Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

As an Irish republican, equality is at the core of all that I believe in. I believe in a new republic, one in which all citizens are equal regardless of the colour of their skin, their religious beliefs, their sexual orientation, where they live or what they do. We are appealing to the Government via the legislation before the House to implement equality budgeting.

Creating the conditions for establishing an equal society means recognising that many diverse groups and sections of society need enhanced protection from the State. This Bill amends the existing legislation and aims to provide for equality proofing, through impact assessments, of Government policy and budgets as well as public bodies. The legislation will ensure that, in exercising their functions, the Government and public bodies do so in a way that is designed to reduce the inequalities of outcome that result from socioeconomic disadvantage.

The Bill recognises those additional sectors of society that require enhanced protection from the State in respect of policy and spending decisions. While we all know that times are hard, what some of us fail to recognise is just how difficult they are for some of the poorest and most vulnerable. The Government came into office on a wave of promises in 2011. Soon afterwards, however, it became apparent that many of its plans involved taking from some of the most vulnerable. A study carried out by TASC revealed that lone parents, the group most at risk of poverty, lost the highest percentage of income in budget 2011. Low-income workers are disproportionately affected by austerity measures, such as the universal social charge, which is a highly regressive tax in that it comes into force at its highest level of 7% at just above the minimum wage. Women make up the majority of workers earning the minimum wage or slightly above it. They are also more reliant on public services and welfare provisions, all of which are being severely curtailed by the Government. This applies, in particular, to women with children.

Cuts in health expenditure have also resulted in reductions in services for people with disabilities. Recent budgets have resulted in cuts in the disability allowance, carer's allowance and carer’s benefit. We continue to see increases in inequality and poverty and there is growing evidence showing the disproportionate impact economic policies have been having on disadvantaged groups since the beginning of the economic crisis.

Equality budgeting has been internationally accepted as a means to effectively deal with inequality and poverty. Worldwide, more than 60 countries have adopted or are working towards equality budgeting. These include the United Kingdom, South Africa, Canada, Tanzania and Uganda. The time has come for Ireland to follow suit and make a stand by providing a more just and equitable society for all. Creating true equality sometimes requires that we put in place mechanisms to ensure this objective is achieved. This is one of those times. If we were to adopt equality budgeting, we would ensure that equality is placed well and truly at the centre of any decisions concerning public expenditure and income.

I will now outline some of the specifics of the Bill. The existing Equal Status Act 2000 came into force on 25 October 2000 and was amended by the Equality Act 2004 on 19 July 2004. The Acts relate to discrimination based on the following nine grounds: gender; civil status; family status; age; race; religion; disability; sexual orientation; and membership of the Traveller community. They apply to people who buy and sell a wide variety of goods, use or provide a wide range of services, obtain or dispose of accommodation and attend or are in charge of educational establishments. Separate provisions apply to clubs practising discrimination. All complaints must relate to at least one of the nine discriminatory grounds listed.

Sinn Féin's Equal Status (Amendment) Bill 2013 aims to achieve a number of objectives. It seeks to add new and additional anti-discriminatory categories to the existing nine categories. These prohibit discrimination on the grounds of trade union membership or socioeconomic background, which is very important, as well as discrimination against Irish language speakers, former political prisoners who served their sentences before the Good Friday Agreement or were released under its terms, and rural dwellers.

It seeks to introduce equality impact assessment schemes and consultation on a statutory compulsory basis by all Departments and public bodies where they are introducing any new measure, policy or budget detailing what adverse impact this may have on the existing nine and, it is hoped, the additional six anti-discriminatory categories proposed in the Bill and how they intend to better achieve equality of opportunity, or would better eliminate or lessen existing discrimination.

They must have regard to promoting equality of opportunity. The equality impact assessment scheme of each Department and public body will be assessed for compliance and monitored by the Equality Authority of Ireland, which will become the human rights and equality authority later this year when the legislation is passed. It will offer advice as per guidelines detailing the statutory duties of all Departments and public bodies. Departments and public bodies will publish the results of their equality impact assessments and state the aims of the measure, policy, budget to which the assessment relates and give details of any consideration given against the duty to promote equality of opportunity and against the existing nine categories and, it is hoped, the additional six proposed.

The Government and public bodies in carrying out their functions must have regard to reducing the inequalities of outcome which result from socioeconomic disadvantage. A system for complaints against Departments and public bodies will be introduced also and overseen by the Equality Authority of Ireland. The authority may approve a Department's scheme and will have the power to modify it or request the Department to make a revised scheme. Each Department and public body must publish an annual report on the operation and performance of the scheme. Through equality audits and impact assessments, equality budgeting provides information on the economic impact of policy measures on different sections of society.

Inequality and poverty are on the increase in Ireland. The gap between the richest and poorest in Ireland increased by 25% in 2010, with the top 20% earning 5.5 times the income of those on the lowest 20%. The percentage of people in Ireland living in consistent poverty increased in 2010, as did the percentage of children at risk of poverty, which stands at 19.5%. We know that economic policy measures introduced since the beginning of the economic crisis are having a disproportionate impact on certain sections of society, thereby exacerbating inequality and poverty. Equality budgeting makes sense. It is fair and just. I am asking all Deputies in the House and particularly Government Deputies to allow the Bill to progress to Committee Stage.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Táim lán sásta páirt a ghlacadh sa díospóireacht tábhactach seo. I commend Deputy Mac Lochlainn on introducing this very important and progressive legislation. Last year, Sinn Féin pledged support for the equality budgeting campaign, a campaign that has developed significant momentum. I welcome to the Gallery many of the campaigners who are pushing for this modernisation. Our legislation places equality impact assessment schemes and consultation on a statutory and compulsory basis for all Departments and public bodies when introducing new policy or budget related measures. These measures would ensure the adverse impacts of the annual Government budget, for example, on specific groups in society, would not only be exposed but mitigated and dealt with to remove the entrenched inequality that exists in our society, a reality that has prevailed in good times and in bad.

One might ask whether this legislation is necessary. It is absolutely necessary. In 2008, nearly one in five people in lone parent households were in consistent poverty. As the Celtic tiger was breathing its last breath, lone parent households were the household type with the highest rate of being at risk of poverty. Lone parent households also reported the highest deprivation levels of any household type, at just under 25%. In 2009, four harsh budgets ago, one in five lone parent households went without heating at some stage. Deputy Mac Lochlainn referred to the study carried out by TASC, which revealed that the most at-risk group of poverty in Ireland, lone parents, lost the highest percentage of income in budget 2011, and things have got much worse for these families on Labour and Fine Gael's watch.

The ESRI distributional impact of tax, welfare and public sector pay report informed us last year that following budget 2012, the greatest reduction in income was in families with the lowest income, a fall of about 2% to 2.5% for the poorest 40% of households. This contrasts with a fall of about 0.7% for the top 30%. These results reflect in measurable terms that increases in indirect taxes are regressive and that cuts in welfare have a greater impact on low income groups. We should know intuitively on a commonsensical basis that this is so, but those statistics write it up large. These figures reflect why we need equality budgeting. It is not enough to say we aspire to do better for disadvantaged groups. We need to put in place the necessary and compulsory framework to ensure equality is the cornerstone of all budgetary decisions. If we fail to do so, de facto we are accepting the Michael McDowell-ism that "inequality is an inevitable part of the society of incentives that Ireland has ... become". I certainly do not want that type of society.

One partner in the Government coalition already accepts the premise of Sinn Féin's argument. Labour Party Members have called for budgets to be equality proofed by undertaking a distributional analysis of proposed budgetary measures on all income groups and for the evidence generated as part of the proofing process to be published as part of the budget documentation. They also called for budget measures implemented to be subjected to an equality audit quantifying the impact of budgetary measures on all income groups, and for this information to be published within six months of the budget.

The Fine Gael and Labour programme for Government acknowledges that the rights of women and men to equality of treatment and their right to participate fully in society must be upheld. It is not simply not good enough for Fine Gael and Labour to make this commitment and then to retreat from it when asked to implement it. Every time this matter is raised with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, he tells me his primary objective in life is to reduce the deficit and return the public finances back to a sustainable footing. I do not understand this response because equitable budgets are the only path to a sustainable recovery. Deepening inequality costs society dearly in social and hard economic terms.

The Minister also tells me that Cabinet procedures require that proposals from Ministers indicate clearly whether there is any impact of the proposal on, among other things, gender equality, persons experiencing or at risk of poverty or social exclusion and people with disabilities. He could have fooled me and could have fooled the people who saw their respite care grant cut or the children who attend DEIS schools who saw the Government attempt to undermine that system. In any event, when I ask for these data I am told the information cannot be released owing to Cabinet confidentiality. I simply do not accept that data such as these should be shrouded in a veil of secrecy.

I believe that if that data is in the possession of Government it should be made publicly available. Recently, the ESRI and NESC reports detailed clearly the impact of the economic crisis on young people and families. In particular, the ESRI asked how policy could best address the disproportionate impact the crisis has had on Ireland's young. The NESC report highlights how five austerity budgets have impacted hardest on families with children. It states that some 22% of all households are now without any work, that one quarter of all children are living in jobless households and that youth unemployment is soaring at 50% in Limerick, 49% in Donegal and 47% in Wexford. I could go on.

The Government's failure to embrace the concept of equality budgeting is nothing short of reckless in the face of these statistics. The equality auditing and impact assessments would provide information on how different sections of society are impacted by economic and social policy measures. Under the Government's current budgetary process it simply cannot achieve the best equality outcomes for society, especially for those hardest hit by disadvantage and unemployment. We know that the crisis is hitting low-income families, women, the youth and those with disabilities hardest. The Department of Finance and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform continue to consider fiscal planning from the bottom line up. By doing so, the Government is deliberately and needlessly restricting its own analysis.

Equality of opportunity is not simply an aspiration; it is a right in a modern society, with all the benefits that brings in good times and bad. Even if one is transfixed and one's world view is limited to the bottom line, equality still makes sense in real economic terms.

The Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, has responsibility for equality issues. I thought that to fulfil her job description she would be campaigning for and agitating for a framework such as that proposed in our legislation. It would be astonishing if a Labour Party Minister of State charged with the delivery of equality were to consider even for one moment voting against this proposal.

We have had rhetoric and the lip service. We are all familiar with the terminology of fairness and protecting the vulnerable. Those terms are a constant chime in the Chamber. Now, we want the reality and the delivery. We want to ensure that families the length and breadth of the State, women, our young, people with disabilities and people from the Traveller community, all of whom are often vulnerable to bad budgetary decisions, have protection in law and on the Statute Book. We invite every Deputy to support this legislation, to allow its passage to Committee Stage and to begin a new chapter in good practice, good governance and in measures that can deliver equality.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In supporting this Bill I wish to draw attention in particular to the need to ensure that qualifying prisoners released under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement are not discriminated against. We would prefer to include other former political prisoners in the legislation as well. I was involved in negotiations on prisoner issues and the clear commitment at the time was to ensure that qualifying prisoners under the Good Friday Agreement would be facilitated in their efforts to rebuild their lives outside of prison. The clear understanding was that no barrier would be placed in the way of former political prisoners in terms of accessing employment and taking up educational opportunities and so on.

Unfortunately, the spirit of that commitment has not been fully adhered to. In general, former republican prisoners have successfully rebuilt their lives outside prison, but recently we have seen an attempt to discriminate against former political prisoners in respect of employment. I am specifically referring to the recent legislation governing the issuing of taxi licences.

Naturally, we recognise that certain categories of offenders must be excluded from certain types of employment to protect members of the public, but we do not accept that this ought to apply across the board. Distinctions should be made in respect of categories of non-political prisoners as well. Many former republican prisoners work as taxi drivers. One reason for this relates to the difficulties in securing other employment for a long period owing to age, qualifications or their having been in prison. It is, therefore, unfair that former prisoners should be discriminated against in this manner, given that they have often worked for many years as taxi drivers and have not been convicted of any other offence that would or should exclude them from being issued with a licence.

My party as well as other Deputies and Senators made that point in the debate on the taxi legislation but we were ignored by the Government. There is no evidence that former political prisoners present a danger to the public who use taxis and yet they were gratuitously included in the legislation. If the new licensing regulations are adhered to, strictly to the letter, it will mean that many former political prisoners will lose their only means of employment. Many are at an age when finding an alternative job is difficult if not impossible in the current circumstances. Therefore, there is clearly a need for a measure such as that proposed in the Bill to ensure that qualified political prisoners under the Good Friday Agreement and other political prisoners released prior to the Agreement are given greater protection under the law.

One part of the reconciliation process and conflict resolution in the aftermath of the ceasefires and political agreements which brought an end to the conflict has been the re-integration of former political prisoners from all parties to the conflict. Lately we have seen attempts to interfere with that process, including the arrest of former prisoners as well as the exclusion of former political prisoners on both sides of the Border from particular jobs. It would appear that certain people are intent on penalising former republican political prisoners for vindictive reasons.

This is not only vindictive but also a retrograde step. It illustrates a certain degree of complacency about the conflict resolution process as well as a breach of the spirit, if not the letter, of the understanding that after 1998 former political prisoners would not be prevented from enjoying the same rights and opportunities as other citizens. Clearly, there is a need to ensure that in future the process does not depend on the goodwill or otherwise of whichever party or parties happen to be in power. The only way to ensure that, as with the protection of other sections of society referred to in the Bill, is to embody protections in the law. Therefore, I hope Deputies from across the House will vote for the Bill and allow it to go forward to be properly debated and, if necessary, amended to implement in law the protections it outlines.

Many who have come through the House have been former political prisoners. Indeed, if the letter were adhered to with regard to republican prisoners the Deputy in the Chair might find himself in difficulty because of his past association with the Irish Farmers Association and having been in prison because of it.

Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Equality must be the foundation stone of any republic. People must have not only freedom from oppression but freedom to achieve everything that is within their ability. Unfortunately, barriers are often placed in front of groups and individuals and they are unable to achieve their full potential. I congratulate and commend my comrade, Deputy Mac Lochlainn, on introducing the Bill. It aims to recognise that there are many diverse groups and sections in Irish society that need enhanced protection from the State. These groups suffer disadvantage in outcomes for a multitude of reasons and they must be offered protection. The Bill also seeks to amend current legislation and provide for equality proofing of the policy and budgets of Government and public bodies through impact assessments. This means that Government policy should be tested to see what effect it could have on marginalised groups in Irish society.

The Bill aims to introduce six new additional anti-discriminatory categories to the existing nine categories. These include trade union membership, socioeconomic background, Irish language speakers, former political prisoners, those with criminal convictions and rural dwellers. The Bill would introduce equality impact assessment schemes and consultations on a statutory compulsory basis for all Departments and public bodies when they are introducing any new measure, policy or budget and these would monitor any adverse impact the measures might have on any of the groups.

It must also be an aim to improve the condition of marginalised groups in society through legislation. This will give the State a clearer picture as to where it is failing to provide for those most in need of protection in Irish society.

Equality screening also would be extended to the budget, which would allow those who draft it to ascertain what possible impact financial changes they make could have on those most in need of protection. In each year since the onset of the recession, both the former Fianna Fáil Government and the current Fine Gael-Labour Party Administration have failed some sections of the most marginalised in Irish society. Perhaps, if equality screening of the budget had been introduced, this could have been avoided. A practical example of equality screening in respect of rural dwellers is the provision of broadband. Each person in this day and age should have access to an adequate level of broadband but, clearly, this is not the case. Were an equality impact assessment introduced to the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, I am sure it would find that rural dwellers are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to broadband provision and appropriate steps could be taken. Inequality based on race, creed, colour, occupation, sexual orientation, level of ability or disability or geography is and always will be wrong.

I will conclude by referring to what I hope is an unintended impact of changes to regulations. I have to hand a petition that has been signed by almost 1,000 people in a small rural area of north County Leitrim. The petition states the loss of a school bus to Ardvarney national school is yet another example of how this Government through its policies, in this case through the school transport scheme operated by Bus Éireann, is actively attacking and leading to the demise of communities in rural Ireland. The undersigned signatories then ask for the retention of all school bus services to Ardvarney national school and to other rural schools. While I hope this was an unintended consequence, decisions made to change eligibility for the school transport scheme have the effect of putting at risk the very sustainability of a number of small, rural schools. The people have spoken through this petition and this is the reason this Bill is needed, that is, to ensure there are no further unintended consequences of changes in legislation or policy or budgetary impacts that are hitting the most vulnerable in society.

Sandra McLellan (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The rhetoric of Irish politics is weighted very heavily towards the idea of equality, albeit perhaps in a vague way and without a certainty as to what is meant by that but it is there nonetheless. It fits in with the particular sense of community and solidarity that defines Irish people or sprid an meitheal, one might call it. It often is to be seen at budget time, when politicians of all persuasion and in particular those in government are at pains to tell one they are about protecting the most vulnerable and the least well off in society. The reality is, of course, the complete opposite. The Government has hit the unemployed, single parents, the poor, the disabled, the unwell, those with special needs and more, while those at the very top, the high net individuals and those at the top of the public service, have not been asked to shoulder their fair weight. It has been shown that the budgets of the Fine Gael and Labour Government have disproportionately hit those on low incomes. It is simply lip-service, no more, no less.

This legislation is a fantastic opportunity to change that. It will introduce, for the first time, equality impact assessments on a statutory basis. This means State bodies will be required to take on board the impact of their decisions on those who could be discriminated against, such as marginalised communities and so on. Similarly, the Government of the day will be forced to take into consideration the impact its budgets and financial decisions will have on the most vulnerable or, in effect, forced to engage in equality proofing. This is not a new concept as it has been tried and put in to effect in many places including the North of Ireland, where the equality duty is founded in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. This requires public bodies such as Assembly departments and other agencies to promote equality of opportunity. A public body could no longer simply state it has not discriminated against someone but was now obliged to actively promote equality and then actually prove that it was doing just that and must fulfil its commitment to equality in public.

There are those who would argue this will be complex and cause delay. The reality, however, is very much the opposite. This will force the relevant State bodies and Departments to outline how their decisions are equality-proofed, to take this in to account in making decisions and they would be obliged to factor in longer-term planning in all their decision-making. I believe this process could lead to a whole new way of planning and creating policies in State bodies and Departments. It would be planning in a way that promotes equality but also prudence, sustainability and long-term thinking. This legislation would be enshrining good practice. Consequently, it is clear that the legislation is an excellent piece of work, legislatively sound and well thought through, and Deputy Mac Lochlainn and his team deserve significant credit.

I will take this opportunity to note a few particular points regarding some of the new categories proposed to be inserted in the Equal Status Act, with all of which I wholeheartedly agree. I come from a constituency that contains considerable rural areas, as well as a number of larger towns, but in recent years I have noticed a considerable shift of services from rural communities and a serious erosion in the quality of life. The closure of Garda stations, local post offices and transport systems, alongside the shutting down of rural schools, is tearing the hearts out of rural areas. Cuts in the provision of health services and hospitals or family resource centres and the lack of child care have accelerated this decline. In tandem with high unemployment in rural areas, this is leading to people leaving the countryside to go into the cities. The Government has pursued policies in rural areas that are not even remotely equality-proofed and there is hardly even the sense that rural areas deserve equality in terms of the services with which they are provided. That must change as rural areas, with the huge potential which exists in agrifood and other areas such as renewable energy, could be a key driver of economic recovery. However, this simply will not happen unless there are sustainable communities and at their root, sustainable communities have decent provision of services. Unless the Government ensures that rural communities get the services to which they should be justly entitled, a decline in such rural communities will continue. This Bill can help in that regard.

I also consider the inclusion of the ground of trade union membership is vitally important and anyone connected with the trade union movement will recognise the importance of this provision. I was a shop steward in my workplace over many years and am acutely aware that many employers will be reluctant to employ trade union members and activists and indeed can often dismiss employees who are trade unionists for that reason, although they will be given another reason for such a dismissal. However, it also is important that people recognise that discrimination does not only work in terms of negative treatment, but also through more favourable treatment being shown to others. This is a particular issue with regard to workers' rights because one often sees the stick of mistreatment or dismissal accompanied by the carrot of various inducements. I refer, for example, to a wage increase or a promotion being offered, albeit with an implied suggestion that union membership might not be helpful in obtaining it. Trade union membership could be added to the six grounds of discrimination and could give a legal mechanism for challenging such behaviour. It is apt that Sinn Féin is bringing forward this legislation while the Irish Congress of Trade Unions participates in its biennial conference. In particular, I appeal to Labour Party Members to consider the value of this Bill in ensuring fair treatment for workers. Ta sé fíor-tábhachtach i mbliaina, céad bliain ón stailc cáiliúI i mBaile Átha Cliath, go ndéanfaimis cosaint ar cearta oibrithe. Ní saoirse go saoirse lucht oibre.

Likewise, the Irish language community has been consistently, persistently and badly discriminated against over many years. Worse still is that there are those who would paint them as an elite and that they should stop complaining while the Government breaches and disregards their rights. The reality is somewhat different. In his annual reports, An Coimisinéir Teanga has regularly highlighted the flagrant breaches of the Official Languages Act and the discrimination against Irish speakers in terms of accessing services.

In one shocking example of discrimination, a driver who was stopped by the gardaí in relation to a road traffic matter found himself arrested and escorted in handcuffs to a Garda station where he was detained until a Garda was found who could deal with him through Irish. The Coimisinéir's report stated: "The person detained in the case was not involved in an accident nor were there any allegations made concerning speeding or driving under the influence of alcohol."

That is scandalous. However, there are many other examples. Many State agencies are in breach of the Act, as was the Department of Social Protection. The Coimisinéir, Seán Ó Cuirreáin, is doing an excellent job. However, his thanks is to be ignored by the Government, and the complaints disregarded. It is the Government which is responsible for pursuing these matters with those Departments and bodies that are in breach of the law. This is disgraceful discrimination, and this Bill could rectify that. To discriminate against Irish speakers would be contrary to the Equal Status Act, as it should be.

Tá sé fíor thábhachtach go mbeadh cearta Gaeilgeoirí daingean agus go mbeidís in ann úsáid a baint as seirbhísí, maraon leo siúd nach labhrann Gaeilge. Is cearta daonna iad cearta teanga.

I wish to note that Private Members' time is often acrimonious and heated as we debate the matters of the day and hold the Government to account, and that is as it should be. However, it is also a key opportunity to bring forward legislation which we believe is necessary, useful and valuable. This is legislation with which we can all agree, certainly in terms of its objectives and likely in terms of its provisions also.

Amendments to improve the Bill will be welcome. However, that can be done on Committee Stage, and there is no real reason to oppose the Bill's passage to Committee Stage, where it can be taken. I would urge Members on all sides of the House to support this important legislation.

Ní mór don Rialtas tacú leis an fhreasúra nuair atá píósa reachtaíóchta úsáideach agys fiúntach os chomhair an tí.

Fianna Fáil talks about constructive opposition as it opposes a property tax it came up with, condemns cuts that are the same as those it brought in, and brings forward pre-budget submissions which contain gaps a train might fit through. That is not constructive opposition. We are bringing forward a piece of legislation which could greatly contribute to the budgeting and management of State bodies, help ensure that we protect our most vulnerable, and go beyond the rhetoric. That is constructive opposition. I ask Members to please support this Bill.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch. I understand the Minister is sharing with Deputies Ciarán Lynch and Paul Connaughton.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, if that is agreed.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government opposes this Bill on a number of grounds. First, the Bill proposes that there would be very resource-intensive obligations on the full range of public bodies to prepare and publish equality impact assessments of their work for approval by the Equality Authority. In the Bill to establish the new Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, which we are working on and hope to publish before too long, we are taking a different approach to ensuring that public bodies place equality and human rights at the heart of what they do. Instead of a formalistic box-ticking exercise, with an enormous administrative overhead, we are imposing a positive duty on public bodies to look at the human rights and equality issues they face and address those in their strategic plans and annual reports. Instead of agreeing paper schemes and monitoring, the role of the new IHREC will be the much more active one of providing support and facilitation. I believe this will prove to be a much more positive and useful approach.

Given the proposal to create this elaborate new proofing mechanism, it is particularly ironic that the Bill is not accompanied by an explanatory memorandum or impact assessment. The Bill proposes to extend the discrimination grounds in the Equal Status Acts, which deal with provision of goods and services, but not in the Employment Equality Acts, which cover employment, to five new grounds: trade union membership, socio-economic background, native Irish language speaker, criminal conviction, "qualifying prisoner", that is, former IRA prisoners released early under the Good Friday Agreement, and living in a rural area.

It is not clear if the omission of the Employment Equality Acts is deliberate or a drafting error but the Bill, as published, does not apply to employment issues. As I said, it is notable, particularly given the impact assessment obligations the Bill proposes to create, that the Bill is not accompanied by any assessment of the scope of these new grounds or what might be the impact of incorporating them, without any qualifications or exceptions, in equality legislation. It is the Deputy's job and not my job to undertake such an assessment, but I am setting out on the record some of the most obvious questions and comments that arise and that need to be assessed in an impact assessment of this Bill.

On the trade union ground, which we heard about from the previous speaker, it is not clear that circumstances in regard to the provision of goods and services in which discrimination on this ground would actually arise. Trade union members are not distinguishable from the general population, and the Bill does not seek to amend the Employment Equality Acts in this regard. The recognition of trade unions in the workplace and the question of protecting persons who join or want to join a trade union from victimisation is a separate issue, which is appropriately addressed as an industrial relations issue rather than under equality legislation.

On the socio-economic background,no guidance is offered as to what this means, and whether and to what extent it is linked to income levels and ability to pay or assessment of risk based on income levels, for example, in regard to provision of financial services, including loans.

On the native Irish language speaker ground, itis not clear why this would be necessary, given the constitutional status of the Irish language. The provision of public services to Irish speakers is provided for via the Official Languages Act. The Private Members' Bill refers to discrimination and does not create a general obligation to provide goods and services in Irish, but perhaps that is what is intended. Why a distinction is made between native speakers, who are approximately 2% of the population, and competent speakers who are not native speakers, who are a bigger proportion of the population at between 8% and 10%, is also unclear.

On the criminal conviction ground, as the Bill relates to provision of goods and services only, it is not clear what this ground is intended to achieve in practice. On the face of it a criminal conviction for fraud or theft would appear to be directly relevant to assessment of risk in the case of certain insurance and other financial services. If one were looking at the employment aspects these and other criminal convictions, for example, sexual offences, would also be directly relevant. However, the Bill chooses not to cover employment issues. Equality legislation seeks to eliminate unfair or prejudicial discrimination based on a person's inherent characteristics, for example, gender, race, age, rather than affecting rational assessments of risk based on a person's previous actions. The question of wiping the record of criminal convictions is not one that can be addressed by a simple one-line prohibition of discrimination but requires a more nuanced approach via spent convictions legislation that allows differentiation as between different types of criminal convictions, adult versus juvenile convictions and so on, different types of employment and other risk assessment situations. The Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill is currently awaiting Report Stage in the Dáil and is expected to be enacted in the autumn.

Regarding qualifying prisoners, these are in law a subset of the previous category but the rationale for the Sinn Féin Bill treating them separately is an obvious political one.

The question of taxi licences and licences from the Private Security Authority has been raised. The Bill may be an attempt to compel the relevant authorities to grant licenses in such cases irrespective of genuine concerns about suitability but if that is the case it would be, even if this Bill were enacted, completely ineffective as it demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the Equal Status Acts operate. The Equal Status Acts apply to the provision of goods and services, other than public services that are regulated by other legislation. The equal status legislation - and I draw the Deputy's attention to section 14 of the Equal Status Act 2000 - is without prejudice to the provisions of other statutory provisions. Essentially, the 2000 Act does not apply to an issue which is governed by separate legislation.

Regarding the rural area ground, the intent or envisaged impact of that is not clear.

An obvious potential impact is in respect of the delivery charges by providers of goods, including household goods. It is common practice not to charge for delivery to locations in the immediate vicinity of a shop but to charge for those which are longer distances away or to limit deliveries to an immediate catchment area. This could be construed as discrimination against rural dwellers. Another example is that providers of cable television and other telecommunications services may not provide services outside a defined area or may not provide a service of equal quality to sparsely populated areas. Under the proposed new provision, this could again be construed as discrimination against rural dwellers. It is not obvious that the real difficulties in providing high quality broadband services, for example, to rural areas can be addressed by a simple prohibition on discrimination or that the increased provision of such services by market providers would be positively encouraged by an outbreak of litigation before the Equality Tribunal.

I wish to make a final point. The unrealistic ambition which underpins the Bill is also indicated by the inclusion of the Dáil, the Seanad and the Government in the definition of "public body" and of the annual budget in the definition of "measure" - that is, a measure whose impact must be assessed as laid out in a scheme which must be approved by the Equality Authority - respectively. Budgetary decisions are for the democratically elected Government of the day to make and for the national Parliament to approve. They are not subject to the approval, in terms of process or content of any State agency's board. As a result of its membership of the European Union and the eurozone and its accession to the fiscal stability treaty, the State has legally binding budgetary obligations in respect of the deficits it can run and to the overall level of general government expenditure it can undertake. Within the parameters required by considerations of prudence and Ireland's EU obligations, budgetary decisions as between levels of expenditure and taxation - and as between retention of income by those who earn it versus redistribution to those in need via the social welfare system and other measures - are also for the democratically elected Government of the day to make and for the national Parliament to approve.

The reality is that resources are limited and additional expenditure demands or costs arising - for whatever reason - will have to be paid for through expenditure reductions elsewhere or through the raising of additional revenue. Nothing is this Bill can change that reality or be of any help to the Government in making the difficult decisions its members have been elected to make on behalf of the people as we work to restore the country's economic sovereignty. The Government will shortly introduce, as promised, legislation to establish the new Irish human rights and equality commission. The provisions of the legislation in this regard will include a workable, positive duty on public bodies to have regard to equality and human rights issues in their work. This will be in line with the commitment in the Government's Programme for National Recovery 2011-2016 which states, "'We will require all public bodies to take due note of equality and human rights in carrying out their functions". We are also working on legislation to consolidate and streamline the various Acts which deal with family leave, including those relating to maternity protection, parental leave and carer's leave. When these two projects are taken through to enactment, we will commence a general review of the substantive equality legislation. This will include considering whether there is a case for creation of new grounds, as well as examining the scope to simplify and streamline the two main sets of legislation relating to equal status and employment protection.

In the meantime, the Bill before the House is confused and ineffective. I am most surprised that Sinn Féin, a party which I consider to probably have the best resourced researchers in this Parliament, managed to get it so badly wrong.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If that is the best the Minister of State can do, there is no doubt that she has lost her soul.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For a number of reasons I am advocating that the House should oppose this Bill when the question is put tomorrow night. It is clear that the Bill is focused on establishing further committees and creating an extremely cumbersome bureaucracy. The enactment of this legislation could lead to progress in the area of equality becoming bogged down for many years. In essence, the Bill represents a box-ticking exercise rather than an imposition of a robust duty of care on public bodies in the context of how - by means of their strategic plans - they meet the challenges they face in their day-to-day operations. Furthermore, there are a number of technical difficulties with the Bill. For example, it contains many measures which are obviously related to the Employment Equality Acts but it makes no reference to or cites those Acts. That is more than a drafting error, it constitutes a real problem. If a Bill is not related to other legislative measures, it will be open to immediate challenge when enacted.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Then the Government should amend the Bill on Committee Stage. The Labour Party has lost its soul.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy MacLochlainn is having a bad hair day and he should relax.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Ciarán Lynch should address his remarks through the Chair.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Another technical difficulty which arises relates to the definition of the Houses of the Oireachtas as public bodies. Neither these Houses nor the Government are public bodies. Sinn Féin may come to realise that if it takes up office at some point in the future. A Government is not a public body; it is put in power in order that it might legislate. The definition of Government as a public body in the Bill would mean that budgetary decisions could not be made without the approval of State agencies or a State-appointed body.

Equality is a subjective concept. Someone might come before this House and propose that because of the mortgage difficulties which obtain, everyone should receive a write-down of 30% on his or her mortgage. That would be an equal measure but it would also be subjective because we would be giving a break to people who would not deserve it and we would probably not be giving enough assistance to those who require it. When we discuss equality, we should place it in a subjective context.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, we should not. Equality is not a subjective concept. The Deputy does not even know how to define equality.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Neither an impact assessment nor explanatory memorandum are provided with the Bill. In addition, no costings or financial implications have been supplied in respect of it.

Deputy Martin Ferris referred earlier to former prison inmates and IRA prisoners. I spent ten years working in the criminal justice system. I worked on Spike Island, in Cork prison and in probation, pre-release and post-release programmes. All of the latter were very effective because there were clear performance indicators in respect of them. The programmes to which I refer involved dealing with recidivism, rehabilitating people and reforming the system. What Sinn Féin seems to be proposing is that those prisoners who have done their best to make up for their transgressions and who are trying to get on with their lives should be left out of the loop. The legislation before the House constitutes another aspect of Sinn Féin's subjectivity when it comes to dealing with prisoners.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is ironic.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Bill would give rise to a resource-intensive system. It is very demanding legislation. Performance indicators and outcomes are either confused in nature or are absent from the Bill entirely. Regardless of the intention behind it, the measure is technically flawed and ill-prepared. On that basis, it should not be allowed to proceed. At best it represents a poor attempt at what might be considered good intent. That is the best thing I can say about it.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Where is the Deputy's Bill? He is a backbencher, why has he not brought forward his own legislation?

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My comments must be hurting the Deputy because he is shouting at me.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Where is the Deputy's Bill? He is talking nonsense and is becoming flustered.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Mac Lochlainn is not doing himself any favours by shouting at me.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nonsense. I do not know if there was any doubt about the matter but it is now clear that the Deputy's party has lost its soul.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Bill is an attempt on the part of Sinn Féin to embarrass the Government, then it has missed by a mile. If it is an attempt at having a positive impact in legislative terms, then it has missed by a country mile. The legislation before the House is completely unworkable and I advise other parties and individuals in opposition to vote against it when the debate concludes tomorrow evening.

In the context of Deputy Mac Lochlainn's comments, I welcome the Minister of State's announcement to the effect that the Government will shortly introduce, as promised, legislation to establish the new Irish human rights and equality commission. Further equality measures will also be introduced during the lifetime of this Administration. A commitment in that regard is contained in the programme for Government and that commitment is being delivered upon.

Paul Connaughton (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill. As is the case with all legislation which comes before the House, I am concerned with regard to its likely impact. Essentially, the Bill would place more pressure on the staff of public bodies to prepare reports and would require the allocation of significant additional resources to the Equality Authority in order that it might respond appropriately to such reports. Within the public sector, measures which would have to be proofed in line with an equality impact scheme of this nature would be the annual budget presented by the Government and voted on by the Dáil. At a time when the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, must make incredibly difficult budget decisions, the thought that this entire process could be held up while civil servants check if there is any possibility that the budget might have a negative impact on former IRA prisoners released early under the Good Friday Agreement is simply bizarre.

The Government has a job to do and it must be allowed to work unhindered towards achieving its goal of getting the country back on track, restoring consumer confidence and rebuilding the broken jobs market. This work is being done at a time when we continue to spend beyond our means.

In many respects, the rationale behind this Bill is laudable. It seeks to ensure decisions made by Government and public bodies are examined to see what impact they will have on the most disadvantaged in our society. However, the flaw in this Bill is the method by which it seeks to achieve that goal.

One reason the Equal Status Act has had some measure of success to date is that its parameters are confined to nine grounds. Students in secondary school learn the nine grounds under which discrimination in the provision of goods and services is prohibited. To add a further five grounds would only serve to confuse the public, dilute the Act and have the opposite effect to that intended.

Another element in terms of the success of the Equal Status Act is that its measures were mirrored in the Employment Equality Act. This Bill seeks to insert a further five grounds for discrimination in the provision of goods and services but not in terms of employment, which is welcome. For an employer faced with many prospective employees to have to explain himself or herself if he or she chooses not to take on someone with a criminal conviction for theft, for example, is simply unworkable. Once again, common sense must prevail. The nine provisions in both Acts are easily understood and are sensible. The extension of the grounds to a further five sections of society in the Equal Status Act but not the Employment Equality Act is not sensible and simply must be rejected on those grounds.

In terms of the impact assessments this Bill proposes public bodies carry out, no consideration has been given to the extra burden this will place on public bodies in the context of staff costs at a time when resources in all public bodies are extremely stretched and when staff are under great pressure to comply with all the strictures with which they are currently faced. In the current economic circumstances, any change to legislation should be accompanied by a comprehensive assessment of how much additional expenditure such measures are likely to incur. The lack of any explanatory material in terms of the financial burden this proposed Bill will place on public bodies is a serious lapse and further underlines why this Bill cannot be supported.

The Government in the Programme for National Recovery 2011-2016 undertook to require all public bodies to take note of equality and human rights in carrying out their duties. This is a much more sensible approach to the matter - one that requires fewer resources on behalf of all public bodies but which still requires that they consider the human rights environment in which they operate.

For five years, tough decisions have had to be made by Ministers for Finance in order to steer the country away from the disastrous course it was on. This year will be no different. Resources are increasingly scarce in Government Departments and public bodies but, more important, in every household across the country. Anyone in charge of household finances knows that in tough times, every decision must be examined in terms of the extra financial burden it will create and what the reward, if any, will be.

While laudable objectives lie at the heart of the drafting of this Bill, it is unrealistic in the current climate and if passed, would do little more than place a major bureaucratic burden on already hard-pressed employees in public bodies.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Equal Status (Amendment) Bill which will create a legal onus on public bodies to conduct a socio-economic equality impact assessment on measures undertaken by them while, at the same time, charging them with the responsibility of developing an equality scheme to underpin the work of that body. Fianna Fáil broadly supports the goals of this legislation and is proud of its record in the area of equality. We believe in true republicanism which is based on equality, liberty and fraternity.

The ground-breaking Equal Status Act, initiated by Fianna Fáil, came into effect in October 2000. This Act protects against discrimination outside the field of employment and prohibits discrimination in the supply of goods and services, facilities, accommodation and education on nine distinct grounds, including sexual orientation, gender, civil status, family status, age, race, religion, disability or membership of the Traveller community. The Equality Authority is an independent body set up under the Employment Equality Act 1998 with the objective of overseeing the mechanics of the State to ensure a greater level of equality on a number of grounds.

In recent months, my colleague, Senator Averil Power, introduced the Employment Equality (Amendment) Bill in the Seanad which would ensure teachers could not be dismissed from a religious run school based on their sexual orientation. I think Sinn Féin supported that Bill in the Seanad. It was disappointing the Government did not accept it but I hope it will do so in time.

We have a number of concerns in regard to this legislation which stem from the administrative burden it could place on overstretched public bodies. In our capacity as public representatives, we deal with a whole a range of public bodies and officials, some of whom are burned out and overstretched. We have seen a reduction in the number of personnel working in these bodies and in the resources going to these organisations. That said, and bearing in mind the administrative burden this additional work could place on staff and the scarce resources of public bodies, the broader goal of securing enhanced equality of opportunity is an important political goal. The principles of equality must be at the core of public policy and our goals of achieving a fairer society.

The need for the guiding principle of equality at the heart of public policy has been clearly illustrated in the budgetary policies pursued by this Government which have had a deeply regressive impact on our society. An ESRI article stated that from looking at the impact of the 2012 budget, it is clear the greatest reduction in income is for those on the lowest incomes and that a fall of between 2% and 2.5% for the poorest 40% of households compares with a fall of close to 1% for the next 40% of households and a fall of 0.8% for the top 20% of households. That is not Fianna Fáil, members of the Technical Group or any other party in this House saying it. It was stated by an independent body, the ESRI. That is a disgraceful indictment of the budgetary policies being pursued by this Government.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As a result of what?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I refer to some of the decisions taken. Carers took a disproportionate hit to their income when the respite care grant was cut. Let us remember that the carer's allowance, which was brought in by Fianna Fáil when in government, is paid to the only social welfare recipients who actually work for their payment. They provide 24-7 care to a loved one. The children's allowance took a further hit, despite the election promise made by a particular party which was in full knowledge of the economic constraints the country faced when it made that promise. There was a cut to the provision of guidance counsellors. The abolition of the PRSI exemption hits people by exactly the same amount, whether they are on €20,000 per annum or €200,000 per annum. Where is the fairness or equality in that cut? It is not there.

The Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, in his first budget, tried to undermine DEIS schools, a policy which was initiated and pursued to help the most disadvantaged and marginalised in society. Only last week, the Minister and the Government had to do a U-turn when they deliberately tried to target children with special needs and disabilities and in need of learning supports by capping the number of resource teachers and special needs assistants. I welcome the fact the Minister did a partial U-turn and acknowledge the fact he will employ additional resource teachers.

I still have a concern, which I outlined last week, that the number of children requiring special needs assistants, SNAs, will increase this September by 2,000 while at the same time the number of SNAs will remain capped.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fianna Fáil negotiated that.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not the first time the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, has had to hold up his hands and admit to the inequitable nature of his decisions. Maybe if this legislation had been in place, such a decision would never have materialised from the Minister's desk and created the level of anxiety and worry that became evident. Only yesterday, changes to maternity benefit came into effect, which is an unfair attack on working women.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is part of the deal done by Fianna Fáil.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There has been a tightening of the one-parent family allowance. These policy decisions were made in the last budget and the Minister of State can correct me if I am wrong but the Government has been in office for two years and four months.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is part of the deal done by Fianna Fáil.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is heckling. Move her out.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Only today we met representatives of St. Vincent de Paul who outlined - as if anybody needed to - the serious consequences of the recent budget changes. They appealed to us as members of the Opposition to argue that there are choices to be made and there is a fairer and more equitable way to tackle the financial constraints we face today. We know the Government blames us and has not taken any notice of the world economy. It is entitled to the opinion that it is our fault. Regardless of who is at fault, the issue must be corrected in a fair and equitable manner.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a fact.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The ESRI - rather than us or anybody else in the House - has indicated that the Government is not tackling the issue in a fair and equitable manner.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

An article by Professor Tim Callan and Dr. Claire Keane, published in the quarterly economic commentary from the ESRI, indicates that the austerity budgets of the last four years of the Fianna Fáil Government - which I admit we introduced - were progressive. That means the percentage of tax paid by higher earners was more than that paid on lower incomes. Last year we produced an alternative budget, A Fairer Way to Recovery, and the Labour Party agreed with some elements of it. If we are to believe what happened in the Cabinet negotiations, the Labour Party walked out over the proposed 3% increase in the universal social charge. I would love to know what happened to make them walk in again. There are choices, which the Minister of State should never forget.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Deputy tells us what happened on the night of the bank guarantee I can tell him what happened with the budget. We can trade secrets.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a little hypocritical of Sinn Féin to introduce this Bill, given its failures in the Northern Ireland Executive, which include an unfair property tax and educational inequalities. The average property tax in Northern Ireland for 2011 to 2012 was €980 but the party vehemently opposed such a measure in the Republic of Ireland. Of the 11 councils in which Sinn Féin is the largest or joint largest party, nine implemented an increase in property tax rates in 2013. We can also consider some of the educational failings, with two of every five teenagers in Northern Ireland leaving school without basic reading and writing skills, according to the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland. Officials from that office visited ten primary schools and ten post-primary schools as part of its examination during the 2010-2011 term, finding that as students progressed through the system, the numbers reaching the expected standard in maths and English declined.

With regard to child poverty, it was recently revealed that according to the UK Child Poverty Act, the offices of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have a statutory obligation to report on a strategy to tackle child poverty to the Assembly by the end of March 2012. As of yet, that has not happened. One can speak of financial constraints, but this obligation is merely to present a document outlining how these issues would be tackled in times of great resources. It has not been forthcoming, even a year and some months later. Some areas of Northern Ireland have the highest child poverty rates in the UK, particularly west Belfast, which has the highest rate in Northern Ireland at 46.2%. We all know whose constituency that is.

Welfare recipients are also facing cuts in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Assembly currently observes welfare parity with Westminster, and this is a legislative choice of the Assembly, so, unlike in the case of the taxation regime, Sinn Féin has not thus far made any substantive effort to change the parity principle despite its stated position. The failure to work towards welfare powers by Sinn Féin links to its aversion to financial portfolios in the Executive, and the party is systematically avoiding being in a position in which it must take tough financial decisions. Instead, it is choosing to lay blame on others.

Nevertheless, we welcome the principles of the Bill, as we are a party founded on true republican values of equality, liberty and fraternity, and we want to ensure that any policy coming from public bodies will ensure fairness at its heart. In anything we do - whether it is a difficult or an easy decision - we must prioritise consideration of whether our action is fair and equitable, and whether those who can afford to pay most will do so. If that forms a theme in the forthcoming budget, the Government will be surprised by the people supporting it. We acknowledge that difficult decisions have to be made, as can be seen with the alternative budget we presented last year. It was fully costed by officials in the Department of Finance by way of parliamentary questions and other methods. I know this year's budget will be at an earlier date but we will again take a responsible approach in opposition, presenting alternative costed proposals that will meet the scrutiny of the Department of Finance. More importantly, they will meet the approval of the general public, because the measures will be fair and equitable. That is a current failing, as the public believe that many of the decisions made by this Government are inequitable and unfair. It is annoying people.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Equal Status (Amendment) Bill, which I will support. One of the distinguishing features of recent budgets has been their impact in increasing the levels of inequality in our society. This has been highlighted by Social Justice Ireland, TASC, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the Government's own think-tank, the ESRI. Today in our society, the top 10% of the population based on income has nearly 14 times the disposable income of the lowest 10%. In 1980, the top 10% had eight times more disposable income. Thus, even in the so-called boom years in the economy, and given that the Government indicates that we are still at the income levels of 2003 or 2004, income inequality has grown. It should be the aim of every government to protect the weakest in society and it is clear that this Government is not interested in achieving equality.

We should be long past the rhetoric that a rising tide will lift all boats and that if our economy improves, incomes will improve with it.

Even if we did not need a reminder, the publication of the so-called Anglo tapes over the past week has shown us all in a stark way how a well-paid coterie of bankers, who were more than likely in the top 30% of income earners, feel about the rest of society. We cannot expect people like that to bring equality to society. The only way that citizens can expect to have equality recognised is through the actions of a Government that places the equality of citizens at the centre of all decision making.

We are now in the budgetary process for 2014 and an integral part of that process should be an impact assessment of all the proposed measures and decisions made based on the lowest impact on equality. Then and only then can citizens be certain that their Government will be working to protect their interests and not the vested interests of the top 10% of income earners.

Income inequality is not the only area where equality should be measured. Equality should be measured across all Government and public policy actions as outlined in the Bill. This is the only way that equality for citizens can be achieved. We have only to look at some recent decisions taken by this Government, particularly in respect of the ending of the mobility allowance and the motorised transport grant, to highlight the inequality directly shown by public bodies. The decision was justified on the basis that public transport could pick up the slack, but even a five minute conversation with any recipient of the mobility allowance from a rural area would immediately have shown that this could not have been the case because there is no public transport in rural areas. The announcement of the continuation of the mobility allowance for another number of months shows clearly that this decision by the Government was wrong. If it had been equality proofed prior to being made, it would not have been made.

Last year, I raised directly with the Tánaiste the unequal treatment of rural patients where they were being denied specialist medical treatment in Dublin hospitals because they did not live in the catchment area of these hospitals, even though these treatments were only available in Dublin. That shows the inequality inherent in our system when citizens should have equal access to all services across the State. An equality proofing of these types of decisions would clearly highlight the inequality in them and force the authorities to look at different options and provide different policy options that do not impact negatively on citizens.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the debate as this Bill is designed to protect equality in the functioning of public bodies and bring about the carrying out of equality impact assessments. It also amends the Equal Status Act 2000. This Bill is progressive legislation and I will support it in the vote tomorrow night. I commend Deputy Mac Lochlainn and Sinn Féin on bringing it forward.

Equality is a very important word for me, particularly in the modern world. More importantly, action on equality is the major issue. There is no point in talking about equality unless one implements it in issues such as in this Bill. It is about human rights, respect for the person and enjoying and celebrating difference in a modern, inclusive society. Sadly, we have a long way to go so it is up to all of us to lead on the equality agenda.

The Equal Status Acts prohibit discrimination on nine grounds. The one on which I will focus is family status - being pregnant, the parent of a person under 18 years or the parent or resident primary carer of a person with a disability. In recent days, we have all seen how the disabled and their families had to fight once again for the resource hours in our national schools. It is a constant battle, and even when they win that battle, the war must go on for rights to other services. Budget 2013 was particularly harsh on family carers who are still reeling from the 19% cut in the respite care grant, the decimation of the household benefits package, the introduction of the local property tax, the tripling of prescription charges for medical card holders and the increase in the drugs payment scheme threshold to €144. The overall cut of 5% imposed on family carers in budget 2013 was unfair and disproportionate compared with the 1.9% cut applied to the general social protection budget and continues to cause significant hardship for many carers. This Government can create better value for money by using limited resources more effectively. I also believe the Government should prioritise service quality and continuity for the most vulnerable. It should also develop and deliver strategic improvements in public policy. I strongly support the Give Carers a Break campaign in its budget 2014 submission.

These issues are all part of the equality debate, which is one of the reasons I put forward new legislation entitled the Down's syndrome (equality of access) Bill 2013 today to ensure all children with Down's syndrome get proper services and resources as a right. I will be bringing this Bill forward to the House as soon as the Ceann Comhairle permits it and allows time.

I urge all Deputies to support this Bill and commend Deputy Mac Lochlainn and Sinn Féin on bringing it before the House. It is appropriate and significant that many Sinn Féin Members who live in the Six Counties and have experienced discrimination and sectarianism have brought forward this Bill. I commend them on doing so. This Bill is about equality, justice and respect for all our citizens but, above all, it is part of building a just and inclusive society.