Vol. 461 No. 4
21 Mr. Browne (Wexford) asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform his views on the submission made to him on the equal status legislation by the Licensed Vintners' Association and the Vintners' Federation of Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3082/96]
22 Kathleen Lynch asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the progress, if any, that has been made towards putting in place the necessary conditions to enable Ireland to ratify the UN convention against racial discrimination; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3076/96]
24 Mr. E. Byrne asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the plans, if any, he has to introduce race relations legislation along the lines of that in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3078/96]
25 Mr. Kenneally asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform his views on the submission made to him on the equal status legislation by the Licensed Vintners' Association and the Vintners' Federation of Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3080/96]
32 Mr. J. Walsh asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the precise manner in which he is identifying minority groups which are being discriminated against in our society; and the structures, if any, which he has put in place to develop an ongoing dialogue between his Department and representatives of such groups. [3037/96]
33 Mr. B. Smith asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform his response to the concerns expressed by the Vintners' Federation of Ireland, the Chambers of Commerce and other groups in relation to certain provisions of the proposed Equal Status Bill; the current stage of preparation of this legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3074/96]
35 Ms O'Donnell asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the progress, if any, that has been made in the preparation of the Employment Equality Bill and the Equal Status Bill; and when he will present these Bills to Dáil Éireann. [3050/96]
37 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform when he will be in a position to publish the anti-discriminatory legislation, which has given rise to considerable concern in the business sector. [3085/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 21, 22, 24, 25, 32, 33, 35 and 37 together.
I intend to bring forward two anti-discrimination Bills — the employment equality Bill dealing with discrimination in the workplace and the equal status Bill covering non-employment areas. Both Bills will prohibit discrimination in their respective areas 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. These grounds, and hence the minority groups which will be protected from discrimination, are as set out originally in the Fianna Fáil and Labour Programme for a Partnership Government.
The employment equality Bill has been included in the Bills expected to be published prior to Easter as outlined last month in the Government legislation programme. I hope the equal status Bill will be published in the latter part of 1996.
Ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination cannot take place prior to the enactment of these Bills. The requirements of the Convention are borne in mind in drafting the Bills and I will ensure that any other steps necessary for ratification are identified as soon as possible.
I have recently met representatives of the Licensed Vintners' Association, the Vintners' Federation of Ireland and the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland. We agreed that these bodies will let me have their proposals as to how their concerns can be met in the equal status Bill.
My Department has regular contacts with representatives of minority groups.
Every time the Minister answers a question on this legislation, its implementation date is put back further. It will now be the end of 1996, if not later, before it is implemented. It probably will not be introduced before the next general election.
Not if some of us can help it.
The Deputy is very honest.
My colleagues and I also met representatives of the Licensed Vintners' Association and the Vintners' Federation of Ireland who are extremely concerned about some of the Minister's proposals. As the Minister is aware, publicans must maintain order in their houses, but if the legislation is enacted in the manner flagged they will not be able to do so and Garda resources are overstretched. The Minister is placing more responsibility on vintners, in effect, he is tying their hands. Does he realise their fears in this regard? It is not possible for them to control certain people who enter their premises and the Minister proposes to take away their right to refuse such people access. I hope he takes account of the grave fears of vintners in respect of this legislation.
Deputy Kenneally stated that I am putting additional responsibilities on vintners. In broad terms, this legislation will prohibit discrimination against a person on the sole grounds that he or she belongs to a disadvantaged minority group. The UN Convention on the Discrimination of all forms of Racism has been ratified by 137 countries worldwide. Ireland is unable to ratify it without these two Bills in place. I expect the legislation to be brought forward towards the end of this year and enacted with the co-operation of Members on all sides. In this regard, I welcome Deputy Woods's recent letter confirming his support for the legislation.
I informed representatives of the Licensed Vintners' Association that I will work with them to achieve agreement, in so far as possible, on the thrust of the legislation and that their suggestions would be considered sympathetically. I reiterate that undertaking to the House.
I do not believe any Member would have difficulty with a prohibition in the legislation regarding discrimination on the grounds of race and so on. The main difficulty is that publicans will have to give a reason for refusing a person access to their premises. There are many known criminals and drug dealers who may not have been convicted in the courts. If the gardaí are not in a position to prove a case against them, publicans would certainly not be in a position to do so. Can publicans refuse to serve such people because it is well known that they are drug dealers? Publicans that do so will be taken to court and subsequently to the cleaners. That is what the Minister must address in this legislation.
Deputy Kenneally appears to know what will be in the legislation. That is not possible because its final format has not yet been determined.
I am referring to what the Minister signalled.
The time for discussing legislation is on Second and Committee Stages, not on Question Time.
I would appreciate if the Minister would supply me with a copy of Deputy Woods's letter as I would be interested to know the manner in which he agreed with the Minister's intentions. Will the Minister oblige me in that regard?
The Minister recently submitted a letter to public representatives stating that the Bill will reflect similar types of legislation in other European Union countries. That is a poor basis on which to introduce this type of legislation here. Our culture and social way of life differs considerably from most other European countries. I would not like if, as a result of this legislation, we became as dull and as sober as continentals. I would take issue with the Minister if he attempted to do that.
More racism.
Élitism, not racism, and let us remain in that élite category. Does the Minister agree that seeking to make us similar to races, for whom some of us do not have a great deal of regard, is a poor basis on which to legislate?
In so far as Deputy Woods's letter is concerned——
I will supply the Deputy with a copy.
It is a matter for Deputy Woods to agree to send a copy to Deputy Deasy.
Racism is racism whether it takes place in Ireland, Britain, France, Germany or elsewhere. We must decide whether we wish to ratify the UN convention on racism. Virtually every other civilised democratic country has ratified it and this legislation is necessary for us to do so. The Government believes it is necessary for us to ratify it and we must introduce anti-discrimination legislation. The exact basis, terms, onus of proof and so on are matters for the detail of the legislation. I will be happy to discuss its minutiae when it is finally approved. That is what Committee Stage debates are for and what democracy is all about. I will consider sympathetically the suggestions of Members and outside groups.
I acknowledge that publicans must run their businesses. Many of them have informed me that most of their problems arise with members of the settled — not the travelling — community. Racism or discrimination against minority groups is not acceptable and that will be the thrust of these two Bills.
I accept the Minister's point about being criticised in respect of a Bill, the terms of which have not yet been published. However, the Minister is the author of his own misfortune in that he is a great man for saying what he proposes to do and then spending a great deal of time producing the text. That may have given rise to some of the controversy in this case.
Does the Minister accept that the issue of the travelling community is not a racist one or is he putting it into that category? I am fascinated as to whether travellers belong to that category of discrimination. Does the Minister categorise them in this way?
Will the Minister indicate whether members of sexual minorities will be protected under the equal status legislation? Will it be possible for publicans to take steps, on a discretionary basis, to prevent their premises becoming a gay public house if it is situated in a particular part of a certain city? Will they have discretion in this regard? Can they take steps to protect their clientele or pursue a particular admission policy? Are the managers of gay clubs or public houses entitled to pursue an admission policy?
I do not propose to become involved in a semantic discussion as to whether the position of the travelling community relates to race or any other disadvantaged category. In many respects they are a disadvantaged category in society. The report of the task force which examined their situation in all walks of life states that they are a disadvantaged group. That is the thrust of the legislation. As to the detail and content of that legislation, we must await the publication of the Bill and its discussion by both Houses in due course. As I stated earlier, sexual orientation will be one of the categories dealt with in the Bill.
The Minister stated that we welcomed his proposal to proceed with an equal status Bill. We urge the Minister to introduce it as soon as possible so that the detail can be discussed on Committee Stage. In that context, the Minister's new proposals require that, in court, licensed vintners defend the reason they refused a person entry to their premises at a particular time. In a recent letter the Minister pointed out that it will not be necessary to give a reason for refusal of service to a customer at the time of refusal but that it will be necessary to provide a reason subsequently for that refusal, which will cause great difficulty.
If the manager of a premises is suspicious that someone is pushing drugs, a problem with which I am reasonably familiar, he can ask the person to leave. Such action is desired by the community, local residents and patrons of the premises involved. Similar considerations arise for people attending to their business in supermarkets, etc. Licensed vintners will not be able to refuse service to anyone if faced with the threat of subsequently appearing in court to argue their case. The greatest difficulty arises in relation to this issue. If the Minister has some improved way to deal with discrimination, this will solve the problem in advance. If not, we will have to deal with it on Committee Stage. That is where the problem lies, however. People are upset and concerned that they might have to provide a subsequent reason for refusal. The matter must be resolved on Committee Stage.
I do not believe the Deputy asked a question.
The type of strict legislation that the Minister intends to introduce is very different from that which appeared in the advanced billing from his Department. A great deal of controversy has been generated about this matter because the documentation from the Minister's Department suggested legislation which would require vintners and others to provide "on the spot" reasons for refusals.
I never said that.
Many intelligent people throughout the country drew that conclusion from the documentation issued by the Department. People are genuinely worried about this problem. I read the Minister's letter about not giving a reason at the time of refusal. The phrase in the letter regarding providing a reason, though not necessarily at the time a person was refused service, has given rise to great worry and confusion with which the Minister has not dealt.
Is the Minister aware of a judgment handed down in the Dublin Circuit Court by Judge James Carroll which was reported in the Irish Independent on Thursday last? That judgement seems to establish the principle that business people must be permitted to exercise reasonable control over events on their premises. As I understand it, this includes the right to refuse service without providing a reason. If the Minister is not aware of that judgement, I will provide him with a copy.
With regard to discussing the legislation when it is published, I remind the Minister that the Tánaiste gave me a commitment three months ago that the Government would consider my request to have the Select Committee on Legislation and Security discuss the heads of the Bill before publication. Has that weighty consideration reached a conclusion?
I did not see the newspaper report in question. However, I agree with Judge James Carroll if he stated that it is necessary for traders to have reasonable control of their premises to enable them to administer their business. Of course it is necessary for traders to retain reasonable control of their premises. "Reasonable" is the operative word. It is not reasonable for any trader to discriminate against a person on the sole grounds, for example, that the colour of their skin is black. That was the type of discrimination that Members condemned when practised in the form of apartheid in South Africa. That kind of conduct is not reasonable and will be addressed by the legislation.
At the appropriate time I will be happy to discuss the heads of the Bill with the relevant committee. It would be premature to do so at present because the legislation is at a very early stage of preparation and has not yet been considered by the Government. It was considered in draft form by the previous Government but not the present one. At a later stage, when the matter has matured to an appropriate extent. I will be happy to discuss it with the relevant committee. I understand that senior officials from my Department met the committee today to discuss some broad aspects of the matter.
The Green Party looks forward to the publication of equal status legislation. Are there ongoing consultations between the Minister's Department and the Department of Justice in the development of the legislation? I ask because I recently tabled a parliamentary question in relation to assault on people in general which also referred to travellers. That question was divided into two parts. The one relating to people in general was dealt with by the Department of Justice and that relating to travellers was dealt with by the Minister's Department.
Discrimination.
Is this a policy or are travellers the responsibility of the Minister's Department? I am not sure why the question was divided. Is the Minister aware of that division and could he enlighten me in this regard?
I have no information regarding that question. I believe that such matters are dealt with by the Ceann Comhairle's office. I do not know how questions are divided or readdressed.
They are very confusing.
I answer any question put to me. That is the purpose of the procedure.
The Chair does not have responsibility with regard to dividing parliamentary questions.
The Minister is missing the point of this discussion. He was the first person to introduce the issue of the travelling community and black people to the debate. We have no problems with the Minister's proposals in relation to discrimination. I have already highlighted our fears regarding the problems we see with the legislation. I ask the Minister to take on board our views and the views of a number of people on the opposite side of the House. My colleague, Deputy Deasy, wrote an article in the vintner's magazine along those lines. The Minister mentioned that when the legislation is brought forward we will have an opportunity to table amendments. We all know that when Ministers come into the House they are reluctant to accept amendments and change legislation but the Minister will be doing everyone a favour, including himself and his own party, if he ensures that those aspects are left out of the Bill before it is published.
I do not know if I was the first person to seek anti-discrimination legislation in the context of these two Bills. I would point out to Deputy Kenneally that his own party and the Labour Party specifically referred to this legislation in their joint programme for Government at the beginning of 1993. The Bill was prepared in draft and approved in head form by the Fianna Fáil-Labour Government so the matter has been in existence for a long time. I do not accept I am missing the point; I understand and appreciate it very well. This is limited legislation in its thrust and intent as set out in that joint programme for Government and continued on as the policy of this Government. No person should be discriminated against on the ground alone that they are a member of one of the disadvantaged categories of people I listed in my reply.
We have no problem with that.
If the Deputy does not have a problem with that, we will not have a problem with the legislation and I am glad to hear that.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, as a vintner I thought you might have vacated the Chair when these questions were being dealt with in that you have a vested interest in this matter.
The Chair is remaining aloof.
I am being a little facetious. The Minister did not reply when I stated that people, myself included, were disturbed by the sentence in his letter to the effect that he was legislating to bring us into line with other EU countries. That is an undesirable trend. The issue of travellers should not arise in this type of legislation because the most obnoxious people one could meet in a public house, or any public place, are affluent members of the settled community who, after one or two drinks, tell people like myself and other politicians how to run the country.
Is the Deputy suggesting politicians should be a disadvantaged group as well?
Quite a number of travellers drink in my pub——
We should proceed by way of questions.
——and they do not cause any problems so the question of travellers should not arise. The name of the pub, incidentally, is the High Chaparral which is a nice, racy expression. Like Deputy Kenneally, I believe we should eliminate certain sections of the community from the legislation and deal with the issue in a broader aspect because many of the problems are caused by members of the settled community and nobody knows that better than the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
We will move on now to Question No. 23 in the name of Deputy Clohessy.
