I am not sure whether my question is germane to section 2. The Minister suggested lifting the age bar. Women who have been discriminated against in this regard should not be subject to the age bar. I misheard the Minister who corrected me; I am delighted this applies to the EO, CO and CA panels; I think it could also apply to the AO panel — there would be few women there — but it is important to look at whether the imposition of the age bar would further discriminate against these women. I think it should be abolished. I do not believe the Minister would have difficulty with EU law if sub-panels were created specifically for people who are the subject of discrimination. The fact that those people would only be women, in my view, would not cause difficulties.
Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Bill, 1996: Committee and Final Stages.
I support Senator Roche. I know the Minister has difficulties with the matter. If the AO grade is not included, it would seem we were stating that we did not think women should be admitted to all of the grades in the Civil Service. The special provisions that have been made for CA and EO competitions should be extended. It is only fair that, if the Minister is doing it for two sections, it should be done at the highest level of entry into the Civil Service.
I thank the Senators for their constructive questions. There is an age limit for all male or female applicants at the moment — I think it is 50 years of age, it was recently increased. There are moves being made to abolish ageism right through the service. When that is done it will apply to these panels. We cannot remove the age bar for women only as that opens up another area of discrimination. We think we are doing something right, but we cannot positively discriminate for something that happened prior to the equal treatment directive. The situation is quite convoluted. We have taken all the advice we can from the Attorney General and from Europe and we have a problem. I hope the age bar implicit in the Senator's question will be removed for male and female alike.
In relation to Administrative Officers, I have great sympathy and little difficulty with the issue. However, we are trying to target the women who are forced to leave on grounds of marriage. We cannot say we are trying to target these women because the provisions have to be open to both genders, regardless of marital status. Reviewing those who come back into the Civil Service under the reinstatement scheme, the vast majority have come in under the CO and EO grades. If I felt there was a need to raise that level of competition to create a sub-panel to look after the people we are trying to target, I would certainly do so. We could raise the level and bring in many other people who were not forced out of the service on marriage grounds, male and female, which would cause all sorts of problems with young people coming out of school wanting to get into the Civil Service. There is a fine balance between looking after the people we are trying to help without introducing another area of discrimination. I am advised that, looking at the pattern of reinstatement, to extend the sub-panels to CO and EO competitions only will fulfil what we are trying to do without introducing another area of discrimination.
Why will this apply only in the next two series of competition?
Saying it or putting it into law would be discriminatory and we have to stay within the terms of the equal treatment directive. Any woman who left the Civil Service under the marriage bar would be hitting 50 by now, which is the legal age limit to enter or re-enter the Civil Service. After the next two panels we reckon there will be no one who was forced out on marriage grounds pre-1973 who would meet the requirements of entry to the Civil Service under the present age requirement. If the age bar was lifted — there is major discussion in Europe and elsewhere about that now — we can look at that again. Under the present terms of entry into the Civil Service there will be no one who was forced out pre-1973 who would meet the age requirement.
I understand the logic of the Minister's answer, but it is based on another prejudice, which is ageism.
That term is not discriminatory as it refers to both men and women.
It is prejudice that equally affects most of us but it is prejudice nonetheless. There is a determination to get rid of ageism and there is also a recognition that people who have passed 50 years of age are not just burnt-out wrecks. If we think of women who are affected by these bars, who were driven out of the public service, many have made careers for themselves and had the best experience of all — they have raised families, kept men in check and reared children. They have a vast amount to offer at 50 years of age and a huge amount of experience.
I made that point.
The age bar affects them. I suggest that we should get rid of the age bar. It does not serve a purpose. I also suggest she looks at the AO issue. There would be some women who, having been affected by the marriage bar, having developed a family life, went to university and may wish to come back into the Civil Service via the AO grade. This would do no harm. I cannot see it creating a vast problem because the competition for AO is gruelling and weeds people out fairly rapidly.
In these particular competitions we are talking specifically and exclusively about the Civil Service and exclusive Civil Service regulations but we have to remember that marriage bars also applied in State-sponsored bodies and local authorities. In the State-sponsored bodies, since there was no legislative basis, we cannot correct it on this basis. I hope a ministerial directive would be issued to the State-sponsored bodies to ensure that women who had to leave this sector would not continue to suffer and the Minister's efforts at alleviation would apply in their case. There is not a lot of recruitment in those areas anyway.
I am not sure State-sponsored bodies had a reinstatement scheme. What we are doing here is replacing the facility that women in the Civil Service had under the reinstatement scheme. We will certainly look at the point the Senator made, but it is a slightly different issue.
I agree with the Senator on the ageism argument. People in their 50s or older have tremendous experience to bring into any organisation. Under the reinstatement scheme you came in at the grade you were forced out of on marriage. It is very easy to check the grades involved. Since 1981, no AO has qualified for reinstatement. The facility needed can be checked. The vast majority who left were not in the Civil Service very long, given the average marriage age in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It is easy to check where we need to pitch our sub-panel to look after married women who were forced out. We cannot put it as bluntly as that.
The provision must also be available to all who left the Civil Service, regardless of gender or marital status. If we open it up, we are allowing in those who are not women and were not forced out on marriage grounds. That is not the intention, even though we will pick up some of those in this non-discriminatory sub-panel scheme we are putting in. It is a fine balance to put something in place to compensate the women who were forced out and, at the same time, not introduce more discrimination in the system. If we pick others who left after 1973 and left for reasons other than marriage — men as well — we are prepared to do that so long as we can look after those women who were forced out and want to come back.
I was chairman of the administrative officers association in 1972 and 1973 and I can assure the Minister there were one or two AOs who did make careers after leaving the service.
One or two came back, but not since 1981.
I do not think there would be a problem in having an AO panel. I do not want to press the issue further than that.
There would be a major problem with the AOs in relation to others who were not forced out because of the marriage bar, who would want to get back into the service. We then create problems for those in the service who want promotion now and younger people coming in. The difficulty is getting the balance right.
I thank Senator Roche and Senator Honan for agreeing to take Committee Stage today. It helped greatly in getting the Bill through the House.
I thank the Leader of the House, Senator Manning, and other Senators for their constructive contributions to the debate on this Bill.
As a woman I have every confidence in the Minister that she will try her best to look after the targeted groups about which we are concerned. All of us in the House are concerned with this issue and are also concerned that the Minister will keep it under constant surveillance. If the age limit goes it should not be just the next two appointment commissions that will look at these matters. This is a very important issue. All of us would like to see more women moving up the ladder. I have great faith that the Minister will keep a close eye on matters and introduce whatever is necessary.