David Norris (Independent)

I appreciate that. The Minister is very courteous, as always. However, while I pay tribute to her courtesy and decency, I continue to assert that she should be ashamed of her statement not only because of the way in which it was printed but also because of the underhand practice throughout this Government of swingeing the most defenceless.

I will not begin my criticisms of the Bill with the Combat Poverty Agency because questions also arise in regard to the definition of "spouse". Several years ago, a similar Bill was introduced in this House by the Minister's predecessor, the Tánaiste, on foot of a decision by the Equality Authority which held that serious discrimination against partners in a same sex relationship with regard to travel rights was a violation of their human rights and unsustainable in Irish law. The Government responded not by addressing the injustice and discrimination involved but by ramming legislation through this House to redefine "spouse" in order to deprive vulnerable people of their entitlements. For that reason, I have proposed a new definition and I will not be assuaged by being told the matter is before the courts because that is rubbish. The matter has been considered by the Colley commission, the Law Reform Commission and every other commission. I am tired of it. It is clear we have to address this issue.

The Equality Authority is being gotten rid of in a parallel measure because it was inconvenient. It is suffering a 43% cut and its staff are being decentralised to Roscrea. The people who know anything about legislation in this area are for the most part unwilling to transfer, which means they will be replaced by pen pushers from other Departments. In other words, the voice of anybody who speaks out is being muzzled.

This is an extraordinary time to introduce a Bill to destroy the Combat Poverty Agency. New financial calamities, some of which are of the Government's making, are occurring on a daily basis. Banks and stock markets have collapsed, the sub-prime scandal has erupted and now our agriculture industry is threatened with job losses and a potentially massive bill of up to €1 billion. The beef industry also appears to be affected, with further job losses threatened. What are we going to do and how will we address these issues? In a period of increasing poverty, we are destroying the agencies that protect the poor, the disadvantaged and the powerless. These are not the actions of a party of the people; they are the actions of an arrogant shambles of a Government that instead of listening to people, humbles them and muffles their voice. It is dreadful. I feel sorry for this Minister because I do not think she should have been used as an instrument in this regard.

I note the discomfort that exists on the Government side, about which Senator McFadden so eloquently spoke earlier. I intend to table amendments to redefine "spouse" and to delete the section of the Bill which abolishes the Combat Poverty Agency. Decent people on the opposite benches will be forced through the lobbies to vote in favour of the abolition of the agency despite recognising the damage they will be doing.

In an example of squalid dishonesty, the Government's decision to abolish the Combat Poverty Agency was made before the commission's report was received. How else did I receive knowledge of the decision in advance of the report? People knew about it because it was in the woodwork. I do not believe any savings will be made by the abolition of the agency. If the Minister wants to make savings, why does she not abolish the jobs for the boys and girls which were so flagrantly created alongside the establishment of unnecessary committees all over the place simply to give positions, remuneration and, perhaps, cars? What an example to show to the people. We treat ourselves with luxury and create new positions even as we humiliate the poor.

This is not the kind of behaviour I associate with the Minister. I do not intend to embarrass her personally because I am aware of her sterling qualities. I have long regarded her as a friend and she proved this by her generous gesture to me this evening. However, I would like her to take the message to the Government that those who support the Combat Poverty Agency, the Human Rights Commission, the Equality Authority and the other agencies will not be silenced. I heard a person associated with the Government, a press spokeswoman, deriding those who tried to support the Combat Poverty Agency.

What will be the result of this? What was the point of the Combat Poverty Agency? It reported from areas of our life that are often not illuminated. Once again, it published a very fine report on the special impact of poverty on the gay community. That body is gone too. The new body is supposed to be independent, but can the Minister honestly tell the House that a combat poverty element that is subsumed into a Department will be in a position to provide independent material that could potentially be embarrassing to Government? Of course it could not, and that is why it is being introduced in such a way. The new body will be neutered.

This is all of a piece. I raised this matter on the Adjournment and was able to demonstrate that many of these organs established by Government became critical — I do not mean this in a negative fashion but rather that they exposed areas that needed to be exposed — and the Government then struck them down. One cannot escape the conclusion that this has happened because they may cause embarrassment. It is the political equivalent of the Denning judgment. Apparently the Government feels there are some vistas that are too appalling to be honestly confronted and for which it has no moral stomach.

In the very difficult times in which we find ourselves, this is not the approach that a decent Government would take. In a sense I am using the Minister — I hope not abusing her — to ask her to take this very strong message from this House and note the embarrassment of decent members of her party, which they will continue to show during this debate. I ask her to reconsider the matter.