was 84,500. In 1966, it was 25,000; 1971, 39,000 and it went up to the staggering figure, in 1977, of 84,500. As a percentage of the work force, married women in 1966 were 2.3 per cent and in 1977, 7.5 per cent. This is a trend which will continue very rapidly. No matter what they say, this strikes fear into politicians' hearts because it has such enormous implications for our unemployment statistics. That, however, is a very negative way of looking at it. Women now are educated, able, active people who have an enormous contribution to make to lowering Ireland's dependency rate which is the highest in Europe—certainly the highest in the EEC—and have the opportunity to make a great difference to the economic future of this country. Politicians should not be so negative in the way they view the emergence of a new and active work force. In the future, women with the equal educational opportunities which they are now beginning to achieve will have career and family ambitions very like men. They will have a small family. They will, perhaps, work part-time, or not at all, while they are having their children and for a few years thereafter. They will then return to work and continue a work pattern and a life pattern, as their husbands do.

The Employment Equality Agency's job is to make sure that women can have this normal work life on equal terms and that the work life for a woman is no longer confined, as it manifestly is now, to low paid, single sex work. One vital sphere in the progress of women to this stage will be maternity leave. We have legislation which purports to create equal opportunities for women, but without maternity leave and paternity leave, which leaves a great deal to be desired. A backlash frequently happens among women who become very worried when they hear us all talking about married women working. In that hostility towards the concept it is very important to distinguish between two kinds of work in the home; one is the work of mothers and fathers of young dependent children and the second area of work in the home is simply that of providing a service for other adults—be it grown-up children, or husbands, or brothers, or whatever—the service of housekeeping.

It is extremely important that you divide the two—housekeeping in one area and the care and rearing of young children in the other. It is extremely important that we realise the difference between these two roles and improve the legal and financial status of the person who stays in the home doing the very important work—and it is work—of caring for and rearing young children. Decent conditions must be created, and that work seen to be very important, a point which in Irish society has very much neglected. The Employment Equality Agency's work, on the other hand, is to make sure that woman's whole life will not be modelled on the few years she will spend in her home doing that work. The primary reason for the establishment of the agency was because women are regarded as people with very limited aspirations, except for that very important work in the home.

When we consider the report it is impossible to ignore the effect on political life of women's narrow role and their exclusion from it. In this House it is quite obvious, and even more so in the other Houee, that women have been outside the political area. Our single sex legislators have failed women over the years, helped by the absence of women from the Dáil and Seanad. They failed women, both in the work force and in the home. This legislation and the establishment of this agency have been due to the emergence, in the past ten years, of a reflective and an angry women's movement, not confined to this country but international. Nobody can make any claims to the contrary.

If this social evolution is to continue to the benefit of society with no conflict between the important role in the home and outside the home, we must put the report into perspective. If the agency are hampered by an appalling lack of facilities and money it is no good whatsoever for the Minister to say that he and his Government are totally committed to the abolition of discrimination against women. Desperate situations require desperate remedies and the agency, in their report, list some of the problems facing them, because of the imposed budgetary constraints. They list the inability to acquire separate premises which makes their separate identity impossible to achieve. They were unable to commission absolutely necessary research; they are understaffed and could not fill staff vacancies. Given those drawbacks it is quite remarkable that they have managed to do the amount of work they have done.

The most recent report to hand is on their formal investigation under section 39 of the Employment Equality Act, into the recruitment policy of bus conductors in CIE. Following that formal investigation, as we all know, CIE had to change their recruitment policies and we now have the beginning of the recruitment of female bus conductors. In a comment which comes with this report on CIE, the chairperson of the agency says that employers in the State section must be seen to set an example for private employers by eliminating the sex of job seekers as a factor in recruitment policy. This report on CIE is a major document which should be studied by all public companies; it has far-reaching implications. That the Employment Equality Agency are able to undertake that kind of work is a remarkable tribute to them considering the disabilities under which they labour.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I remind the Senator that she has two minutes to conclude.

Mrs. Hussey

I shall not need the two minutes. I shall conclude by referring to the motion which is before us: "That Seanad Éireann notes the First Annual Report of the Employment Equality Agency." The motion mentions, in particular, the limitations which have been put on the agency by their insufficient Exchequer grant. The Minister's statement here has been totally inadequate and I am very disappointed with it. Senators should make a very strong point of showing the Government that the Seanad, as a whole, feels that this area of discrimination must be tackled and tackled properly.

Mr. Harte

I do not in the least doubt the Minister's sincerity and that he is genuinely concerned with the Employment Equality Act, the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, and the functions of the Employment Equality Agency, but it does not begin and end there. I know the intention is there but, apart from the problems which we may have in the New Year, there is no money and there will be cutbacks all around in 1980. There is nothing on the horizon to show that money will be forthcoming for the important work of this agency. The Minister is sincere enough but what makes this matter more disturbing is the fact that the equal pay legislation was not introduced by us at all, it was imposed on us arising out of our membership of the EEC.

As a trade unionist I know there are many people who are sincere about this but we cannot say that there has been a very definite change in attitude towards women in our society. All we can say is that we have been artifically drawn into a hurried situation whereby the Employment Equality Act, 1971, became the means of enshrining the principles of equality and the establishing of the Employment Equality Agency. The agency, sincere though it may be, have expressed in their report that they are being hampered in their work by lack of sufficient funds. There is no evidence to show that the funds will be available for research, education through seminars and publicity in the next budget. Representations were made to the Minister by the agency about the inadequacy of the grants but the Minister could not help them even though he wants to do so. He believes in the principle but is not in a position to come forward with the funds. The pressure will have to be kept up by the trade union movement at the highest level and by all the interested bodies to make sure that the money needed is made available. I do not know where it will come from. I am afraid that in the New Year some kind of indirect taxation will be introduced. I am not in favour of that but if that has to be, some of that money should be channelled into this area.

Those involved in the agency are running up against all sorts of difficulties and this motion was put down to highlight some of them. One of the functions of the agency was to keep the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act and the Employment Equality Act under review. The Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act needs a lot of attention and research. If one looks back to 1970 one will see that females, on an hourly basis, were earning 56 per cent of the male rate and, on a weekly basis, were earning 47 per cent of the male rate. In 1975 it was 61 per cent of the male hourly rate—a sort of improvement—and 53 per cent of the male weekly rate. Those improvements did not come about by virtue of the Acts I mentioned or the Employment Equality Agency but as a result of national wage agreements. In fairness to the Employment Equality Agency, there was an improvement after it was established and in 1978 the female hourly rate rose to 64 per cent, and the weekly rate to 55 per cent of the male weekly rate. There has been good work in this area by the agency. What I have said could also be interpreted as indicating a slowing down rather than a movement forward. It is anybody's argument as to whether it is a gain or a slowing down compared with the 1970-1975 period when we had a gain through national wage agreements.

The agency is keeping the matter under review but we are experiencing all sorts of difficulties. For example, the average basic male rates have increased by 48 per cent through national wage agreements. While national wage agreements were responsible for those improvements the Acts dealing with equal pay had little effect. It is possible that the reason why the Acts are not having any effect is that the agency does not have the funds to employ more equality officers. The Minister has told us of the number of extra posts that have been created but the whole question of seminars, education and the work that has to be done to change attitudes cannot be realised unless the agency gets more money. To give effect to its functions it must have a lot more money. It must be remembered that 85 per cent of what the agency gets goes on salaries. The work of the agency is very far-reaching. It must get over attitudes of fellow worker against fellow worker and of employers who are not prepared to bring forward any positive policies in any direction. Some employers are not prepared to look at redundancy agreements and settle female claims the same way they would settle male claims. Some are not prepared to look at employment opportunities for females in the same way as they are for males. The agency look for creches, pursue maternity leave claims and are involved in the whole question of the co-operation of the trade unions, AnCO, the National Manpower Agency and the IDA. To work within that whole complex area and try to change attitudes is not easy.

It is not easy to create employment in circumstances in which the concept one is talking about cannot be realised. This is a total reforming campaign to redress inequalities not only in wages, salaries and working conditions but problems of discrimination in social welfare, and where universal equal benefits for equal contributions in social welfare are concerned. It also involves the questions of measures of leisure, the allocation of resources and the question of average earnings. The agency must create a climate where people will start to work in this direction and get the independence to employ the extra people they need to deal with those complex problems so that they can put employers and trade unions in the happy position of being able to negotiate. Instead of this we have the situation at present where women are told that jobs must first be given to men. This is the way that women are treated at the moment. This is the kind of obstacle people are trying to overcome. Where you are dealing with males, for example, in the redundancy situation it is definitely first in, last out. Other things are argued then, the question of qualification, re-training and so on, but in the case of women, very often men involved in the redundancy situation get the benefit of the doubt and the women are made redundant. It may be that they have not sufficient muscle to put forward their case or that the appropriate organisations do not come forward to help them. Therefore they have to suffer the consequences.

If the Employment Equality Agency are to give effect to the principles enshrined in the Act, the agency must be given the money to do the job. If we are going to talk about increasing production, having better industrial relations and so on—we will have a long debate on that matter soon—the climate must exist to help create good industrial relations. Women are not just going to sit back any longer; they have been very active and have been successful in many ways. Now we have the legislation and it is the job of this House and the other House to ensure that it is implemented.

It is not an easy thing to say we are going to investigate the extent of discrimination against women in Ireland. It is not an easy thing to set out our approach to education, training, employment opportunities, the family as a whole and the family on social security. By and large all areas of life are going to be involved in those particular Acts. This agency are charged with making sure that the principles enshrined overall are implemented. If the agency do not get the money, that will be the end of their activity to a great extent and it might throw us back a number of years.

I will conclude by reminding the Seanad of what the agency actually undertook to do in the first year. In their press release the agency said they launched and completed their first formal investigation under the Employment Equality Act, 1977, with regard to Aer Lingus. The agency undertook a review of the protective legislation banning women from working at night in industry and recommended repeal to the Minister for Labour. The agency investigated certain employment regulation orders that set minimum wage rates for the clothing industry and forced the removal of discriminatory weight-lifting clauses. The agency monitored and largely eliminated discriminatory job advertising in the national and provincial newspapers. They corresponded with and assisted many individuals on problems with regard to equal pay in employment. The agency conducted a publicity campaign and held their first major seminar on the theme "Women's Place in the Irish Economy, Present and Future". The agency embarked on other initiatives in the area of employment equality which were referred to in greater detail in the report. Yet at the end of all that, it was unfortunate the agency had to say, "the agency felt constrained in its activities in the period under review by the limitations imposed upon it by the insufficient Exchequer grant under which it operated".

When the agency made strong representations to the Minister, he had nothing to give them. I know from a statement here tonight that the Minister means to see that the agency will have the means by which they can progress. I know that he is sincere about it, I have said that three times. The money is the important thing. The agency looked into many problems. From the introduction of the Act until the end of 1978, the equality officers issued 68 recommendations on equal pay. These recommendations involved less than 2,500 female workers, which is a small number. In the case of 65 claims, females achieved equal pay. The figures are less than impressive and I agree with that. This is taken from a statement issued by Congress. In all cases involving over 20 workers, only about half the claimants had a favourable recommendation. In other words, about half of the recommendations issued up to the 31 December 1978 actually had to be appealed and the vast majority were appealed by the employers rather than by the workers. The court upheld most of the recommendations, 69 per cent, and in only one case the equality officer's recommendations was rejected or amended by the court.

The Minister mentioned the question of the appointment of equality officers. Much more is needed in this particular area. No matter what anyone says, if the money is not forthcoming to provide the facilities for this agency, then we cannot look forward with any degree of hope to the type of industrial relations that we should be envisaging for 1980.

Professor Murphy

I will be very brief because I think the case has been more than adequately made for the motion. However, I do not want my silence to be construed as indifference. The very worst thing that could happen to the women's movement in general, the movement for women's equality, is that it should be left exclusively in the hands of women. In a society heavily dominated by male influences, there is an inertia about the women's movement, a passivity, a disinterest. That will not be finally overcome until men go on the record in support of the claim for women's equality. That is why I was glad to hear Senator Harte speaking very convincingly in adding his voice to the eloquent case made by Senators Hussey and Robinson. I want to express my warm support for the motion.

Mrs. Robinson

I should like to thank the Senators who spoke to this motion. Without exception they spoke in support of the important work done by the Employment Equality Agency and the need for adequate funding and other support for the agency. I would also like to thank the Minister who was present when the debate began and who contributed to the discussion this evening. I felt it necessary to interject that I found his remarks very complacent. If he re-reads them on the record he will see that they did, in fact, sound unreal and remarkably complacent for the very substantial problem that we have as a country and the Employment Equality Agency have in seeking to achieve equality of the sexes. I felt at the time, and it is borne out by what has happened, that the Minister might disappear and that the only way in which I could convey my remarks to him was by stopping him in his stride and describing his contribution as complacent. He was annoyed at my interjection and the Chair reprimanded me but, in fact, at a certain point, you have to say to somebody, "Look at the reality of the situation. Look at the reality as my colleague Senator Harte described it. Look at the reality as Senator Hussey would speak about it. Identify with the real needs of the situation. Do not just fall back on all that Fianna Fáil have done, all that this present Government have done." Can we not have the honesty at times to face up to the real needs of the situation and realise that, even though we have quite good and adequate legislation—some of it at least dictated by our membership of the European Community—we have totally failed to ensure the implementation of that legislation as a reality for women workers in this country. Until we do make a reality of equality in the work place all other attempts to achieve equality are not really going to bring about a mature integration of women, with their enormous potential, into the economic and social life of the country.

The Minister spoke about the fact, and I quote him, "that it takes time to change attitudes". But attitudes do not change automatically on their own. The whole purpose of this debate was to draw attention to an agency which has the legislative powers and the legislative functions and the legislative responsibility to change attitudes, but which says of itself that is is underfunded to the job that it was set up to do. It says in its report that it cannot discharge its responsibilities, that it cannot carry out its functions because it has not got enough money to do it. The way in which we change attitudes by bringing in legislation in this area. We bring in legislation guaranteeing equal pay, guaranteeing equality of employment and no discrimination on the basis of sex or marriage. Secondly, in order to make a reality of that we have to enforce it. We have to carry out research. We have to ensure that any discrimination that exists is removed on an individual basis if somebody appeals against discrimination or on an overall basis by having surveys of particular sectors of industry, whether in the public sector or in private industry. We have to have the kind of educational role which the agency is beginning to discharge in examining curriculum developments which condition girls and boys in their own perception of the role they can play in society. There are so many other areas where work must be done.

I was not satisfied or encouraged by the Minister's response to the points that have been made by me, by Senators Kennedy and Hillery, on the last occasion when this motion was being debated, about the need for further funding for the agency. He said that he would view the matter sympathetically but that they had to balance it against other considerations. I think what we were all waiting for was some sense that the Minister had the same kind of perception of the work of the agency; that it was not just a question of giving them an additional amount for 1980 which kept pace with the rising cost of living, but a new perception of the role and importance and significance of the work of the agency. That seemed to be lacking from his speech. I hope that this will not be lacking when it comes to the hard decisions on budgetary policy and on the budget which would be appropriate for the agency next year.

The Minister was also rather vague and insubstantial in his comments on specific questions that were raised. He is not here at the moment to respond, and I can only put those questions again. He did not make any specific response to the point that was made about the need for specialist staff for the agency and I would like to make this point again. The Northern Ireland Equal Opportunities Commission have advertised for an enforcement officer. It seems from the advertisement that they are looking for somebody who would have a specialist legal training and be able to discharge a particular responsibility as an enforcement officer. Now this seems to be the kind of specialist staff which the agency would require to carry out the important functions in the area of monitoring and enforcing the provisions, both of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974 and of the Employment Equality Act, 1977. Some sense that the Minister appreciated the need for this legal expertise, whether on a permanent basis as extra staff for the agency or at least to allow the agency to contract out specialist legal work, to pay for the legal research, for the legal enforcement work on a part-time basis at least, would have been appreciated.

I believe that the most important area where the agency has a greater potential role to play is in the need for greater capacity for research and education and to make the work of the agency better known through the media. Here again the Minister did not make any specific reference to the points that had been raised about the need for a greater budget for the agency to publicise its work and a greater need for an improvement in resources for research and development.

Senator Hussey, understandably, shared with me a certain frustration at the complacency of the Minister's contribution and tried to urge the importance of the value of securing a commitment to education for equality because we are a country which does not have an identifiable ideology of equality. You can see that in other countries where, because of the inner process of the country, there is a sense of the importance of promoting the achievement of equality between the sexes, equality in the work place, equality under the law, equality in the home because of a different perception, of the responsibilities in the home. This comes from within that country as a strong force. We have not had that in this country for various reasons to do with our own background, our own cultural evolution. We have other strengths but this is not one of them. Therefore, it is all the more important that when we establish legislation and give an agency functions and powers, we understand that that agency has a more significant role to play than it would have to play in a country where there was a strong ideology of equality; has more work to do in trying to cope with the attitudes and with the complexity of the problem and with the conditioning in a society where there is high unemployment, where we have a very young population looking for work and the need to promote the values of equality itself and of the potential contribution of women in society.

Senator Hussey made references to areas which are particularly important and in which the agency could have an important role to play: legislation for maternity and paternity leave, where Ireland is lagging behind other European Community countries and the necessity of distinguishing, in relation to work in the home, between the important role of caring for the upbringing and welfare of young children and the quite different responsibilities, what should be at all times shared responsibilities between the spouses, of the actual running of the house. Once again, in almost all approaches to equality, although there may be more access to jobs and more possibility for married women to work, they still carry most of the burden of housekeeping in the home, they still carry most of the responsibility for running the home and for all the chores and planning. I believe that the agency has a very important role to play in pointing out the greater need for balance between the sexes at home as well as in the work place.

I was very interested in the contribution by my colleague, Senator Harte, because he spoke as somebody with a knowledge on the ground as a trade union official of the kind of barriers that there are, of the conditioning that exists. For example, he spoke with great insight and knowledge about the problem in relation to redundancies, that when you have redundancies in a sector where there are male employees, then there is no problem.

The guidelines are clear, the priorities are clear. It is a question of first in last out. It is as simple as that. But if you have redundancies in a work place where there is a mixture of male and female employees, then there is great pressure: it is less important that the women are working; their whole role is more frivolous in relation to work; they really should be at home looking after the children, I certainly heard this from a number of married women who are working for the support, sometimes for the entire support of their family. In a redundancy situation they are the ones that are most vulnerable and most likely to be jettisoned. It is this kind of attitude that we most need to cope with. It is this kind of area that we need to have close monitoring of in order to ensure that the legislation for equal pay and the legislation for equality of opportunity is a reality.

Reference was made by Senator Murphy to the passiveness of women's organisations. I would not agree with that. Women's organisations are tired of calling for greater equality, particularly in relation to employment.

Professor Murphy

I meant of society in general.

Mrs. Robinson

I am glad Senator Murphy has had an opportunity to correct that because one of the great problems that women's organisations have in seeking reform is that they repeat over and over again the discriminations that exist, the discrimination between the male and female wages, discrimination in the fact that there is no legislation for maternity leave, that there are not the facilities that would assist in encouraging women who want and have a need to go out to work, the facilities of creches and playschools and other kinds of supports to enable them to go out to work. Let us look to the future. The problems that face us now in a rapidly changing society hold a great challenge and a potential role for the Employment Equality Agency because we are aware as a country of the need for rapid development in industrialisation and the need for the rapid introduction of modern technology and the training of people to take these jobs. This is a great potential for developing the contribution of all citizens, male and female, in responding to the need for greater adaptability and greater training. This will not happen unless the Employment Equality Agency is mandated in a very positive way to assist in its happening, to assist in cooperation with the National Manpower Agency, with the IDA, with AnCO in ensuring that the potential is realised. If the agency is given an adequate budget—I said in my opening speech that it should be given at least a trebling of its present financing—if it is given at least that, if it is given support and encouragement both in its monitoring and enforcement role by having an enforcement officer with legal expertise to carry it out and in its educational and research role, then there could be a transformation over a fairly short period of time in the general attitudes in society, in the conditioning of girls and women and in the conditioning of man in our society. This would be of enormous benefit to the country particularly as we are a very young country. We are dealing with a very young population. We are dealing with rapid change and we are dealing with a situation where we need to develop the potential.

For all of these reasons I again express a disappointment that while the Minister was here he appeared to be fairly complacent, more or less satisfied with the situation. I think I can speak on behalf of the women of Ireland: there is no room for complacency, there is no room for satisfaction.

I end my final 30 seconds by extending a welcome to the House to the Minister of State. Deputy Seán Calleary. We share the same native town in Ballina and it is a happy event to note a Ballina person sitting in the Minister's chair.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the motion withdrawn?

Mrs. Robinson

No.

Question put and agreed to.