Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute on this Private Members' Bill. When I first read it, my sense of it was that it was positive and that this was a well-meaning Bill. I still hold that position. However, as someone who speaks on Private Members' and other Bills from time to time, I requested the explanatory memorandum but there was none. I then found there was no impact assessment nor scoping of the cost of the various measures. I am sure the Deputies opposite will not welcome this observation but it is an exceptionally broad attempt, which covers many areas. In that regard, it is almost impossible for the Government to amend it in such a way as to support the intent.

I was in business for 20 years, employed people and provided services and I came across the Equality Status Acts and the Employment Equality Acts on many occasions and in many different ways. This Bill does not pertain to the Employment Equality Acts but much of its sentiment belongs with those Acts. Many of the issues are covered by them, including the right to be a member of a trade union and the people's diversity and socio-economic backgrounds are protected.

When we talk about the Equal Status Acts, it is difficult to envisage a situation in which in the purchase or the provision of services, the issue of whether someone is a member of a trade union, his or her socio-economic background or whether he or she speaks Irish would apply. I would be interested to hear specific examples of where that might apply. As a purchaser of services, in particular, my focus would be on the cost of what I was purchasing rather than on where, how or by whom the services were being provided.

There is more substance in the area of criminal convictions. The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, was very open to amendments to the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill.

We are now awaiting Report and Final Stages of the Bill. The spirit of allowing people with convictions to be allowed to rehabilitate is worthy of pursuit, and many of the amendments went towards allowing people a second chance. That will cover a large portion of the criminal conviction issue.

I disagree about trying to designate a crime by type of person or whether it is linked to a cause. For example, that might apply to an act of violence of a certain level carried out by somebody who may be an animal rights campaigner or who may believe an act of vandalism is a valid protest against the property tax. That would create a great difficulty so the matter should be set, as it is currently within the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill, at the crime level rather than at person type. I support that element of the Bill.

There is the potential for further debate on rural issues, particularly with regard to publicly provided services. There is a requirement to protect people living in rural areas but when we speak about privately provided services, we should accept that for some provision of services, the cost of delivery to rural areas must be built into pricing. One cannot allow for prejudice against people living in rural areas but equally we cannot force an uneconomic cost on business.

The spirit of the Private Members' Bill is good and if parts of it could come back before us, it would have merit. There was much good work done here in debating spent convictions and the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, accepted amendments from many parties. I urge the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock, to push through that legislation as it would go a long way to achieving what is requested in this Bill.

See this speech in context