I move:
That Seanad Éireann pursuant to the Order of the Seanad of 13 September 1984 takes note of the Report of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities on Proposals relating to equality of Opportunity (including Parental and Family Leave) which was laid before the Seanad on 17 October 1984 and which contains a request for a debate thereon.
It gives me great pleasure to move the motion which notes the omnibus report which the Joint Committee on EC Secondary Legislation have produced on equal opportunities for women and men. In that report, the Joint Committee examined seven different proposals from the EC. The report runs to 127 pages of text and if one counts the appendices that are annexed, it comes to a total of 133 pages. It is, therefore, a very comprehensive and very substantial report. It certainly was a matter of considerable political import that the report was a unanimous one by the members of the committee who represent the members of all three of the main political parties and there is also an independent member.
Therefore, in moving the motion inviting the Seanad to examine the recommendations in the report, I do so as a member of that committee and as chairperson of the sub-committee that prepared the draft report for consideration by the committee. The fact that it is a unanimous report is significant because, as Members of the House can see in looking at the details of the report which I am about to turn to, it is a very positive report on equality. Indeed, it is one of the most positive reports that have come from any committee of the Oireachtas strongly endorsing and supporting the principles of equality of opportunity. I very much welcome that and I hope that that approach and the specific recommendations endorsed by the committee in the report will be further supported by Members of this House and that this will help to ensure that the actions already being taken and, indeed, more positive actions in the area of equal opportunity may be set in train here and may be further implemented at the European Community level.
I thank the Leader of the House for ensuring that there will be ample time for discussion of the contents of this report, both this afternoon and on a future occasion.
I will begin by referring to the seven different proposals, or instruments, that were considered by the Joint Committee. These are referred to at pages 8 and 9 of the report, where they are summarised. I will list them for the record; firstly, the Council's resolution of 7 June, 1984 on action to combat unemployment amongst women; secondly, a proposal for a Council directive on the application of the principle of equal treatment as between men and women engaged in an activity, including agriculture, in a self-employed capacity, and on the protection of self-employed women during pregnancy and motherhood; thirdly, a draft Council recommendation on the promotion of positive action for women; fourthly, a progress report on the implementation of the new Community action programme on the promotion of equal opportunities for women; fifthly, a proposal for a Council directive on parental leave and leave for family reasons; sixthly, a proposal for a Council directive on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes, and, finally, an interim report on the application of the directive on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security.
The first point I will make about these various proposals is that some of them are proposals for draft directives which require legally binding implementation in this country. Therefore, certain considerations apply to those proposals. Others refer either to a council recommendation or a council resolution which are not as binding in their import but which can have a very real impact on the position of women and the attainment in a very positive context, of equality of opportunits by women in the various member states of the European Communities. Suffice it to say, and it deals with part of the general observations of the Joint Committee at the end of the report which I hope to come to in my analysis of the report, the committee does acknowledge the very positive role played by the European Communities in this area of the attainment of greater equality of opportunity by women in the member states of the Community through the Treaty provisions themselves and through the steps that have been taken, particularly by the various directives which have been passed and which have required to be implemented in the member states and the action programme which was launched in 1982. The Community have played a very significant role and the impact of that has been very beneficial, particularly for women in employment.
With these general observations, I turn now to the various measures which were examined by the committee and I will draw attention, in particular, to the views of the Joint Committee on the implications for Ireland of these various measures. The first measure examined, as I have already indicated, was the Council resolution on action to combat unemployment amongst women. This resolution was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 7 June, 1984. In member states generally in the Community there is substantially higher unemployment amongst women than amongst men, but Ireland appears to be an exception in that our female unemployment rate is much lower than the comparable rate in other EC countries. It is clear — and the Department of Labour accept this — that the figures for female registered unemployment are likely to seriously underestimate the true employment situation. Furthermore, the trends here show that female unemployment is increasing at a faster rate than male unemployment. I refer Members to pages 12 and 13 of the report where these figures are referred to and, in particular, to a passage in paragraph 6 which I quote:
The female unemployment rate in Ireland is lower than that for males — a factor which is not common in most of the other Member States in the European Communities. However, the trends in registered unemployment in Ireland show that female unemployment is rising. The female share of registered unemployment (seasonally adjusted) has risen during the past two years from 23.9% in April, 1982 to 25.6% in April, 1984. In recent years, the general trend has been for a faster rate of increase in female than in male unemployment, and in the two-year period to April, 1984 female unemployment increased by 54% in comparison with an increase of 40.9% in male unemployment and 44% in overall unemployment. It is also important to note that the figures for female registered unemployment are likely to understate the true employment situation.
Members of the House will understand the reasons for this. To a considerable extent there are, particularly, cultural and social reasons within the Irish environment for women not applying for and being registered for unemployment and figuring on the official figures, so that we have a serious and worsening problem of female unemployment here. For this reason, the committee have welcomed the resolution of the Council of Ministers, and the views of the committee are set out in pages 19 and 20:
The Joint Committee..... notes with approval the stress placed by the Council on equality of opportunity as the underlying factor in framing national policies and practices. In respect of job creation and recruitment, the measures taken should aim for a more balanced representation of men and women, particularly in skilled jobs, in the new technologies and where women are under-represented. The Joint Committee urges that equal opportunities should be vigorously promoted in the public and private sector. It is pleased to learn that the Minister for Labour has arranged for consideration to be given within his Department to the formulation of a general policy framework, within which the principle of equality of opportunity could be applied, and that it is his intention to seek Government approval shortly for the application of this framework to public sector organisations. The Joint Committee sees the introduction of flexible working hours and reduction and re-organisation of working time as positive contributions to attaining equal opportunity in employment. Other specific areas the Joint Committee feels attention should be directed towards are the provision of child care facilities (which are practically non-existent here), job sharing and the protection of part-time working.
These are some of the views of the Joint Committee in response to the Council resolution. In that regard — and I have already referred to him — I would like to welcome the Minister for Labour to this debate. I would like to refer to the fact that the Minister appeared before the Joint Committee and discussed in detail the measures which the committee were examining and assisted the committee in the preparation of this report. I look forward to his contribution to the debate which is now taking place in this House on that report.
I would like to refer to the provision of child care facilities which the Joint Committee have called for. I attended the annual general meeting of Cherish, the self-help organisation for single parents. The focus of that meeting was on the urgent need to provide for child care facilities. Cherish recognise that the Government have committed themselves to introducing legislation to abolish the discrimination against children born out of wedlock. Cherish see, as a natural and necessary parallel to that, the urgent provision of child care facilities.
Of course, these facilities are not just facilities that are needed by one parent or single parent families, but are a very necessary provision for the children and quite significantly for women who wish or need to take up — as they are entitled to — the full possibilities of employment. Notwithstanding that the first instrument is a Council resolution and has already been passed, it has very far-reaching and very important implications. The Joint Committee have responded very positively to it in saying in what ways it could be further implemented here.
The second instrument which we examined and which starts at page 26 of the report is a proposal for a Council directive on the principle of equal treatment for men and women in self-employed occupations, including agriculture, and on protection during pregnancy and maternity. It forms part of a programme of directives. The first two directives, the directive on equal pay and the directive on equality treatment, which had been implemented here related to women who are employees and have greatly improved their status. This draft directive has very important implications for women whose occupational status is not defined. That is a particular problem in Ireland. We have a significant number of women, particularly in the area of agriculture and where they are working for a family business, who have no occupational status. They may carry out very serious responsibilities and administration in management and in the running of the farm or the business, but their status is still effectively that of that awful word "housewife"— as if anybody was ever married to a house. That, in effect, in law is the only status they have.
This draft directive was discussed last week at a meeting held in Dublin Castle as part of the initiative taken during the Irish Presidency and at which the Minister of State with responsibility for Women's Affairs made a very strong speech in relation to the importance of this proposed draft directive in Ireland and, indeed, the Taoiseach himself contributed very positively. I would hope that the recommendations of the Joint Committee on that draft directive will be endorsed and accepted by Members of the House.
The next measure examined, and this starts at page 45 of the report, is the draft Council recommendation on the promotion of positive action for women. I would express the personal opinion that although this is a proposal for a Council recommendation — although I would prefer if it were a directive, a binding legal instrument — I, nonetheless feel that this recommendation, because it is calling for the promotion of positive affirmative action in this area, is one of the most important proposals. It is one that is dealt with very fully by the committee and the views of the Joint Committee on it are extremely positive. I would like to refer in some detail to these views because they warrant repeating on the record of the House. I would like to turn to page 55 of the report where the Joint Committee first of all express, as I have done, a regret that this instrument is a draft recommendation rather than a draft directive, which had been the original request by the European Parliament. This has been somewhat watered down to be a recommendation. Nonetheless, I think its implications are very important indeed. On page 56, paragraph 62 of the report, the committee state:
A commitment to remove obstacles and to support measures to promote equal opportunity implies a systematic approach and a recognition that indirect or, in American terms, "systematic" discrimination is a root cause of unequal treatment as between male and female workers. Removal of systematic discrimination, in the Joint Committee's view requires an intervention programme which is action oriented and is designed to facilitate equality goals.
In Ireland we do not have an equal rights provision in the Constitution which gives equal rights to men and women in trade, profession or occupation, neither is there a legal provision regarding equality in education. Provisions in the Employment Equality Act of 1977, which prohibit discrimination in regard to access to training, do not ensure that positive action is taken. The effect of the 1977 Act is to give rights to individuals to pursue claims. The legislation does not call on employers either in the public or the private sector to take steps to achieve equality between male and female workers. Amending legislation is needed, in the Joint Committee's view, to require employers to initiate actions which will assist desegregation of the work-force and thereby remove some of the burden of proof from a claimant under the Act of 1977. The Act has, in practice, required an almost impossible burden of proof and has initiated no positive promotion of equality measures. The Joint Committee recommends that placing of notices which give information regarding the 1974 and 1977 Acts be mandatory in places of work. The present legislation should be extended to include this provision.
As part of the analysis by the Joint Committee of what would be involved in a programme of positive action, the committee note that the Employment Equality Agency have been urging the necessity for this kind of approach and have indeed, evolved a code of practice which they would like to see adopted and fully integrated into industry and into all sectors of our economic life, both in the private sector and in the public sector. The importance of the attitudes adopted, above all by senior management and down right through the structures of an individual company or of an organisation — be it a State-sponsored body in the public sector, a Department of Government, a profession, or a trade union — requires a very different approach to get beyond the stage we are at. We have certain legislation on the Statute Book and individuals can pursue claims through the equality officer and through the Labour Court. We do not have the ethos of affirmative action. We do not have an acceptance of the kind of values that would be required in order to make the quantum leap in this area that, in effect, this committee are calling for in the report.
The next instrument which the committee examined is a progress report on the implementation of the European Community Action Programme on the promotion of equal opportunity for women. This is a programme which was launched by way of a Council resolution. It is an action programme from 1982 to 1985. The Council asked the Commission to present an interim report by 1 January, 1984 on the progress which was being made and there will be a final report in 1985. The views of the Joint Committee on this progress report are set out on page 68 of the report. The Joint Committee refer, in particular, to the impact in Ireland of the action programme of the European Community on Women. It notes very explicitly that the budget of the statutory agency here does not appear to be adequate to enable that agency to fully discharge their tasks. I should like to quote what the committee states at paragraphs 85 and 86:
The Joint Committee is satisfied that the budget of the Employment Equality Agency is insufficient to carry out the functions devolved on the Agency by the Oireachtas, both with regard to staff levels and members, and with regard to the cost of activities necessary after salary costs have been met. The present arrangements for financing and selecting staff means that the Agency is reliant upon a single, comparatively small Government Department to supply high level staff. In particular the Joint Committee believes that the recruitment of special staff would require that the selection be made from a wider pool.
The Joint Committee commends the sterling work of the Employment Equality Agency in securing equality of women (and men) in employment and cautions that inadequate budgets and staffing levels can only impede this work.
This is one of the major problems in facing up to the challenge of providing the positive impetus to equality which the committee discerned, and it is reflected in other paragraphs of the report as well.
The next instrument is the proposal which took up a major portion of the time of the sub-committee and, indeed, of the Joint Committee itself at an earlier stage and which was and is a somewhat controversial measure, that is, the proposal for a Council directive on parental leave and leave for family reasons. This proposal for a draft directive is summarised at pages 72 and the following pages in the report as follows:
The object of the draft Directive is to establish common statutory provisions throughout the Community governing parental leave and leave for family reasons. It concerns male and female workers in the public and private sectors and is designed to ensure that the principle of equal treatment for men and women is fully respected by establishing the legal entitlement of workers to such leave, under harmonised conditions throughout the member states.
I should like to deal first of all with the proposal on leave for family reasons. This relates to short periods of leave to be granted, both to male and female workers, for pressing family reasons. These could, for example, include the illness of a child or, something which is very common in the context of Irish society, a case where a single worker has responsibility for a dependent adult, an aged parent or an invalid, in the family. A minimum entitlement of a certain numbers of days per year is to be fixed as proposed in the draft Directive by the member states. Under the proposed directive this leave should be assimilated to paid holidays for the purpose of remuneration and social security. One of the clear features of the proposal of leave for family reasons is that it would apply equally to male and female workers, thus signalling one of the values which underlie the draft directive — that the family responsibilities of workers are family responsibilities to be borne by both male and female — by mother and father, and not, as is so much the case in this country, that the family responsibilities are the sole burden and sole responsibility of the female workers, and not to any considerable extent, and certainly not to any extent recognised in our legislation, the responsibility of the male workers.
It is important — and I do not mean this in a judgmental sense — to encourage the parenting role of fathers. We need to be supportive of it because we need to recognise its importance. It has a very vital effect on the development of children. It is their right to look to both their parents for parenting and it is our responsibility, as a society, to create the conditions to recognise and support the importance for society of the parenting role and of the family responsibilities of workers.
The second and different type of leave is parental leave and may be defined as leave which is granted to either fathers or mothers during a period after the termination of maternity leave, to enable either parent in employment to look after the new born child for a certain length of time whilst giving some degree of job security in respect of employment, social security and remuneration. This proposal would give a working parent — whether married or not — the right of nontransferable parental leave of at least three months. The draft Directive makes it clear that this will apply both to natural parents and to parents who had adopted a child following the placing of a child for adoption.
This proposal for parental leave was one which concerned a number of members of the committee. I should like to state frankly — and other members of the committee may wish to elaborate on this — that there was a concern among a majority of members, when this matter was first discussed in the full committee, that the proposals for leave for family reasons and parental leave would incur a burden of cost which in the present state of the Irish economy it would be difficult for it to bear and could have a detrimental affect, particularly given the very high unemployment level.
I am pleased to say that the reflected and considered view of the Joint Committee is very positive on the values which this draft directive seeks to promote, notwithstanding that a majority of the committee feel that it is not at present possible or realistic to make rapid progress in implementing its provisions. If members of the committee would examine paragraphs 123 to 126 of the report — 126 in particular — they will see it is clear that the Joint Committee is very anxious that the importance of the values underlying the move towards recognition of the family responsibilities of workers be furthered. At paragraph 126 the report states:
The Joint Committee in its consideration of the Commissions proposals regarded them as innovative and approached them in a positive frame of mind. It sees the Commission's proposals for parental leave and leave for family reasons as another possible step forward in the reforming programme of the Community towards employees and particularly as an opportunity to advance the rights of women workers. The Joint Committee gave serious consideration to the Commission's view that the proposals could give opportunities for greater flexibility in the organisation of working time and could provide opportunities for work experience for young people.
It refers to the fact that the majority of the members of the Joint Committee, however, after detailed consideration of the Commission's proposals feel they would, if adopted at the present time, offer another challenge to our struggling economy. They point out the fact that some economies like Germany, for example, have lost their enthusiasm for the proposals. The Joint Committee, as I say, asks employers to prepare themselves for a measure of this kind and note the very rapid changes that are taking place even in approach to work and, in particular, in the recognition of the family responsibilities of workers.
The next measure which was examined by the committee is another proposal for a Council directive, this time a proposal for a Council directive on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes. The Joint Committee understand that this proposal is still at a relatively early stage in discussion. Senators will recall that it was in December 1978 that the Council adopted the directive which we are at present in the process of implementing, the directive on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security. That directive applies only to statutory schemes, and the present proposed directive, the one which the committee were considering at this stage, applies to occupational schemes. These are schemes which fall between social security schemes and purely private insurance contracts, and they include schemes on collective agreements, company schemes and schemes set up by the representatives of a self-employed occupation, for example, doctors, lawyers or craftsmen. The proposed directive is intended to apply to all workers whether employees or self-employed and it would prohibit any discrimination on the basis of sex or on the basis of marital or family status.
The views of the committee are summarised on pages 100 and 101 and, in particular, it is important to draw attention to the view of the committee as expressed in paragraph 139 which stated:
The Commission noted that women tend to benefit proportionately less than men from occupational schemes. Two reasons were put forward for this, firstly, occupational schemes are not usually operated in firms employing chiefly female labour because of traditional ideas of the respective roles of men and women in society and, secondly, because of the exclusion of part-time work from many occupational schemes. As women form the bulk of part-time workers, they are affected to a greater extent as a consequence. These factors would need special measures to deal with this hidden form of indirect discrimination, and can possibly only be solved by broader social protection measures. One such measure would be a directive on the protection of part-time workers. The Joint Committee is, accordingly, very pleased that the Commission has drawn up a draft directive protecting part-time workers and feels that only a directive on this issue would bind member states to introduce legislation which would ensure that part-time workers would be guaranteed the same rights as full-time workers.
So, the committee placed an importance on that further measure which we were not in fact examining but which is being proposed for the legal protection of part-time workers. We also point to the proposals for a national pension scheme, proposals for bringing the self-employed in more substantially under this type of cover.
The next measure which the committee examined was the interim report on the application of the third directive as it is called, Directive No. 7 of 1979 of December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security. The deadline for completing implementation of that directive is, of course, next month. The Minister for Health has made it clear that Ireland will have secured the necessary removal of the discriminations under that directive. There has been some criticism, and I think there will be further debate, on the precise manner of the implementation of that directive and whether in some instances there are certain families on whom the implementation bears harshly in that they risk being less well off than before the directive was implemented in Ireland.
It is worth remembering, before this criticism deflects from the values of that directive, that it is necessary to have a legal directive in this area because of the blatant discriminations that have existed. These have not been criticised as openly as they should have been. Under the present social welfare code in Ireland, until amended, because of the binding requirements of this directive which we are just about to implement, married women receive lower rates of benefit than men in the scheme of disability benefit, unemployment benefit, invalidity pension and occupational injury benefits. Also, married women can only receive unemployment benefit for a maximum of 312 days against 390 days for single or married men. Thirdly, married women are effectively barred from the unemployment assistance scheme, which is one of the reasons why there is an under estimate of the female labour force because, for a married women to qualify for unemployment assistance, either her husband must be dependent on her, which require a particular burden of proof of that, or she must not be a dependant of his. Finally there are of course, different conditions applied in the matter of adult and child dependants.
All of these are discriminations which have existed in the Irish social welfare code which we are now required to remove and to redress under the binding provisions of this directive. That is something which the Joint Committee have welcomed. I appreciate that for Members of the House this is a very substantial — I called it an omnibus — report in the area of equality and Members of the House will have to select certain areas. I feel that the report is particularly significant because of the very affirmative attitude adopted unanimously by the committee in the area of the need for positive action and what positive action in the area of equality means.
I will say one last thing lest there are Members of this House who fear that there is such a substantial economic cost to the proposals that in many instances that is not the case. There are a number of serious proposals in this report and there are a number of examples referred to in the report of approaches, practices and changes which have not got an economic cost. They are attitudinal changes They are a difference of approach and a difference in the values and principles but are not all necessarily matters that add significantly to economic costs. One other benefit from having these various EC instruments examined in one report of the Joint Committee is that it enables us to look at what is happening in various companies or in various State-sponsored bodies and to urge that these practices be copied by other public or private sector bodies. For example, in March 1982 Air Rianta were the first public sector body to appoint an affirmative action co-ordinator responsible for affirmative action programmes. If there was a similar spin off effect that every other State-sponsored body and, indeed, the public sector as a whole, the Departments of State, were to give a lead in this area of affirmative action that in itself would have a very significant impact and would accelerate the recognition of, the acceptance of and the positive endorsement of the values of equality of opportunity in our society. This is very necessary.
I will conclude by saying that women workers are very defensive in the present state of the economy. It is clear from the figures of the Joint Committee that the female unemployment rate is rising rapidly. Women are defensive about seeking their rightful place, asserting the values which even a few years ago were much less questioned than they are now. Therefore it is particularly welcome to have this unanimous report of the Joint Committee placing in such a positive context the Irish attitude towards and the Irish view on these various EC proposals and their implications for Ireland. I welcome the opportunity to have this debated, and I look forward to hearing the views of Members of the House and the Minister on the report.
