Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 27 Feb 1997

Vol. 475 No. 6

Equal Status Bill, 1997: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Equal Status Bill will, for the first time, give protection against discrimination outside the context of employment. It deals with discrimination on the grounds of gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race, colour, nationality, national or ethnic origin and membership of the travelling community, and gives those who are discriminated against a statutory means of redress. It has a comprehensive scope covering provision of personal property and services, disposal of land and accommodation, education, partnerships and registered clubs.

I am pleased and honoured to introduce this important measure. As Deputies may recall, in 1992 I had the privilege of moving the Second Stage of my party's Equal Status Bill. Today's Bill parallels and complements the Employment Equality Bill which prohibits discrimination on similar grounds in the workplace. This is a far-reaching and significant Bill which has the potential to improve the lives of many people.

This Bill is about equality and rights. It is based on the principle that everyone has an equal right to participate in our society. Nobody should be denied access to services, facilities or amenities simply because of their skin colour, disability or membership of the travelling community. Everyone, male or female, white or black, young or old, with or without a disability, should be seen as being of equal worth and entitlement. Each person should be treated on his or her own merits and not on the basis of a prejudice or stereotype. We are all entitled not to be the victims of unjust discrimination.

The primary reason for introducing this Bill is to provide protection against discrimination for those who have up to now had no statutory means of redress. We cannot afford to be complacent about the degree of equality and tolerance in our community. It cannot be denied that, for too many people, discrimination has been, and continues to be, an unpalatable reality. Fr. Micheál MacGréil's recent book Prejudice in Ireland Revisited records a growing level of social prejudice against travellers, together with marked prejudice against and intolerance of certain religious groups, homosexuals and persons with certain disabilities, among others. Such negative and hostile attitudes can and do manifest themselves in various forms of discrimination. I have received numerous letters describing the stress, embarrassment, frustration and sense of injustice experienced by victims of discrimination. There is currently no legal redress for the woman who cannot become a member of a local golf club simply because she is a woman, the person who is refused entry to a pub because he or she uses a wheelchair or the black person who is not given a flat simply because of his or her skin colour. Such people want more than sympathy; they want the protection of the law.

In the absence of such legislation, we are unable to ratify the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This convention has now been ratified by 155 countries, including all of our EU partners. The enactment of the Equal Status Bill is also necessary to enable us lift a reservation on the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Legislation on the lines of this Bill is, in various forms, commonplace elsewhere in the EU and in many other democracies.

There is now widespread acceptance of the principle of equal status legislation. The enactment of an Equal Status Bill has been a fundamental element of the programmes of successive Governments. It has been endorsed by the social partners in both the Programme for Competitiveness and Work and Partnership 2000. Recommendations relating to anti-discrimination legislation were contained in the Reports of the Second Commission on the Status of Women, the Task Force on the Travelling Community and the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities.

As I indicated, while anti-discrimination legislation of this type is new to Ireland, it has existed in many other countries for years. In preparing this Bill, I and my officials have drawn on the provisions of other countries, particularly the common law jurisdictions such as the UK, Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Examination and comparison of the legislation of other countries and detailed discussion with those involved in the implementation of such legislation has been an important aspect of the Bill's development.

It is interesting to note that when similar legislation was introduced in other countries there were fears of damage to business or fraudulent claims, similar to those which have been expressed about the present Bill. Such fears were not realised, and anti-discrimination legislation works well and is accepted as a normal feature of life in other jurisdictions.

The preparation of the Bill has also involved wide-ranging consultations with interested parties. From the outset I have taken the view that the views and proposals of all interested parties should be sought. In 1993 I circulated a consultative document to over 80 persons and groups. In the period since then I have had discussions with, and received submissions from, numerous interest groups. Some groups have had discussions on a number of occasions with officials of my Department. The groups which have made representations about this legislation have been extremely diverse. I have heard the views of those representative of vintners, traveller interests, retailers, the insurance industry, gays and lesbians, people with disabilities, racial minorities, property owners and those pressing for greater equality for women in golf, among many others. All submissions received have been carefully examined in the preparation of the legislation. I am also prepared to consider amendments put forward by Deputies which might be an improvement on what is currently in the Bill.

Before I go into the provisions of the Bill, I would like to make some general points about what it does and does not do. There has been much apprehension and considerable misunderstanding about the effect of the Bill on publicans and other commercial interests. I want to make it clear that the Bill will outlaw discrimination on specified grounds only. It will not require traders to give open access to their premises. It will not prevent business people, in the ordinary day to day running of their business, from refusing service to someone because of misbehaviour, security concerns, inappropriate dress and so on. It will not give any protection whatsoever to troublemakers or anti-social elements.

In response to the concerns expressed by publicans and other traders, I invited proposals for safeguards to be included in the Bill which would meet such concerns. A number of such proposals were made and, having carefully considered them, I have included important safeguards in the Bill which will meet these concerns without in any way diluting the Bill's basic objectives. While I will cover these at a later stage, I would draw Deputies' attention in particular to sections 16 and 55 of the Bill.

Part I is essentially concerned with defining terms used in the Bill. Deputies may wish to note the broad definition of disability in section 2. There is also a comprehensive definition of "services", which includes services and facilities of any nature, including access to and use of any place, banking or insurance services, facilities for entertainment, recreation or refreshment, cultural activities, transport or travel and professional or trade services. It does not include services provided under a contract of service, services which are not generally available to the public or services covered by the Employment Equality Bill.

The key element of this part is section 3, which sets out what is meant by discrimination. Discrimination occurs where, on discriminatory grounds that existed, exist, are believed to exist or are considered likely to come into existence, a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been, or would be treated. It also occurs where an organisation — a gay and lesbian society, for example — is treated less favourably because of the nature of its membership, or where a person is treated less favourably because of his or her association with a person or organisation to whom the discriminatory grounds apply. A further form of discrimination occurs where a requirement to comply with a condition has a disproportionately adverse effect on a particular category of person and this requirement cannot be justified as being reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. This form of discrimination is commonly known as "indirect discrimination" although the term does not appear in the current Bill.

The discriminatory grounds are gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race — covering race, colour, nationality or national or ethnic origin — and membership of the travelling community. Victimisation of people because of their involvement in proceedings under this Bill is also treated as a discriminatory ground. I cannot emphasise too strongly that the Bill deals with discrimination on these grounds alone and does not affect differences of treatment based on other grounds.

It is recognised that, in some limited circumstances, it would be impractical or extremely difficult to meet the needs of persons with a disability. For this reason the concept of "undue difficulty" is introduced in section 4. Members will note that, in general, the Bill exempts different treatment of a person with a disability where the needs of such a person could not be met without undue difficulty. Whether undue difficulty arises will depend on a number of factors, including whether catering for a person with a disability would entail difficulty, disruption or cost which is excessive by reference to the benefits accruing to all concerned. As Deputies will be aware, I recently put forward an amendment to the Employment Equality Bill to provide for the concept of reasonable accommodation and I will consider making a similar amendment to this Bill on Committee Stage.

Part II deals with discrimination in particular areas. Discrimination in the provision of personal property and services is prohibited under section 5. It will be noted that discrimination in this area includes the refusal of access to a person with a disability who has the accompanying assistance of a wheelchair, guide-dog or person. There are a number of exceptions for difference of treatment in certain circumstances in particular areas, such as insurance, sporting events and entertainment. Among these exclusions are one-time dispositions other than in the course of a business or trade — for example, a private sale of a car. Reasonable differences of treatment in the area of insurance and finance based on actuarial or similar data are exempt. Examples of this would be the different treatment of persons under 25 in relation to motor insurance and the different treatment of persons on age grounds in relation to life assurance. Differences of treatment of persons on the grounds of gender, age, disability, nationality or national origin are permissible in respect of sporting facilities and events. Thus, for example, the Bill recognises and allows for different events such as women's or men's football teams, under-21 football teams or games for people with a disability. As these examples show, the various exceptions reflect what most people would regard as acceptable and necessary differences of treatment. Different treatment of a person with a disability is not regarded as discrimination where undue difficulty arises, or where the disability is such that it reasonably jeopardises that person's ability to comply with relevant conditions.

Discrimination in land dispositions and provision of accommodation is also prohibited, subject again to a number of exclusions. Among the exemptions are disposals by will or gift, small premises where the accommodation provider continues to live on the premises, accomodation intended for use by persons of one gender, refuges and nursing homes, and different treatment of persons with a disability where undue difficulty arises.

Educational establishments may not discriminate against students in matters such as admission or access to courses. A number of exemptions are provided for, the main one being to allow for single gender schools.

Section 8 prohibits discrimination of firms of partners, etc., in relation to the admission of partners or members, the status of partners or members and expulsion or other sanctions. It will be permissible to refuse admission as a partner or member to a person with a disability where undue difficulty arises. Also exempted is the imposition of reasonable terms or conditions on persons whose age or disability restricts their capacity to function as a partner or member or necessitates special arrangements. Deputies may wish to note that the section on partnerships has been included — in so far as gender and marital status is concerned — on foot of an EU Directive, the full title of which I will not recite, but which is commonly referred to as the Directive on Self-Employed Activity 86/613/EEC. Similar provisions are to be found in anti-discrimination legislation in other jurisdictions.

The approach taken in regard to discriminating clubs differs from that taken in other areas. The unjustified exclusion of women from equal participation in golf clubs and similar sporting or recreational clubs was highlighted by the Second Commission on the Status of Women, which recommended legislative measures to deal with this. I have no doubt that this is an issue on which many women, and indeed men, feel very strongly. While the number of discriminating clubs may be decreasing, unequal treatment continues to exist and I do not believe equality in this area will be achieved by education and persuasion alone. The Bill does not prohibit discrimination by clubs against members or potential members. Rather it seeks to discourage such discrimination by allowing a complainant to apply for a determination from the District Court that a registered club — one which can sell intoxicating liquor — is a discriminating club. If the club is determined by the District Court to be a discriminating club, it would not be entitled to renew its certificate of registration, and would not be entitled to public funds or to the use of publicly owned recreational facilities until it had rectified the situation. However, I will provide a six months' lead-in time for this section, I hope clubs will put their houses in order voluntarily and that this section will not have to be used.

A number of exemptions are provided in section 10 in relation to registered clubs. Clubs are not regarded as discriminating merely because they cater for persons of a particular religion, age, nationality or ethnic origin. It is also permissible for a club to provide separate, but equivalent, facilities for particular age groups or different sexes in certain circumstances. Relevant and reasonably justifiable differences of treatment in relation to sporting facilities or events based on gender, age, disability, nationality or national origin are permissible. Certain positive action measures designed to promote greater equality are also exempted. In section 12, sexual harassment or harassment based on any of the discriminatory grounds is prohibited in the areas covered by the Bill. A person in authority in an educational establishment, an organisation or club or a partnership, a person providing services or accommodation or disposing of personal property or land may not sexually harass or harass a student, member, customer etc. Furthermore, a person who is responsible for the operation of an education establishment or a place at which goods, services or accommodation facilities are offered to the public may not allow a student, customer etc., to suffer sexual harassment or harassment there. I intend to give further consideration to the provisions on sexual harassment to provide for consistency with the corresponding provisions in the Employment Equality Bill.

Sexual harassment is defined as an unwelcome act of physical intimacy, an unwelcome request for sexual favours or an unwelcome act or conduct with sexual connotations. Harassment is defined as an offensive, humiliating or intimidating act or conduct based on any of the discriminatory grounds. Section 13 prohibits any form of advertising which indicates an intention to discriminate, to sexually harass or to harass. Deputies will note the comprehensive definition of "advertisement" which includes every form of advertisement, whether in a newspaper or any other publication, on television or radio or by display of a notice or other means.

I have already mentioned some of the specific exemptions which apply to particular areas. There are also some exemptions of general application in sections 15 and 17. For example, actions which are required to be done by or under statute, court order or EU law are exempt, as are bona fide positive action measures. A reasonable preferntial charge for persons together with their children, married couples, persons in a specific age group or persons with a disability is permissible. Treating a person who has a disability differently to prevent that person causing harm is acceptable, as is differential treatment in the exercise of clinical judgment.

Section 16 contains some important safeguards. The safeguard in subsection (1) makes it clear that a service provider or similar person is not required to serve a customer if the service provider has reasonable grounds other than discriminatory grounds for the belief that provision of the service would create a substantial risk of criminal or disorderly conduct or behaviour or cause damage to property. Subsection (2) also provides that action taken in good faith for the sole purpose of complying with the Licensing Acts is not discrimination. These safeguards are intended to meet the legitimate concerns of vintners and other traders, without interfering with the Bill's central thrust of outlawing discrimination.

I regard sections 18 to 20 as a particularly important aspect of the Bill. They make special provisions for the needs of persons with a disability in the area of transport accessibility and convenience in using public streets and pavements. They provide for regulations requiring that buses and trains, and bus and train stations, be readily accessible to persons with disabilities. In addition, road authorities must provide kerb ramps or similar features when constructing or altering public paths. The Report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities laid particular emphasis on the rights of persons with a disability to the same freedom that enables able-bodied people to get out and about. The inclusion of these provisions recognises the importance of transport and ease of mobility in the lives of people with disabilities.

I will now turn to the enforcement provisions under Part III. Claims of discrimination or harassment may be referred to the Director of Equality Investigations, an independent official operating under the Department of Equality and Law Reform. The Director of Equality Investigations, assisted by his or her staff, will have the power to investigate, mediate or make decisions on such claims. This office will provide a simple, inexpensive and speedy means of redress for victims of discrimination. I have already said the decision on whether a club is a discriminating club is a matter for the District Court and I would emphasise that the Director of Equality Investigations will have no function in the matter of discriminating clubs.

Section 21 provides that claims referred to the Director of Equality Investigations will, in general, be treated as if they were claims of discrimination under Part V of the Employment Equality Bill. Part V of that Bill deals with enforcement, including the referral of claims to the Director of Equality Investigations, procedures to be followed in investigating claims, mediation, decisions of the director and enforcement of decisions. It provides that the Director of Equality Investigations may award compensation or order that the respondent take a specified course of action.

It should be noted, however, that unlike employment cases, the maximum amount of compensation that may be awarded in equal status cases will be £5,000, the limit for a civil case in contract in the District Court. A further difference between the two Bills is that a claim of discrimination under this Bill must be preceded by an initial notification to the respondent within two months of the alleged act of discrimination. The Director of Equality Investigations may dismiss a complaint if the complainant does not have sufficient interest in the claim or the claim has been made in bad faith, or is frivolous, vexatious or trivial. A decision of the Director of Equality Investigations may be appealed to the Circuit Court within 42 days.

The Equality Authority will have power under section 22 to refer certain cases to the director. Such cases could involve discrimination against a group of persons or a situation where the person concerned is not in a position to bring a case. The Authority may also refer cases involving prohibited advertising, procurement of discrimination or failure to provide kerb ramps or to comply with regulations on transport accessibility. It will also have the power to seek injunctions.

Part IV provides for a restructured Equality Authority, with an extended remit covering both employment and non-employment areas. The Equality Authority, currently known as the Employment Equality Agency but renamed under the Employment Equality Bill, will have a new composition to reflect its altered mandate. It will have 12 members, including a chairperson, of which at least five will be women and atleast five men. Of the ordinary members, two will be nominated by employer organisations and two by employee organisations. The remainder of the ordinary members, who I will appoint, will be persons with knowledge or experience of matters relevant to the functions of the Authority.

The general functions of the Authority, as outlined in section 35, include: working towards the elimination of discrimination; promotion of equality of opportunity in matters relating to this Bill or the Employment Equality Bill; and review, and proposals for amendment, of the Equal Status Bill, the Employment Equality Bill and the equal treatment aspects of the Pensions Act, 1990. The Authority is also given specific functions under various provisions of both Bills.

The Authority is given a number of instruments with which to pursue its functions. It may undertake research and information activities and charge for these. It may also conduct investigations. If, arising from an investigation, the Authority finds a person is discriminating or is otherwise in breach of either the Employment Equality Bill or the Equal Status Bill, it may serve a non-discrimination notice requiring the person to take remedial action. The High Court or the Circuit Court may, on the motion of the Authority, grant an injunction for failure to comply with a non-discrimination notice.

Another important feature of the Authority's remit is that it may give assistance in cases under both Bills where an important matter of principle is involved or where it would not be reasonable to expect the person concerned to present the case adequately without assistance. It should be noted that assistance may be given by the Authority not only in relation to references to the Director of Equality Investigations, the Labour Court or the District Court, as the case may be, but in relation to any proceedings arising from such references. Also noteworthy is the Authority's power to prepare codes of practice aimed at the elimination of discrimination or the promotion of equality. Following my approval, such codes are admissible as evidence in a court.

Part V contains various general provisions. I draw attention to section 55, which provides that parties to an investigation by the Director of Equality Investigations, witnesses before the Director or the Authority, or persons required to supply information to the director or Authority will have the same immunities and privileges as a witness before the High Court. This section will allay concerns that a person involved in proceedings under this legislation might find themselves sued for defamation. Section 57 is also important as it will establish an amalgamated redress mechanism for the Employment Equality Bill and this Bill. It provides for the establishment of the office of Director of Equality Investigations under the aegis of the Department of Equality and Law Reform.

Today's Bill is part of a wide-ranging programme of measures aimed at the promotion of greater equality and the full participation of all groups in economic, social and cultural life. It is a fundamental element of my Department's programme, and together with the companion Employment Equality Bill will give Ireland a comprehensive anti-discrimination code. It is a measure which has been a long time in gestation. This Bill breaks new ground and covers a variety of categories and range of areas. Its preparation has necessarily been a complex and difficult task.

The equal status legislation will have a profound impact on society. I would hope not to see a multitude of cases under this legislation, but hope the existence of such legislation will inhibit would-be discriminators and reduce the incidence of discrimination. While I recognise that legislation alone cannot change attitudes, I hope that in time discrimination against persons simply because of factors such as their race, sexual orientation, disability or gender would become socially, as well as legally, unacceptable. The activities of the Equality Authority in its expanded role will contribute also to this outcome. The Equal Status Bill is a significant step towards a society of greater equality, mutual respect and tolerance. I look forward to an interesting and constructive debate on this important legislation.

I wish to comment on the Minister's recent announcement that he will retire from the Dáil at the forthcoming election. None of us has any guarantee of being returned for a further term. That is in the gift of the electorate, which has demonstrated its volatility over the years. However, the Minister would have every reason to assume that this volatility would not have affected him. His decision arose from calm deliberation, from which he concluded that he had reached the age of retirement from the Dáil and his talents will be very usefully employed elsewhere. Since entering this House I have found the Minister to be a gentleman in every sense of the word and most of his recent work has been on what many regard as the most basic rights of citizens. Therefore, it is fitting that this Bill will probably be the last one he brings before the House. I hope his life after politics is a fruitful and happy one.

This Bill is to be welcomed and Fianna Fáil will not oppose it on Second Stage. It has been introduced some weeks before it was intended, which is probably an indication that the life of this Dáil is rapidly coming to an end. That speedy arrival means that I and other Deputies have not had time to examine its details but the Minister has suggested he will take that into consideration. I have seen enough of the Bill to convince me that it covers a wide range of matters. It is a further stage in a process of development that has been ongoing for many years and I am glad that Fianna Fáil has produced a great deal of the legislation dealing with this area.

Shortcomings in law are recognised in time and with experience. The present measure will also need amendment in the future as further types of discrimination emerge. In the meantime, we will offer opinions on how the Bill could be improved and no doubt the Minister will accept them in the spirit in which they are offered.

Since the disabled comprise probably the most vulnerable group in our society, I begin by referring to those sections of the Bill which deal with that area. Section 5 (2) deals with the unreasonable refusal to admit disabled persons together with the accompanying assistance of a person, animal, wheelchair or other apparatus necessary to alleviate the effects of the disability. This refusal is described as constituting discrimination. However, subsection (3) (h) describes one of the exemptions as refering to sporting events and entertainment. I hope this subsection will not be used as justification by some promoters of sport or other entertainments for excluding people in wheelchairs, for example. We should have long since reached the stage where places such as football grounds or theatres can be reasonably expected to have wheelchair facilities.

On the other hand, if the subsection means active participation in the sport or entertainment, the exemption would be reasonable. The wording should clearly state this if it is the case.

Section 18 deals with accessibility to public transport for disabled persons. It gives the Minister power, with the agreement of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, to make regulations requiring that road or rail passenger vehicles that are to be put into use for the first time should be equipped so that disabled persons can use those vehicles. There should be no undue delay by the Minister in having the appropriate regulations drawn up. The obvious difficulty with buses is that it would be unreasonable to expect all of them to be so equipped, but there should be no such difficulty with trains.

Section 19 is similar to the previous section except that it refers to bus and train stations. There is no excuse for any such place to be without the necessary facilities and this is all the more true in that these centres are usually in the care of bodies that receive massive public funding subventions.

Section 20 places an obligation on road authorities to provide or ensure the provisions of sloped areas, ramps, dish kerbs, etc., at appropriate places such as pedestrian crossings or intersections used by pedestrains so that the mobility of disabled persons can be facilitated. Any visitor from outer space who read these words would probably nod in approval of this assurance that disabled people are to enjoy the same safe and unhindered progress the rest of society takes for granted. The snag is that there are countless crossings where an Olympic sprinter would risk life and limb trying to get to the other side. That is the kind of equal status that no disabled person would regard as an advantage. The Minister is not responsible for that state of affairs as it is a matter for the Minister for the Environment. It highlights the fact that in this era of ever-increasing motor transport, the pedestrian has joined the list of endangered species and should be protected against discrimination.

I spoke on the Labour Party's Private Member's Equal Status Bill on 25 March 1992 and referred to discrimination against disabled persons in the matter of access to buildings. I mentioned the failure to provide these people with appropriate facilities that would enable them to use the services provided in public service buildings such as banks, building societies, hotels, etc. I pointed out in that debate that a former Minister for the Environment, Deputy O'Hanlon, had brought in building regulations due to come into force in June 1992. Those proposed regulations dealt comprehensively with the matters I referred to but only related to new buildings, and many existing buildings leave a lot to be desired.

I then told the House that a newspaper reporter in my home town had accompanied two people in wheelchairs on a tour of public buildings. The results in some cases were appalling. The worst offenders were some of the main banks where the person in the wheelchair could not reach the cash dispensing machines and did not have easy access to the building. Even if he was carried in, he could not reach a counter to transact his business in private. These buildings were owned by wealthy institutions. Four years later, some banks have improved their facilities but others do not have wheelchair access and I doubt any of them have a portion of their counters low enough for people in wheelchairs to transact their business properly. It is a disgrace that wealthy institutions treat the disabled in such a manner. It would be interesting if a detailed national survey of banks was carried out to establish the position generally.

Regarding the disabled, I draw the Minister's attention to section 32 which gives the equality Authority the power to appoint advisory committees as it thinks fit to advise it on matters relating to its functions. In view of the points I made earlier and the special vulnerability of such people, I urge the Minister to insert a requirement that a committee should be constituted to deal specifically with the disabled. Its membership should include representatives of the various groups which deal with different disabilities, physical, psychiatric and others.

Another matter has concerned me for some time, particularly in the last week, and section 5 (3) (e) makes it particularly relevant. It states that insurance companies are exempt from what constitutes discrimination in respect of:

differences in the treatment of persons in relation to annuities, pensions, insurance policies or any other matters related to the assessment of risk where the treatment—

(i) is effected by reference to—

(I) actuarial or statistical data obtained from a source on which it is reasonable to rely, or

(II) other relevant underwriting or commercial factors,

This point relates to discrimination by insurance companies against persons who have had genetic tests which indicate there is a predisposition to certain diseases. The discrimination would amount to either excluding the person from insurance or loading the premium to such an extent that it would be unaffordable in many cases. I describe it as an uninsurable underclass.

Community rating similar to that demanded in health insurance is required. It must be remembered that the fact that genetic tests indicate a certain predisposition does not mean a person will inevitably suffer a particular disease. It would not surprise me if genetic science would also make it appear that a person is liable to become a criminal as a result of a gene which he or she has in common with an offending ancestor and that such a person should not, therefore, be trusted by potential employers. George Orwell's most horrendous nightmares could become a reality unless we as legislators are determined to prevent it.

On 19 February I said — and I questioned the Minister on the matter — that genetic engineering is much further advanced than the public realises. Huge ethical questions will arise as a result of scientific advancements about which we know little. It is even more eerie that such scientific research is ongoing in Britain apparently without the knowledge of the British Government, or at least it is not being discussed in the House of Commons. We have a right to know what research is being carried out, particularly in relation to our genetic make-up. As a result of leaked information from the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, it is possible that we will be able to reproduce humans who paid to have their bodies put into deep freeze. It is only the method of freezing which is now critical, according to geneticist, Dr. Patrick Dixon.

The Edinburgh scientists produced what is apparently an exact copy of an adult sheep by taking chromosomal material from the nucleus of one cell and placing it in an unfertilised egg from which the original nuclear chromosomes were removed. In effect, this means that scientific research in this area is at such an advanced stage that it is time for a major discussion on the subject in terms of the current position and where we want to go.

On 19 February the Minister stated that the current Bill deals effectively with the problem of discrimination in a number of groups. He said that what has already happened in Britain and the United States would be outlawed in Ireland. However, the subsection I mentioned appears to contradict that assertion. What is described as "actuarial or statistical data obtained from a source on which it is reasonable to rely" has been commonly used for many years by insurance companies in determining what customers they will insure or what loading they will apply to their premia. The information is complied from such apparently offhand questions as at what age one's parents died and from what they died. The development of modern tests will render this type of questioning unnecessary and, if last week's revelations in Britain are anything to go by, these questions will be replaced by mandatory disclosure of the results of any genetic tests which have been carried out. The next obvious step is a requirement for tests to be carried out in all cases.

The Sunday Tribune quoted a spokesperson for the Irish Insurance Federation as saying that while the insurance industry has no plans at present to follow its UK counterparts, it could not rule out the possibility that companies in the future would seek details of any genetic tests subscribers had undergone. The same report stated that there are already fears in the UK, following last week's ruling by the British Association of Insurers, that some subscribers who are currently healthy could face major premium increases or even a refusal of cover based on the results of such tests. These are what I describe as the horrendous implications of what is happening and the Bill does not include anything sufficiently strong to cover them.

As a member of the medical profession, I point out to the insurance industry that genetic testing should not be regarded as a method of excluding what they would regard as bad risks but as something which would persuade the recipients of tests of the wisdom of leading a more healthy lifestyle. What will be the attitude of British insurers who operate in Ireland? Will they apply the same sanctions here as in Britain? The Minister would be well advised not to rely on the wording on which he appears to rely to deal with this matter. Unless the Minister indicates that he does not intend to do so, I shall seek legal advice on the type of amendment necessary to insert a specific prohibition on the use of such genetic tests for the reasons I outlined. I have no difficulty with a company requiring a potential subscriber to undergo tests to determine his or her current state of health. However, the idea of obliging a subscriber to disclose information about what may or may not happen in the future is most objectionable. The Bill should leave no doubt that such practices will not be tolerated in Ireland. In New York, California and 11 other US states there is a prohibition on the Statute Book. They do not rely on wording which could be regarded as vague or imprecise. The argument against prohibition is influenced by a desire among insurers to push their massive profits even higher. They have sufficient methods of maintaining their profits at a reasonable level without resorting to this type of callous discrimination.

A Government source was quoted in The Irish Times as saying the Bill switches the onus to the insurance provider who has to justify discrimination with facts and figures. It may be possible to justify it with facts but not by quoting figures for the reasons I have given. It is well known that one can prove almost anything one wishes by a selective use of statistics. About 15 or 16 years ago some statistician revealed that, from an insurance point of view, women drivers were a much safer bet than men. The result was cheaper premiums for the ladies. Hibernian Insurance has informed us that, having looked at its statistics again, it has decided that the men are not so bad after all. Consequently, it will no longer charge men more. I trust this means its male customers will be notified of a drop in their premiums or could it be that women will have theirs increased? As the saying goes, “watch this space”.

When the Bill was mooted last year most of the publicity concentrated on how it would deal with the refusal by many hotels and publicans to serve members of the travelling community. It was assumed by some that a proprietor would not be allowed to refuse admission without having the wisdom of a Supreme Court judge at his or her fingertips. Bearing in mind that the Bill had not been published the alarm signals were almost horrific. A spokesperson for the Small Firms Association said that it would sound the deathknell for many small businesses. Happily, it appears the Bill has dealt with this matter satisfactorily as it has been welcomed by the Irish Traveller Movement and other concerned groups.

This is a matter that cannot be solved by legislation which cannot be as precise as one would wish. A judgment as to whether a person was deliberately engaged in discrimination would involve trying to read that person's mind at the time. The Bill, therefore, can only include words such as "reasonable" or "in good faith". In a perfect society legislation would not be necessary. We can only hope that, just as smoking in public places is now generally frowned upon, unreasonable treatment of any minority group will eventually be a matter for automatic disapproval by any observers who happen to be present.

Ever since the days of the caveman up to comparatively recent times the greatest measure of discrimination was dealt to women. In some parts of the world this has not changed in the slightest. Even in what we regard as the western world it is hard to believe that it was only in the recent past that the Suffragettes won for women something as basic as the right to vote. Down through the centuries too many men regarded their womenfolk as being intellectually inferior and their sole role in society was confined to rearing children, feeding and caring for their husbands and a variety of menial tasks, usually in the domestic area.

In Ireland, as late as the 1940s and 1950s, only the privileged few young women had the benefit of the kind of education we have today. Even for those who had the means to pursue a secondary education, it was widely assumed that young ladies were not endowed with the standard of intelligence that would absorb a subject such as honours mathematics or science but there was a revolution of which anyone with a drop of Fianna Fáil blood can feel justifiably proud. The floodgates of education were thrown open and every child was given the right to a secondary education regardless of means. It was soon demonstrated that there existed in the inner cities and rural Ireland a wealth of talent in boys and girls alike of which any nation would be proud.

The importance of this example of Fianna Fáil vision was eloquently stressed by none other than the Taoiseach as recently as 19 January in the Sunday Independent. His words are worth repeating:

One of the most important decisions taken this century in Ireland was the introduction of free second level education in the 1960s. That decision opened up higher education and job opportunities to thousands of people who are now the most productive members of the present day Irish workforce. Those of them who have emigrated have won a well positioned worldwide audience for Ireland that we would not have had without them. None of this would have happened but for the original decision to extend second level education back in the 1960s. This shows how important it is to think in a long-term sense.

The Taoiseach was right in more than one sense. That decision went a long way towards ending the type of discrimination which deprived a huge section of our citizens of their rightful place in the process of education. It also encouraged women to compete on a level playing pitch with men. We have only to look around us today to see how well they have succeeded in every profession that we would care to mention, including politics.

In spite of this there are still pockets of male chauvinism. This is reflected in the parts of the Bill that deal with gender equality. I am confident that those pockets of resistance will soon surrender and hope that the Bill will hasten that day. When total liberation is achieved I hope women will not object if some men feel the urge to describe them as the fair sex and occasionally behave towards them with a little old fashioned chivalry. I hope well placed courtesy will always have a place in society, not alone between men and women but also between men.

I cannot help commenting on a matter which has often puzzled me. Article 12 of the Constitution includes the words, "every citizen who has reached his 35th year of age is eligible for election to the office of President". Every subsequent reference to the President makes it clear that Éamon de Valera and his legal draftsmen never thought for one moment that this high office might one day be offered to a woman. I am glad no one had the temerity to mount a constitutional challenge to the incumbency of the present distinguished holder of the office but on the occasion of the next referendum we should avail of the opportunity to finally acknowledge that a women is entitled to be a citizen or even President.

My party has long since abandoned chauvinism but I was surprised to find that as recently as 1990 the Labour Party still insisted on holding on to some of the remnants of that discarded philosophy. In its Private Members'. Equal Status Bill of that year the section dealing with discrimination in education repeatedly described students as being of the male gender. Those offending words are not in this Bill. What happened in the interim? The Labour Party has enjoyed the privilege of serving a two year apprenticeship under the guidance of Fianna Fáil in Government and it would have picked up the occasional spark of wisdom.

Sections 9, 10 and 11 deal with registered clubs which may or may not be quilty of discrimination against a member or applicant for membership. Section 11 deals with sanctions that may be imposed if a club is found to be discriminating. There are three possible sanctions, including no grant or loan of public funds shall be made to the club, it shall not be provided with the use of publicly owned facilities intended for recreation and a certificate of registration permitting the sale of intoxicating drink will not be granted or renewed. What would be the position if the offending club was the recipient of substantial grants or loans from public funds? Should there not be a determination to recover those funds, especially if it persists in offending?

The enforcement of the law enshrined in this Bill is all important. The role of the Director of Investigations and his or her staff is vital. I hope every effort will be made to ensure their work is facilitated in every way, including appropriate staffing and financial support. The wording of section 21 (2) (a) is one example of what might be described as unhelpful. The subsection states that no investigation of a claim by the director shall be made unless the complainant has, within two months after the prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, notified the respondent in writing of the nature of the allegation. I have been reminded that especially in the case of any large licensed premises or entertainment complex, particularly in the large cities, the proprietor or staff acting for the proprietor could have had occasion to refuse admission or to eject scores, if not hundreds, of persons from the premises in a period of two months or in a week. I am told such proprietors might find it difficult to recall, with any degree of accuracy, any incidents notified to them two months after they allegedly occurred. The Minister might reconsider this section to see if it may be more feasible to reduce the two months to a more reasonable period. Otherwise the director or investigating staff might find their job more difficult than it should be.

This Bill is welcome. I congratulate the Minister and his staff for their work on it. It is much easier for me in Opposition to pick flaws in a Bill than it is to draft one. However, I hope the Minister will agree that it should not be too difficult to address most of the reservations I made. On further reflection and study of the Bill I may table amendments at a later Stage incorporating the proposals recently posted to us by the National Women's Council of Ireland.

On this historic day I pay tribute to the work of the Minister. We wondered if he would retire at the next election. I am surprised age is one of the reasons he gave for his decision. Undoubtedly he has been a hard working and assiduous Minister and has put a great deal of work into his portfolio in the past number of years in bringing difficult legislation through the House. I have always found him to be the most courteous and gentlemanly of men. The age of chivalry should not be dead. Courtesy between women and men, women and women and men and men is extremely important. In this House I have always found him, as I have found most of my male and female colleagues, to be unfailingly courteous.

On the divorce legislation and referendum, although we disagreed on the method employed by the Minister our objective was the same as his. He sought to get consensus on the issue and to avoid conflict. That was one of the reasons people decided on balance that divorce should be allowed in this jurisdiction. It is ironic that legislation is coming to be used only now in practical terms. People whose marriages have irretrievably broken down and who wish to form new relationships and regularise ones in which they are in can now avail of it. In that context I pay tribute to the work of the Minister. I have not always agreed with the method or detail of what he has sought to achieve, but overall we have often found ourselves on the same side, even if our approach was slightly different. I hope he accepts that what we are all trying to do is to ensure we have the best legislation possible. In debating this and other legislation I try to be as constructive as possible.

I wish the Minister the very best in his retirement. I do not believe he will be by the fireside wearing his slippers. I am sure he will be very active in whatever he chooses to do. I wish him and his family every success and happiness.

It is fitting this is perhaps the last legislation with which he will deal. This is a landmark Bill. It is regrettable there is a need for it, but undoubtedly there is in our society. It was interesting to hear the Minister refer to Fr. McGréil's recent book Prejudice in Ireland Revisited. I referred to it a few months ago during Question Time in respect of questions taken by the Minister for Equality and Law Reform and there was some discussion on its findings. It was very disturbing to discover there is a growing level of prejudice and intolerance in Ireland, particularly against the travelling people. Many people were surprised at that and might consider there is no real need for this legislation, that it is required only to ratify or lift the reservation on the UN Convention on the elimination of forms of discrimination against women and so on and that it is a technical requirement to enable us to comply with our international obligations. That is not the reality. It is that in our small society there is intolerance and discrimination. We want that eliminated. The only form of intolerance I want to see in our society is intolerance of intolerance so that it might be viewed in a positive rather than in the most negative sense in which it must be seen today.

The Bill is commendable in what it sets out to achieve and it appears to be good in theory, but will it have the desired effect in practice? We need to debate it thoroughly on Committee Stage. It is important to ensure that, when enacted, it will work. There is no point in passing flawed legislation. The Bill has many exceptions and qualifications and, like the Employment Equality Bill, it lacks the simplicity and clarity necessary for the average person to understand it. It is difficult to get to the heart of the matter or to understand certain provisions of the Bill. Perhaps such confusion arises from the Government's desire to have this Bill passed before the general election. I know it is the Minister's earnest wish, with which I sympathise, to have it on the Statute Book but in this rush perhaps we are allowing some elements to fall between the cracks. It would appear that some of their implications have not been given sufficient thought.

I agree with Deputy McDaid that more time would have been useful to allow us examine the provisions of the Bill in greater depth. I am aware that various groups such as the National Women's Council, those involved in the equality campaign and others have called for more time to examine its provisions in detail. While acknowledging that the Minister adopted a generous attitude on Committee Stage of the Employment Equality Bill I hope he will be as generous in his response to this one.

While voicing some constructive criticism of its provisions I shall be supporting the Bill and will not oppose it on Second Stage. My only desire is to improve its provisions to the greatest possible extent.

I have referred already to the difficulty and confusion people may experience in perusing the provisions of this Bill, in particular section 16(1) to which I shall refer in a different context. It is interesting to note there that the words "for greater certainty" are followed by a 14-line sentence. I taught English for a brief period some time ago and if a pupil had presented a paragraph of 14 lines I would have wondered if he had been reading James Joyce and would write something akin to Finnegan's Wake. In the interests of clarity the draftsman should re-examine the Bill and clarify its provisions, particularly for lay people.

Acknowledging that great difficulty will always be experienced in drafting legislation in this area I question whether, in the welter of theoretical detail contained in this Bill, the opportunity to take greater practical steps has been overlooked. One such step relates to local authorities' development plans, in the preparation of which they are statutorily obliged to take certain matters into account. If it were mandatory for them to have regard to people with physical disabilities it would be a massive step in placing this issue centre stage in every day life. It would mean also that anybody seeking permission to construct or refurbish a place or building used by the public would have to demonstrate they had provided for the needs of those with physical disabilities. While not critical of what has been done already in this area, we need to change our perception that, in providing access for people with physical disabilities, we are being somewhat progressive; rather it should be regarded as part and parcel of every day life. Just as we gender-proof other issues we should disability-proof and, in this respect, the onus should be placed on local authorities to be more active. While they have come a long way, if we really want to integrate people with a disability in society we must give that aspect due attention.

To cite a personal example, my own father is confined to a wheelchair. I know that manoeuvring him in and out of places is a nightmare. I shall refer to footpaths later but my heart goes out to anybody with a disability, particularly if in a wheelchair, because it is extremely difficult to get around this city. Hopefully some of the provisions of this Bill Will make life easier for such people.

Another aspect of the Bill which makes me somewhat uneasy is the manner in which so many different groups and problems are thrown together in an attempt to apply the same solution to all. Ironically, in a Bill which claims to promote equality, it has the unintended side effect of branding women, people with disabilities, travellers and others as being in some way different from the remainder of society. They are an intrinsic part of our society, which is why we do not want to discriminate against them. In that respect we need to give particular attention to the words used.

The Minister will not be at all surprised to learn that I have a problem with the definition of "disability", a subject to which I referred in some depth on the Employment Equality Bill. In our Committee Stage discussions of the Bill I said a medical definition should not be used for people who are not ill. I will be tabling an amendment on this point. Another curious aspect of the definition is that it excludes something contained in the Employment Equality Bill, the reference to disability which previously existed, that might exist in the future or which is imputed to a person. Perhaps that could be tidied up in this Bill. In the case of the Employment Equality Bill the Minister reassured Members that the Disability Federation of Ireland was happy with his proposals.

While I am sure the Minister received a copy, I should like to refer to a press release dated 13 February 1997 from the disability rights officer of the Union of Students in Ireland which stated:

The Union of Students in Ireland (USI) today expressed its outrage at the definition of disability outlined in the Equal Status Bill launched last Saturday. In December 1996 we saw the launch of the "Strategy for Equality" report carried out by the Commission for People with Disabilities. This report announced a number of progressive measures for people with disabilities in Ireland. However, USI feels that the Minister has reversed the positive outlook for people with disabilities by the language he has used to define "disability" in the Bill. Words such as "malfunction", "malformation" and "disturbed" conjure up a medieval image of people with disabilities. USI calls for these definitions to be deleted and for a proper consultative process to take place in order to define "disability" in a modern light.

I am not critical of the Minister vis-á-vis consultation because he did consult widely throughout his preparation of this Bill but some groups concerned with disabilities are very concerned about these definitions and he should listen to what they have to say.

That press release of the Union of Students in Ireland continued:

I am insulted and appalled at the definitions used in this Bill. People with disabilities have fought long enough to be treated as equal citizens. Defining disabilities in the manner in which the Minister has puts the rights of people with disabilities back generations.

While I and the Minister know that is not the intention, if that is the message received by people with disability vis-á-vis this Bill, then it is not achieving its objectives and the Minister must have due regard to their criticisms.

It is a pity the Minister has remained adamant on this point because he has changed some other definitions and phrases used in both Bills, for example, the definition of "family status". While "sexual orientation" is defined in the Employment Equality Bill, no such definition is contained in this one.

Section 4 carries the side heading "Undue difficulty", a defence in relation to charges of discrimination. This section will have to be thoroughly scrutinised to ensure its provisions are not misused in an effort to by-pass others. The following is another extract from the press release I referred to:

I am also alarmed at the vagueness of the clauses concerning educational rights for students with disabilities. I feel that the Minister should set clear guidelines for what is meant by "undue difficulty". Without such guidelines this clause could be used as an excuse not to provide facilities for students with disabilities.

The Minister could take that on board for Committee Stage. That excuse might be used not just for students but for all people with disabilities. However, I welcome the reference to the concept of reasonable accommodation, which was also mentioned in the Employment Equality Bill, and the Minister's commitment to introduce an amendment on Committee Stage.

Section 5 contains a general prohibition against discrimination but it is followed by a long list of exceptions, some of which are seriously flawed and others are bewildering. Section 5(3)(d) provides an exception for "services of an aesthetic nature which require physical contact between the service provider and the recipient".

The provisions relating to insurance and pensions are another example of how lofty principles followed by loosely drafted exceptions are inadequate. Insurance companies and pension funds will not be allowed to discriminate but they will be allowed to do something which is "reasonable" having regard to data on which it is "reasonable" to rely, so where does that leave us? People who have what insurance companies call a "HIV-risk lifestyle" justifiably complain about the difficulties they face in a world where one cannot borrow money without taking out life insurance but the experience in other countries shows the difficulties in regulating the insurance industry in this way. Attempting to prevent insurance companies asking questions designed to exclude people who are HIV positive has resulted in them refusing to offer any cover for HIV related illnesses or deaths. That is not necessarily discriminatory but neither is it a good thing. To give another example, will the concept of "reasonable" reliance on "reasonable" data make it permissible for pension funds to charge a woman more money to receive the same rate of pension as a man on the grounds that statistics suggest that women have a longer life expectancy? The treatment of insurance companies and pension funds must be given serious reconsideration if this is to prove to be effective legislation rather than a flawed pre-election Bill. I take on board the comments made by Deputy McDaid on his area of expertise.

Under section 5(3)(f) it could be permissible to treat men and women differently in the provision of medical goods or services. This is either a statement of the blindingly obvious, that men and women have different medical problems, or it should not be in the Bill. When it comes to allocating medical resources the criterion should be need, not gender.

Another element of the Bill which requires a rethink is the provision dealing with "dramatic performances and other entertainment". Section 5(3)(k) envisages that a person who puts on a play may have to argue before the courts that a scene was reasonably required for reasons of authenticity, aesthetics, tradition or custom. It is ludicrous for the House to pass legislation which gives the courts a role in assessing the literary merits of a play; that should be left to the drama critics. Section 6 deals with land and accommodation but it has all the appearances of a rush job and it must be seriously revised if it is to make any sense.

Section 9 deals with clubs and sections 10 to 12 deal with discriminating clubs. The principles behind these provisions are understandable to those of us who have been involved in women's organisations. When I was in the Seanad I was a member of the committee on women's rights. We wrote to every golf club asking their position on allowing women to become full members and a number of them did not even have the courtesy to send a reply. Fortunately golf clubs would not behave like that nowadays but we still have some way to go. Many women, golfers in particular, were outraged at the way they were treated as second-class citizens. The excuse was always that women got preferential treatment because they paid a lower subscription, but if a woman wanted to pay the full amount why could she not become a full member? It was a contentious area.

Unfortunately there are doubts about whether sections 10 to 12 as drafted are constitutional, having regard to the right to freedom of association. When one thinks of discriminating clubs one tends to think of those for men only, but what about women only clubs or gay clubs? There is a difficulty about the right to associate with whomever one wants on private property and we need to make provision for such clubs if non-discriminatory conditions are to prevail. Reservations have been expressed about the anomalies which may arise within this section so we must scrutinise it carefully. The principles we are trying to establish are ones we must all accept.

Section 12 attempts to address the issue of sexual harassment but, unfortunately, it is unsuccessful. My first criticism of the section relates to its structure. Section 12(1) provides that a person shall not harass or sexually harass another person who falls into one of the categories set out in paragraphs (a) to (e), the implication being that it is all right to harass or sexually harass a person who does not fall into one of these categories. We must be careful how we draft these provisions. Also, it is inappropriate to use the concept of the reasonable person in the definition of sexual harassment and harassment. It is the injured party who should be the primary judge of what is offensive, although it might be acceptable to include a limit whereby something will not be treated as sexual harassment if no reasonable person could regard it as such. That approach would put the opinion of the injured party at the forefront while maintaining some element of an objective test.

A warning about this section was first given at the recent conference on sexual harassment in the workplace. The Employment Equality Bill dealt with that issue but we cannot isolate it because sexual harassment is the same wherever it occurs. It is all about power and has nothing to do with sexual attraction, so it is relevant to refer to what was said at the conference. The head of the Employment Equality Agency, which is to become the new Equality Authority, sounded the warning about our approach to dealing with sexual harassment, particularly in the workplace. She said the "reasonable person" test could be appropriate and straightforward in other areas of law which apply to men and women equally but it was not appropriate for defining sexual harassment. This person is at the coalface on these issues and we must listen to what she and her organisation are saying. We also cannot forget "same sex" harassment.

We must re-examine the emphasis we are putting on sexual harassment. I ask the Minister to consider it for Committee Stage. I will put down an amendment and perhaps we could deal with the matter in a more complete way. I am disquieted at the way it is being approached in this crucial legislation. Any of us who have been involved in women's issues over the years realise the extent of the sexual harassment problem. The power of the equality Authority to deal with these issues will be evident, but the approach taken must be the one that the Authority wishes to see in practice.

Section 14 deals with the procurement of discrimination or sexual harassment. Such procurement will be a criminal offence under the Employment Equality Bill, but under this Bill it is merely prohibited conduct which can be the subject of a complaint to the director of equality investigations. Will the Minister explain this anomaly?

Section 16 was originally the most contentious part of the Bill. Even before it was published this aspect was discussed to such an extent that I heard the Bill referred to as the Vintners versus Travellers Bill and other such colloquialisms. This was unfortunate because it took away from what should have been the emphasis on discrimination, equality and protection. Nevertheless, I congratulate the Minister for arriving at a reasonable compromise. He consulted widely and went to great lengths to resolve the issue, although having done this, he may have rushed other sections. If we are assured that on the one hand retailers and vintners can operate their premises in a way that is fitting while on the other hand we do not allow discrimination against people because of what they are rather than their actions then I will be happy.

However, exemptions and exceptions which feature in the Bill have also intruded in this section. Subsection (1) appears to allow discrimination on the grounds that failure to discriminate would produce a substantial risk of criminal or disorderly conduct. In addition, subsection (2) provides that action taken in good faith by the holder of a drinks licence for the sole purpose of ensuring compliance with the licensing laws will not constitute discrimination. This could allow a refusal of service on the grounds that drunkenness on a licensed premises under the Licensing Acts could not be permitted, not withstanding the fact that drunkenness is a condition that afflicts many patrons at the end of their visit.

I agree with the Minister that sections 18 and 19 are particularly important, especially with regard to people with disability. They provide that the Minister may make regulations with regard to new passenger vehicles, but and rail stations. Unfortunately, in their current wording the sections represent nothing more than a pious aspiration. It has been suggested that there should be a mandatory obligation on the Minister to have these regulations in effect by a specified date. Have the sections become a victim of the rush to have the Bill on the Statute Book before the general election?

When debating the definition of "disability" in the Employment Equality Bill, many expressed the view that we should be more proactive in ensuring that the needs of people with disability are catered for. The Minister should at least indicate when such regulations could come into effect. The regulations will not cover taxi, hackney or limousine use. Access for people with disabilities should be part of everyday life. This aspect must be looked at more carefully.

Section 20 places an obligation on the roads authorities to provide ramps, etc., on new or altered roads, which is welcome. However, this does not go far enough to ensure that they meet the needs of people with disability when drawing up their development plans. A wheelchair user who has been unable to gain access to a building will find little consolation in the fact that there was a dished kerb to facilitate the approach. We must be firm in ensuring that due provision is made for those with disability, and not only for those with mobility disabilities.

Sections 21 and 22 deal with enforcement. There does not appear to be a time limit in referring matters to the director, although there is a time limit within which the victim must notify the respondent of his her intention to do so. There is no provision for an extension of this. In many cases, the victim may be unaware of the existence of the director or of the remedies under the Bill. There should be discretion for the director to extend the limit in special circumstances.

The role of the equality Authority is set out in sections 23 to 49. At present, it is known as the Employment Equality Agency to which the National Women's Council is a nominating body. Not only has the council lost its rights under the new provision but there is no requirement on the Minister to appoint anybody with a specific knowledge of gender equality issues although he may appoint somebody who has a knowledge of equality issues in general. This is a serious matter, given that the equality Authority has such an important role under the Employment Equality Bill. It is also important if women are thought of as a minority group that must be catered for. Women constitute over half of our society and we must acknowledge the role of the National Women's Council.

The Bill has many worthy aims but, unfortunately, it betrays too many signs of hasty and sloppy thinking. This may reflect part of the anxiety to get it on the Statute Book. I ask the Minister to take on board my criticisms, which have been made in a positive spirit in an effort to improve the Bill and to have some elements on which people have expressed concern addressed. I thank him for bringing the Bill before the House and I acknowledge that a huge amount of work has been put into it by his staff. I look forward to teasing out the issues and introducing amendments on Committee Stage.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Finucane and Bell.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I was taken aback to learn that the Minister is to retire from parliamentary politics. Nobody in this country or abroad who has dealt with his ministry would dispute that through his quiet tenacity he has put into law what we have all aspired to. He will be remembered for the legislation which he has enacted and is putting through. It will long outlast us. When an architect was asked how he would describe his monument to posterity he replied: "Look around you". The improvements the Minister has made to Irish society will stand as a monument and testament to his ability.

The Employment Equality Bill and the Equal Status Bill form an equality package aimed at bringing us into line with best international practice and allow us to ratify the relevant UN treaties. We should not forget we do not operate in isolation. These Bills are intended to provide individual citizens with an anti-discrimination tool box. The tools provided in both Bills must be accessible to all and user friendly.

The Equal Status Bill deals with non-employment discrimination on nine grounds ranging from disability, sexual orientation, race and family status. It is extremely complex legislation and many of its provisions need to be teased out in committee. The Minister is adept on Committee Stage on any Bill. He knows what he wants and is able to put forward his arguments but equally capable of listening to reasoned arguments.

I wish to outline briefly some areas where the Bill could be strengthened. In section 2 the definition of "disability" is much too limiting and does not accurately reflect either the causes or the nature of disability. Defining a problem is only the first step towards addressing it. In this regard I urge the Minister to consider incorporating the definition cited in the report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. It is comprehensive and includes virtually every foreseeable circumstance in which people may find themselves in relation to disability. I am sure its insertion would not create a problem. However, I have one slight problem with the definition, that is that the commission recommends that people who are substance abusers should also be determined. It restricts substance abusers to those enrolled in rehabilitation programmes. I assume that refers to abuse of prescribed drugs. I do not believe they should be included because we would then have to include those addicted to nicotine. That would be going too far.

Section 4 gives rise to particular difficulties. It stipulates that undue difficulty may be cited regarding the nature of the arrangements needed to properly accommodate a person; the number of persons who would benefit or be disadvantaged; the cost of such arrangements and the disruption caused by such special arrangements. It does not define any of these conditions. In effect undue difficulty as outlined in the Bill provides employers, service providers and others with an expandable loophole. The "undue difficulty" clause applies particularly to people with a disability, those who are likely to require the special arrangements cited in the section.

There are two ways in which the section could be strengthened. A clause could be inserted stipulating that the Minister shall make regulations defining the extent of costs, disruption or other conditions which constitute undue difficulty. Alternatively —— I believe this would be the best solution —— the onus could simply be reversed providing that those genuinely unable to comply with the provisions of the Bill could apply to the authority for a certificate of exemption on the basis of cost, permanent disruption or other undue difficulty. This would ensure that general compliance is required and that any request for exemption would be subjected to close scrutiny.

Section 4 relates primarily to physical access. The track record of private and public bodies here is appalling. Last year Democratic Left conducted a survey in Limerick which highlighted the extent of the problem. Some 75 per cent of public buildings there were inaccessible to people with disabilities. The buildings surveyed included public housing, services, major shops, financial institutions, hotels and a small number of churches and pubs. Some 72 per cent of multi-story buildings did not have a lift while only 20 per cent of the buildings surveyed had wheelchair accessible toilets. If we put ourselves in the position of someone who needs these infrastructural changes to gain access to these services it would be virtually impossible to live a functioning life. These figures are replicated throughout the country and form an insurmountable barrier not only for people with disabilities but for the elderly and women with small children. We are not talking about a small group of people with disabilities but rather an enormous group who experience the same difficulties and we need to address them.

If section 4 is retained in its present form the access figures will not be very different in ten years' time. "Undue difficulty" runs like a thread throughout the Bill, for example, it is cited in Section 7(3)(b) which relates to the educational establishments, with obvious consequences for integrated schooling. I urge the Minister to consult with the various interest groups involved. Of all the Ministers he tends to consult with a broad range of groups who have an interest in the legislation with which he is dealing. If he does not alter the section —— described to me as a Houdini's charter —— it will allow those who wish to do so to maintain the status quo. That is not what this legislation is about.

Section 5(3)(e) deals with insurance provision, a matter discussed at length by the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. This section could be strengthened by providing that when differential treatment is accorded on the basis of actuarial or statistical data the individual concerned should be given access to that information.

Sections 18 and 19 deal with transport for people with disabilities. Despite the pious aspirations expressed in recent years, public transport remains largely inaccessible to many people with disabilities. Where the transport is accessible the infrastructure surrounding it is not, for example, railway stations and DART.

Section 12 deals with sexual and other harassment. We should not leave this section so open that the victim chooses the crime. For that reason I have a difficulty with some of the arguments put forward. The Union of Students of Ireland suggested the following: sexual harassment is unwanted conduct of a sexual nature or other conduct based on sex, affecting the dignity of men and women. This seems so commonsense that any reasonable person would take that view. I apologise to my two colleagues as I did not mean to take so much time.

I understand Deputy Bell intends to share time with Deputy Finucane.

Coming from the same constituency I am sure you will allow him some extra time. I join in the good wishes to the Minister, Deputy Taylor, on his retirement. If any Minister could say he had put his stamp on Irish society, this Minister has done so in his term of office. A classic example is the Equal Status Bill which he originally spearheaded in 1993. Following a long consultative process with various groups he has produced this Bill which contains many important provisions. Much time was devoted to drafting section 16 to ensure it took account of the genuine concerns of the Licensed Vintners' Association and other traders. The Minister is to be applauded for listening to these concerns and providing for them in the Bill.

One could speak at length about the position of disabled people. It is only in recent years that we have focused properly on their rights. In my constituency the Access group focuses attention on the needs of disabled people and seeks to ensure that footpaths etc., meet their requirements. Local authorities, health boards and Departments should be encouraged to employ more disabled people. Some of these bodies have already exceeded the 3 per cent requirement but many of them have not done enough in this respect. People with disabilities want the right to compete fairly for jobs but many of them are discouraged from submitting applications because of the fear of rejection. Disabled people with the necessary qualifications should be treated equally when applying for jobs.

The Bill outlaws advertising which may give rise to discrimination. The use by companies of box numbers is a type of discrimination in that applicants do not know the name of the company and do not receive a response to their application. People put much effort into the preparation of their curriculum vitae and companies should show them the courtesy of revealing their identity and responding to their applications. It is expensive for larger companies which receive many applications to reply to all applicants and many of them place advertisements in the newspapers to inform them that the position has been filled and to thank them for their applications. If companies cannot reply to all applicants then they should consider a similar approach.

When talking about equality one cannot ignore the travelling community. Limerick County Council has successfully integrated many travelling families with local communities who have shown great tolerance. I welcome the recent legislation on the control of horses as it will deal with the minority of travellers who bring disrespect to their community by allowing their horses to wander freely in the estates in which they have been housed. I look forward to the implementation of the bylaws to deal with this problem. Travellers have certain cultural rights but members of the settled communities also have rights. The minority of travellers who show scant regard for the rights of the settled community in their estates tar the entire travelling community with the same brush.

I also wish to pay tribute to the Minister, Deputy Taylor. I shared an office with him for many years before his appointment as Minister and I probably know him better than any other Member. I worked with him on the same issues and he is a genuine, sincere and efficient Minister. His decision not to stand for re-election is a blow not only to the Labour Party but to the Dáil and the country as a whole. Even though he is not standing for re-election I know he will make every effort to ensure that his colleague, with whom I now share an office, is returned to the Dáil.

A commentator on a radio programme this morning described today as "divorce day". It may be more appropriate to rename it "Taylor's day" given that the historic divorce legislation comes into force on the same day as the Minister has brought this Bill before the House. I worked closely with the Minister in the preparation of the Bill. I worked as a national trade union official many years ago and during that time my union and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions campaigned for the introduction of many of the provisions in the Bill. I am sorry it took so long to introduce the legislation but nevertheless it is welcomed by all my colleagues in the trade union movement and, in particular, by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

I wish to deal with the issue of discrimination as it relates to disabled people and women. When I was Mayor of Drogheda in 1983-4 I told my private secretary to inform organisations which invited me to attend functions that I would only attend if my wife was also invited. Many of the organisations from which I received invitations had women members. I stuck strongly to my decision to only attend functions which issued invitations to me and my wife. Much discrimination arises because people in public life and elsewhere accept invitations which do not include their wives and partners.

I welcome this Bill and am glad it has been introduced by the Minister, Deputy Taylor. I wish him, his wife and family every happiness when he retires from the Dáil. I am sure he will not retire from every other activity and that we have not heard the last of Deputy Taylor.

I feel outnumbered here; you forgot, chairman, to include yourself because there are three Members from the Louth constituency present. Perhaps Deputy Dermot Ahern should join us in case he misses something.

Bearing in mind the air of uncertainty in the House, I do not know whether I will get an Opportunity to speak on Second Stage of another Bill in the area of Equality and Law Reform. Therefore, I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Minister, Deputy Taylor, who is retiring. I was genuinely sorry to hear he has decided not to stand for the next Dáil. He has been an excellent Minister. I thank him for the courtesy and helpfulness he has always shown me and for how he went about his business. I hope he will have a long and relaxing retirement, which is well deserved.

I welcome this Bill in general terms, as I welcome any legislation which makes the lives of people easier and gives them a feeling of equality in a very unequal society. There has been a wide range of legislation dealing with discrimination and inequality in the workplace. Although the Minister has not done away with the majority of areas in the workplace where discrimination can take place, nevertheless, I am pleased he has introduced this measure which deals with the situation outside the workplace.

My cautious welcome for the legislation does not mean that I see nothing wrong with it. On the contrary, if my interpretion is correct, the Minister has gone much too far in some areas. I hope my colleagues and I can make him see the light during this debate and that he will accept amendments which will satisfy our reservations and improve the measure in the process.

I have no difficulty with, indeed I positively welcome, the action the Minister proposes to take under section 3. The attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party is that there is no room for discrimination against individuals, clubs, societies or any other social or ethnic grouping. We have seen that in practice in this and other countries, which we have deplored and condemned unreservedly. There can be no place for discrimination in society and I hope this measure will confirm and reinforce that legitimate aspiration.

I am particularly pleased the Minister has included a provision in section 15 whereby positive discrimination in the provision of special services in favour of the disadvantaged or persons in need of special treatment is allowed. I trust this will allow for special and better treatment of people with disabilities who, for too long, have been the forgotten ones in society. Anything which will ease their difficult lot in life is to be welcomed.

I have a slight difficulty with section 16. Prior to the publication of this Bill and in all my dealings with the Minister on this matter, the indications from his Department were that it would be made illegal to prohibit people from entering business premises without giving them a legitimate reason and explanation for their exclusion. As a result of representations by myself, other Members, the Vintners' Federation of Ireland and the Licensed Vinteners' Association to the Minister, it was intimated that this Bill would soften that position somewhat and would allow the service provider to refuse entry or service, but would still allow the refused person redress in the courts.

I compliment the Minister and thank him for taking our representations on board. However, we must set the record perfectly clear on this issue. I request the Minister's specific and unequivocal clarification on this matter during this debate, so that the many people who have made representations to me on this subject will clearly know, once and for all, whether they can refuse entry or service under this proposal when this Bill becomes law.

Let us not be coy about this or beat about the bush. This problem was represented as a publican-traveller one and those with an interest in that subject waited for the Minister's clarification of the matter. In all my dealings with the Minister in respect of the issues in this Bill, I have never mentioned or written the word "traveller". The problem is much wider than that and affects more businesses than just pubs and more individuals than just travellers.

The Vintners' Federation of Ireland circulated a pamphlet on this subject which lists 20 groups, representative of constituent organisations and hundreds of thousands of individuals, all of which have a legitimate interest in this section of the Bill. This is not just about a publican who wishes to keep out a traveller because of his perceived shortcomings and it would be wrong, and terribly unfair to travellers, to so represent the issue.

This is about keeping known drug pushers and people who are known to dabble in drugs but have yet to be brought to court or convicted of a crime, out of discos, clubs and pubs. Some of these people are well known to the managers of places off entertainment and it would be foolhardy, perhaps bordering on criminal. to tie the hands of those responsible for the welfare of their patrons.

It is also about the antique jeweller who wishes to limit the number and type of his clientely and to exclude those who are known to be, but might not be proven, thieves and robbers. It is about the amusement arcade owner who wishes to exclude those whom he knows will start a fight on his premises, people with known form in the area of fighting who will present a threat to the legitimate customer. It is about a publican who wishes to keep known rowdies off his premises, not just for one night but in the long-term, to protect his livelihood which could be ruined by having his law abiding customers chased away by a fighting or insulting element.

I fully realise that the publican-traveller problem is part of this scenario. However, I do not want to get hung up on the minority issue or for the debate to stagnate on only one issue in the overall problem. I am a little better placed than most to have an understanding and appreciation of what is involved in this element of the debate as my family has long service in the licensed trade. I know the practical difficulties involved and how a business can be wrecked in a short time because the rowdies of the town remain unchecked and can exercise a right to enter and annoy at will.

This debate is also about the supermarket manager who has to stand up and watch a professional shoplifter come through his door and wait for an opportunity to swing into action, in the secure knowledge that the hasty or false accusation which he can invite will mean great embarrassment for the proprietor, not to mention a substantial payment in damages. It is also about football hooliganism. Under the proposal which was first mooted by the Minister, would we have been able to exclude the hooligans who wrecked the Ireland V. England match some time ago? Will garages be able to keep out the youngsters who scratch their cars just for laughs?

This problem is much greater, and the debate needs to go much deeper, than just the trite publican-traveller stand-off. The Minister must declare the position clearly and unequivocally so that everybody knows what is being provided for. Can persons in charge or control of public bars, dance halls, shops and other places where goods and services are supplied refuse entry to individuals without having to later defend that decision in court? I realise that section 16, as it stands, appears to indicate that our fears are groundless. However, I would prefer to hear that assurance from the Minister and see it firmly placed on the record of the House.

We should not get bogged down in the traveller element of the debate because the issue goes wider than that. I fully respect the rights of travellers to enjoy all the services the rest of the community enjoys, for example, education, housing, medical services, etc., and I support their receiving equal treatment. I would go further and commend those areas where there is positive discrimination in favour of the travelling community. Travellers are as entitled to enjoy the benefits of modern Ireland as anyone else, and if positive discrimination is required to get it for them, I do not have any difficulty with that.

I am pleased to note also, and this is not a scientific finding, that there is a greater willingness on the part of travellers today to integrate into the community than heretofore. They are anxious to avail of the benefits of the 21st century and are slowly but surely moving towards the rest of the community.

Rights bring responsibilities, however, and many travellers do not bear those responsibilities. We provide halting sites for them and we must then provide caretakers for those sites. Caretakers are not provided on local authority housing estates; the residents form an association and look after their own estates. I cannot understand the reason one area of the community is operated differently from other areas.

I agree with the comments made earlier today by my colleague, Deputy McDaid, in relation to insurance and genetic technology. There is no doubt the advances in genetic technology may create an uninsurable underclass. I have spoken in previous debates about DNA profiling and genetic testing of criminals. We should consider the possibility of compiling a DNA profile of everyone in the country. That would help in solving crimes, although I understand constitutional difficulties might arise.

I do not want to see modern technology being abused in the area of insurance. Genetic science is at the point where susceptibility to common causes of death such as heart disease and cancer can now be assessed. As tests become more sophisticated the risks of dying young or needing expensive medical treatment will be increasingly quantifiable. It is expected that within a decade full scale genetic tests will be able to predict a threefold difference in mortality between people with good and bad genes.

Far from being a Star Trek issue, genetic rating is now a reality. The Association of British Insurers agreed, under pressure, not to use genetic test results for the next two years for mortgage related life assurance of less than £100,000. In life assurance terms, £100,000 is a low threshold. In Ireland, where life assurance is essential for a mortgage, the general application of genetic rating is obvious. There has been an obligation for some time in the UK to submit genetic test results to insurers.

There must be community rating of the gene pool similar to that in the provision of health care. The use of genetic tests for discriminative selection is ethically wrong. Going down that road will jeopardise people availing of the positive health benefits offered by genetic science. I was disturbed by the comments of the Irish Insurance Federation that while it currently does not have any plans to follow its UK counterparts, the possibility of doing so in the future has not been ruled out.

I welcome section 11 which deals with sanctions against discriminating clubs. The so-called exclusive clubs administered by fossils from the dark ages which discriminated on the basis of gender are not entitled to the largesse of the State, and I welcome that principle being formalised. There is more to discrimination than women being denied the right to play tennis where they like, or having a less costly membership of a club than their male counterparts. Many people are actively discriminated against on the basis of wealth and, much as he might like to, the Minister cannot do anything about that.

I welcome the provisions of section 12 in relation to the harassment of children in educational establishments. In a closed environment such as a school or in the tightly-knit teaching profession, it may be difficult for a student to establish a case of harassment or emotional abuse against a teacher. It would not be too difficult for someone to identify at least one person in the profession whose methodology borders on the kind of discrimination described in section 12(4) and (5). The phrase "intends to offend, humiliate or intimidate the victim" will ring hollow for students if action cannot be successfully taken under section 12.

In providing for such behaviour to be unlawful the Minister is only going part of the way towards eliminating an officially accepted type of bullying. In conjunction with this provision, which is long overdue, the Minister may need to set about educating the teachers' unions to be equally cognisant of the harm their delinquent teachers are doing to student victims, and to encourage those unions to desist from protecting their members at the expense of the pupils. This is a particularly insidious and cowardly form of discrimination and I urge the Minister to take it seriously. It has existed in some cases for decades and needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency.

Section 12 also makes provision for the protection of members of clubs from harassment of any kind. This is necessary, as we have seen from court reports in the press in recent years, and the defining of such an offence and the provision for prosecution is to be warmly welcomed.

I am pleased that the provision of services specifically for those with a disability is being placed on a statutory footing and apparently being given a greater priority, but it will be useless if it is not followed by the necessary financial provisions. There is little point in telling Bus Éireann it has to modify its coaches or requiring public buildings to have ramps and lifts if the resources are not available to put the directive into effect. The commitment to those with disability has to be more than a paper exercise two months before an election.

I want to refer to an area not covered by the Bill. I was appalled to discover recently that currently it is not an offence for an able bodied person to park in a bay set aside for disabled drivers. I understand regulations are due to come into effect to make it an offence but it is an indictment of our society that we have to introduce regulations to prevent people doing that. It is sad that able bodied people are not compassionate enough to leave those spaces free for those less fortunate than themselves.

In relation to passenger vehicles and station equipment, I welcome the provisions regarding accessibility for people with a disability. The area of taxi-hackney use is not covered in the Bill. Taxi licences previously issued in Dublin made provision for wheelchair users, although I understand not every taxi can be made so accessible. Will the Minister indicate if any provisions will be put in place to extend this to the other four main cities? I welcome the provisions requiring local authorities to make kerbing, etc. more accessible to wheelchair users. I hope that will be done by many local authorities.

The Bill lists nine grounds on which discrimination is prohibited, but the definition of some of those grounds seems to be at variance with the Employment Equality Act. Those variations should be addressed.

This is imaginative legislation and I commend the Minister accordingly. I ask him to clarify the matter of the refusal of entry to a place of business and confirm that my interpretation is correct.

I will make a short contribution to this Bill which apparently has excited great acceptance, with the Minister being eulogised to an unusual degree. While I thank him for his contribution, the best I can do for the Minister is to wish him a very happy and long retirement. I am sure what I have to say will not entirely please him, but it may not entirely surprise him either.

While I welcome the Bill in a general sense, it is yet another layer of legislation, much of which will not be implemented — I refer specifically to the drink driving laws. If those laws were properly implemented it would be necessary to have a Garda car outside every public house. The laws in that area are blatantly abused, whether by Joe Soap down the country or by a judge cruising around Dublin trying to get into the Shelbourne Hotel in the early hours of the morning. We turn a blind eye to the ravages of drink — it is the greatest problem in the country — and its effects on people and families. We are ambivalent on that tender issue; there is an acceptance of drink in Irish life.

The objectives of the Bill to remove intolerance, discrimination and bigotry, are aspirational fairytales. Intolerance and bigotry will be evident until the end of time, unless we are all cloned like Dolly, the sheep. The removal of those characteristics is something to which we should aspire but it is not surprising that discrimination and bigotry are on the increase. Discrimination is practiced not only here, particularly in the North, but in every country including the Middle East, Africa and, mostly, in the home of the brave, America, where there continues to be discrimination on grounds of colour.

I am particularly concerned about the threat to deny owners of businesses, whether newsagents or public houses, access to their premises. That provision has been watered down as a result of political pressure because most Deputies recognised that it was totally unacceptable. I fear this is yet another directive from Europe which is totally unacceptable.

Itinerants are disadvantaged from birth. They suffer tremendous intolerance and bigotry, much of which they earn by their attitude to society. Nobody denies itinerant people, or any other section of the community the right to services such as education and social welfare, the right to progress. When one hears of success among itinerant folk it is gratifying to know that they are climbing above intolerance. Every political party has failed to honestly address the itinerant question. There has been a refusal to bring in legislation, for instance a responsibility Bill dealing directly with itinerants — itinerant people seem to have no sense of responsibility. I refer particularly to problems associated with itinerant people in every town and village who seem to claim the right or the special status to do what they like irrespective of the wishes of the settled community.

In my town in Dundalk millions of pounds have been spent on providing an inner by-pass and frequently well-heeled itinerant folk who come from England and across the Border in beautiful Volvo cars, Hiace vans, trucks and wagons park indiscriminately on that public highway. That is an unacceptable image to people visiting and passing through Dundalk. Itinerants park on private property, IDA property and UDC property. They stay in the industrial zone where industrialists are brought by the IDA to sell the town, which has double the national average of unemployment. That practice manifests itself all over Ireland, but Governments refuse to address the problem.

A few years ago there was a cavalcade of itinerant vehicles parked on the national primary route at Collinstown, from Dublin Airport virtually all the way to Swords, in view of people arriving in Ireland, holidaymakers, tourists and business people. That is unacceptable. While I do not deny itinerant people their rights, like everybody else they should accept their responsibilities. The sooner the special status, or "fools pardon" is removed from them, the better.

The question of halting sites must be addressed by a future Government. That is a national problem which should be addressed by all political parties, not in a confrontational atmosphere in the Dáil Chamber but by consensus. This issue is a major source of irritation to the settled community and is the source of much of the irrational and intolerant attitude to itinerant folk. A PR exercise is necessary because to a large extent those people are their own worst enemies. My views on this matter are shared by many people in the House, but some Members may not wish to express them. They believe this a worthwhile Bill, the Minister has put a lot of effort into its publication and he is retiring. However, the ordinary people want me to address this matter. I am sure I am also speaking on behalf of the various councils who are scourged by this problem. An itinerant family can move into an area, park on the public highway, block a public footpath and remain there until a local authority seeks a court injunction to have them removed. I understand the average court injunction costs an urban or county council £4,000 and takes some time to process. Itinerant folk are well schooled by the solicitor and barrister professions and will move on the morning the court order is being made merely to be replaced in a week or even a day's time by another family.

Every council should cater for itinerants. There should be a greater willingness to provide housing and serviced sites for them. Dundalk was one of the first towns to provide a halting site for itinerants. It is located near where I live. I live nearer to the site than any other councillor in the town, but itinerants have not caused any difficulties for me or my family. I have no difficulty living near them. However, a shopkeeper should be entitled to deny the right of access to any member of the community, itinerant or otherwise. I do not normally speak in defence of public houses or the drink trade, but I have no difficulty doing so in this case. Is it fair to require a person who borrows a large sum of money to build up a business to tolerate a drug dealer canvassing for the sale of his drugs in one corner of the premises while a prostitute carries out her negotiations in another corner? It is farcical that people could even conceive of that being acceptable. I look askance at some of the laws introduced by the EU because, while they may be appropriate in other parts of Europe, they are not acceptable here. All Members — irrespective of whether they propose to retire, I may even retire myself — must be vigilant of this type of nonsense. A person's home is his or her castle and that should be extended to business premises. Surely, Deputy McDaid would agree that he should have the right to remove from his clinic a person whom he considers unacceptable. Let us stop the hypocrisy. People should have the right to make such a decision. It would be a sad state of affairs if the right to refuse entry to one's business premises or home was denied to ordinary householders.

I wish the Minister a happy retirement and hope he acknowledges some of the points I made.

I reiterate the compliments paid to the Minister. His contributions to this House have always come from the heart. He has introduced a great deal of legislation and I compliment him on the manner in which he discussed reservations about various Bills with other Members. I wish him every success in his retirement from public life, I am sure he will continue to practice in his legal business for some time. He has made his mark as a public representative.

As Deputy McGahon does not really want to retire, there is not much I can do about it.

I would not mind seeking a seat in Donegal.

There is only one Fine Gael seat in Donegal and Deputy McGinley wants it.

I congratulate my colleague, Deputy McDaid, who has been elevated to the Front Bench. I wish him every success in his new portfolio.

I welcome the introduction of the Equal Status Bill. It is important that we culminate an attitudinal change in regard to discrimination in the introduction of legislation. Discrimination may be covert rather than overt in that people can use language or legalise acts they do not realise are discriminatory in nature.

Some of my colleagues expressed concern that the definition of "disability" in Part 1 could be considered a medical definition. For example, section 2 (1) (c) refers to "the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of a person's body". The Students' Union of Ireland have expressed concerns in this regard and I understand the Minister and his officials propose to reconsider the matter.

Section 7, which deals with educational establishments, overlaps with section 37 of the Employment Equality Bill. Is there a need to copperfasten the provisions of that section? Section 7(2) states:

An educational establishment shall not discriminate in relation to—

(a) the admission or the terms or conditions of admission of a person as a student to the establishment,

Our educational ethos is unable to deal with disruptive children who cause problems in an institution. That may cause problems, particularly with the forthcoming Education Bill. It should be teased out, especially in relation to obstreperous children who may not want to be in school.

I have reservations about access to third level institutions. That will not be perceived as exempt in this Bill and there should perhaps be positive discrimination, or affirmative action as it is termed in America, to ensure that those perceived as disadvantaged have access to third level education. The Minister might show in the Bill that the educational establishment has taken cognisance of the fact that not everyone has access to third level education. Third level institutions should acknowledge that not having a quota of perhaps ten places in some faculties for those who are less well off is discriminatory.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Section 9 refers to discrimination in clubs. Many people have serious reservations about club membership, particularly golf clubs, and the Minister has intervened in some cases. I welcome this section and the sanctions that can be imposed on a club if it does not comply with the ethos of the Bill.

If we are to speak of true equality, we must be prepared to be equal. I am not a golfing fan but sometimes I wish I could close golf clubs when husbands do not come home in time for their Sunday lunch, though that is not the golf clubs' problem. Many women who want to be full members of golf clubs should be allowed to do so and associate membership should be available to men. If people are prepared to pay to be full members of clubs it is wrong to designate "Ladies' Days" and to deny women the chance to use golf clubs at weekends. There should be a balance for men and women so they can choose whatever type of membership suits them. The Minister seems to agree with that interpretation.

Section 12 refers to sexual and other harassment. There has been much debate on sexual harassment and despite the legislation people have still not got that message. It will be an ongoing problem unless we pursue it vigorously. People in management should be au fait with it and there should be more in-service training in companies to ensure people know what sexual harassment is; it is not always the harassment of a woman. It can work the other way, which has not been publicised. However, I welcome the inclusion of students in this section because they are very vulnerable if they challenge authority, needing legislative support if they do so. They need to know it will not affect their passing examinations, for example. This provision was needed as the matter was swept under the carpet for a long time and the Union of Students of Ireland was no doubt pressurising the Minister to introduce it. I welcome the provision and students' unions should promote the rights of students, particularly this one, as soon as the legislation passes.

Section 16 was probably one of the Minister's most controversial provisions and a balance has now been achieved. My family is involved in the hotel and public house business. Problems arise and the view is that the travelling community causes most of the bother. However, most of the solicitor's letters sent by our establishments in recent years show it was the settled rather than the travelling community which caused trouble. It is important that the Minister clarified the provision. The vintners' associations are now happy with the proposal and I congratulate and thank the Minister for listening to the views expressed. We do not want to place people in invidious positions if they know a person may disrupt a social occasion or cause damage. People know their customers in small local areas and know the people who will cause bother. Without the Minister's clarification matters would have ended up in the courts, causing much hassle and aggravation in small places.

However, section 55 may need reconsideration when it is taken in conjunction with section 16. Section 55(c) states that a person:

who is required under this Act to answer any questions, furnish any document or thing or supply any information to the Director or the Authority shall be entitled to the same immunities and privileges as a witness before the High Court.

Will the Minister in his reply advise the House regarding the implications of that provision in relation to section 16? For example, a person could be most derogatory about another person when stating why he or she should not be allowed entry to an establishment. This matter needs clarification because we must ensure that status will not be abused if it is given to an owner of a pub or restaurant.

I have been a member of a local authority for 11 years and it is obvious the message in section 20 has gone over people's heads regarding work carried out on roads and footpaths. They do not think about the disabled. A lovely development was built in Donegal town but the footpath is too high not only for the disabled but for mothers with pushchairs. One would need to be a mountain climber to get off the road. These issues are covered in legislation. It is important that county engineers are made aware of the provision and implement it. It is fine to cover this issue in the Bill but it flies in the face of what we want to achieve if it is not implemented. It is most important that the Minister for the Environment also takes my point on board and ensures the legislation is implemented.

Silly things happen; for example, there could be a parking space for a disabled driver but when he opens the car door, he may not be able to get out because the footpath is too high. Little thought is given to these matters, even in the Houses of the Oireachtas. It was only when a disabled Senator was elected that we realised he could not get into the restaurant or through the corridors. It is important to reiterate the point that proper facilities must be provided.

On public transport, the Bill refers to regulations which may be made requiring new road or rail passenger vehicles to be readily accessible and usable by people with disabilities. However, this measure will not be implemented in County Donegal because I do not know when the county last received a new bus. It was probably 40 years ago.

We will have to wait a long time to implement this measure. The county has a very old fleet and although it would be easier to implement the provision with regard to rail transport, unfortunately, Donegal does not have the privilege of a railway service. Cognisance should be taken of the fact that some counties have very old stock. If CIE does not plan to provide new buses on an ongoing basis, perhaps some of the coaches which are in good working order should be adapted to provide access for people in wheelchairs. Otherwise, the provision will be irrelevant in County Donegal and elsewhere.

The section does not apply to people involved in private use taxis, limousines or hackneys. However, if we are to be truly non discriminatory, it is important to give some assistance to those who may provide private hire services to disabled people who are as entitled as anybody else to take a taxi. The imposition of the subsection would have a financial impact but some way of addressing it should be considered. Everyone is entitled to the same services if that is at all possible.

The Bill needs a small amount of teasing out and a number of concerns could be addressed in the Minister's reply. The Equality Authority — the former Employment Equality Agency — is experienced and is very much aware of what is expected of the legislation and the reality on the ground. The explanatory memorandum with regard to the financial implications of the introduction of the Bill states that resource requirements, including the staffing and operational costs of the agency, are being considered. The Employment Equality Agency made a great contribution to the State by acting as a watchdog in terms of the implementation of legislation. However, it was put to the pin of its collar financially in that regard. If we want to ensure the Bill is implemented and the contributions to the debate do not fall on deaf ears, the Equality Authority must have the necessary resources to do its job. I hope the Bill will be implemented as soon as possible and I compliment the Minister and his officials for introducing it. I hope it will encourage an attitudinal change towards discrimination.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

In welcoming the Bill I pay tribute to the Minister, Deputy Taylor, who, since its publication, has announced his intention not to contest the next general election. In politics it is only after one has moved on or died that one is praised. On the one or two occasions I spoke on Bills brought forward by the Minister I took the opportunity to praise him. I join in the warm and genuine tributes paid to him by Members on all sides of the House. I had the honour to serve briefly with him between 1992 and 1994. I sat across the table from him in negotiating the partnership deal that led to the formation of that Government. I found him to be an honest, straightforward and straight talking individual who said what he wanted to say, was always prepared to listen to the opposing view and never afraid to change his mind, although he had some deeply held convictions from which he could not be swayed. It was and still is a pleasure to work with him. I wish him a long and pleasant retirement with his wife Miriam and family. He deserves it.

He has left his mark in the Department of Equality and Law Reform. He has done the job so well — I am sure Deputy McDaid does not mind me saying this — that there is almost no longer a need for a separate ministry.

That is not true, there is much to be done.

The idea to establish the Department, which was a good one, emanated from Labour Party sources — it was probably his own — during the partnership talks and derived from the failure to give priority to legislation such as this within the Department of Justice which was experiencing difficulties in other areas. Given recent experience, if this decision had not been taken few of the Bills the Minister has successfully steered through the House would be on the Statute Book, not because of malice but due to the difficulties experienced in assigning personnel to deal with them. Members on all sides will be able to point to the Minister's record in office and that of others whenever they have to justify their existence. All Members like to think they will make a difference. The Minister fits into that category.

I understand that to date only four Members on the Government side of the House have contributed to the debate on this Bill on which there is consensus. This does not do the Minister justice. I do not intend to deal with each section in detail, rather I will touch on a number of matters, including the needs of the disabled, insurance, medical examinations and the composition of the Authority which is dealt with in section 28. I will also deal with the amendments the Minister has made to the Bill in deference to publicans.

The year 1984 was designated Year of the Disabled. It is nothing short of a disgrace that we still have to include provisions in legislation dealing with the accessibility of public buildings and public transport. Despite passing resolutions and issuing circulars, there are still public buildings, including places of entertainment, to which disabled persons cannot gain access easily as they are not wheelchair friendly. It reflects badly on us that despite the issuing of circulars and building regulations there is a great lack of accessibility to public buildings and transport. We could all cite cases in our constituencies of a lack of accessibility to, say, post offices, building societies and, perhaps, some of the buildings in which we hold clinics. It is regrettable that it is necessary to include this section, but its inclusion is welcome as people will have recourse in the event of lack of accessibility.

Previous speakers, particularly Deputy Coughlan, referred to access to public transport. Deputy McDaid made the point that we do not expect every bus to be adapted for wheelchairs, but initially a reasonable number should be adopted and eventually all public transport should be accessible to those who are wheelchair bound. It is regrettable that legislation is necessary to ensure that and that semi-State companies are not moving rapidly enough to ensure all citizens are treated equally in terms of accessibility.

Insurance companies also discriminate against citizens. Deputy McDaid referred to genetic testing and that the Association of British Insurers announced yesterday that unfavourable genetic test information should not be taken into account when people apply for term life assurance or an endowment policy linked to a mortgage of up to £100,000. We do not have to go as far as considering people who have had genetic tests, but people who suffer from a fairly common complaint, diabetes, are actively discriminated against here in terms of joining a pension scheme, obtaining a driving licence and for certain duties in the Army. That discrimination is based on an outdated notion of the disorder and a lack of knowledge as to how well it can be treated and self-regulated. I do not know the detail of how it can be self-regulated, but those in the medical profession know it can be controlled.

I know a diabetic who is a teacher and who was refused entry to the pension scheme of the Department of Education. I know of a constituent who is a lorry driver and a diabetic whose application to renew his driving licence has been turned down. He has had a driving licence for some time. I do not know how the licensing authority learned he had become a diabetic since his licence was first issued, but because it is specifically stated in law that an authority can refuse to grant a licence to a diabetic, his local authority has refused to renew his licence.

From my personal experience in the Army, I know that Army personnel with diabetes who volunteer for service in the Lebanon or other places overseas are turned down. Any decision can be justified. The justification of that decision by the military authorities is that a person afflicted with diabetes while on duty could endanger his colleagues. I am advised by people who know about diabetes that there are different types of it. Some of it can be self-regulated and, in some cases, there is little or no danger of a diabetic collapsing once the treatment is maintained. I draw the Minister's attention to that type of discrimination. No doubt the officials concerned will say there are sound reasons people with diabetes should not be granted a driving licence, allowed join a pension scheme or serve in the Lebanon. However, that is an automatic reaction. People have not been brought up to date on the treatments available for diabetes. Will the Minister consider this matter, obtain medical advice on it and arrange for the circulation of guidelines to the various Departments concerned? The lorry driver to whom I referred will lose his livelihood because he cannot renew his driving licence for his heavy goods vehicle and that has serious consequences for him and his family as he is not entitled to compensation for that loss. This type of discrimination needs to be addressed. Rather than insurance companies imposing a blanket ban on diabetics, they should consider applicants individually.

Section 28 deals with the setting up of the authority. Having paid the Minister compliments, I will not insult him by saying he would engage in certain activities. He is retiring from public life, but this legislation will be in place for many years to come. Section 28 deals with the composition of the authority and states that two of the ordinary members of the authority, one man and one woman, will be nominated by the employer organisations and two, one man and one woman, will be nominated by the employee organisations. That is welcome.

The section also states that the remaining seven members will be nominated by the Minister. There is no reference to the process by which those seven members will be selected, whether on the basis of nomination by interested bodies or the Minister deciding that the seven people he selects are worthy. I do not have a problem with the current Minister, who is a fair minded man, selecting those seven members. I am sure in his selection he will take into account issues of gender, political affiliation, religion and a particular interest in inequality. However, if he were on this side of the House, I am sure he would share my fear that at some future date a Minister could nominate seven people to the authority who would not have an appropriate qualification for the job other than being friends of the Minister or supporters of his or her party. This aspect of the Bill should be re-examined. I do not recommend that a Minister's hands should be tied in regard to nominating members to a board. For example, in the case of a board of 11 members the Minister should have absolute discretion to select three or four. In respect of a Bill such as this, those with disabilities and others affected such as employers with an obvious interest in its provisions should have a right to nominate even three members, the Minister selecting one of them is probably the safest route to take.

The Minister and I have talked ad infinitum about gender-proofing. Yet whenever one asks a trade unionist, a representative of employers' groups or anyone else to be mindful of gender-proofing in nominating people, inevitably one discovers they nominate whoever they wish. As in the case of An Bord Pleanála, the Minister should give all such bodies nominating rights, instructions to nominate three members, the Minister selecting one, apart from those he might want to nominate himself.

With the exception of the Minister, I do not observe any reference to the Director of the Equality Authority having to be answerable to anybody. While this is a very worthy body to which we are giving extensive powers, in any comparable legislation we should ensure that the director of any such body is answerable to this House and obliged to appear before its committees to account for his stewardship.

I accept that the object of establishing an authority such as this was to remove this from the political arena——

It was a positive approach.

I am talking about the manner in which the authority must discharge its functions. which should be stipulated, so that its director will be in no doubt that he is answerable to this House and its committees for the authority's performance. I compliment the Minister on not incorporating in this Bill, as far as I can ascertain, any exclusion in respect of local public representatives serving on that authority, as is the case in so many others.

I welcome the Bill, compliment the Minister on its introduction, support its provisions and hope the Minister will address the points I have raised.

With the permission of the House, I should like to share my time with Deputy Joe Costello.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure that is agreeable.

I avail of this opportunity to wish the Minister for Equality and Law Reform good luck on his retirement from politics, I acknowledge his great contribution to equality issues, particularly in the lifetime of this Government. He played a very significant role in introducing legislation to tackle discrimination here, one component of which is this Bill. His record is outstanding as he introduced many Bills about which many people had spoken over a long period. They expressed their commitment in theory but demonstrably not in practice. Through his capable stewardship, his approach and that of his officials he has demonstrated that it is possible to draft and introduce very difficult legislation in an efficient manner which does not alienate any section of society or pitch one against another, whose provisions in the longer term will raise standards and attitudes vis-á-vis the law as far as equality is concerned.

As a female Member I am extremely grateful for the work the Minister has done in the overall area of equality. People have been calling for equal status legislation for many years, including in employment, but there always seemed to be something standing in its way. I suppose that is the case worldwide; it is difficult to put one's finger on the precise barriers in the way of its introduction, to make clear, unambiguous statements about our approach to the disabled, those discriminated against or to really tackling the problem of gender inequalities.

This Bill has been welcomed by Members from all sides of the House. In tackling the many difficult issues involved, the Minister has managed diplomatically to allay the concerns of publicans and others in regard to this Bill, who feared there would be no control in public houses. Having struck a very delicate balance, clearly welcomed by both sides, the Minister has managed to ensure that the travelling community will not be discriminated against, My fear had been that ultimately the repercussions of those lobbying for publicans would lead to travellers discriminated against but that is not the case. The Minister has managed to deal with the concerns of both groups on which he is to be congratulated.

The enactment of this Bill will allow us to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination which is welcome. It also means we can withdraw any reservations we may have had in relation to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and to ratify that convention, not possible heretofore.

The Minister has dealt with the matter of sexual harassment much more effectively in this Bill than in the Employment Equality Bill. When the latter is going through the Seanad will he reexamine the definition of "sexual harassment"— in particular the use of the phrase "reasonable person" because I continue to have concerns about it?

I hear that the number of sexual harassment cases being taken in the Labour Court has dropped while the number of inquiries to the Employment Equality Agency has risen. I am concerned because women are very easily intimidated when it comes to reporting sexual harassment. I want clear legislation supportive of them. I do not want to witness women bringing cases to court, when the courts and the Labour Court discover it is almost impossible to conduct such a case because of difficulties of definition.

This Bill also deals with the matter of clubs that discriminate against women. I am tired talking about this subject; it really is not something we should even have to address at this point. What is being stipulated in this Bill is quite modest, that such clubs will not receive any succour from the State if they discriminate against anyone on any of the grounds mentioned and, if they do, they will be unable to obtain a licence. While I hope this sanction will not have to be applied, I am enormously relieved the Minister has included it. It would appear that most clubs have seen sense and changed their dreadful discriminatory practices, so prevalent here over such a long period. It is quite extraordinary that it has taken until this year for one of our most prestigious clubs to change its rules but I am glad it has done so.

There is more to be said about the Bill but I am sharing my time. The main point is that if legislation to prohibit discrimination is in place attitudes will begin to change. Who knows whether attitudes or legislation comes first, but the two certainly go hand in hand. The Bill is most welcome and the Minister has done well to bring it to the House.

I thank Deputy Fitzgerald for sharing her time. I add my plaudits to those already given to the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor. As a colleague in the Labour Party I know that he fulfils the description "a scholar and a gentlemen". I am disappointed he will not be going forward in the next election because we could do with men and women of his stature and calibre. I wish him well in whatever future life he decides to pursue.

I am delighted to see the Equal Status Bill before us because we urgently need to implement it to fulfil our international obligations to combat discrimination on the grounds of race and sex. We have been unable to fulfil those obligations because we have not enshrined those provisions in our statutes. I am glad we can now present ourselves in the world arena as a nation which has fulfilled its international and domestic obligations.

Travellers are one minority group which will welcome this legislation. They have waited patiently for it and are the largest single group which will benefit substantially from its passage. There has been large-scale lobbying, particularly by vintners, about this provision but their fears are groundless. The Bill will give travellers the status they deserve and will eliminate once and for all the idea that the settled community somehow has greater rights and status.

I am glad that the Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, indicated in the budget that the public service would meet its obligation to ensure that 3 per cent of its employees are people with disabilities. Dublin City Council recently decided to grant a further 200 taxi plates, all for wheelchair accessible vehicles. We should be moving in that direction all the time. State bodies should take the initiative in equal rights and should not be forced to do so.

The Minister might also consider the right to vote because one sector of the community still denied it is the prison population. Every citizen should have that right and it would be of enormous benefit to prison reform if prisoners were entitled to invite politicians to hear their views about conditions and the operation of the system. It would also open up the prison regime to greater communication and visibility. Insurance is an extremely important matter. Certain sectors of the community — homosexuals, women and people with certain illnesses — are discriminated against and we must emphasise that there should be no discrimination in this regard.

I met representatives of An Post this morning to discuss a proposal to close a rural post office because it was perceived as not viable. That could be called discrimination on the basis of numbers — An Post did not feel there were enough people to justify the service. That is an important issue in a country like Ireland, where the population is shifting to the main urban centres with a consequent decrease in rural areas. If essential services are removed from an area it would appear to be discrimination against the local community. It is difficult to address such a point as it could be discussed in terms of public policy but it is relevant to this legislation. I am glad the Bill has been welcomed on all sides of the House and I look forward to its early passage.

Like previous speakers I wish the Minister well in his retirement. I had the privilege of knowing him in a professional capacity and he brought the same qualities of fair dealing and a conscientious approach to his work to the performance of his ministerial duties. I know the Minister is looking forward to his retirement having worked in his Department on equality issues and introduced divorce legislation to reflect the great social changes which have taken place in recent decades.

As to the creature of the Minister and the instrumentality of these changes, the Department of Equality and Law Reform, I do not share his view about its continuation. The idea of establishing a Department to address a particular problem is a good one and this Department has been a tremendous success. It has allowed the Government to introduce legislation on equality matters and to provide for the re-marriage of separated persons, and the expedition of law reform measures generally. This device was also used during the Emergency when the late Seán Lemass was put in charge of the co-ordination of supplies.

It is a legitimate device to bring a Minister into the Government and give him a distinct mandate relating to a pressing problem. However, there is a danger that the resulting administrative apparatus becomes a permanent aspect of the machinery of the State and it can be argued that the functions of the Department could usefully be allocated to other Departments once the Minister's magnificent work is done. This measure will probably be adopted by both Houses prior to the dissolution of the Dáil, although the Seanad debate may take place after the dissolution of this House and the Minister could enjoy his time discussing this measure in the Upper Chamber while the rest of us attempt to secure our re-election. However, on the assumption that the measure is enacted, we will have two solid laws on equality, the modernised employment equality code and this equal status measure which breaks new ground in this jurisdiction. There are other pressing social problems — drug abuse, for example — which might warrant the appointment of a Minister for the lifetime of a Government. In introducing the measure today the Minister referred to the equal right of participation for designated categories and the need to outlaw discrimination against them. These measure properly deal with discrimination against specific categories.

I was struck by the Minister's remarks on Fr. MacGréil's work on prejudice. He took a pessimistic view of the new edition of his book. However, it shows a lessening of popular attitudes of prejudice with regard to a range of categories. Nevertheless, the revised study conducted by Fr. MacGréil on the question of prejudice and tolerance in our society illustrates that there is still a substantial reservoir of prejudice against certain groups. The Minister instanced the travelling community in that respect.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn