Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, subsection (1), line 25, after "means" to insert "the impact on an individual of a duly recognised physical, sensory, psychological or mental impairment, including:".
I am not confident about the outcome of the discussion on these amendments because the Minister was not anxious to take the road I suggested in the Employment Equality Bill. In amendment No. 2, the use of the word "loss" would be more sensitive for many people with disabilities. It is not a major amendment but "loss" is more sensitive than "absence". The word "malfunction" in amendment No. 3, is also insensitive. Amendment No. 4 states: "and shall be taken to include an impairment which presently exists, or which previously existed but no longer exists, or which may exist in the future or which is imputed to a person;".
These amendments arise from representations I received from various disability groups such as Care. What are the Minister's views specifically in relation to using more sensitive language? Will he respond positively to the amendments?
The Employment Equality Bill originally contained the word "loss". It was changed to "absence" because there could be cases where a person might never have had a limb. Loss would not arise in such instances but there would be an absence.
The definition of disability was discussed in detail on Committee Stage of the Employment Equality Bill. In the circumstances, I regret I cannot accept amendments which introduce a difference between the two Bills in this area. These points were considered in great detail at that time and the position is reasonably right.
The definition is focused towards impairments in the context of employment. Is that appropriate in this Bill?
I do not mind going over the ground again in detail if the Deputy wishes.
I am not anxious to delay the proceedings.
It would be repetitious of the discussion on the other Bill.
The Minister will not accept the amendments anyway.
The same reasons I advocated then apply in this instance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 6, subsection (1), lines 2 and 3, to delete "or malfunction".
Will the Minister reconsider his position in relation to the word "malfunction"? It is not a major issue and I am not seeking promises but perhaps he could re-examine it for Report Stage.
There is some merit in amendment No. 3. However, in the interests of alignment with the Employment Equality Bill it should remain as it stands. It would be peculiar if there was not alignment although I take the Deputy's point. There is some merit in the amendment but I am happy with the wording. I would reconsider it if this was a stand alone Bill.
I accept that.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 6, subsection (1), between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
"and shall be taken to include an impairment which presently exists, or which previously existed but no longer exists, or which may exist in the future or which is imputed to a person;".
Must this area also be in tandem with the Employment Equality Bill?
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 6, subsection (1), line 12, after "relative" to insert "or partner"
The amendment relates to the definitions which would be significantly broadened if unmarried couples were included. The Bill as it stands does not recognise the make up of society today because there are many different types of families which do not necessarily involve relatives. I said previously I hoped that the establishment of a register of special relationships would be considered. The amendment seeks to broaden the definition to include "partner" to ensure unmarried people are covered by the section.
I cannot accept the amendment in its current form but I intend to return to the definition on Report Stage. I am favourably considering an amendment which would cover a broader category of persons than those caring for a near relative.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The meeting must adjourn because there is a division in the House. I ask Deputy Keogh to move amendment No. 6 which will be discussed when the meeting resumes.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 6, subsection (1), line 13, after "divorced" to insert ", cohabiting, annulled".
Sitting suspended at 7 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.
The Minister will say amendment No. 6 would not accord with the Employment Equality Bill but has he considered extending the provisions to include the terms "cohabiting" and "annulled"?
The definition used is standard and draws on legally recognisable states. It would be inappropriate in this legislation to introduce a new status which does not have a similar legal base. A person who cohabits is already covered as having a marital status by reference to their legally recognisable marital state — single, married, separated, divorced or widowed. I am satisfied that if a marriage is annulled, the former parties to it are single again. In the circumstances, I thank Deputy Keogh for her amendment but I regard the definition of marital status as it stands to be clear and comprehensive.
What about the reference in social welfare legislation to cohabitees? Is that not a separate definition?
Reference can be made to people who cohabit but that is a description of what they do as distinct from a legal description of their status. It is not a legal status. It is something people do, which is living together.
The domestic violence legislation did not contain a definition of cohabitees.
There is no definition as such but, as the Deputy will remember, it provides that where a person has been cohabiting for a certain length of time, certain things come into play. Cohabiting is a description of what people do rather than a legal description of their status. The definition in the Bill is adequate because people will be covered. Either they are single or married. It is not a contradiction in terms to say that married people cohabit. Cohabiting means living together. The definition is adequate because it is comprehensive and excludes no one.
It would be an extension of the definition of marital status.
I do not think it is appropriate.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 30 and 39 are related. Amendment No. 31 is an alternative to No. 30 and amendment No. 40 is an alternative to No. 39. Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 30, 31, 39 and 40 may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 6, subsection (1), line 33, after "nature" to insert "inclusive of statutory provision,".
The other amendments to which the Chairman referred follow on from it. We want line 33, page 6 to read "‘service' means a service or facility of any nature inclusive of statutory provision". This matter was apparently referred to in the task force report on the travelling community with which the Minister would be familiar. The National Economic and Social Forum also stated that statutory provision should be explicitly named. Available information suggests that the concerns which these bodies have raised in making representations to the committee arise from an experience in Britain where the failure to include this resulted in loopholes in race relations legislation. The NESF report entitled Equality Proofing Issues also states, in its recommendations on that particular legislation, that all goods and services including those provided by central and local government should be accessible on equal terms to all citizens without exception. Our intention in this amendment is that “inclusive of statutory provision” would be inserted.
I favour the inclusion of statutory services, goods, accommodation and so on provided by statutory authorities in the Bill. However, it is not necessary to make this amendment to secure this objective as in Irish law a statute applies to the State. The wording of the definition of the word "service" in section 2 is extremely broad and refers to a service or facility of any nature. The only qualifications are not relevant to the present amendments. Similarly with the other amendments under discussion, it is not necessary to specifically provide that public bodies are bound by the provisions on supply of goods and accommodation. This is already the case. I am aware of the provision in the UK, under the British Sex Discrimination Act of 1975, to which Deputy Flood referred. Such a provision does appear to be necessary in Britain in order for the State to be legally bound but that is not the position in Ireland.
The Minister is saying that the definition is already adequate. However, the amendments would remove all the doubts people have expressed in relation to this. We sometimes have belts and braces issues in legislation and some people may look at this from that point of view. However, if statutory provision were specifically stated in the Bill, people's concerns would be allayed.
Recently members of the travelling community had to go to a specific social welfare office or health clinic in Great Charles Street; up to recent times a traveller in the greater Dublin region had to go there. Perhaps that situation has changed but it is a matter of concern.
I understand the points the Deputies are making and I agree with them. Statutory duties must be, and are, included in the legislation. As evidence of this, one need only look at section 15(a), for example, where I wanted to provide an exclusion in respect of certain statutory provisions. I had to specifically provide for that. I would not be specifically providing for an exclusion in section 15(a) if the provisions were not included in the first instance. That is the best advice I have. Raising the UK position is a valid point but the situation is different as the status of the State there is different to the legal position of the State here. I will ask that the situation be double checked but that is the information I have at the moment. We are not in disagreement on the objective here.
I would like the Minister to double check and make any necessary changes on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are related and No. 11 is an alternative to No.10. They can be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 7, subsection (1), between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following definition:
"‘sexuality' means sexual orientation".
The Minister provides a definition in amendment No. 10. Sexuality should be defined because not to define it would seem to weaken the gay and lesbian issue. One cannot discriminate on the basis of sexuality if it is defined as meaning sexual orientation. Clearly the amendment would better define sexuality. The matter needs to be spelt out in relation to the gay and lesbian issue and the Minister has taken that on board.
Ironically, the Bill as published did not define "sexuality" which left a gap in it which was not in the Employment Equality Bill. I am glad the Minister has accepted the point made on Second Stage — I am sure the omission was inadvertent — and has included a definition.
With regard to my amendment it goes slightly further in that it specifies heterosexuality, homosexuality, lesbianism and bisexuality. I do not want to get bogged down in semantics but some people would prefer to differentiate between homosexuality, lesbianism and bisexuality. I think the qualification "that does not include a tendency or inclination to engage in any act which is prohibited by law" is important because some people refer to paedophilia as a sexual orientation. I was anxious that any such inference would be excluded.
It is excluded in so far as we are specifying affirmatively in section 10 what sexual orientation means. That is the same format we had in the Employment Equality Bill.
I acknowledge that the Minister has accepted the points made.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 7, subsection (1), between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following definition:
"‘sexual orientation' means heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual orientation."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 not moved.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.