Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I do not have much to add. I agree with everything the IHREC representatives said. I thank them for coming in and for their continuing work and I also welcome the IHREC's statement on family hubs. They are right in saying that we cannot allow them to become some sort of permanent solution to the housing emergency, particularly following the report that we have the highest proportion of women in homelessness in Europe. That prompts a question. Where does scrutinising and proofing the budget proposals from an equality perspective begin and end in the context of wider policy? I refer to things that might not be in the budget itself but which have equality or inequality implications. This is one that must be looked at.

There is no doubt that in recent years women and children have suffered disproportionately from policy decisions in the area of housing, social housing and social housing supports. How does one navigate the line between politics proposals, where something needs to be addressed, and scrutinising what is being proposed by the Government in the budget or at budgetary committees? Recently, I have worked on another area of discrimination, namely, motor insurance premiums, which hit certain categories of people in particular. Discrimination is rampant against older and younger people, and other categories of driver. Could the witnesses comment on that?

We are just getting this budget scrutiny process up and running. We have had a shorter run-in this year and it will not be finished, with a comprehensive last word completed, for the forthcoming budget. There are practical constraints for the 2018 budget. Is it the case that the main task of the IHREC is to ensure that would be an equality statement in the budget and that this issue would be brought to the attention of the line committees?