Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

We will return to those bad times if we pursue policies which take no account of what is coming into the Exchequer.

The reality is that the Government has a serious commitment to assisting people with disabilities. Currently we have done something which is done on very rare occasions in regard to legislation which Members of the Oireachtas, either Dáil or Seanad, have not yet seen. We have asked our officials to discuss the matter with the disability legislation consultation group. We asked everyone to treat the matter confidentially because it would be nonsensical to have a discussion in the public domain on legislation which Members of the Oireachtas have not yet seen. Unfortunately, someone — I will not point a finger — has broken the commitment of confidentiality by going to the national press and quoting verbatim from meetings with Government officials. I was asked to go on radio on Monday to discuss the matter with the disabilities legislation consultation group. My reply to RTE was that I would not discuss legislation which Members of the Oireachtas had not seen. I will not get into a discussion on the forthcoming disabilities Bill today for the same reason. However, Senator Bannon and others can rest assured that as soon as the Bill is published, which will not be too long, I will be available for debate and consultation at all times on all aspects of it.

Senator Quinn referred to the complexity of the legislation, with which I have a certain sympathy. I will talk to my officials about the matter. The legislation appears to be unnecessarily complex in the way it is drafted — perhaps there is not a better way to do it. It does not make the legislation easier to access, so to speak.

The Senator is the only Member who specifically raised the issue of section 3. He must understand it is not a step backwards, just a step forward. The Employment Equality Act 1998 outlaws discrimination in regard to employment on nine grounds. A section in the Bill excludes all people working in private households. These people get no protection under the legislation and could be discriminated against on any one of the nine grounds and they would have no case. They are completely discriminated against. We are narrowing that exception to people employed in a family home, doing certain types of defined employment, where there is a balance to be found between the right of the employer — the householder — to privacy and the right of the person who is working there to be treated the same as any other worker in any other location. I have looked at the section and I am not happy with certain aspects of it. As it could lead to certain undesired results, I have asked my officials to look again at the issue. I will table an amendment on Committee Stage when we can discuss the matter in more detail.

Senator Terry referred to the rates of pay for secretaries in the Dáil. I am not familiar with that issue but I will inquire about it. She also referred to the fact that the Government is reactionary in regard to equality legislation. I refute totally that remark.

One has to say something that sounds critical of the Government or legislation, but there is no point opposing on grounds that are completely spurious and demonstrably false. The reality is that in any trip I have made to Europe in the short period since we assumed the Presidency, I noted that our EU colleagues are absolutely astounded at the advances Ireland has made on equality legislation. The fact that three EU directives form the basis of this Bill proves this point. However, 95% of what the European Union wants is already in place as a result of the 1998 Act and the Equal Status Act 2000. We are one of very few countries in the European Union, if not the only one, to have reached this level. Regardless of the Labour Party manifesto in 1992, we started the process in 1998 and built on it with the equal status legislation in 2000. The people in the Commission who are proposing and drafting the measures in question were absolutely astounded at the advances in our equality legislation. I can think of several individuals who expressed such sentiments, but I do not want to address this topic today.

On the Traveller programme that was terminated by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform for very good reason, provision has been made in the Estimates to replace it. An announcement will be made very shortly on what I believe will be a more comprehensive and focused programme.

It was suggested that the Government does not want to encourage family friendly work policies, but it has just presented a Maternity Protection Bill and will shortly introduce an adoptive leave Bill in the Seanad. I will be introducing the maternity protection legislation in the Dáil. We are introducing such legislation in the face of the most sustained opposition from employers and those in the business sector. They say they are not against women working or giving people rights to maternity leave, etc, but that it is anti-competitive and putting a disproportionate burden on employers. Despite such statements, we introduced legislation and will take the risk. We are in an era in which the media are constantly haranguing us about competition and anti-competitive practices in the Irish work environment and we need to be careful because we are now competing with countries that can offer much cheaper labour, etc. It is a dangerous time to be placing extra burdens and costs on employers. It might not be very popular, upmarket or politically correct to say this — it is politically incorrect — but it is a fact and Governments must deal with facts. We will be putting relevant legislation through the Dáil tomorrow.

I do not have the exact figure, but we are spending almost €1 billion on the provision of child care. This is a substantial contribution given the size of the economy. I live in the real world and, like everyone else, I have to go to the doorsteps and catch votes. I had to go to doorsteps with our councillor so he can get re-elected and with new candidates so they can get elected in the upcoming local elections. I am aware of the problems on the ground associated with child care. It is a question of balancing one's resources. I would love the Government to be able to find more imaginative ways to address this issue, such that we would be able to provide more child care places, at a cheaper cost, for all the taxpayers' money we are laying out. The other side of the coin is that when people are entrusting their children, who are the future of this country, to others to look after them, there must be appropriate safeguards in place. This is where the cost begins to come into effect. As I stated, we have committed a considerable sum of taxpayers' money to this issue. I wish we could either spend more money on it to further alleviate the problem or else obtain better value for the money we are spending.

When Senator Terry re-examines section 9 of the Bill and the Employment Equality Act 1998, which provides the context for it, she will note that the section, rather than insulting the disabled through the use of words such as "burden" and "disproportionate", is designed to help the disabled in a dramatic way. The Supreme Court has decided that employers cannot be required to accommodate the disabled if their accommodation imposes more than nominal cost. In other words, the court has ordained that an employer can be compelled to spend only a pittance on accommodating the disabled. This is the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article 43 of the Constitution.

As a result of an EU directive on employment, we are in section 9 able to go further than the Supreme Court judgment. The directive allows us to compel employers to provide measures that will not impose a disproportionate burden. This is recognised as taking us much further than where we already stood. The language used, such as "burden" and "disproportionate", might sound off-putting but it is taken directly from the European directive. There will also be a section in the disability Bill dealing with this area. I have discussed the wording in question with the disability legislation consultation group and I can breach confidentiality in respect of our discussions to the extent that I can say the group is absolutely over the moon about it. It is absolutely delighted and feels in no way offended or upset by the fact that we are doing something to compel employers to accommodate them far more substantially.

Section 24 alludes to the lower rate of pay for a person with disability when that person has a lesser output of work in a particular period when reasonably compared to that of an employee without the disability. This is allowed under the legislation as it stands and under the relevant European directives, to the best of my knowledge. Section 24 is an attempt to improve the situation and to narrow the exclusion that already exists. If I had more time to explain this, I would do so, but suffice to say that I suspect that behind the thinking of those in Europe and those who framed the original legislation in 1998 is the view that if an employer has the choice of employing a disabled person or an able-bodied person, he will naturally employ the able-bodied person if the disabled person does not produce or cannot produce as much work as the able-bodied person in a particular period, given that the output can be directly measured. The section is to enable employers to take on people with a disability where they would not otherwise do so.