Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

On the issue of equality, the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, was in the 25th Dáil when the constituent members of the then rainbow Government, who now form the current coalition, drove an equality agenda when it was neither popular nor profitable to do so. If we cast our minds back to the genesis of the debate on equality, in July 1973 that coalition Government, which is what we were referred to before Fianna Fáil got into the habit of coalition, introduced legislation to remove the marriage ban. This country has an appalling history of treating women badly and unequally but that Act passed in the 1970s removed a discriminatory ban on women who were married and working in the Civil Service. We all know and are perhaps related to people whose careers suffered as a result of that. If we look back to 1973 and the record of these two parties in government then we see that this discriminatory nonsense was removed.

We created the Department of Equality and Law Reform. When Labour went into Government in 1992, Mervyn Taylor was Minister for Equality and Law Reform and he initiated the campaign to remove the constitutional ban on divorce. The prohibition on divorce in the Constitution basically meant that we were treating citizens of this country inherently unequally. The decriminalisation of homosexuality and the passing of the Equal Status Act are the hallmarks of the now constituent parties in Government. The record in that regard is there for anyone to see, and it is a very proud record.

Listening to the debate opposite one can understand the confusion that Deputy Doherty has pointed to in regard to the specific pieces of legislation to which the Private Members' Bill refers. It refers to the Equal Status Acts of 2000 and 2004 but curiously, either erroneously or deliberately, it does not refer to the Employment Equality Act. That confusion is only matched by the level of debate I have heard thus far in the context of this Private Members' business. We heard a great deal about what we already know, such as the protests and so on, but something that happened this evening should not necessarily inform a debate about equality. All our experience as professional politicians, public representatives or people involved in active citizenship in communities in some shape or form should cherish that notion of equality and speak about it in isolation, irrespective of whether the economy is struggling or buoyant. We all know where it should stand.

The Bill proposes to create a number of grounds in terms of the Equal Status Acts, one of which, curiously, is trade union membership. How do we establish whether someone is a member of a trade union? I am a member of SIPTU. I carry a SIPTU membership card with a Labour Party membership card in my wallet but how can we tell if someone is a member of a trade union? The other curious heading is the native Irish speaker. How do we distinguish between someone who speaks cúpla focal fluently and competently or someone who speaks it because it is their native language?

How does one put in place a measure to evaluate the position in that regard? Nuair a chuaigh mé go dtí Scoil Phádraig Naofa i nDún Mánmhaí fadó fadó, d'fhoglaim mé a lán Gaeilge. Nuair a d'fhág mé an scoil, rinne mé dearmad ar go leor de. We are all students of politics because we are here practising it at a level that is important in the context of our professionalism. However, we also have personal links. How does one assess whether someone is a competent speaker of Irish or whether he or she is a native speaker? What would be the position with regard to someone who speaks German as his or her native language? How would the provisions of this legislation apply to such an individual?

Another issue which arises is that which relates to qualifying prisoners. One can easily understand the subjective nature of the provision in this regard. In terms of the law, however, a prisoner is a prisoner. How does one distinguish between the reasons one individual has been imprisoned and those - non-political - reasons another person has been imprisoned? There is a vested interest in this regard. It is difficult to understand how this matter should be viewed in the context of equality.

Reference is made in the legislation to a person's socioeconomic background. How does one establish this? Should one sift through the reports of the CSO and examine the breakdown of social classes? Should one allow for the massive social mobility that occurred in this country during the Celtic tiger years? There could be one person who left school without sitting the leaving certificate and who obtained employment on a construction site at a rate of €1,000 per week and another individual with a degree in business who took up a managerial position in a company and earned half that amount. How should we assess people's socioeconomic backgrounds?

The Bill is extremely flawed and there is a great deal of confusion surrounding it. I am of the view that the flaws and confusion in question are not deliberate but are the result of error. I, along with other colleagues, will be opposing the legislation.

See this speech in context