Ms Maeve McElwee:

It is very broad but we have the ability, if there is any question between the two parties, to send someone to a qualified medical practitioner to determine whether the person has a disability. If a qualified medical practitioner says the person has a disability, the employer has to accept that because that is a professional medical opinion. The employer is not a professional medical practitioner so we have to work from that point. If a person is a member of the Traveller community, has a particular sexual orientation or has a particular family status as we currently understand it, there are ways in which we can understand what those grounds mean and how they apply to the individual who is making a claim. This new proposed piece does not have that clarity. The availability of clarity around this issue is very difficult. We are asking people to comply with a law that carries a very significant penalty. One must bear in mind that most employers in this country are in the small employer category and this type of award is enormously significant, both in terms of reputation and financially. In that context, they need to be able to understand the grounds, how they apply them to a particular individual and what is their level of responsibility in terms of knowing what those grounds mean. If it is the case that they know that socioeconomic grounds can be taken to mean a particular address, are employers obliged to know what that address is or would it be better if they did not know? If employers do not know what the address is, should they have known? Could employers possibly be culpable if the person interviewing with them knew the address, even though it may not have been stated? Do employers need to know that it is a socially disadvantaged area? Do they then need to consider whether the individual is actually socially disadvantaged or has come from an advantaged background but, in this current housing market, happens to have bought a property in an area that is designated as socially disadvantaged? If there is an income threshold, is the individual's income curtailed because he or she has a massive mortgage, is in negative equity, has an exceptionally large family or is on social welfare? At what point will employers be able to determine, in the way that one can determine that someone has a mental or physical disability or a gender issue, whether a person has a socioeconomic ground? How far do employers have to go in terms of knowing or not knowing and what limit do they apply to it? If a person has an issue around income or family background, how far do employers need to go into that before they can securely say they did not discriminate against that person. Ultimately, when that low bar is reached - we have no disagreement with the fact that it is a relatively low bar - the burden of proof is very detailed and appropriately rigorous on employers. In terms of this ground, how would they meet that bar? That is what I am asking this committee, as legislators. The challenge is that in defining legislation, recommending it and proposing it, one must be confident that it can be understood, be complied with and that it is reasonable to comply with it. In no way am I suggesting that we do not need to do something about socioeconomic grounds but when-----