Ms Judy Walsh:

I thank the Chair. I wish everyone a good morning. I am thankful for the invitation to participate in the committee's assessment of the general scheme. My opening remarks will focus on the Equal Status Acts, which are addressed in heads 13 to 18, inclusive.

Several of the proposed amendments to the Equal Status Acts are welcome. The transfer of discrimination cases against licensed premises to the WRC and the provision on victimisation will both ensure that Ireland complies with the race equality directive, which is the European Union instrument the Equal Status Acts implement. Other proposals in the heads would improve the status quo but could be enhanced. The provision relating to discrimination on multiple grounds should be amended technically in order that the wording would cohere with the language used elsewhere in the proposed legislation, and should be extended to the Employment Equality Acts. Head 14, which is the provision on reasonable accommodation, should be redrafted in its entirety to comply with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The current proposals are too limited. The notification requirement that is currently imposed on people who try to assert their rights before the WRC should be rendered optional rather than merely allowing for the time period to be extended. The rationale for extending the time limit to just 12 months is not apparent and needs to be parsed out.

Overall, the general scheme envisages modifying the law as opposed to upgrading it. It does not consider the addition of new discrimination grounds, as others have already said, or reform of the current grounds. Legal regimes across Europe and globally have evolved in the decades since the Equal Status Acts and the Employment Equality Acts were enacted. This evolution has been driven by the understanding that discrimination does not just arise in the interactions between people at an interpersonal level but is very often baked into laws, policies, organisational cultures and practices. It can be described as being systemic or institutionalised. It is also now widely acknowledged that the burden of enforcing anti-discrimination law should not be placed on individuals. We should look at other mechanisms for enhancing how the law is implemented and complied with in practice.

I will mention some crucial reforms that could be addressed and that should be considered in tandem with the transposition of the EU directives on equality bodies to which the representative from ICTU also referred. The scope of the Equal Status Act could be broadened to include public functions. The WRC complaint mechanism could be rendered more impactful by resourcing the WRC to expedite proceedings and issue interim orders in urgent cases. It could also be enhanced by the introduction of a mechanism for monitoring compliance with its orders. The burden that is placed on individuals to enforce the law could be alleviated by enabling civil society organisations and trade unions to take cases on behalf of individuals and in the public interest. IHREC could be better resourced to exercise the full range of its powers and support a critical mass of cases. The public sector equality and human rights duty could also be revised because it is just not working at present.

The Equal Status Act should be redrafted in plain language. It is inaccessible and contains a maze of exceptions that could be rationalised. I thank members for their attention and look forward to engaging further with the committee.