Ms Carly Bailey:

On behalf of the National One Parent Family Alliance, I thank the members of this committee for inviting us here this evening. I am the policy manager with One Family. I am joined by my colleague Louise Bayliss, head of social justice and policy in the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. We welcome the invitation to provide input into this general scheme, which relates to the Equal Status Act 2000 and the Employment Equality Acts, which are also known as the equality Acts. We appreciate the committee's commitment to ensure that the pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill is thorough and constructive and will ultimately result in equality legislation that provides strong protections for those most vulnerable to discrimination and lesser treatment.

Turning to the heads of the Bill, there is much within the general scheme that we are glad to see. Much of what we had previously called for has been included. We welcome the addition of prospective employees under head 7 and the removal of the long-outdated differential pay rates for disabled people under head 8. Head 9 is also long overdue. It relates to an issue we regularly hear about from parents we work with. This provision should be clear as to the responsibilities of employers and consideration and how these might be monitored and enforced outside of a complaint made to the WRC.

Regarding heads 10, 11, 16 and 17, we agree with the need to extend the time limits for applying for redress. However, we caution the committee to consider whether the time extensions currently proposed are sufficient. Many of those we have spoken to who feel they have experienced discrimination take some time to understand that what happened was potentially discrimination and that there is the potential to make a complaint and to find out to whom they might make that complaint. We agree that remedies ought to be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. We ask that clarity be provided where necessary in respect of the written guidelines contained in head 17 and that these include the possibility of index-linking financial remedies so they remain dissuasive and future-proofed.

Head 13 is particularly welcome, as this would provide the WRC needed certainty when considering the merit of a complaint that a test need no longer be applied to each individual ground. Instead, multiple grounds could be taken into account and the aggregation of those grounds could determine whether there was sufficient merit in hearing the case. One Family called for this in our 2021 submission, when this issue was last reviewed.

A list of service providers is included under head 14. The committee might seek to ensure this is sufficient and to query the impact on legal certainty if the list is not to be exhaustive in nature. We would also seek a review in respect of reasonable accommodations and the burden on service providers. Disability organisations will have much more to say on this but access and participation is crucial for people to live dignified lives.

It is our understanding that many groups have been calling to repeal section 19 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 so that such discrimination cases would be heard by the WRC. It is good to see this included here under head 18. We have some concerns about head 19 with regard to legislative location and whether the amendments go far enough. These concerns have also been raised by FLAC and other organisations. We ask the committee to be guided by those groups when considering this head of the Bill.

Looking at what is not included within this general scheme, we understand the purpose of the Bill will be to prohibit discrimination on the basis of socioeconomic status. We understand that the testing process has concluded and we urge committee members to ensure that a new socioeconomic protected ground is included when the legislation is enacted. This is especially important, given the amendment that will allow for protected grounds to be considered together and not just individually under head 13. This is a ground that many of the parents we work with feel forms part of the discrimination they face.

One of our biggest concerns relates to the definition of the family status protected ground. There is no proposal that seeks to amend the definition of family status. I am conscious that we are running out of time but members can refer to my written statement for the full definition. Essentially, the definition does not currently protect people in one-parent families from unfair treatment because of their family type, be they lone parents, separated parents, divorced parents or non-resident parents. Public bodies and those providing goods and services for profit are frequently directly or indirectly discriminatory against one-parent families, leaving many unable to access supports and services when they need them. We call for the committee to look at the exclusionary nature of the definition of family status, which also impacts carers, non-resident parents and others. We would appreciate the opportunity to engage with the committee further on this to ensure that all family types are included and protected once this Bill is enacted.

I thank members for their consideration and time today. We welcome any questions.