Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for being here today. In some ways this is so obvious there is almost nothing to say. I do not mean that in a derogatory sense. Everybody would agree that this discrimination has existed from time immemorial. We all know that people who come from particular areas feel they cannot disclose it because it will result in their being treated less favourably. It is almost instinctive in some ways in attitudes. There are cultural problems also. That almost 30% of people who are discriminated against are outside the current grounds verifies this. In terms of the statistics available, I am sure we would all agree that this is a very real problem. What we are discussing now is how best we can address it and whether the legislation before us will do that. We will not solve all society's ills by way of this legislation but we need to consider whether it helps or hinders address of the issue. Based on what I have heard, I believe it helps. I say that conscious that other legislation brought in has not culturally changed things. For example, in regard to the housing payment, we are inundated with representations from people who believe they are not being provided with housing because they are on the housing assistance payment scheme or on rent allowance and so on, even though current legislation clearly states that that is not on. The couple of test cases that have been taken will help to bring about change in this regard. That is all we can do here. To me, this is a good measure.

Mr. Crowley spoke about stigma, which is one of the issues I wanted to raise. Many areas are stigmatised, and by including this clause we are helping to educate people. Is it not the case that the absence of knowledge is a ground for defence? Does knowledge not have to be proven in cases of discrimination? For example, a person could fill out an application form and not state in that application where he or she comes from and then say he or she is being discriminated against because of where he or she comes from, but if an employer can demonstrate that he or she did not have that knowledge then he or she would be home and dry. That is just one example. Also, the point was made that an employer would not know that a person was in receipt of social welfare benefits, but if there was a five-year gap in terms of employment or study on the person's curriculum vitae, then the employer would know the person was long-term unemployed. Presumably, if a person does not have the skill set or experience required because he or she has been long-term unemployed, the employer is not obligated to employ that person. That is my understanding of it but I would welcome a little more clarify around that issue.

To me, it obvious we should have this although I do not think it is a panacea. I do not think it puts an onerous burden on employers. From the point of view of access to services, similar to Traveller discrimination in terms of access to pubs, a publican could choose to refuse access to people from a particular estate because the view is that everybody who lives in that estate is rough or because they dress in tracksuits and the pub requires a particular dress code. There are ways around this. As I said, it is not a panacea but it does help to raise cultural understanding and from that point of view it is good.