JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Thursday, 5 Nov 2009

Equality Issues: Discussion with Equality & Rights Alliance.

Chairman

The first item on our agenda is a discussion with the Equality & Rights Alliance about a complaint to the European Commission concerning the failure to comply with EU law in the area of equality. We are joined by members of the Equality & Rights Alliance. I welcome Ms Tanya Ward, senior research and policy advisor with the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, Ms Orlagh O'Farrell, solicitor, and Ms Rachel Mullen, co-ordinator of the Equality & Rights Alliance. We have received comprehensive material from the Equality & Rights Alliance. I propose an opening statement of ten minutes followed by responses from committee members and closure.

I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege this privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are also reminded of long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official, by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mobile telephones should be silenced as they interfere with the communication system. I invite Ms Mullen to make a presentation.

Ms Rachel Mullen

I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it on behalf of the Equality & Rights Alliance. I will give a brief introduction to the Equality & Rights Alliance, ERA, before handing over to Ms Orlagh O'Farrell to speak about the substantive complaint. The Equality & Rights Alliance is a coalition of more than 130 civil society organisations and activists, NGOs, trade unions, academics and individual activists. It was established in August 2008 to respond to the proposed merger of a number of bodies under the aegis of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which did not go ahead. As committee members are aware, savage cuts of 43% were imposed on the Equality Authority and 34% on the Human Rights Commission. Since then, the alliance has been working to reverse those serious budget cuts so the bodies can adequately function. We do not believe they can do so. The CEO and six members of the board of the Equality Authority resigned and stated as much. We are also campaigning for an improvement in the equality and human rights infrastructure through legislation and the operation of the institutions themselves, such as in appointments to boards.

Ms O'Farrell drafted the complaint on behalf of the Equality & Rights Alliance to the European Commission. She will outline the substantive issues in the complaint.

Ms Orlagh O’Farrell

I thank the Chairman. I am a solicitor and practitioner in anti-discrimination law and a former European Commission official in the equality section. I will provide information on the complaint which the ERA lodged with the European Commission, including background on its substance. The ERA lodged not only a complaint with the European Commission but also a parallel petition with the European Parliament which has been supported by a very wide range of Members of the European Parliament.

The substance of the ERA complaint is that the Government has used the cover of financial cutbacks in public expenditure to mount a targeted attack on the Irish equality body by signalling it out for disproportionately large cuts. In particular, the complaint sets out that the combination of the budget cut and an accelerated decentralisation programme crucially undermined the ability of the Equality Authority to function as a designated national body under the EU equality directives. Under the EU equality directives, such a body has prescribed functions.

As the committee knows, the Equality Authority's budget was cut by 43% in October 2008 and at that time, decentralisation moves were accelerated. Cuts to other departmental bodies and agencies were in the order of 2% to 5% and their decentralisation had been stalled. The Equality Authority is Ireland's designated body for carrying out certain specified functions under EU legislation. These are that such a body must be able to assist victims of discrimination in pursuing legal complaints, be able to conduct surveys on discrimination and it must publish reports and make recommendations. It must also be able to engage in judicial, legal and administrative procedures in support of victims. Crucially, it must be independent in carrying out its functions. As the European Commission has pointed out, there is not much point in protecting legal rights if people do not know about them. It also pointed out that a relevant issue in considering the capacity of an equality body to carry out its duties is the way it is funded.

EU directives do not lay down exactly what level of funding and resources a national body must have and it varies considerably from member state to member state with population sizes and various systems. However, EU law does state that bodies designated under the directives besides being independent must be capable of carrying out their tasks effectively. Since the authority has had half its budget withdrawn, the complaint sets out that it is believed it can no longer effectively fulfil all of its obligations under the law.

In 2007, at the end of the European year of equal opportunities for all, the Council of Ministers passed a resolution in which it invited member states to strengthen the effectiveness of specialised equality bodies in carrying out their independent functions by providing them, having regard to national budgetary constraints, with the necessary financial and human resources. This is to allow them to respond appropriately to allegations of discrimination in a timely and effective manner, to support victims and to make an active contribution to achieving equality in practice.

The ERA complaint sets out that the 43% cut is so severe as to undermine not just the independence but the effectiveness of the authority in carrying out these tasks. In 2009, its budget fell from €5.87 million to €3.3 million. As a result, it is believed that the number of posts will fall from 38 to 15. The number of case files handled by the authority was set to fall from 488 in 2008 to 200 in 2009. The authority was considering opening two formal legal inquiries, one into the employment conditions of disabled persons in sheltered workshops and another into the conditions of employment for agency workers, but these are believed to have been shelved. They no longer appear in its strategic plans.

The human cost of the Government's action is becoming evident already. The Equality Authority has always been available to provide advice in individual discrimination complaints but the number of legal cases being taken at the Equality Tribunal is falling and the number of cases failing at the Equality Tribunal outweighs those succeeding by quite a lot. This is crucial to the role of the Equality Authority in supporting cases where needed. We do not have legal aid for discrimination cases and the Equality Authority is a very important support for people who believe they might have been discriminated against but do not have the knowledge or resources to take their own cases.

The number of claims taken on multiple grounds of discrimination has fallen by 18% over the previous year. Claims where more than one ground of discrimination is being invoked require considerable legal assistance from a body such as the Equality Authority. These are claims where, for instance, a woman is discriminated against on grounds of gender and disability or there are issues of age and disability. They are complex and in most cases help is required to bring them to law. Therefore, the agency's greatly diminished role is being felt most by ordinary people already living with discrimination and who are often forced to suffer discrimination in a time of recession.

The ERA commissioned research to monitor the impact of the budget cuts on the Equality Authority's ability to carry out its functions under the EU equality directives. This research will assess the impact of budget cuts on NGOs and civil society groups dealing with race and gender who rely on the authority as a legal policy and research support on discrimination. The results of this research study are not yet available but I believe they will be made available very shortly. We believe they will provide further substantiation of the grounds of the complaint.

An issue of independence is also raised. The Paris principles have been adopted at EU level and these state that a designated body for discrimination purposes must be independent in carrying out its functions. The complaint sets out that it is believed that the Government was displeased by high profile cases in which complainants, assisted by the Equality Authority, have brought discrimination claims against the Government, the Department and various public authorities. This part of the complaint relates to the link between the EU legal requirement of independence and the fact that the exercise of independence was followed by a disproportionately severe budget cut.

The European Court of Justice has ruled that member states must take all measures necessary to ensure that directives are fully effective and, importantly, that implementation is not a once-off act but a continuous process entailing enduring obligations for the member states. In other words, the actions of member states must be progressive and continuous and they cannot be regressive. Recent EU developments seek to strengthen equality bodies in this respect. The new proposed equality directive under negotiation in the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament includes a specific requirement that member states must have in place an independently functioning and adequately funded national body to promote equal treatment of EU citizens. The ERA complaint states that to lower the existing standard in Ireland before the new directive comes in is to condemn the Equality Authority to a lower standard of ability in future than that which formerly applied under the old directives. This defeats the principle of non-regression in EU directives under which new minimum standards must not result in a lowering of existing national standards from a previously high base. We believe it contravenes the spirit of this principle.

The ERA maintains that Ireland cannot justify its regressive and disproportionate attack on its specialist equality body by claiming that it is still in compliance with EU equality law. It believes the Irish Government has moved from a position of compliance to non-compliance over the past year.

As the committee will be aware, if the Commission upholds a formal complaint it will invite the Government to remedy the non-compliance by providing adequate and proportionate treatment to the national equality body. If the Government remains in breach, the Commission will bring an action against Ireland in the European Court of Justice. Ireland has previously held up its equality laws as a model of good practice internationally. The Government has rightly promoted this image.

In submitting this complaint to the Commission and other international bodies, the ERA is underlining its position that independent bodies like the Equality Authority which watch out for the rights of individuals are not a luxury that can be shelved or weakened during a recession. They are integral to the protection of rights in a civilised society based not on survival of the fittest but on a community in which all members can live in equal dignity and respect. The cost of rights neglected in the short term is very high in the longer term. The ERA believes the Commission is likely to take this complaint seriously because if Ireland can lightly abandon its previous good reputation and legal compliance, other member states will be encouraged to do likewise.

Deputy Joe Costello

I thank the delegation for meeting us. We have a lot of sympathy for the argument put forward by the ERA, which comprises an impressive list of 130 non-governmental organisations, trade unions and agencies. It is clear that strong feelings are held in the community in regard to this matter. Last year's drastic 43% reduction in the Equality Authority's funding certainly raises questions given that the average cuts inflicted on the sector were between 2% and 5%. Naturally, the result was that staff had to be laid off and fewer cases could be processed. It became more difficult to deal with victims of discrimination or conduct reviews and inquiries.

When one considers that the decentralisation programme further undermined the cohesion of these structures, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Government was being vindictive in slashing the Equality Authority's budget overnight. How can an organisation function effectively in these circumstances? The Government must have been aware that serious difficulties would arise for the authority. While savage, the Irish Human Rights Commission's cut of 24% is not on the scale experienced by the authority. What justification was given for this disproportionate cut? What correspondence was entered into with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform? Has the ERA lobbied the Government to reverse its cutbacks in the forthcoming budget?

The delegation referred to research which is being conducted into the impact of the cuts. I presume this research will form an integral part of the submission to the Commission because it is unlikely that a decision could be made in its absence. I ask for further information on the progress of the complaint to the Commission and whether the Government has been asked to respond. In reply to a question tabled by my colleague, Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, the Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Vladimír Spidla, stated that a budget cut in itself does not constitute a breach of Article 13 of the race equality directive unless it is so significant as to make it impossible for the equality body to function. It seems the Commission's decision will revolve around the outcome of the review.

There are substantial grounds for persuading the Commission to accept the ERA's arguments considering the indiscriminate and illogical nature of the cuts. I agree wholeheartedly that the European Commission should bear in mind the implications for the implementation by other member states of the gender and race directives. I do not doubt that the case will end up before the European Court of Justice.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I thank Ms O'Farrell and her organisation for the presentation. At the time these cuts were made, there was a shared realisation of the necessity for savings. However, it appears the decision was based on vindictiveness on the Minister's part. The disproportionate cuts inflicted on the Equality Authority and the Human Rights Commission suggest to me that he decided to use his power to pick at a bone. I hope the ERA is successful in its complaint to the European Commission.

The former CEO of the authority explained in a letter that he had decided to resign because of cuts in funding and the accelerated rate of decentralisation. Where stands decentralisation at present? This was an entirely inappropriate policy. I recall the clapping and cheering that followed its announcement in the Dáil, although Deputy Dooley possibly does not because he was in the Seanad at the time.

Deputy Seán Power

It received support from both sides of the House.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I opposed decentralisation from an early stage. I realised it would never happen and could never happen. At one stage Bord Bia was decentralising 25 people to Enniscorthy, some of whom were located in Russia or Chicago.

Deputy Joe Costello

Fisheries to Cavan.

Deputy Billy Timmins

How they were going to get them there I do not know. Anyway, we are not here to pick fights with our Government colleagues.

Deputy Seán Power

The new Department of Defence headquarters in Kildare is moving along well.

Deputy Billy Timmins

Yes. It was built on a private site in Newbridge when it could have had a free site a few miles down the road in the Curragh. That was another one of those decisions made by the Government which in the fullness of time we may get to the bottom of.

I do not want to diverge too much from the point. Where does the agency stand today with regard to decentralisation? The chief executive stated it would not be able to function. Is it functioning? I know there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of cases accepted and the staff has been reduced. Perhaps it would be better to wind up altogether because the agency cannot manage with the small amount of funding it has at the moment.

The witnesses stated they felt the agency had antagonised the Minister or the Department with its case-work strategy and allegations of discrimination, particularly in the public service. They mentioned the Traveller community and the race directive and also the issue of Garda retirement. Is there any other issue it feels may have antagonised the Minister? It would appear, reading between the lines, that this was a case in which the Minister got the opportunity to put the boot in and did so, without recourse to the common good.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I welcome the presentation by Ms O'Farrell and the comments by Ms Mullen. I have some sympathy for the situation in which they find themselves, as the agency has found itself on the wrong end of recessionary cuts. However, I reject the comments made by others — I am aware the witnesses did not say this — that suggest the cut was vindictive. They have clearly stated that they disagree with it and explained the reasons they find it difficult to do their job, and they are the best people to make that assertion.

I am sure that is not the approach of the Government. From a political point of view, members of parties within the Government have the unenviable task of meeting people on a daily basis who find themselves on the wrong side of significant cuts, whether they are potential social welfare cuts, State pensions or whatever. It is always difficult. Some members of the Opposition will identify any State agencies as quangos — we have had a few champions of getting rid of quangos — but when they talk it through, they will not countenance cuts to any of these entities. That is the kind of political environment in which we find ourselves, but we have to get on with it.

I wonder if at any stage the agency had itself identified potential cost-saving measures. Did members have an opportunity to put forward suggestions for cost-trimming measures that could be achieved while maintaining the superstructure of the Equality Authority? The witnesses themselves have recognised that the State has made considerable progress in terms of legislation on equality and rights. That is important, and there is a role for the Equality Authority not just in monitoring but in advancing the case and continuing to build on the current framework. Have the witnesses made a case in terms of what it would take to allow the agency to survive? Has the agency had further interaction with the Department or put forward an estimate for the coming year that would allow it to build on what is already there, thus making its way back to where it needs to be, or has it put all its eggs in one basket in terms of taking it to Europe and trying to win from that point of view?

Deputy Seán Power

I welcome the witnesses and am delighted to see them here.

I will follow on from the comments of Deputy Costello about the complaint. As the witnesses are perfectly aware, the Irish equality body is designated under Article 13 of the race equality directive. Under that article, the Government must ensure the Equality Authority has the capacity to carry out certain functions, including providing assistance to victims of discrimination, undertaking certain surveys with regard to discrimination, and the publication of independent reports, which is vital. From the reply that Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, received, the budget cut in itself does not constitute a breach of Article 13 of the directive unless it is so significant as to make it impossible for the equality body to function.

What is the purpose of the complaint? Do the witnesses feel the cut has made it impossible for the authority to function effectively, or is it an attempt, from a PR point of view, to obtain support from the wider public and explain the major difficulty in which the agency has found itself?

From my own experience, having served a short period in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform with responsibility for equality issues, I was shocked when I discovered the extent of the cutbacks the authority was asked to make and I was saddened — but not surprised — to learn later of the resignation of the chief executive officer, who I felt had done a wonderful job in the period he was there. One would have to accept there is a certain amount of discrimination in Ireland, although it is difficult to know the extent of it. Regardless of what party people come from, there is a certain tolerance of it. People are prepared to put up with it at different levels and with respect to different groups. That is not the Ireland we should see. We must change things. Bodies such as the Equality & Rights Alliance, and particularly the Equality Authority, were doing important work.

On a personal level, we can often learn more from those who tell us what we do not want to hear than from those who clap us on the back and congratulate us on everything we say and do. Perhaps to some degree the authority embarrassed the Government with some of its findings or statements. However, in a mature society we should be able to accept that criticism and make the necessary changes. I am not saying we should not have change, but unfortunately we are living in a difficult economic climate and few bodies have been allowed to operate within the same budget they had 12 or 24 months ago. In this case, however, the cut was savage. It would have been more appropriate to have a debate on the needs of the authority. The Government felt the Equality Authority was a useful body doing useful work tackling discrimination in this country, which is a serious problem. When we have economic problems, other issues such as equality tend not to be prioritised to the extent they should.

I thank the members of the Equality Authority for the work they have done. During my short time working in that area a number of initiatives were undertaken and my recollection is that there was quite a good relationship between the Department and the authority. Under one scheme that was introduced at that time, we invited Travellers to come and work for a certain period within different Departments. They came in and worked the same as everyone else. It was a great experience not just for the Travellers but also for those with whom they worked. It gave people a much greater appreciation of who Travellers are and the issues they face, as well as an awareness of the contribution they could make, given a chance. I thought the decision was strange because so much progress was being made. Considering that progress, slashing the budget in that way was going to restrict further progress.

I thank the delegates for their contribution. Perhaps they might enlighten us further about the alliance's day-to-day work. They did not mention restrictions the reduced budget must have imposed. Despite the lack of funding, I would like the authority to continue. It has a very important role to play. Perhaps at a future stage we might try to rectify what happened last year with regard to funding.

Chairman

The response from members has been sympathetic. They fully realise and recognise the nature of the work the delegates do. At times of financial constraint people in that kind of environment will always be squeezed. However, points raised by members are correct. One cannot abolish or set aside people's rights, or human rights in general. One cannot abolish the right of people to react to discrimination because that would give a status to discrimination which we do not accept.

The delegates are right. There is still discrimination in society in this country. There is still inequality. It is more likely to happen in times of financial crisis than at any other time. An illustration of that was expressed by a former Minister of State, Deputy Seán Power. A couple of former Ministers are present.

The delegates may or may not know that when a financial reduction is proposed in a Department there is usually a battle among the heads of the various sectors. Unfortunately, "Who dares wins" is the motto in such circumstances. When the reduction is of such a nature as to undermine the ability of the various organisations to comply with European directives, as the delegates and some members set out, another problem is created. The delegates' reference to the European Commission is correct.

What happens from here? The committee might be well advised to invite the Minister to address it with a view to ensuring that vital elements of the programme, put in place to comply with the European directives, are not set aside, thereby damaging the entire concept of people' entitlements, equality and rights. That is subject to the agreement of members. This would not be a rancorous interaction with the Minister but simply an opportunity for the Minister to indicate to the committee whether it is possible to ameliorate in some way the worst excesses of the cuts that are being made in all Departments. The theory is that prices and charges everywhere will drop and everybody will drop their prices and charges accordingly. That is not the way things happen as we know concerning various charges in other areas which, unfortunately, do not drop. It is not always true to say everybody across the board takes an equal cut.

The Equality & Rights Alliance correctly identified an issue which could have a very considerable negative impact if allowed to go unchallenged. If it transpires this negative impact is to the extent the delegates have set out, there are serious implications for rights and entitlements. If it is agreed to invite the Minister to the committee, we shall see how things go. Perhaps the delegates might offer some brief closing remarks.

Ms Rachel Mullen

I can answer some of the questions and will then hand over to my colleagues. Deputy Costello asked about our communication with the Department and the Government generally. We tried to communicate with the Minister about this and had no response. We have had meetings with members of the Green Party who, as the committee will know, announced they would try to have these decisions reversed. They managed to get the decentralisation halted but, unfortunately, it was a case of too little too late as many of the staff had already been moved out of the Equality Authority to make way for staff who were able to decentralise.

Another point which must be raised is that the staff who were decentralised to the new location in Roscrea are all new because nobody in the existing authority was in a position to decentralise. A huge loss of institutional learning leached from the authority back into various parts of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. This is particularly the case in the legal section where huge expertise is needed. That is the situation regarding that point.

With regard to lobbying before the budget, we were very concerned to see the McCarthy report recommended a further 10% cut to both the Equality Authority and the Human Rights Commission. We were assured by members of the Green Party that this will not happen. That remains to be seen.

We will release our research at our conference on 24 November. An important part of that research is that we have identified a number of tracking indicators which will allow us, as an alliance, to measure the ongoing impact of the cuts to the bodies. This will really only be felt this year and next year. That information will be fed into the Commission on a quarterly basis to bolster the complaint.

Deputy Doorley asked whether cost-saving measures were considered. When this cut was first announced the former chief executive officer of the Equality Authority tried to negotiate with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform for an alternative cut of 32% to the budget. That would still have been a huge hit for the authority to take but the proposal was rejected by the Minister, who offered no rationale for the rejection. In itself, the cut does not seem to been based on any rationale. As far as we can gather, it was not based on a value for money audit of the authority commissioned by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which has never seen the light of day. We know an independent report on the Equality Authority by PA Consulting was commissioned in 2008 which looked at the impact of its work and clearly stated that for an organisation with a modest budget it was doing incredible work and making a huge impact. The reason for slashing the budget does not really make much sense.

I shall leave it at that. Perhaps my colleagues will add their remarks.

Ms Orlagh O’Farrell

I will make one or two additional points. Of course, we must wait for the research to discover whether the authority is able to function properly or at all. However, when Commissioner Spidla said the budget cut in itself would not be enough, he knows as well as we do that the European Court of Justice has often taken a very strong line about things that are not necessarily in a directive in so many words. Under the previous directives there was a German case that concerned gender equality. It was not laid down what the level of compensation should be for a case of discrimination in a member state. Two German women went to the ECJ to complain that the level of compensation they got was ludicrous and trifling. The court said it must be read into the directive that the level of sanction must be "deterrent, dissuasive and effective". Subsequent legislation from Europe had to embody those words.

This is a case where one must ask whether there can be an equality authority if it is not capable of effectively carrying out its functions. The emphasis is on the word "effectively". Conceivably, the court could take a very different view other than merely saying the budget cut in itself is not significant. It is a question of being able to carry out all its functions effectively. We expect our research will show that is the case under the current situation.

One or two other questions were not dealt with, including for example, whether there were any other factors besides the high profile cases taken which could explain the disapproval with the Equality Authority. At one stage the Minister singled out expenditure on information for criticism. For example, the issuing of glossy brochures and publications and so on was criticised. In fact, that is part of the very important functions of the authority. We do not know whether there was a misguided idea that this was somehow not one of the obligations of the authority. Indeed it is a very useful function for other civil society groups in cases where they cannot contact the authority or take a case. The information brochures give the information they need for their clients.

Finally, we are well aware that if a pregnant woman is dismissed during a recessionary situation it may be that pregnancy is used as a cover for being singled out for redundancy. Such situations have costs, including economic costs, which show this is not a luxury situation. The presence of a proper equality apparatus is a very important part of a functioning economy.

Ms Tanya Ward

I will make a short statement since my colleagues have responded to most of the questions. The important thing to remember about the Equality Authority is that it was very innovative when it was established. It should be celebrating ten years of successful outcomes but, unfortunately, that is not the position.

The people most affected by this are victims of discrimination, living in the constituencies of committee members and subjected to discrimination more than ever because of the recession. These victims of discrimination are very vulnerable. The majority will not take a case unless they are given information and support.

The context in Ireland is that legal aid is very poorly funded and many people do not have access to it. There are not many pro bono lawyers. The importance of the Equality Authority is that it has a legal team and has been able to assist individuals in taking cases. This has had an important impact. The authority’s capacity to help those victims of discrimination has been severely diminished. It has only four solicitors operating with very little administrative support.

The impact this has had from the outset is very clear on those victims and the number of cases being taken to the Equality Tribunal has fallen, especially in respect of goods, services and education. There are some unions which can facilitate people to take cases in the employment area but no body or institution is able to facilitate victims of discrimination in respect of access to goods, services and education. Many of the NGOs involved are trying to help people, especially the Free Legal Advice Centres. They have noticed a significant increase in queries from people who have been discriminated against. However, they are very limited in terms of what they can do to assist such people.

As a result of the cuts, the Equality Authority cannot conduct two inquiries as it had intended. One involved agency workers, who are suffering a good deal of ill-treatment and discrimination throughout the country. This situation is getting worse because many jobs are being shifted to agency workers. I refer also to people with disabilities in sheltered workshops on very low incomes. Who will conduct an inquiry to examine their needs? They are not in a position to do it themselves. What Department will step in and do it? It is important to bear in mind these things with regard to the cuts.

The final point to which my colleague referred was the loss of knowledge already from the Equality Authority. Effectively, it is starting again because even if the resources are re-allocated to the institution, it must start again. It takes between three and five years for a new institution to bed down and only then will it get on its feet. At the moment we are backtracking, such that even if resources are increased, many problems will remain. We must move quickly to save this institution.

Chairman

I thank the deputation.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I refer to the issue of sheltered workshops. As a practising politician my greatest difficulty with these is the lack of places. This is based on the demand of people who come to my office seeking to get into these places. There is often a balance as to demand and the actual situation. However, that is not to take from the other points made by the delegation.

Deputy Joe Costello

Will the delegation give an indication of where the case is at present and what progress has been made on the case? Has the Commission responded? Has it sought a statement from the Government? Where do we stand at present?

Ms Rachel Mullen

The Commission investigates a significant number of cases. It is still on the waiting list to be examined but it has been received. We are aware that the Commission is waiting for the ERA research to feed into it. However, the matter will not be properly examined until next year.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I refer to the proposal to call the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to the committee. I do not believe it would be appropriate for this committee to call the Minister here on that issue. However, I recommend that the committee write to the chairman of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights outlining the content of today's discussion and recommend that committee call the Minister before it. If we start to extend the remit of the committee to investigate issues that fall under the justice——

Chairman

No, that is not correct. Compliance with EU law and directives is among the functions of this committee.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I realise that but if we go down that road, the Minister for Finance would be before the committee to discuss the EU Stability and Growth Pact.

Chairman

I wish to clarify this. It is the function of the committee to examine issues of compliance with EU directives or where there is a threat to the compliance of EU directives by the activities of a Department or bodies or institutions other than the Government. That falls within the remit of the committee.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca

I apologise for leaving earlier. There were several votes in the Seanad and I was unable to be present. However, I read the delegation's document and, as the delegation is aware, the Green Party has been very concerned about the cutbacks in the past year to the budgets of the Equality Authority and the Irish Human Rights Commission. The delegation referred to a 43% cut in the budget of the Equality Authority, almost half of its budget. The budget of the Irish Human Rights Commission was cut by almost one quarter. Obviously, these organisations or bodies will be merged but the idea that there would be any further cuts must be considered very carefully because it would be extremely difficult for any organisation to continue to carry out the work it is prescribed to do based on half its previous budget.

I appreciate the Commission is considering the complaint at the moment. While the Commission is not prescriptive in terms of how organisations operate or the budget or resources that should be allocated, it is very clear about the functions a body such as the Equality Authority should be able to carry out and the competencies it should have. If there is any further cut in the budget of the Equality Authority it could not possibly continue to function, unless we are suggesting it was over-funded in the first place. However, I do not believe anyone would suggest that. It appears to be a model of good practice and it has been recognised as such by the European Commission. It participates in EQUINET, the European Network of Equality Bodies, and it reflects very well on Ireland that we have a very proactive equality authority which is seen as a model of best practice and which operates and networks very effectively at a European Level. As far as my party is concerned, we would be loth to see any further cutbacks in the budget.

Chairman

That concludes the discussion for this part of the meeting. I thank the members of the Equality & Rights Alliance for attending and making their submission and I congratulate them for doing so. I thank members for their response as well. We will revert to the deputation in due course in regard to our progress in pursuit of the issue.

We have received apologies from Senators Prendergast and Doherty.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

Senator Cummins sends apologies too.

The joint committee went into private session at 12.30 p.m. and adjourned at 12.50 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 12 November 2009.