I move amendment No. 66:
In page 17, lines 7 to 39, to delete subsections (3), (4), and (5) and substitute the following:
"(3) Sexual harassment takes place where a person—
(a) subjects another person (‘the victim' to an act of physical intimacy,
(b) makes a request of the victim for sexual favours, or
(c) subjects the victim to any act or conduct with sexual connotations, including spoken words, gestures or production, display or circulation of written words, pictures or other material,
where the act, request or conduct is unwelcome to the victim and could reasonably be regarded as offensive, humiliating or intimidating to the victim, or where it could reasonably be anticipated that the victim would be treated differently by reason of his or her rejection of or submission to, as the case may be, the act, request or conduct.
(4) Harassment takes place where a person subjects another person (‘the victim') to any unwelcome act, request or conduct, including spoken words, gestures or production, display or circulation of written words, pictures or other material, which in respect of the victim is based on any discriminatory grounds and which could reasonably be regarded as offensive, humiliating or intimidating to the victim.".
The purpose of these amendments is to simplify the definitions of sexual and other harassment and to bring them into alignment with the Employment Equality Bill as amended in the Seanad. While the wording proposed is not identical to that Bill, the substance is the same. Differences of wording in the two Bills reflect, in part, different drafting styles and the differing overall structures of the two Bills.
The test of what constitutes sexual harassment has been streamlined and instead of the complex inter-related tests provided in the existing subsections (3) and (4), this test will be as set out in the new section 12(3). This is consistent with the Employment Equality Bill as amended. The wording of the subsection which deals with other forms of harassment is also consistent with the Employment Equality Bill. Deputies will note that instead of the reference to "reasonable person", which prompted amendments from Deputies Keogh, McDaid and Flood, the proposed text will contain "could reasonably be regarded", as is now the case in the Employment Equality Bill. The new wording meets the concerns of the Deputies and I do not intend to accept the amendments.