Those guidelines and codes of practice should lead as they develop to higher standards in all public bodies in regard to the implementation of human rights and good practice. There is no doubt about that and that has happened to quite a degree already, as we know, but one cannot be complacent about it.

This is a positive opportunity to bring about real reform within the public sector by adopting the approach of active engagement successfully pursued by the Equality Authority in its workplace relations work with social partners. I served on the board of the Employment Equality Agency, which preceded the Equality Tribunal, for quite a number of years. A huge amount of work and practice have developed together with engagement with the social partners which has led to huge improvements in equality standards in the workplace. The case practice that has developed there has been helpful in terms of changing the mores around human rights. That is a very good way to promote best practice, highlighting the good practice to which bodies that have not yet reached that standard can aspire.

The Deputy referred to ongoing evaluation and review in regard to the UK example. I put on the record that the working group that was established to advise the then Minister on practical issues in regard to the merger recommended this specific approach to the creation of a positive duty on public bodies. It went on to recommend that a formal review of the operation of this section be undertaken by the Government in consultation with the IHREC after a period of three or five years. I am happy that such a review should take place and I believe it should happen after three years. The review should assess the effectiveness of the public sector duty in securing improved human rights and equality outcomes and in assisting public bodies to pre-empt problems on an evidential basis. The evidence could be gathered by way of an independent evaluation commissioned jointly by the IHREC and the Department of Justice and Equality. The review should also assess whether there is a need to modify or develop the recommended arrangements, including whether there is a need to institute a formal review and monitoring mechanism and the question of integration with other regulatory assessment procedures, on the basis of the evidence.

The key point I would make in regard to the Bill, as it is worded, is that it presents an opportunity to view the new provision as a positive and developmental opportunity in the way I have outlined in terms of developing human rights standards through the various mechanisms which the commission has at its disposal, rather than at this point thinking in more legalistic and enforcement terms. I accept part of the point the Deputy made, namely, that we must have ongoing assessment. The review that will be done, and as I said I would prefer if it took place after three years, will give us information as to how matters are progressing and whether more detailed mechanisms are needed at that point. I am not accepting to the amendment.

See this item in context