Deputy Pat Rabbitte has been given permission to raise the matter of the implications of the recent findings of the Labour Relations Commission for the re-entry of women to the Civil Service.
Adjournment Debate. - Re-Entry of Women to Civil Service.
Like Deputy Reynolds, I want to take this opportunity to wish Deputy John O'Donoghue well in his new position as Minister of State at the Department of Finance. The issue I wish to raise is an important one, the watershed decision by the Labour Relations Commission, conferring as it does, an entitlement on married women, who were forced to resign from the Civil Service as a result of the marriage bar prior to the 1977 legislation, to reapply for employment in the Civil Service. I am somewhat disturbed that almost three weeks after that decision there has been no indication whatever from the Government of their attitude to such an important decision of practical equality for women. As I understand it, under the new Act the Government have 42 days to decide whether or not to appeal. It is important that the Government take a positive attitude as speedily as possible to what most people consider to be a watershed decision in respect of women.
Unfortunately, there has been much uninformed comment about this decision and the Government have let it go unchallenged. I would invite the Minister to say whether my understanding of the decision and its implications is wrong and whether he agrees with some of that uninformed comment. For example, it has been suggested that the cost to the Government of this decision is £150 million. I have no idea where the figure came from. I have never seen it attributed to anyone but yet it has featured in all the statements made in the public media about the implications of this decision. I believe it is a figure plucked out of the sky and has no basis. I hope the Minister will concur.
The impression has been given that all married women forced to resign from the Civil Service by the marriage bar can now automatically claim a job in the Civil Service, but of course that is not the case. First, a great many women would not wish to return to the Civil Service and, second, the entitlement to return is subject to a vacancy arising. Therefore, the impression that it does anything other than confer the same entitlement on married women as the single or widowed women have to reapply for their post without having to do the conventional examination is incorrect.
The wilder suggestions of back money due, to the tune of even a fraction of £150 million, if this decision is blessed by the Government, have no foundation. There was a retrospective element in the particular case because of the circumstances there, but generally speaking all it would do is confer on married women the entitlement to reapply for their jobs. There is no justification on financial or equality grounds for disallowing that entitlement. It is a relic of a bygone era. You cannot support discrimination between single and widowed women on the one hand and married women on the other. I invite the Minister to tell the House what the Government attitude is to this question.
I express my gratitude to Deputy Rabbitte for his expression of good wishes, which I very much appreciate.
Under the Civil Service Commissioners Act, 1956, a civil servant who resigns can, in general, only re-enter the Civil Service by way of an open competition conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners. However, in view of the fact that, until 1973, women were obliged to resign on marriage, an exception to the general rule was provided by statute to allow for the reinstatement of widows without having to undergo a competition. In 1973, this provision was extended, again by statute, to include women who resigned on marriage or for reasons arising out of their marriage, but who subsequently, although they remained married, were not being supported by their husbands. This could be due to desertion, separation or the inability of their husbands to support them through illness or for other reasons. This amendment extended to certain married women the reinstatement facility which had previously been available only to widows.
A great many changes have taken place since 1973. There have been major developments in the Civil Service to promote equal opportunities. The Civil Service has been particularly innovative in the area of combining work and family responsibilities through the introduction of schemes for career breaks, job sharing, flexitime and special leave for domestic reasons. There are currently 2,500 people on career break and 1,200 people who are job-sharing, the great majority of whom are women. Given these developments, it is not surprising that the number of women who resign for reasons related to marriage has declined dramatically over the last decade. Also of considerable relevance in this context is the raising of the upper age limit for most competitions for recruitment to the Civil Service to 50 years. This change enables women who gave up their posts for domestic reasons to return to the service by way of the regular open recruitment competitions.
Accordingly, while the traditional reinstatement provisions were only intended to provide a sort of safety net where things went wrong for a woman who had resigned for family reasons, more recently the aim has been to create the conditions whereby women can remain in the workforce and I am satisfied that no employer has done more than the Civil Service to achieve this. The dramatic reduction in such resignations and the high take-up on the career break and job-sharing schemes suggest that the policy is working.
The facility for reinstatement has, however, continued in operation but the operation of these provisions was challenged in autumn 1990 by the Employment Equality Agency. The matter was referred to an equality officer who has now made her recommendation. The equality officer has concluded that the reinstatement provisions are discriminatory under the terms of the 1977 Employment Equality Act.
In considering the implications of the decision, it is important to point out that no one has an automatic entitlement to reinstatement. A woman who qualifies for reinstatement is not actually reinstated until there is a fillable vacancy in her own grade in her own Department and the appointment must be approved by the head of her Department and the Civil Service Commissioners.
I am well aware of the importance of this issue. The implications of the recommendations by the equality officer, both practical and the legal, are being considered by the Department of Finance in consultation with the Attorney General's Office. In the circumstances, I am sure the Deputy will understand my reluctance at this stage to comment in detail on the recommendations or to speculate on possible responses.
However, I should point out that this Government, as part of their policy to bring order to the public finances, have significantly reduced the numbers employed in the Civil Service in recent years. This has inevitably resulted in a reduction in the number of job opportunities arising in the Civil Service each year. Any development which would further reduce or, perhaps, eliminate completely the remaining employment opportunities for school leavers and graduates in the Civil Service would obviously be a matter of great concern. Of course, I need hardly say that there can be no question of reversing the policy on public service numbers.
There is provision in the Employment Equality Act, 1977, for an appeal to the Labour Court against an equality officer's recommendation. On present information it seems that there are grounds for an appeal to the Labour Court. However, a final decision on this matter will not be made until the Department's examination of the recommendation is complete.