Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Feb 1997

Vol. 150 No. 4

Employment Equality Bill, 1996: Second Stage.

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

Minister for Equality and Law Reform (Mr. Taylor)

This Bill is the most significant contribution to the fight against discrimination in employment since the first Anti-Discrimination Act of more than 23 years ago. When enacted, the Bill will give Ireland one of the most modern equality codes in Europe.

There is an obligation on all of us, Government, employers and trades unions, to work towards the development of social justice. Equality is a fundamental human right, which is especially important in the economic sphere. Individuals in society have a basic right to seek gainful employment and to advance in that employment, without being discriminated against because of personal characteristics unconnected with their work performance. The Bill fulfils the Government's commitment to introduce broad-ranging legislation to outlaw discrimination in employment on the grounds of gender, marital and family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race and membership of the travelling community.

The scope of the Bill is comprehensive, and deals with all employment-related areas, from vocational training to access to employment and employment conditions generally, including training, work experience and promotion. It also imposes obligations on trade and professional bodies, on advertisers and on placement agencies to act in a non-discriminatory way. It draws on the developments, experience and practice that have informed the work towards gender equality over the past two decades.

The Bill responds to the radical change that has been taking place, and continues to take place, in Irish society. Our society, which until recently had adopted a relatively closed and homogeneous outlook, is rapidly taking on a new open, pluralist and strongly European identity. This new identity is increasingly evident in working life.

The world of work is no longer peopled predominantly by married men with full-time permanent jobs. The emerging work environment includes many employment options, from part-time employment to job-sharing and teleworking. It is peopled by men and women, some of whom are the sole breadwinners, while others contribute, in equal measure with a partner, to the economic support of home and family. Increasingly, people with disabilities are demanding their right to a full role in economic life, including a place in this more flexible world of work. A more open approach to issues of sexual orientation, changes in family status, and an increase in ethnic and religious diversity, leave members of some of our minority groups more visible and perhaps more vulnerable in the workplace. The fact that few people are guaranteed a job for life, coupled with the high levels of unemployment, means that more older people than ever before are seeking work.

In the emerging employment market, equality of opportunity represents a fundamental element in labour protection legislation. Discrimination is not a theoretical problem. For too many people, it is an unacceptable reality. Take discrimination on the grounds of age. A quick scan of the situations vacant columns in any daily newspaper provides ample evidence of outright discrimination. Labour force statistics show that older workers once unemployed are likely to remain unemployed for longer than their younger counterparts. The report of the task force on long-term unemployment shows that alongside the increasing incidence of long-term unemployment among older workers, other motivational factors are at work. A study in Tallaght by Ronayne and Creedon in 1992 reported that only one out of every three long-term unemployed people over the age of 45 had an expectation of ever getting a job again. The perceptions of these individuals are more than confirmed by the reality. Statistics show that a man aged over 45 and out of work for two years or more has only one chance in ten of being re-employed.

Unfortunately, there is widespread discrimination on the grounds of disability. In its recent report, A Strategy for Equality, the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities estimated that some 360,000 Irish people, or 10 per cent of the population, have a disability. The National Rehabilitation Board, together with other agencies, has been working over the years to ensure the integration of people with disabilities into employment. An EC Labour Force Survey in 1989 indicated that “the chances of someone with a disability being unemployed are significantly higher than someone without a disability”.

There is a view that equal opportunities in the workplace represent a cost to business. Success in today's internationally competitive business environment involves utilising the talents of all employees, without regard to ability-neutral characteristics such as sex, disability or sexual orientation. Employers and managers who overlook able employees because of traditional prejudices are guilty both of injustice and of waste in deploying the human resources available to them. They may even jeopardise the viability of their enterprise, because there is nothing more certain than that there are other enterprises that have succeeded in tapping the energies and abilities of their employees. It is past time that we relinquish outmoded preferences that perpetuate narrow discriminatory practices, so that our society can prosper and work towards greater social equity.

Discrimination in employment often weighs disproportionately on those who are already marginalised in our society — members of the travelling community, older people and people with disabilities. Employment equality legislation is one essential tool to help redress disadvantage. Experience to date in relation to gender equality well illustrates both the limitations and the importance of legislative action.

Employment equality legislation for women has been on the statute books for 23 years. We live in a far more equality conscious environment than we did in 1974. Employment equality legislation is partly responsible for that change in outlook. The days are long past when it is socially or politically acceptable to justify unequal treatment by reference to differences in biological or social function. However, acceptance of the principle of equality does not appear to have been matched with practical action to achieve it. To illustrate the point, I would like to outline the state of play in relation to three key equality issues — pay, labour market participation and segregation in employment. Each of these issues fundamentally affects women's economic power and earning potential.

Looking at the issue of pay first, across the EU today we see that women earn substantially less than men. In Ireland, the average hourly earnings of women who work in manufacturing industry is only 74 per cent of that earned by their male counterparts. The situation outside the manufacturing industry is not much better. An ESRI study published in 1994 entitled Male-Female Wage Differentials: Analysis and Policy Issues examined the earnings of men and women workers in all sectors. The study found that women's earnings were only 80 per cent of those of men. The study also found that half of the 20 per cent difference could be attributed to factors such as skill, hours worked, length of service and experience. It is possible that the remaining 10 per cent of the discrepancy is the result of pay discrimination.

Regarding women's share in the labour market it is evident that, like other European countries, Ireland has experienced a strong increase in labour market growth. Employment in Ireland has grown by 8.5 per cent in the period 1991-95. The increase in female employment has been even higher, with growth of 20 per cent. There are more jobs for women. The participation rate for women in the labour market has increased from 32.9 per cent to 38.5 per cent in the last five years. However, many of these jobs are concentrated in low paid, part-time and other atypical work and it is to these jobs that many of the new entrants to the workforce, primarily women, are recruited.

Finally, women's economic power and earnings potential are affected because the world of work is segregated both vertically and horizontally. The number of women in key decision making roles in our public and private organisations is conspicuously low. Women are under-represented at board level in our major manufacturing and industrial concerns and on the boards of our service and financial institutions. Men occupy the majority of management, professional and supervisory positions and women, by and large, are responsible for the delivery of routine, clerical and support services. Women are also segregated in the low paid sectors of the economy such as the clothing, assembly and services.

I know from meeting the two sides of industry that employers and trades unions support the principle of employment equality. Despite this support, there has been a falling short in the achievement of equality of opportunities in practice. I am convinced that if real progress is to be made in the future we must focus on positive action to integrate women and other disadvantaged workers into the labour market. The Bill provides significant legislative arrangements for the pro-active management of equal opportunities programmes at the level of the firm. These are contained in section 70 which establishes arrangements for equality reviews and action plans.

I have also provided in sections 24 and 33 an opportunity for employers to put in place positive action measures to help women workers, workers with disabilities, older workers and workers from the travelling community. Trades unions have a serious obligation to assist in putting in place these equal opportunities initiatives and in exploiting their benefits in practice.

I would like employers to seize the occasion of this Bill to conduct an equality audit of their workplaces and put in place targets to ensure the removal of remaining barriers to equal opportunities. I am hopeful too that some employers will avail of the opportunity afforded for the first time by this Bill to introduce schemes of positive action geared to help eliminate existing inequalities.

Trades unions must intensify efforts to help women and other disadvantaged workers collectively and individually to attain equal pay and equal treatment. I am confident that this Bill will give the issue of equality in the workplace a considerably greater profile. Following its enactment, I look forward to an increasingly active role being taken by more and more individual women and other disadvantaged workers in defending and advancing their own interests and rights in the workplace, either in the trades union movement or in other ways.

The issues involved in the development of full gender equality at work are complex and can only be addressed over time and in response to a broad based programme. In 1974 the first piece of employment equality legislation was presented to Dáil Éireann. Deputy Michael O'Leary, the then Minister for Labour, in presenting the Bill stated that "much needs to be done to improve the status of women in employment". It is disquieting to note that, despite some significant achievements in the intervening years, this statement remains true today.

Nonetheless there has been progress. In 1974, two women Senators contributed to the debate on that first piece of employment equality legislation. One of them, Mary Robinson, is today President of Ireland and the other Evelyn Owens is Chairman of the Labour Court. Twenty years ago both of these important offices would have been clearly categorised as men's jobs. Attitudes in Ireland have progressed but substantial equality in employment for the vast majority of women remains an elusive goal. There is need for continued vigilance by women, their representative organisations, employers and State agencies to ensure that acceptance of the principle of equality is matched by a real will to eliminate discrimination.

I have taken steps to facilitate the reconciliation of work and family life through enactment of the Maternity Protection Act, 1994, and the Adoptive Leave Act, 1995. I have supported adoption of the directive on parental leave at EU level. The transposition into Irish law of this directive can be expected to greatly ease the child rearing burden for many new working parents. Allied to these developments, facilities for childcare support for working parents have been promoted through a pilot scheme for disadvantaged areas funded by my Department. The achievements of this scheme in its first two years, 1994-95, have recently been evaluated. The results indicate that some 2,000 additional children benefited from the further childcare facilities funded under the project. This is a significant step forward and one which I intend to take further. As part of the Partnership 2000 agreement recently concluded with the social partners, the development of the childcare sector is especially profiled. I intend that my Department will play a central role in pursuing this issue.

To broaden the decision making role of women, I have moved to ensure an increase in the number of women on State boards. In 1992, only 15 per cent of positions on State boards were held by women. In 1993, the Government, on my proposal, decided to work towards a target of a minimum 40 per cent representation level for women on State boards. The most recent information is that women comprise almost 26 per cent of the total membership of State boards.

In developing this Bill to cover the new discriminatory grounds, I have had regard to the individual rights based approach in existing gender employment equality legislation. I have also taken note of UK racial equality legislation and the various approaches adopted to deal with discrimination in other EU member states, Australia and the United States. The Australian model in particular has proved a fruitful source of inspiration.

In contrast, the gender equality provisions in Part III of the Bill have been drawn so as to ensure concordance with the requirements of EU law. The Bill transposes into Irish law the equal pay and equal treatment directives following repeal in the Bill of the substantive provisions of the 1974 and 1977 equality Acts. The Bill also meets Irish obligations with regard to equal pay under Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome and builds on the substantial body of case law that has been handed down by the European Court of Justice in the past 20 years.

I now wish to outline some of the main features of the Bill. The text of the Bill falls into six Parts as follows. Part I contains standard and technical provisions; Part II sets out the prohibited discriminatory grounds and establishes the scope of the Bill; Part III deals with discrimination on grounds of gender and gives effect to EU law in this area; Part IV deals with discrimination on grounds other than gender, namely marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race and membership of the travelling community; Part V provides means of redress and compensation for persons who may have suffered discrimination; Part VI gives new powers to the equality authority which will replace the present Employment Equality Agency.

Part I of the Bill, comprising sections 1 to 5, provides for the powers to make orders and regulations under section 3, a provision in relation to expenses under section 4 and repeal of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, and the substantive provisions of the Employment Equality Act, 1977, under section 5.

Section 2 contains the necessary definitions. Some definitions which should be noted are the definition of advertisement which includes every form of advertisement whether in a newspaper or other publication, on television or radio or by display of a notice or by any other means; the definition of contract of employment which covers all employees in both the public and private sectors as well as workers employed through employment agencies — this broad definition of contract of employment is in line with that contained in recent labour legislation; the definition of disability which is broad enough to give protection from discrimination to all people with a disability; the definition of family status which encompasses both elder care and child care responsibilities; and the definition of remuneration which includes any consideration in cash or in kind which an employee receives, directly or indirectly from the employer in respect of employment.

Pension rights are excluded from this provision and my colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, will bring forward any legislation necessary to ensure discharge of our obligations under Article 119 of the Treaty of the European Community and the various equality directives, including the Equal Pay Directive. I understand he will deal also with equal treatment in pensions on a wide range of other grounds in an amendment to the Pensions Act, 1990.

Part II comprises sections 6 to 17 of the Bill. Section 6 sets out the grounds on which discrimination is prohibited in the Bill. They are gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race and membership of the travelling community. The scope of the Bill is also established in this Part. Section 8 outlaws discrimination in relation to access to employment, conditions of employment, training or experience, promotion or regrading or classification of posts. Section 10 prohibits the publication or display of discriminatory job advertisements.

Section 11 prohibits discrimination by employment agencies. Section 12 prohibits discrimination by providers of vocational training. Section 13 prohibits discrimination by trades unions, employer organisations, professional bodies, trade associations and by any body which controls entry to or the carrying on of a profession, vocation or occupation. The procurement or attempted procurement of discrimination is prohibited by section 14. The extent of the liability of an employer or other person for actions of employees and other agents is set out in section 15.

Other provisions in this Part include: the definition of like work in section 7; general exclusions from the provisions of the Bill where a person is unwilling, unsuitable or unable to perform the duties of the post in section 16 and where acts are done in compliance with statutory requirements in section 17; and, finally, the making null and void of provisions in collective agreements that are discriminatory in section 9.

Part III comprising sections 18 to 27, deals with discrimination on gender grounds and gives effect to EU law in this area. Sections 19 and 20 provide an entitlement to men and women to equal remuneration in respect of like work where both are employed by the same or an associated employer. Discrimination in relation to other conditions of employment are prohibited in sections 21 and 22. Section 23 contains a definition of sexual harassment and explicitly provides that it amounts to discrimination.

Section 24 allows for positive action to eliminate the effects of past discrimination. It is a broadly couched provision and may be interpreted to include all forms of positive action, subject only to any limitation imposed by European Court of Justice case law.

Sections 25 to 27 allow exemptions from the principle of equal treatment. These exemptions include: an exemption for the purposes of authenticity in entertainment; an exemption for certain jobs abroad; an exemption for special advantageous treatment of women in connection with pregnancy, maternity and adoption; and an exemption for personal services, such as the care of an elderly or incapacitated person. Finally, there are limited exemptions for the Garda Síochána and the prison service for purposes related to privacy and decency; the control of violent individuals and riot situations; and for gender-based height requirements.

Part IV, consisting of sections 28 to 37, prohibits discrimination on any of the following grounds; marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race and membership of the travelling community. Sections 29 to 31 provide for equal pay for like work and for the prohibition of discrimination in relation to other conditions of employment. Section 32 outlaws harassment in employment on the basis of each of the discriminatory grounds set out in this Part. Section 33 allows positive action in favour of people with disabilities, people above the age of 50 and members of the travelling community.

Section 34 allows for the retention by employees of certain family and seniority related benefits that would otherwise be made unlawful under the Bill. It allows for the continued fixing of retirement ages and for the phasing out of age related pay. The section also permits the setting of a maximum recruitment age, on training related cost grounds, and for an exemption from the terms of the Bill where there is clear actuarial or other evidence of significantly increased costs for the employer.

Section 35 is focused primarily to require an employer to make special provision for a person with a disability. I amended this section and section 16 in the Dáil so as to make explicit in the Bill the concept of "reasonable accommodation". The amendments arise from concerns expressed to me by groups representing people with disabilities, and debate among Deputies on Committee Stage. Section 36 allows for the continued application of residency, citizenship and Irish language proficiency requirements in the public service and establishes criteria for the setting of educational and other qualifications.

Section 37 provides exclusions from the principle of equal treatment. They include: special provisions for religious, educational and medical institutions run by religious bodies; an exemption for the purposes of authenticity in entertainment; an exemption for jobs in circumstances abroad where, because of prevailing laws or customs, some categories of people could not reasonably be expected to operate effectively; an exemption for employment in a private household and an exemption for the security forces on the age and disability ground.

Section 37(1) as presented to Dáil Éireann provided an exemption for religious, educational and medical institutions and gave rise to considerable controversy. I replaced that provision by way of Government amendment on Report Stage in the Dáil. The new provision represents the culmination of a long process of consultation which I undertook with a wide variety of interested parties, as well as extensive deliberations with colleagues and with the Attorney General. The new provision represents a reasonable and measured balance between very different views on this most complex and sensitive issue.

Part V, consisting of sections 38 to 68, establishes the procedures for redressing discrimination. Sections 38 and 39 make provision for a Director of Equality Investigations and deal with certain definitional and related matters. Sections 40 and 45 provide a right to information for all persons who may have been discriminated against and set out the consequences for an employer of failure to supply information.

Sections 41, 43, 47 and 54 provide means of redress for a person who considers that she or he has been discriminated against, victimised or has not received equal remuneration. The Bill provides a right of redress of first instance to the Director of Equality Investigations for every person who may have been discriminated against contrary to the terms of the Bill. There is a right of appeal to the Labour Court against a decision of the director. The determination of the Labour Court is final, save for an appeal on a point of law to the High Court.

There are two exceptions to the general redress procedures. One is that a dismissal case will fall to be dealt with by the Labour Court in the first instance, with a right of appeal to the Circuit Court. The other exception is that in sex discrimination cases, an applicant may opt, instead of applying for redress to the director, to make a case to the Circuit Court. The normal ceiling on awards in the Circuit Court has been waived in such cases.

Section 42 allows for binding mediation where the Director of Equality Investigations or the Labour Court considers that the dispute could be resolved in this way and the parties to the dispute do not object to it. This provision will assist in the speedy and informal resolution of disputes in suitable cases.

There is provision for the award of substantial compensation in well-founded cases. Under section 46 the director or the Labour Court may order equal remuneration or equal treatment, as appropriate, from the date on which the case was referred. In addition, the director or the court may order an employer to pay up to three years' arrears of remuneration or to order compensation for other acts of discrimination or victimisation of up to a maximum of 104 weeks' remuneration. In a case where the person concerned was not in receipt of remuneration, there is provision for an order for compensation up to a maximum of £10,000. In a case involving the dismissal of an employee, the Labour Court may also order reinstatement or re-engagement of the employee if that is considered appropriate.

Arising from recent European Court of Justice case law I have provided, at section 44, means of redress without limit on the amount of compensation in gender equality cases. A person who may have been discriminated against on this ground may opt to seek redress through the Circuit Court. In such a case the only limit on the amount of compensation or arrears of remuneration which may be ordered is a six year time limit on the backdating of any compensation or arrears of remuneration. This limit on backdating is the maximum such limit enshrined in the generally applicable Statute of Limitations.

Sections 55 to 57 allow a person who has been awarded compensation under the Bill to enforce the award through the Circuit Court if the employer fails to make payment within a specified period. Sections 62 to 65 deal with offences under the Bill and with certain incidental provisions. Sections 58 to 61 give strong investigative powers to the Director of Equality Investigations and to the Labour Court to enter premises, to obtain relevant information through interview or otherwise, and to ensure the imposition of sanctions in the event of failure or refusal by persons to co-operate with an investigation.

Under section 49, the Equality Authority is empowered to refer disputes to the Director of Equality Investigations. The authority has the sole right to initiate proceedings in cases of discriminatory advertisements, including power to seek an injunction to prevent the filling of a job advertised in a discriminatory manner. The authority may also refer a case to the director on behalf of an individual where it would not be reasonable to expect an individual to refer the case — for example, because of the complexity of the case or because of the individual's fear of victimisation. The authority may also seek an injunction in respect of persistent discrimination.

Sections 50 and 51 empower the authority, or a person affected by a collective agreement, to refer the agreement to the director or, on appeal, to the Labour Court where it is considered that the agreement contains a discriminatory term or does not provide for equal remuneration. The purpose of a referral or appeal under these sections will be to identify which provisions, if any, of a collective agreement are null and void, and, where appropriate, to suggest how alternative provisions might be devised.

Part VI of the Bill, consisting of sections 69 to 73, is concerned with the authority. Section 69 gives new powers to the authority to prepare codes of practice that will have statutory recognition. Sections 70 and 71 give a new statutory role to the authority to carry out equality reviews and devise action plans. Sections 72 and 73 contain technical amendments to the provisions in the 1977 Act in relation to the authority.

I am committed to the implementation of a comprehensive programme to advance equality through a broad range of actions. The Employment Equality Bill is a central element in that programme and an essential step in the process towards the elimination of discrimination. Senators will have noted that some sections of the Bill are particularly complex and difficult. I look forward to hearing their views and hope for a fruitful and constructive debate on what is, without doubt, a ground breaking legislative initiative. I commend the Bill to Seanad Éireann.

An Cathaoirleach

I understand that, with the agreement of Members of the Opposition, Senator O'Toole will be the next speaker. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. O'Toole

I thank my colleagues in Fianna Fáil for allowing me to speak now. This is not the appropriate time for words of valediction but it has not passed our notice that the Minister has announced his intention not to seek re-election. On behalf of all of us I wish him well in his retirement and thank him for his contribution to Irish politics. As I always say on these occasions, we owe a debt of gratitude to people who put themselves forward to represent the public, for any party and in any role.

It is crucial that I preface any criticism of this Bill by agreeing with the Minister that it is ground-breaking, progressive legislation which is a significant advance along the lines I and others have advocated and demanded for many years. I will identify my problems with the legislation. It is the nature of the legislative process that we tend to take as given that with which we agree and to focus on those issues which cause us problems, but I would not wish my criticisms of the Bill to be taken as anything other than criticisms of the sections in question.

This is extremely important legislation and many people, including many whom I represent, will feel protected by it. The Minister deals with the various grounds in a clearly understandable manner—they are defined, described and the areas they cover are outlined. The grounds of discrimination covered are disability, gender orientation, religion, marital, family, age, race and membership of the travelling community.

This last point is crucially important. For many years I worked in support of the members of the travelling community and stood with them on picket lines outside hotels which refused to serve them. That is a different area to employment equality but it springs from the same element of discrimination. They now can seek to participate in and feel protected by the community. The strength of any democracy can be measured in a number of ways, one of which is the way it deals with its minorities. We can be justly proud of the way this Bill deals with one of our minorities. The Minister and his advisers have done extraordinarily good work in piecing these provisions together and they will stand the test of time. In the future people will speak of the legislation in the period leading up to 1977 in the same way they now speak of the legislation between 1973 and 1977, as a group of Acts covering areas of crucial importance.

It is not possible and I do not intend to cover every part of the Bill. The Minister is aware of my reservations which I have raised with him on many occasions — we can almost address each other telepathically at this stage. However, I am glad to be able to put it in its context. The trade union movement has reservations about aspects of the Bill but in general terms it welcomes it as being progressive The Minister has listened to our concerns and taken many of them on board.

I will be returning to a number of issues on Committee Stage; I will signal them today and, given the time constraints, I will focus on just one. As with other legislation, I have difficulty with the more open access to the court system provided for in this Bill. I can see the reasons for it, but the constant mention of the High Court and the Circuit Court bothers me. Irish people are legally minded—there is no process of mediation, deliberation, determination or hearing they will leave untouched if they feel another avenue is available to them, and in the main that is a good thing. However, many of them like to cut straight to the chase and bypass the intermediate stages to reach the pinnacle. In many cases it will require huge legal expenditure to take some of these cases which will almost inevitably go to the Circuit Court or the High Court, depending on the areas dealt with in sections 41, 43, 45 and 54. I want the Minister to look at that very carefully and I would like him to deal with this issue in some detail on Second Stage. I am concerned about the need for those forms of access, the need for going from one point to another, why one can be skipped and so on. I am aware that some of it relates to other legislation and that some of it relates to the principles of natural justice but I would like to have that element fleshed out.

I will be putting down an amendment to the section which deals with sexual harassment. Again, we are back to the issue of how we define a reasonable person. Who is this mythical reasonable person? That it is a well established concept in law, nonetheless it seems to be coming from the wrong perspective as far as the victim of harassment is concerned. I feel that in making the determination, it should come from the point of view of the person who is the victim, or who feels themselves to be the victim. There are many occasions in life when people will say "I didn't actually intend to cause you any hurt or offence" which sounds like a reasonable response to a hurtful act. Many of us have learned that how one intended one's remarks bears very little relevance to how they are perceived. It is how they are received that should determine what is important. Those of us who cause others hurt in normal social interaction or in the course of argument will know that it is no use arguing afterwards that we had never intended to cause hurt. The fact is that the hurt has been caused and it is from that point we should proceed.

This Bill appears to be saying the intention of the harasser is more important than the feelings of the victim. Perhaps the Minister will argue against that but that is how I perceive it. I am trying to put it in a context here to which I will ask the Minister to respond. On that basis, I am considering an amendment for Committee Stage.

Section 40(3) refers to access to information. Some of my colleagues in a number of unions feel that the plea of confidentiality could be used to prevent the disclosure of information. Information which a person describes as confidential is not available to another person who might be trying to prove that somebody was being discriminated against. For example, if A and B are in similar types of employment and B is taking the case that he or she is being discriminated against on one of the grounds outlined in the Bill and B seeks certain information about A's job in order to put together a case, but the information is not provided on the grounds that it is confidential information, then B may be left without the vital evidence to win an equality case. I think that is a worsening of the present position and I would like to hear the Minister's views. I have spoken to a number of people who have concerns about that. Some trade union general secretaries to whom I have spoken, particularly in the civil service unions, have indicated that they also think it is a worsening of the current position. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions is worried about the approach on sexual harassment and I would like the Minister to take another look at it.

There were elements of section 16(4) of the Bill, as initiated, which caused a lot of concern. I welcome the Minister's amendment to that section to make it more satisfactory to everybody. Everybody is trying to achieve the same purpose and it was important that we were able to come to some agreement on that issue.

The issue of greatest concern to me is section 37(1) of the Bill. I have to contextualize this section in terms of the broader society. I hold a view, which is backed up by any close examination of any society in the world, that in the same way as there is a liberalising tendency at one end of society, there is a move towards fundamentalism at the other. Most things in society are symmetrical. My worry about section 37 is that, if I look ahead 15 years when there are no longer sufficient religious and clerical people of certain faiths to run schools, the schools will be turned over to fundamentalists who will try to determine what is the ethos. This will create havoc.

I saw one element of that recently in Dublin where a very fundamentalist approach to a school on the northside of the city effectively allowed a person to take control of the school and to introduce an extraordinary religious approach with which even Irish law was not able to deal. The school is attended by only four or five children, most of the parents having withdrawn their children. It is by giving this kind of unbridled rein to people to determine religious ethos that problems will arise. I believe we are now endowing religious institutions because we have reached a stage where, for teachers in a school or nurses and doctors in hospitals, we are effectively saying that the institutions will be able to take a certain course of action against somebody who is undermining the ethos of that institution. Everybody agrees with that.

What will happen in six months' time in a Catholic school in rural Ireland if two divorced teachers have entered into a new relationship with each other, one might be teaching the First Communion class and one might be teaching the confirmation class and somebody might decide that this is unacceptable to the ethos of the school? My problem with section 37 as written is that somebody could say that having a teacher who is acting or living a life which is in total contradiction to the beliefs of the religious institution is effectively undermining the institution. If they make that point, as they will and it has already been made in many places, it will be very difficult for any structure, be it the director of the courts or the constituent parts of the courts, to say otherwise. They might not like it but who is to decide the religious ethos? Who is to decide what is an undermining influence? There might be a homosexual teacher in a school and if a religious institution does not accept that as being natural in the order of things, they may want that person out. I think this is what will happen. People can use whatever approach they wish.

The answer that has been given to me by bishops, churches and institutions is that this would not happen, that they would not be so intolerant and would not hold that viewpoint. I do not expect churches or national organisations to act in this way but this legislation is as available to parish priests in remote corners of Ireland as it is to religious institutions. These decisions will not be made in Rome or in bishops' palaces; they will be made in the back room of a presbytery. I do not think it is possible to stop such action.

I do not think that churches will abuse this legislation; I have never said or thought so. However, I do think it will be used against teachers in a way that was never contemplated by the Minister and which the Minister would never support. In my former arguments on this legislation, I gave an example of a person who was sacked in the late 1930s from his job in a Waterford school because he did not comply with the religious ethos of the school. I pointed out the this man finally found a job for the rest of his career and made a great contribution to education in Ireland because he was lucky enough to be taken on by a Jewish school. The Minister cut the ground from under me, however, by telling me that the man in question was his teacher.

Mr. Taylor

That is right.

Mr. O'Toole

My worry is that that kind of openness will happen again. Where do we stop? The Minister has inserted into section 37(1) the provison that a religious institution can give priority to a co-religionist. Reasonable people would not argue with that, but I want to take this a little further. We will now employ people who can in some way contribute to the religious ethos of the school because that is the only reason for appointing a co-religionist.

We also have a rule in the book which says that in primary schools religion must imbue and inform every subject on the curriculum. At what stage does teaching become proselytising? At what stage will teachers be judged on whether children are learning their faith at school? I have a nightmare that in three or four years time someone will do a survey to find out how many people know the Ten Commandments or the words of the Our Father. They will blame teachers, not parents.

Section 37 of the Bill demands more of teachers as role models than parents. While we will not stop parents from sending their children to a school if they happen to be in a second relationship or one that is different from the norm, there is a question over whether teachers should not have a higher standard. I am worried about the fall-out from that. We are almost asking teachers to move into an area in their professional lives which is very close to proselytisation, yet we are asking them to attain a standard in their private lives which is not demanded of parents or anyone else in society. I think that is wrong and I am concerned about it.

I know it is not the Minister's intention to create such a situation but that will be net effect of it. Much of the debate in the media on the controversial section 37 has been misinformed, and the arguments of those who want to retain it have been somewhat hysterical.

Having heard all sides of the argument the Minister is in an ideal position to ensure that the real concerns of churches, teachers and parents can be dealt with in legislation. I would ask the following points to be taken into consideration. I see that Senator Lydon is writing furiously but I would ask him to listen carefully to what I have to say.

Mr. Lydon

I am not writing.

Mr. O'Toole

Senator Lydon and I differ on many of these kinds of issues. It is not beyond our ingenuity, however, to compose a formula of words which will enshrine in legislation the protection of ethos, the right of teachers to a private life, the right of parents to select the ethos of their choice for the education of their children, and appropriate employment opportunities and protection for workers, whether they be teachers, nurses, doctors or others in religious institutions.

I am sorry the Minister did not take on board the fact that institutions run for religious purposes are different from those owned and run by religious institutions for other reasons. A seminary for training priests is different to a religious institution which runs a school, but that distinction has not been made.

From reading my mail I know that the Bill as published is a source of fear and terror among decent teachers and nurses. Some 95 per cent of this Bill is superb, progressive, constructive, necessary and protective, but section 37(1) is an unnecessary and unwarranted intrustion into the area of religious belief and practice. It will cause us problems. In putting forward this case I am representing more the views of people who actively practise their religion than any other group. They are people who feel their religion will be threatened by fundamentalists. I may have views on church and state but this is not the agenda here. I hope the Minister will take these issues on board on Committee Stage.

Mr. Neville

I welcome the Bill and I would like to express my good wishes to the Minister on his forthcoming retirement. Like Senator O'Toole, I thank him for the contribution he has made to political life, especially in the area of law reform over the past five years. I have dealt with this area closely in my role as spokesperson on law reform. I have been impressed by the Minister's work and even sometimes by his bravery. The contribution he has made in this area of Government responsibility has been second to none. I wish him well in his retirement.

Today, once more, we can see the Minister's commitment to the work of reform and equality. This most important Bill complements and develops the legislation introduced between 1972 and 1977; it began in 1972 with the Equal Pay Act and continued with the Equality Act of 1977.

The Bill before the House introduces legislation to outlaw discrimination in employment on the grounds of gender, marital and family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race and membership of the travelling community. It deals with employment from vocational training to access to employment, and employment conditions generally which include training, work experience and promotion.

A radical alteration has taken place in our society over the past 20 years since the previous Minister for Labour, Deputy Michael O'Leary, then Leader of the Labour Party, introduced the relevant Bills between 1973 and 1977. As members of the European Union we have a European identity and must respond to the codes of equality that prevail in Europe. Equality stands as a right on its own. It is a fundamental civil right which must be defended by the State and extended to all areas of society, especially employment.

When I started work some 30 years ago— I was in my teens at the time — the work environment was much different from today's. It was mainly male orientated with women sharing office jobs and some secretarial positions in the Civil Service. Men were the breadwinners while women were housewives. Similarly, in many positions, including those in State bodies, when women married they were obliged to resign their jobs. I got married in the mid-1970s and my wife had to retire from her job because, as a married women, she was not entitled to work.

Those who suffered disability had little opportunity to obtain work at the time but the traveling community had more opportunity then than it has now. The travelling community has changed quite a lot in that its members are not as close to the settled community as they were in the past. At that time travellers had a role in society, using skills required by the settled community. They helped farmers, for example, with harvesting and other tasks. There was a closer relationship and more understanding and acceptance of travellers. That has changed dramatically in the intervening years to the point where there is now a greater divergence between the travelling and settled communities.

I feel comfortable saying that because I represent the town of Rathkeale which has demonstarted the tolerance, understanding and mutual respect which prevails between both communities there. There are tensions, of course, but I wish to highlight what can be done in this area. For example, last Friday in Rathkeale the county manger gave keys to 12 travellers to house them in the town. Everybody in the community was pleased with this. I am not boasting about it because that is how it should be. However, life has changed for travellers and they now experience more discrimination than heretofore.

Discrimination continues to exist in the workplace. People with disabilities do not have a fair opportunity to involve themselves in employment and to earn a living. The situation has improved but a recent survey showed that many semi-State companies, health boards and county councils do not respond adequately to their obligation to employ people with disabilities. If the State does not respond and show leadership in this regard, no employment equality legislation will persuade other employers to do so. State bodies must give leadership by employing people who are members of minority communities and people with disabilities. Yesterday the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights heard representatives from the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. They highlighted the discrimination against people with disabilities which exists in many areas of employment. That must change because there is no reason for such discrimination.

I welcome the fact that this legislation outlaws discrimination on the basis of age. This is a prevalent form of discrimination. I had experience of it when, at the age of 40 years and after occupying a relatively senior management position, I was made redundant. Over a period of two years I discovered I was over the age limit considered acceptable for a similar position in another company even though I had many years of experience and a qualification. People in their late 20s or early 30s were more acceptable than somebody of 40 years of age. I had another problem which leads to discrimination, the fact that I was unemployed. There is discrimination, especially in competitions for senior positions, against people who have been unemployed even for a short time. It seems to put a question over their ability, regardless of the circumstances in which they were made unemployed. In my case the takeover of the company rendered the management team redundant. Age and the fact of being unemployed appeared to be grounds for discrimination on the part of employers. I congratulate the Minister for tackling this issue.

There is also discrimination against the long-term unemployed. They have greater difficulty in securing employment, as the Minister pointed out earlier, despite their qualifications, abilities and experience than those who are in employment or who are recently unemployed. The workplace is changing dramatically. Few people are guaranteed a job for life. That is only possible in the Civil Service but even that sector is changing. Most people will change jobs and careers between three and six times in the course of their working lives. The Minister referred to a study in Tallaght which found that one out of three people who were long-term unemployed and over the age of 45 years could expect to get a job. People who are aged over 45 years and are over two years unemployed have only one chance in ten of being re-employed. These are stark statistics which highlight the problem of discrimination.

Employers are entitled to recruit the best qualified people for a vacancy. That is the criterion every employer must use. However, employers must realise that sex, disability, sexual orientation, marital status, religion, age or race are not barriers to ability, performance, motivation or the contribution people can make to an enterprise. If anything, such characteristics could be an advantage. People who have experienced difficulties in life, such as people with disabilities, tend to be more motivated to make success of their lives and to contribute and be part of the success of an enterprise and the employment in which they are engaged. To consider such characteristics as barriers to employment is a waste of human resources and a severe injustice to the people concerned. We must have pluralist, open and progressive policies in the workplace.

Equality is a fundamental human right. Individuals have a basic right to seek and secure gainful employment and to advance in that employment without discrimination because of their personal conditions. It is 23 years since the introduction of equal pay legislation, yet in Ireland the average hourly earnings of women who work in manufacturing industry are only 74 per cent of those earned by their male counterparts. When all sectors are considered, women's earnings are only 80 per cent of men's earnings. Studies have found that half of the 20 per cent difference can be attributed to factors such as skill, working hours, length of service and experience. One must conclude, therefore, that the remaining discrepancy of 10 per cent is the result of discrimination.

It is encouraging and welcome that both sides in industry, employers and trade unions, in the public and private sectors support the principle of employment equality. Acceptance of the principle of equality must be matched by a real will to eliminate discrimination. The number of women in key decision making roles in public and private organisations is conspicuously low. Women are under-represented at board level in major manufacturing and industrial concerns and on the boards of State and financial institutions. I commend the Government for making a concerted effort to redress this issue. It is difficult but the Government has indicated is wish that boards should have a minimum representation of 40 per cent of either gender. As a result of discrimination over the years, it is difficult to achieve that quota. Women, having been discriminated against at various levels, are not often available at the top to apply for such posts.

There is now a will at senior level to promote women and nominate them to boards, but they have not gained the requisite experience and skills because of discrimination. We must endeavour at all times to overcome that problem and to identify women with skills — there is no doubt they are there—who can contribute to boards of enterprise and State institutions. Men occupy the majority of management and professional supervisory positions. Women are still largely responsible for routine clerical work and the support services. They also tend to be in low paid sectors of the economy, such as the clothing, assembly and service sectors.

We must recognise the role of the European Union in ensuring employment equality and equality in general. Progress made in this area in the past 20 years or so has been almost entirely due to the directives imposed on us by the EU. Little or no equality legislation has been introduced on our own initiative. Where would women be without EU directives? Women must thank the EU for the improvement, protection and enhancement of their employment opportunities and status in their work. The Government should take more initiatives in this area. We must give credit to the EU that employment equality has been bred, nurtured and imposed on us. The equality culture has gradually become part of Irish politics. Gender balancing and gender proofing must continue. Positive discrimination must be applied if we are not willing of our own accord to recognise the rights of women and minorities. We might not yet be ready to do so.

The Minister has changed the law, but it is also important to change attitudes. There has been a considerable increase in the number of women in the workforce and they now account for 37 per cent of those at work. Many are employed in low paid and part-time jobs.

Last year, the Joint Committee on Women's Rights, of which I am proud to be a member, completed a study on women in local administration management. While legislation has opened the gates to the workplace for many women, there is still a huge barrier to promotion. The results of the comprehensive study by the committee are revealing. It confirms that, although more women than men are employed in local administration, there is no female city or county manager out of a total of 37 such managers and no female assistant city or county manager out of a total of 27. There are two female county secretaries out of a total of 26, one female finance officer out of a total of 23 and no female principal officer. The report was published in 1996 and gives a clear indication of women's lack of progress at senior management level in local authorities.

The report also refers to the absence of women on interview boards which is a crucial issue. It showed that women from middle management were not on any of the interview boards. Interview boards must include people employed at the level of the position advertised. It can be concluded from the study that the Local Appointments Commission, which sets up the interview boards, has a serious problem. Women are not appointed to the positions of county secretary, finance officer, assistant county manager and county manager and cannot, therefore, represent these positions on interview boards. Most men would be conscious of discrimination and would ensure it did not occur but there is an inherent discrimination if women are not represented on interview boards. I am not referring to the outcome of their deliberations but to the fact that they do not have women on them, although we would very foolish to say that it does not at times influence the outcome.

I am also a member of the Mid-Western Health Board. A study was carried out on the board and it gave a dismal account of the success of women as far as promotion is concerned. They fail to obtain promotion within the higher levels of health boards. The board of which I am a member recently discussed the position of nurses and the difficulties they experience. All the six or seven programme managers at that meeting were men. The Mid-Western Health Board is fairly typical in that it has no female programme manager, yet the nursing profession, which is at least 90 per cent female, contributes more as a group than anyone else to the health service. This has been discussed in recent weeks, yet no nurses are programme managers and none of them have any say in deciding future policy or how hospitals should develop.

Although we have changed the law, which I welcome, there must be a change in attitude and in the structure to ensure that women, people with disabilities, the travelling communities and smaller, but vital, minority groups are not discriminated against. We must also ensure that people are not discriminated against on religious or racial grounds. I hope we do not discriminate on religious grounds as much as we do on others. It is important to identify these areas. I highlighted areas of the public service, such as the local authorities and health boards, because these must give leadership to private industry and employers in ensuring discrimination does not occur.

Mr. Lydon

I wish the Minister well in his retirement. I do not always philosophically agree with him, but I believe him to be a good, honourable and moral man who has contributed significantly to Irish political life. I wish him a long, happy and peaceful retirement.

This Bill is to be welcomed. It is important and well intentioned. It was difficult to introduce because of the constitutional issues it raised, the opposing parties concerned with it, the difficulties surrounding section 37, etc. However, the Minister has done a very good job and has formulated the legislation in a way which has appeased the opposing factions as much as is humanly possible. I wish to comment on a few aspects. I do not believe in speaking too long on a Bill when it is a good one. If it is good, it should be passed and, if not, it should be argued about.

The Bill states that discrimination on the grounds of age shall not be construed where one of the people involved is under 18 or over 65. This is a difficult issue because, if it relates more to brawn than brain, the age limit of 65 may be aspirational more than anything else. However, if it is the opposite, relating more to brain than brawn, then 65 is too young. Recent studies in the United States have shown that people over 65 are just as capable of working as younger people. Our brains begin to deteriorate after the age of 16 but the diminution in intellectual potential and capacity is very small. People well into their 80s have amazing brains. It even applies to some High Court and Supreme Court judges. I suppose some figure must be applied, but perhaps the Minister might examine this and we could discuss it at a later stage.

The Minister said that employment equality legislation is an essential tool to help redress disadvantage. It is but one tool. This reminds me of the words John Hume uses continually, that we need a change in the hearts and minds of people rather than legislation.

The Minister also mentioned that women earn less than men. This is true. I work in a hospital and nurses' salaries, compared with those of their colleagues, are ridiculously low. I am not making a political point but merely stating that nurses do a tremendous amount of work and effectively run hospitals. However, if they make a pay claim, everyone thinks they earn too much whereas consultants, who do not work as hard as them, are paid salaries two to five times those of nurses.

As Senator Neville said, there is still tremendous discrimination against women. I became aware of this after serving two terms on the Joint Committee on Women's Rights. The Minister said that the participation rate for women in the labour market has increased from 32.9 per cent to 38.5 per cent in the last five years. However, most of these are in low paid and part-time jobs. Discrimination against women is not as bad as it was but it still exists. It is a mind-set; the belief that a woman cannot do a job as well as a man, and it is not true. There used to be terrible discrimination. When my wife worked for the Civil Service before we were married there was a rule that one could have three illegitimate children before one had to retire. What kind of mind made up such a rule? Why three children? We have moved on since then due, in part, to the efforts of the Minister and legislation such as this.

The Minister mentioned Mary Robinson and Evelyn Owens, former Members of the Seanad. One now hears men ask "Who will be the next President? Who will she be?" I hope it might be Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn.

Section 37 created much argument which I hope will cease. Senator O'Toole has reservations about this section and he said that, as things become more liberal, they become more fundamental on the far side. This may be true but it is only when things become ultra liberal that one fears a rise of fascism. The Minister has tried to strike a balance in this regard and that is to be welcomed.

People speak of this Bill as if it only related to education. This is not true. The Bill encompasses medical, educational and religious spheres. I work for the hospital order of St. John of God which has 42,000 employees in many countries. We employ Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, people of no faith, heterosexuals and homosexuals. Each employee signs an ethics clause but we never have to sack anyone because that clause binds them to very little. St. John of God employs people who are married, single, living together, separated and divorced. A person's marital status does not affect their work.

One can include too many checks and balances. Senator O'Toole has to make these points because of his position. Yesterday he told me he would like to see the church out of education. He did not say which church, but that is not fair because the religious have done good work in that area. I would like to strengthen the Bill because of my outlook but the Minister has done a good job.

Any group should be able to form an exclusive club based on sex, race or creed and be granted a licence. The Minister disagrees but I do not feel strongly about this. This legislation is necessary. We have had too much discrimination and it is difficult to overcome this without legislation. Legislation will not eradicate discrimination; what is needed is a change of attitude. I am fortunate to work in a tolerant organisation which has never fired anyone for their creed, marital status or sexual orientation and yet provides a service. That is the model that educationalists should follow. I commend the Bill.

Ms Gallagher

As Labour Party spokesperson on equality and law reform I have sat before the Minister, Deputy Taylor many times and, while I do not give praise where it is not warranted, I have praised him on each occasion. He has introduced legislation which has brought about much social reform from divorce legislation to occupier's liability legislation, all of which have impacted on many people. I wish him well in his retirement.

This Bill is both radical and comprehensive. Equality legislation has always been forced on this country by EU membership and even then it only dealt with employment equality between the sexes. It is 20 years since we passed the Employment Equality Act, 1977, and it is time that was updated and expanded. This was not an easy task for the Minister and I congratulate him and his staff on introducing such comprehensive and complicated legislation.

This Bill is complicated by necessity however, it is too legalistic. Although I am a legislator and a solicitor I found the Bill difficult to read and to follow. This may be the nature of the subject but, for example, the definition of "victimisation" in section 39(2) is too complicated and detailed.

Section 5, which deals with the repeals and consequential amendments, is messy. The Minister may argue that every word in the Bill is essential but I found it difficult. It is not user friendly legislation, however, that is a small fault if the Bill achieves its objectives.

Is it necessary to define every word in such detail? Perhaps I am being too simplistic but the manner in which disability is defined may exclude someone with peculiar circumstances. Is this the best way to proceed? Was it not possible to include a blanket ban on discrimination in employment no matter on what it is based? Did we have to detail the headings to such an extent? Would the Minister elaborate on this?

I am not trying to detract from the essential thrust of the Bill. It is welcome and is comprehensive in extending the protection of our laws to outlaw discrimination on the grounds not just of gender but also marital and family status, sexual orientation, age, disability, race and membership of the travelling community. It also fills an extremely important gap in employment protection as it deals with discrimination which often did not actually occur in an interview. It deals with access to employment, vocational training and working conditions generally. It also recognises the huge changes in our society and work systems and updates our laws to cater for the reality of work today. In that sense it is essential legislation.

Section 6 sets out the grounds on which discrimination is prohibited—gender, martial status, age, etc. This is not to be taken for granted and is a radical measure. For the first time advertisements which require applicants to be under 40 years of age will be unlawful. For the first time someone with a disability will be able to challenge the basis on which they were not selected following what they saw as a successful interview. For the first time a single mother will have redress when she knows she did not get a job because she is a single mother. This is marvellous in terms of the problems so many have suffered in the past.

Why are trade union activism or political affiliations not included as grounds for discrimination in the Bill? I know of an employer, who in his ardent support of a political party, refuses to employ anybody outside of that party, except perhaps party supporters' sons and daughters, in the safe belief they are of the same persuasion. People who have been involved in work issues as shop stewards in their previous place of employment are seen as troublemakers by their prospective employers. There is no doubt they are discriminated against. Those grounds should be included in this legislation. The inclusion of the ground of political affiliation is essential if we are to ratify the ILO Convention No. 111 on discrimination in employment. I would welcome the Minister's explanation as to why those areas of discrimination are not included.

I welcome that protection against sexual harassment is given a statutory basis for the first time. The fact that the onus of proof rests with the employer to ensure that he or she took all steps as are reasonably practicable to prevent the occurrence of harassment makes it possible for many to take serious action to stop this disturbing behaviour. Senator O'Toole raised the definition of sexual harassment and what is considered reasonable. That is relatively well dealt with in terms of the legal understanding of what is reasonable. The Minister has followed the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Women's Rights in their report on the impact of European equality legislation on women's affairs in Ireland which was published last July. The Minister has done the committee proud in following that recommendation. I hope it is workable because it is an area which needed to be tackled on a legislative basis.

I also welcome the scope of the Bill in outlawing discrimination in promotion, regrading and classification. How many women have been passed over for promotion so many times that they have lost heart? I know a very good teacher in the vocational education committee sector who has been working for many years. She has been overlooked time and time again by a strangely comprised interview board. We both believe it is because she speaks her mind.

However, no matter how much this and other legislation provides for equality in employment, we still have a long way to go. This is not theoretical legislation stating what is already in place. We cannot afford to clap ourselves on the back. Unfortunately, this legislation is badly needed because discrimination in employment is still widespread. Women still earn substantially less than men. I do not want to argue about whether the figures are 70, 74 or 80 per cent of what men earn for equivalent work. Statistics will never deal with how discrimination is tackled where money is handed under the counter. How is discrimination tackled where women are mostly in part-time work? I know of mushroom pickers in Monaghan whose employer tells them who will or will not be registered for tax purposes. They do not get holiday leave or maternity leave. If they get pregnant, it is tough, they are out of work. There are so many areas that still need to be tackled in a real way. Women are still discriminated against, not only in the vertical area of promotion but also horizontally.

The Joint Committee on Women's Rights, of which I am a member, produced a report on management of local administration. It was clear from our research that women were the typists of local authorities but found it difficult to move up the grades. There are no female county managers or assistant county managers and only two in 26 county secretaries are female. There is only one female financial officer and one female senior administrative officer. It is worth repeating this because it smacks of discrimination. I know of one county manager who has just one senior female member of staff to deal with. He refers to her as the "pair of tits". With that attitude it is no wonder that women find it difficult to move up the ranks because they have so much else to put up with.

There are many female teachers but why so few female principals? I listened with interest to Senator O'Toole on the teaching profession. However, once again, it is a male secretary of the union who represents so many female teachers. I am not saying he does not do a very good job, as he does. There is something wrong with a system which does not allow women to move up through the ranks. There are many female nurses.

Mr. Norris

We have a female President.

Ms Gallagher

That is true.

Mr. Norris

A former student of mine.

Ms Gallagher

Yet few of them actually have a say in nursing policy and the hospitals in which they work. Unions must also address this question. We rely on them to tackle areas of discrimination in terms of gender equality, yet so many of them are men. These questions must be asked and it is time everyone took responsibility for working towards achieving equality in employment.

Another report we looked at was one in relation to obstacles preventing women from reaching upper management. It was interesting to note that there were no women in the senior echelons of the financial institutions in this country. It is little wonder that entrepreneurial women find it difficult to obtain loans from their bank managers with that kind of hierarchy in place.

I fully accept the Minister has done all he can do in terms of legislation under his remit. He has tackled discrimination; but the obligation rests with employers and trade unions to work towards the development of social justice, of which equality is the fundamental part. Equal access to work and training is vital. The requirement of claiming dole and social welfare in order to register with FÁS is an obvious case of discrimination and prevents women from gaining access to FÁS training courses. When job applicants' success depends so much on experience, it is vital to promote training and work experience for women and all other categories of people covered by this legislation. There must be guaranteed access to training, work experience and apprenticeships, through positive discrimination if necessary.

While the Minister has tackled discrimination as far as the legislation provides, who will tackle an employer who employs a man instead of woman because of the hassle caused when a woman worker is pregnant? Who will tackle the employer who advertises and interviews in a seemingly fair fashion but rules out in his head the employment of a man he suspects to be gay or a woman with a stutter, although they may be the best person for the job? Who will tackle the various forms of latent discrimination which still exist? A great deal has been achieved but it seems that while employers avoid blatant idscrimination, latent discrimination is still ramplant and is harder to tackle.

We still need paternity leave and child care provisions. It is only when there is adequate child care and regulations for child care training, with provision for access to child care for women living and working in rural areas, that women will be facilitated in entering the workplace. We still need more flexible work systems such as flexitime, job sharing, home working and teleworking. These must be encouraged and facilitated. Labour protection legislation must apply to those people because, too often, loopholes in the law meant it did not apply to those areas of work which allowed women to maintain a job while raising their families and exercise the choice to which they are entitled.

We need gender balanced interview boards. The problem in relation to the Local Appointments Commission seems bizarre. We need more female policy makers and 50 per cent representation of women on State boards. We also need more funds for the Employment Equality Agency if it is to take on its vastly increased role under this legislation.

We can do much more to educate people about the rights of every individual. We cannot achieve equality until we tackle the discrimination which exists in people's minds and open them to the possibilities of what can be achieved by people in wheelchairs, women in the Defence Forces and the other areas about which they have mental barriers. Gender equality does not exist in the workplace at present. We cannot say we have equality until women are facilitated to achieve their full potential at work. That is also the case for all those who suffer discrimination on any front. As far as the legislation can tackle that big problem, the Minister has done a very good job. I welcome the Bill.

Mr. Norris

I hope I do not hear a band playing "Oh, didn't he ramble" at the end of my contribution because I am on the point of getting a nasty cold and I imagine I will be a little more discursive than usual, for which I apologise in advance.

I wish to echo those Members who paid tribute to the Minister, Deputy Taylor, and who greatly regret his eventual passing from the political scene, at least, in its most active form. However, having benefited from a form of early retirement myself — I believe the Minister is proposing early, if not premature, retirement—I can hardly grudge him the pleasures and benefits which will flow from it. He has graced the Oireachtas with the calm dignity and humanity of his response to some complex human issues.

It is no surprise that the Minister has produced this legislation. As my colleague, Senator O'Toole said, 95 per cent of the Bill is excellent. I regret the other 5 per cent but I understand the political pressures under which the Minister labours. Those pressures do not come only from the Roman Catholic Church but clearly also from my church. I recently attended a very dignified, gracious, upmarket party where I was lobbied by gaitered members of my community, meaning members of the House of Bishops. I am afraid I lost a number of episcopal votes, if I ever had them, because I do not approve of religious discrimination, no matter what the source or which group it is proposed to promote.

For that reason I am a little sad that the Minister has not been able to go as far as I would have liked him to. He stated "The Bill fulfils the Government's commitment to introduce broad-ranging legislation to outlaw discrimination in employment on the grounds of gender, marital and family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race and membership of the travelling community". That is exactly the kind of menu we want. It is heartening to see the inclusion in that list of "membership of the travelling community" and "sexual orientation", for which I had to fight so many historical battles in this Chamber. I am glad to say that, thanks to the wisdom of successive Governments and the maturity of the people, these necessary grounds are now automatically included.

However, the Bill fulfils the Government's commitment to introduce legislation outlawing discrimination on those grounds except in the areas where it is most fundamentally necessary, such as where the churches control schools, hospitals and training colleges. That is regrettable and needs to be looked at again. In order to facilitate and help the Minister and to show goodwill, I have tabled a number of amendments which I hope will be taken on board, particularly on section 37 which purports to protect the religious ethos of a school. However, there is no definition of "religious ethos". It is not protected in the Constitution, although freedom of religion is. When one takes into account that every major school, hospital and training institution is included, one has cause for worry.

I was interested in what my colleague, Senator O'Toole, said for a number of reasons, including the mildness of his attack in certain respects. I was astonished to hear him say that if there was discrimination it would be orchestrated from a back room in Ballydehob or a parochial house and not in the Vatican. He would not accuse the Vatican but I will, because that is precisely from where it is orchestrated.

Nobody who knows anything about the Congregation for the Promotion of the Faith, which used to be known as the Inquisition, and is presided over by Cardinal Ratzinger whose father was a policeman in Munich in the 1930s, which required certain special skills and sensitivities as the Minister will know, could doubt that. Cardinal Ratzinger has actively promoted discrimination against people, specifically on the grounds of sexual orientation, in the notorious Hallowe'en pastoral. Let us not pretend we can get off the hook by saying it is just some ignorant parish priest in the back of beyond—it is right at the core of what purports to be an ethical system. I cannot regard the position of the Vatican on persons such as myself as ethical in any sense.

I am very concerned that good teachers could be fired on the grounds of sexual orientation, even under this legislation. They will probably be more vulnerable if they are good teachers. I was attacked when I was teaching in the college of the sacred and undivided Trinity, not on the grounds that I was a bad teacher, that my behaviour was immoral or that I was undermining the ethos of anything in any spectacular way, but because I was a good and popular teacher whose sexual orientation was widely known and, therefore, I could become a role model to persons whose sexual identity was vulnerable.

The authorities did not give in to that pressure but if that is true in a third level institution such as Trinity College, how much more would it be true in a national school where one may be subject to pressures in a rural community and where one is dealing with children, who are always seen as vulnerable and on whom it is assumed it might be possible to imprint a particular form of behaviour? Personally I believe that is highly unlikely because as far as I know, all my teachers were heterosexual, yet despite the brainwashing I have turned out as I have. If it did not work in my circumstances I see no reason it should in others.

There are 3,200 national schools, 3,000 of them under the direct control of the Roman Catholic ethos or Church. The taxpayer pays for them, so they are not uniquely and absolutely the possession of the Roman Catholic Church. In the Sunday Independent of 26 January 1997 Jim Duffy wrote:

What purports to be a Catholic education system is an uneasy mix of State and Church education, with the State picking up most of the bills.

This is an accurate summary.

Section 37(1) has caused considerable concern to many people. I have with me a selection of letters I received on the subject and I propose to quote from some of them. They are not all opposed to this subsection. One letter marginally supports it because of a fear that employment may be adversely affected. This is an unusual view.

Mr. Taylor

I can easily balance the Senator's supply of letters.

Mr. Norris

That is why I consider it important to put on the record the letters I have received. I thought the Minister may have been subject to a campaign. It is not unlikely that the receipt of letters in his Department was orchestrated. This kind of thing has been known in the past.

I will not read into the record the names of my correspondents, but they are from people who signed their names and provided me with their addresses. The first states:

The Employment Equality Bill which specifically sets out to stamp out religious discrimination ends up legalising it.

I am a parent of eight children, some of whom are just entering the workforce and I would be very worried if I felt they were open to victimisation under our legal system in their future employment.

The second letter states:

This clause would seem to confer draconian power about a school's power to dismiss a teacher whose ethos did not conform to the ethos of the Catholic Church.

This proposal would seek to enshrine in law the opinion of nuns in New Ross who dismissed Eileen Flynn in 1982.

Eileen Flynn is on record in recent weeks to the effect that she believes that it would still be possible to dismiss her under the terms of this legislation.

We should not dismiss this notion too lightly with a grand, liberal overview. When that case was in progress I remember speaking to friends of mine in the legal world who were involved and whom I assumed to be of a reasonably liberal point of view. I was told not to worry too much about the case because the person with whom this teacher was living was of a republican background: it was all right to discriminate against people because their background was politically unacceptable. That is a dangerous road to take because it vitiates the notion of freedom. Freedom cannot be granted merely to those with whom one agrees. One is only tested when one extends such courtesies and liberal principles to those with whom one strongly disagrees.

Senator O'Toole said he did not believe that those within Churches, etc., would discriminate and that only isolated individuals would engage in such activities. To show that I am not just attacking the Roman Catholic Church, let me give an example to illustrate that this is not the case. Within a mile of this House there is a suburban parish church in the choir of which I sang when I was a youth. It had a fine young curate who was living with another young man. The parish was aware of this except for the rector. When he became aware of the situation the rector fired the young man with the connivance of the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Dublin, having told him that he either left the parish house, separated from his partner of seven years or was gone from his job. In consequence, the relationship, which had been stable, broke up. One of the young men went to London and formed an alliance with another clergyman who was a prison chaplain, became infected with the HIV virus and subsequently died. The other partner went to California where he is still working with people affected with HIV and AIDS. The job was subsequently advertised as being suitable for a married couple. Let us not run away with the notion, therefore, that there is never discrimination or that it comes uniquely from the Roman Catholic Church.

Another letter states:

I am writing to express concern about sections of the proposed Employment Equality Bill. If this Bill is passed as it stands at present it will give authorities in schools the legislative authority to discriminate against teachers who are (1) single parents, (2) divorced or (3) not practising their religion.

If the Board of Managment or even parents claim that the behaviour of the above is contrary to the religious ethos of the school, they could face dismissal. Teachers could also be refused promotion because their "status" offends their religious sensitivities.

Another interesting letter deals with the question of divorce. I am not sure that the position referred to by my correspondent is an accurate summation of the legal position, but it shows a high level of concern. It states:

I agree that teachers should uphold the ethos of the school in which they teach, and indeed teachers have been and still are upholding the ethos at Irish schools.

However, I do not under any circumstances accept that a teacher's private life should be included in this Bill. I am a teacher in a Catholic primary school. I have been separated for 12 years and can expect to be divorced in the near future. I have no need for divorce as I am a practising Catholic but I am sure the courts will grant a divorce to my husband who is in another relationship and has two children in that relationship. This will put me in the position where my private life is outside the ethos of the Catholic Church, and will give a legal right, which may or may not be used, to those in authority to remove me from my employment.

The Minister is shaking his head. As a distinguished practitioner of the law I am sure he knows what he is talking about. However, this shows the level of concern of which one must be aware. In an interesting letter, a member of the Church of Ireland, who is also a teacher, is happy with section 37(1)(a) because it gives the person a favourable position in terms of employment. However, the letter goes on to state:

However, section 37(1)(b) gives rise to much concern and worry. Who is to say what is "reasonably necessary" etc.? [I have addressed this in one of my amendments] I believe a teacher's private life should be exactly that — private. Section 37(1)(b) should be removed completely.

This is probably politically unrealistic and for that reason I have suggested an amendment. A letter signed by a group of people states:

Equally disquieting to us is the exemption clause in the Employment Equality Bill. It is our opinion that this clause erodes our civil rights as citizens of this Republic and we question its constitutionality.

For various reasons, and having been supplied with excellent briefing material, I believe that last point is accurate. There may be a question regarding the constitutionality of the Bill because of section 37(1). There is no definition of "ethos" However, in a document entitled Governance of Schools, there is an attempt at a definition which apparently has been agreed between the Minister and the bishops. The term “denominational ethos” is defined as being “in accordance with the doctrines, moral teachings, traditions, practise and customs of the Church as defined by the Church from time to time”. In one case, that of the Roman Catholic schools, the ethos is extended to more than compliance with denominational and ethical behaviour, where its states: “The Catholic school promotes the formation of the pupil's in the Catholic faith”.

There are a number of grounds under which the constitutionality of the Bill might be impugned. For example, section 37 might be held to be repugnant to Article 44 in that it purports to recognise, in a novel way in law, different religious denominations. The people by referendum removed the assertion of religious difference and superiority which recognised the special place of the Roman Catholic Church under the Constitution. Second, it permits discrimination on the grounds of religion. This affects up to 10 per cent of the people, which is illegal under article 44.2.1º and 3º of the Constitution, which states:

1º Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.

3º The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the grounds of religious profession, belief or status.

The capacity to discriminate seems to be given to the churches under section 37 of the Bill and there seems to be a severe disability on potential employees who may be denied employment, or removed from employment, if their life is perceived as being in conflict with the ethos of the school.

It is reasonable that the ethos should not be undermined by the teaching methods or example of the teacher but the life of a teacher outside teaching hours should be, regarded as completely private and respected as such. It is also questionable whether, by the operation of this exclusion, the State is, in effect, endowing particular religions by making moneys available to them in circumstances where they may be discriminating against persons.

This Bill also seems to be in conflict with the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Part II, Article 2, enjoins each party to respect and ensure to all individuals the rights recognised in the present Covenant. without distinction of any kind, such as race colour, sex, language, etc.

Another international ruling of particular significance is the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. That was so actively promoted by the Irish delegation that it became known as the "Irish Declaration". Article 2 states:

No one shall be subject to discrimination by any State, institution, group of persons or person on the grounds of religion or belief.

I will deal with this more extensively when the amendments are discussed.

I strongly support Senator Gallagher on the membership of a trade union. I was contacted by a person who lost his job after his company was taken over because he was engaged in trade union activities. He was compensated in a resulting court case but that is evidence that the Minister should include membership of a trade union as one of the grounds for protection of individuals.

On the question of disability, an exclusively medical model of disability is used in the legislation and there is also an absence of any provision for an appropriate environment within which disabled people can be employed.

Mr. Dardis

I note that the Minister, Deputy Taylor, has been replaced by the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald; I would like to acknowledge his distinguished public service and the debt the country owes him. He has brought in much progressive legislation, for which he is to be thanked. I wish him well in his retirement and perhaps now that he is less restrained he may accommodate amendments he would not otherwise have been able to accept.

I welcome the publication of this Bill. It is welcome and necessary but it is also complex. There is other legislation, going back to the 1977 Act, and perhaps it could all have been consolidated. However it is essential that minorities or those who are vulnerable should not be discriminated against, and should be inserted in law. However, we may face the same problem with this legislation as we had with the Freedom of Information Bill, with which the Minister of State is familiar. It takes a lot to change a culture and while we rightly introduce provisions in law, there are parts of our society which will have difficulty in coming to terms with a law we hope will be implemented.

The example that springs most readily to mind is that of Northern Ireland, where vigorous attempts have been made to ensure there is no discrimination on religious or political grounds. One wonders how successful they have been as it seems those who want to circumvent the law can readily do so. Even those cases brought to court have not always been successful.

This Bill outlaws direct and indirect discrimination at work and in employment conditions on the grounds of gender, marital and family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race and membership of the travelling community, which I welcome. Amendments made in the Dáil improved the Bill, and further improvements could be made on Committee Stage here. Because the Bill tries to encompass everything, it may fall between several stools and disappoint some. Reference has been made to the Employment Equality Act, 1977, and the fact that parts of that Bill have been repealed or incorporated in the current legislation. Perhaps the Equal Status Bill will deal with other aspects of that but there is an argument to be made for consolidating this legislation.

Senator Norris raised the issue of disability, which we will have to try to resolve on Committee Stage. The general consensus of those involved in this area is that the definition of disability in the Bill is far too medical and there are alternative definitions which might be more appropriate. I have received correspondence from KARE, the County Kildare Association of Parents and Friends of Handicapped People. It states:

It is my opinion and indeed the opinion of everybody I have spoken to within the disability movement, as well as that of the employer group IBEC and Congress that this definition is totally unsuitable and unworkable particularly in an employment setting. I am particularly anxious that the definition used would be amended to a more functional definition of disability, and I am aware that a proposed alternative was sent to the Department which had the backing of Congress and IBEC.

I am also concerned should this Bill be passed, with this medical definition of disability, it is likely to be used in further legislation that has been promised, and the overall situation would be disastrous in my opinion.

Alternative definitions have been offered, such as:

A person with a disability means an individual whose prospects of securing, retaining and advancing in employment are substantially reduced as a result of a duly recognised physical, sensory, psychological or mental impairment".

That definition is taken from the ILO Convention No. 159 Vocational Rehabilitation & Employment (Disabled Persons) 1983, which was ratified by the Government in 1996.

There are two other possible definitions of which I am sure the Department is aware. They are similar in tone and outline the view of experts in physical and mental disability that it is essential the definition is flexible enough to encompass the people within their care and with whom they work on a daily basis. This issue will have to be examined very seriously on Committee Stage. It is incumbent upon the State to ensure nothing discriminates against people who are vulnerable because of disability. I do not believe this is the intention of the State or the Minister but it is incumbent upon us to produce a formula of words which deals with the particular and reasonable concerns raised. The Bill has already been amended in the area of sexual orientation and under section 35 on the issue of reasonable accommodation which was of concern to those dealing with mental handicap.

The Minister said discrimination is not a theoretical problem but that it is an unacceptable reality for too many people. I agree. He then mentioned discrimination on age grounds. There is an increasing tendency to discriminate on the age grounds. In my local authority people presenting themselves for certain jobs find that the age limits are quite low. There are people who wish to retire early, and that is desirable if it is their wish. However, there is no reason people who wish to be employed, and who are capable and physically able to be employed, should be discriminated against on the grounds of age. There are many precedents in industry to show that octogenarians can run companies very successfully. Talent and wisdom should be facilitated.

Senator Gallagher raised an important issue regarding discrimination on the grounds of political opinion or affiliation to a trade union. This is covered by the 1977 legislation and I have personal grounds for knowing that. When I was nominated to this House I had reason to consult the legislation. Affiliation to a political party or trade union is not grounds for dismissal. Perhaps the Minister can clarify this. It is very important for democracy and our democratic institutions that people who have a particular political opinion or who are members of trade unions or other vocational or voluntary bodies should not be discriminated against. Vigorous and open debate without anybody feeling intimidated is a healthy aspect of our democracy.

Several Senators raised the issue of women in the workforce. We all accept the fundamental principle of equal pay for equal work and that there should be no grounds for complaint in that area. Women must not be excluded from the workforce. On several occasions in the past some Senators have expressed the view that women's place is in the home. I reject that view. If people choose to remain in the home their choice should be facilitated. However, if they choose to work in industry or services they should be able to do that.

Discrimination can be very subtle. It is difficult to conceal one's gender when going for interview. The person may not be asked whether they are married or single or of a particular religious persuasion or what their gender is, but the latter is self-evident. It is easy to make decisions on the basis of what employers see before them. It is a difficult area to legislate for and there is only so much that can be done. However, if women want to enter the workforce they should be facilitated in doing so. They should not be trapped in low paid employment as many of them are.

Section 16(4) says: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as requiring an employer to recruit, retain in employment or promote an individual if the employer is aware, on the basis of a criminal conviction of the individual or other reliable information, that the individual engages, or has a propensity to engage, in any form of sexual behaviour which is unlawful." What does "other reliable information" mean? Does it mean that on the basis of some informant certain action can be taken? I take exception to these words: it seems to be part of an informer's culture. If people are convicted they should be dealt with. I realise the absolute necessity of protecting children from paedophiles and people from sexual harassment. However, more than hearsay is necessary. Very strong evidence should be required which may not necessarily be a court conviction. Busybodies cannot be allowed to ruin somebody's reputation and this phraseology might allow for that.

Deputy Keogh said that section 23 was a step backwards from the trend in Irish jurisprudence. She is correct. I am unsure how it should be phrased but we can examine that on Committee Stage. Is the section in breach of the 1996 EU Directive? Could it deter complainants from taking cases? This would be highly undersirable. The Bill needs improvement and we can amend it on Committee Stage.

Section 37 is one of the most contentious sections. Legislation does not always have the expected effect. There could be problems with this section. Religious orders or minority religions operating schools or hospitals are entitled to have that poorly defined word "ethos" reflected in the way their institutions are run. There are implications for minorities and the majority religion here. Some of the most distinguished second level schools are run by minority religions. They should not be forced into employing people who do not reflect their ethos. It is a sensitive and difficult area and the rights of individuals have to be safeguarded. However, given the quality of education which some of these institutions provide, they have reasonable grounds for being concerned. I realise an amendment was made on Committee Stage in the Dáil and that we are close to reaching a consensus on the matter.

We must reconcile two positions which were presented to me by people who wrote to me from a school in County Kildare. They sought my support in amending the Bill when it was before the Dáil and said that while recognising the obligations of teachers in their daily school activities to support and not undermine the school ethos, we must recognise their entitlement to the same legislative protection against discrimination which the State provides for other workers. I do not see an inconsistency between the two positions which can be readily reconciled.

We had a lengthy debate in the House on the ethos of the Adelaide Hospital and how it would be protected in the transfer to Tallaght. It is important that such an ethos is protected and perpetuated because it is a valuable part of our society. In the case of minorities, in particular, it would be wrong if they were not able to survive, flourish and maintain their ethos in circumstances where the majority of the population may reflect a different, although not markedly different, ethos. There are different shades of ethos between the various religious denominations who all make a unique contribution. Those matters may be reconciled on Committee Stage when we will seek to improve the Bill further. While it has been improved by the Dáil, there is some way to go. It is not the intention of the Progressive Democrats to oppose Second Stage.

Dr. Henry

Like other Members, I very much welcome this Bill. Employment equality is the right of all and legislating for it is welcome. I am glad the Minister said targets should be set by public bodies and private companies. Without targets, it is difficult to know what difference, if any, the legislation has made. Introducing legislation is one thing but changing people's circumstances is quite another. If we are to properly monitor the legislation, it is essential that resources are provided and I hope the Employment Equality Agency will have sufficient resources to monitor the Bill.

It is important that those with disability have sufficient resources to highlight cases in which they believe they may have problems. A number of members of the forum for people with disability have contacted me to say this is an area which worries them and have indicated that they will need resources to vindicate their rights. I hope the Minister will provide sufficient resources to ensure the implementation of this legislation.

Most of the important points have been covered. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights commissioned research on women in management in local administration and barriers to the participation of women in business and business creation. That research was worthwhile because without factual information it is impossible to know from what base we are starting. I compliment Deputy Mary Wallace, the chairman of the committee, and Deputy Theresa Ahearn, the previous chairman, on the forceful way in which they have looked at these areas and for ensuring good research was carried out so that we have factual information.

The Minister rightly pointed out that previous legislation has helped women as regards employment. However, we must look at how far women have progressed in employment. The research to which I alluded makes depressing reading. Other Ministers have given factual information showing how women are not progressing into managerial positions in local administration, as one would expect, or doing as well as one would hope in employment in the public or private sectors. Even in self-employment in the private sector, the majority of those who are employers are men and the majority of employees are women. Women who start up businesses do not make a great impact on the number of self-employed. It is important to point out that women earn only 70 per cent of the average wage earned by men. It is marginally worse than it was 20 years ago when the marriage bar was lifted and women were able to make a more positive contribution and avail of opportunities in the workforce.

Areas mentioned where women have failed to make advances include the interview board. It is a least 25 years since I was a member of the Irish Medical Organisation and promoted the idea of the need for women on interview boards where men and women were being interviewed. Even from a psychological point of view, a man would think it extraordinary if he was interviewed by an entirely female board. We must consider how women feel when they are interviewed by an entirely male board, which still happens in many interviews. There has been some improvement over the years in women gaining promotion in the field of medicine. Recent research by Dr. Fiona Bradley shows that the improvement is not that great. Despite the fact that over 60 per cent of those entering medical schools are women and about 70 per cent of the top 10 per cent who qualify are women, there is still a tremendous under-representation of women at consultant level and as senior partners in general practice. One can see the drop off over the years from intern level, where numbers are the same, to senior house officer level, where the decrease begins, to registration level, where the number of women is low, to consultant level where 15 per cent are women. The first woman consultant was appointed to the Rotunda Hospital, a maternity hospital, after 250 years in existence. That was a momentous occasion for us all.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment (Ms E. Fitzgerald)

Will we have to wait 750 years for the next three?

Dr. Henry

We may have to; I would not like to take bets on it. When we look at the changes in legislation on employment, we must also look at employment practices. Anyone who rejoiced in the fact that the junior doctors accepted the deal offered to them by the Minister for Health must realise how desperate they were. Junior doctors are to be rostered for a 65 hour week rather than 75 or 80 hours, which they work. Some doctors were working 104 hours per week. As we know, this is contrary to health and welfare legislation. While this is bad for doctors, what about the patients? Junior doctors have also gratefully accepted the promise that they will not be rostered for more than 72 hours continuous duty which could be from 9 a.m. on Monday to 9 a.m. on Thursday. We must pity the patients, whatever about the doctor who treats them late on Wednesday night or in the early hours of Thursday morning because most accidents at work happen when people are tired. While welcoming the legislation we should hope for some improvement in work practices.

There is a definite emphasis in the contributions on women being able to work in order to fulfil their potential. I am all in favour of that but the vast majority of women work for economic reasons — they badly need the money. Many are still consigned to lower paid jobs. I once read a fascinating report which stated that women were good at boring, repetitive work; perhaps they were good at it because they had to be. Women are working in greater numbers not because of the increase in single parent families. Many families are grateful that one parent can get work, others have decided that, in order to manage, both parents must work outside the home for a certain part of their lives. We must recognise that although most people who are desirous of working are enthusiastic about fulfilling their potential, they also need the money.

Working hours are now more flexible, which is helpful, but Senator Gallagher is right to stress the need for better child care. We must also remember that many people who leave employment do so for elder care purposes. I hope this Bill will help those who left work for a few months to look after an aged parent who could no longer manage but eventually stayed out of the workforce for up to ten years. The ban on age discrimination will make it easier for them to re-enter the workforce. Some people in their forties have to leave their job to mind an elderly relative because it is so difficult to get elder care, then they must try to re-enter the workforce in their fifties. I hope this legislation helps those people because they give up their jobs for the most altruistic of reasons and we pay little regard to bringing them back into the workforce. This is a welcome provision.

As regards positive action and quotas, the Minister, this Government and its predecessor tried to ensure more women were involved in our decision making process by encouraging their election or appointment to boards. It is extraordinary that 50 per cent of the country takes all the decisions, so I welcome what the Minister has aspired to in various legislation he has introduced.

He rightly referred to the importance of European case law to our legislation. Last year our Commissioner, Pádraig Flynn, had to clarify the Kalanke ruling which caused some consternation and uncertainty as to the legitimacy of quotas and other forms of positive discrimination to promote the number of women in certain sections and levels of employment. Follwing the European Court of Justice's ruling on the legality of the quota law in Bremen, it appeared that positive discrimination had to be regarded in a negative manner. However, it was made clear that article 2 of Directive 76/207/EEC does not cover the type of quota system where women are automatically given preference over men in the assignment of posts or in promotion — it is possible to discriminate positively but it must not be automatically assumed that a women will definitely be promoted in such circumstances.

Members of the women's rights committee of the European Parliament had differing views of the amendment proposed by the Commissioner. Some favoured it, others criticised it, but they recognised that unless there was an amendment many more men might take cases. They felt that the European Court of Justice had failed to take the opportunity to promote gender quotas and it would have been possible to make them seem more acceptable. One member of the committee, a Spanish legal expert, said it was a complex problem and the court should have considered it in greater depth. We must recognise that all these areas have an international dimension and it is not only our domestic problems which must be taken into account.

I had better refer to the notorious section 37. The Minister kindly met me along with some of my constituents so he knows it is not only members of the Roman Catholic community who are concerned about this legislation. There is a difficult management/employee divide on the issue. Senator Norris read into the record letters he had received and I have also received letters which caused me great concern. People at local level are worried that this may be applied in an individual manner. I am sure the Minister does not envisage that and I realise the difficulties he has had in shaping this part of the legislation.

While the Constitution states that the parents are the primary educators of children, the State has given enormous power to those who run our schools. A recent court case involved a mildly mentally handicapped boy in Cork who had behavioural problems. He was refused admission to the only three suitable schools in Cork but the State was not in a position to decree that he be admitted to one of them. The management of schools are in an incredibly powerful position so legislation which gives them greater power must be carefully examined. I am sure the Minister has looked at this point but it is of great concern to many people employed within the school system.

I am surprised that I have not been contacted by nurses about this point but that may be because they were anxious about their current dispute with the Minister for Health. Nurses, especially those in training, may be in an even more vulnerable position that people in the school system.

I was upset by a person in school management who told me that Northern Ireland's employment equality legislation does not apply to schools. In view of the sectarianism in Northern Ireland which is so evident at present, it would be a great pity if we followed such legislation. The further we steer clear from such measures the better.

I am concerned by the letters I received — I will not divulge what was in them because they are in a similar vein to those quoted by Senator Norris. Before the State was established, great care was taken about legislative provisions on religious discrimination. For example, section 3 of the Irish Universities Act, 1908, forbade such discrimination completely. Other Senators said there may be constitutional problems in this regard. However, the President is a constitutional lawyer so we can rest assured that if she feels the provision should be referred to the Supreme Court, it will be. Not having a constitutional legal background, I cannot comment.

There also may be a problem regarding our international obligations. The 1984 Irish declaration in the UN Convention, which was about freedom of religion, stated that any imbalance in employment regarding one's religion was to be considered intolerable. It is odd then that we should be in any way countenancing it here. I recognise the difficulties the Minister has had and I hope that some of them can be examined.

I think Senator Lydon was jumping the gun slightly in his comments regarding clubs; I think that area is covered by the Equal Status Bill. While I welcome the fact that the Fitzwilliam Lawn Tennis Club now admits women as members, I never applied myself. While I would not have formerly been in a position to apply on the grounds of gender, it is after all supposed to be a sporting club. There did not seem to be any sporting criteria applied — for example, did one have to jump three feet or some such to qualify for membership? Naturally, with my sporting background I feel there should have been some test of ability; so while I welcome the fact that they no longer discriminate on the grounds of gender, I think they should adopt some kind of criteria to assess sporting ability. For example, they might require that somebody should be able to serve overarm as well as underarm or something to that effect.

I congratulate the Minister on the Bill and I regret very much the fact that he is going to retire from active politics. However, in view of the contribution that he and his wife have made to politics in Ireland and to the Labour Party in particular, I think they are entitled to a rest.

Mr. Mullooly

I would like to be associated with the tributes paid to Minister Taylor and I join in extending good wishes to him. I welcome the opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate on this important Bill. Like all of the previous speakers, I support the principle objectives of the Bill which are to promote equality among employed persons and to outlaw all forms of discrimination in employment. The Bill also prohibits harasment based on discrimination. This is to be welcomed as is the fact that the provisions of the Bill apply to both public and private sector employment.

Gradually, over a number of years, many forms of direct discrimination in employment have disappeared or have been eliminated. The same cannot be said to be the case as far as indirect discrimination is concerned. Indirect discrimination is more difficult to eradicate because it is more difficult to substantiate. Only time will tell whether the provisions of this Bill are sufficiently strong to eradicate even the most subtle forms of indirect discrimination.

When the Bill was first published, the wording of section 37 became the main focus of attention. The original wording of 37(1) gave rise to considerable controversy and was strongly opposed, particularly by the various teacher unions. The amended wording would appear to meet in a reasonable manner the concerns which were expressed by the various interested parties. However, I would like to be reassured in relation to the fears expressed by Senator O'Toole and others during the course of their Second Stage contributions and I look forward to these areas being explored in considerable detail on Committee Stage. In many respects this is a very technical and complex Bill, but its general thrust is very much to be welcomed. I am satisfied that in the years ahead many individuals will benefit from the provisions of this legislation.

Mr. Quinn

I congratulate Minister Taylor on making the brave decision to retire. I know he did not make it lightly, nor was it an easy decision considering the number of years he spent in politics. In the past, there was a tradition to erect statues to those who had served their country well. I think the memorial that has been erected to Minister Taylor is the body of legislation he has managed to put through during his years in Government. He will look back on that, as the nation will, with greater satisfaction than any statue could give.

I am going to concentrate on one particular aspect of this Bill, and that is prospective employees. I welcome the legislation and the intention behind it. It was almost this week four years ago when I had an amendment accepted on the Unfair Dismissal Bill about the concept of age. I was pleased about that because the issue of age had not been considered before then. I use the example to give an idea where I am coming from. I believe we have to be fair and we must ensure that we do not discriminate against anyone. We have to assure our citizens that this is a nation that takes things like age into account.

Recently, I met an Irishman who is on the board of a company in America. He said that at a meeting of the board somebody came up with an enterpreneurial idea. He was delighted somebody gave the individual the freedom to employ 37 people to see if they could make the idea work. This gentleman could not believe the ease with which a board was willing to say: "Let us have a go, let us open a new enterprise and employ 37 people, hopefully it will work but if it does not, we have at least tried but if it does work it may be very successful." That attitude would be unthinkable in Irish terms; to think of recruiting 37 additional people would be such a huge decision that it would require months of consideration. My concern about the legislation we are enacting is that we are making it less attractive and more difficult for prospective employers to risk employing new people and each step we take, even with the most worthy motives, is making it less attractive.

Over the last four years the US economy has generated more jobs and more enterprises than ever before, most of which are in small businesses whereas European employment is stagnating. I worry that there is no balance and the reason employment in Europe — thankfully I am not talking about Ireland here — is stagnating may be due to the fact that we have been introducing so much legislation that it is becoming less and less attractive for smaller businesses, in particular, to take on new people.

I own a reasonably large business and if we are going to take a decision to employ somebody, we have sufficient help and backup to do that. However, if you consider a one, two or three-person business which may be considering recruiting an additional person, they may proceed to interview somebody but if they do not have all their "i's" dotted and "t's" crossed they may make an error somewhere and it may be very tempting not to take the chance.

I believe the jobs in the future will be created by thousands of small businesses as has happened in the United States. The businesses employing fewer than ten people are the ones which are expanding and generating jobs. I think there is a danger that we, in Ireland, are becoming legislatively inflexible for the most worthy reasons. My concern is not about this legislation or those people currently in employment; I am worried about the prospective employee. If somebody comes to an interview for a job in a small business the interviewer must be very careful. If they put a foot wrong they could end up in court. It is almost easier not to take somebody on.

If I may give an example of somebody I know who was going for promotion. Food safety is becoming very important as are standards of hygiene in food industry employees. In America, for instance, you cannot work behind a meat counter, understandably, if you have a moustache or a beard. A number of supermarket companies in America make it a condition of employment that prospective employees must not have any facial hair. In one recent instance in Ireland an employee seeking promotion was asked if he was willing to remove his beard. He did not get the job and later made a claim to a rights commissioner who found in his favour because the question of removing a beard could not have been asked of a female. While I am not trying to make a case of it, I am highlighting the difficult details which concern small employers who are thinking of expanding. If such an employer decides to interview somebody for a job his lawyer may tell him to be very careful of every question he asks. For instance, the lawyer might advise him not to ask a prospective employee if he is willing to remove a beard or moustache because he could find himself being sued if the person was not offered the job.

No one will oppose the basis of this legislation and, in principle, there is no disagreement with it. However, I am concerned about the words "prospective employee". If an employer was going to interview someone for a job I am not sure the solution in this legislation will make it attractive enough to encourage an employer to take someone on.

We will discuss section 37 again on Committee Stage. I know we are talking about religious institutions, but the original wording was "discrimination that is essential for the maintenance of the religious institution". That has been changed and section 37(1)(b) now states:

It takes action which is reasonable necessary to prevent an employee or a prospective employee from undermining the religious ethos of the institution.

I can understand the reason for the change but the term "prospective employee" makes it almost impossible. How could a religious institution that wishes to protect its very ethos expect a prospective employee to undermine the religious ethos? I can understand how an employee could undermine the religious ethos but how could a prospective employer know or be able to estimate that a prospective employee would do so?

I fear that the very steps that are being taken on Committee Stage in the Lower House have actually damaged the objective of the Bill. I wonder to what extent we should take this into account when we come to consider that on Committee Stage.

Senator Henry mentioned discrimination against women. I wish to raise this point as I am a member of the board of Hume Street Hospital, which was established by charter of the King in 1916. The hospital's charter states that of the 24 members of the board, 12 should be gentlemen drawn from the Catholic faith and 12 should be gentlemen from non-Catholic faiths. That continued until recent years when the hospital sought to remove the word "gentlemen" from the charter. Originally it was thought that a Bill would have to be passed to change the charter but I understand the Department of Health has said it is possible to change the charter without such action. They have been delayed in doing so for two years because the Department of Health argued that rather than just make one change, it would like to go through the whole charter to see if anything else should be changed. However, the Department does not have the manpower to do so.

Senator Henry will be pleased to know that Hume Street Hospital has a female chief executive, medical director and matron, as well as 24 male board members. I use this opportunity to stir the Department into making the change requested by the board so that the hospital can be seen not to discriminate on those grounds.

I have one more concern, which is the onus of proof. I am not quite sure I understand from the legislation how the onus of proof occurs. Let us say that two people go for a job which is given to candidate A rather than candidate B. Candidate B is upset and concerned. He or she believes they have been discriminated against. As regards the action that is taken at this stage, will the Minister explain whether the onus of proof is on the prospective employee who has been turned down? Or can the prospective employee say, "I believe I have been discriminated against and the onus of proof is on the employer"? Perhaps the Minister could answer that.

I congratulate the Minister on taking the legislation through the House. I encourage him to finish the task in the time he has left. In doing so, he should take into account the wider and broader implications of each piece of legislation, particularly the one that makes it less attractive for potential employers to take on new employees. If job creation is one of our challenges and targets, let us make sure we do not damage it while trying to achieve equality and an absence of discrimination in our country.

Professor Lee

I generally welcome the Bill which is going in the right direction. On Committee Stage I hope the Minister will be responsive to amendments, not least to section 37 which has aroused so much misgiving in so many respects, even though it strives to respond in a constructive and compromising manner with the variety of concerns expressed. I can imagine, however, that on Committee Stage there will be a protracted discussion on that section as well as on some others. I hope to contribute to the discussion myself.

In terms of the cohesion of this society it is important that the citizenry should feel the legislation is fair. A sense of fairness is crucial to the co-operation by citizens in implementing legislation and in not feeling that they are somehow discriminated against, and that it is not begrudging legislation that may seem to favour others at their expense. The balance between going in a desired direction and ensuring that there is a feeling in the citizenry at large that this legislation is fair is an important one to achieve. The Minister has gone a long way towards achieving that in the legislation.

Senator Quinn mentioned the potential inhibiting effects of aspects of this legislation on job creation. Anything which inhibits job creation should be looked at very carefully from that perspective. Just as all legislation should be gender proofed, it should also be employment proofed and proofed against the criteria of what constitutes a successful and effective society.

The Minister was careful in his phraseology in comparing the United States with Europe and the different track records in job creation as they appear in general statistics. The Minister said it may be a factor. It still seems to me, despite the claims made — far more stridently than Senator Quinn has made them — by a number of people in this regard, that the complexity of the employment creation situations in America and Europe is such that it is very difficult to know what weight one should give to the different factors. While this is a nuisance factor, it is not one of the key factors — people I respect will disagree with me on this — in Europe's inferior record of job creation compared with the United States over the past 30 years. There are so many other variables involved one might be in danger of exaggerating the impact of this variable if one were to linger unduly on it. However, it deserves to be examined thoroughly on Committee Stage to find out what the best of our collective thinking on the matter might be. I do not regard it as a crucial factor in the problem of job creation on this side of the Atlantic.

I welcome the thrust of the Bill and I hope on Committee Stage we will have a constructive debate and a responsive Minister.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I acknowledge the contribution the Minister has made to this country, the Oireachtas and to legislation which will remain on the Statute Book long after he has retired.

This is a welcome but complex Bill. I wish to mention one issue which might be covered by the Bill but whose importance was brought home to me as I listened to a radio programme a few days ago. On that programme a lady described how her daughter had applied for a job. Her application was not even acknowledged because, the lady believed, of the area of Dublin in which they lived. She applied for another job but used the lady's son's address instead. Not only was the girl called for an interview but she succeeded in getting the job. The lady maintained that this geographical discrimination was widespread. If a person is from a certain location they might be discriminated against in seeking a job.

I thought such discrimination had ceased years ago. Towns in most parts of Ireland had poor and better off sections and the people living in the poor sections gradually became better off. That cycle continues to this day. Perhaps the Minister might look at this issue and deal with it by amendment to the Bill. This discrimination has become more pronounced, as is obvious from the amount of coverage it receives on radio programmes. I asked a number of people about it and they said it is widespread in Dublin.

I welcome the Bill and hope to make further contributions on Committee and Report Stages.

Minister for Equality and Law Reform (Mr. Taylor)

I thank the Senators who have contributed to this debate. I also wish to express my appreciation and my wife's for their kind remarks. I greatly valued the help I received in both Houses over many years and the friendships I have made on all sides.

The vision of this and the previous Government has been the impetus for the development of this Bill. It will provide protection from discrimination on a wide range of grounds. In bringing forward this legislation it was necessary to address complex legal, social and economic considerations. In doing so the Government has adopted a sophisticated rights based model which has been tried and tested in the gender area over the last 23 years both in Ireland and Europe.

The legislation covers a number of specified grounds, none of which, except the gender ground, has been covered before in Irish legislation. Senator Fitzgerald is right. One could without difficulty add a further half dozen grounds or more. One or two, such as trade union membership, political affiliation and one's address, were mentioned in the course of the debate. However, let us make haste slowly. This is a ground breaking measure. It introduces eight new grounds for discrimination and that is a historic step forward. I do not deny there is validity in including additional grounds and perhaps at a later date they will be included. For the moment, however, we should apply ourselves to what we have. The Bill covers a wide spectrum of bases for discrimination.

Senator Quinn made an interesting point. He said we should not do anything that would adversely affect employment prospects. We all understand and agree with that statement. One could envisage legislation that would be counter-productive in recruiting new people to employment. However, this legislation does not fall into that category. It must be remembered that the kernel of this Bill is that a person should not be discriminated against on the grounds alone of, for example, being black. If anything, this measure encourages good business and good productivity because it puts the emphasis when recruiting people to employment on not only a rights based anti-discrimination basis but on a good business basis.

Under this Bill a person who is recruited into employment should be recruited on merit and not on whether their skin happens to be white or black, which by no means indicates the standard of what their work or contribution to the firm will be. We are saying that criteria which are irrelevant to the job, such as the colour of the person's skin or their religion, must not be taken into account. Their merit for the job is a different matter. That is not dealt with in the legislation. I was careful to provide in section 16 that before a person is entitled to be considered for employment, they must be capable of doing the job in the best possible manner. We are not talking about merit; we are talking about not discriminating against a person on the ground alone of their physical characteristics or the way they were born, a matter over which none of us has control.

The question of discrimination against a person on a health ground or on whether, for example, they have a beard is not covered by this legislation. That is a valid discrimination if there is a health problem or if another position arises as a result of the person's condition. The legislation does not and is not intended to cover such a situation.

Senator Quinn mentioned the onus of proof. The onus of proof, as always, will rest on the applicant. An applicant who brings a claim before the equality officer would have to establish their claim and there is no proposal in the Bill to reverse that position.

Senator O'Toole referred to the complexity of redress procedures. He referred to use of the Circuit Court and made reference to the High Court. A careful study of the Bill will show that the emphasis has been to keep the redress procedures informal and fair. As I indicated earlier, the redress procedure in this Bill is, in general, simple, informal and straightforward. The claimant goes for redress in the first instance to the Director, has a right of appeal to the Labour Court and that court's decision is final. However, in accordance with widespread practice, there is a right of appeal to the High Court on a point of law, which is the usual case stated procedure of almost universal application. These procedures are not new and are fully in line with those laid down in the 1974 and 1977 Acts, which have worked well over the years. There are no broad exceptions except the role of the Labour Court in dismissal cases which is in line with existing practice in equality law. The legislation also maintains the treatment of dismissal cases under equality law in parallel with the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 1993.

In providing redress at first instance to the Circuit Court in gender equality cases, I have been at pains to have regard to the points made by Senator O'Toole. I took the course set down in the Bill on this point only after exhaustive consideration of all the options. In any event, the only viable and legally acceptable approach involved the Circuit Court at first instance. I emphasise to Senator O'Toole that the Circuit Court option in a gender case is an alternative to the general redress procedures provided in the Bill.

I also emphasise that the need for a means of redress which could allow for the making of an award without a ceiling arises directly from our obligation to comply with the requirements of the European Court of Justice case law, in particular the Marshall case. This case, which is the European law decision which binds us, provides that the tribunal hearing one of these cases must have the potential jurisdiction to give an unlimited award. Our constitutional constraints, however, are such that it is not possible to give jurisdiction to a tribunal, such as an equality officer or the Labour Court, which could potentially give an unlimited award. They require that only a court of justice established under the Constitution may do that. There was no choice open to me in the gender context but to give a court jurisdiction and I did that by nominating the Circuit Court and giving it the potential to make an unlimited award, not because I wanted to, but because there was no choice following on the European Court of Justice decision in the Marshall case.

Senator O'Toole asked for an explanation as to why confidential information could not be accessed under the Bill in the section dealing with the provision of information. When this legislation was being prepared, strong representations were made to me that there was considerable scope for abuse of a provision which would allow unqualified access to confidential information about other individuals. While there is some limitation of access to confidential information under the Bill for claimants or potential claimants, there is no such limitation when it comes to the right of the Director of Equality Investigations hearing a case. Accordingly, all information can be taken into account when a decision is being made by the Director.

Senator Gallagher and other Senators raised concerns to the effect that the definition of disability might not be broad enough to include some specific disability. This is the first time this concern has been raised. Other concerns about this definition have been that it does not focus on more recognisable disabilities. I assure Senator Gallagher that the definition has been drafted to ensure the widest possible cover. Too general a definition would leave it open to employers to contest that a person did not have a specific disability.

I was interested to hear comments from Senator Quinn and Senator Lydon on the question of the age discrimination provisions. The rationale for the age limit of 65 is related to a number of concerns. It is a common age for retirement on a compulsory basis in many employments. With unemployment high, albeit reducing, I was concerned to ensure that this Bill had no unforeseen impact on the labour market by reversing existing normal retirement trends. This legislation is new and ground breaking. In time, the issues raised by Senator Lydon and others will get more recognition. As we move into the next millennium, the population trends in Europe may force a change in attitudes and work practices in the medium term.

I refer Senator Henry, Senator Norris, Senator O'Toole and Senator Lydon to section 37(1). The text of this provision is the culmination of a long process of consultation which I undertook with a wide variety of interests as well as extensive deliberations with colleagues and the Attorney General. The section represents a reasonable and measured balance between very different views on a most complex and sensitive issue. The provision benefits considerably from submissions made by various interests in this area and demonstrates the Government's commitment to protecting the legitimate interests of all concerned. Specifically, this provision benefits considerably from the constructive submissions made both by teachers and the churches. It is not a victory for one side over the other but rather represents the Government's best effort to find the right, reasonable balance which protects the legitimate interests of both. In so far as it gives discretion and flexibility to denominational bodies, it does so to support the development of greater pluralism in Irish society and to afford due respect for the rights of minorities in this State. However, this discretion is made subject to certain clear criterial and to adjudication on a case by case basis by an independent Director of Equality Investigations.

I thank Senator Lydon for expressing a clear and experience-based view on section 37(1). I note the points made by Senator O'Toole and Senator Norris. I understand that Senator Norris is kindly providing some Committee Stage amendments well in advance and I will examine them very carefully as well as any proposals Senator O'Toole may bring forward on Committee Stage and I look forward to that debate with Members of the House.

Senator Henry expressed concern about funding for the new equality authority. I assure the Senator that I am committed to an effective and functioning authority and a sign of this commitment is the additional resources I have secured for the new authority in successive Estimates. Additional funding of £586,000 has been made available in 1997 for the expanded remit. This represents more than a doubling of the resources available for existing functions in 1997 and could not be equated with any attempt to marginalise the authority.

Senator Dardis is correct in stating that political opinion is an outlawed ground for dismissal in the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977-93. I cannot claim that the list in the Bill is exhaustive but I can claim it makes great strides in providing protection for a large number of categories, most of which have had no protection heretofore.

I thank Senators for their helpful contributions and I look forward to the debate on Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 26 February 1997.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Wall)

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Neville

Next Wednesday at 2.30 p.m.