Feargal Quinn (Independent)

My amendment follows on from an issue I raised on Second Stage. The words I wish to be removed from the definition of employee are ", but does not include a person employed in another person's home for the provision of personal services for persons residing in that home where the services affect the private or family life of those persons;". The effect of this provision is to exclude from the protection of equality legislation, under the nine grounds of discrimination, all people employed in a person's home. I was less than overwhelmed with the Minister's explanation for this extraordinary provision when I raised the matter during the Second Stage debate. The Minister claimed this provision is a step forward rather than a step backwards because it replaces an existing exclusion which was broader in scope. He was not, however, able to dredge up an argument for inserting that exclusion in the first instance. Exclusions of that type do not make sense. Perhaps there is a logical explanation for it, but we did not hear it. The Minister's unease in this regard was demonstrated by his promise, by which I was heartened, to reconsider the section again. I believe I am pushing an open door with amendment No. 3. This is an important matter.

A considerable number of people are employed in people's homes, most notably as nannies and au pairs. They are the very people likely to be discriminated against. Given that they come here from abroad, they are ripe to be exploited and, the truth is, they often are. Most of the complaints of discrimination of which I am aware relate to such people more than anyone else. It is vital we do not draw a veil over this matter on some spurious ground of preserving family life or privacy. Employment is employment regardless of where it takes place. I mentioned on Second Stage that my colleague, Senator Norris, would be upset to discover a butler or valet working in a private home was discriminated against because he was gay. This legislation would not apply to such a person because he is employed in a private home. Employees are entitled to the protection of this legislation irrespective of where they work. The notion that employment law should stop at the front door of a private house is ridiculous. I do not understand it. If that was the case, a similar argument could be made for exempting domestic employment from income tax or PRSI. We do not do that and are right not to do so. There is nothing magic about the family home or individual privacy that keeps the taxman away from such employment. Why should equality legislation be different?

I would like to know from where the idea to exclude employment in the home arose. Who lobbied for this exclusion and on what grounds? On the face of it, it appears to me to be daft. It excludes from the provisions of this important legislation some of the most vulnerable members of society. I do not understand why we are doing so. I commend my amendment to the Minister and to the House. I know he explained on Second Stage that this provision came about by way of European legislation and that it weakened rather than strengthened the legislation. Perhaps the Minister has an explanation as to why this provision is being included.