Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. We support the position she has just outlined. We also regret that the Bill has been substantially changed since it was passed by this House. We understand the reasons for it. The amendment I propose is to deal with this sudden change in the Seanad. The position was that when the Bill was debated on Second Stage in the Seanad, having passed this House, it was proposed to repeal and replace in its entirety the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989. This meant the question of seeking to amend the interpretation provisions of the 1989 Act could not arise because the entire Bill was being repealed. It was only when the Minister made the decision she did and submitted Committee Stage amendments in the Seanad that it became clear the 1989 Act was not to be repealed or even amended. In fact, it was to remain on the Statute Book in its entirety.

It was only then that it became clear to us that the 1989 Act and the Bill would, therefore, both sit side-by-side on the Statute Book, a point the Minister has just reiterated, but with key differences in their interpretation provisions. This means the protected characteristics under the Bill would not align with the groups protected under the 1989 Act. Specifically, section 1 of the 1989 Act refers to hatred on account of race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origin, membership of the Traveller community, or sexual orientation. The protection characteristics under the Bill are set out in section 3 are race, colour, nationality, religion, national or ethnic origin, descent, gender, sex characteristics, sexual orientation, or disability.

I fully understand it was never the Minister's intention, nor that of anybody else, that we would have different interpretations of hatred in different Bills operated by the State and enacted by these Houses. We will have two different sets of people impacted by the protections in each of these Acts and this is not an acceptable position. The Minister will understand this. We saw in the Seanad that this misalignment would happen and Labour Party Senators sought to amend it but since the Minister's amendment in the Seanad was merely a deletion of sections we could not amend the deletion by inserting a substitution. It is only now we can point out the fact there will be a misalignment in the categories of people protected under these two important Acts. This is not a good position for the Houses to be in.

I do not understand, and perhaps the Minister might explain to me, what are the technical reasons it is not possible simply to replace the definition section of the 1989 Act with a broadened section under section 3 of the Bill that has been presented that the House. I understand this was the Minister's intention originally. Even without going into the sections that are being deleted in their entirety - and we can have a discussion about them and why but no doubt they will be matters discussed and decided by the next Oireachtas - in the interim surely it makes good sense when we are protecting vulnerable categories of individuals that the same categories in a comprehensive sense would be protected by the 1989 Act and this particular legislative provision.

See this speech in context