Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 23 Feb 2023

Vol. 1034 No. 2

Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2021: Second Stage [Private Members]

Deputy Violet-Anne Wynne

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Deputy Andrews and I are sharing the time evenly. At the outset, I want to say that my thoughts are with DCI John Caldwell and his family. As a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, I am acutely aware of the significant 25 years of peace on this island and the role of all of those who work to protect it. I welcome the statement from all party leaders in the North today.

I want to acknowledge the programme for Government's commitment to examine the introduction of a tenth ground for discrimination and the work that the Minister has done in the Equality Acts review. All the stakeholder organisations which engaged with the consultation process by the Department and who made submissions have endorsed this Bill as the best approach. In particular, I want to acknowledge the work of the Add the 10th Alliance and their member organisations: All Together in Dignity, ATD, Ireland, Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, the Association for Higher Education Access and Disability, AHEAD, Community Action Network, CAN, the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed, INOU, the European Anti-Poverty Network and the Independent Living Movement Ireland, ILMI. Without them leading the charge on this issue for the last 20 years, this debate would not be happening, and I acknowledge some of them are in attendance in the Gallery this evening.

As the Minister will know, the Equal Status Act and Employment Equality Act were flagships of their time and led the way for changing equality legislation throughout Europe. However, in recent years we as a State have fallen behind as 20 other European states have codified socio-economics as a ground for discrimination in law. Our laws have come a long way, and I acknowledge the strides that have been made, however this is one missing piece of the puzzle which I believe we must fill in.

Like myself, the Minister and other Deputies will regularly see people at their clinics who could potentially have been discriminated against on some of the grounds in this Bill. These include people who were rejected or ostracised because of the way they spoke, whether they had a job or not or the conditions they lived in. People are shamed and stigmatised for their socio-economic status in this country every day, yet one in every five people in this State is living either in consistent poverty or are at extreme risk of it. One in ten nine-year-olds lives in cold, damp or overcrowded housing according to the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI. In my constituency of Clare, 3,686 households received an additional needs payment in 2022, and 311 of those payments were made to people under 25. This is by way of painting the picture of additional needs of those households and not to say that there are not more in need.

What effect can stigmatisation have? The Add the 10th Alliance has put together a report with the voices of those who have experienced this type of discrimination front and centre. It is called, Does It Only Happen to Me? and I encourage every Member to read it. One of those contributors writes:

The stigma and shame of living in poverty actually hurts me when I’m walking down the street ... I just wanted to highlight the massive link between being discriminated against, shouldering shame and stigma and the effect on mental health. It really hurts to the point where it can give you a mental health disorder, bringing the tenth ground could be a way to reduce depression and suicide.

This person hits the nail on the head when speaking about this issue. It is not just the shame and the stigma, but it is what those things to do to somebody's self-worth and mentality. That is the most significant thing.

This House working together to pass this Bill would send a powerful message to every household in this country that regardless of where you come from, how you speak, whether or not you are employed, and what level of education you have, that you matter; that you are a functioning member of society; that you are no better or worse than anyone else; and that you are equal. As lawmakers we have a solemn duty to protect people through the laws we create. Article 40.1 of our Constitution states that all citizens should be held equal before the law, but being held equal and feeling equal are two hugely different things.

This Bill commits to outlawing socio-economic discrimination on seven core bases. On poverty, Social Justice Ireland estimates that more than 670,000 people are living in poverty in Ireland, including 188,602 children. On source of income, in my constituency of Clare, the live register went up by 36% in the last year, the largest increase in the last decade. The inability of the State to provide jobs in an area, further adding to generational poverty, should not be a black mark against somebody in a job interview. On levels of literacy, according to National Adult Literacy Agency, NALA, one in six Irish adults is below point 1 on the literacy scale and may be unable to understand basic written information. That figure with respect to numeracy levels is one in four. On educational attainment, people who have completed primary school and ceased education are almost four times more likely to be at risk of poverty than those who complete a third-level degree, and those who ceased education at leaving certificate are twice as likely. On address, type of housing or homelessness, the Simon Community estimates that 290,000 people experience hidden homelessness in our State, yet we have no official numbers to confirm that. One in four of us is aware of hidden homelessness in our immediate circle. On employment status, according to Family Carers Ireland, 12.5% of our population over 15 are family carers, and many of them are full time. In my clinic recently, there was a person who cared for a loved one for over 20 years and following their death tried to re-engage with the employment market unsuccessfully. It is wrong that providing a high level of care to a loved one and saving the State millions of euro should be viewed as a blank space on somebody's CV. Last, on social or regional accent, the way somebody sounds has nothing to do with their ability to perform a role. Nobody should be ashamed of where they come from, and nobody should have to hide or adjust who they are.

There is evidence of significant discrimination on the ground of socio-economic status in key areas such as employment, education and housing. The economic and financial crisis has exacerbated this discrimination and ensuing inequality. We have equality legislation that aims to be comprehensive in covering nine grounds. It must now include the tenth ground of socio-economic status if it is to meet any such aspiration.

Deputy Chris Andrews

I acknowledge the presence of the INOU and the ATD campaign. It is important to acknowledge the tireless campaign they have put into this Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to amend Irish equality legislation and the two equality Acts: the Employment Equality Act and the Equal Status Act. As has been said, they cover the nine grounds of marital status, family status, age, disability, sexual orientation, race, religion and membership of the Traveller community.

In addition, the Acts prohibit discrimination in the provision of accommodation services against people who are in receipt of the rent supplement, housing assistance or social welfare payments. The purpose of the Bill is to expand the protections of both Acts to prohibit discrimination on the basis of disadvantaged socioeconomic status. This would make an amendment to include a new ground on disadvantaged socioeconomic status. As the ATD campaign indicated in its infographic, it is the tenth, and very important, piece of the jigsaw. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure persons can no longer be discriminated against on the basis they are coming from a disadvantaged socioeconomic background.

This proposal is in no way new. We are not reinventing the wheel. The Government has been reviewing the matter for years and it has been argued for since the Employment Equality Act 1998 was being introduced. At that time, in response to the demand for more than nine grounds, the then Minister included a review clause requiring a reassessment of the issue within two years. By 2000, therefore, the addition of a further ground should have been made. The pressure was already there because it was acknowledged it was not sufficiently comprehensive legislation and that there was a need to go further.

As part of that review, in 2002, the former Equality Authority proposed the introduction of a socioeconomic status ground highlighting high levels of socioeconomic discrimination in the labour market. In response to the proposal from the former Equality Authority, a research report commissioned by the then Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in 2004 suggested a socioeconomic status ground would serve the objectives of underpinning equality legislation.

This is vital legislation. The Government knows that and referred to it in watery terms in the programme for Government. Importantly, the report also pointed out it would allow a more sophisticated, intersectional approach to its implementation. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, in a 2015 submission to the UN, highlighted the need to prohibit discrimination on the basis of socioeconomic status in equality legislation. The UN committee noted its regret that Irish legislation does not provide protection against discrimination on all grounds of discrimination prohibited by the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. My understanding is that there is, yet again, to be a review of the Equality Acts and the Employment Equality Act which will examine the introduction of socioeconomic grounds for discrimination. To date, however, we still have no guarantee or indication that this review will not fade away like all the others since 1998, some of which I mentioned. The danger is this review or any other review will just continue kicking the can down the road in respect of genuine equality legislation. Reports and reviews must become action. Times are hard for many and the cost-of-living crisis threatens to increase inequality and push people further into the margins. People have enough to deal with without facing discrimination because of who they are or where they are from.

On that note, the purpose of the Bill is to ensure people can no longer be discriminated against on the basis they are from a disadvantaged socioeconomic area, because of their background or because of their accent. For example, if the Bill is enacted, employers will not be able to discriminate against a job applicant or current employee because of his or her accent or the socioeconomic status of the area where he or she comes from. Furthermore, it will not be permissible for service providers to discriminate against people because of where they live. The introduction of a socioeconomic status ground will give people who experience discrimination on this ground the practical means to challenge their experience with a rights-based approach, as is the case with the other nine protected grounds.

It will also be of symbolic importance for the State to make clear to society and to the people who face this discrimination that it will not be tolerated. By continuing to exclude socioeconomic status in equality legislation, we are creating a hierarchy of equality in which we prohibit and recognise certain forms of discrimination, whereas we do not prohibit and recognise forms of discrimination pertaining to socioeconomic background and accent. Over the past 20 years, there have been countless reports and many recommendations from civil society groups such as IHREC, the UN and, most important, above all those reports and organisations, the people with lived experience such as those I represent in the south inner-city Dublin community and local authority flat complexes that this gap in our legislation needs to be addressed. They tell me they regularly and consistently feel disadvantaged because they are disadvantaged, given the Government is not putting in place legislation to protect inner-city communities.

On the topic of lived experience, in parts of the Dublin Bay South constituency I serve, this is a systemic issue that dates back generations for people who live in local authority flat complexes and who report high levels of generational and present-day social exclusion and discrimination that is directly and indirectly due to their socioeconomic background. In one example, a constituent from a flat complex not far from Leinster House, who has a master's degree and is a fluent Portuguese speaker, reported to me that after submitting a video application for a job in a multinational drinks company, he was contacted by a concerned employee of that large multinational company who informed the man that fellow employees had exchanged text messages joking about and mocking the young individual's inner-city Dublin accent, with one questioning how and where a "knacker" like him had picked up Portuguese while they were reviewing his video application. That is an horrendous term for anybody to have to hear about themselves or to be attributed to anyone. It is completely unacceptable and it reinforces the need for the legislation to be passed.

I am also aware of a case where a lone parent was denied access to a local gym due to concerns that granting her and her children access to the gym and swimming pool could encourage other people from the local community who live in the flats to join the gym as well. On these grounds, she was turned away and advised she would be better off using one of the gyms and swimming pools provided by Dublin City Council. I was struck by another example reported to me in recent years where students entering university through an access programme for disadvantaged students were required to complete a Garda vetting form to ensure they did not have a criminal record, whereas students entering the university through the general stream were not required to do so.

It is clear there are unbelievable levels of discrimination against people living in the inner city of Dublin and in other communities throughout the country. They need protection and the Government needs to protect them. It has to stop kicking the can down the road and act, and this is the opportunity to do that.

Minister of State at the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (Deputy Joe O'Brien)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

“Dáil Éireann resolves that the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2021 be deemed to be read a second time this day 18 months, to allow for time to further examine the introduction of 'disadvantaged socio-economic status' as an additional ground in the Equality Acts in the context of the Review of Equality Acts currently under way in the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth.".

I thank the sponsors of the Bill for providing us with the opportunity to debate this important issue, namely, the proposed introduction to the Equality Acts of a new ground of discrimination on the basis of socioeconomic disadvantage. This is a significant proposal in an area of particular interest to the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and to me, and we very much appreciate the efforts made by the Deputies to have the Bill brought forward to Second Stage.

As they will be aware, the proposed introduction of a new ground of discrimination on the basis of socioeconomic disadvantage has been the subject of two previous Private Members' Bills, namely, the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2013 and, more recently, the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2017. This proposal, therefore, has been the subject of much interest and debate over recent years. I am glad to say the programme for Government in 2020 included a specific commitment to examining the introduction of a new ground of discrimination based on disadvantaged socioeconomic status to the Employment Equality and Equal Status Acts. I commend the work of the #Addthe10th campaign on raising this issue of discrimination on socioeconomic grounds in the public consciousness.

We can all agree discrimination on the basis of disadvantaged social origin or disadvantaged socioeconomic status is unacceptable. The links between poverty and discrimination are well documented, and discrimination on the basis of socioeconomic status has been frequently raised by individuals and organisations working in the field of equality law. The pursuit of a just and more equal society through the development and adoption of equality legislation is a goal that unites all parties and individuals in this House.

The Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, and I very much welcome the bringing forward of the Bill before us. It is our view that in time the proposed new ground could promote a more sophisticated, intersectional approach to discrimination and lead to a greater recognition of the multiple forms of discrimination unfortunately faced by many in our country today. However, as the Deputies are aware, past attempts to achieve the same have been held back by difficulties in defining terms such as "socioeconomic status" or "disadvantaged socioeconomic status" with the degree of clarity and lack of ambiguity necessary for the Statute Book. Having said that, it is very clear that the proposer of the Bill has put a lot of thought and work into addressing earlier problems and into drafting a new definition used in this Bill. The Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, wishes to commend the Deputy on that work. It is appreciated that this was not an easy task but the work of the Deputy will be of great assistance in the ongoing consideration of this important issue.

As I said, the programme for Government includes a commitment to examine the introduction of disadvantaged socioeconomic status as a discrimination ground in the Equality Acts and consideration of this commitment forms part of the review of Equality Acts which is currently under way in the Department. The proposed changes to the legislation require careful consideration and the development of detailed proposals. The ongoing review of the equality Acts addresses the inclusion of socioeconomic status as a ground for discrimination and a significant number of submissions dealing with disadvantaged socioeconomic status were received during the public consultation stage of the review.

The commitment in the programme for Government to examine the introduction of a new ground of discrimination based on disadvantaged socioeconomic status in the equality Acts reflects the growing understanding that including the ground of socioeconomic status would serve the objectives of equality legislation by better recognising the lived experience of discrimination. The objective of the review is to examine the operation of the equality Acts to assess their effectiveness with regard to those taking claims under their redress mechanisms. Therefore, examining protections for people who are discriminated against based on disadvantaged socioeconomic status is an important step in addressing intersectional discrimination and understanding how discrimination is truly experienced in our society.

The review is also examining the degree to which those experiencing discrimination are aware of the legislation and whether there are practical or other obstacles that preclude or deter them from taking action. As part of the review, a public consultation was carried out during the period of July to December 2021 and, as I said, a significant number of submissions received relate to support for the introduction of a new ground of disadvantaged socioeconomic status. The Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, intends to publish a report summarising the submissions shortly and further consultation is planned. The Minister expects to bring forward a number of legislative proposals arising from the review later this year.

The purpose of the motion is to provide time for the continuation of the examination of this issue in the context of the broader review of the equality Acts. This will allow for further detail and necessary policy consideration of the issues and for the identification of potential unintended consequences of legislating in this area. The Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, is very conscious of the amount of work and research carried out by the Deputy on this issue. This is reflected in the Bill that has been brought forward today. The Minister has indicated that he would very much welcome the opportunity to work more closely with the Deputy in advancing the new equality legislation which is expected to emerge from the review of the equality Acts.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

Before I speak on this important Bill, I want to echo Deputy Wynne's words in expressing my thoughts and sympathies to the injured PSNI officer, John Caldwell, and his family, friends and community on the terrible news of the shooting last night in Omagh. I also note that tomorrow we are marking one year's anniversary of the brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine. I know we had a moment's silence in this House earlier to mark that.

I commend Deputies Wynne and Andrews for bringing forward this important legislation which we in the Labour Party are very happy to support. The Minister of State has pointed out that it is similar to other Private Members' Bills introduced previously. That just shows the level of support and the need for introducing legislation like this. I acknowledge the presence with us of the "Add the 10th" campaign which we are glad to support, members of the INOU and others. There has been a very strong civil society campaign around the need to add a tenth ground of discrimination into our equality legislation to join the nine grounds already there in those Acts. I will speak more about the equality legislation in a moment.

I acknowledge the point made by the Minister of State, Deputy Joe O'Brien, that there is a review of the equality legislation under way, in accordance with the commitment in the programme for Government. We are all very conscious of that. I am glad to hear confirmation that a report is to be published shortly arising out of that review and indeed that the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, intends to bring forward legislative proposals. It is good to hear about that progress.

However, it is disappointing that the Government has put down an amendment in respect of this Bill to require that the Second Reading be delayed for 18 months. That strikes me as being far too long given the review is under way and the Minister of State has said a report is to be published imminently, certainly this year, and that there are legislative proposals under consideration. It would seem too long a period to defer a Second Reading of this Bill. Other Government amendments in respect of Private Members' legislation in this term have referred to shorter deferral periods. It is an unreasonably long period given how much work is under way, that there have been Private Members' Bills on this issue before and that there is a strong civil society campaign. Obviously it is up to Deputy Wynne to decide whether to accept or oppose the Government amendment.

We do have instances of other Private Members' equality Bills that have passed more speedily through the Houses with cross-party support. In 2015, I was glad that as a Senator my Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act to prevent discrimination against LGBT individuals by religious-run institutions, schools and hospitals was brought into law. I share that experience to remind the sponsors of the Bill and the Government Ministers that through collaboration, Private Members' Bills on equality matters do have the potential to make progress on important equality initiatives.

The equality agenda is far from complete, as we know. The Bill before the House seeks to prohibit discrimination on the basis of a really critical ground, that tenth ground of social and economic disadvantage, class background in other words. It is legislation which aims to put in place provisions rejecting snobbery and class prejudice. On that principle we can all agree on the need to reject that particular ground of discrimination.

I note that the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, has joined us. I am conscious that research published by his Department just last year, in 2022, clearly highlighted the impact of this sort of discrimination in revealing that children from a disadvantaged class background were more likely to experience discrimination on the basis of their place of birth or parentage compared with children from more advantaged social classes. The same research found that unemployed adults were the second most likely group to experience some form of discrimination after those of a non-white ethnicity, with 30% of unemployed adults compared with 33% of those from a non-white ethnicity. This is some of the data which establish what we all know to be true, that this form of class-based discrimination is prevalent in society and that legislation is needed to prohibit it.

In recent weeks, the impetus to stamp out discrimination of all kinds has been brought into sharp focus. As a society and as legislators we have a political and moral obligation to call out and eradicate bias and hate wherever it arises, on whatever ground and in whatever form. As per the trade union slogan, an injury to one is an injury to all. Strengthening equality legislation is something that we as legislators can do in a practical way to address discrimination.

We in the Labour Party are proud of our legacy, particularly that of the former Minister, Mervyn Taylor, the first Minister with responsibility for equality. He pioneered the equality legislation the review of which is under way. He pioneered, indeed, the inclusion of nine grounds of discrimination. I am thinking also of the contribution of another former Labour Party Minister, Niamh Bhreathnach, who recently died, very sadly. We all are most sorry to see her sad passing. I was reminded of her work on this by a tweet from Kieran Rose, the co-founder of the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network, GLEN. He reminded us of the role Niamh had played in the development of the original equality legislation. He reminded us that the Bill as originally drafted was confined to discrimination on the basis of sex and marital status. This was a Labour Party Private Members' Bill from 1990 which was the forerunner and created the passage to the equality laws we have today. Niamh, alongside Dick Spring and Mervyn Taylor, met with GLEN, members of the Traveller community, activists from ethic minorities and other organisations.

Following that consultation with civil society, the Bill became much more inclusive. Despite being narrowly defeated in the Dáil later, it formed the bedrock for the equality legislation Mr. Mervyn Taylor, the then Minister responsible for equality, introduced in the 1990s. That was pioneering legislation dealing with nine grounds of discrimination but we know that the tenth ground, that of socioeconomic status or class, should be added as a recognised one.

We all have heard stories about the lived experiences of those who have suffered bias, prejudice and discrimination on grounds of class, but currently there is no form of legal redress. Last year, members of the gender equality committee, which I chair, heard very clearly during its hearings about experiences of intersectional discrimination. I am referring to women who were discriminated against not just because of their gender but also because of their class, ethnicity or disability. We are very conscious that part of the process or mechanism we put in place for challenging intersectional discrimination must refer to socioeconomic class.

My constituency, Dublin Bay South, is proudly diverse but I hear from constituents who have had the insidious form of class discrimination in question directed against them. I am always frustrated to have to inform them they have no legal basis for recourse currently. For example, I know the management of certain pubs and bars in my constituency have asked clients to leave, citing their dress, in spite of the fact that the pubs are often full of people wearing very casual clothing. Those who have told me about this very insidious form of discrimination have clearly reported they experienced it because they identified as working class. They believe it was because of an accent or particular look. One person told me that when applying for her first job, she gave her home address, which is in a very identifiable complex in a disadvantaged area in south Dublin. She could not find a job; there was none available to her. One year later, she set out again, seeking work at the same places of employment, this time giving the address of a relative in a less disadvantaged area, an area perceived to be more advantaged. Almost immediately, she started getting interviews and job offers. These are obvious examples that we all hear about. As legislators, we do have to address this. If this is a pernicious and pervasive form of discrimination, we must recognise it in our laws and address it legislatively.

I very much welcome the fact that the Government has committed to examining the introduction of this new ground of discrimination based on socioeconomically disadvantaged status. All of us in opposition very much welcome the conduct of the review of equality legislation, including an examination of the incorporation of the tenth ground. However, given the amount of work under way and the cross-party consensus that seems to exist in both the Government and Opposition benches, we could move more swiftly. There is no need, therefore, to put in place an amendment delaying further progress on this Bill for 18 months. That is likely to bring us beyond the term of this Government and therefore it is just too long a delay.

Among the measures that the gender equality committee recommended should be adopted by the Government was a constitutional referendum on equality that would broaden the equality guarantee and make it more inclusive, as well as taking out the sexist language about women and replacing it with language that values and recognises the contribution of care in our society. We also recommended a related amendment to recognise more inclusive and diverse forms of family. It would be very positive if we could see this year a commitment to adopting the Bill or provisions within it and also hold the equality referendum that the gender equality committee and citizens' assembly have called for.

Deputy Gary Gannon

I welcome the members of the INOU and the Add the 10th campaign. I am not sure if Paul McKeon is in the Gallery. For as long as I have been in politics, he has been talking to me about this issue. He really has been pushing it home. That the visitors in the Gallery are here is a genuine example of civic engagement.

The purpose of the Bill is to expand the protections of both Acts to prohibit discrimination on the basis of disadvantaged socioeconomic status and to ensure persons can no longer be discriminated against because they come from a disadvantaged socioeconomic area or background. This is a really insidious form of discrimination. Members on both sides have highlighted cases of where people have felt discriminated against, but in some of the community sector work I have done in the north inner city to get young people back into education or the employment market, I found that the discrimination was so insidious that it was almost felt in people’s bones or being. It prohibits people from even applying for certain jobs and from putting their address on CVs. It creates a scenario in the culture that leads people to believe they do not belong in certain spaces. The Add the 10th campaign has placed this on the political agenda. Passing the Bill would send out a message that the discrimination is no longer acceptable.

The Bill’s proposal is in no way new. It has been argued for since the introduction of the Employment Equality Act in 1998. In that legislation, the response to the demand for more than nine grounds was made by the then Minister by including a review clause requiring the Minister to assess, within two years, the need to add further grounds. The pressure that existed already showed there was insufficiently comprehensive legislation and that there was a need to go further. As part of the review in 2002, the former Equality Authority proposed the introduction of a socioeconomic status ground, highlighting high levels of socioeconomic discrimination in the labour market. In response to the proposal from the former Equality Authority, a research report commissioned by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in 2004 suggested a socioeconomic status ground would serve the objectives underpinning the equality legislation. Importantly, the report also pointed out that it would allow a more sophisticated intersectional approach to its implementation.

As has already been said, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission’s 2015 submission to the UN highlighted the need to prohibit discrimination on the basis of socioeconomic status in equality legislation. The UN committee noted with regret that Irish legislation does not protect against discrimination on all grounds of discrimination prohibited by UN human rights covenants. At the moment, there is another review of the equality legislation. It will examine the introduction of socioeconomic grounds for discrimination. To date, however, we still have no guarantee or indication that this review will not fade away like all the others, without action to include the ground in question.

I find it difficult to understand the Minister’s delaying of the Bill for 18 months. It is very ambitious given the time we may have left in this Chamber. If there is a Second Reading of the Bill in 18 months, the Government’s remaining term may not be long enough to bring it to a conclusion. Other postponed Bills have had much shorter timeframes. We can be more rapid in dealing with this legislation. I understand the Government is introducing legislation itself. I would certainly like to work in collaboration with the Minister across the Chamber but it would be a fantastic achievement to get this Bill over the line. The Minister will have a lot of support. I thank Deputies Wynne and Andrews for introducing the Bill. We will certainly be supporting it.

Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (Deputy Roderic O'Gorman)

I apologise to Deputies Andrews and Wynne for my not being here to hear their initial speeches. I was at a Cabinet committee meeting. I was delighted that the Minister of State, Deputy Joe O’Brien, was able to speak on the Government side. I know the issue is one that he, like me, feels passionately about.

I thank the two Deputies for introducing this important legislative proposal. Both of them, along with Deputies Bacik and Gannon, have spoken about the need to reform and change our laws and broaden our recognition of the discrimination that exists. The equality legislation we brought in just over 20 years ago was really at the cutting edge at the time, which we should recognise. Others have spoken about those who helped shape it. However, the omission of the recognition that people are discriminated against on the grounds of accent or address was significant. The Government wants to address and solve that. We want to do it as part of broader recognition that our equality legislation, though really good, is over 20 years old and needs reform. That is why the approach I am seeking to adopt is to apply a time amendment to the Deputies’ proposal today and allow the Government to introduce broader reforming legislation - legislation that I am absolutely committed will include the ground of socioeconomic discrimination. The review we commissioned specifically called that issue out. It specifically called out the issue of who is currently protected under the gender ground.

It asks for people to submit other issues. I have been working with Senator Ruane, for example, on the issue of non-disclosure agreements in sexual harassment cases. We hope to address that within the context of the legislation. Groups such as FLAC and a large number of NGOs working in this sector have made detailed submissions on other issues we can deal with in this legislation. I believe one reforming Bill that addresses and includes socioeconomic status as a new ground, but also includes other key areas, is the best way to go.

However, I am happy to work with both Deputies and, indeed, other Deputies on the entire Bill, but particularly the language around the issue of socioeconomic discrimination. Deputies and Senators know I am very open to working with them in trying to get the best language and most effective level of protection.

When I first came into this role, I met with a number of trade union representatives regarding their belief in the importance of getting socioeconomic status specifically enumerated as a tenth ground of discrimination and that is what we want to achieve. To give Deputies a sense of the process, the closing date for submissions was late last year. Officials in my Department have compiled a report examining the various themes and issues that were flagged in the submissions to the public consultation. We hope to publish that in a number of weeks and following that, we will look to start to design the heads of Bill, which will go through a pre-legislative scrutiny process and then be agreed by Cabinet before going through the legislative process.

I am happy to work with both Deputies on this particular ground. Working together, we can ensure we add socioeconomic discrimination as a new ground to equality legislation but also undertake a wider and much-needed refreshing and hopefully even re-energising of that legislation to make it fit for the 2020s.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan)

We will close with the two proposers. Deputies Andrews and Wynne have five minutes each.

Deputy Violet-Anne Wynne

I thank the Minister for all information he provided and for being present for the wrap-up. As I said at the outset, I welcome that he has conducted a review into the equality Acts and, importantly, invited submissions. I very much welcome that the Bill was roundly recommended in those submissions as the best way to proceed and is, at least, a starting point.

I will speak to the Minister's proposed amendment. I thank him for not opposing this incredibly important legislation and for providing a timeframe in which it can proceed to the next Stage. This has shown that the Government acknowledges the validity of this Bill and the necessity for its progression through this House. I strongly and respectfully urge the Minister to reconsider the timeframe of 18 months, however. I want to be clear that I am not contesting that it will take time; I am contesting the timeframe proposed, which, because it is so long, could be viewed by the public as kicking the can down the road.

As he will be well aware, this is not just a motion plucked out of thin air; it is a direct response to what was promised in the programme for Government and a response to 20 years of campaigning from fantastic organisations the length and breadth of the State. We are now halfway through the Decade of Centenaries. We have had parades, pageants, junkets and ceremonies yet we in this House are forgetting the commitment that was made in that Proclamation in 1916 to cherish all of the children of the nation equally. Every day the Government stalls on this issue flies in the face of that. I wholeheartedly urge the Minister to reconsider the way the amendment was proposed.

The Bill is more relevant now than ever as all reporting points to rising poverty levels. We are in the grip of a cost-of-living crisis. Ireland is one of the most expensive EU states for lighting, heating and housing. The CSO revealed earlier this week that 89,000 children were living in consistent poverty with 180,000 at risk of poverty in 2022. This is a marked increase of more than 46,000 children in poverty or at risk of poverty since last year. These children will grow up into a society that will shame and stigmatise them because of this unless the action is taken now.

Our fundamental duty as legislators is to serve the people and represent their best interests in this House. We need to ensure that our laws are reflective of the society we have been elected to represent and have been given a mandate to serve. It is vital that we progress this legislation as a matter of priority so that all the children in the cohort I mentioned do not grow up to repeat a cycle of generational poverty or, worse, become a statistic.

Thanks to the fantastic work of Clare Public Participation Network in its landmark report, Towards an Anti-Poverty Strategy for Clare, we have no official figures on poverty, fuel poverty, food poverty or child poverty on a county-by-county basis. The poverty figures are broken down by region and all the other categories have no official figures whatsoever. What we know for certain is that the mid-west is the most deprived and under-resourced region in the entire State. This is a scathing indictment of Government policy towards Clare, Limerick and north Tipperary. We need proper reporting by Government on these crucial poverty indicators. The passage of the Bill would have a knock-on effect to force the Government's hand on this so that cases taken under the new law would be justiciable. The Government has been able to hide this apathy toward our region by refusing to publish detailed statistics on the true state of the nation up to now. This must change so that we can ensure that we are receiving all the support that we as a county deserve. The Bill is the best approach to levelling the playing field for tens of thousands of people across Ireland. It has been endorsed by IHREC, Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, FLAC, NDA, Association for Higher Education Access and Disability, Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed, European Anti-Poverty Network, All Together in Dignity Ireland, Community Action Network, Independent Living Movement Ireland, Social Justice Ireland and a range of other NGOs, charities and civil organisations.

A commitment was made to look at adding this ground in the programme for Government. I welcome that the Minister has conducted the review into the equality Acts and invited submissions. That process has concluded and, hopefully, he and I and other Deputies will be able to work in tandem to see this Bill passed into law, and more rights and protections afforded to the people of our State as a result. I have a personal interest in this Bill because I come from a disadvantaged socioeconomic background. This is, therefore, something about which I am passionate.

Deputy Chris Andrews

I appreciate the Minister coming in and listening to the various issues. I know he is committed to equality; it is a common theme throughout his work in Leinster House. I cannot help thinking he is a bit optimistic to suggest that the Government will still be here in 18 months but that is another debate.

I acknowledge the work the Office of Parliamentary Legal Advisers and its officials put in in drafting the Bill. It was detailed and aware of the current political status and debate around equality law. As Deputy Wynne said, we will not be agreeing to the amendment for a number of reasons. The main reason is that the delay sends out a message to residents living in flat complexes in the inner city surrounding this building that they are not a priority. The Minister said that the equality legislation has been here 20 years and we are still waiting to add the tenth ground. It is unacceptable that we can allow this to drift. We could probably fill this room with reports and reviews from all the time spent on it, yet here we are with the Minister telling us we will have to wait another 18 months. It may not happen in the lifetime of this Government. That is the political reality and that may be the case. The Government is not taking the discrimination of people living in working-class communities seriously. The consultation is just an excuse.

Socioeconomic status is the tenth piece in the jigsaw. It needs to be introduced as a ground for discrimination as a matter of urgency, as not doing so will create a hierarchy of discrimination. If someone is discriminated against on the basis of race or disability, it is unacceptable, but if he or she is discriminated against on the basis of his or her accent or socioeconomic background, is that supposed to be okay? Judging by the Minister of State's nod, he agrees with me. If we are trying to have perfect legislation that includes everything, we could be going for years and still never have legislation that addresses this matter.

This ground for discrimination needs to be introduced urgently. The amendment calls for 18 months. If the Government accepted the Bill, though, the process would take months anyway. The Bill would crawl along before reaching Committee Stage. As such, there is no reason the Government cannot accept it and work with the Deputies involved. Broadly speaking, the vast majority of Members would support this legislation. In that light, it is increasingly frustrating for people living in inner city communities and flat complexes who feel that they are being discriminated against and that the Government does not care about their lives and the reality they face. We must address this issue.

The programme for Government is vague and non-committal on this front. The Government is kicking the can down the road for another 18 months. In the meantime, people will be discriminated against. I do not see why the Government cannot support the Bill. As it works through the process, the Government can add other elements to it. I am disappointed, as the amendment is just an exercise in can kicking.

Amendment put.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan)

The division will be deferred until the weekly division time next week.

Cuireadh an Dáil ar athló ar 6.52 p.m. go dtí 2 p.m., Dé Máirt, an 28 Feabhra 2023.

The Dáil adjourned at 6.52 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 28 February 2023.