Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thought some of the Members opposite were going to contribute as they are in the House. I thank all those who contributed to a very important debate on an important piece of legislation. I will start where I finished in my contribution yesterday evening by saying we want the best possible piece of legislation enacted and we are open to constructive suggestions as to how the legislation might be improved. I hope Members will forgive me if I do not give instant responses to some of what has been stated in the House as I want to reflect on the contributions made by Deputies with regard to the legislation and consider on Committee Stage any necessary amendments, including those which may be tabled from the Opposition.

It is important to recall certain basic principles regarding the legislation and some of the substance of the Bill before the House in the context of the comments made. I appreciate not all Members of the House may have had the opportunity to yet consider the speech I delivered yesterday evening. This is a very important piece of legislation and I regard it as a landmark piece of legislation regarding human rights and equality issues. We should never forget, of course, that the context of human rights is reflected in our Constitution and our courts play a role in protecting the rights of individuals. There is also the context of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights based in Strasbourg, which also plays a particular role.

Nevertheless, it is the job of the national human rights agency and the equality agency to ensure that in a broad range of areas the Government respects human rights of individuals and action is taken where necessary to address issues or when individuals are at risk of discrimination. At the core of this Bill is the fact that we have two bodies, the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Equality Authority, which undertook very important work effectively in their independent silos, with some of the work overlapping. When we considered the manner in which they approached the work in both bodies, which have had excellent membership and staff, the view was that an amalgamated body with extended powers and greater independence than applied to either body with regard to appointment of individuals was desirable. It was also preferable to confer additional functions on the body over and above the functions exercised individually by the two bodies which currently exist, and that resources would be used more wisely if the functions to be assigned to the single body were applied rather than across two individual bodies.

See this speech in context