Mr. Niall Crowley:

Yes. The Deputy asked what could be done now where discrimination on this ground occurred. There are many barriers to accessing work based on socioeconomic status and discrimination legislation alone will not deal with all of them. Good labour market activation is important, but it does not deal with the significant barrier of discrimination. It is the same regarding people with disabilities. Labour market activation supports people with disabilities to enter the workforce, but anti-discrimination legislation is necessary to complement it and ensure that it works.

Second, business does have role in this regard in terms of the steps outlined. Business can takes steps to prevent discrimination on a socio-economic status ground and the better businesses do. IBEC plays an important role in supporting businesses to do that and it is exceptional at a European level in this regard. We all know that not all businesses take steps to prevent discrimination occurring. There is not a level playing field for business in this regard and, therefore, anti-discrimination legislation that pushes all businesses to take the preventative steps is good for businesses. In the absence of legislation, people can do nothing about that discrimination. In circumstances where people can do nothing about that type of discrimination, it breeds alienation, a sense that change is not possible and that this type of discrimination is normal and we have to put up with it, which is not good for society and our economy.

In regard to the definition, I did not suggest that it should not be drawn too tightly, I said it should not be drawn too narrowly. It is important that the breadth of the definition is good, as is the case in the current draft. All studies elsewhere, in terms of this ground, suggest that if the definition is drawn too narrowly it will not work. It should be tightly drawn, and I believe it is in comparison with other European countries. There are three tests in the definition: socially identifiable, although I am not sure how necessary that test is, social or economic disadvantage, and the various indicators in that regard. The definition is drawn significantly more tightly than it is in all other jurisdictions where it has been found to work without problems for those making complaints or those against whom the complaints are being made, or potentially made. Looking at this issue in terms of the challenge to employers, it is important to say that employers do get a lot of information, more than service providers, in relation to job applicants in terms of CVs and job application forms, so there is a lot of knowledge available to them. The first burden of proof lies with the person who is being discriminated against. He or she faces the difficulty and must make the prima faciecase. It is only when he or she has made that prima faciecase that the burden shifts to the employer to prove there was no discrimination on the specified ground. Also, cases are rarely fought to the end. The better employers, when it is pointed out to them what has happened, resolve the issue well before it goes to the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, and a sanction is applied. There is a lower sanction applied in job application cases.

It is accurate to say that legislation of this nature could stigmatise areas, people or groups. I do not think women, people with disabilities or black minority ethnic people have been stigmatised by anti-discrimination legislation. In reality, they are empowered by such legislation and they can become agents of change in their own situations because of this legislation. That is why it is so important and so good for society. It is invigorating for society. The reality is that it is stigma that already exists that is breeding this discrimination. Legislation to counter this discrimination will break the stigma. It will show people in a different light. It will show them as agents of change in their own lives.

The points made by IBEC in regard to the cases could have been said about any of the other grounds, particularly the disability ground, which is more broadly drawn than is the case in any other European jurisdiction. It includes the term "other medical condition", which I welcome. It is important and it works. It has worked and it does contribute to a culture of compliance. We have in place an infrastructure which, again, is unique at a European level. In many of the European countries that have this ground, provision is made only for a tribunal-type body to hear and resolve cases. They do not have a promotion-type body like the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission to provide guidance and support to employers and service providers. Ireland is uniquely well placed to put this ground into place effectively because not only do we have an institution to deal with the cases when they occur, we also have an institution to support employers and service providers to ensure they do not happen in the first instance. I think we are well placed to move ahead on this ground.