Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

On behalf of my party, I welcome and support this Bill. I have long believed there should be prohibition of discrimination on socio-economic grounds in the two Acts to be amended. I commend the Fianna Fáil Deputies and the Equality Rights Alliance on their work in this area.

Some of the discussion so far has focused on addressing disadvantage. I wish to make two points on this, the first being that disadvantage is a lot more complicated than merely having a certain address or living in local authority housing. Increasingly, it is a lot more dispersed in our communities. In some respects, it may be less visible, which makes it more difficult to tackle. For all that, tackling it is no less important.

A word that has been absent from the debate so far is "class". Essentially, we are talking about class. Sometimes "working class" and "disadvantaged" are used as synonyms but I do not believe that necessarily should be the case. Acute disadvantage is a very specific issue whereas the working class in Ireland is a much more substantial category, although there is a substantial cross-over. That is a slight digression but it is an important point nonetheless in terms of understanding disadvantage.

I accept the comments and the intention of the Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, as bona fidebut I am disappointed with his response, which is a very technical one. It is entirely within the scope of these institutions that the Bill could proceed even to pre-legislative scrutiny after Second Stage, which is facilitated in certain committees. There is international precedent for such legislation. The European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination shows that legislation in 20 of the 35 European countries provides protection against discrimination on a ground related to socio-economic status. We are behind the curve in that regard. Among other things, Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights prohibits discrimination on the grounds of social origin and poverty, among others.

I will now turn to the substance of the Bill. As a people, we often delude ourselves into believing that Ireland is a classless society. Perhaps that is changing now. Some of that is underpinned by the fiction that the party system in Ireland, the two big parties of the supposed middle, was a function of that society. However, I very much believe that class is real and always has been real. We have all heard stories of people being refused employment on the basis of their address or using a different address for employment. In Angela's Ashes, Frank McCourt uses a different address to try to disguise the fact that he came from a lane in Limerick. Class difference and discrimination on that basis always has been a fact of life in Ireland.

In the context of this debate I am reminded of the English writer, Owen Jones, who wrote the very excellent book Chavs, which documented very clearly how words such as "chav" and stereotypes of working class people were deemed largely acceptable by the media and treated as mere banter, whereas in reality they were enforcing structural and very real inequality and discrimination. The reality is that the opportunities afforded to working class people in this country are substantially less than people who are better off. In this city the obvious example is access to higher education. In Dublin 6 access is in excess of 90%, in Dublin 17 it is 15% and in Dublin 10 it is 16%.

I will provide another example of discrimination. I read an excellent article by Patrick Freyne in The Irish Timeson 22 July last. I would recommend it to the Minister of State. It detailed the use of stop and search powers on young people, particularly from the inner city and other working class areas. It provides testimony of the impact that has on young people from those areas. Experts in the area include Gareth Noble and Dermot Walsh. They agree that such discrimination has an effect. It is in such areas that discrimination is experienced on an everyday basis and currently there is very little remedy for it. If enacted, the Bill would provide a remedy and a ground for taking action.

I am disappointed with the Minister of State's response. It is possible to tighten up the definition. I find it very difficult to accept that some of the examples given would be entertained by a court, but if the Minister of State is of the view that it is merely a problem of definition then surely the issue could be addressed on Committee Stage. If the principle and the pieces of legislation that are intended to be amended are clear then I do not see any reason the situation could not be rectified given that we are, apparently, all united on the principle that socio-economic discrimination should not be allowed.

Two very clear and precise areas of discrimination that could be addressed by the Department, which are not included in either of those Acts, are discrimination on the basis of political belief or on the basis of trade union membership. If the Minister of State is interested in precise definitions, they are two perfectly precise areas that are within the gift of the Minister of State to deal with in the legislation.

See this speech in context