JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN'S RIGHTS debate -
Wednesday, 10 Dec 2008

Budget 2008: Discussion with Equality and Rights Alliance.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Mark Kelly, Mr. David Joyce, Ms Anna Visser and Ms Phyllis Fahey of the Equality and Rights Alliance. It is most opportune that this meeting should take place on International Human Rights Day, which also happens to be the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I request that all mobile telephones be switched off for the duration of the meeting. I remind delegates that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee, to whom we cannot guarantee any level of privilege. Under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Mr. Kelly to make his presentation.

Mr. Mark Kelly

It seems like only yesterday that I last appeared before the committee on behalf of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties to discuss another matter. In the course of the question and answer session which formed part of that meeting, many members expressed profound concern in regard to the issue I am addressing today on behalf of the Equality and Rights Alliance. The alliance currently consists of no less than 71 civil society organisations of all types which are deeply concerned about the proposed cuts and the ensuing damage to our human rights and equality infrastructure.

I am the director of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. I am accompanied by my Mr. David Joyce, director of equality for the Irish Congress of Trade Unions; Ms Anna Visser, director of the European Anti-Poverty Network; and Ms Phyllis Fahey, a client of the Equality Authority, who may be known to some members for the successful outcome of a case she brought against a bank on age discrimination grounds. While Ms Fahey will not be part of the formal presentation, she will take questions from members about the specific impact of the proposed budgetary cuts.

We intend to divide our presentation and to be relatively brief. I will speak about the general context within which we see these cuts taking place and what we expect their outcome to be for the Irish Human Rights Commission. Mr. Joyce will talk about the equality dimension, with particular reference to damage to the Equality Authority of Ireland in the context of social partnership. Ms Visser will discuss the international and European dimension to these cuts.

As I said when I last appeared before the committee, we see the proposed cuts to the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Equality Authority of Ireland as part of a concerted attack on our human rights and equality infrastructure. These cuts must be seen alongside the summary closure of the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism and the effective abolition of the Combat Poverty Agency, as well as the deletion of human rights as an express charitable purpose in the Charities Bill. There seems to be a concerted attempt to muzzle bodies that were created to hold the Government to account.

Let me be clear from the outset that we are not here to defend so-called quangos or the salaries of those who work for them. We are here to highlight the extent to which these proposed cuts will impact on the protection of equality and human rights for vulnerable people through the exercise of statutory powers by those bodies. We also want to highlight what we see as a clear double standard on the part of the Government where the implementation of human rights and equality is concerned. It is only a few weeks since the Government was a co-sponsor of a resolution before the General Assembly of the United Nations which dealt specifically with strengthening national institutions for the protection and promotion of human rights. That resolution is full of fine language about the need to enhance the independence and capacity of such bodies. While the Government seems intent on burnishing its human rights reputation abroad, it is dismantling our human rights and equality infrastructure at home.

I will outline the impact of the proposed cuts with reference to the concrete example of the Irish Human Rights Commission. The commission does not exist in a vacuum. It exists by virtue of the Good Friday Agreement and is not purely an Irish question. It was created within the context of a bilateral agreement to improve the protection of rights in both jurisdictions on this island. If our information is correct, as we believe it is, Estimates currently include some €1.6 million for the Irish Human Rights Commission in the fiscal year 2009. If that is correct, it will constitute an effective 24% cut in the commission's budget. Stated baldly, €1.6 million might seem like a substantial sum of money. However, the reality is that the commission needs €2.2 million just to pay its rent and staff. Even with staff costs — which are inevitable if these proposals go ahead — there will be barely enough money to turn on the lights in the office.

What the commission will not have unless principled politicians of all parties, including those in Government, are prepared to act, is the funds necessary to carry out a meaningful programme of work. If one considers the functions the Oireachtas has given to this statutory body, it is clear that it will be completely undermined by the proposed cut. The commission has a function to keep under review the effectiveness and adequacy of law and practice related to human rights in the State. Its capacity to do that will be severely damaged. It has a statutory function to promote understanding and awareness of the importance of human rights and, for those purposes, to undertake or sponsor research and educational activities in the field. That will not be possible as there will be no budget to do so. The commission has a statutory function to conduct inquiries and to have the means to obtain information with recourse to the courts if necessary. Again, that will not be possible. It also has a statutory function to offer its expertise in human rights law to the courts, as a friend of the court or amicus curiae, and to take legal proceedings in its own name to vindicate rights in the State or provide legal assistance to persons in that regard. Neither of those functions can be fulfilled if the budget cut is implemented. I have it on good authority that this legal aspect of the commission’s work will be the first to suffer. People will no longer be able to turn to this statutory body created by the Oireachtas to provide them with legal support in vindicating their rights.

I do not intend to mince my words. Unless principled politicians of all persuasions, including those in Government, are prepared to act, the Irish Human Rights Commission will be a dead duck. Ireland will not be in a position to meet its international obligations under the Paris Principles, the Good Friday Agreement or the General Assembly of the United Nations resolution to which I referred and which officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs co-sponsored on our behalf only six weeks ago.

Before I hand over to my colleagues, the Charities Bill will reach Report Stage in the Seanad tomorrow. For no reason that withstands detailed scrutiny, it remains the case that the advancement of human rights will not be recognised as a purpose that is beneficial to the community in that Bill. Animal welfare will be recognised as a charitable purpose but human rights will not. That is another area in which I urge members of this committee who sit in that House, including principled Senators, to follow their consciences rather than the party Whip tomorrow.

While we greatly welcome the opportunity to appear before the committee to set out our concerns, it is scandalous that 60 years to the day after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed, representatives of over 70 civil society groups should have to come before our elected representatives to plead the case for the Government to respect its obligations to protect human rights at home and abroad. We hope that principle politicians of all parties will hear our voices and heed our call.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

I welcome Mr. Kelly. I listened with great interest to what he said. He has stated in stronger terms what he is on record as stating in the past. We must be focused on our role as a committee. It seems that the committee has become a buffer between the Minister and groups such as Mr. Kelly's. This places us in a position of some difficulty. The members of the committee are present, there is one member of Fianna Fáil, one member of the Green Party——

Deputy Noel Treacy

There were two.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

Well there may have been in the beginning but that did not last. It is a rare occasion that we see a representative of the Green Party here. Everyone else is a member of the Opposition and is on record stating that this is an attempt by the Government to silence the agencies. I repeat that here but I am not sure what I can do.

Mr. Kelly says he is pleased we listen. We listen and we heed but I am not sure of the extent to which we can act. I beg the Chair's intercession to assist the committee in what it might do. I take it Mr. Kelly and various groups representing 71 organisations have met the Minister. It is unprecedented that 71 organisations should come together to make a call. That adds great weight to the plea, which I hope will have an impact on Government policy.

I do not say this lightly but in the context of budgetary realignment it is not a coincidence that the Government plans cuts to organisations that, from time to time, because of their statutory remit may be at variance with, and critical of, Government policy. That is a reason why we see this in the area of disability, ageism, human rights and equality in respect of employment matters. The Minister could have examined other groups better described as talking shops or ripe for merger, downgrading or abolition. I speak particularly of prison visiting committees, under the remit of the Minister, the censorship of film classification and similar film censorship groups and, in the broader remit, I refer to a proposed merger of the National Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority and the abolition of the National Crime Council, which has yet to prove that it is anything but a talking shop.

Some bodies dealing with employment rights could be merged, for example, the employment aspects of the Employment Appeals Tribunal, the employment aspects of the Equality Tribunal, and NERA. The National Council for Special Education and the national educational psychological service, NEPS, could also be merged. I can offer an alternative to Government that Mr. Kelly and his organisation have not and this makes the plea more serious because I have established that the Minister has failed to abolish the redundant talking shops. Instead he opts to emasculate bodies and agencies of a statutory nature with a specific remit.

I ask Mr. Kelly to agree that the independence of the Human Rights Commission is essential. We should separate the commission from its umbilical cord with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It should be a stand-alone body. I invite a comment from Mr. Kelly that for the Government to interfere or tamper with the Human Rights Commission flies in the face of the Good Friday Agreement and that the only reason we have the commission is because we were mandated to do so by the people in a referendum. While we celebrate the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and today is human rights day, this year is the tenth anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement. To suggest that we should dismantle the agreement by abandoning the status of the Human Rights Commission or by engaging in such a savage cut as to ensure it will not carry out its role and function as determined under the agreement is scandalous. This was ratified by the people and Mr. Kelly, as a lawyer, might have a view of whether it can be changed without reference to the people in a referendum.

Notwithstanding the cut in the Equality Authority, it seems opportune not to proceed with the proposed decentralisation to Roscrea, which will cause difficulty because the staff complement is completely different. Will there be an impact in respect of the orderly running of the office under these difficult circumstances, compounded by a lack of experience and expertise given that those in Roscrea do not have an established track record in the organisation? This is a compounding of the difficulties. I must express my frustration because I am not sure what the committee can do. The Minister is not present, he is due to attend at 3 p.m. but our guests will have left at that stage. Do we send a message to the Minister? Can we pass a motion here? There is a Government majority built into this committee but its members are not present. I must express my frustration if Mr. Kelly considers that Opposition members can accede to his request that this cut not go ahead. It has been voted on in the Dáil and it was greeted by applause from some people present. We must get real about this.

Mr. Mark Kelly

I hope the Chairman will also afford speaking time to my two colleagues.

Chairman

Mr. Kelly's colleagues will be free to answer any questions put by members.

Mr. Mark Kelly

They will answer questions on the impact on equality which I have not mentioned.

In the current climate one inevitably encounters the sentiment of banging one's head against a brick wall when one engages in advocacy on human rights. Nonetheless, from our standpoint the committee is an important forum within which we can raise these concerns and hope a means can be found whereby our concerns will be passed on to the Government in a form which makes crystal clear that this is simply not something which a government in a mature democratic state should do. My colleague, Mr. Joyce, will pick up on the question of the impact on equality.

Mr. David Joyce

I thank the Chairman. To answer Deputy Flanagan's question directly, the disproportionate nature of the 43% cuts in the budget of the Equality Authority, coupled with the accelerated decentralisation of a further 15 people to an entirely unsuitable location in Roscrea, will severely curtail the ability of the authority to effectively perform its core functions of promoting equality and combating discrimination. We all recognise the new context of diminished resources for the public sector generally. However, we must also recognise that the functions of a body such as the Equality Authority become even more important at a time of economic downturn for those experiencing inequality as many of the groups affected are the most vulnerable.

I will speak about the work which will be severely curtailed as a result of what is being proposed. The Equality Authority plays an important role in providing legal advice and representation for some of the vulnerable persons I mentioned. My day job is in the trade union world. Trade unions have played and will continue to play an important role in this sphere. However, our capacity is limited. A large number of workers are in vulnerable non-union sectors in which we will not have the capacity to deal with issues. In a time of economic downturn those experiencing inequality and discrimination will be even more vulnerable.

In September a woman by the name of Heather Lane was found to have been discriminated against in terms of promotional opportunities within her company simply because she had taken maternity leave to which she was entitled. When it became known that she intended to bring the case to the equality tribunal to have her rights not to be discriminated against asserted, she was further victimised. People such as this will suffer if the road on which we seem to be embarking is travelled.

Another function affected is that of providing supports for good practice for employers, trade unions and service providers. There are many schemes in place such as the national framework committee for equal opportunities at the level of enterprise and the commitment given in Towards 2016. Enterprises are interested in engaging with the supports available to them to embed equality into the way they conduct their everyday business. This year more than 120 companies availed of the supports available. This function will be severely curtailed, as will functions in a range of other areas such as anti-racist initiatives in the workplace, implementation of the national women's strategy and the national framework committee for work-life balance measures.

We mentioned the difficult times we are in. It is worth noting that in the past 18 months reports have been released which clearly show the positive correlation between engagement with equality and diversity and the performance of organisations, including the work by Kathy Monks on international evidence on the relationship between equality and diversity and organisational performance.

Earlier this year the NCPP and the Equality Authority co-published a compelling business case for workplace partnership, diversity and equality known as "high performance work systems". This involved a survey of top Irish companies which showed growth of 14.8% in productivity and an improvement of 12.2% in workplace innovation. At the launch the Minister of State, Deputy Billy Kelleher, stated the report was essential reading for all Irish companies and those committed to maintaining and improving productivity and competitiveness. In the difficult times we now face it seems such values and practices would be useful to incorporate into our planning to get out of the situation we are in. I am afraid the cuts on the table will decimate our ability to engage with such issues.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I thank the Chairman. We are living in a climate where given the state of the public finances, cutbacks are inevitable. We must accept this as the backdrop to these discussions. However, questions must be asked when one deals with the nitty-gritty and finds the two agencies are being cut by 24% and 43%, respectively. In the Dáil, at this committee at the taking of the Estimates and by way of parliamentary question I have stated what I think about this. I do not know whether there is much point in reiterating it.

I do not accept that cutting an agency by 43% is a cutback. The intention is to kill it off and convergent events will have this effect sooner rather than later. Advantage has been taken of the financial climate by persons involved in the authorship of the Estimates to clip the wings of an agency regarded as an irritant by people in government and some senior people in permanent government. It has been deliberate. If one examines the cuts experienced elsewhere, nothing is commensurate with this. The situation with regard to the public finances is a convenient shelter to undermine the effectiveness of these agencies.

Our democracy is robust enough that when we establish agencies such as this, we know their purpose is not to kowtow to the Government. We know they will make findings which sometimes will cause inconvenience for the Government. That is the point of being the Western liberal democracy we assert this country to be.

Dr. Kelly spoke lucidly about the situation and the genesis and purpose of the Irish Human Rights Commission, particularly in the context of the anniversary being observed today. However, when we raised these issues in the Select Committee on Justice, Equality and Law Reform during its consideration of a technical Supplementary Estimate, the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Conor Lenihan, who was sent to us by his senior colleague, acted surprised and disputed some of our assertions. The Human Rights Commission received explicit sanction for additional specialist posts but I understand the persons hired for these posts will now be made unemployed. The Minister of State feigned ignorance and bemusement at the matter, which is a convenient "Colgate" ring of defence for awkward situations. The fact remains, however, that the cuts will be made.

The Minister raged in the Dáil about the expense of these agencies' offices. If they are expensive — I am willing to believe they are although I do not know this for certain — they were explicitly approved by the Minister and his agents. One cannot simply go to Tesco to shop for premises in the public sector. I cannot see how this issue can be addressed by opening a parallel office in Roscrea which employs an entirely new staff with no track record in or knowledge of this area. This parallel office is supposed to save money. I am led to the conclusion that these actions are deliberate, which is shameful.

I do not believe the arguments advanced by the Government. The agencies have built up a specialised knowledge of jurisprudence which can only be acquired through time and the loss of their staff to other parts of the public service is a serious blow. We will not save a significant amount. As the personnel will be absorbed elsewhere in the public service, the talk of savings in information technology, back offices and payroll administration is cobblers.

I concur with Deputy Charles Flanagan regarding the value of this type of exchange for the committee. I expressed similar views when we took the Supplementary Estimate. However, we do not seem to be getting anywhere. This is not understood outside the Houses. Recently, while minding my own business in a public house I am known to frequent occasionally, I was upbraided by an intense young woman about my conduct on the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008. The clerk to the committee, who has been around long enough to know, has told us that the Bill was debated on Committee Stage for longer than any other Bill in the history of the Houses. The Chairman, Deputy Naughten and I spent 13 days on the Bill.

This young woman formed the view that Deputy Naughten and I were responsible for the Bill that emerged from Committee Stage. This is becoming a problem from our point of view. The NGOs and other bodies from which we took evidence and submissions seem to agree with the young woman and they will certainly not be disabused by anybody in the Government. The only public information I noted were reports in The Irish Times in which the Minister of State with responsibility for integration, Deputy Conor Lenihan, received prominent coverage. I suppose that has to be the case when there is a correspondent for integration. It was stated that the Government would be advancing 200 amendments to the Bill. Now that we have concluded Committee Stage, it is time that the The Irish Times investigated what happened to the promised Government amendments given that they never emerged.

We find ourselves in an anomaly whereby the undermining of the agencies is a case for the Executive to answer. We have tried to persuade the Government that while we acknowledge cutbacks will have to be made in the present economic climate the scale of the cuts in this area will undermine agencies which are immensely valuable to the democracy to which we aspire. We have made this plea to the Minister and the Government on several occasions but have not yet made an impact. I hope we will make another attempt at persuading the Minister. If expensive offices are the problem, it should be possible to secure more modest and appropriately priced accommodation in this city.

We should not undermine the core corporate memory of these organisations or endanger their future viability. Mr. Joyce has made the argument that in the present economic climate real issues of discrimination and inequality remain to be addressed. The machinery must be in place to do this properly but I understand the Equality Authority will no longer be able to act on these issues. I find that most regrettable.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

While walking here this morning, I noticed office space for rent in Mount Street, which is the prime commercial district in Dublin, at €28 per square foot. It has been a long time since that value could be found.

Senator Eugene Regan

Mr. Kelly stated his intention to speak frankly and I will do the same. He should be more specific when making generic appeals to principled politicians. Fine Gael, the Labour Party and many Independent Members have given their full support regarding the merging of the bodies and the disproportionate nature of the cutbacks being imposed. I can only describe the latter as a vindictive act by the Minister, who has attempted to justify his decision by claiming that his priority is combating serious crime. That avoids the issue entirely, however. The disproportionate nature of the cuts is evident from the 4% reduction in the general budget for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. When Mr. Kelly next makes a plea to principled politicians, he should indicate who has given him full support on the issue. If his presentation to this committee is to have any value, Government members will have to explain why they are prepared to stand over the measures that the Minister is determined to introduce.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I will be brief because time is pressing on. It is internationally recognised that in times of recession the workload of institutes such as the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Equality Authority increases rather than decreases. That is the context in which we should place the cuts in both organisations. Ireland has been praised internationally for its approach to human rights institutions. Rather than cutting back and hampering them we should do what has been requested of us, increase the independence of these organisations and make them less dependent on central Government. We on this side have supported the institutions. I attended one of the early meetings of ERA and I continue to lend my support.

Ms Fahey is here and I do not know if she has time to explain her experience of dealing with an institution. That is a case of a citizen coming in from the street and seeking support. If we row back on the institution and make it difficult for citizens to access the support and protections the Equality Authority or the Human Rights Commission have been able to afford to citizens, they might as well not be there. It is important, if possible, to hear the experiences so that we understand what will happen in the future, because both organisations have said if the cuts are implemented they will find it nearly impossible to operate, will not be effective and will struggle to deal with the additional caseload the recession will force upon them.

Deputy Noel Treacy

I endorse the welcome to our visitors and thank them for coming. I have listened with great interest to what they said. I particularly congratulate Ms Fahey on the great success she had in her case. The way she handled the case after her success in the media was excellent and we were all very impressed. I listened with great interest to what Dr. Kelly and Mr. Joyce said and I would love to say I represent Utopia, they can have everything and nothing will change. Senator Regan talks about this "principled" club. Ability, integrity and principle is a matter for others to judge. We are charged as constitutionally elected politicians to ensure we run our nation taking into account the resources available under our Constitution from the revenue stream made available from our people to do that. Next year we will spend more than €50 billion to run this country. We spent much more this year. We cannot continue to spend money ad infinitum, as we did over the past ten years. In the United States of America 2.5 million jobs will be lost this year. Ireland is a small open economy. As we sit here today another group of our colleagues with different sector interests is sitting to try to resolve the food crisis, the added cost that will have for the taxpayers of this country and the challenges it will create for the Government parties. The combination of parties on this side of the House are proud to be in charge to try to deal with this situation.

The difficulty I have is that the "principled politicians", who are happy to carry that umbrella, consistently say to us in Parliament that we must cut the quangos, reduce public expenditure, get rid of all these bodies, reduce public service spending and that there is a waste of money.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

I named them——

Deputy Noel Treacy

I did not interrupt Deputy Flanagan. He made an allegation——

Deputy Charles Flanagan

I did not make a false allegation.

Deputy Noel Treacy

The hallmark of Deputy Flanagan's great political career has been making short, narrow-minded, small political points. He referred to Fianna Fáil members being present. Three were here at the beginning and four are here now.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

On the contrary. I gave an alternative.

Deputy Noel Treacy

I did not interrupt anybody.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

I did not misrepresent anybody. Deputy Treacy is misrepresenting what I said.

Deputy Noel Treacy

I am not.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

Of course he is.

Deputy Noel Treacy

I am making it clear for our visitors the inconsistency of the principled position the Deputy is taking today and the consistency of his party's spokespersons in the shadow Cabinet, including himself, demanding in Parliament that we cut, reduce and abolish different organisations to balance the books of the nation. We are charged with the responsibility to make decisions. The Constitution is very clear that the Government must make those decisions and it is also clear that Parliament must endorse those decisions in the interests of democracy and sustainability for the nation. I fully support the human rights initiative and I am very confident, with the quality of the head of the human rights organisation, a former distinguished Member of both Houses of Parliament, that he and his staff will be able to continue in the adjustments we have made to give the service that will be required as we go forward together.

We are fortunate in this democracy that there is very open access to our parliamentary system and our elected parliamentary membership. Deputy Rabbitte has given his example of how he was accosted in a public place. We are available for people to talk to us all the time officially, unofficially, casually, constantly, consistently, and we listen to the problems. The challenges we have are to try to run a situation to the best of our ability, taking into account the ramifications of the cash flow the nation makes available to us.

As a person with some knowledge, including from my former professional career, we cannot continue to pay high rents for big office blocks in the capital city, Dublin. This island cannot be run on the basis that everything must finish at Lucan and the rest of us have to come up on sufferance during the week. We are elected people and all our citizens are equal. If human rights mean anything, everybody must be equal and there must be equal facilities in terms of access, location, contributions and communication for everybody. There are human and animal rights elements to the food crisis and we must deal with this on a consistent basis.

It is unfair to say that anybody would be more intellectually, physically or technologically challenged to operate from Roscrea as they would from Dublin. If the United Nations can operate from New York to serve the world and the European Union can operate from Brussels and Strasbourg, I cannot see the challenge or problem with going down the road to Roscrea where there is a modern communications infrastructure. As elected politicians we fully acknowledge and empathise with the case the witnesses made. However as principled politicians with a constitutional responsibility, we can live only with the resources the nation makes available to us.

Chairman

We have had three contributions from Senator Regan and Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Treacy. Would Mr. Kelly like to deal with those?

Mr. Mark Kelly

I will reply very briefly because my colleague, Ms Visser also has some comment to add on the international dimension. I want to take up the invitation to move from the general to the highly specific because that is fair comment. ERA does not campaign for a political purpose. It is not a political body. It is here to make a case for the proper promotion and protection of human rights. It is not about singling out political parties for a political purpose. However it is fair to record as a fact that ERA has received support from all political parties apart from the two parties represented in Government. That is simply a fact.

To respond to Deputy Treacy, we cannot live in Utopia. We are in a climate in which cutbacks may be necessary in all spheres of life in Ireland and we may have to live with that. A public service group is being established to examine some of the issues Deputy Treacy raised before the committee. Would it not be advisable, pragmatic and politically acceptable for the Government to let that public service review group publicly and objectively assess the finances, staff performances and services provided by the Equality Authority and the Irish Human Rights Commission? This is intended to be very pragmatic and specific. Would it not be proper, in light of the considerations put before the committee, for the Government to consider reversing or freezing these budget cuts until the review group has completed its work and has had the possibility to comment on whether it is the case that Roscrea, in a non-disabled accessible building, is an appropriate place to locate the Equality Authority?

I am happy to move from the generic to the specific because there is a need for principled politicians in government to look for a practical solution to ensure our equality of rights infrastructure is not dismantled. There is an important international dimension to this and if Ms Visser is allowed to comment on that, it will be of value to the committee.

Ms Anna Visser

I will be very brief in building on Deputy Ó Snodaigh's point. What is happening in the Irish context does not happen in an international vacuum. As we heard, there are consistent and imperative legal international and European standards, from the Good Friday Agreement to the United Nations and the race equality directive at European level. The fact that that context exists has resulted in grave concern being expressed internationally and in Europe about these developments.

In the past week this issue has been raised twice in the European Parliament, including by senior European Commission officials, who raised their concerns about what is happening in the context of the Equality Authority's remit under the race equality directive. The Commission is preparing its response to a parliamentary question on the matter.

There are three immediate impacts with regard to the framework which are not theoretical or peripheral to this debate. The first is the damage done to Ireland's reputation. As has been alluded to, Irish infrastructure has been held up internationally as a model of good practice. Very recently, the Equality Authority was named in a European Commission document on multiple discrimination as a model of good practice. This immediately damages the reputation and standard which Ireland has set.

The second immediate impact is the precedent set for other countries. As a leader in the area, Ireland has put itself forward as a model to be followed internationally. This regression sends the wrong message to other countries whose standards are not as high as we may have here.

A number of commentators made the point that Ireland risks putting itself in breach of European law. Two countries in the European Union have been approached by the Commission for the inadequate transposition of the race directive in the context of their equality bodies and we are putting ourselves in a position where that becomes an issue for Ireland and the eventual sanctions that may result.

Internationally and from the European perspective, this has drawn immediate reaction and there is grave concern out there. The move is perceived as very insular and failing to take account of the context that exists in terms of reputation and the precedent or message it sends. There is also the issue of breaching the spirit and the letter of international and European commitments.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

I join in the welcome everybody has given to our guests today. I endorse very strongly what Deputy Treacy has said. In the main Chamber of Parliament, the Opposition would call for a cull of agencies and I hear on my local radio every week that there are too many agencies spending too much money. With every agency and lobby group coming before the committee, the Opposition is full of sympathy, which is fine.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

That is not true.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

It is true. We also have sympathy. People on the street, however, ask us not to cut education and health but to cut everything else. Such people do not realise that much of everything else has been cut in the budget. In many Departments, budgets have been totally slashed. It is a reality that we live with, although we do not like it. We do not have an agenda against any organisation, group or Department, but we are facing financial reality. We cannot borrow any more money than we have. Fine Gael has stated it would borrow 1% of GDP less if it were in power, meaning there would be even further cuts. That is a difficulty the Government faces.

I will respond to the Senator's suggestion that principled politicians are only in the Opposition. There was a similar allegation at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs, where we were told Fianna Fáil backbenchers did not care about poverty. We are not taking that from the Opposition and we do not accept it. I reject it in the strongest possible terms and we are principled.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

They may be rejected soon enough.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

The money that comes into any family, country or company must be spent as we cannot borrow any more. That is the difficulty we face and no offence is meant to any organisation or Department. It is hurting as much and more in other sectors of society.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

The cuts are not to the same degree. The same cut has not been implemented in any other organisation.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

We have had——

Chairman

The Deputy should not interrupt. Deputy Byrne did not interrupt when Deputy Ó Snodaigh contributed.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

The OPW and the Department of Defence have had cutbacks.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

He did not interrupt but he missed the——

Chairman

In fairness, he did not interrupt.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

I apologise for being late as I had another meeting. I was not aware of comments made about Deputies not being here and I was coming to the meeting anyway. Other budgets have been slashed, although we do not like doing it.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

It is not done to the same degree.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

Yes, it is. Have you looked at the Estimates?

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

They are not slashed to the same degree.

Chairman

Comments should be addressed through the Chairman.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

The OPW budget has been slashed by 40% or 50%. It is the shocking reality.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Any other organisation——

Chairman

Remarks should be directed through the Chairman.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

In various committees a succession of lobby groups come in which are appalled and rightly annoyed. They bring forward very good arguments for not making cuts. The Opposition states that these should not be made, that they are terrible and it is shocking that the Government is making cutbacks. One of the most consistent points of attack on the Government over the past year has been that we have too many agencies. We were told we had to cut back, but when it is happening and the difficult decisions are being made — nobody likes them — the Opposition is lobbying to keep almost all of them.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

That is not true. The Deputy continues to misrepresent the position.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

I am not referring to the Deputy in particular. This applies to the whole Opposition. These are the difficult decisions we face and the budget can only go so far. We had a debate in the Dáil some weeks ago on crime — there may be another today — and more resources were sought for the Garda out of the budget of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Demands must be met.

It is Fianna Fáil and Government policy to have decentralisation as every part of the country deserves some representation. I visited the Garda vetting unit in north Tipperary, which is a model of how organisations can work down the country and how public service employment can be given to competent local people, many of whom lived in Dublin and are only too delighted to move home. I am confident any move to Roscrea will work out well for the Equality Authority.

We certainly welcome decentralisation in my area. When there is talk or a threat to decentralisation in my area, Fine Gael and Labour politicians are the first to complain. I am sure the local Labour and Fine Gael representatives in north Tipperary will only be too delighted to see further decentralisation in the area. It is again a matter of the Opposition speaking out of the two sides of its mouth. It is not showing a commitment to figure out how we run the country and deal with future matters at a time when tax receipts have collapsed dramatically.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

It is always with coalition governments that there is a creative tension between the various parties. This is evident on this issue between my colleagues in the Green Party and our colleagues in coalition, Fianna Fáil. I am concerned about the proposed cuts, which go far beyond fiscal savings. I tend to agree with Deputy Rabbitte that there are more complex issues involved.

There is a need for amalgamation of various agencies. Fine Gael produced a document that had many excellent aspects which suggested there is room for amalgamation. I am a bit concerned about Deputy Flanagan's remark that there may be room for savings in the equality tribunal or the possibility of a merger. Any changes must be considered carefully. On balance, the document was a good starting point for where savings can be made on quangos. I do not mean that in a pejorative sense but it applies where organisations can be amalgamated.

Decentralisation is another issue on which the creative tension is very evident. My party and I do not believe decentralisation will bring about the range of benefits that some groups have proposed. I am not convinced decentralisation will give the same level of access that citizens should have to services. Some parties in opposition have been at least agnostic if not fully supportive of decentralisation. It is difficult to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds in this regard.

However, I believe economies can be made by both agencies and there is room to manoeuvre in terms of sharing back-office facilities and in areas such as payroll and secretarial support. There is scope for savings to be made, although not of the order of magnitude of the cuts that have been proposed to date. The most vulnerable should not be further marginalised by cuts and savings in Government expenditure, and I am deeply concerned that these people are at risk of being further marginalised by the changes that have been proposed. I have brought these arguments to my colleagues in Government before and I will convey, particularly at ministerial level, the arguments the witnesses have made so cogently today. I hope there can be some room for manoeuvre and I will do my best on behalf of the Green Party to ensure this happens.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I believe — although this may not be quite true, because my source is the newspapers — that there are 800 agencies in existence. It is extraordinary that the current decimation includes the abolition of the Combat Poverty Agency, the undermining of the Irish Human Rights Commission and the killing off of the Equality Authority. These are extraordinary choices. There is no point in coming in here and painting with a broad brush about people being in favour of amalgamating agencies or cutting them back. We must deal with the issues at hand. It seems extraordinary, at a time when we have the types of statement we have from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and others, that we abolish the Combat Poverty Agency. It is an unusual target. Here, we are confronted with cuts of 43% and 24%, respectively, and it is important that this context is kept alive.

Again, painting with a broad brush on decentralisation is not dealing with the points that are being made here. I do not know of any party — I do not know of any Deputy in Leinster House — who does not agree with the kind of decentralisation we have seen for the last 30-odd years. What we are talking about here, however, is a programme of decentralisation that was born as a political stroke to deflect from a particularly poor budget, the authors of which have since backtracked. Voluntary redeployment of skills, which can and ought to be done in different parts of the country, is one thing, but we are talking about something entirely different, namely, the creation of parallel agencies in and outside the capital, with public and civil servants crisscrossing the country like Keystone Cops, with all the associated expenses. It is an entirely different matter when one uses decentralisation and the climate of public finances to undermine an agency that by local and international repute serves a worthy and necessary cause. We must not confuse this with senior politicians and public servants contriving to bring a particular agency back to their home towns, purchasing land and making millionaires out of the people who sell it, and then deciding that the agency will not be brought back after all, so that we are left with white elephants in certain towns and the costs already incurred. This is different, and specific in terms of the merits of the arguments attaching.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

The matter of decentralisation seems to be a source of controversy. Mr. Kelly has already dealt with the personnel aspect, which should not be underestimated in the context of the future workload of the Equality Authority. Would any of Mr. Kelly's colleagues be in a position to comment on the matter of office rent, which formed the basis of the Minister's defence in terms of cost savings? My understanding is that in any event the current offices are to be occupied by the office of the Minister of State with responsibility for children, so — unless I am misreading the situation — the saving mentioned by the Minister, of the order of almost €0.5 million per year, will not be achieved. I do not know where that saving can be made. In any event, at a time when the cost of commercial office space in this city has fallen to levels seen almost 15 years ago, this should be taken into account — if, indeed, office rental is the issue.

However, we are dealing with far more serious and, dare I say, far more political issues in the context of the selection of bodies. I remind Deputies Treacy and Byrne that before Deputy Byrne entered the room I had already put forward some alternative suggestions. I will not sit and listen to Deputy Treacy or Deputy Byrne say that the Opposition does not have anything to offer in this regard. There are 800 quangos in this country, many of which could be described as mere talking shops. I have produced a list of alternatives and it is important that it should be noted. I appreciate Deputy Cuffe's acknowledgement of this, because it is not a question of there being some parties who favour no cuts in public services. It is the manner in which the Government rushed, with a political agenda, to deal with the cuts that has not been adequately answered.

Chairman

Perhaps the visitors could deal with the points made by Deputies Rabbitte and Flanagan.

Mr. Mark Kelly

I endorse the remarks of Deputy Rabbitte. I say to Deputy Flanagan that I am a human rights lawyer rather than a property lawyer, so my expertise on the issue of rent is limited——

Deputy Charles Flanagan

I accept that.

Mr. Mark Kelly

——but I did raise it with the chief executive of the Human Rights Commission yesterday afternoon when I spoke to him. It is my understanding that there is a heavy penalty clause in the lease that the commission has if it is broken, and therefore there is a high cost to breaking a lease that was originally agreed with the Office of Public Works before it was entered into. It is also my understanding that officials from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform have visited the neighbouring premises of the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism with tape measures to consider whether elements of the Equality Authority might be shoehorned into those premises.

In view of this I would agree that the issues of rent and the lease are probably not central to these matters. What is central is the human impact of these cuts if they go ahead. In those circumstances, if the Chairman agrees, it would be appropriate for Ms Fahey to make a couple of concluding remarks about the extent to which, in practice, this body, the Equality Authority, which is now to be rendered unviable, made a critical difference to her at an important moment in her life.

Ms Phyllis Fahey

Speaking on behalf of the older people in society, I maintain that the Equality Authority is necessary and does a great job. I do not believe it would have cost the Government a great deal of money in comparison to what the Ulster Bank defence team would have cost on that day. We are marginalising some of the most vulnerable people in society, who are discriminated against in all walks of life. People do not have the courage to stand up to an organisation such as a bank. I could not have done so because I could not have afforded it without the support of the Equality Authority.

The authority is very necessary. If it were to be moved away from Dublin it would not be so accessible. It was always there for me and I could talk to staff there at any time. The situation continued for three and a half years and I was very happy with the outcome. I would be very sad to think we would lose that authority because its budget has been cut by so much.

Chairman

I thank Ms Fahey. I also thank Mr. Kelly and his colleagues for a very informative presentation and I thank them for dealing with the queries raised by committee members. Discussion helps the committee in further considering the issues at play. I am sure we will return to this matter in the future. We will ensure that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, gets a copy of the transcript from today's proceedings.

I shall briefly suspend the meeting.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

My understanding is there is to be a Private Notice Question for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform at 3.45 p.m. I am not sure he will be here as scheduled.

Chairman

I understand the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Conor Lenihan, is present.

Sitting suspended at 3.42 p.m. and resumed at 3.43 p.m.