Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It has been this Government's desire and stated objective to amalgamate many institutions and organisations. There was a rush to talk about quangos. When amalgamating, it is incredibly important to get the fit right. From the outset I have had difficulty with this proposed amalgamation. It will happen, and I am concerned that the new organisation does not lose focus on the critically important individual elements.

There is little point in having good legislation without the means to enforce that legislation, where sanctions cannot be applied where there is offence, or cases cannot be taken because the organisation lacks the capacity to do so. Others have made this criticism and the Minister probably did when he was in opposition, and he probably supports the idea. Regarding equality there is anecdotal evidence of substantial delays and people not having a hearing at all. It is important that there be an understanding that if we have legislation we must have the resources to implement it. Although many of the resources that have been stripped away from both these organisations were taken under the previous Government, it has not been reversed. The capacity to deal with the workload must be examined.

The other issue of critical importance is independence from the Government, as we constantly speak about the Oireachtas having responsibility but in reality, it is the Government that retains a significant amount of power. There is an issue regarding how the Oireachtas functions. I have a number of observations but I first pay tribute to Mr. Niall Crowley, who was incredibly concerned about the extent of cutbacks and the ability of organisations to function, as well as the importance of the work done by these bodies. I applaud his courageous decision to resign and take up the cause of organising a civil society response.

There are a number of questions to be asked. There is a concern that the new body may not even meet the standards as set out by the 1993 Paris Principles for human rights institutions. Will the Minister address this issue in his response? Was there dialogue and what consideration was given in that area? I would like to be satisfied that the issue received considerable attention. There is a concern about the commission not being able to appoint a chairman or board, and this matter has already been raised by others. Will the Minister give a direct response on how the process will come about? The positioning in the Department of Justice and Equality is the wrong fit and I would rather see it placed in a Department responsible for communities, with separation from the law enforcement side of the State. What consideration was given to the positioning of this new organisation?

There is much criticism that the definition of equality is too narrow. We do not want a case where the organisation cannot pursue matters through the courts because of a narrow definition, so the issue should be addressed. There is often a trade-off between inclusiveness and efficiency, and this is one area where such a trade-off is not safe. The amalgamation is, first and foremost, about saving money but the effectiveness of the organisation must be based on it being an inclusive model. What thought went into that process? Other Deputies have noted the threshold for commencing an inquiry under section 35 of this Bill is very high and the language requires serious violation of human rights or equality provisions, or a systematic failure to comply with human rights or equality provisions. I am not sure what cases are likely to succeed or how that definition will be adjudicated. It is incredibly important that this is made clear to people or otherwise they will refrain from taking cases or seeing this authority as a viable route for complaints.

There are flaws in this legislation but good legislation requires the resources to carry it through. There are major examples through various Departments over decades of legislation that exists in theory but whose provisions are not evident in practice. There must be a robust assessment of legislation when it is enacted to ensure it does what is intended in carrying out functions. This is very much a case in point.

See this speech in context