Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): The Committee is undertaking an inquiry into gaps in equality legislation. The first evidence session is with the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI). I welcome Geraldine McGahey, chief commissioner; Roisin Mallon, director of the dedicated mechanism unit; and Kathryn Barr, senior policy officer for policy and strategic engagement. Thank you for your submission, and I invite you to make some opening remarks.

Ms Geraldine McGahey (Equality Commission for Northern Ireland): Thank you for the invitation to attend today. At the outset, I put on record that we welcome this inquiry and hope that it will help put equality law reform firmly back on the political agenda, which will be to the benefit of everyone in Northern Ireland.

It is an important piece of work. Equality law reform has not been a priority for the Executive and the Assembly for many years. We have seen the Assembly vote through only one piece of equality law since its establishment, and that was on foot of a private Member's Bill. While other jurisdictions have moved forward with equality protections, Northern Ireland has effectively stood still and is falling behind international standards.

Just last month, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), in its concluding observations on the UK, highlighted the need for comprehensive anti-discrimination and equality legislation, particularly in Northern Ireland. The commission is thoroughly invested in improving our legislative framework for the benefit of everyone living here. We have a statutory duty to keep equality legislation under review, and, over the years, we have built up a bank of recommendations on law reform, including identification of significant gaps in our equality laws.

Northern Ireland currently has a patchwork of equality legislation. The inconsistent protections across equality law in Northern Ireland add to complexity and cost, all of which negatively impact on individuals, employers, service providers and those providing advice. In the simplest of terms, it means that people living here are unable to challenge some types of discrimination, because the laws simply do not exist to protect them. The effect is that people in Northern Ireland who experience discrimination, including some of the most vulnerable or marginalised in our society, have less protection against discrimination, harassment and victimisation across a number of equality grounds compared with their counterparts in Great Britain and Ireland. Although we have a series of long-standing recommendations across a number of areas of equality law reform, we would ideally favour working towards a single equality Bill, as doing so would allow us to improve and move all our discrimination laws forward at the one time. I stress, however, that incremental change is better than no change at all. I am sure that we will discuss our broader recommendations and calls across the equality grounds, but, for now, I will concentrate on and highlight a number of key areas of anti-discrimination legislation that urgently require action.

We now live in a very diverse society, more so than ever before. We welcome people from around the world who have chosen to come here to work and to live, but the horrendous events and racist attacks over the summer months serve as a sobering reminder that racism is alive and well in our society. Our ethnic minority communities need to have adequate protections in place. For over a decade, the commission has been calling for the reform of race equality legislation, and we welcome the fact that there has been some movement on that in recent times. It is imperative that that work gain momentum. As the body with the statutory remit in the area, we would welcome sight of the draft legislation as a matter of urgency. We look forward to seeing the delivery of reformed race equality law and aspects of hate crime law in the current mandate.

I will now turn to protections on the basis of age. In Northern Ireland, there is still no protection against age discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services, despite considerable work having been done in that area during the previous mandate, when it was in the Programme for Government. I stress that this is the only jurisdiction in these islands without any form of protection in that area. Those who believe that they have been discriminated against because of their age when accessing, say, healthcare or financial services have no recourse to legal challenge. We need to see legislation to protect people of all ages against discrimination.

Disabled people also require stronger protections under the law in all aspects of their life. Currently, there are varying protections against disability discrimination in Northern Ireland that are inconsistent and confusing. There are significant gaps, with no protection from indirect discrimination or discrimination arising from disability. Many of the complexities and, indeed, the gaps in the law that remain here were addressed in GB through the Equality Act 2010. Harmonising and simplifying disability legislation would make it much easier for disabled people to understand what their rights are and know when they can challenge less favourable treatment or a failure to make reasonable adjustments. I do not think that any of us can forget the impact of the pandemic and how it exposed vulnerabilities and the consequences of not having adequate legislative protections against discrimination on the basis of age, race or disability.

In our submission, we have not addressed the section 75 duties of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, simply because its provisions are not devolved to the Assembly. Nevertheless, it would be remiss of me not to say in this forum that section 75 must be effectively implemented, and we continue to work with the public authorities in that regard. We need to remember that the duties are about putting people at the heart of policymaking and about providing an assurance to decision makers, including you, as MLAs and Ministers, as well as demonstrating to wider society that the statutory equality duty has been complied with.

You will also be aware of the UK Government's commitments under article 2 of the Windsor framework. Those commitments mean that changes to EU directives that impact on the directives that are set out in annex 1 must be introduced into Northern Ireland law. We have identified some directives that we consider must be transposed into Northern Ireland law by 2026. In order to comply with that statutory duty, work on preparing the necessary legislation therefore needs to start now.

The directives that we consider appropriate are the EU pay transparency directive and the EU standards for equality bodies directives. Implementing the EU pay transparency directive in Northern Ireland law would lead to greater accountability and transparency from certain employers on gender pay gaps in their organisations and strengthen equal pay measures. The EU standards for equality bodies directives aim to strengthen the assistance provided to victims of discrimination in accessing justice, the promotion of equal treatment and the prevention of discrimination. The changes would be of great value to individuals in Northern Ireland who are seeking redress against discrimination and set out minimum and binding standards for the commission in the services that we deliver.

There is much more that I could cover on law reform, but I think that it is more appropriate that we get an opportunity to ask questions and get answers. I stress that there are clear and persistent weaknesses in equality law in Northern Ireland. Our current legal framework provides limited and inconsistent protections across different equality grounds. That means that people struggle to understand their rights, while employers and service providers can be confused about what they are meant to do. Equality law reform will help further advance equality of opportunity, prevent discrimination and clarify the law. It will take time to achieve all the recommendations, but there is no time like the present to start. We also need, however, a long-term commitment to modernising our equality law more broadly for the benefit of individuals, families, organisations and communities right across all the equality characteristics.

I will make one final pitch. The commission is not simply an advocacy body for equality. By statue, we are required to be the independent body charged with providing our Government with advice, including the appropriateness of equality legislation and the need for reform. We have the expertise. We are here to work with you to develop the very best equality legislation available for everyone in Northern Ireland. Thank you for listening. We are happy to take any questions you have.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you, Geraldine. Again, thanks for coming along today. I will start off with a few questions. You mentioned in your opening remarks the potential for an incremental approach to be taken as an alternative. We know that, for the social inclusion strategies, 'New Decade, New Approach' contained some recommendations on stand-alone legislation. Will you speak to how complex it would be to introduce a social equality Bill and the benefits of taking an incremental approach?

Ms McGahey: Taking an incremental approach will still leave that patchwork of equality legislation. It will deal with one specific subject area at a time, while other inconsistencies will still exist, thus causing that confusion. Going for a single equality Bill provides the opportunity to move everything together and at the one time. Although that would be our utopia, we recognise that it is very difficult to get Member buy-in, support and agreement on all the issues. We have been looking for improvements to equality legislation for 14 years — in some respects, it has been longer than that — and, as a consequence, we have got nowhere. If we were to have an agreement that we could take forward individual pieces of legislation, that would result in a change for at least some parts of our society. It would, however, not take away the need for a single equality Bill and its merits. There are difficulties with resources and with getting buy-in from elected Members. I will ask my colleagues whether they want to add to that.

Ms Kathryn Barr (Equality Commission for Northern Ireland): Thank you, Geraldine, for setting out some of the benefits of having single equality legislation. It is really important for individuals to understand their rights and to be able to look in one place to see, against all the different characteristics, how they are protected.

There are also benefits for businesses and service providers. At the minute, they have to look across eight, nine or 10 different pieces of legislation to understand what their obligations are. Having all of that in one place would make things easier for everybody. As Geraldine said, however, we recognise that some change is better than no change. We have laid out some urgent reforms that are needed now, both in this mandate and looking ahead. Work needs to start now to see what can be done in the following mandate.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Geraldine, you mentioned that there is a statutory duty to keep up to date and align with equality legislation. Why have there been no consequences for our Government from not doing so? Give us a bit of the political history or the legal history for why that has not happened.

Ms McGahey: I can speak only of what I have done over the past four years, but the commission has a long record, dating back to 2004, of talking about legislative reform. Every time that we come before any of the Committees, we talk about the need for legislative reform.

There are no consequences, apart from the impact on our citizens, our employers and other organisations. There is no penalty in any of the legislation that would penalise government. The Assembly and the Westminster Government have come under criticism from the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in the concluding comments that it has just published following its investigation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). That is nothing new, as it happens time and again. We really need a commitment to tackle the issue. We cannot fall further behind, because everybody, in every section of society, is being failed.

Ms Roisin Mallon (Equality Commission for Northern Ireland): I will just say that there are obligations under article 2 of the Windsor framework. There is the "keeping pace" requirement that Geraldine mentioned in her opening remarks. As she said, the commission's view and that of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) is that, under obligations in the Windsor framework, the UK Government have to keep pace with the EU pay transparency directive and the EU standards for equality bodies directives.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. I have one final question before we move on.

In the Equal Status Acts 2000-2018 in Ireland, protected characteristics include membership of the Traveller community, and there is a lobby to include looked-after children, for example. To what degree do you think that those two categories should be included as protected characteristics? Are there any others that, with the passage of time, you realise should have been included on the list?

Ms McGahey: Kathryn wants to come in on that.

Ms Barr: There is protection for the Traveller community under the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I meant as a stand-alone protection.

Ms Barr: It comes under the Race Relations Order at the minute. There is a reference to Travellers, so there are protections in there, but we know that, unfortunately, the 1997 Order is not strong enough. We all know that there are far too many incidences of discrimination against Traveller communities, so we certainly want to see those protections strengthened.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): May I just clarify something? That comes under section 75.

Ms Barr: No, it is in the Race Relations Order.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Yes, but I mean when it comes to screening.

Ms McGahey: The nine characteristics?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Yes.

Ms McGahey: Those are in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act, which is not devolved to the Assembly. The characteristics that are laid out could do with being reviewed.

There was growing pressure to include economic disadvantage as a characteristic in the list of what is currently nine groups. There is no provision to do that at the minute, and, as a commission, we do not have the ability to look specifically at economic disadvantage as one of the inequalities. We look at the other inequalities through the lens of poverty, however, so, if that were to be revisited, there could be some merit in including it.

I am cautious, however, because, if you were to identify specific groups of people under the race aspect, there would always be a risk that you could leave someone out. It would therefore need careful crafting to make sure that that was not the case.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. As a Committee, we will try to link with the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on this, so we will certainly pass on anything that is a reserved matter.

I am conscious of time, so I will bring in Connie Egan, our Deputy Chair.

Ms Egan: Thank you all for coming in today. I really appreciate it.

I picked up on something that is a cause of concern, which is that section 75 needs to be implemented effectively, and you feel that is not happening at the minute. How could that best be done? Do we need more legislative provisions, or could it be done purely through policy?

Ms McGahey: When I was last before the Committee, I think that I said that section 75 needed to be reinvigorated, a review held into how it was being implemented and, perhaps, a much more pragmatic approach taken. We have opened discussions. I have written to the head of the Civil Service with a view to meeting all permanent secretaries to consider how they might be encountering challenges, just to see how it can be better done.

From personal experience, or from a personal position, not speaking entirely for the commission, the stick aspect of section 75 is weak. There is potential for imposing greater sanctions on a public body that fails to screen and fulfil its section 75 duties adequately. Those conversations are at very early stages, however, and I do not have specific recommendations yet, because it is fair to give public authorities the opportunity to have their say as well on how the whole thing could be better implemented and become part of organisations' culture so that the equality duty underpins all that they do and that they do not act in isolation, ignore it and apply it only as a last-minute ticking of the box.

Ms Egan: You spoke about gaps in and complexities around disability discrimination and about how such legislation needs to harmonise with GB's. What kind of gaps are we seeing, and how would you like us to address those? Could that be something that we seek to do through our inquiry? It is especially important that we do not fall behind at all in any of those areas.

Ms McGahey: We have already fallen behind. The introduction of the Equality Act 2010 in GB took the opportunity to close those gaps, because similar gaps previously existed in both jurisdictions. We have not had that opportunity.

Ms Barr: To be honest, there are some really strange anomalies in our disability legislation. In some aspects, there is not protection against direct discrimination, which cannot be justified, but in some places it is. Following case law in GB in 2008, it is very hard to take cases against discrimination related to disability. That was sorted out in GB by introducing indirect discrimination and discrimination arising from disability, but we are still in that 2008 phase, in which it is really difficult for people to take cases.

Different definitions are used throughout the 2010 Act. There are some areas in which harassment cases cannot be taken. It is just a bit of a mess, to be honest, and really difficult for individuals to understand what their rights are, for organisations to understand what their responsibilities are and for those who are giving advice to provide clear indications to people of what their rights are.

Ms McGahey: Even for something as simple as defining what a disability is, our legislation is very prescriptive in the list of disabilities or the incapacity that the victim must be suffering or enduring, whereas the legislation is much wider in GB. In some cases, we have had to rely on case law in Northern Ireland by going through the Court of Appeal in order to include autism as a disability. It is rather distressing and demeaning for people who are suffering disabilities to have to fight to prove that they have a disability.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Geraldine and the team, for coming along today. We have had a terrible summer. When we look at the equality gaps, they are getting bigger and bigger, but the biggest barrier to equality is politics in this place, because we are now on the front line of stopping progress. That is really regrettable, and we see it played out on our streets and in our communities each and every day. I see it in my own city, and it is distressing, because we have not dealt with the big issues of discrimination, sectarianism and everything else. Those things do not go away. They just bubble and bubble, and, eventually, we all have the trouble.

My question to you is this: your briefing refers to the delivery of a comprehensive hate crime law. There was a debate in the Assembly about stand-alone hate crime legislation, which the Marrinan review recommended. What is your opinion on whether to have stand-alone legislation or piecemeal legislation? I understand that the Minister wants to deliver, but she thinks that the mandate is too short and that, rather than doing noting, she should do something. I get all of that, but the last thing that we need is legislation that is not comprehensive and does not deal with what we see before our eyes on our streets. I really want us to get it right when we start the legislative process.

Ms McGahey: We are really disappointed that there is not a single, stand-alone hate crime Bill. The PSNI is encountering difficulties with getting speedy resolution to cases. The same is true of the court system. The potential of adding a more comprehensive clause to the sentencing Bill is advantageous, but there needs to be a commitment to seeing the rest of it delivered. With an incremental approach to legislative reform, it is always my fear that there might be a willingness to do it now, but, in the next mandate, that willingness perhaps will not be there, and you then still have a piecemeal approach being taken. I know from my conversations with the PSNI that it would be very supportive of having the sentencing model addressed to include aggravation of race hate. Kathryn, do you want to add to that?

Ms Barr: Yes. We have called for a statutory aggravation model. The fact that that seems to be the direction that the Justice Minister is planning to go in is certainly welcome. Our recommendation was for comprehensive hate crime legislation that takes in all aspects. As Geraldine said, we recognise that something is better than nothing, but it would be better to see it all legislated for in the one Bill. We see there being some of the same benefits that we see in having a single equality Bill. It is much easier for people to know what their rights are if they are set out clearly in one piece of legislation rather than in legislation across the board. We continue to want to see comprehensive hate crime legislation, but, in its absence, we want to see some of our other recommendations being progressed on things such as statutory aggravation, expanding protections and clarifying some of the incitement-to-hatred provisions.

Ms McLaughlin: One of the reasons that we have not made adequate progress, or any progress, in that area is that there was a lack of commitment in the Programme for Government 2011-15. In the draft Programme for Government 2024-27, racism is mentioned three times, LGBT rights are not mentioned once, disabilities are mentioned four times, while older people are not mentioned at all. Is the draft Programme for Government a serious offering when it comes to equality?

Ms McGahey: We are currently looking at the draft Programme for Government. It is quite obvious that there is an absence of specific actions, outcomes, targets and lines of accountability. We are disappointed with what is in it, but we do welcome the fact that there is a Programme for Government. We have waited for long enough for it. You have quite a short mandate, and resources are really tight, but that is no excuse for not addressing equality, because equality underpins all those issues. It is really hard to separate out any public policy and say, "That's the remit. It's stand-alone legislation, and nobody else or nothing else infringes on it". I will reserve judgement on how we consider its impact on equality and inequalities to be until we make a formal submission. A number of strategies are referred to in the document, but there is not any more information than that, so that is something that we will be feeding back on.

Ms McLaughlin: Another strategy that is not mentioned in the document is an anti-poverty strategy, which, to me, is an own goal. Why is there no mention of it? Why is there no urgency in that regard? Do you, as a commissioner, view that as a gap?

Ms McGahey: I do. That is why I mentioned earlier socio-economic status and the ability to include that as one of the characteristics under section 75 and its current nine grounds. Socio-economic status, and the level of deprivation, impacts on people, because it underpins a lot of public policies.

Kathryn, you want to come in.

Ms Barr: Just to add that we sat on a co-design group for that anti-poverty strategy, but it is important to remember that it was part of a wider suite of four strategies, the others being strategies on disability, sexual orientation — to cover LGBTQI+ communities — and gender equality. It is really important that all four of those move forward because they are intersectional. For instance, there are so many issues related to poverty that have particular impacts on women and so on. It is important that that suite of strategies moves forward.

Ms McGahey: Roisin would like to come in as well.

Ms Mallon: It is disappointing that there is nothing in the draft Programme for Government on equality law reform, including, for example, on race law reform, which, as Geraldine said, has become even more of an issue because we do not have robust legislation in that area. There are a number of things in the draft Programme for Government that are to be welcomed, like the focus on childcare, ending violence against women and girls and addressing the needs of children with disabilities and special educational needs. There are positives, but, as Geraldine said, there are also a number of disappointing aspects.

Mr Harvey: Geraldine, ladies; it is good to see you. You mentioned a single equality Bill, Geraldine. Would that mirror the GB Equality Act 2010?

Ms McGahey: That is the starting point, but experience and time have shown that there are even difficulties with the Equality Act 2010. We would like to make good on the mistakes and deficiencies in that legislation. We would like the opportunity to introduce other aspects that best practice around the world deals with. It is not a case of just copying the legislation in GB and implementing it here, because they too are having difficulties as a result of not quite getting the legislation right, and they are looking for amendments to it.

Mr Harvey: That could be useful. You mentioned areas like race, age and disability. What about religious groups?

Ms McGahey: Religious groups are contained in all our recommendations. I was picking out the more urgent aspects. Religion and philosophical beliefs are contained in the section 75 legislation. It is not always clear how that is being considered during the screening of particular policies, but there is legislative protection against discrimination. That was one of the things that we would have liked to have seen in new hate crime legislation.

Mr Harvey: Yes, of course. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Will you give some examples of how the GB Act is struggling to be implemented?

Ms McGahey: One example — the others will come in with many more — is financial services. They were included in the legislation and then were exempted. During COVID, we learned that older people — this is just one example — encounter real difficulties when they need two-factor authentication to access bank accounts or pay for things online because they do not always have mobile phones. There was also an episode where a lady in her nineties, or even older, was required to go in and prove her identity because her account was so old. She did not have a passport or a driving licence, and they would not even consider anything else. We had to try to intervene in that case even though we do not have a legislative basis for doing so. Many aspects of financial services were taken out of the Equality Act that really need to be in it. There are different types of financial services that people can get, and there is risk associated with age and people not being able to provide evidence of their age. That is the tip of the iceberg.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I will move on. I just wanted to pick up on that point because the Committee will look at how well that is being implemented. I am conscious that other members want to come in.

Mr Gaston: Welcome to the Committee. This is my first time here, so hopefully the Chair will keep me right.

I have a number of things to take you through. I will start with section 1.2 of the briefing paper that you provided to the Committee. It mentions a "hierarchy of rights". I welcome the Equality Commission's intervention regarding the PSNI's favouritism on the promotion of LGBT members in the force and statement that it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against its employees on the grounds of sexual orientation. To expand on that, have you come across such blatant discrimination anywhere else in the public or private sector? Can you shed any light on why the PSNI thought that that was acceptable?

Ms McGahey: It is fair to say that the PSNI, as an organisation, was not necessarily aware that the network was undertaking that project. The legislation allows for affirmative, positive action to be taken where a particular group is under-represented in its workforce. The issue is how that is done. We made contact with the PSNI and offered to work with it. I met some police officers last week and offered to send commission officers to talk directly to all its networks, regardless of which section of society they believe that they represent, about what positive action is and the consequences of, effectively, discriminating against other people.

Mr Gaston: In this case, the police have basically given carte blanche —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Timothy, I am going to stop you there. We are trying to look at gaps in equality legislation by comparing the provision here with that in GB and the Republic of Ireland.

Mr Gaston: I think that this is something —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK, I will let you finish your question, Timothy, but it will be up to the witnesses on whether they want to respond.

Mr Gaston: The police had an open-door policy whereby the network could use the internal email system. To me, it is inconceivable that the Christian Police Association or the Catholic police association would have been allowed to do that. Is it a case of members of the LGBT network running away with themselves, thinking that there is a hierarchy of rights and that they are above the law?

Ms McGahey: I do not think so. There is a series of networks in many organisations that are designed to give support and comradeship to particular groups. That does not mean that they are being treated any more positively or differently from anyone else in the organisation. Sometimes those organisations, forums or networks, whichever term you want to give them, do not always realise the consequences of their actions. This example was caught at a very early stage before anyone was discriminated against or potentially discriminated against, and the PSNI is dealing with it.

Mr Gaston: Because of the public pressure that it came under.

Ms McGahey: I cannot comment on that. I do not know the details of the workings in the PSNI. All I can say is that we have offered the PSNI support and to go in and talk to the various networks that it has to educate them and inform them of the legislative requirements and how best they can move forward without disadvantaging anyone else in the organisation.

Mr Gaston: Moving on quickly, section 1.4 refers to sex, gender reassignment and pregnancy. What gaps exist when it comes to gender reassignment? Does the commission recognise the conflict between the rights of women and those of a biological man who claims or thinks that he is a woman. Do you, as the Equality Commission, believe —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Can you watch your language, please? Thank you.

Mr Gaston: Do you believe that a biological man should have access to female-only spaces?

Ms McGahey: That is a very fast-moving area where different pieces of evidence and information are coming to light. In Northern Ireland, we very much welcome the fact that the likes of the Rainbow Project, which represents various groups such as trans people, work very closely with women's groups to make sure that the rights of women and those who are transitioning are protected and respected. They have an exceptionally good working relationship with each other. They have respect for each other. That is not always guaranteed and assured across other jurisdictions, so they are both to be congratulated on how they are working together. I would like to see their relationship protected and not disadvantaged or demeaned in any way to allow them to work through the issues so that they can come to a sensible solution whilst protecting the rights of women and others. There are spaces in society that are, and should be, women only.

Mr Gaston: Will they continue to be women only?

Ms McGahey: They very much will in very specific circumstances. As I said, it is a fluid area. The commission has a lot of work to do in this field, as has wider society to understand the needs of all those people. At this moment in time, however, the commission is very grateful for the open and respectful discourse that has taken place between all the women's groups and those lobbyists that act on behalf of those who are transitioning from one gender to another.

Mr Gaston: Moving on to section 1.10.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Is this your last question?

Mr Gaston: My last series of questions: they are built into this one. I will be as quick as I can, Chair.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Make it quick, please.

Mr Gaston: Yes, absolutely.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you.

Mr Gaston: Essentially, nobody from Northern Ireland has any input into formulating EU directives. We are overseen by laws that we do not make and are run by a foreign court. Nowhere else in the world has such an undemocratic process in place. Does the Equality Commission respect the outcome of the 2016 referendum?

Ms McGahey: Absolutely. We also respect the commitment made by the UK Government in the Windsor framework, and, before that, the Northern Ireland protocol, where they set out, in partnership and agreement with the EU, that six directives that impacted on equality in Northern Ireland would be protected and would have a keeping-pace measure applied to them. As such, certain EU directives that impact on those six directives, which are solely to do with equality rather than trade or any other issue, need to be monitored to see how any future changes that come from Europe impact on them. The UK Government have already confirmed to us that the equality bodies directives fall within the scope of those six directives. That is them saying, "We need to move forward with them". There are various levels of committee and escalation where UK Government failures to deliver on their commitments can be raised. However, that is totally separate from all aspects of trade or internal markets or differentiating Northern Ireland from the UK. It is on the basis —

Mr Gaston: This my final point —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): You are going way off topic.

Mr Gaston: This is about —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I might bring you in at the end if we have time. Go ahead, Claire.

Ms Sugden: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, commissioner, for coming to present to us. I share your view on the lack of equality presented in the Programme for Government: unless everyone can access services and improvements, what are we doing it for? Hopefully, as it is a draft, that might be something that the Executive consider.

I have started the process of sponsoring a private Member's Bill on age discrimination in relation to goods, facilities and services, so, hopefully, we can close the gap that exists in Northern Ireland. It would be a sad indictment of this Executive if the only pieces of equality legislation or action were a private Member's Bill and a piece of legislation that has been sitting on the books for over 15 years. I have no doubt that you and I will engage many times on that.

Coming back to your comments on a single equality Bill, I understand the utopia argument for it. I am not a lover of catch-all Bills because they are open to being reshaped in ways that give them a scope that means that we might not get final agreement. Doing it in this almost piecemeal way so that we can get at least something in place is a realistic position. How confident are you that we are going to get anything more in this mandate, mindful that we have two and a half years of it left?

Ms McGahey: Time is very short to be able to deliver meaningful and widespread legislative reform given the stages that are involved in that process. However, I have identified certain areas of legislative reform — race, age and disability — where so much has already been done and we are almost at that final hurdle.

So much work was done on the age issue in particular in 2015-16 just before the mandate finished. A couple of issues really caused a stumbling block. Those need to be resolved, but we hold the view that age protections need to be for everyone. To curtail those to a particular group or to set an age limit on them is, in itself, discriminatory. Perhaps it was not recognised as fully as it should have been that reform will not take away parental rights or usurp other social policies, by-laws or regulations. There are ways and means of clearly setting out the level of protections that are retained at different levels, so I think that that can move quickly.

Work in the area of race is, again, at a very advanced stage, although we are yet to see the draft regulations and legislation. It is really important, given our statutory role in that area, that we are able to comment on the appropriateness of those. It would be an awful shame to get to a very late stage in the process only for us to come back and be critical of the draft regulations and legislation. It is the same in some of the other areas.

Ms Sugden: I am thinking through the areas in which you suggested we could progress. Work in those areas is at the very final stage, so might it be an idea for other Members to take that forward in private Members' Bills? Ideally, the Government should be doing that, because of the scope and nature of the work involved, but can we support and encourage other Members to do that?

Ms McGahey: A wide list of private Members' Bills are making their way through the commission. We will work with anyone who brings forward a private Member's Bill. We will give advice and guidance where we can. I told you about our statutory remit when it comes to providing advice and guidance. For any private Member's Bill that comes our way in an area that is within our remit, we will work with the Member who is involved. You have that assurance.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Thank you, Geraldine and team, for presenting to the Committee. I will ask a few different questions. First, I appreciated the briefing paper; it was very detailed. Some of those discussions have already happened. I want to see the current equality screening being included as a gap, because I know that section 75 considerations are often set aside because of good relations. Given that there is no definition of good relations in legislation, how can we ensure that the screening exercise is as in depth as it can be? If it is not, what should be done? The other issue is how the implications for good relations are promoted above equality implications quite a lot, particularly by local government. That is my first question.

Ms McGahey: We have not dealt with section 75 in our submission, because, as I told you, it is a reserved matter. We are, however, more than happy to provide you with a specific briefing on section 75, if you want to take that issue forward with the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I am more than happy to do that. I agree that a different emphasis is placed on the equality duty to that that is placed on the duty to promote good relations. The way in which that it is phrased and the terminology that is used weakens the good relations aspect. I, and the commission generally, would like to see that strengthened.

We have concerns about how the screening of policies is undertaken in some cases, and we have made a number of recommendations. We are now working with all the Departments in the Civil Service on how they screen and identify policies that will have negative impacts on any of the groups and how they might mitigate those impacts. We are trying to find a way to put a new drive into embedding that in the culture of every Department in the Civil Service. It is not a tick-box exercise. It never should have been. The very fact that we talk about it as "section 75" illustrates that problem. It is about putting people at the heart of public policy, but when we use "section 75", it is just about ticking a box.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I appreciate that. I am sure that, as participants in the co-production and co-design of the social strategies, you will know that those points were made ad nauseam. For us, the issue is that we had a very robust process for a bill of rights, which you fed into, but it was rejected by most of the unionist parties. My concern relates to the political blockages. Who will lift those equality gaps in the absence of political agreement? Surely there is a statutory obligation there on yourselves and the Human Rights Commission.

Ms McGahey: As I said earlier, we have a statutory remit to keep various pieces of equality legislation under review. Some people do not necessarily recognise that, because the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which led to the birth of the Equality Commission, refers to our predecessor organisations and the fact that we assumed their powers, duties and responsibilities. You need to go back to the primary legislation to see from where all our powers and duties are derived.

We have that remit, but we are not always listened to. We have been lobbying for and advocating law reform for 14 years and more. I do not want to have to keep doing that, but the powers over law reform lie with the Assembly. The Assembly is the legislature; you have to do it. We cannot do it for you. We have the power to draft certain pieces of legislation and put them before you, but you have to approve them.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I hear your frustration, Geraldine. We are all fed up with promising people, particularly marginalised groups, that any gaps will be filled and that being vetoed when it comes to the crunch. That is completely unacceptable.

My final point relates to good relations and equality. To be totally clear, good relations are being promoted over equality. If you look at some of the Committee papers or some of the exercises that Departments have done, you will see that they have used good relations as a reason to not do something, saying that there is an inequality there. That has happened time and again. For example, on the building of houses in areas of huge inequality and the highest demand, statutory bodies have said that those houses cannot be built because it would not be good for good relations. They say that, rather than saying that we need to build them there in order to address inequalities. I believe that, for the inquiry, there needs to be a clear definition of the duty of "good relations," and how it compares with equality duty, which is statutorily bound and compelling.

Ms McGahey: In section 75, there is a duty to give "due regard" to equality. However, for the building of good relations, the duty is to "have regard to".

Ms Ní Chuilín: Absolutely.

Ms McGahey: There is some merit to the value that is placed on both of those, but, in that piece of legislation, higher legal weight is given to the equality duty.

Ms Sheerin: Thanks for your presentation and answers thus far. My question relates to some points that have been made. Sinéad referred to the summer that we have had, which has been difficult. We have seen marginalised communities across the North being targeted, with all the accompanying rhetoric, and how damaging and scary that has been for people. Even in the course of this meeting, we have seen two marginalised groups being pitted against one another.

You referred to the fact that there has not been political agreement on single equality legislation. As the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Bill of Rights — Paula and Carál were members of that Committee — I saw, in a very real way, how we carried that work out. We saw that there was public appetite for a bill of rights, for which there has been an outstanding agreement since 1998, but we were not able to see that over the line because it was vetoed. Why are the minority who object to rights and equality for everyone allowed to block? Why are their voices amplified to the extent that they are? Do you have any thoughts on that, given your role?

Ms McGahey: That is getting into the structure and constitution of the Assembly. I do not have a remit in that regard. I am sorry, but —.

Ms Sheerin: In terms of the gaps in equality and trying to bridge those gaps —.

Ms McGahey: Equality is not the remit or privilege of one section of society, whether you are unionist, nationalist or anything else. There are still old people across the spectrum; there are still disabled people across the spectrum; and there are still people from ethnic minorities being caught in the middle. It is not a zero-sum game. It is —.

Ms Sheerin: I suppose that is where my frustration lies. Over the course of the bill of rights process, we saw that there was appetite for an extension of rights across all communities. The people who are being actively discriminated against and have a rights deficit are no longer in the nationalist community, as we would have seen 50, 60 or 70 years ago. How do we raise that issue and elevate it? How do we get to a solution for those marginalised groups?

Ms McGahey: Under the present legislative framework, there is nothing at our disposal by which we can force elected Members to make a decision and agree a way forward.

All that we can do is put the evidence before you and demonstrate very clearly that equality of opportunity and being treated with respect and dignity is the right of every person in Northern Ireland, regardless of their religion or political outlook on life. We will continue to drive that home as best we can, because it is about equality of opportunity and giving everyone the potential to develop and improve. Our children deserve the right to avail themselves of every opportunity that is presented to them, but if we do not create a level playing field for that child, they will always be at the disadvantaged end of things. You can take any inequality or difference that you like. You will see that it impacts across the spectrum: nationalist, unionist, Catholic, Protestant or any other religion. We are not in the game of promoting one group more than another. We are here for every citizen in Northern Ireland and to tackle all inequalities, wherever they exist. Does that help you?

Ms Sheerin: It is just the frustration. That is what I am saying. There is not —.

Ms McGahey: I am exceptionally frustrated.

Ms Sheerin: There is not a nationalist/unionist divide on rights in the communities that we represent. We have seen that. Our evidence shows, very clearly, that everybody is in support of an extension of rights, but it is still blocked. That is a challenge for us all.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I have two things before I bring you in, Brian. First, we will write to the Secretary of State about the bill of rights. We have not let that drop off the agenda. This inquiry is separate, although, obviously, there is an overlap. Secondly, we as a Committee can bring forward legislation — we can bring forward our Bill. That might be one of the outcomes of this process. I am determined that we do not have another process at the end of which there is no output.

Mr Kingston: Thank you for your attendance and presentation, and particularly for your two-page summary document. That is very helpful on a day when we have over 1,500 pages in our files.

Ms McGahey: You saw how big the original one was.

Mr Kingston: This is particularly helpful. We also have the Assembly's Research and Information Service document, which contains a comparative study of equality legislation in the United Kingdom and Ireland. It is also helpful. They are both informative documents. I expect that some of these things will be easier to move forward and will have broader consensus. Some will be more complicated, not least for employers for whom there will be consequences. There are ever-increasing requirements on them. This is helpful, particularly the summary. I wanted to say that. Certainly, we will discuss it with colleagues as we seek to advance these matters in a balanced manner.

Ms McGahey: Thank you very much for that; I appreciate that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Do you want to come in, Timothy? You must be very quick, and it better be in line with the Committee inquiry.

Mr Gaston: I certainly hope that it is this time, Chair. I want to hear your thoughts on the EU counterterrorism directive, which defines a victim as a "natural person". That conflicts with the definition of a victim in the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which is local legislation. How do you marry the two? You say that we have to follow the EU directive, which does not include a victim-maker as a victim, but the Northern Ireland legislation does.

Ms McGahey: May I interrupt you? That is largely outside our remit, but certain aspects of the EU directive may fall within our remit.

Mr Gaston: This is outside trade and all the different characteristics that you named before.

Ms Mallon: If the directive was passed prior to the EU exit — prior to the end of the Brexit transition period — the UK was required to implement that directive in full. It was a statutory obligation to give effect to that directive. I am not aware that there has been a gap in implementation. Certainly, we can take that away and get back to you. I was not aware that there was a particular problem with implementation, particularly because it is not a specific equality law directive, but we will certainly find out for you and come back, if that would be helpful.

Mr Gaston: In your interpretation, the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 trumps the EU counterterrorism directive.

Ms McGahey: Counterterrorism does not fall within our remit. To make a comment or offer a view on it at this time would probably be misleading for you and inappropriate for us, but we are happy to have a look at it, see whether any aspect of it falls within our remit and come back to you through the Chair, if that would be helpful.

Mr Gaston: I appreciate that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. That is great. We are on time: it is three o'clock. Thank you, ladies, and thank you, Committee members, for your succinct questions. We will keep you posted, ladies. If anything occurs to you after you walk out the door that you would like to put on our radar, please come back to us. We really appreciate your time and effort today.

Ms McGahey: Just on the point of section 75 and the workings with the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, would it be helpful if we provided you with some detail on our views on that, how it is working and the equality versus good relations aspect of that?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Yes, thank you.

Ms McGahey: We would be happy to do that.