Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 24 Mar 1992

Vol. 417 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Equal Status Bill, 1990: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

I pointed out the last day that these proposals were substantially the same as those presented in April 1990. The promoters of the Bill might well say that the proposals were good in 1990 and there is no harm in repeating them now but I suggested that the proposals had been overtaken by events. Specifically, I mentioned the Pensions Act, 1990, the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 and the Worker Participation (Regular Part-time Employees) Act, 1991. All these, in particular the latter, had an important impact on equality status.

I mentioned a further perhaps more significant event, the establishment of the Second Commission on the Status of Women. I suggested that the Second Commission had already made a significant impact in the discharge of their responsibilities by publishing in April of last year their first interim report. That is a fine document and worthy of commendation. I also suggested that as the Second Commission's final report is due in July next it seemed that the Labour Party might just be trying to steal a little of the Second Commission's thunder by pre-empting some of their recommendations at this stage.

It would seem however that there is a more serious basis for opposing the Bill. I have no doubt that the drafters of this legislation had the very best of intentions in mind when they turned to their task. However, it is not unfair to suggest that they did not consider as fully as they might have the implications of changing the brief of a small independent, investigative and enforcement body which was established with a specific focus on equal treatment between the sexes in the sphere of employment. Experience of the operation of anti-discrimination agencies, which is considerable in the area of discrimination of one form or another — especially those established in the United States and Northern Ireland with a special brief to deal with employment matters — suggests that a wider range of choices exist with regard to the role of such bodies than would appear from this Bill.

It has been suggested by several speakers that the administrative arrangements proposed in the Bill are over centralised and threaten to impose the excessive burden of having to carry too wide a range of competences on a single small agency. The proposers have not reflected adequately on the Employment Equality Agency's discharge of their unique statutory brief during the past 15 years. They also appear to have misperceived the United States experience which is typified by a diversity and variety of techniques of enforcement and a lack of centralisation of initiatives and resources. It seems that there is great validity in the criticisms of the Bill alone this line put forward by the Minister in his speech in the House on 10 March.

It is true that the Employment Equality Agency have had a number of fine successes and they should be noted here but it is well to recall the background against which the Employment Equality Agency were established. They draw their statutory authority as an independent body from the Employment Equality Act, 1977. They were given three specific statutory functions or duties: first, to enforce the status on employment equality; second, to promote equal opportunity between women and men and, finally, to review on a continuing basis the existing law.

The agency have worked for over 15 years now and have established a fine track record. They have established an authoritive voice in the area of sex discrimination, raised public awareness of the incidence and variety of discrimination, highlighted the need to ensure that adequate remedies exist in law and consistently emphasised the need for real progress in the area of equality. The agency have also highlighted the need for a strategic approach to women's training and pressed — this is a matter I dwelt on the last day — for a national framework of child care. In spite of all these fine achievements I suggest however that the agency have a less than distinguished record when it comes to the issue of enforcement.

As I mentioned, the agency were also given the strategically important role of enforcing the law on equality in the public interest. In this area some critical analysis of the role of the agency has been produced. Professor Deirdre Curtin of the University of Utrecht has produced a particularly incisive analysis. In her analysis she has described the agency's quasi-judicial powers as constituting an "important strategic weapon in the battle to eliminate, in particular, indirect sex discrimination in employment or unequal pay for work of equal value. Through such investigations the Agency can deal with general discriminatory practices in industries, firms or institutions. Moreover, they can encourage positive action so as to obtain equal opportunity in employment". That quotation is taken from Irish Employment Equality Law, Dublin, 1989.

Professor Curtin has noted in her analysis that the agency have conducted only four formal investigations in a 15 year period and have never had recourse in any of these to the full range of their quasi-judicial powers. She concludes that the few investigations undertaken reveal the lack of a coherent strategy in the agency.

While acknowledging that the agency have consistently complained of an acute lack of funding, Professor Curtin has expressed disappointment at the agency's tendency to engage in promotional and educational work in general rather than exercise their strategic enforcement powers. A further quotation from Professor Curtin's work illustrates this. She suggests that the agency should be more active in this area and states:

In order to achieve the full potential of the legislation the Agency must use on a planned and systematic basis the powers the legislation has conferred upon it. An essential tool in this respect could be an increased use of the formal investigation powers.

I suggest that the Bill before us is likely to push the agency further towards promotional rather than enforcement activity. I suggest that none of us would like to see this happen. The reality is that other jurisdictions where such agencies have been established, in particular Northern Ireland, Britain and the United States have encountered problems in developing the role and capacity of strategic enforcement agencies which can seek out discriminatory patterns and practices and bring the law to bear on them.

I welcome the Bill because it gives us an opportunity to look at this most important area. The Minister has stated he expects the institutional concerns which I touched on and which he touched on the last day to be addressed in a clear-sighted way by the Second Commission on the Status of Women in their report which is due out this summer. Rather than enact a Bill, no matter how well intentioned, which has clear flaws Members on all sides of the House should encourage the Second Commission to swiftly complete their task and focus on improving what is already in place.

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.

This Bill, though well intentioned, contains fundamental flaws which could threaten to undermine the substantial progress which has been made in the promotion of equal rights between men and women and seriously sets back the cause of equality between the sexes in this country.

The prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex, marital or parental status, sexual orientation, religion, age, handicap, race, colour, nationality or national or ethnic origin is something to which all of us as legislators aspire and work towards. I believe that the specific means proposed by this Bill would only result in legislation which would be confused, complicated and less effective in dealing with the promotion of equal opportunities in employment than the current Acts provide. In particular, I believe that the most fundamental, and powerful discrimination confronting this society is based on sex and I believe that tackling this whole area is of such importance that it demands specific legislation in its own right.

We must address whatever discrimination exists against other groups in our society on whatever grounds it may occur, but much of this discrimination afflicts both men and women and can be dealt with through separate legislative proposals. To categorise sexual discrimination with a myriad of other discriminations could mistakenly dilute the particular and sizeable problem of sexual discrimination and give succour to those who object to the promotion of equality between men and women.

This debate on discrimination is timely. Discrimination in all its hideous forms remains one of the major ills of modern society. Indeed, in recent years we have all seen the rise of neo-fascist and extremist National Front movements in a way unequalled since the Second World War. The success of the extremist National Front in France's regional elections last weekend, for example, and the constant presence of neo-Nazism and extreme right wingism in Central and Eastern Europe, should be constant reminders of the threat which hovers over us all.

Less dramatically the discrimination of ageism seems to be growing apace. It is now virtually impossible for older people to find new employment once made redundant, despite however well qualified they may be. Can any of us deny the continuing discrimination, often unintentional, based on handicap or membership of the travelling community? Again and again, however, our practical experience of discrimination will focus on discrimination between the sexes if only because that is where each and every one of us can most easily see it happening or imagine it occurring.

Indeed, it is appropriate at a time when we are reflecting so closely on the Maastricht Treaty to consider the impetus which our membership of the EC has given to the application of the equal opportunity principle in employment in Ireland. The role of Europe and the Maastricht Treaty have come under close scrutiny in the light of the recent Supreme Court decision on the right of a young girl to travel, and I would be as concerned as any to ensure that nothing in the Maastricht Protocol should in any way discriminate between Irishmen and Irishwomen regarding any of their rights — particularly the right to travel, but I recognise that to date Europe has played an extremely constructive role in our own campaign for greater equality between men and women.

Both the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, and the Employment Equality Act, 1977, owe their origins to EC Directives. The principle of equality in employment between men and women enjoys a special status under EC law and the Community has since the mid-70s gradually built up a wide ranging legislative code which at present consists of five equality directives that cover pay, employment and vocational training, aspects of statutory and occupational pension schemes and self-employment.

In fact, equality policy enjoys one of the most successful and advanced records in the employment area at Community level. This has been underlined by the inclusion of a provision in the Special Agreement on Social Policy, which was concluded by 11 member states of the EC at Maastricht and which will probably make it easier to enact further equality legislation at Community level after the adoption of the new Political Union Treaty. As the Community's standards in this area have taken on the character of an organic code, it is clear that the principle of equality is open ended. Ideas are developing all the time on what behaviour is acceptable and what constitutes unlawful sex discrimination.

In advance of the Maastricht Summit, the momentum of equal opportunity policy was reinforced about this time last year by the endorsement that the Council of Social Affairs Ministers gave to the European Commission's Third Medium-Term Community Action Programme on Equal Opportunities for Men and Women for the period from 1991 to 1995. The significance of this programme lies in the fact that the European Community has made a political statement to the effect that, while significant advances have been made in promoting the status and dignity of women in our society, much remains to be done to build on the achievements of the 1970s and 1980s by intensifying these activities in the 1990s.

The measures proposed by the third action programme have been articulated around three key issues. The first issue is the implementation and development of the law in relation to equality. The action proposed in the third programme will seek to ensure the implementation and development of existing legal procedures; deepen understanding of the specific issues relating to equal pay for work of equal value and the concept of indirect discrimination; and raise the level of awareness of legal rights and obligations.

The second key issue addressed in the programme is the integration of women into the labour market. The action proposed here will seek to increase the participation of women in the labour market by developing specific measures to promote women's employment and enterprise and local employment initiatives; improve the quality of women's employment by maximising their potential, particularly through action relating to education, vocational training, a better management of resources and the use of positive action in enterprise; and reduce barriers to women's access to and participation in employment, particularly through measures aiming to reconcile working life and family responsibilities.

In order to achieve these objectives, the Commission undertook to implement a new Community initiative for the promotion of equal opportunities in the field of employment and vocational training — the NOW initiative — and to continue its actions in the field of employment.

The third key issue addressed in the programme is the improvement of the status of women in society. It is considered that, in order to achieve lasting progress and a real change in attitudes, awareness raising initiatives need to go beyond the sphere of employment. The action proposed will, therefore, aim to continue and develop awareness raising initiatives which are related to the specific objectives of the action programme and improve and disseminate information on equality issues; continue to encourage an improvement in the participation of women in the media industry and to develop innovatory programmes and materials which portray positive images of women; and encourage measures designed to promote the participation of women in the decision-making process in economic and social life.

It is most important that the progressive development of our law in relation to equality — particularly in the sphere of employment rights — should proceed with due regard to the way in which European Community law has developed over the past 15 years. The EC medium-term programme has set out clear objectives for the development of equality laws. The Minister for Labour has reiterated this Government's commitment to bring forward proposals for legislation to amend the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, and the Employment Equality Act, 1977, in fulfilment of the undertaking given in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. It is the Government's intention to bring forward a single comprehensive measure on equality between men and women in employment which will ensure that, for the first time, all the relevant law on employment equality can be found under one cover, a very important step.

Unfortunately, the Labour Party Bill before us, despite its ambitious and praiseworthy attempt to draw upon a wide range of sources, would leave our Statute Book in an even more confused state than before.

The medium-term programme on equal opportunities explicitly calls for greater clarity and coherence in the development of the core concepts of employment equality law. It especially emphasises the need to raise the level of awareness of employers and workers alike about legal rights and obligations. These objectives can be realised only by means of a new and comprehensive statute to deal exclusively with employment matters. Such an Act would ensure that it would no longer be necessary for practitioners, equality offices, the Labour Court and the higher courts to continually refer to different sources of law located in a variety of different texts. The aim should be to construct a single and comprehensive code framed to meet current Irish employment circumstances and reflect the applicability of European Community law.

Unfortunately, this Bill does little to assist practitioners, not to mention managers and those conducting negotiations in employment or those considering whether to put forward claims relating to equal pay or sex discrimination, in arriving at a clear understanding of their responsibilities.

Instead of advancing a comprehensive new code, this Bill proposes to introduce a new statute alongside the remnants of the two earlier Acts. That would hardly serve to make the content of the law accessible or comprehensible to the public.

There is a further danger that by casting its net too wide and covering too many diverse areas, the Bill might actually undermine the influence of EC law as the main source of our domestic law on employment equality.

However, a proper strategy for achieving greater equality of opportunity cannot rely exclusively on legislative action. The European Commission stresses that its strategy for action calls for a real commitment on the part of the social partners, who will have a central role to play in the practical achievement of the objectives defined in the programme, as well as in integrating equality of opportunity into the ongoing social dialogue. The Programme for Economic and Social Progress, for example, contains important commitments in the area of training and employment opportunities, such as the increase in FÁS targets for the training of women in nontraditional occupations and the relaxation of the live register requirements for eligibility for FÁS training for women who wish to return to the formal workforce and other important proposals in the area of childcare.

We have a good record in this vital area compared with that of our European neighbours. A key step to be taken is to seek the final report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women due shortly. It is my belief that this report will form an important basis for a detailed plan of action in ensuing years, thereby promoting the dignity and status of Irish women, helping to ensure their full participation in the economic, social, political and cultural life of the country while, simultaneously, exploiting their enormous skills and talents fully for theirs and our benefit.

This Bill introduced by Deputy Spring seeks to replace the basic model of the existing equality Acts with a new hybrid Bill which would extend the prohibition of discrimination beyond gender to include sexual orientation, religion, age, handicap, race, colour, nationality or ethnic origins, including members of the travelling community.

The Minister for Labour has already observed that, in endeavouring to cover too wide a field, the provisions of this Bill may even pose a threat to the effective operation of well established mechanisms and procedures which have served to advance women's interests in the employment sphere over the past 17 years. I would have grave reservations that the provisions of the Bill, if implemented, would have damaging implications for the smooth operation of essential services, such as the Defence Forces and prison service.

The operations of the provisions of the Employment Equality Act, 1977, have been the subject of continuous review by the Department of Labour in the light of experience of their enforcement, developments in other European jurisdictions and the European Commission's action programme on equal opportunity. Changes have been effected in the provisions of that Act to bring some hitherto excluded occupations or areas of employment within their scope where they have given rise to concern that the protective considerations which inspired them were no longer well-founded. The effect of these changes has been to ensure that equal opportunity is assured in access to midwifery courses and employment in single sex institutions, most of which are associated with health, education and welfare services. In addition, changes were affected in 1985 to modify significantly the scope of the blanket exclusions which had applied under section 12 of the 1977 Act relating to employment within the Garda Síochána, the prison service and the employment of close relatives.

Following representations from the European Commission that the exclusion of these categories from the scope of the provisions of the Employment Equality Act, 1977, did not fall within the exceptions provided for in the 1976 Directive on equal treatment of men and women in relation to access to employment, vocational training, promotion and working conditions, the then Government decided to change the provisions of the Employment Equality Act, 1977, so as to bring employment in the Garda Síochána and the prison service within the scope of that Act.

The effect of the European Communities (Employment Equality) Regulations, 1985, in the prison service has been to limit necessary exemptions from the stringent requirements of the legislation to certain categories of posts only. Such exemptions cover posts where it is necessary, in the interests of privacy and decency, for a staff member of one sex to supervise offenders of that sex, for example, while offenders are dressing, undressing or in the case of personal searches, also where the duties of the post include guarding, escorting or controlling violent persons, quelling riots or violent disturbances. Both categories of exemptions apply only where a prison governor does not have already sufficient employees capable of undertaking the relevant duties, whom it would be practicable to employ for that purpose. Implementation of those regulations had to have regard to the unique nature of the prison service and the duties of prison officers.

Unfortunately, the Bill before us — through its proposed repeal of section 17 of the Employment Equality Act, 1977, and its total disregard for the specific provisions of the 1985 regulations — threatens to ride roughshod over the type of arrangements put in place to promote equal opportunity and mixed staffing within the prison service.

The Defence Forces were specifically excluded from the provisions of the Employment Equality Act, 1977. I might add that a similar position obtains in other member states of the EC, in that those countries have withdrawn their Defence Forces from being the subject of the EC's Equal Treatment Directive. However, some countries maintain legal barriers preventing women from taking up posts in military service. In recent years the recognition of equality standards and, in some countries, a shortage of volunteers, has directed more attention to potential openings available to women. For example, here the Defence Amendment (No. 2) Act, 1979, for the first time, permitted the enlistment and appointment of females in the Defence Forces.

In addition, the provisions of the Bill before us seek to override all existing legislative arrangements for the regulation of Army personnel, flying in the face of similar arrangements worldwide. It has been the policy of successive Governments to provide women with access to membership of the Defence Forces to the maximum extent possible, having regard to financial constraints and the fact that women are employed in a non-combatant role. However, the requirements of national security are never likely to permit circumstances in which access to employment in the Defence Forces would be influenced by legislation designed primarily for persons not subject to military law.

The Tánaiste is of the view that the role of females in the Defence Forces should be expanded. In that respect a board has been established to examine the overall question of the employment of women in the Defence Forces, all aspects of their service, including allowing them access to all appointments within the Defence Forces and their participation in operational duties, being considered. That board, which includes two famale officers, are due to submit their report shortly.

The repeal of section 12 of the Employment Equality Act, 1977, and the alteration of the provisions of the 1985 Regulations — as proposed in this Bill — would not have any adverse implications for the planning/management of equal opportunities within the Garda Síochána.

It appears already that sufficient progress has been made since 1985 so that recruitment, allocation of staff and promotional procedures within the Garda Síochána fully satisfy the rigours of the Employment Equality Act, no longer necessitating any modification of its provisions.

The progress made in the development of career opportunities for women in our police force is confirmation of the Government's continuing efforts to promote equal opportunity in employment and to review any occupational areas wholly or partly excluded from the application of equality laws heretofore. The next step will be for the Government to introduce the comprehensive reforming Bill about which the Minister for Labour spoke earlier in this debate, within which it is intended to incorporate all the necessary revisions of existing Acts and various regulations, thereby ensuring a single legislative measure containing all the relevant law in relation to sex discrimination in employment.

Of course, the provision of equal opportunities in the workforce is not only a legal issue; it also happens to represent the most sensible usage of human resources. In turn, this means equal opportunities will be attained not only through enforcement of the law but also by an acceptance on the part of employers and employees alike that the full utilisation of the talents and resources of the overall workforce is in our economic interst. Thus it is sound business practice to encourage and assist all employees to develop their full potential.

This Government had adopted positive action policies in three key areas — the Civil Service, public sector bodies and within the training and employment bodies. In addition, arrangements for monitoring the implementation of policy in these areas have been put in place, intended to set an example for the private sector.

It is noteworthy that the provisions of this Bill do not seek to bring these information-gathering exercises within its legislative scope. This is probably a sensible approach at this early stage of their evaluation. The Commission on the Status of Women may be expected to consider whether a case exists for extending the current monitoring system operated for State-sponsored bodies to the private sector and perhaps underpinning it with some legislative obligation to return statistical information.

The system of monitoring in State-sponsored bodies commenced in 1990 and requires such bodies to devote more attention to equality, provide certain baseline data on their performance and indicate their goals and targets for the future. Last year the system was extended to local authorities and health boards.

The other positive action measures which feature in the Government's programme are, first, the active efforts by the Manpower agencies to break down traditional barriers between the sexes in the labour market. The best known example is the FÁS positive action programme which aims to encourage increased female participation in growing future orientated sectors of the labour market and sectors traditionally dominated by men. Second, the provision of empirical information making it clear that the labour market is heading for such radical changes that people will have to choose occupations in technically more sophisticated fields in order to have any real prospect of employment. Third, the connection between educational choice and employment prospects and the need to encourage both men and women to disregard sexual bias in their occupational and educational decision-making. This applies to young persons choosing vocational education and training and also to adults choosing in-service and further training. Fourth, the need to counteract preconceived notions on the part of employers and employees concerning what are suitable jobs for men and women.

While legislation has a crucial role to play in the achievement of equal oportunities in employment, it needs to be complemented by positive action developments at every level. There is a real danger that the all-encompassing legalistic focus of the Labour Party Bill will overload the mechanisms already established to combat discrimination based on sex in the employment sphere, dissipate resources and deflect attention from the kind of initiatives already under way to promote changes in social behaviour on a voluntary basis. The Government's commitment to promoting positive action at national level is illustrated in the commitments given in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. These developments, together with the commitment by the Minister for Labour to introduce a single comprehensive statute to reform the law on employment equality, are evidence of continuing progress. However, these measures represent only the first generation of equality standards.

The Second Commission on the Status of Women can be expected to take these into account and to identify new objectives and measures of achievement. The conclusions of the commission, which should be available in the summer, should lay the basis for a second generation of equality measures which could well encompass some of the wider areas identified in the Labour Party Bill.

This debate can do nothing but good if all the more positive contributions and proposals are taken on board and co-ordinated. This would ensure that further progress is made in the promotion of equality for women. I have no doubt that the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Tom Kitt, and the Minister for Labour, Deputy Cowen, will continue their endeavours to promote equality for women and will do everything necessary to ensure that all forthcoming legislation will be geared to that end.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan and Deputy Michael D. Higgins.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

The one point on which there has been agreement in this debate so far is that there is discrimination, and it is rife in Irish society today, but the nub of the debate is the manner in which we tackle this problem. There has been a marked departure this evening from the position adopted by the Government Deputies who spoke last week, namely, the Minister for Labour, Deputy Cowen, the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Kitt, and Deputy Síle de Valera. They said that the Labour Party Bill was a catch-all Bill and as such was not acceptable. I found it very difficult to accept what Deputy de Valera had to say. She said that the Bill attempts to do too much too quickly. She then went on to say that sexual harassment was not included in the Bill and for that reason she could not support it. She said first that the Bill was a catch-all Bill and then that because it did not deal specifically with sexual harassment she could not support it. There is a contradiction in those statements. This typified the Government's approach to the Bill last week.

Over the weekend a political commentator in the media said that part of Fianna Fáil's problem is that they have not yet shed the cult of the begrudger. There is much truth in that statement, particularly when one bears in mind that the legislation which has been referred to constantly in this debate — the anti-discrimination Act and the employment equality Act — were introduced by a Coalition Government, of which the Labour Party were a member. It was Labour Party Ministers who introduced those Acts in 1973 and 1977. The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, gave credit to Deputy Charles J. Haughey, who was then in Opposition, for setting up the Commission on the Status of Women. Even though Fianna Fáil were not in Government at the time, they claim credit for setting up this commission.

Most of the debate has centred on the very definite discrimination against women but there is a large grey area which this Parliament has yet to address. Women have been referred to as the half paid section of the community. I believe women at work have been exploited shamelessly down the years. Reference has been made to the part-time workers legislation introduced by the Minister for Finance, Deputy B. Ahern, when he was Minister for Labour. I argued the points in that legislation with Deputy Ahern when he was Minister for Labour. However, when it came to the crunch issue of a statutory minimum wage, he buckled and did not attack the issue with full vigour. Every effort made by people on this side of the House to put forward proposals for a statutory minimum wage — the first step in the real abolition of discrimination in the workplace — has been resisted by the Minister for Labour, Deputy Cowen, and his predecessor.

Various Government speakers have referred to what has happened in Europe in the area of social legislation. They say we are no longer an isolated island and that we are part of the overall European Community. What has happened in the European Community? How have our Government behaved in the European Community? Under the Social Charter we will have to abolish discrimination in the social area, yet, Ireland together with Mrs. Thatcher's Britain — I refer to her rather than Mr. Major because most of these discussions took place when she was Prime Minister — have been accused of being the two countries regularly opposed to the introduction of real social standards in Europe. As a result the people who are dependent on the social services have been discriminated against because we did not have the courage to face up to the problem. This has been scientifically investigated and it has been proved beyond doubt that this country reneged on the social charter and did not do what it should have done in that area.

Deputy Wyse referred to the growth of the National Front and the rise of right wing groups throughout Europe. A Member of the Oireachtas, in recent times, would do credit to Jean-Marie Le Pen or any other extreme right wing group in this attitude towards the hippies and social legislation. It is very easy to attack people because they do not have anybody to fight for them. It is discriminatory when a Member of the Oireachtas says that certain people are exploiting the system because they wear their hair long and may be a bit unkempt in their appearance.

How many itinerant children go to a second level school? How many of them reach third level education? How many of them are in insured employment? Very few. It is time the Government took responsibility for solving this very serious problem and relieved the voluntary organisations in this regard. I am not suggesting that people in voluntary organisations are not qualified but we need people to apply themselves professionally to the problem which seems to be growing annually. I was chairman of an itinerant settlement committee in Cork Corporation and we were within a very short distance of resolving the itinerant problem, particularly in the provision of houses. Of course, that is only the beginning. However, due to the upheaval in Northern Ireland, itinerant families moved to the South and suddenly the problem seemed to get out of hand. There is a need to take a fresh look at this area of discrimination. I do not know whether total integration is the proper solution to the so-called itinerant problem. Are halting sites the answer? I appreciate that there is a 100 per cent grant available to any local authority who takes it on themselves to provide these facilities for itinerants but there is a need for greater involvement by the Government and their agencies in this regard instead of leaving it to the voluntary bodies who are working against tremendous odds. If we do not resolve it it will get worse. It may be convenient to ignore it but it will not go away.

Some years ago a directive was sent to local authorities telling them that a quota of disabled persons should be recruited by each local authority. I wonder how many local authorities have responded to this directive. I would imagine very few because I have failed dismally in any attempt I made to secure employment for a disabled person. Local authorities told me that, due to cutbacks, they cannot afford to employ disabled people. However, that is an attack on the weaker section of the community. They also say that they do not have the facilities to accommodate disabled workers. It would not do to put a disabled person beside an able bodied person in case he became a burden on him; that seems to be the approach. In a caring society this is an area which must be addressed. Some people will live out their lives totally dependent on their next of kin, if they are fortunate enough to have families to care for them. We cannot give them the dignity they deserve unless we provide the facilities for them. This area of discrimination is largely ignored.

Are our elderly people being discriminated against? I would say that, very definitely, they are. I am tempted to say that we have a policy of creeping euthanasia inasmuch as we do not provide sufficient hospital spaces for our elderly citizens. We are keeping people alive longer yet the State does not provide hospital accommodation for people needing long term care. We could have the awful situation of a mother who is incontinent forced to leave hospital and go home to live with her two bachelor sons. She would be regarded as taking a bed from someone younger than her who might have a better chance of survival. Is that not discriminatory? Where is the equality in that case? It is not good enough to treat all the children of our nation equally, we will have to pay attention to what we are doing to our senior citizens. They are in a very disadvantaged position at present and there is no way they can be accommodated. Until such time as we are prepared to do something positive about this, old people will end their days in utter misery.

At present some employers are taking advantage of the recession as many employees have a take home pay of £90 per week. The Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, referred to the number of women who are exploited in the workplace. Married women in the 40 age bracket are recognised as being the most exploited of all. The reason is that they are vulnerable and are unfairly taken advantage of. If we introduced a statutory minimum wage, as I said in my opening remarks, it would alleviate that problem. A fixed sum per hour in respect of a particular job would solve the problem.

There is also discrimination in education. We were told that the cutback in ESF grants is to permit a greater distribution of the available funds to those who most deserve them. Maybe the proposal was well-intentioned but the fact is that we are now discriminating against people who, for the first time, have broken out of the poverty trap by virtue of the fact that they had access to third level education. As a chairman of a vocational education committee I am very conscious of what is happening. In many cases the eldest child in a family would be the first to achieve a place in third level education. What is now happening is that the second and maybe the third child will not have that opportunity. It means that we take one step forward and two steps back. That is not the correct way to do it. Are we satisfied that there is positive discrimination in favour of the underprivileged in all third level institutions? There are factors, apart from points, which should be taken into account when an assessment is being made for entry to universities and regional technical colleges. We would eliminate discrimination by, in effect, a form of reverse discrimination of ensuring that there are sufficient places for the underprivileged and for those whose family income is such that they could not afford to send their children to further education. What is happening in that regard is very disturbing.

In regard to advertising, why does the female form seem to sell more articles than the male form? Fortunately, there is a marked decline in the exploitation of women in this area but it is still not enough. The practice of draping a graceful woman over the bonnet of a car to sell more models is archaic. That practice has to be stamped out once and for all.

One of the disturbing aspects of the comments of Government spokespersons is their emphasis on the legal mechanisms necessary to implement the Labour Party Bill. We accept that there are bound to be problems but when that is measured against the hardship imposed on people as a result of inequality, it is a very small technical detail. How can one measure human suffering against the smooth running of an administration? We must put the emphasis on the human being who is affected by the law as it stands.

I appreciate that the Minister for Labour, Deputy Cowen, has not been in office very long and that it is not possible for him to eliminate all the problems in a matter of weeks. I welcome this commitment to tackling these problems. But some of Deputy Tom Kitt's comments were not helpful. Having listened to Deputy Kitt describe what he did last week as Minister of State, one would think he was God's gift to women. Truthfully, some of what he said was quite disturbing and I wonder if he is living in the real world. Deputy Kitt outlined his involvement with the various committees and the Employment Equality Agency. His smarmy response to Deputy Taylor's contribution offered no hope.

I was somewhat annoyed and disappointed by some of Deputy Cowen's remarks because I know he is capable of more than this. He referred to chainsaw confetti and salami techniques but there is no place for such cliches in a serious debate such as this.

The Deputy seems so much at home with his thoughts that in the opinion of the Chair he could speak for an hour. Lest the Deputy incurs the disappointment of his colleagues——

Lest I incur the wrath of the Chair——

——may I remind him that his colleague wishes to speak.

This is a very serious debate. I hope the new Minister and his new Minister of State will adopt a new approach and cast aside the reservations their predecessors had in coming to grips with this problem. When opening this debate on behalf of the Labour Party, Deputy Taylor said he was prepared to accept amendments. There is nothing to prevent any Member putting forward an amendment for consideration. That is the way to tackle the Bill.

Before I hand over to my colleague Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan, may I thank the Chair for his indulgence.

I hate to interrupt my colleague, Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan, in full flight. He was doing a very good job. I detected that Members on the Government benches welcomed this Bill although some problems were highlighted. Naturally we expected some criticism of it, that is par for the course. I did not detect any animosity to the Bill except from one or two Deputies.

Deputy Taylor made a generous gesture to the Government parties when he suggested that Committee Stage be staggered in order to get the Bill right. The people who criticise the Bill should be given the opportunity to table amendments on Committee Stage. We should examine them with a view to taking them on board. We should all work together.

This legislation is very necessary. Some people refer to this as a catchall measure. It is a comprehensive Bill which covers discrimination in employment, the Labour Court, disposal or management of premises, goods and facility services, education and a wide range of activities. Some people believe we are doing all right as we are. They believe equality can be doled out year by year, that if we take one step this year we could go a step further next year. However, that is not what equality is about. Equality is a right of people, groups and communities. We make no apologies for introducing this so-called catchall Bill. Very careful thought was given to this comprehensive legislation. Many people were involved in preparing what we consider very necessary legislation.

From my experience of working on the factory floor I know that discrimination is practised widely despite the legislation enacted by this House. I should like to point out, at a time when we are discussing the Social Welfare Bill that the greatest discrimination is against women who work outside the house. If a married women earns more than £55, even £1 over the £55 limit, her husband will lose his allowance for a dependant. The woman will have to give up the job if her husband is to retain the £37 allowance. That is discrimination. The allowance should operate on a sliding scale. For example, if the woman earns £56 the allowance could be reduced by £1 to £36. This would be an equitable way of dealing with the problem. It is discriminatory if the husband loses the total allowance when his wife goes over the limit.

Many Deputies dwelt, and rightly so, on discrimination in the workplace. Although legislation was introduced to tackle this problem, there is a great deal of discrimination in the workplace.

We should also consider the discriminatory practices against young people. For example, a young person is discriminated against when he or she tries to get car insurance. Young people under a certain age will not get car insurance. When we discussed this problem at a meeting of Cork Corporation last night there was unanimity that the Minister should act immediately to counteract this blatant discrimination against people on the grounds of age. The insurance companies have not produced the statistics to show that people under a certain age are more likely to have an accident. If a young person manages to get a job where he needs to drive a car he is discriminated against immediately if he or she is under the age the insurance companies have set, be it under 25 or under 23. Tomorrow it could be under 30 years of age.

My colleague touched on the problems of the handicapped. No later than three weeks ago Members were shamed by the fact that a young mother had to go to the High Court to get an injunction so that her severely handicapped child would receive an education, something to which every child is entitled. We talk about treating all the children of the nation equally but that is the most abused phrase I know of in our Constitution. It is time we legislated to outlaw discrimination.

We have asked for support in principle for this comprehensive Labour Party Bill. All parties will have an opportunity to table amendments on Committee Stage and improve on the Bill. I appeal to the Government parties to accept the Bill in principle.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn