Chris Andrews (Dublin Bay South, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the presence of the INOU and the ATD campaign. It is important to acknowledge the tireless campaign they have put into this Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to amend Irish equality legislation and the two equality Acts: the Employment Equality Act and the Equal Status Act. As has been said, they cover the nine grounds of marital status, family status, age, disability, sexual orientation, race, religion and membership of the Traveller community.

In addition, the Acts prohibit discrimination in the provision of accommodation services against people who are in receipt of the rent supplement, housing assistance or social welfare payments. The purpose of the Bill is to expand the protections of both Acts to prohibit discrimination on the basis of disadvantaged socioeconomic status. This would make an amendment to include a new ground on disadvantaged socioeconomic status. As the ATD campaign indicated in its infographic, it is the tenth, and very important, piece of the jigsaw. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure persons can no longer be discriminated against on the basis they are coming from a disadvantaged socioeconomic background.

This proposal is in no way new. We are not reinventing the wheel. The Government has been reviewing the matter for years and it has been argued for since the Employment Equality Act 1998 was being introduced. At that time, in response to the demand for more than nine grounds, the then Minister included a review clause requiring a reassessment of the issue within two years. By 2000, therefore, the addition of a further ground should have been made. The pressure was already there because it was acknowledged it was not sufficiently comprehensive legislation and that there was a need to go further.

As part of that review, in 2002, the former Equality Authority proposed the introduction of a socioeconomic status ground highlighting high levels of socioeconomic discrimination in the labour market. In response to the proposal from the former Equality Authority, a research report commissioned by the then Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in 2004 suggested a socioeconomic status ground would serve the objectives of underpinning equality legislation.

This is vital legislation. The Government knows that and referred to it in watery terms in the programme for Government. Importantly, the report also pointed out it would allow a more sophisticated, intersectional approach to its implementation. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, in a 2015 submission to the UN, highlighted the need to prohibit discrimination on the basis of socioeconomic status in equality legislation. The UN committee noted its regret that Irish legislation does not provide protection against discrimination on all grounds of discrimination prohibited by the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. My understanding is that there is, yet again, to be a review of the Equality Acts and the Employment Equality Act which will examine the introduction of socioeconomic grounds for discrimination. To date, however, we still have no guarantee or indication that this review will not fade away like all the others since 1998, some of which I mentioned. The danger is this review or any other review will just continue kicking the can down the road in respect of genuine equality legislation. Reports and reviews must become action. Times are hard for many and the cost-of-living crisis threatens to increase inequality and push people further into the margins. People have enough to deal with without facing discrimination because of who they are or where they are from.

On that note, the purpose of the Bill is to ensure people can no longer be discriminated against on the basis they are from a disadvantaged socioeconomic area, because of their background or because of their accent. For example, if the Bill is enacted, employers will not be able to discriminate against a job applicant or current employee because of his or her accent or the socioeconomic status of the area where he or she comes from. Furthermore, it will not be permissible for service providers to discriminate against people because of where they live. The introduction of a socioeconomic status ground will give people who experience discrimination on this ground the practical means to challenge their experience with a rights-based approach, as is the case with the other nine protected grounds.

It will also be of symbolic importance for the State to make clear to society and to the people who face this discrimination that it will not be tolerated. By continuing to exclude socioeconomic status in equality legislation, we are creating a hierarchy of equality in which we prohibit and recognise certain forms of discrimination, whereas we do not prohibit and recognise forms of discrimination pertaining to socioeconomic background and accent. Over the past 20 years, there have been countless reports and many recommendations from civil society groups such as IHREC, the UN and, most important, above all those reports and organisations, the people with lived experience such as those I represent in the south inner-city Dublin community and local authority flat complexes that this gap in our legislation needs to be addressed. They tell me they regularly and consistently feel disadvantaged because they are disadvantaged, given the Government is not putting in place legislation to protect inner-city communities.

On the topic of lived experience, in parts of the Dublin Bay South constituency I serve, this is a systemic issue that dates back generations for people who live in local authority flat complexes and who report high levels of generational and present-day social exclusion and discrimination that is directly and indirectly due to their socioeconomic background. In one example, a constituent from a flat complex not far from Leinster House, who has a masters degree and is a fluent Portuguese speaker, reported to me that after submitting a video application for a job in a multinational drinks company, he was contacted by a concerned employee of that large multinational company who informed the man that fellow employees had exchanged text messages joking about and mocking the young individual's inner-city Dublin accent, with one questioning how and where a "knacker" like him had picked up Portuguese while they were reviewing his video application. That is an horrendous term for anybody to have to hear about themselves or to be attributed to anyone. It is completely unacceptable and it reinforces the need for the legislation to be passed.

I am also aware of a case where a lone parent was denied access to a local gym due to concerns that granting her and her children access to the gym and swimming pool could encourage other people from the local community who live in the flats to join the gym as well. On these grounds, she was turned away and advised she would be better off using one of the gyms and swimming pools provided by Dublin City Council. I was struck by another example reported to me in recent years where students entering university through an access programme for disadvantaged students were required to complete a Garda vetting form to ensure they did not have a criminal record, whereas students entering the university through the general stream were not required to do so.

It is clear there are unbelievable levels of discrimination against people living in the inner city of Dublin and in other communities throughout the country. They need protection and the Government needs to protect them. It has to stop kicking the can down the road and act, and this is the opportunity to do that.

See this speech in context