Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 11 Feb 1976

Vol. 287 No. 10

Anti-Discrimination (Pay) (Amendment) Bill, 1975: Second Stage.

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

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

The Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, provides that pay differences based on sex are eliminated from the 1st January of this year. Wherever a case can be made that like work or work of equal value is being performed in an undertaking, equal pay as between the sexes must apply. Despite the fact that we spent many days debating the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, in this House that fundamental feature of it, as described in the definition I have just given, has been widely misunderstood. Some commentators apparently think that the 1974 Act purports to legislate equal pay as a principle in itself that would operate in all conceivable circumstances. I repeat, the Act purports to eliminate discrimination in pay between the sexes where such differences have no rationale other than sex differences and where the work is similar and of equal value.

The core of the present amendment provides the right where the employees of an undertaking are convinced that job loss would be a consequence of the implementation of the 1974 Act to agree to a postponement for a limited period of the full application of the 1974 legislation. Even where there is this agreement on the part of trade unions in the workplace, the Labour Court must also accept that there is a genuine basis for exemption from the terms of the 1974 Act.

To come within the scope of the amending Bill, three conditions will have to be fulfilled: firstly, the trade unions and employers will need to agree formally that the introduction of the principle of equal pay in the business would lead to unemployment; secondly, the workers involved will have to be employed in a business where the application of equal pay would lead to loss of employment or affect the financial viability of the undertaking; and thirdly, the Labour Court will, after investigation, have to authenticate the agreement of the trade unions and employers.

The application of the stringent conditions included in this Bill will ensure that the 1974 Act will operate in all save a minority of cases.

I should like to give the background to this amendment. Early in 1975 when asked whether the recession would delay the implementation of our equal pay plans, I made it clear that I would take into consideration any representations of a joint character made by unions and managements relating to repercussions on employment arising out of the equal pay legislation. Such joint representations were not made to me until the 9th September, 1975. On that date, management and unions in the footwear industry supported a joint request for a delay in the implementation of the 1974 measure based on their fear of its impact on the employment position of their industry. Since there has been a good deal of controversy surrounding the appearance of this amendment, some based on genuine misunderstanding, I want to place it on the record once more what was requested in September and how the request was dealt with.

In their letter of the 8th, the joint secretaries of the joint industrial council, writing for the unions and managements in that industry, having outlined the effect of the implementation of equal pay in their industry, went on to say: "Therefore, it was unanimously agreed by all parties to defer discussion on this matter until July, 1976, and to request you to amend the legislation if necessary in order to permit the industry to take this action". Their letter concluded: "We would be glad to have your confirmation that our agreement can be implemented within the law". The meeting of the joint industrial council which reached the conclusion referred to in this letter was chaired by the chief conciliation officer of the Labour Court, Mr. Diarmaid Mac Diarmada.

The court on my request, with the aid of assessors, examined the joint request of the footwear industry. The Labour Court's report, based on examination by the assessors, was received by me on 16th December. The court found that between 500 and 700 jobs would be lost if the 1974 Act were to be implemented. It was on the basis of this report that the Taoiseach announced our intention to introduce an amendment to take account of other similar situations that might arise to that of the footwear industry.

The amendment makes no reference to the public service. The terms of the 1974 Act can apply to the public service as from 1st January. The Minister for the Public Service has indicated that he is anxious to enter into discussion with the public service unions to phase out existing marriage differentials in pay.

An application has been submitted to the European Commission under the provisions of Article 135 of the Act of Accession. This article provides that a member state may apply for authorisation to introduce protective measures if before 31st December, 1977, difficulties arise which "are serious and liable to persist in any sector of the economy or which could bring about serious deterioration in the economic situation of a given area" The Commission have been informed that in the Government's view the measures proposed in this Bill would prevent a worsening of the employment situation in certain undertakings. Should the Commission turn down our request for derogation, as they are fully entitled to do under the Treaty, I want to make it clear that the terms of the 1974 legislation will operate without qualification.

This amending Bill makes it clear that no employer may avail of the amending process without the agreement of the organised workers. There can be no question of an employer going it alone to get an exemption from the terms of the 1974 Act. In addition, where an employer seeks to avail of the amending process there is provision in the amendment that this will constitute immediate recognition on his part that the workers in question are entitled to equal pay. Furthermore, should the Labour Court refuse exemption, then equal pay must be paid retrospective to the 1st January, 1976.

An unfortunate consequence of many of the comments and arguments on the issue of equal pay has been the fact that the impression has been created that large sectors of Irish industry would be exempt from the provisions of the Equal Pay Act, 1974. I think it will be clear, both from what I have said and an examination of the amendment before the House, that its conditions are such that the terms of the 1974 Act will operate save in those exceptional circumstances which the amending Bill is designed to meet.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

Two years all but a few weeks have elapsed since the same Minister introduced what he called the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Bill, 1974. We referred to that title at that time as not being acceptable. Today we have an Anti-Discrimination (Pay) (Amendment) Bill, 1975. The Minister's contribution was short and obviously his heart was not in it. Since last September or October we have had a shabby backwards and forwards topsy-turvy yo-yo situation.

The Minister is basing this postponement on the private sector. He is using alleged difficulties, imagined difficulties, difficulties he has not investigated and of which he is not aware, to get the Government off the hook of their commitment to the public sector which is not covered in this amending Bill. I will now endeavour to refute the only argument the Minister has offered, a hurriedly prepared one and one I have already challenged him to investigate. Obviously up to now he has not done so.

He said he had a report from the footwear industry. For his benefit I will tell him a little bit about it. He has used this report as an excuse for introducing this amending Bill. This is not acceptable to us. Even the Labour Court have reservations in their findings. The situation in the footwear industry is that agreement was reached last June that discussions on equal pay would be postponed until June of this year. This would not deter individuals from pursuing a claim if they felt justified.

It should be noted—and this is where the Minister has fallen down —that in the footwear industry equal pay for equal work has existed for very many years, in fact for 20 years. If a woman does the same operation as a man she is paid the rate for that operation. The area of negotiation which was left over until this year is a further extension which is not covered in this Bill. I can prove to the Minister that the argument he is using is absolutely incorrect. It was hurriedly rushed to him and to the Taoiseach on the morning of 18th December when it was decided that equal pay, on which we were all agreed in principle and in spirit almost two years ago, should be postponed.

No research was done by the Minister on the report on the footwear industry which apparently is the only report available to him. Surely that is further proof of the Minister's lack of knowledge of the entire situation in the private sector. I expected the Minister to give statistics this morning of the number of people who would be affected by the introduction of equal pay in the private sector. I expected him to say that so many women workers would qualify for increased payments. In other words, I expected him to try to establish what it would cost in the private sector.

Proof of this lack of research into the situation is the fact that, prior to making the announcement on 18th December, the Minister did not consult with the Women's Representative Committee of which my colleague, Deputy Desmond, is chairman. He did not consult with the Congress of Trade Unions, and one would have felt that he might have. Strangely enough, the only people we strongly suspect he did consult with were the employers' organisations. If it was as a result of pressure from those organisations that he acted hurriedly on an ill-prepared report on the footwear industry to postpone equal pay and, of course, using it as an excuse for reneging on and betraying the spirit, the principle and the agreed content of the 1974 Bill with regard to the public sector then this Bill betrays in every respect the earlier committed legislation. This is a betrayal of the spirit of that Bill, a Bill passed without opposition, by both Houses of the Oireachtas away back in March, April and May of 1974.

Political parties have from time to time been accused of reneging on election promises but this is possibly the first time in our history that legislation has been reneged on by a Minister and by the Government of the day and the irony of it is that this betrayal is being done 18 to 24 months after the 1974 measure was put on the Statute Book.

Mr. M. O'Leary:

I do not want to interrupt, but I want to inform the Deputy that the terms of the 1974 Act apply fully to the civil service. I made that statement this morning.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

I will come to that and, since the Minister has interrupted me, perhaps I ought to clear it with him now. Despite any white-washing the Minister, his Government or anybody outside this House may try to do, the tenet of the 1974 legislation was the elimination of the discrimination that existed in the public sector. I defy anybody to contradict that this was what was agreed in that legislation. The Minister had our support on it. I will go further——

Mr. M. O'Leary:

It applies.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

It does not.

Mr. M. O'Leary:

I have just said it does. Prove where it does not. I made the categorical statement this morning.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

The Minister has betrayed the promise he made in this House.

Mr. C. Murphy:

Why not call it by its proper title—the anti-anti Bill? Be honest and call it what it is.

Mr. M. O'Leary:

I said it applies to the public sector.

Mr. C. Murphy:

It is the anti-anti Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Deputy Fitzgerald, without interruption.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

I can imagine the Minister's discomfort and his dilemma this morning and his anxiety because of that to interrupt me. He knows full well that he and his colleagues have turned a complete somersault in this respect and are using this amending legislation to try to whitewash the major betrayal being perpetrated. It is a major betrayal whether the Minister likes it or not or whether he tries to convey another impression. Not alone is the Minister not doing what he promised to do but he is now going back on his promise and creating a compromise. Does Deputy Desmond like the sound of the word "compromise"? Because of compromise the Minister is now creating far greater discrimination than existed in the public sector and I am putting that on the record. The Minister is now trying to argue that the Bill we supported did not contain what I am talking about. The fact is that the rate for the job was to be the rate. I understand we are now establishing in the public sector three different rates. Let there be no doubt one year's salary would be payable about that. Let there be no contradiction of that. This is the Minister's betrayal.

The first question is why this is being done and the answer to all sensible people is patently obvious. It is because of the inability and reluctance of the Government to formulate an economic plan to provide for the needs of the country. It is not enough to say the country cannot afford the money required. It is the duty of the elected Government to provide funds and create the economic climate to generate those funds in the public and private sector. The failure of the Government to do so is becoming patently obvious in every area of government and not just in the area of equal pay. It may be asked what we would do about it. My reply is that, if we were over there, we would never have allowed this situation to have arisen. Secondly, having introduced legislation, we would not have reneged on it. We would not have shirked our responsibility. We would not have sought to blame everybody else for the situation that has arisen because of the mismanagement of the economy by the Government.

It appears to me that under this Government the weaker sections, if one may so describe them, are suffering in all areas at the moment. One need only look at the areas of health and local government for further evidence to support the point I make. Equal pay is a moral right. It is also a legal right. It is binding on the Government under both European and international law. Equal pay for work of equal value is the accepted criteria and Fianna Fáil will oppose any dilution or any abolition of this right. If there is one area above another in which the present Government excel it is in the field of headline legislation but, when one reads the small print, it is not so appealing or so attractive as the headlines would lead one to believe and the late news is ofttimes damning.

Let me now trace the events leading up to the introduction of the 1974 legislation. Nobody was more debonair, except perhaps Deputy Desmond, than the Minister in alleging Fianna Fáil's indifference to the introduction of social reform. On many occasions on many platforms, at Labour Party conferences and elsewhere, at conventions of all sorts, all sorts of goodies were promised. All sorts of reforms were adumbrated in the 14-point plan. The women of Ireland came to regard the present Minister for Labour as their saviour and their champion.

Mr. C. Murphy:

And that in leap year.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

In leap year. How disappointing it must be for them and him now. The first positive steps taken in this area were taken in 1970 when the Commission on the Status of Women was set up under a Fianna Fáil Government. An interim report was requested and in 1971 this interim report was accepted by the then Fianna Fáil Government. As a result of that the first positive steps were taken towards equal pay in the national wage agreement of 1972 and these were followed by more positive steps in subsequent wage agreements. It was a sound step by step approach laying the foundation for the achievement of something and it was, of course, therefore, understandable that we would subsequently support the Bill introduced by the Minister in 1974. The Minister cannot deny that steps were being taken, and had been taken, in this direction long before he took his place in the present Ministry. Contrast that step by step solid approach with the present comings and goings in the Minister's approach to this matter.

The Minister in this House this morning, both by his contribution and interruptions, tried to shirk the agreed and accepted commitment to the employees in the public sector. When this Bill first came before the House Deputy Dowling pointed out many weaknesses in it. He was promised that in a matter of weeks the Minister would introduce further legislation to buttress the 1974 Bill. No more was heard of that Bill. No more was heard of the buttressing and supporting legislation until, prior to the Mayo by-election in October last year when we heard the usual propaganda. I appreciate the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs smiling because he is the director of this propaganda machine and he clearly remembers it. The Minister introduced the Anti-Discrimination (Employment) Bill, 1975—we have had so many Bills with Long Titles that it is getting very confusing—it has not been and probably will not be discussed again during the life of the present Government. Approximately seven weeks later in this House a Minister on behalf of the Minister for Labour announced that there would be a postponement of equal pay. In other words, the 1974 Bill was now being postponed, and the new Bill which had been introduced in 1975 was left on the stocks, as has so much other legislation, by the Minister concerned. As I said, there is a very sharp contrast between the step by step positive approach of Fianna Fáil and the backwards-forwards activities of the Minister.

For the first time in our history legislation is being introduced by a Minister in this great Government which promised us reform but which will take us back two years, if not further. Social reform is not just a matter of increased benefits and social welfare. It also extends to the abolition of social and legal anomalies. Much lip service has been paid to this by some of the Ministers and by at least one Deputy. The continuation of pay discrimination and the creation of even more discrimination is an example of the type of anomaly which still exists.

I should like to remind the Minister of what he said on 5th March, 1974, at column 2036 of the Official Report:

I often have the impression that there is too little recognition as yet in the country of the social obligations of our membership of the European Community. Every member country of the Community has legislation on equal pay. The Netherlands, who were the only country without such legislation, have now decided to introduce it. As a member country of the EEC it is in the national interest to work towards the development of a comprehensive social policy in the Community, a policy of a comprehensive kind that would animate all the other decisions of the Community. Despite difficulties which the Community is presently encountering the Government will continue to work towards the objective of a Community which accords the same status to the requirements of social policy as to economic policy. It would, therefore, be inconsistent on our part to delay implementation of legislation on this matter.

I hope the Minister listened carefully to that final sentence. He said that two years ago, and now he is doing what he said should not be done. There are other quotes which were made at a later stage and which were also very interesting. Deputy Mrs. Desmond raised a question of the reinstatement of a dismissed woman employee. Subsequently the Minister informed the House that further legislation would be brought before us very quickly in order to close any loopholes or solve any problems which may be created for an employee in certain circumstances. This legislation was introduced in October, 1975, but has now disappeared, for the life of the present Dáil at least.

This amending Bill is merely a major bluff, a whitewashing and a covering over of the real issue. I suspect that one of the more brilliant financial members of the Cabinet, looking around desperately for ways of saving pounds, saw that a major saving could be effected if they somersaulted on their commitment to the public sector and used the inadequacies, which the Minister admitted were in the Bill, to make the public sector accept less than was originally intended. The fact that we will create further discrimination was not a matter of concern. The concern was that here was a saving and in order to support the action of the Government some of the Ministers were let loose to make speeches in various places. Last week in this House we had a responsible Minister, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, commenting on the fact that the public sector had got too much of an increase, too many increases.

If that is the position the Government, as an employer involved in the national wage agreement negotiations, and particularly in recent times with the inflationary trends created by them, must accept full responsibility. Even if this was so it could not justify a change of attitude or a reneging on legislation. It would not justify them depriving people of an agreed entitlement, of a commitment to them on pay or otherwise. I could go into great detail on the anomalies that will be created in the public sector, and I am sure there is no need for me to explain to the enlightened Members the discriminations that have been created. I can see the embarrassment on the face of Deputy Barry Desmond; I know he agrees with all I have to say in this regard. We must realise that for the healthy functioning of a democracy it is essential that the Government retain the support and confidence of its administrative arm, the civil service. Without such confidence and support the drive, energy, enthusiasm and dedication of this sector can be undermined.

The amendment now proposed relates to the private sector and there is no reference in the Bill to reneging on the public sector. However, it is my view that this is specifically designed as a white-washing operation; it is a postponement of the principle, the spirit and the agreed content of a Bill passed by this House. Nobody, not even the members of the Minister's party, will accept the truth of the interruption made by him at an earlier stage this morning. I feel sure that the Minister's statement will not be accepted by any members of his party because it is a denial of what we all accepted was contained in the Bill. There was a necessity for further support legislation in order to strengthen that Bill.

It is difficult to see how the support any Government needs from the civil service can be retained when at every turn of the screw—I refer in particular to the Ministers for Finance and Industry and Commerce—a Minister is prepared to use the public service as a scapegoat for the Government's failure. Obviously, some members of the Labour Party feel it is necessary to pay lip service to their socialist ideology; the equal pay question offered such an opportunity. On the one hand, they had to demonstrate that there was still a left wing in the Coalition while, on the other hand, they could not push an issue of principle too far lest they bring down the Government. The role of knight in armour was cast upon the ample shoulders of Deputy Barry Desmond, the Government assistant Whip. He grasped the opportunity eagerly although he must have known that he was only a pawn in a much broader Government strategy, to show the nation that this Government allow their members an opportunity to take their own stand in matters of principle, provided always that they agree to the compromise formula which lets the Government off the hook.

Here we have nothing more than a compromise, and Deputy Barry Desmond must know that. If he and his comrades are sincere then the only logical course for them is to vote with Fianna Fáil against the Bill and try to preserve a last vestige of integrity for the Labour Party. I should like to refer to the discriminations created in and the anomalies in the public sector. We have many single people of both sexes who have given many years of service to the State and its institutions. More is demanded of them now than at any time previously. Yet, people, perhaps long their juniors, because of a marital status, can now have more money than they and can probably also have more leave of absence, for various reasons. If there is travelling involved the person in the lower wage bracket, because of his or her marital status, may have to travel instead of the married person.

Mr. M. O'Leary:

The amendment relates solely to private industry; I do not know what subject the Deputy has wandered off to debate.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

I submit that the Minister is embarrassed by the whole situation. We are referring specifically to the amendment to the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Bill, 1974.

Mr. Dowling:

Socialist legislation only appeals to some people; to those in the compounds.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

We have a sort of facade; we introduce something but when we pull down the curtain it is a completely different thing and there is an entirely new approach to it.

Mr. M. O'Leary:

I am sure the Deputy will be in good form when he gets to the light of other days gathering at the RDS this weekend.

Mr. Dowling:

There will be no organised standing ovation.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

Wait until the Minister is brought through the courts of Ireland and Europe and we will see how he gets on.

Mr. M. O'Leary:

Will the Deputy be trying to wake up the sleepwalkers at that seance this weekend?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

I look forward eagerly, as the people do, to the wonderful social reforms we were promised. The Minister has reneged on his responsibilities.

Mr. M. O'Leary:

What way will the Deputy vote on the Blaney motion?

An Ceann Comhairle:

We should get back to the Bill.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

The Chair will appreciate that the Minister is interrupting because he is embarrassed by the situation. He realises that he has betrayed the public and private sectors.

Mr. M. O'Leary:

I am sure the Deputy will make a lively contribution at the light of other days gathering at the RDS.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

If the Minister refers to the only party who have had a real approach to the social problems of Ireland I presume he refers to Fianna Fáil and to the ard-fheis of that party this weekend. I am proud to be a member of that party.

Mr. M. O'Leary:

I am glad the Deputy saw the connection between the light of other days and Fianna Fáil.

An Ceann Comhairle:

We should get back to the Bill before the House.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

I can understand the reason for the Minister's interruptions because it must be boring for him.

Mr. Dowling:

Liam told him to amend the Bill.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

The Taoiseach, and the Minister for Finance, told him that a few pounds could be saved here. I have already told the Minister that the report on the footwear industry would not bear investigation and I urge him to have another look at it because if he goes to Europe with that kind of argument then not even the brilliant man who signed the directive, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy FitzGerald, will be able to save his face.

Mr. Ray Burke:

The Deputy means "brilliant" followed by a question mark.

Mr. Dowling:

It is worth noting that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs imported the Saville Row shoes for the Naval Service, although he was not sure where the last batch came from.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

Quite understandably, there is grave disquiet in the public sector because of the creation of forms of discrimination that did not exist in the past. These are completely unrelated to the value of work done or to the rate for the job and they would not stand up to investigation in any court in this country or in the European Community. For the third or fourth time, I want to put on the record of the House that the main reason for the Government reneging on the promise they made and for betraying their commitment was to save a few measly pounds on the public sector. This has been done by a Government who have eroded many hundreds of millions of State funds——

An Ceann Comhairle:

On his own admission the Deputy is indulging in repetition.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

With regard to the private sector, about which the Minister has been so anxious I should speak——

Mr. M. O'Leary:

After 30 minutes the Deputy is coming back to the amendment.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

It is probably an embarrassment for the Minister to have to sit here and listen to some facts. For a long time he has tried to portray a certain image but that image has been defaced, daubed and obliterated in varying degrees since 18th December. Of course, some of his colleagues compromised when the pressure was put on. There was the stormy Labour Party meeting where the knives were out between the one, two or three leaders——

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien:

Is the Deputy speaking on the amendment?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

I had forgotten about the Minister. He was also a contender——

Mr. M. O'Leary:

The Deputy must be talking about the last Fianna Fáil Party meeting regarding the leadership.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

There was a rough, tough and dirty parliamentary party meeting where some of the backbenchers were told they would have to accept what the Government did or else get out. This is why there are cars going all over the country to bring the Labour Party people here. We can read about it every day in the newspapers.

An Ceann Comhairle:

The Deputy is indulging in irrelevancies.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

I am sorry about that, but I do not think the Chair will blame me when he considers all the interruptions I am getting.

Mr. B. Desmond:

If that is the performance of a Deputy on the Front Bench, God help the women of Ireland.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

The Deputy has just woken up.

Mr. Moore:

That was the last thing Deputy Desmond should have said.

Mr. Dowling:

Deputy Desmond was told where to get off——

An Ceann Comhairle:

Order. The Deputy in possession should be allowed to continue without interruption.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

As the Minister said, the private sector is covered in the amendment. The amendment is unworkable and impracticable and it was only introduced for the specific purpose I mentioned earlier. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions have said it is unacceptable and that means there is no way in which it can work.

Last week Deputy O'Kennedy put down a question on the Order Paper but despite the fact that there was an announcement regarding this amendment on 18th December it was only on Thursday last that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney General went to Europe to discuss with the people there the turnabout by his Government. They sought the permission of the Commission for a delay in the implementation of equal pay. It is strange that it coincided with Deputy O'Kennedy's questions in this House—probably there is some connection. One would have thought that the first steps to be taken before 18th December were, first, a meeting and discussion with the Women's Representative Committee; secondly, a discussion with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions pointing out the difficulties being faced; and, thirdly, a discussion with the European Commission.

The Bill is very vague. When it is being debated on Committee Stage we will point out in detail its inadequacies and vagueness. If there are problems in the private sector it would have been advisable to consider ways and means of supporting the industries concerned. I see grave dangers here. As the Minister knows, equal pay for work of equal value does not apply to every man and woman or to every boy or girl who work in the same factory. It may apply only to a small number even in a work place where numbers are high. If a scare situation is created, if genuine fears are felt by some people who are not affected by equal pay, are they entitled to vote in a decision that possibly might mean withholding equal pay from ten or 20 people in that large work force? These question have not been answered.

This morning it appears there is a certain confusion between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Labour regarding the case being pursued in Brussels. Will the Minister state what case has been made? Has it been as badly prepared as the statement issued this morning by the Minister? What industries have been mentioned to the Commission, how many people are concerned and what specific firms are involved? I have already pointed out the inaccuracies in the report on the footwear industry, a report that should not have been used as a reason for the present amendment. Will the Minister state if an investigation was carried out into any other industry, either with regard to the area concerned or to individual companies employing large numbers? Was it the case that the Minister conceded because of the pressure exerted by the employers? If there is a problem it is the duty of the State to assist in the matter. As the Minister rightly said, the longer something like this is postponed the greater reluctance there will be on the part of employers, firms and companies to implement it and the more likely are they to seek avenues for opting out. I agree with the Minister completely and for that reason I submit his approach should have been on a completely different line.

I accept, of course, that the Minister was committed genuinely. He has my sympathy for having to carry the can on behalf of a Government who have failed, something which nobody can deny, But could he not have the 1974 Act implemented through some scheme of assistance, an existing scheme or a new one? In that way he could help firms who would be genuinely seriously affected. Instead of going to Europe for permission to delay payment could he not have gone for assistance to help to buttress our own resources for the implementation of equal pay? In that way he could maintain the principle of equal pay and there would be no need for this amending Bill. Firms genuinely in trouble could be helped after investigation by the Department.

Reference to Europe raises the serious major problem of whether we are wasting our time this morning because in the afternoon the people in Brussels may say this is not on, that they will not have it. What will happen then? This is one more example of the extraordinary timing of the Government in regard to major pieces of legislation. I presume it is part of a window dressing programme, of a plan to impress the people in Europe this afternoon when they come to discuss our case.

Even if the EEC Commission give their consent, can this still be contested in our Irish courts or in the European court? If we pass this legislation can it be upset by either of these courts? From the European point of view one must ask a number of questions. It appears this amendment is completely contrary to the EEC directive which became law yesterday. It is dated 19.2.75 and Article 3 states that member States shall abolish all discrimination between men and women arising from laws, regulations or administrative provisions contrary to the principle of equal pay.

I can see no way in which we are not contravening that article. Not only does it lay down that we shall abolish all discrimination between men and women and so forth but it implies that no Government can create further discrimination between men and women, as this Government have done, by putting a completely new interpretation on the 1974 Act for the public sector. Not alone is there a breach of that article in the amendment before the House this morning but there is a very major and serious breach of it in the way the Bill is now being used to save money on the public sector. To my mind Articles 4 and 5 are also being breached. Strangely, the directive was signed for the Council of Ministers by none other than the President, G. FitzGerald.

Mr. M. O'Leary:

Is it "G"?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

Obviously not Gene. I presume it refers to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. This makes it more embarrassing for the Government.

Mr. Dowling:

You could not embarrass that crowd.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

We have the signature of the President of the Council, "G. FitzGerald" and here we have a blatant, open violation of at least one and I submit three articles of that directive. Article 4 states:

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that provisions appearing in collective agreements, wage scales, wage agreements or individual contracts of employment, which are contrary to the principle of equal pay shall be or may be declared null and void or may be amended.

Article 5 states:

Member States shall take the necessary measures to protect employees against dismissal by the employer as a reaction to a complaint in the undertaking or to any legal proceedings aimed at enforcement in compliance with the principle of equal pay.

Not alone has Article 3 been violated but so also have the two following articles. Why have there been so many changes of attitude in this effort to save £10 million? I have no evidence to support or contradict that figure but I submit that, net, the expenditure would not be as high as that. The point is that no Government because of an economic mess of their own creation can range on a commitment made to people entitled to assume that this would be the first major step in a programme of social reform. This is a clear indication of how the conservative arm of Fine Gael hold the Minister for Labour hard and fast, hold the progressive, younger and more active elements in the Labour Party. Fine Gael, of course, have none of the Labour Party aids, no Deputy Desmond to espouse the cause and to beat a track to Liberty Hall.

Mr. Dowling:

They are all the same now; there is no difference between them.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

What will be the European reaction? Do we have any ideas as to what was the result of the discussions between the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Attorney-General, Dr. Hillery and others, according to the newspapers, in Brussels last week? Was it the first time the Commission had been approached on the issue? Are we to take it, on the reports of this morning's papers, that permission to postpone equal pay is unlikely to be given? Is that the indication we have from Brussels? If so, are we still going ahead with this legislation in this House? If we are, is it not a futile exercise? Is it not wide open to be challenged in the courts and beaten there? It appears to me that the Minister has a major opportunity, because we intend to oppose this Bill, and I suspect people like Deputy Barry Desmond, my own colleague, Deputy Eileen Desmond and perhaps Deputy O'Connell may vote with us to prevent an embarrassing situation for the Minister's own party and the Government. I think the Minister feels he has a commitment. For that reason I would ask him to withdraw this question before the House. It is futile, a waste of effort and Europe are not going to accept it. Even if they are, it will be beaten in a court somewhere.

Mr. M. O'Leary:

What is the Deputy's authority for saying Europe will not accept it?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

This morning's report from The Irish Times. Does the Minister want me to quote it? It says it is unlikely to be accepted.

Mr. M. O'Leary:

The Deputy's trust in The Irish Times is touching. There was a time when the members of his party referred to The Irish Times in a different way. There are signs of a change.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

We are a very broadminded party. This morning's report in The Irish Times, Wednesday, February 11th, has a heading on the first page: “Equal Pay Law Request to EEC to be Rejected?” The report is from Walter Ellis in Strasbourg and reads as follows:

The Government's application for a derogation from the private sector regulations of the EEC Equal pay Directive—which came into force yesterday—is expected to receive a reply from the European Commission today.

Mr. M. O'Leary:

As the Deputy says, and certainly I would have thought he would have been on the hot line to Brussels today——

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

If the Minister were listening to me earlier I said that newspaper reports had conveyed this to us. The report continues:

Indications are that the application will be rejected and that Ireland will be taken before the European Court if the proposed amendments to the Equal Pay Act passes into Irish Law.

That is the reason I am questioning the Minister this morning. Again, I quote:

There is a particular irony surrounding the case, since the man primarily responsible for taking the decision is the Commissioner for Social Affairs, Dr. Patrick Hillery, whose own reappointment to Brussels at the end of this year depends on the Government.

That is the source I am quoting from, that report in Strasbourg. It says that it is unlikely to be accepted.

I have asked the Minister whether there were any indications given last week by the Commission as to whether this would be accepted. Equal pay is a moral right, and now a legal right in both our law and the European law. We are going to oppose this amendment. We will oppose every line of it. We have already said that it is absolutely unworkable. It appears that the Minister is prepared to go to any extremes to override the Congress of Trade Unions and the Women's Representative Committee submissions in order to postpone this. I think the Minister is making a mistake and taking a backward step. Others on both sides of the House feel exactly as I do. For the integrity and sincerity of this House it is essential that the Minister withdraw the amendment laid before us, because we were all agreed on the spirits and principle and the content of the Bill that was here in 1974. No number of statements, no choice of words, will ever change the reality of that situation. The Minister promised that within weeks he would cover any loopholes, close any doors, by introducing further legislation. There was no doubt in his mind then or in the minds of any members of that side of the House or this as to what was intended in that Bill. It was equal pay for all in both the private and public sectors. The marriage discrimination is being not only continued but reinforced as a means of saving money for the Exchequer.

I ask the Minister to explain how this amendment can work if not alone is it being opposed by the Congress of Trade Unions but the matter is also being taken to the EEC. As a matter of fact, that point is referred to in another part of this morning's Irish Times. In addition to that there is the question of contesting the public sector situation. The change of heart in that direction is to be challenged by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. It appears to me it is not going to be legislation. It is unworkable; it is morally wrong. There are so many things wrong with it that I would advise the Minister to withdraw it.

This is retrospective legislation. Everyone had assumed that equal pay would be implemented on the 1st January, 1976, because the directive was becoming law on 10th February, 1976. People had been entitled to assume that it would come in on 1st January. On 18th December we had this infamous stepping back and withdrawal in the House.

Equal pay is a natural right, recognised by all. This amendment can give the opportunity to the person whom the Minister has often criticised and condemned in this House, namely, the slow or backward employer, or possibly the one who is looking for the opportunity of getting out of his obligations to meet commitments that we believe are moral and legal commitments and the rights of individuals. Is there not an anomaly being created? The vagueness of the Bill leaves one in a difficult situation. We may be able to go into more detail on Committee Stage, but I wish to ask the Minister about, say, two firms in the same line of business. One of them feels in a position to meet the demands of equal pay—the Minister, of course, is not showing an interest in this. Can I repeat the question for him? The second firm is not in a position to meet the obligation of equal pay, perhaps through no fault of its own our maybe through its own fault, but one way or another, it still probably employs quite a number of people. Because it obtains an agreement sanctioned by the Labour Court the other firm can be placed in a position of unfair competition because it will have to pay more money than the one that is slow or backward or for some other reason is not able to pay the extra money. In other words, the good firm, giving reasonably good jobs, will be penalised, discriminated against, under this legislation.

That is the position of firms who have granted equal pay. What will be the position of those two firms in any submissions they make to the Prices Commission for the same material? Will there not be an anomaly created again? What can the Government's attitude be to persons who strike for equal pay? As I said already, if they do, it appears to me that the legislation we are introducing here can be contested in the courts even if agreement is given by the Commission. So it would appear that these people would be entitled to take a stand and win a fight for equal pay.

Fianna Fáil believe that the Minister's approach is the wrong one. We are fully aware of and fully appreciate the position of an ailing industry. Our idea would be for Government assistance or subvention, or possibly seeking some of that assistance from the EEC. I have said before that if we are breaking European laws on this question, not complying with Europeans directives, there are other far more important areas where we could have broken and should have broken EEC directives, and these were in the area of our industries in difficulty, such as textiles and footwear in order to stop some, or all if possible, of the imports from far off countries like Hong Kong, Taiwan and Korea.

An Ceann Comhairle:

That is not relevant on this Bill.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

I am just making the point that if we can break the law in one direction, then why did we not do it in areas that would have preserved far more jobs than are now being affected by equal pay? The means are entirely in the hands of the Government. They can be used by the Government under the premium employment programme or anything else to give assistance to those industries.

Do we have to revoke the ILO Convention as a result of this step? Has that been taken into consideration, or what is the position on that? There was no equal pay provision in the 1975 National Wage Agreement. It had been in the previous ones. It had been started when the only sensible Government this country has ever known were in the power in 1972. The advantage we have on this side of the House over some of the dreamers and theorists on that side is the practical experience and knowledge of the problems facing the people, having lived, worked and struggled among them for so long. The dreamers on that side have little to offer when it comes to providing for the practical necessities, as in this case, despite the fact that steps had been taken, that the various percentages had been implemented in the agreements prior to 1975. The reason it was not in the 1975 agreement was that it was felt there was no necessity in view of the fact that people thought we had a Minister who would stand by his legislation, would be introducing his legislation, would be complying with the promise that equal pay would become law on 1st January, 1976.

Earlier I referred to the lack of consultation with the people concerned. This Government at the beginning spoke about open government, spoke about consultation, but that lasted for only a little while. How things have changed in approximately two-and-a-half years. Now it is tight-lipped closely screened activity where the knives are out behind closed doors and where the differences are widening and the cracks——

An Ceann Comhairle:

Surely this is not relevant to the Bill.

Mr. M. O'Leary:

The atmosphere of Mount Street has affected the Deputy's judgment.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald:

No consultations were held with the interested bodies. We had a women's representative committee functioning and they put in a lot of work during the year. It was the just entitlement of that committee— it would have been only common courtesy—to have been consulted before the Minister or somebody else announced that an amendment was being introduced.

There are just a few important points that should be made. At the root of this is that right and entitlement of the individual to equal pay, a right that was legislated for by this House, both in the public and private sectors, and no words of the Minister can change what was introduced in the House on that occassion. There is that right that was legislated for in the public and private sectors: equal pay for work of equal value. There is the European directive which became law yesterday. We are becoming the laughing stock of Europe because of our efforts to postpone equal pay simply because the Government have mismanaged the economy and are not in a position to provide the necessary money to meet the public sector promise.

These are the principal points in the amendment for this postponement. For no other reason has it been introduced. With regard to the private sector, no discussions were held with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. The report on the shoe and leather industry does not stand up to investigation. I defy the Minister to contradict what I said. He should be ashamed to introduce an amendment based on that report. There is a very serious weakness somewhere. If that is the only evidence the Minister can give for postponing equal pay in the weak area of the private sector and in the public sector, then it is time the Minister said, "I am no longer entitled to be in charge of the Department of Labour".

Debate adjourned.