Alex White (Labour)

I disagree with the emphasis of some colleagues on the other side, although I endorse everything Senator Boyle said.

I must, however, respectfully disagree with some of what was said on this side of the House. I disagree with Senator Twomey that the Equal Status Act had the effect of driving a wedge between the Traveller community and wider society. That is wrong, although it may not be what he meant.

The equal status legislation, which was initiated by the Labour Party ten years ago but supported by all parties, was an important development for our society. It was the first serious step we took as a community and society to put the sorts of equality principles we espouse into legislation. It gave the State statutory benchmarks by which progress was to be made and scrutinised and put pressure on the providers of services to ensure they did not discriminate against any member of any group listed under nine prohibited grounds, most importantly against the Traveller community.

While Members of the House have different experiences and come to this issue from that point of view, I come to it as a former councillor, but also as a lawyer. I have acted in many cases where there has been manifest discrimination against members of the Traveller community with regard to employment and, in some cases, the provision of services. I take exception to the suggestion often made about abuse. Of course, abuses occur. With most forms of statutory protection, people sometimes see the opportunity to press a case that may not have merit. However, most of the cases I have seen have had merit, as do most of the cases raised with the Equality Authority and other bodies.

The level of discrimination seen in some of the examples raised in tribunals and elsewhere would sicken anybody, as would the level of naked prejudice that still exists in society. It exists across many of our respected institutions as well as in corner shops, hairdressers, pubs and elsewhere. I am not trying to tar everyone with the same brush, but we need to acknowledge, notwithstanding all the progress we have made, that there is still deep-rooted prejudice across society and it finds expression in discriminatory behaviour towards Travellers with regard to employment, and elsewhere. I do not lay this at the Minister's door; we have had a week talking about political accountability. However, the Government must be alive to the possibility of discrimination and take such measures as are necessary, prudent and correct to address and stand up to it.

A Senator on the Government side of the House made a point about councillors and public representatives making unacceptable statements. I agree with what he said, but there are others in public positions who do the same, including sometimes, members of the District Court bench. Some of these have made statements that are grossly unacceptable and they should be criticised in the House by the Minister. It is not acceptable for any public official, judge or otherwise, to make prejudicial remarks about members of any group, particularly Travellers.

It is true that many of the recommendations of the 1995 task force report have been implemented. The target was that by 2000, some 3,100 units of Traveller accommodation would be ready, 900 homes and 2,200 Traveller specific units, halting sites or group housing schemes. However, while the 900 houses have been provided, only 600 Traveller specific units have been provided. Another 1,500 Travellers, therefore, seek some form of permanent accommodation.

I do not want to misquote Senator Walsh, who has left, or any of my colleagues. The argument has arisen constantly in this debate that when accommodation is provided, it is not respected. The example is always given of the case where accommodation was given to people who damaged it or did not appear to be grateful for it. Seeking gratitude from the Traveller community is not what we should be about, although we want all groups working together. The benchmark of progress is not whether members of the Traveller community are grateful. Many Traveller families who live on the side of the road do not do so by choice, a fact I observed as a member of South Dublin County Council. I thank the Minister of State for what he said about that council, the management of which is very progressive. Traveller families do not choose to live on the side of the road without water or sanitation. It is the duty of the State and legislators to ensure proper provision for them by ensuring resources for local authorities to provide decent accommodation for people in that situation.

Accommodation is linked to the difficulty Travellers have obtaining employment. How could it be easy for a Traveller of any age to obtain employment without an address? Traveller organisations have often pointed out that without the benefit of an address, Travellers do not have access to employment.

I will wrap up as I know the Minister of State is anxious to make his response. I thank him for what he said and draw attention to his statement that the rate of progress has been somewhat disappointing. I agree with Senator O'Toole and others that we should have targets. It is all very well to talk about agencies — it can be difficult to get one's head around the various agencies and working groups — but we must set targets and try to achieve particular outcomes. What achievements on this would the Minister of State like to be able to report to us if he were to come back to us in a year's time?