Ms Maeve McElwee:

I thank the joint committee for the opportunity to present our position and to set out the views of employers on this issue. I will commence by noting that IBEC is very keenly aware of the challenges that individuals face in accessing good jobs and the quality of life that is associated with secure employment. To be clear right from the get-go, we do not necessarily believe that the measure proposed in this Bill is the appropriate way of achieving these goals, and we see that there is significant potential and risk that this particular proposal may increase social stratification and stigmatisation.

IBEC is of the view that a fully integrated labour market activation approach to education, training and employment needs to be formulated, so that all individuals can have the same chance to compete for jobs and opportunities within the labour market. We absolutely recognise that business has a central role to play in tackling issues such as long-term unemployment and youth activation, and that business can play an important role in opening up workplaces to persons who are unemployed and helping develop links to the world of work.

In this regard, IBEC has been proactively engaged in the promotion of diversity and inclusion for over a decade, working with employers and other stakeholders to support early years intervention and labour market activation. I will come back to this point.

I would like to address some of the key points in this particular piece of legislation with which IBEC has considerable concern. The Bill defines disadvantaged socio-economic status as meaning: “a socially identifiable status of social or economic disadvantage resulting from poverty, level or source of income, homelessness, place of residence, or family background”.The breadth of this definition and the lack of clarity around it give rise to certain concerns for businesses and employers generally. The first concern is that the Bill may unfairly stigmatise certain districts or postal addresses as disadvantaged or in some way undesirable. We believe that the Bill also risks stigmatising the reliance on social welfare for a period, which is unlikely to be of assistance in achieving the broader goal of greater social integration and mobility.

Given the lack of clarity within the definition, there is a strong risk that it will include individuals not intended to be protected by this piece of legislation. Fundamentally, the definition provided for in the Bill provides no assistance to employers who wish to ensure that they comply with their obligations under employment equality law.

In fact, we believe that the definition will create more questions than it will answer. The Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality, Deputy David Stanton, has already identified some of the flaws in the definition in a recent Dáil debate. From personal experience of 15 years as a practitioner in front of the Labour Relations Commission, Equality Tribunal, Employment Appeals Tribunal and now the WRC, I am very conscious of how we need to present this information. Several questions will arise for employers. How will a disadvantaged income level be defined? Will such a definition be relative to a specific income threshold? Will everyone on a social welfare payment be considered disadvantaged? Would the definition include persons living in a rural area, who are not necessarily poor, but have more limited opportunities to access employment, or perhaps limited access to broadband? Given that the equality legislation requires us to demonstrate who our comparator is, how would the comparators who are not so disadvantaged be identified? Would this question be relative to a specific income threshold? Would those individuals not in receipt of a social welfare payment automatically be regarded as an appropriate comparator?

The reference to family background is particularly ambiguous, and would certainly pose a huge difficulty for employers. For employers, this turns on its head the requirement with which we generally operate, the requirement to prove a case. In this instance, we would almost be required to prove an absence of knowledge in order to be able to demonstrate whether or not there had been any question of discrimination.

The Employment Equality Acts quite correctly provide for significant redress for employees or job applicants who are subjected to discrimination in the workplace, or in the course of accessing the workplace. Given the really wide definition of discrimination, and the financial impact of falling foul of the legislation, it is crucial for employers to be able to precisely understand their obligations and what constitutes discrimination.

Legislators have a responsibility to ensure that statutes are clear, certain and precise. Those who are expected to comply with legislation should be able to understand what it means and who is captured by it.

Legislators also need to recognise that employment equality legislation provides for very significant redress, including compensation of up to two years remuneration for every breach as well as potential reputational damage. That is a very heavy onus on a clear understanding of what that legislation requires someone to do.

IBEC is of the view that more targeted measures are required to address the issues which are the subject of this Bill. We have already had very significant engagement in trying to address measures to increase labour market activation. Intreo on the Employment and Youth Activation Charter is one such example. This business-led initiative enables employers to sign up to a charter to commit that at least 50% of candidates considered for interview will be taken from the unemployment register. In addition, employers commit to a selection of other measures aimed at addressing long-term and youth unemployment. There are currently 430 companies signed up to the charter.

While not operating at the moment, the Ballymun pilot Youth Guarantee is another good example of how this activation works. It was a partnership of public employment services, employer and trade union representatives, education and training providers, local development organisations and youth organisations. It aimed to guarantee that all of those on the unemployment register would be supported to secure or receive work experience, training or educational opportunity within a short period of becoming unemployed. If we are serious about addressing inequality, focus needs to be on supporting on the well-documented learnings and reform proposals coming from this project.

There is a compelling economic and social case for new initiatives to raise levels of education skills. In our broader submission we have already sent to the committee, we have set out some of the detail on the correlation between education and work. Levels of earnings and security in employment are clearly adversely affected by low levels of proficiency in basic skills. In our view effective education policies and programmes are critical to achieving positive economic and social outcomes that deliver for individual citizens and the country as a whole.

We acknowledge that there are matters of social justice which need to be addressed. We recognise that there are concerns about the stratification of Irish society. However, the employment equality legislation, and specifically this initiative, is not the vehicle to achieve greater socioeconomic equality. This needs to be done by way of a strong State education system, effective labour market activation measures and other social supports, particularly early years intervention.

In reality, many of the barriers to employment that exist in Ireland relate to the absence of required levels of work experience, qualifications and skills rather than by reason of discrimination because of an applicant’s background. IBEC is happy to continue to engage with all stakeholders on achieving socioeconomic equality. We are available at any time to discuss any of the other initiatives we already support in this regard. However, the Irish business community cannot support a Bill that proposes such an inappropriate method of dealing with the issues it proposes to address.