Ms Eilis Barry:

No, it needs to be improved. Even with what is currently in place, in addition to people finding it hard to find information about it, they cannot get legal advice. They have to attend at the WRC where they often will not have representation, they may not be lucky enough to be in a union or the union will be of no assistance to them if the claim is under the Equal Status Act. Time and again, our information line hears from people who are going into the WRC and facing a solicitor and maybe junior and senior counsels on the other side. There is a complete imbalance. The provisions themselves are also very complex. There are four definitions of indirect discrimination within the legislation. That has to be simplified. There is real need to simplify the language, definitions and make it more accessible.

The procedures themselves are difficult. People have to comply with a written notification. Once people get in, they have to establish a prima facie case and most laypeople will have no idea what exactly that means or how to satisfy that burden. The Zalewski judgment in the Supreme Court has ensured that the procedures before the WRC are now much more complex. Initially when it was set up, it was supposed to be accessible for people who were not represented. That is no longer the case. People have to produce evidence and be subjected to cross-examination.

There is also the matter of the WRC not deciding on procedural matters in advance, meaning that people do not know before they go into a public hearing whether they will be granted anonymity. Many of the claims may deal with sensitive issues in disability or sexual harassment, yet people will not know before they go into the hearing whether it will be in private or whether they will have a chance to have their names anonymised.

The remedies themselves, particularly under the Equal Status Act, have proven to be wholly ineffective.