I, too, welcome the Bill and this debate on it. I commend The Labour Party for their initiative and Deputy Taylor for his speech last week. Although I could not be here for the opening of the debate, I noted the contributions from the Dáil Official Reports that were available.
Deputy Roche's speech was interesting, although I did not hear all of it. I did not see the research the Deputy mentioned, but it makes a good case for the changes this Bill will bring about. What we need is an equal status agency which will deal with education, promotion and with the pursuit of cases through the courts. Most of us realise that the Employment Equality Agency has been strapped in terms of proper reform legislation and funds and I am sure any criticism of the agency will be taken in that context.
This Bill is a minimum measure required to broaden the rights of women. Indeed, this measure is required under our obligations under the UN Convention for the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women which we ratified on 22 December 1985. Under Article 2 of that Convention we must introduce legislation to enable access to the courts in all instances of discrimination. At present, our legislation deals only with work-related discrimination and its pursuit through the courts but it does not cover the areas of goods and services, clubs or other areas of discrimination. In 1985 when I as Minister of State for Women's Affairs involved in preparing our submission for the UN Convention and for the UN end-of-decade conference which was held in Nairobi in that year, we had to prepare certain reservations because we had not all the legislation ready and we wanted to ratify the Convention. At the meetings held in Vienna for this Convention the need for access to the courts for women who felt they had been discriminated against was stressed. Our Constitution does not afford the full legal protection envisaged by the UN declaration. I would like a Ministerial speaker to indicate the intentions of the Government vis-à-vis our obligations under the UN Charter, because the reservation still exists in our accession. I am not sure when there will be a review of it, but we will be required to introduce legislation in this area.
Other speakers put this debate in the context of difficulties for women in this country because of the Supreme Court judgment on the case of the pregnant raped girl of 14. One can be forgiven for asking "what status are we talking about?" What woman has status here, given the appalling developments we have seen in the last month where many women are reduced, in perception, to breeding machines. The recent debate and the various pronouncements from political, judicial and religious fora not only diminished the value of women as persons and made us feel devalued as persons, but also scaled women down to the level of incubators in many instances. It was extraordinary the way the woman's anatomony, feelings, intentions and emotions were discussed by people who could never know the pain and the stress of a suicide-inducing pregnancy or the horror of rape. I am not saying that one has to be female to know the fears, the horror and despair of pregnancy due to rape, but I am sure it helps. I want to convey my disquiet at how these issues of women's conditions ever got into the realms of constitutional discussion and judicial deliberation and analysis on the highest level.
On this issue we have let ourselves down again. We have once again shown that the really unacceptable crimes in Ireland are related to sex and morals and we reserve our greatest self-righteousness for those who offend against the conformist norms, and women regrettably, again and again are inevitably the centre of focus, as an outcome of this. As a woman leaving these shores, I find it difficult not to skulk away, conscious of the baleful glances of people from other civilised nations. They feel sorry for us and although I am proud to be an Irish person abroad, one cannot get away from the fact that it is difficult to explain the quite extraordinary oppression that appears to come from our Constitution in many instances, from our courts, and from the lack of achievement by women.
The dilemma which we are going through at the moment must be resolved for all women, particularly for our daughters. I care how that resolution comes about. We must have an honest, open resolution that gives Irish women back their dignity as people and gives them the freedom to enjoy the right of travel, to have access to information on their health and the right to have access to non-directive professional counselling. In this matter, this House must show whether it is a responsible Parliament of a true republic, by legislating for the rights of all citizens regardless of religious beliefs, or whether it will again creep away and seen to be held to ransom by ungenerous and narrowminded zealots, and again let the courts, the European Community or English clinics do our work for us.
I want to co-operate and help in reaching a resolution that is fair and equitable. I do not want the matter to dissolve into a bitter battle that does not do any credit to anybody but which particularly gives no credit to politicians. I am not encouraged by the evasive attitude of the Taoiseach in the Dáil today. The Taoiseach is a leader who has promised to open the shutters, to have open Government and to do things differently. It is towards the Taoiseach we look for action. Up to now we have not had enough action. We need more than gestures. Indeed, political gestures are what Irish women have had in large measure from our political institutions. In every area, this country is at the bottom of the league of rights and entitlements for women, when compared with women in other European countries.
What is the background on those issues? Despite the fact that we have had numerous reports, numerous seminars and very loud calls from women at work and indeed couples at work, there has been no political response with regard to child care. We have not established even the basic network of child care facilities. Child care does not exist officially. Women at work might just as well be putting their kids in the deep freeze for the day, for all this State knows or cares. That is not de facto equality. Contraception is another issue which is very much a women's issue. In this area we still have bizarre legislation seriously limiting the places and ages for availability of contraception, with emphasis in the legislation for research funds only towards so-called natural methods. That is not de facto equality. When we look at the workforce, we have huge clusters of women workers in low paid service jobs while they are almost non-existent in the upper grades. That is not de facto equality. We have mothers in the home full-time, rearing children and perhaps looking after aged parents. They have no intrinsic right in a share to the family home because they are not income earning. That is not de facto equality.
Equal pay legislation has not been satisfactory. There is a disparity in average earnings which has been highlighted repeatedly between the levels of pay of men and women. For instance, women earn 68 per cent of the rate enjoyed by men in manufacturing industry. Women make up 70 per cent of all clerical workers. In the electronics industry they represent 74 per cent of operatives and only 3 per cent of managers. Such statistics are reflected throughout the workforce. When women get married and have children they are not able to pursue their careers or to compete in the same way as men. The levels will not balance out without special measures and direct action, matters with which this Bill is concerned.
Some sections of the Bill are indeed welcome. Sections 4 and 5 deal with the prohibition of discrimination by employers in access to employment, conditions of employment, work training and work experience, promotion or regrading. I welcome Part III and the changes in regard to the burden of proof. These have long been sought by the Employment Equality Agency. The onus of disproving discrimination will be on the person denying discrimination.
I also welcome the recommendation in section 45 dealing with golf clubs. There is to be a prohibition on public funding for associations or clubs which discriminate on grounds of sex. This is a necessary provision in legislation. Up to now we have attempted to encourage, cajole, request and beseech the organisations and associations which govern clubs, particularly golf clubs, to change their discriminatory ruling which does not enable women to become full members and, in many instances, does not allow women to become members at all. This section would make it impossible to prohibit the full membership of women or to marginalise them by offering associate membership. The explanatory memorandum states that no payment or grant may be made out of public funds to any such club. That is to be welcomed. It also states that no such club may apply for registration or the renewal of registration under the Registration of Clubs Act, 1904. A club which is not registered under this Act is not permitted to sell or supply excisable liquor to its members for consumption by them or by their guests.
Some small success can be measured in the context of the refusal of EC improvement grants where clubs continued to discriminate. We need legislation to prevent it happening.
This Bill and this debate hold up a mirror to women to see what has been achieved and to examine Government responses to reasonable requests for change. The responses so far will not have women jumping for joy. The Minister for Labour is certainly no latter day women's libber. His speech showed a marked lack of insight or understanding of equality needs. I accept that one should give him the benefit of the doubt because he is a newly appointed Minister. His objections to the Bill are strange and not spelled out in real terms. For the most part I found his speech difficult to understand. He stated:
. . . it threatens to swamp or marginalise what has come to be recognised as the most serious and pervasive form of discrimination in our society — the practices which operate, directly and indirectly, to isolate, segregate or even eliminate the contribution which women can make in all areas of employment. In addition, the Bill seems, by virtue of the attempt to put such a wide range of issues into a single legislative measure, to reflect an overemphasis on the effectiveness of legislative enforcement mechanisms, per se, to the detriment of other complementary methods of developing good practice.
That Civil Service English does not seem to make sense. If it were clearer we would know exactly what the Minister is thinking.
The mirror will show something else. The representation of women here has been a focus of public interest in the past month when women, deeply concerned about the abortion debate, wanted to have time in the House to express their views. Many people realised how small we are in number — 13 out of 166 Members. We will never amount to a serious lobby either former women in politics or for women's issues and issues related to the family. There is one woman in Cabinet and there are two women Ministers of State. To round this off, we have a junior Minister whose responsibility for women's affairs is sandwiched between cultural affairs and European affairs. That does not instil a great deal of confidence in anyone who wants to see change and a creative approach to the women's agenda.
The Minister spoke about the Second Commission on the Status of Women and promised some kind of nirvana following the publication of their report. I am aware that the report is due in the summer and I have not the slightest doubt that it will be splendid. Women and women's organisations took it in great earnest. A record number of very detailed and well-researched submissions was made. It is always helpful to have clearly delineated submissions. The chairwoman, Miss Justice Mella Carroll, has wonderful skills and a great deal of commitment and all the members are hard working and dedicated. I have high hopes that this report will create as much political stir as the first report produced under Dr. Theckla Beere. I have no great confidence, however, that when the report has been published and the path has been set out we will see any great change. I am certain that the report will call for funds for child care, new work practices, job sharing, longer maternity leave, better training and so on. These are all costly and we will probably be told there are other priorities. I do not know what we will do with that report. I believe that because of the cost factor involved it will be shelved.
Women here have such a low status that substantial remedial measures are needed now. We are talking about rights and entitlements but also about tapping the talents, experience, skills and energies of half the population who, traditionally and by our laws, have been oppressed and marginalised and have not been taken very seriously. We are talking about redressing the balance of the sexes. One person who has unashamedly attempted to redress the balance and, indeed, by the work is a shining example of public service to Irish people here and abroad, and is a special inspiration to women in this country, is President Mary Robinson.
One of her recent speeches in Trinity College struck a note as to what is needed in this area. I will refer to that speech she made at the Allen Lane Foundation Lecture in Trinity College on 25 February. The title of the speech is "Striking a Balance" and she said:
I want to emphasise here at the start that the balance I would like to see struck is not an awkward coming-to-terms or a last minute compromise. Far from it. It must be a comprehensive reassessment of the place and contribution of a woman in her society.
If the imbalances of the past came, as I believe they did, not simply from legislative injustice and economic inequality but from profound resistances and failures of perception, then it follows that to right that balance we must do more than review our legislation and re-state our economic structures. We must also fundamentally reappraise our view of who and what is valuable in our society. We must look with fresh and unprejudiced eyes at the work of women, the views of women, their way of organising and their interpretation of social priorities. To achieve this, we must, I believe, begin at the beginning and alter our way of thinking.
President Robinson went on to say:
We cannot strike a balance until we right the imbalances which already exist. In the area of women's equality this has meant, and still means, rearranging the order of participation and the access to self-expression, so that men and women have an equal chance to make their contribution and find their creativity in a society which neither owns and both share. But how are we to achieve this?
That is the question that this debate poses. We have to strike a fair balance; we have to redress the imbalance. This legislation goes a long way towards that objective and I will be supporting it.