Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank my colleague Deputy Pringle for bringing forward this Private Member's motion, which I support. Nevertheless, while we do, of course, need to give some domestic effect to economic, social and cultural rights, there have been a number of recent decisions against Ireland the failure to address which has very much damaged our standing. We as a State have always prided ourselves on adherence to human rights and support for human rights. That has been one of the cornerstones of our international foreign policy, yet the manner in which we have treated decisions both of the economic, social and cultural rights committee of the Council of Europe and, on occasion, of the European Court of Human Rights has left much to be desired.

We have a dualist system in Ireland; international law does not have domestic effect unless it is specifically incorporated. I do not necessarily have a problem with that per se, but I do have a problem with using that as an excuse to fail completely to address a breach of rights in Ireland. An example is the EuroCOP case taken against Ireland, where it was found that Ireland's treatment of gardaí was a breach of their economic and social rights and that has not been addressed in any meaningful way. A similar decision was made in respect of members of the Defence Forces, which stopped short of saying they had a right to strike. I do not think it will surprise anybody that they do not have a right to strike, but they have a right to be represented in collective bargaining decisions, which they are not. While there are considerable limitations on members of the Defence Forces and their direct representative bodies expressing their views, it appears that that failure to represent them has had a considerable impact on morale in the Defence Forces.

Likewise, the failure to give gardaí a more meaningful voice has damaged morale in An Garda Síochána, and we are all quite aware of how that has played out in terms of blue flu and so on. It is very difficult to coerce people into providing their labour, as the Government recently found out to its detriment. More important, it has also been to the detriment of children with special needs, who have a right to education. While that right to education is enshrined in Irish law, at least in regard to primary and secondary education, there is not a right, as the Court of Appeal has found, to third level education. We need to vindicate that right and it is a matter of urgency that it be vindicated.

Going back to the mechanism, it is important that there be a mechanism such that if Ireland is found to be in default of its international obligations, it must come back before the court. If it is in default of its obligation to provide economic and social rights, and if the social rights committee makes a decision in respect of Ireland, it should automatically and repeatedly over a period be referred to the Oireachtas for action. Likewise, if there is a declaration by the domestic courts of incompatibility with the requirements of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, that should automatically be referred to the Oireachtas. Even so, many committee reports that are automatically referred to the Oireachtas die on the shelf. There has to be a mechanism for repeatedly bringing up such findings.

It is not good enough that we take our turn to be on the Human Rights Council, or indeed on the Security Council, as we are now. We talk about human rights on the Security Council while we do not do enough to ameliorate breaches of rights in our own State. We cannot have it both ways. It is a bit like our failure to deal with immigration or document the undocumented in Ireland while being euphoric that Joe Biden will somehow do something for the undocumented Irish in America. That sort of hypocrisy, because that unfortunately is what it is, considerably detracts from the force of the argument we would make in America for our undocumented.

Likewise, our inability to address decisions of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights against Ireland detracts considerably from the force with which we can argue at a UN level for adherence to human rights standards and especially our delay in dealing with decisions made against us by the European Court of Human Rights. The O’Keeffe v. Ireland case in the field of education and abuse in our education system is one notable example. I was a Member of the Dáil at the time. I since had a four-year hiatus from the Dáil and may well enjoy another, longer, hiatus the next time but in that period however, little has been done to implement the O'Keeffe decision.

I very much welcome the measure proposed by my colleague, Deputy Pringle, in this regard. It is an important issue. As a Dáil and, perhaps, an Oireachtas, we do not have sufficient regard to economic, social and cultural rights. They are quite difficult to implement because it costs money to do so. Of course, the Irish courts and Mr. Justice Declan Costello in particular, of whom I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, will be well aware, enunciated the clear division of responsibility between the Legislature on one hand and the courts on the other. However, simply because we found that it is not for the courts to supervise public spending, which is determined here by the elected representatives of the people, that does not mean the elected representatives do not have a heightened example to look at the effect of the decisions they make on the rights of people and to look at the fact we are celebrating 100 years of this State. What is the purpose of a State in the modern era? Surely, it is to vindicate rights. If we, as a State, have been found to have failed to vindicate rights then we have a heightened duty as a Legislature to address it. That sometimes involves difficult choices one cannot reasonably expect a court to make because it is not elected by the people to make those choices on their behalf. They are, however, choices that need to be made by necessity if we are to vindicate the rights of people, as well as important economic and social rights. Unless and until those particular rights are adhered to, then in a way, access to some of the other rights sometimes becomes elusive.

Our court system and access to the justice system is problematic in Ireland because it is expensive. Therefore, either a person has a lot of money, in which case a bill for tens of thousands of euro for a High Court case might not affect him or her, or a person has no money at all, in which case a similar bill does not affect him or her. The vast majority of people in the middle, however, cannot take a case. I will give an example. A number of cases are regularly taken against the Department of Social Protection and many are successful. It is absolutely correct and right that those cases be taken because they have ultimately been vindicated by the fact the plaintiffs won their case. Few cases are ever taken against the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. That does not mean the Department is acting any more lawfully than the Department of Social Protection. In fact, I suspect from observations of my own it is considerably less so but farmers cannot afford to take a case against it.

We need to look at access to justice and how we adjudicate economic, social and cultural rights, which need to be adjudicated and which, if we are found to be in breach, need to be addressed. We also need to look at breaches of civil and political rights in this State and at how we ensure people can access courts without being crippled for having done so.

I support the motion and thank Deputy Pringle for putting it before the House.

See this speech in context