Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Before I speak on this important Bill, I want to echo Deputy Wynne's words in expressing my thoughts and sympathies to the injured PSNI officer, John Caldwell, and his family, friends and community on the terrible news of the shooting last night in Omagh. I also note that tomorrow we are marking one year's anniversary of the brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine. I know we had a moment's silence in this House earlier to mark that.

I commend Deputies Wynne and Andrews for bringing forward this important legislation which we in the Labour Party are very happy to support. The Minister of State has pointed out that it is similar to other Private Members' Bills introduced previously. That just shows the level of support and the need for introducing legislation like this. I acknowledge the presence with us of the "Add the 10th" campaign which we are glad to support, members of the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed, INOU, and others. There has been a very strong civil society campaign around the need to add a tenth ground of discrimination into our equality legislation to join the nine grounds already there in those Acts. I will speak more about the equality legislation in a moment.

I acknowledge the point made by the Minister of State, Deputy Joe O'Brien, that there is a review of the equality legislation under way, in accordance with the commitment in the programme for Government. We are all very conscious of that. I am glad to hear confirmation that a report is to be published shortly arising out of that review and indeed that the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, intends to bring forward legislative proposals. It is good to hear about that progress.

However, it is disappointing that the Government has put down an amendment in respect of this Bill to require that the Second Reading be delayed for 18 months. That strikes me as being far too long given the review is under way and the Minister of State has said a report is to be published imminently, certainly this year, and that there are legislative proposals under consideration. It would seem too long a period to defer a Second Reading of this Bill. Other Government amendments in respect of Private Members' legislation in this term have referred to shorter deferral periods. It is an unreasonably long period given how much work is under way, that there have been Private Members' Bills on this issue before and that there is a strong civil society campaign. Obviously it is up to Deputy Wynne to decide whether to accept or oppose the Government amendment.

We do have instances of other Private Members' equality Bills that have passed more speedily through the Houses with cross-party support. In 2015, I was glad that as a Senator my Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act to prevent discrimination against LGBT individuals by religious-run institutions, schools and hospitals was brought into law. I share that experience to remind the sponsors of the Bill and the Government Ministers that through collaboration, Private Members' Bills on equality matters do have the potential to make progress on important equality initiatives.

The equality agenda is far from complete, as we know. The Bill before the House seeks to prohibit discrimination on the basis of a really critical ground, that tenth ground of social and economic disadvantage, class background in other words. It is legislation which aims to put in place provisions rejecting snobbery and class prejudice. On that principle we can all agree on the need to reject that particular ground of discrimination.

I note that the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, has joined us. I am conscious that research published by his Department just last year, in 2022, clearly highlighted the impact of this sort of discrimination in revealing that children from a disadvantaged class background were more likely to experience discrimination on the basis of their place of birth or parentage compared with children from more advantaged social classes. The same research found that unemployed adults were the second most likely group to experience some form of discrimination after those of a non-white ethnicity, with 30% of unemployed adults compared with 33% of those from a non-white ethnicity. This is some of the data which establish what we all know to be true, that this form of class-based discrimination is prevalent in society and that legislation is needed to prohibit it.

In recent weeks, the impetus to stamp out discrimination of all kinds has been brought into sharp focus. As a society and as legislators we have a political and moral obligation to call out and eradicate bias and hate wherever it arises, on whatever ground and in whatever form. As per the trade union slogan, an injury to one is an injury to all. Strengthening equality legislation is something that we as legislators can do in a practical way to address discrimination.

We in the Labour Party are proud of our legacy, particularly that of the former Minister, Mervyn Taylor, the first Minister with responsibility for equality. He pioneered the equality legislation the review of which is under way. He pioneered, indeed, the inclusion of nine grounds of discrimination. I am thinking also of the contribution of another former Labour Party Minister, Niamh Bhreathnach, who recently died, very sadly. We all are most sorry to see her sad passing. I was reminded of her work on this by a tweet from Kieran Rose, the co-founder of the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network, GLEN. He reminded us of the role Niamh had played in the development of the original equality legislation. He reminded us that the Bill as originally drafted was confined to discrimination on the basis of sex and marital status. This was a Labour Party Private Members' Bill from 1990 which was the forerunner and created the passage to the equality laws we have today. Niamh, alongside Dick Spring and Mervyn Taylor, met with GLEN, members of the Traveller community, activists from ethic minorities and other organisations.

Following that consultation with civil society, the Bill became much more inclusive. Despite being narrowly defeated in the Dáil later, it formed the bedrock for the equality legislation Mr. Mervyn Taylor, the then Minister responsible for equality, introduced in the 1990s. That was pioneering legislation dealing with nine grounds of discrimination but we know that the tenth ground, that of socioeconomic status or class, should be added as a recognised one.

We all have heard stories about the lived experiences of those who have suffered bias, prejudice and discrimination on grounds of class, but currently there is no form of legal redress. Last year, members of the gender equality committee, which I chair, heard very clearly during its hearings about experiences of intersectional discrimination. I am referring to women who were discriminated against not just because of their gender but also because of their class, ethnicity or disability. We are very conscious that part of the process or mechanism we put in place for challenging intersectional discrimination must refer to socioeconomic class.

My constituency, Dublin Bay South, is proudly diverse but I hear from constituents who have had the insidious form of class discrimination in question directed against them. I am always frustrated to have to inform them they have no legal basis for recourse currently. For example, I know the management of certain pubs and bars in my constituency have asked clients to leave, citing their dress, in spite of the fact that the pubs are often full of people wearing very casual clothing. Those who have told me about this very insidious form of discrimination have clearly reported they experienced it because they identified as working class. They believe it was because of an accent or particular look. One person told me that when applying for her first job, she gave her home address, which is in a very identifiable complex in a disadvantaged area in south Dublin. She could not find a job; there was none available to her. One year later, she set out again, seeking work at the same places of employment, this time giving the address of a relative in a less disadvantaged area, an area perceived to be more advantaged. Almost immediately, she started getting interviews and job offers. These are obvious examples that we all hear about. As legislators, we do have to address this. If this is a pernicious and pervasive form of discrimination, we must recognise it in our laws and address it legislatively.

I very much welcome the fact that the Government has committed to examining the introduction of this new ground of discrimination based on socioeconomically disadvantaged status. All of us in opposition very much welcome the conduct of the review of equality legislation, including an examination of the incorporation of the tenth ground. However, given the amount of work under way and the cross-party consensus that seems to exist in both the Government and Opposition benches, we could move more swiftly. There is no need, therefore, to put in place an amendment delaying further progress on this Bill for 18 months. That is likely to bring us beyond the term of this Government and therefore it is just too long a delay.

Among the measures that the gender equality committee recommended should be adopted by the Government was a constitutional referendum on equality that would broaden the equality guarantee and make it more inclusive, as well as taking out the sexist language about women and replacing it with language that values and recognises the contribution of care in our society. We also recommended a related amendment to recognise more inclusive and diverse forms of family. It would be very positive if we could see this year a commitment to adopting the Bill or provisions within it and also hold the equality referendum that the gender equality committee and Citizens Assembly have called for.

See this speech in context