Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to present this Bill to the House. It is now 15 years since the Equality Authority was established and 14 years since the establishment of the Human Rights Commission. In that time, the demographic, social and economic fabric of the State has continued to change profoundly. The commitment and professionalism of the members and staff of the Equality Authority and of the Human Rights Commission over this period are to be commended. However, these bodies have overlapping roles and it has become increasingly obvious that there is a compelling need for a more comprehensive approach to the protection of human rights and equality and to institutional arrangements in that regard.

Drawing together in a single, leaner and more streamlined body the main strands of the vital equality and human rights agendas will positively strengthen the ability of the new commission to effectively, efficiently and cohesively promote a culture that respects the human rights and equal status of everyone in our society. The promotion and protection of human rights is at the heart of Ireland's domestic and foreign policies and Ireland has been active and continues to be active in this regard both in Europe and further afield.

During our Presidency of the Council of the European Union last year, I raised with EU justice Ministers how we could encourage effective action and enhance co-operation between justice systems in countering hate crime, racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and homophobia. The Irish Presidency's concern, in particular, was about the apparent rise in extreme forms of intolerance, including racism and homophobia, within the European Union and the failure in some cases to respond adequately. We were also concerned that justice institutions - the courts and police in particular, should function effectively so that fundamental rights are protected.

The reality of continuing intolerance in Europe was starkly illustrated by a report on anti-Semitism published last November by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. A shocking 76% of Jewish people surveyed across EU member states felt that anti-Semitism had worsened in the past five years. Over half of the respondents had encountered first-hand experience of Holocaust denial within the previous year and one third had suffered some form of anti-Semitic harassment within the previous five years. Among those surveyed, 29% stated they were considering emigrating from the EU member state in which they and their families were resident. In Europe, the economic crisis has spawned new parties and revitalised pre-existing parties of the extreme right whose anti-Semitic and racist rhetoric is both corrosive and dangerous.

Our Presidency discussion on the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights led to Council conclusions adopted by the justice Ministers in June 2013. These conclusions essentially were designed to offer guidance to the Commission on how to take the debate forward and the types of consideration to be taken into account. The Commission published a communication on the rule of law on 11 March 2014 as its response to the debate on fundamental rights and the rule of law initiated under our Presidency. I welcomed this communication, as it reflects to a large extent many of the themes of our work in this area. The proposed three-stage framework is a very solid response to the issues that we and others, including the European Parliament, raised and will be considered in detail by our partners in the Council.

Along with several other member states and the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, Ireland is involved in a co-operative project to identify a methodology that will enable us to measure adherence to the rule of law and our shared EU values across all member states. I believe that this work has a vital role to play in protecting the fundamental rights of all EU residents and in tackling extreme intolerance across the European Union. Extreme intolerance and flagrant abuse of human rights is also evident on the wider international stage. As Ireland prepares for a

constitutional referendum on marriage equality for same-sex couples in 2015, in contrast, certain states are working hard to restrict the rights and fundamental freedoms of gay people. In Russia, for example, there are no laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, and the anti-LGBT propaganda law enacted there last June sparked international condemnation.

New anti-homosexuality legislation recently enacted in Uganda requires citizens to report suspected homosexuals to the police. According to Human Rights Watch, 38 African states criminalise homosexual conduct. In Iran homosexuality is deemed to be a crime punishable by imprisonment, corporal punishment and, in some cases, even execution. Israel is the only state in the Middle East with an annual gay pride march.

Our contributions to the protection of human rights in Europe and internationally would carry little weight without robust protection of human rights and equality here at home. We cannot and should not ignore issues that must be addressed within our own state. As a state, we have to make sure we deal in an entirely proper and fair way with, for example, persons of Roma ethnicity, members of the Traveller community and others from minority communities who reside in the State and not allow prejudice or lack of familiarity with specific cultural traits result in flawed assessments of situations and bad decision making or lead to unfair outcomes for individuals or discrimination. We must, in particular, ensure neither racial prejudice nor racial profiling is ever tolerated in the State. In what we say or do we must never lose sight of each individual's value and our common humanity.

The types of training the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission can provide are very important in giving front-line staff the insights and background they need to avoid prejudicial behaviour when dealing with members of minority groups. I will come back to this issue.

The welcome extended to new citizens of Ireland at our citizenship ceremonies is in stark contrast to the racist slurs and verbal and physical abuse suffered by some foreign nationals who reside in the State and by some of our new citizens in the workplace, on the streets or public transport as they go about their daily lives. In this context, I welcome and fully endorse the campaign launched today across the Dublin public transport network entitled, "There's no room on board for racism and discrimination". Too frequently passengers on public transport are victims of racist abuse.

As a member of a minority in this country, these are issues of which I am particularly conscious. In recognising the huge benefit of the web and social media and the facility for individuals, from the relative anonymity of a keyboard, to comment on news stories reported on a variety of websites from traditional media outlet websites to the more recent emergence of media outlets such as Journal.ieI am concerned at the level of vilification, intolerance and extreme comment incorporated on a daily basis onto such websites, some of which is little other than an excuse for engaging in hate speech and racism which corrode and contaminate public discourse. We must, both as a Parliament and a society, consider how to best address that issue. This may be an issue the new Human Rights and Equality Commission could uniquely consider from the perspective of protecting the human rights and freedom of speech of individuals, while also ensuring new media are not used as a vehicle for hate speech and to undermine the values we cherish and share with our EU partners.

I want to make reference to the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission in detail. The levelling of powers and functions, the introduction of a new role in supporting public bodies to have due regard to equality and human rights issues in its work and the creation of a sliding scale of possible interventions and powers which can be exercised in a nuanced way commensurate with the nature of the problem, including, as a last resort, an effective power of inquiry and powers to initiate court action, will all serve to make the commission a more effective body than its two predecessors combined.

The Bill is the outcome of a period of intensive consultation in which civil society, members of the public and all those interested in the future of human rights and equality in Ireland were canvassed for their views. I laid the general scheme of the Bill before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality for pre-legislative scrutiny in June 2012 and the committee undertook a further public consultation before responding with its observations.

The new body will also in due course seek accreditation with the United Nations as Ireland's national human rights institution. This is of crucial importance to ensure it achieves the highest domestic credibility and international standing in respect of its independence and remit. I have made strengthening the new commission and ensuring it complies unequivocally with the Paris Principles a personal commitment in preparation of the Bill and the merger process. I am confident that the new body will maintain the high standing and reputation the Human Rights Commission has achieved internationally. It should be noted that the new commission will take over from the Equality Authority as Ireland's designated equality body under the EU anti-discrimination directives. The Bill will also amend the European Convention of Human Rights Act 2003, most importantly to give effect to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the DG case by providing for an enforceable right of compensation in the case of unlawful deprivation of liberty due to judicial error in contravention of Article 5 of the convention.

I will now outline to the House some of the main features of the Bill. Turning to Part 1, comprising sections 1 to 7, inclusive, these are mainly technical provisions. Section 2 contains the necessary definitions, including a broad definition of human rights that ensures the commission is not limited to human rights recognised in existing Irish legislation in its promotion and awareness-raising work but can undertake work to promote human rights in the broadest possible sense.

Part 2 of the Bill comprises sections 8 to 28, inclusive. Section 8 is a standard provision which provides for an establishment day for the new commission, replacing the Equality Authority and the Human Rights Commission.

Section 9 contains a number of provisions regarding the establishment of the commission as a body corporate with perpetual succession. It also sets out that the commission will be independent and guided by best international practice in the area of human rights and equality.

Section 10 lists the detailed functions of the commission. They include providing information for the public on human rights and equality, keeping under review the adequacy and effectiveness of law and practice in the State relating to the protection of human rights and equality, providing practical assistance, including legal assistance, for an individual under equality or equal status legislation, and carrying out equality reviews and action plans. It also provides for the commission to appear before the High Court and the Supreme Court as amicus curiaein proceedings before either court that concern the human rights or equality rights of a person. The section provides for continued participation with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in the joint committee as provided for under the British-Irish Agreement Act 1999.

The section is also a principles section and sets out the principles that underpin the functions of the commission. These are central to the commission's work. The commission is mandated to exercise its functions under the Bill with a view to encouraging and supporting the development of a society in which there is respect for, and protection of, each person's human rights; there is respect for the dignity and worth of each person; a person's ability to achieve his or her potential is not limited by prejudice, discrimination, neglect or prohibited conduct; each person has a fair and equal opportunity to participate in the economic, political, social or cultural life of the State; and there is mutual respect between persons, including classes of persons, based on a shared understanding of the value of diversity within society and on a shared respect for equality and human rights.

Section 11 is a technical provision. It allows for the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and the agreement of the commission, to confer additional functions on the commission.

Section 12 contains the provisions in regard to terms of membership of the commission. Members shall hold office for a term not exceeding five years which can be renewed. The commission shall consist of not more than 15 and not less than 12 members, one of whom shall be chief commissioner. The section provides that the members designate who were appointed on 19 April 2013 shall become the first commission, with each member being appointed for a term of either three or five years in order to ensure continuity of expertise and experience for future commissions by avoiding a situation where the term of all members will expire at exactly the same time.

As Deputies will be aware, 14 members designate of the new commission were selected in April 2013 on foot of an independent selection process. They were assigned to the existing two bodies on an interim basis pending publication and enactment of the Bill. Once it is enacted, they will be formally appointed as members of the new commission. In the meantime, they have progressed the practical arrangements necessary for the amalgamation of the two bodies and their functioning as a cohesive organisation. I publicly acknowledge and thank them for their very substantial and valuable engagement since their appointment, including their constructive contribution to the development of the Bill. I look forward to receiving their observations on the Bill as published.

The previous selection process was not able to recommend a person for appointment as chief commissioner. This position will be readvertised by the Public Appointments Service very shortly and I am hopeful we will be in a position to welcome a new chief commissioner as soon as the Bill is enacted.

Section 13 outlines the selection and appointment process for membership of the commission. Members of the commission will be appointed by the President, on the advice of the Government, following the passing of a resolution by each House of the Oireachtas. The persons to be appointed in the future, including the first chief commissioner of the merged body, will be selected by the Public Appointments Service following a Paris Principles compliant selection process to be undertaken by the service. To underpin the independence of the selection process, the section provides that the Government shall accept the persons recommended for appointment by the service, save in exceptional circumstances and for stated and substantial reasons.

Section 14 lists the conditions of membership, including the circumstances in which the Government may remove a member of the commission.

These circumstances are failure without reasonable excuse to discharge the duties of the office, incapacity to perform those duties or stated misbehaviour. A member may only be removed from office with the agreement of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Section 15 provides for filling of casual vacancies on the commission, while section 16 outlines how the commission shall organise its meetings. The commission shall meet not less than once every three months. Subject to the Act, the commission regulates its own procedures. Section 17 provides for the commission to appoint from its membership Ireland's representative on the management board of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights as is provided for under Council Regulation No. 168/2004. This is a new provision, as previously the Government made this appointment.

Section 18 allows for the establishment of advisory committees and other formal methods of consultation with civil society. Such committees and other consultations will allow for the commission to establish and maintain contact as well as co-operation with relevant agencies, non-governmental organisations and other civil society interests. Section 19 is a standard provision providing that members of the commission will cease to be members of the commission when elected to either House of the Oireachtas or to the European Parliament. Sections 20 and 21 provide for the appointment of a director for the commission and outline his or her functions. In addition to the functions set out in the Bill, standard for a post of this nature, it is intended that the director will be the Accounting Officer for the commission and it will have a separate Vote. Sections 22 and 23 provide for the accountability of the director to both the Committee of Public Accounts and other Oireachtas committees. These are standard provisions.

Section 24 provides for staff of the commission and their remuneration. This section should be read in conjunction with section 45, which provides for the transfer to the commission of the existing staff of the Equality Authority and the Human Rights Commission. The Bill provides for the commission to undertake its own recruitment in accordance with the standards set out in the procedures and codes of practice applicable to Civil Service recruitment generally. This section also provides that staff of the commission, on transfer from the equality body and the Human Rights Commission, shall become civil servants of the State and that the commission is the appropriate authority in the meaning of the Civil Service Commissioners Act 1956 and the Civil Service Regulation Acts 1956 to 2005 regarding its officers. This is in line with the staffing arrangements of other independent organisations of a constitutional nature, such as the Ombudsman, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman, the Director of Public Prosecutions and other such institutions, including the Oireachtas. As civil servants of the State, the staff of the commission are not amenable to instruction by the Government or by any Minister. These arrangements are designed to ensure the independence of the commission in full compliance with the Paris Principles, which require that the national human rights institution be legislatively empowered to determine its staffing structure and to select its staff in accordance with national law.

It cannot be denied that both of the existing bodies suffered steep and disproportionate cuts to their funding up to 2011 and were particularly targeted in this regard by the previous Government. They also suffered staffing reductions. On appointment of the new members designate of the commission, I asked them, as a priority, to undertake a staffing needs review and submit a business case in that regard. Following intensive negotiations with my colleagues in the Government, I was delighted to secure an increased staffing complement of 47 for the new commission, as well as an increase of €2 million in its budget for 2014. This staffing level represents an increase of 15. There is an agreement that the ceiling will be further reviewed once these extra staff are all in place and in the light of experience of workloads in 12 to 18 months. The commission has already started recruitment of the additional staff already approved, with the assistance of the Public Appointments Service, starting initially with the additional clerical staff identified as necessary.

Section 25 requires the commission to prepare a strategy statement not later than six months after the commencement of this section. This statement will be for three years. The commission will be directly accountable to the Oireachtas for its strategy statement. The section also provides for the renewal of the strategy statement every three years. Section 26 outlines how funding will be made available to the commission by the Oireachtas and contains a commitment that such funding will be reasonably sufficient to allow the commission to fulfil its mandate. Section 27 sets out in what form the commission shall prepare its accounts and provides for such accounts to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. Section 28 requires the commission to prepare an annual report each year to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. Again, the commission will be directly accountable to the Oireachtas for this report.

In Part 3, comprising sections 29 to 42, inclusive, the commission's legal and enforcement powers are set out. Section 29 contains several definitions relevant to this Part, including a definition of human rights that is appropriate to enforcement of rights guaranteed by the Constitution or otherwise given force of law within the State, including the European Convention on Human Rights and other international instruments that are ratified by the State. Section 30 requires the commission to provide information to the public and keep under review the effectiveness of any legislation relating to the protection and promotion of human rights and equality. Section 31 provides that the commission, at the request of the Minister, may prepare draft codes of practice. Such codes shall address issues such as protection of human rights, elimination of discrimination, promotion of equality of opportunity in employment and promotion of equality of opportunity on matters covered by the Equal Status Act 2000. The commission is required to consult widely, including with relevant Departments, prior to the submission of a code of practice. Once signed into law by a Minister, a code of practice is admissible as evidence in proceedings before a court or tribunal. I regard this as a power that may be of crucial importance in improving standards of compliance with best human rights and equality practice. To date, only one such code of practice has been prepared and approved, the sexual harassment and harassment at work code. I believe there is enormous potential for the new commission to break new ground here and to have a really substantial influence for the better by utilising this power to the full.

Sections 32 to 39, inclusive, are a continuation, with technical amendments, of provisions in the existing equality legislation. Section 33 provides that, in connection with preparing either an equality review or an equality action plan, the commission may serve a substantive notice on a person to supply information with regard to an equality review or action plan. Such a notice may also be served if an organisation fails to implement the requirements of an equality action plan as outlined in section 32. This section provides an opportunity for an organisation to appeal such a notice. Section 34 details how such a substantive notice may be appealed. Section 35 provides that the commission may, of its volition or at the request of the Minister, conduct an inquiry. This section retains in force the existing powers of the Equality Authority and of the Human Rights Commission to conduct inquiries, which have not been used in practice in the precise manner set out in the existing Acts. To ensure the power to be vested in the new commission is a real one which can in future be invoked in practice, the inquiry power has been redesigned, modelled on that contained in the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004.

The detailed procedural and other rules for an inquiry are set out in Schedule 2. It is intended that an inquiry may be carried out in respect of a public or private organisation, institution, sector of society or geographical area if there is evidence of a serious violation of human rights or equality of treatment obligations in respect of a person and the matter is of grave public concern. Prior to conducting such an inquiry, terms of reference must be drawn up and laid before each House of the Oireachtas and then published in the national media.

Section 36 provides for the publication of an equality and human rights compliance notice following or in the course of an inquiry. Such notices will specify the nature of the discrimination or violation of rights found and will require the persons on whom they are served on to act on the notice. The notice will also outline the steps required to address the violation and specify the timeframe that applies. Section 37 provides an appeal mechanism for persons served with an equality and human rights compliance notice. Section 38 provides a register of all equality and human rights compliance notices. Section 39 provides that, on the application of the commission, the Circuit Court may grant an injunction against a person who does not comply with a human rights and equality compliance notice.

Section 40 provides for the provision of legal and other assistance by the commission. Such assistance may include the provision of legal advice and the provision of legal representation. Prior to granting any assistance, the commission will consider whether such assistance could be obtained by the applicant under the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 or the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act 1962. Section 41 allows the commission to institute proceedings in its own name seeking relief of a declaratory or other nature in respect of any matter involving the human rights of any person or class of persons. This is a continuation of the power granted to the Human Rights Commission in section 11 of the Human Rights Commission Act 2000.

Section 42 is a new provision which introduces a positive duty on public bodies to have due regard to human rights and equality and reflects a commitment in Government for National Recovery 2011-2016. The commission will assist public bodies in complying with the positive duty by producing guidelines and codes of practice, as outlined in section 31. The idea simply is to create a positive duty on public bodies to conduct their business in a manner that is consistent with individual human rights and in reflection of the commitment contained in the current programme for Government.

As I have said previously, this model of positive duty is not the model found elsewhere. The commission will have an important role in its development and in achieving a key tool which will be meaningful and effective in actively promoting equality and human rights across the public sector. Training as well as preparation of codes of practice, which I referred to earlier, will be important elements of what the commission can offer. Currently, the Human Rights Commission provides tailored training to the Civil Service and public service in the field of human rights. Training has been provided to members of An Garda Síochána, the Irish Prison Service, local authority officials and civil servants. This training is ongoing.

For example, just last December I had the pleasure of launching the Irish Prison Service's Irish Human Rights Commission human rights training programme. What is unique about this particular initiative is that it is proactive. The Irish Prison Service had itself identified a specific training need and in conjunction with the Human Rights Commission has developed a bespoke training programme specifically designed for staff working in our prisons. This unique training programme, which was originally developed as a pilot programme by the Irish Prison Service and the Human Rights Commission was launched in December 2013 to coincide with international human rights week, which is fitting. The original pilot was independently evaluated and subsequently formally launched as a human rights training course for prison staff which reflects best international practice.

By way of another example, the Garda racial, intercultural and diversity office provides training and advice to all members of An Garda Síochána on the need to be aware of the issue of racial profiling when carrying out their duties. This training and advice focuses on the requirement on all members to carry out their functions and exercise their authority in a non-discriminatory manner in accordance with law. I believe there is a need for this training to be expanded and further intensified and this is an issue for our new interim Garda Commissioner. I might also mention that in December 2013, the Human Rights Commission hosted a conference in Dublin to highlight best practice in human rights education and training for civil and public servants. The event was organised in co-operation with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The point I want to draw out here is that the work already undertaken by the commission, with its human rights education and training project across the Civil Service and public service is an excellent example of the soft and persuasive powers which I envisage will be influential in the development of this positive duty and in ensuring that our front-line public servants are properly sensitive to the specific difficulties that arise for example, in dealing with migrants to our shores. This can be particularly important in ensuring fair treatment of people who may have been marginalised in their country of origin, may not speak English sufficiently to understand what is happening to them and may not have had in the past a positive relationship with the local police in their previous home. The Fundamental Rights Agency's guide for law enforcement officials, Towards More Effective Policing, refers to the danger of racial profiling taking place at an operational level. It notes that at an operational level, profiling may occur where individual officials may apply stereotypes or generalisations based on race, ethnicity or religion. This may be consciously motivated by personal prejudices, but it may not. It simply may be that officers are not conscious of the degree to which they are applying generalisation and stereotypes. I believe that this valuable guide should be required reading for all members of An Garda Síochána in the context of a changed and continually changing Ireland. We should never assume that we in this State are immune from difficulties that have arisen elsewhere in the European Union.

I will move on now to Part 4, comprising sections 43 to 51 inclusive, which makes provision for a range of technical and transitional issues consequential on the dissolution of the existing bodies and to ensure continuity as between these bodies and the new commission which replaces them. These are all standard provisions.

Part 5 comprises section 52 to 55. Section 52 is a technical section, to provide a definition of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003. Section 53 includes references to Protocols Nos. 11 and 14 in the definition of the convention in our domestic legislation. Both protocols relate to the workings of the European Court of Human Rights. The reforms in Protocol No. 14 are designed to address the problem created by the large number of inadmissible or repeat cases, so as to enable the court to concentrate on the most important cases. Protocol No. 14 also made new rules concerning the terms of office of judges of the European Court of Human Rights. The definition of "convention provisions" is also amended by including reference to Protocol No. 13, which relates to abolition of the death penalty.

Section 54 provides for a new section in the principal Act which will allow an enforceable right to compensation for a person whose detention is found to be in breach of Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights and where the detention was as a result of judicial error. This is a requirement of Article 5(5) of the convention. The background to this is that in 1997 it was decided that D.G., then a minor, who was considered to have a personality disorder and was a danger to himself and others, should be placed in a high-support therapeutic unit for 16-18 year olds. However, in June 1997 the High Court decided, as there were no secure educational facilities available, that he should be detained in St. Patrick's Institution. His detention was appealed to the Supreme Court, which held that a child could be detained in a penal institution for a temporary period until secure detention was arranged for the child outside this jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court decision was appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, which found that Ireland was in breach of the convention in that the detention was not for the purposes of educational supervision in accordance with Article 5(1 )(d) and that there was a further violation of the convention as there is no enforceable right to compensation in accordance with Article 5(5) in case of unlawful deprivation of liberty on foot of judicial error. Ireland is required to execute this judgment. This means ensuring that persons who are detained in contravention of the provisions of Article 5, no matter what the circumstances are, including by way of judicial error, shall have an enforceable right to compensation. This amendment is the only remaining issue for implementation in regard to this judgment. Currently, there is no enforceable right to compensation where the detention was brought about by a judge because judicial immunity exists in Irish law. This provision addresses that issue. Section 55 provides for the inclusion of the up-to-date version of the convention and of Protocol No. 13 as Schedules to the Bill.

Before concluding, I would like to emphasise the importance of this Bill in the context of the Government's commitment to strengthening the State's human rights and equality infrastructure. In drafting the Bill, I have welcomed the contributions of the Oireachtas in the House and of the stakeholders and members of the public who have engaged in consultations on the general scheme. I have an open mind on constructive suggestions for its further improvement and I look forward to our discussions on the Bill. I regard this Bill as a landmark statutory measure with regard to human rights and equality. It sets out an architecture of huge importance for the State and provides a modern, legal framework to ensure we have the best possible provisions in place in the context of our new human rights and equality commission. I look forward to hearing the contributions of Members and to their co-operation in enacting this Bill in the best form possible for our statute books.

Niall Collins (Limerick, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Human rights and equality are core values of a modern republic. The founding vision of our State is built upon a commitment to the principles of equality and universally accepted rights. The Irish Human Rights Commission and Equality Authority have been to the forefront of advancing that vision in Ireland, often in adverse circumstances. This Bill, however, jeopardises that role. The amalgamation of the bodies is essentially based on financial considerations, rather than a strategic re-evaluation of how best to further the equality agenda. This is a dollar and dimes Bill, not a human rights one.

Fianna Fáil has a number of concerns regarding the proposed legislation. The Bill gives the Government significant control over the newly merged organisation, through a limited interpretation of human rights, control over membership and restrictions on what investigations the body can undertake. The move fails to recognise that the two bodies have separate and distinct, but complementary roles. The amalgamation will be detrimental to the respective missions and impinges upon the spirit of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement that initiated the bodies. It remains to be seen whether the new body will cut mustard with the UN Paris principles of independence, despite the Minister's confidence.

The role of human rights and equality is a central one in public policy. It is important that the Government maintains a commitment to this pivotal concern and does not seek to covertly control the bodies set up to protect these rights in the State. Limited resources and constraints on freedom of action will tighten the Government's grip on the new body. The experience of the interim bodies and the independent panel for appointments does not bode well for future Government action with the body.

The Minister has pointed to international experience. However, the Irish situation involves the merger of two independent statutory bodies with clearly defined mandates that have both been active for more than a decade in Irish public life.

In light of this ingrained experience, the argument for integration is far weaker than other examples may indicate. There is no evidence for or against amalgamations internationally.

It is worth reflecting upon the work of the bodies and the role they play in public life before setting out how they should advance. The IHRC is entrusted with the oversight and monitoring of human rights in Ireland. It was founded as part of the Good Friday Agreement. This joint, cross-Border commitment to human rights as the cornerstone of the entire island was ratified by a vote on both sides of the Border. Human rights law in Ireland is drawn first and foremost from the provisions of Bunreacht na hÉireann, the fundamental law of the land. This is further complemented by EU law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights enshrined by the Lisbon treaty of 2009. The IHRC is watchdog for these important bulwarks of rights on this island.

The Equality Authority was founded in 1999 and is charged with combating discrimination on various grounds such as gender, sexual orientation race or religion. It has continuously fought the good fight for minority groups on the margins of society. There has been a steady rise in people contacting the IHRC, from 512 in 2011 to 614 in 2012, driven by a sharp rise in economic and austerity cases, accounting for a third of all cases last year. Civil and political rights accounted for 35% of cases, 212 cases, followed by economic, social and cultural rights cases, of which there were 203. The body also offers opinions on new laws from a human rights perspective. The Equality Authority deals with approximately 8,000 inquires per annum primarily focused on disability, gender and race discrimination. Combined, the two bodies' roles have a distinct part to play in ensuring Ireland adheres to the highest ethical standards and lives up to its international and domestic legal and moral obligations. This Bill casts a dark cloud over those roles.

The current structure fully adheres to Ireland's international obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN's Paris Principles. The new body will have to be resubmitted for re-accreditation under the Paris Declaration. The UN Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions - the Paris Principles - are international principles that set benchmarks for national human rights bodies regarding their structures and functions to ensure effective, independent operation. They emphasise the need for complete independence and a broad interpretation of human rights which the body must be empowered to pursue. This independence is threatened by the limits placed on own-initiative investigations by the new body and the limited interpretation of human rights. We will be pressing to have this strengthened on Committee Stage.

Ireland is accredited with an "A" rating in accordance with the Paris Principles. This will be jeopardised in the upcoming review given the significant encroachment of the Government onto the IHRC's work with this piece of legislation. This Bill does not meet those fundamental requirements of an autonomous body pursuing human rights free of government interference and restraints.

Previous experience has shown that the Government is not committed to respecting the independence of the human rights and equality bodies. The announcement of the amalgamation came in September 2011 and has only now advanced to the legislative stage. That interim period was marred by hostility on the part of the Department of Justice and Equality that undermined the IHRC. Rather than uphold the autonomy of the IHRC, the Department systematically undermined it. The selection panel headed by former Ombudsman Emily O'Reilly was stood down by the Department when it sought to expand the criteria for selection of a chief executive of the interim commission. In a clear case of the Department exercising control over the organisation, the independent panel was firmly subjected to the demands of the Department which did not want certain personnel to apply. This sets a poor precedent for future relations.

Financial resources are vital to the ability of these bodies to do their job. This comes in the context of significant cuts and stagnation in funding until this year's increase. However the funding issue must be separated from the structural changes proposed in the Bill that threaten the independence of the body. Both the Equality Authority and IHRC experienced budgetary cuts in 2008. In November 2008, the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Dermot Ahern, announced cuts of 43% to the Equality Authority and 32% to the IHRC. As mentioned, these cuts were heavily criticised at the time. However the financial reductions reflected the severe budgetary constraints under which the country was operating. Most important the reductions did not directly impact upon the structural independence of the bodies and their organisational capacity to pursue their objectives. Fianna Fáil did not move forward with a proposed merger idea. The current Government did not address the issue and kept funding at that level until this year. Adequate resources are obviously vital to the proper functioning of these bodies. This should not be confused with organisational independence and integrity which ensure these bodies can do their job free of interference.

Human rights and equality are an expression of our best values, the fundamental principles of what we as a State strive to achieve. Having a strong independent watchdog to uphold them is integral to breathing life into them. The Bill jeopardises that. We will be using Committee Stage to strengthen its weakest provisions to ensure that human rights and equality are not sidelined and neglected by this Government.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I share the Minister's concern at the worrying rise of anti-semitism and the experience of much of the Jewish community in a number of EU member states. It is deeply worrying when one considers the lessons of the Holocaust and the evil that was perpetrated at that time against Jewish people and Gypsies. The Nazis slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Gypsies and Roma during the Holocaust and this is not often given the focus it needs. We need to learn the lessons of that period and I condemn the dangerous morons responsible for some of the incidents against the Minister in recent days. All right-thinking citizens utterly condemn such activity, particularly anti-semitism. It must be dealt with and hopefully those responsible will be brought to justice. I will focus on the issue of Gypsies and Roma.

We in this country are immensely proud of the boxer John Joe Nevin for his endeavours, bringing home gold and silver medals, and we wish him well in his professional career. There is an article in today's Daily Mailnewspaper in which Brenda Power users the opportunity of the attack on him to say:

And the media is terrified of appearing critical of "Traveller culture" of which feuding is the principal expression these days. When they're not beating their own cousins in family rows they'll also turn their hands to torturing and murdering old folk, and causing mayhem in school playgrounds as they set about one another with lethal weapons.

This article is representative of dangerous viewpoints that still exist in the State, which must be condemned and confronted directly.

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Bill 2014 has been planned since the Government took power in 2011, but has been surrounded by much controversy, ranging from the delay in getting it here today, three years later, to the concern around whether the legislation complied with the UN principles for such bodies and the appointments process. My party and I are opposed to this legislation and this planned merger, and I am sure the Minister will understand why.

The Irish Human Rights Commission was established by the Human Rights Commission Act of 2000 and, for those who do not know, the establishment of the commission emanated from the Good Friday Agreement, which set up human rights commissions North and South. The Good Friday Agreement obliges the Irish Government to put in place comparable steps to those in the North to safeguard the rights of citizens. This included the obligation to "establish a Human Rights Commission with a mandate and remit equivalent to that within Northern Ireland as stated in the Good Friday Agreement rights and safeguards." There are two issues arising from this that I will mention briefly. The Irish Human Rights Commission in the South does not have the full range of powers available to the commission in the North, and therefore the equivalence obligation has already been ignored. The fact that the Government in the South is proposing to amalgamate the human rights and equality bodies will result in a mismatch of powers and obligations, and again the equivalence obligations are ignored. The Irish Government should retain the Irish Human Rights Commission as a sole body in the South and invest in it the broad range of powers available in the North.

This Bill is unpicking parts of the Good Friday Agreement. The British and Irish Governments are co-equal guarantors of the Agreement and it was also endorsed by the vast majority of people across this island. This Bill undermines the vote of the people and the political, democratic and peace process. The Government's proposal in front of us today undermines the Good Friday Agreement as a whole by sending a message to any party to the Agreement that the possibility exists to hollow it out one component at a time, and we have no doubt there are those who would wish to do so.

The potential of the agreements have not been fully realised and elements have not been implemented. This is the view expressed this week by the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. By beginning to unpick aspects of the Good Friday Agreement, this Government will lose the moral authority to challenge those who want to unpick the Agreement or refuse to implement it. We cannot afford to let this happen. It has already been a struggle to get where we are, and we need the Irish Government, as a co-guarantor of this Agreement, to ensure that it is taken seriously, promoting and progressing it rather than removing the parts it does not like. For what has this decision been taken? It has come about because the outcome is a nominal saving in an agency's budget. These savings could be realised elsewhere. This Bill is ill thought out and a counterproductive proposal, and even at this stage I am calling on the Government not to proceed with it. It is bad for human rights and equality in this State.

Since September 2011 my party has called on the Government to ensure that the merged bodies continue to benefit from the equivalency of human rights provisions set out in the Good Friday Agreement. This Government must recognise that under the UN Paris Principles, the Irish and Northern human rights commissions hold an "A" status rating, meaning that they must be appropriately mandated and financially secure to enable them to conduct their work effectively. The Good Friday Agreement provided for a joint committee of the two commissions to consider the development of a charter of rights for the island of Ireland. Whereas the two commissions completed a draft of the elements to be contained in the charter, there is still much work to be done. It is imperative that the new human rights and equality body is resourced and mandated adequately in order to carry on this work.

Sinn Féin, led by Deputy Jonathan O'Brien, introduced a Bill to the Dáil to strengthen the Irish Human Rights Commission following the Government's proposal of a merger with the Equality Authority. This Bill would have the effect of increasing the Irish Human Rights Commission's remit and would have given it the protection and status it deserves as a crucial element of the human rights provisions of the Good Friday Agreement. What we see here today is simply a cover for cuts, and both of these organisations are already under-resourced. I am particularly mindful of the resignation of Mr. Niall Crowley, who was chairman of the Equality Authority in 2008 when he was faced with a 32% cut in the authority's budget. It was an unworkable position; he did the right thing and the stand he took at the time was admirable. How could the equality infrastructure and citizens' rights be defended either in that authority or the Irish Human Rights Commission when their ability to do so is being worn away? How could these bodies be a cornerstone of the democratic process and protect citizens' rights while holding the Government to account and ensuring that the State implements and meets obligations to international human rights conventions while resources are being cut time after time? My party and I stand by the Human Rights Commission (Amendment) Bill 2011 as it is better for human rights in this State.

At this point I highlight as clearly as I can that the Labour Party was most vocal in its opposition to a proposed merger when Fianna Fáil and the Green Party were in Government. At the time, the current Tánaiste, Deputy Gilmore, accused that Government of "trying to turn back the clock on the equality agenda". He deemed such a merger an "ominous" proposal. It seems the position is now different for both the Tánaiste and the Labour Party. This evening I urge them to make their feelings known on this issue to their Fine Gael Government partners. How much longer can the Labour Party sit on the Government benches and bow down to Fine Gael?

This merger undermines the human rights provisions of the Good Friday Agreement and can only lead to a loss of focus and expertise. If the Government is to live up to its commitments under the Good Friday Agreement - an internationally recognised agreement - then it must ensure these institutions are protected. I call on all Members in this House to oppose the retrograde merger proposals of the Government.

Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Finian McGrath is sharing time with Deputy Pringle.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach for the opportunity to speak on this new piece of legislation, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Bill. I welcome this important debate, as we must be vigilant about human rights and protect our citizens at all times. This Bill is relevant to what has happened in recent weeks, as we have regularly seen the rights of people being trampled on, whether the person involved is a whistleblower, a person with a disability, a victim of crime, a Member of the Oireachtas or a child in a preschool in Darndale threatened with closure because the Government cannot find €100,000 to fund that fantastic child care service. I stand for these human rights issues and the rights of these young children in particular. If the Government is to put flesh on this Bill, it must focus on Government and public bodies that do not deliver on the human rights and equality agenda. If this is not done on the ground, the Bill will be an irrelevant sham. I urge the Minister to deal with the issue of delivering on human rights in this State.

I previously mentioned children with special needs and those who need assistance. There are 15,776 children waiting for speech and language assessment and, altogether, 1,639 children have waited for more than a year for an initial assessment for speech and language problems. I raise the human rights of these children, who have waited months for assessment by a HSE speech and language therapist.

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Bill 2014 provides for the establishment of a new body to protect and promote human rights and equality – the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC. It dissolves two existing organisations, the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Equality Authority. Staff of the two organisations will transfer to the new body and be civil servants of the State. I commend the fantastic work done by Mr. Niall Crowley on equality and human rights.

The Irish Human Rights Commission, IHRC, was established on foot of the Good Friday Agreement which requires the Government to ensure "at least an equivalent level of protection of human rights as will pertain in Northern Ireland". The primary duty of a human rights body is to hold the State to account inupholding human rights. All members of the Opposition should recognise that it is our duty to hold the State and the Government to account. The IHRC is accredited with the highest A status by the United Nations which measures national human rights institutions against international benchmarks known as the Paris Principles. We need to ensure the Good Friday Agreement is implemented in full. This is linked with human rights. I am very concerned, however, that the Bill undermines the Agreement. There has been horrific sectarianism in recent weeks in parts of Belfast where the minority is under threat. Politicians such as Anna Lo and Naomi Long have been attacked and abused for the stance they have taken and the silence down here in many quarters has been deafening. Even today there was an attack on the home of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter. While the Minister and I would not share a political ideology, I totally and utterly condemn what happened at his home this morning. It was unacceptable. We all have political differences, but there is no room for threats, bomb threats, sectarianism or racism. I unconditionally condemn and deplore the attack on the Minister’s house.

In addition to sectarianism and racism, we must also consider age as a ground for equality legislation. Many senior citizens feel believe they have done their bit, but they are being ignored and discriminated against. Membership of the Traveller community is another. There have been attacks on Travellers, young men and women, and houses burned out. This problem is getting worse. We are dealing positively with equality in respect of sexual orientation. I commend the proposals and urge people when the referendum is held to implement what they believe in. We want to build a modern, inclusive Ireland in which everybody is respected and enjoys difference and diversity. That is equality.

Equality legislation must also take account of disability. Tens of thousands of people with physical and intellectual disabilities are not yet part of mainstream society. We have moved a long way, but that does not mean we should stop. We have to ensure their rights and services are protected. When we debate issues such as the carry-on at the Central Remedial Clinic or Rehab, we should not take our eye off the ball and forget people with disabilities. We should not be distracted by others in respect of cuts to these services. This should be part of the legislation.

The regulatory impact assessment of the Bill states the merger is expected to save in the region of €500,000. The Department has stated these moneys will be available to support the core work of the new commission. I hope that will happen.

While it is important that the Bill cover the human rights of people with disabilities, gay people and senior citizens, we must broaden it out to the international level. The United Nations was founded in 1945 after the Second World War and now has 193 member states. According to its website:

The UN has 4 main purposesTo keep peace throughout the world;

To develop friendly relations among nations;

To help nations work together to improve the lives of poor people, to conquer hunger, disease and illiteracy, and to encourage respect for each other’s rights and freedoms;

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations to achieve these goals.

Section 12 sets out the membership of the commission and provides that it will consist of not more than 15 and not less than 12 members, a sensible number, one of whom will be the chief commissioner. There must be equal representation of men and women and each member will hold office for no more than five years. I welcome this because it ensures equality between men and women and five years is a sensible term. Seven appointed members will be appointed for a three year term and the remaining eight members, including the chief commissioner, will be appointed for a five year term. A person appointed to the Human Rights Commission on 16 April 2013 may be appointed a member of the commission. Section 13 outlines the appointment process for membership of the commission. It is important for it to be open and transparent and that high quality people join the commission.

We must examine closely our law and international law. Ireland has a dualist approach to international law which treats domestic and international law as two different and separate systems of law. This is provided for under the Constitution by way of Article 29.6 which provides: “No international agreement shall be part of the domestic law of the State save as may be determined by the Oireachtas”. I strongly support this Article. International treaties signed and ratified by Ireland do not automatically become part of the domestic law of the State. In order to be enforceable and binding at domestic level, such treaties must be domestically incorporated, either by way of an Act of the Oireachtas or as an amendment to the Constitution. I like to see the Oireachtas take a strong view on this position.

The explanatory memorandum to the Bill states:

The main purposes of the Bill are to:

provide for the establishment of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission;

to provide for the dissolution of the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Authority [the issue of concern to some of us] and the transfer of their functions to the new Commission...

strengthen and enhance the powers of the new Commission;

introduce a positive duty on public bodies to have due regard to human rights and equality.

The new commission is being established to be recognised by the United Nations as Ireland’s national human rights institution and there are many good points in the legislation. I have mentioned my concerns.

It is important to deal with human rights from a legislative point of view but we must also implement policies on the ground. If we respect people from different backgrounds and create a society built on equality and respect for human rights, there will be a positive vibe within the State and violence and injustice will be reduced. However, we must start at an early age. I referred earlier to the pre-school in Darndale which is looking for €100,000. That is a classic example. The school's 260 disadvantaged pupils need this service and an early intervention will cost the State less in the long term.

I welcome the debate on this Bill but I have concerns about certain provisions. As I am aware that the Government has the numbers to pass it, I urge the Minister to ensure the positive parts of it are implemented at the earliest opportunity.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Bill 2014 provides for the establishment of a new body to protect and promote human rights and equality, the Irish human rights and equality commission, IHREC. It merges and dissolves two existing organisations, the Irish Human Rights Commission, IHRC, and the Equality Authority. The Bill also seeks to implement a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights by amending the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 to provide for an enforceable right to compensation for a person found to be unlawfully deprived of her or his liberty as a result of a judicial act. I welcome that provision in the Bill but, unfortunately, I cannot welcome the amalgamation of the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Equality Authority because it is a retrograde step.

The Irish Human Rights Commission was established on foot of the Good Friday Agreement, which requires the Irish Government to ensure at least an equivalent level of protection of human rights as that which pertains in Northern Ireland. The primary duty of a human rights body is to hold the State to account in upholding human rights. The IHRC is currently accredited with the highest A-status by the United Nations, which measures national human rights institutions against international benchmarks, known as the Paris principles. The standing of the commission is likely to be reviewed on foot of the passing of this Bill. The Equality Authority was established in 1999 to replace the Employment Equality Agency. The authority works towards the elimination of discrimination and promotes equality in employment and the provision of goods and services across nine grounds that have been well rehearsed in this House. Among its other work, the authority advises individuals on how to pursue actions. I wonder whether that provision will continue apply under the Bill now before us where an investigation is conducted by the new body.

The Minister, Deputy Shatter, stated that the reason for the merger is to promote human rights and equality issues in a more efficient, effective and coherent way. An impact assessment of the Bill projected that it would save €500,000 per year. The Minister also stated that he increased the allocation for the new commission to €1.9 million last December. While that is welcome, the new commission will have a shortfall of €1.5 million in the funding available to it compared to the combined funding for its predecessors in 2009. That will seriously impact on its ability to carry out its work.

Equality advocates and human rights NGOs have expressed concerns about the Bill and there appears to be unanimous opposition to the merger. The Equality Rights Alliance, a coalition of over 170 bodies and activists, is opposed to the merger and suggests that three separate statutory bodies are necessary, namely, the Irish Human Rights Commission, a reconstituted Equality Authority and the Equality Tribunal. I am aware that the Equality Tribunal is not affected by this Bill. However, even though people who are involved on a day to day basis with issues of equality and human rights are opposed to the merger, the Government is proceeding with the Bill.

It should be necessary for the new body to treat human rights and equality issues fairly. Following a similar merger in the UK, equality issues took precedence over human rights and funding was allocated in an uneven fashion. International research has found insufficient evidence to indicate whether integrated bodies function better or worse than separate free standing national equality bodies and national human rights institutions. That is something we need to keep under review after the Bill is passed.

The Bill provides two different definitions of human rights. Concern has been expressed about this inconsistency. Section 29 of the Bill sets out a different definition of human rights to the definition contained in section 2. While the definition in section 29 is proposed to apply to the enforcement powers of the new commission, it will create problems for enforcement. The narrower definition proposed in sections 29 requires that the human rights in question have force of law in the State. This means such rights would need to be enshrined in legislation or at a constitutional level before they could be applicable to the functions and powers of the IHREC. In practical terms, it is suggested that the IHREC would be limited in protecting human rights because it could only directly encompass consideration of the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights at a sub-constitutional level through its implementation into Irish law by the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, and existing domestic equality legislation. The IHRC notes that as the State has a practice of not directly incorporating international treaties into national law, this would effectively exclude a number of significant treaties and conventions from consideration. According to the IHRC, the inability of the IHREC to respond to alleged breaches of the fundamental rights protections contained in these treaties would significantly undermine the credibility of the new body. If the Government is serious about human rights it will give the new commission powers to enforce the provisions contained in treaties to which this country has signed up. This issue could have significant implications from a human rights perspective. For example, the survivors of symphysiotomy made a submission claiming that the State violated the UN Convention against Torture by failing to initiate an independent inquiry and restitution scheme for victims of the scandal. The new commission would not be able to examine such a claim. To take another example, will it be able to examine the operation of direct provision in this State?

Questions also arise in regard to the independence of the new commission. It has been asserted that the increased accountability of the new IHREC to the Department of Justice and Equality is not conducive to independence or high-performance. The Scottish Human Rights Commission, which was created in 2008 and has since emerged as a model of best practice, is solely accountable to the Scottish Legislative Assembly and has no links to the Executive. The threshold proposed in the Bill for the carrying out of an inquiry by the commission is higher than existing equality legislation. The proposed threshold is the term"grave public concern", as opposed to the current term "any purpose connected with the performance of its functions". This may in practice limit the ability of the new commission to carry out inquiries.

Much has been made about the imposition of a positive duty on public bodies to have regard for equality and human rights in their work. However, while this provision is welcome, there is no provision for enforcing it. If we are to have meaningful human rights and equality legislation, every Department and public agency should be forced by law to take account of the duty. Successive budgets introduced by the current and previous Governments have given rise to questions about the equality or otherwise of actions taken.

The Irish Human Rights Commission and the Equality Authority should be able to look into that and should be able to make decisions in that regard. If we want to build an equal and fair society, we should be providing for that in legislation.

Most other jurisdictions have separate national equality bodies and national human rights institutions. Some countries have merged them, but a recent study found that there was insufficient evidence to say whether integrated bodies work better or worse than separate and free standing equality and human rights organisations. We should maintain the independence of both the human rights commission and the Equality Authority and strengthen them, and provide them with the resources to ensure that they can act to ensure that all public bodies comply with human rights and have enforceable powers to ensure that human rights and equality is complied with right across the State, because that is the only way that we can build a fair and equality society. We need that oversight and that rule.

Finally, on the membership of the commission, I note the members of the commission were appointed last year and they are proposed to be the members of the new commission. While the legislation states that the Paris Principles will be used in setting up the commission, the membership of the commission should be specified within the legislation as well. The Paris Principles state that non-governmental organisations and trade unions and Parliament should be represented on the commission and the legislation could be strengthened by including that in it.

Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Stanton. The Deputy is speaking in his capacity as Chair of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. As the Minister stated, Deputy Stanton, as Chair of that committee, with his colleagues, held pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bill. This was a new provision introduced in November last. I recognise Deputy Stanton as Chair of that committee.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think it is a first for this new provision has and I am delighted to be here this evening as Chair of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality representing my colleagues on the committee. This, as the Acting Chairman, Deputy Jerry Buttimer, stated, is a new provision that was put in train last year so that the chairs of committee can come into the Chamber and make a presentation on the work of the committee and on the legislation before the House.

The decision to merge the Equality Authority and the human rights commission was made by the Government in 2011, and there has been much consultation since then. A working group was established by the Minister in October 2011 to advise him on the practical issues in the proposed merger. I understand there were four representatives from each of the boards of the two existing organisations together with representation from the Department of Justice and Equality and an independent chair. The group, I am told, reported on 19 April 2012 and made a number of recommendations under 42 separate headings and all of these were accepted by Government. After that, there was a comprehensive consultation process involving 69 submissions. The Minister then decided to refer the general scheme to the joint committee, which it was hoped would also help in raising public awareness.

We considered the general scheme of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Bill in June 2012. In particular, we were asked to examine head 13, which provides for the process in which a new commission would be selected and appointed. We were asked to come back with any proposals within a short period, and we did so. We made a number of recommendations including that the commission should be gender balanced; that those on the commission should have a proven track record and expertise in the field of human rights and equality; and, a person who served on the panel should be ineligible to become a member of the commission the members of which the panel is selecting. The joint committee also stated it would like to meet the members of the selection panel.

The selection panel was put in place. A number of Members already stressed the importance of the independence of the Irish Human Rights Commission, and, of course, the issue arose of who appoints the selection panel. If the Minister or the Executive was seen to appoint a selection panel and then the selection panel was to appoint the commission, it could quite rightly be argued that maybe it was not hands-off enough. This led to a certain amount of confusion. When the selection panel was appointed, the United Nations was consulted by the Minister, who wanted to be sure that everything was being done properly, and at that stage there was a certain amount of discussion and, I suppose, a little confusion. The selection panel actually stood aside because of that because it felt the Government was not hands-off enough at the time. Some discussions took place and then something novel and laudable happened in that it was proposed that the selection panel would come before and present to the joint Oireachtas committee. That gave all members of the joint Oireachtas committee an opportunity to engage with the selection panel, to comment on the persons who were on the selection panel and to ascertain whether they would be suitable to carry on the job - in other words, whether they were independent enough. One should bear in mind that the committee comprises, as all Oireachtas committees have, members from all parties and none.

We engaged quite constructively with the selection panel and when it was over, every member of the committee was satisfied that the persons concerned were independent and fit, and had the expertise and the ability, and the interest and the energy, to nominate and appoint the members of the proposed human rights and equality commission. They went with fair wind, and that was useful. It was a unanimous decision by all members of the committee present. No one dissented. This is not like the situation in some states where there is a kind of star chamber of inquisition. That was not the case. The members of the selection panel had an opportunity to make presentations to the committee and the committee was quite satisfied with that.

The Bill itself was also presented to the committee, which then looked for submissions under pre-legislative scrutiny. We received 15 submissions on the heads of the Bill. These came from the Irish Human Rights Commission and Irish Council for Civil Liberties, two submissions; Equality Rights Alliance, two submissions; European Group on National Human Rights Institutions; Children's Rights Alliance; Mr. Pat McCarthy, a member of the public, which is interesting because it is welcome that individual members of the public, not only NGOs, can make submissions to Oireachtas committees; the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network; Disability Federation of Ireland; Irish Congress of Trade Unions; Pobal; the Equality Authority; the Committee on the Administration of Justice; Senator Ivana Bacik; and, Senator Katherine Zappone.

The committee held two public meetings, on 4 and 5 July 2013, having invited some of those who made submissions to address the committee in person. I thank those who made submissions. A lot of work and thought goes into it. The Equality Rights Alliance addressed the committee in person, as did representatives from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, the Children's Rights Alliance; the Irish Human Rights Commission, the Equality Authority, etc. Following two days of hearings, the committee produced a report with observations, representative of the submissions made as part of the consultation process which was then used to inform the drafting of today's Bill, published on 21 March 2014.

The committee made a number of observations. One was on the definition of human rights and equality, heads 3 and 30. The committee was told that there was an inconsistency in the definition of equality at heads 3 and 30 which needed to be addressed. It is essential that there be one unified definition of human rights and equality under the Bill. I understand, from reading it, that there is no definition of equality in the Bill, as drafted. Maybe there does not need to be. At any rate, there is a definition of human rights. The Bill, as drafted, still contains a separate definition of human rights in Part 3 to the other sections. It was also submitted to the committee that the definition was too narrow and that additional discrimination grounds should be considered, for example, socioeconomic status, trade union membership, past criminal conviction and political opinion.

Independence was also mentioned. It was put to the committee that the new commission should be detached from the Department of Justice and Equality, and that it should not only be independent but also be seen to be independent. The Irish Human Rights Commission specifically recommended that it be directly accountable instead to the Oireachtas.

This has been provided for in section 25, which deals with the strategy statement, section 27, which deals with accounts, and in section 28, which deals with the presentation of the annual report. Section 14 provides for the removal of a commission member from office on the agreement of both Houses of the Oireachtas. During this process, it was also suggested that financial accountability should be directed to the Comptroller and Auditor General. The director, as financial controller, will be accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts and other Oireachtas committees. Section 22 provides for financial accountability to the Comptroller and Auditor General.

The next issue raised concerns the appointment of the director. Most groups that came before the committee agreed that the appointments process was much better and more transparent than previously. However, concern was expressed that the selection of panel members would be decided by the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Public Appointments Service. It was put to the committee that provision 5 of head 17, that the first director of the commission shall be the chief executive of the Equality Authority, is in conflict with the Paris Principles and some contributors strongly recommended the deletion of the provision. I welcome the fact that the Paris Principles are explicitly cited in the new Bill. The appointment of the director is provided for in sections 20 and 21 of the new Bill and a temporary director will take up this position if it is in place before the commission is established.

The body should be empowered to recruit its own staff and there should be no Civil Service secondment to the body at senior level. Recruitment, in general, takes place through the Public Appointments Service. However, section 24 provides for the temporary employment of persons for specialist purposes by the commission. Such persons can be experts in a particular area or topic on which the commission is working and may be released by their public, private or NGO employer to work with the commission for the duration of the project. In accordance with the Paris Principles, the Bill states that all staff employed by the commission will be under the control and direction of the commission. There is no provision for secondment.

Regarding membership of the commission, most groups recommended that more specific criteria for appointment to the commission should be set out in head 13 of the legislation as to the skills and attributes necessary for each commissioner. It is suggested that at least one person on the commission should have experience in governance, administration and organisational management and also experience in employment law and industrial relations. Membership of the commission, as provided for in section 12, will be the current members designate. Members will be to appointed by the President on recommendation by the Oireachtas, with upcoming vacant positions advertised by the Public Appointments Service. Section 13(5) outlines the qualification criteria for inclusion in the commission, such as human rights, matters of law, equality matters of law, public administration and reform and board management and corporate governance. Selection criteria will be agreed by the MinIster for Justice and Equality and the Public Appointments Service. Gender balance and minorities criteria are also listed in parts of section 13. Staff of the Commission will transfer from the current bodies and they shall become civil servants and so not amenable to instruction from Government or Ministers. This is in line with Paris Principles.

Much was taken on board from the recommendations of the committee. Head 36 deals with public service duty and was welcomed by all but it was suggested that the provision should be strengthened. The obligation on public bodies to give consideration to equality and human rights is not sufficiently defined. For example, the term 'give consideration' could be defined as requiring public bodies to conduct equality and human rights impact assessments of all new policies and programmes. Further, sanctions could be established in cases where an adequate standard is not achieved by public bodies. The Bill introduces, through section 42, a positive duty on public bodies to have due regard to human rights and equality and reflects a commitment in the Government's programme for national recovery 2011-16. The commission will assist public bodies to comply with positive duty, including by producing guidelines and codes of practice, as outlined in section 31.

The committee agreed that the legislation generally should ensure that the establishment of the new commission is carried out in accordance with the Paris Principles as interpreted by the sub-committee on accreditation of the International Co-ordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions. Reference was made to that by colleagues concerned about the point. The explanatory memorandum of the Bill states that the new commission is being established with the intention of being recognised, as the Irish Human Rights Commission currently is, by the UN as Ireland's national human rights institution accredited for UN purposes in accordance with provisions of the Paris Principles - best practice standards which ensure independent and effective national human rights Institutions that operate independently of Government and have the mandate and resources to work effectively. The Minister has agreed to increase the budget and has found €2 million for the new body. He has also increased staffing levels.

Section 35 provides that the commission may, of its own volition or at the request of the Minister, conduct an inquiry. This shows the independence of the commission.

I want to be associated with the remarks of colleagues, who are no longer in the Chamber, who condemned the attack on the Minister's house. Human rights, equality and fundamental freedoms are of great importance. There is an ugliness out there at the moment. A candidate for the European elections was spat on and insulted. I am ashamed to say that it happened in Cork. Social media gives a certain licence and freedom to people to violate human rights and attack and insult people. We should have a look at that. More and more people are subjected to bullying and other attacks on social media. It is a growing phenomenon and people can get very upset. People have taken their own lives because of it. We must work to combat this and find ways to track down these people, punish them and ensure they cannot do it again.

I am taken with the convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, some of which include the obligation to respect human rights, the right to life, the prohibition of torture, and the prohibition of slavery and forced labour. Last week I attended a presentation by people concerned with prostitution, slavery and forced labour and trafficking in Ireland. Other principles include the right to liberty and security, the right to a fair trial, the principle of no punishment without law, the right to respect for private and family life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association, the right to marry, the right to an effective remedy and the prohibition of discrimination

These are absolutely essential and should be discussed and taught in every school and in every classroom. These rights should be teased out in transition year classes across the country. What do they mean? What does the obligation to respect human rights mean? What is that about? What does the right to liberty and security actually mean? What do the freedoms of thought, conscience and religion and of expression and of assembly and association actually mean? They should be spelled out in our classrooms. It is one of the most important things we could do if these topics were part of transition year. Some young people from Castletownbere appeared before the Oireachtas committee last week. Deputy Sean Kenny was present for their fantastic presentation on trafficking. They were articulate, inspiring and amazing. Last year, people appeared before the Oireachtas committee and spoke about missing persons. In fairness, the Minister took on the suggestion to have an international missing persons day. It occurred last December. There are major issues we must take on board.

Senator Zappone, a hardworking member of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Defence, has been listening to this debate. She made a suggestion, which I want to put on record and which I have discussed with colleagues. I have the honour of chairing the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Defence for the moment and, on foot of this Bill and the importance of human rights, we suggest changing the name to justice, equality, human rights and defence. This adds on human rights and presents the committee as the overseer of human rights provisions in legislation coming before the Houses. This will quality proof and human rights proof Bills. It happens in other jurisdictions, such as New Zealand and the UK, where there is early and ongoing consideration of human rights policy and legislative development. These measures can improve the parliamentary scrutiny of the laws for consistency with rights and freedoms. In New Zealand, a statement of compatibility is produced. The suggestion of a human rights parliamentary scrutiny committee from Senator Zappone is a good one. We should discuss and debate it and see how we can fit in to our procedures and methods of working.

The pre-legislative scrutiny of legislation takes a long time. It is a totally new provision in my 17 years in the House. In the past Bills were produced as a fait accompli. They were introduced in the House on Second Stage and it was very difficult to make any fundamental changes because in some cases one would almost have to redraft the Bill from scratch. Pre-legislative scrutiny means that NGOs, the ordinary citizen and State agencies - anybody and everybody - can examine the heads of a Bill before it is formally drafted and have an input into it. The Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Defence has gone through this procedure with a number of Bills including the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill, which was previously the Mental Capacity Bill. That was a huge piece of work. The work the committee did and the fact that the Department took on the suggestions, as it did with this Bill, means the Oireachtas committees are having a huge input into legislation before Bills are even published. The National Vetting Bureau Bill (Children and Vulnerable Persons) is another Bill we examined and the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences Against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Bill. The Personal Insolvency Bill was a huge piece of legislation in which the Acting Chairman, Deputy Mathews, is very interested. We also examined the Mediation Bill, which is due to come before the House shortly. We expect the Gambling Control Bill to be produced in the near future. We are currently involved in the same process in that tomorrow we have hearings on the Children and Family Relationships Bill. The Criminal Justice (Community Sanctions) Bill is due and the criminal procedure Bill, among others. With each of the Bills listed we went through the procedure of inviting submissions, holding oral hearings, engaging with people, teasing out the fundamental issues and sending a report back to the Department and the Minister. In many instances we received letters from the Minister and the Department thanking us for the work we have done and in some cases taking on board all of the suggestions made by the committee, which one should remember in many instances come from society in general. It is a way for people to have an input into legislation at a very early stage, before it is drafted. It is easier to make changes at that time than it is after the Bill is formally published, so much so that a lot of legislation that comes to the House on Second Stage requires little debate given the work that has previously been done by committees, not just the justice committee but many of the other committees also.

In addition, when a Bill reaches Committee Stage we do not have many amendments to make because the fundamental work has been covered already. It is a fantastic way to proceed. It adds to the work of Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas but it is extraordinarily useful and worthwhile. I thank my fellow committee members for their work on all the Bills I outlined and other reports as well in the past three years. The work they have done and the input they have had to very many technical, detailed and in some cases controversial issues.

I commend the Minister on the work he and his departmental officials have done to date on the Bill and other legislation. I accept some Opposition Members have raised issues but my feeling is that there is a huge overlap between the Equality Authority and the Human Rights Commission and it makes sense to bring them together under one commission. The savings made will be ploughed back into the new body which will be stronger, leaner, more efficient and far more effective. That is what we want.

We must be ever-vigilant about human rights and equality. We cannot let our guard down for a moment. We must be most careful, in particular with the advent of social media and texting. One of the first Bills I dealt with in 1999 to 2000 on being elected to the House was on copyright. The previous Bill was from 1963. At that time Members were concerned about the advent of television and the impact it would have on society. In the debate in 1999 and 2000 we were concerned about the new-fangled device of the Internet, whether it would catch on and what impact it would have. As science and technology change we must be ever-vigilant and careful about human rights. We must protect them, champion them and recognise them. We must also educate people about them. Far more is required than just putting a Bill on the Statute Book and saying everything is grand. We must change the mindset of people so that when people stand for election and knock on doors they are treated with respect. It is to be expected that people might not agree with candidates who knock on our doors but they should be treated with a certain amount of respect and although one might say he or she does not agree with the point of view of the candidate he or she should politely thank the candidate and say goodnight. Rather than have candidates being abused I urge people to treat with respect those who put their heads above the parapet and stand for election.

In Afghanistan earlier this week we saw people queuing although they were under threat of life and limb for exercising their franchise. Thankfully, a surprising number of Afghan people voted. A vote is something very precious and democracy is very precious. Democracy is a thin veneer on civilisation. I read a book recently about violence through the ages. I cannot recall the title of the book but it made the point that, thankfully, in western Europe today we live in the safest most peaceful place that ever existed. That is because we have democracy and the rule of law. We cannot ever take it for granted. A number of years ago in south Africa when people got their freedom they travelled for miles in the heat and queued for hours for the right to vote, which is a precious right. We should really cherish it. I urge the media when commenting on politicians and election candidates not to treat them as if they are something one would find under one’s shoe. That happens and such commentary fuels hatred for politicians, elected representatives and the democratic process. It is a dangerous thing to do. I will end on that note.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The next speaker is Deputy Kyne who I understand is sharing time with Deputies Sean Kenny and they will have five minutes each. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Bill. It is a key deliverable of the public sector reform plan published in 2011 in terms of the streamlining of our State bodies. I acknowledge that the acting chairman designate, at the launch of the annual reports for 2013 of the Equality Authority and the Irish Human Rights Commission in November of last year, stated that it is a testimony to how far the process of combining the work of the two distinct organisations has progressed.

The Bill is an excellent example of the new pre-legislative scrutiny, a process by which the main themes of the Bill are published and then examined in a meaningful and helpful way through engagement and consultation with the public and civil society organisations. I pay tribute to the Minister on his work on the Bill and to my Oireachtas colleagues who sit on the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, chaired by Deputy David Stanton, who has just spoken and given a thoughtful, provoking speech and made a number of valid and welcome comments. The committee held substantive public meetings and heard from a wide range of interested parties before publishing a helpful report.

Originally the Irish Human Rights Commission was established following the Good Friday Agreement and it become the main body tasked with holding the State to account in terms of respecting human rights. Acknowledgement of the rights enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights along with respect for these rights is the main characteristic of a civilised society. It differentiates our nation and those in Europe from nations elsewhere which continue to deprive and denigrate their peoples. It must be said that our State has not always respected and vindicated rights.

There is plenty of evidence which demonstrates that. Even today we do not always get things right, and we could do certain things better. However, the crucial difference between today and the past is the way we strive to uphold and vindicate the fundamental rights which are ascribed to people by virtue of being human.

The 2008 budget cuts of 43% to the Equality Authority and 32% to the Irish Human Rights Commission, IHRC, were astounding. All organisations had to contribute at such a time of financial instability and uncertainty but the levels of cuts were truly disproportionate. They were also implemented at a time when the temptation to save money without due regard to human rights was at its greatest.

It goes without saying that every TD in this House, and every TD who ever sat in this House, has been contacted by people who have been deprived of their rights. The TD's office is often seen as the last port of call for a person seeking to have their rights upheld. In this regard, I particularly welcome the measures that will seek to instill a culture of respect for human rights across public sector organisations. I hope that in time the necessity of appeals bodies, human rights watchdogs and others will be lessened because of this new culture.

I am aware of the concerns of some regarding the merger of the IRHC and the Equality Authority and the possible problems regarding the difference between equality and human rights. I appreciate these concerns but I also see the overlapping functions between the two previously separate organisations and I see an overlap between the concept of human rights and equality. If human rights are respected and vindicated fully among all citizens, then, in theory, inequality is not an issue and should not arise. Of course, everyday life is more complex than this. However, I believe that the work of both the IHRC and the Equality Authority through the new Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC can help foster a culture which delivers greater respect for human rights.

On the subject of delivery, I welcome the Minister's statement that the new IHREC will unequivocally keep faith with the Paris Principles - the peer reviewed accreditation for human rights commissions. I would hope and urge that in the review of the new organisation in terms of the Paris Principles that any shortcomings that are identified, which may affect the current "A" status which the IHRC has, will be addressed without delay. One of the main principles of the Paris Principles concerns adequate human and financial resources. While a sound legislative basis and a strong commitment at political level are essential, so too are resources. The IHREC can only be as effective as possible as long as it is properly resourced. In this context, I believe there will always be a tension, and a possible problem, when the organisation tasked with holding the Government to account on human rights and equality issues is financially dependent on that Government. Section 26, which covers funding, contains a commitment that such funding will be reasonably sufficient to allow the commission to fulfil its mandate. In straitened times there would be concerns that this budget would be greatly reduced, as occurred, as I outlined, in the 2008 cuts.

We should examine ways of linking the financing the new IHREC with an independent measure, for example, that the funding would always a percentage of GDP or GNP or would never fall below a certain minimum threshold. It is essential that the new IHREC receives the proper resources in order that it can carry out its very important work.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Bill and I wish to see the merger of the Equality Authority and the Human Rights Commission succeed. I want to see it strengthen and enhance Ireland's institutions for the protection of equality and human rights. Since April 2013, the two existing bodies have been operating as a cohesive unit under the direction of the members designate of the new commission. The existing Human Rights Commission is accredited with the United Nations "A" status as Ireland's national human rights institution. The Equality Authority was established in compliance with a number of EU equality directives. All of this is significant as it demonstrates that Ireland is addressing its human rights obligations within approved internationally recognised structures, including compliance with the Paris Principles, and they have also exceeded best practice standards in regard to EU equality bodies.

I support the Minister in his belief that the stronger legislation base, which the Bill provides, along with the enhanced powers and a wider mandate, will ensure that new commission is well placed to be successful in its forthcoming application to the United Nations to obtain re-accreditation as Ireland's recognised national human rights institution. I also note and very much welcome the measures the Government has taken on a practical level - an additional €2 million was provided for the IHREC in budget 2014 together with an interim staffing complement of 47. That is a reverse of the disproportionate Fianna Fáil cuts to this important area of Irish public policy during the term of the previous Government.

The new commission's enhanced powers and wider mandate will positively influence its capacity to address discrimination and promote equal treatment on all grounds, and to protect human rights in Ireland. For example, a new duty will be introduced obliging public bodies to have regard, in the performance of their functions, of the need to eliminate discrimination and promote equality of opportunity and treatment. The new commission will be explicitly empowered to further support public bodies in meeting their obligations under this duty such as advising on the development of performance measures, operating standards and preventative strategies, as stated in the programme for Government.

The commission will have a power of public inquiry in situations where there is evidence of a serious violation of human rights or equality of treatment obligations or a systematic failure to comply with human rights or equality treatment obligations, as this is a matter of serious public concern. This is of greater importance in the area of direct provision, a system that I believe is deeply flawed and in dire need of reform. It is also useful in terms of penal reform, and while much progress has been made in this regard in the past year or so, I believe more is needed. The commission will be able to influence this further required progress.

It is important to mention that the opportunity this Bill presents is being taken to amend the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 to provide for an enforceable right of compensation for a person whose detention is found to be in breach of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and where the detention was a result of a judicial error. This is a requirement of Article 5, paragraph 5 of the convention. The proposed amendment follows an appeal of a Supreme Court judgment in the DG case to the European Court of Human Rights which found that Ireland is in breach of the convention by reason of not having an enforceable right to compensation in cases where unlawful deprivation of liberty is a result of a judicial error.

I wish to raise, as a human rights issue, the need to outlaw discrimination against people in receipt of rent supplement who are seeking private rented accommodation. This legislation would tackle the unacceptable culture which exists that discriminates against people on economic grounds. I ask the Minister to say how this matter could be addressed by way of legislation.

The Minister for Justice and Equality got a lot of flak last week and Labour Deputies who supported him got some flak also. This legislation is an example of why the Minister, Deputy Shatter, is being supported so strongly. A lot more has been done in the area of human rights than was done under 14 years of Fianna Fáil Administration. I am pleased to be a part of that as a Member of this House and also a member of the Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. On a final note, I utterly deplore the attack on the Minister's home last week.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on this important legislation, which provides for something to which we all aspire. Like other speakers, I would like to roundly condemn the attack on the Minister's home recently. Such activity, brought on for whatever reason, is unacceptable. It is a breach of human rights. It is also a breach of basic democracy for anybody to decide that they have the right to take something out on somebody because they disliked something the person said, disliked the person for religious reasons, reasons of sexual orientation or whatever the case may be. They have no right to engage in such activity and are attempting to deprive others of their basic democratic rights. It goes without saying that those who tend to move in that direction should be warned that this is not the first time that has happened. We have had such incidents before, great and small, all over this country and all over the globe and we should have learned a lesson from them. If we have not learned a lesson from them by now, then unfortunately, we are beyond learning. I hope we have not gone that far yet.

I welcome the legislation and pay respect to the work of those who dealt with human rights and equality issues previously, Mr. Crowley, and a former colleague, Mr. Maurice Manning.

They did a very difficult job and established certain cornerstones on equality and human rights which hopefully will stand the test of time and be reinforced in the legislation.

There is an old saying that one person's human rights could be an abuse of somebody else's human rights but this is not necessarily so. If we live in a world of reasonable equality where we respect each other we should not find ourselves in a position where we must trample on somebody else's rights to gain our own. Neither should we have our rights trampled upon by others for whatever reason. The rights of the individual are sacrosanct and must be borne in mind at all times. Failure to do so is a serious flaw in our society.

Deputy Stanton passed remarks on the activities of somebody abusing a candidate in the European elections. The people who do such things may feel brave. They may feel they represent something they read on social media or heard on a street corner and that they are carrying out some deed on behalf of society. Sadly they are not. All they are doing is reproducing again the appalling basic human weaknesses of arrogance and an unwillingness to recognise anybody else's position but one's own.

An important matter all of us in the business of public life know is that we must recognise the right to free speech, not necessarily to offend others but to speak and represent ourselves and those around us. If we fail to do so, and if we fail to observe these rights, we are not doing our job. It comes back to basic democracy. From the fledgling time of emerging democracies all over the globe the very first sign of democracy and society breaking down was when there were those who refused to listen to the other point of view.

The other point of view must be borne in mind and the manner in which the view is expressed is also important. We do not have to express the view as if we were speaking to a condemned person in a cell. We can extol the virtues of what we hold sincerely and dearly without causing offence to the other person. Recently I saw two people exchange views in a public place. Members of the public had a most insulting attitude towards a public representative for no reason except prejudice, begrudgery and a feeling society had done them a bad deed or had given them a short straw. I believe it was Voltaire who advised us not to spend so much time complaining about the hand of cards life dealt us but to spend a little more time on playing them effectively to win the game. This was good advice.

The Celtic tiger certainly did many good things for us. It gave us new life and vision and the impression we could do things which previously seemed to be beyond our reach. It also gave us a certain amount of arrogance that if we were not able to achieve our own aspirations we had to blame somebody for it and we could take it out on those who appeared to be in the way. Something very similar happened in the 1930s all over the globe. In the United States John Steinbeck wrote about the rolling hordes of people who found themselves jobless, homeless and roaming across the States looking for work and a reason to exist. Steinbeck looked at it very carefully and showed how the human being reacts in certain circumstances. Some withstood the test, some did not and some fell appallingly short of it.

At that time in the United States President Roosevelt was the right person in the right place as it happened. He convinced the people to hold on, that good would prevail eventually and that they would survive. He coerced them, challenged them, threatened them and cajoled them but he kept them in line to a fair extent. In tragic contrast the people of Europe did something different. At that time there were signs which are showing again. These are signs of intolerance and the extreme left and right coming together in common cause and having a particular reason to object in strenuous fashion. They were hurt because they had lost. The roaring 20s were roaring in more ways than one but the hungry 30s came afterwards. In the hungry 30s the hurt was so great that people buckled and looked around to find somebody whom they thought was responsible, perhaps people with money or people of a different religion. What an appalling disaster to visit upon the people of the globe. A total of 60 million people died and there are still people who state it did not really happen and that the Holocaust did not happen. People in our lifetime state this, but sadly it did happen with the approval of the people at the time.

Let us not forget for one minute the chief artist in this scenario was elected by the people. In recent weeks I heard people stating in this House that by virtue of their election whatever they did afterwards was always right. This is not so. If there was ever a single issue where this was challenged it was in Europe in the 1930s, when somebody was elected to public office with the support of people who were well-qualified, such as academics and professionals, who should have known better but did not. We know what happened. Let this be a lesson for those in our society who like to take it upon themselves to condemn others and presume others have lesser rights or entitlements to democratic principles and human rights. Let us remind ourselves these things have happened before because people did nothing about it. People did not stand up to it, question it or challenge it and when they did it was too late.

We need to learn a lesson from this, and now is as good a time as any because we have been aware of the points raised by Deputy Stanton for some time. There is a growing disrespect for the rights of others and this should not be the case. We should have evolved past this and developed to the extent that we automatically recognise the rights and entitlements of others without impinging on our rights or theirs. For my various sins I was one of the people in the original convention which drew up the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. It was an interesting experience particularly as the meetings took place in Europe, the very cauldron to which I referred a moment ago.

I wish to remark on how we address ourselves in the House. I remember when the language used and the manner in which a viewpoint was intoned was somewhat different from what is now. This is something we must consider. There was a time a number of years past when perhaps a much more academic debate took place, with distinct respect for the view of the other person when one did not agree. I think we will lose this. We have developed a somewhat different attitude, whereby it is believed and accepted that to get a viewpoint across we must be disparaging about the person to whom our views are directed. This is the first, saddest and most basic flaw in what our society is showing up now. It is a product of the Celtic tiger when we became arrogant.

Perhaps we must humble ourselves a little. Whatever it is that we must do as a society, one can do great things without being offensive or obnoxious. I hope people have learned a lesson in this regard on foot of some of the things that have happened in recent times.

I have heard, seen and read - as I am sure has everyone else - expressions by people on social media and in print, some of whom are professional people, of such a nature as to create hatred. In any modern society, I believe there is a need for incitement to hatred legislation that identifies such behaviour. While it may be simple or bland at the outset, some people in the social and print media come back to their subject by a different route. One must realise that a person who receives such information electronically or by way of print may be impressionable. Such people may have an impression created in their minds that this is the choice to make, this is what must be done and this is the way in which one should treat people. I believe that to be really effective, legislation on the issue of incitement to hatred must consider the area to which I have just referred. It could be beneficial and could provide for a situation in which people do not say or do what they wish when they wish, at the expense of everyone else. Moreover, it should never be that way.

I refer, as did other speakers earlier, to ethnic groups and minority groups. The manner in which a society treats minorities tells one everything about that society. We tend to be a little vague about some aspects of the manner in which we treat others, that is, those who are members of minorities. I can only make the point that as a nation and as a people, we have gone over the world. Irish people have travelled everywhere out of necessity, out of adventure or for whatever reason. We always have been received everywhere, although there have been times when Irish people were not received all that well and when they were the victims of discrimination. However, this is all the more reason for Irish people to make absolutely certain that they do not ever practice discrimination anywhere, as they cannot afford to so do. Irish people cannot afford to point at anyone or at any minority group anywhere because one should remember that we were those minorities and were ourselves in that position in different countries all over the world. Moreover, we continue to be. While I would like to hope we have earned the respect of the nations to which we have travelled, we must continue to observe the highest standards and enforce the highest standards in so far as the observation of human rights and entitlements are concerned.

I have one or two other points to make. It comes home to each Member in different ways as to what he or she should or can do for society. Currently, Members are told in this Chamber on a daily basis that because of financial cutbacks and austerity as it is called, they are wreaking havoc on society and are doing this deliberately. No, they are not. No one, either in government or, I am sure, in opposition, would do anything of that nature willingly. Sadly, the Government arrived at the position in which it found itself largely on foot of the failure of certain instruments outside Members' immediate control. Having looked back on this, some Members of this House pointed out things that were happening, as well as others that should have happened but did not. However, people scoffed at that and asked what would those fools know, as they were not really into it. People know now and this is the aftermath of all that. Moreover, there was no other way. I am not one of those who goes down the road of stating the Government should have found a different, easier or better way. There was no such other way. We have been there before, as this circumstance has been repeated many times previously. However, it is so sad to see children with special needs, older people in difficult circumstances and others seeking and awaiting services. This is very like the 1930s again, in that people are waiting for services that are taking so long to be delivered. It is heart-rending to be obliged to look at the people concerned in such circumstances and to be able to do very little about it.

On the other hand, one often sees things and complains about one's ills and the fact that one does not have what one wants. Often, one is better off than one thinks. Many in society often are far better off than they think. One can work oneself into a tizzy and a total and absolute depression by bringing more of it upon oneself. I make this point simply because were people in Ireland to compare themselves with other European countries right across Europe, including some of the richest countries, they would find Ireland is not doing too badly. I acknowledge it has not achieved the same efficiencies and has not achieved the delivery that some appear to have managed but in respect of GDP per capita, Ireland is not doing too badly. This is a point people must recognise when they make comparisons with others. Moreover, over the past couple of years people in this country have criticised some of our colleagues throughout Europe, allegedly on the basis that they have been punishing Ireland. It is necessary to examine their own respective economies, as it should be noted they also punish themselves, which is a sad fact of life.

When economic implosion takes place, it undoubtedly affects everyone. It affects the poorest worst of all but it affects everyone and some people to such an extent that they seek the only way out which they could think of, which also is a sad thing. I wish to conclude on this point and refer again to discrimination, to which Deputy Stanton also made reference. Moreover, many Members have tabled parliamentary questions relating to this subject matter which they follow from time to time. Why should it be that teenagers, for example, seem inadequate to deal with discrimination of whatever nature such as bullying? It appears to go on indefinitely in a vicious and incisive way to such an extent that the victims find they can only take one way out. This is a sad flaw in our society and should not be happening at all. Moreover, this has nothing to do with wealth or the lack thereof. It pertains to a viciousness that is difficult to control when it takes off of its own accord - this has happened in the past both in this jurisdiction and others - to represent the ugly side of an evolving society. Such unfortunate trends should be combated in a manner that is decisive and meaningful, without trampling on anyone's human rights.

Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak today and commend the Minister on another reforming legislative item. The Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice, an agency for the Irish Jesuit Province, publishes a very interesting magazine and while reading it over the last couple of days, I was greatly struck by a quote from Pope Francis's evangelical letter, Evangelii Gaudiam, the joy of the gospel. In many ways, his comments are a fitting beginning for this Bill's starting point. He speaks about the commodification of human beings and about all of us being put into that kind of commodification. He states:

[T]hose excluded are no longer society's underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised - they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the "exploited" but the outcast, the "leftovers".

I commend the Minister not just for this legislation but for his courage in standing up to tyranny abroad and to intolerance at home. Other countries must look at their role and consider how they are espousing human rights and how they are failing to fulfil their international obligations to ensure equality.

Let us look at what is happening in Uganda, Russia and in African countries where there are issues of inequality, lack of respect or lack of decency towards fellow human beings who are of LGBT persuasion or who are women or people of different ethnicities or religions. One could make the point that the persecution of Christians in certain parts of the world needs to be addressed and challenged because if that were to happen in this country, those of us who are Christian would not stand for it and would be unequivocal in our desire to ensure it was stopped. Intolerance of any kind cannot be condoned and allowed to go unchallenged. We must all show respect by our actions rather than paying mere lip service to it.

The new Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission will be profoundly important. As we develop and implement the rights of all citizens and as we strive to reach full equality for those of us who are LGBT and for all people, this commission will play a very important role. I hope that public bodies will also pay due regard to their duties and obligations. As Deputy Durkan said, it is hoped that they will strive to show that they respect human rights and equality and that this will be demonstrated in how they operate, in their use of language and by the delivery of their services.

I was struck by Deputy Niall Collins's comment that this was a dollar and dime Bill. I was the Acting Chairman at the time so I was not permitted to interject or to heckle. Those who criticise this Bill should consider the composition of the board of the commission. I refer to the calibre of its membership. I do not know all the members of the board but those I know, such as Sunniva McDonogh, Mark Kelly and Kieran Rose, are not puppets of a government or a Minister who will do the bidding of the Department of Justice and Equality or take orders from anyone else. These are strong-willed people who have shown by their words and their actions that they stand for human rights and for equality. Is it being said that these people are not independent or motivated by a desire to champion human rights and to ensure the full implementation of equality in our country? Sometimes people oppose for the sake of opposing, just to grab a headline.

The Minister said in his concluding remarks that he was open to the Bill's being improved and amended. We should not begin with the premise that the Bill is flawed because this is a Minister who has worked tirelessly to promote equality and human rights. I was a proud member of the Constitutional Convention, which comprised 100 members, not least because we proposed many different reform measures, one of which relates to the constitutional provision on equality for civil marriage, as the Minister mentioned in his speech. It is my hope that as we prepare for the referendum in 2015 we will have a debate that is positive, constructive, respectful and mindful of all the citizens of our country, no matter what their individual sexual orientation. We deserve to have that debate in a manner that reflects the modern society in which we live.

The Minister is correct to address in his remarks his concern about the treatment in many parts of the world of people who are gay or lesbian. I referred to Africa and Russia, but let us talk about North America, the bastion of freedom and democracy. The way gay people are treated in certain parts of the United States leaves much to be desired. Some of those politicians who profess to be Christian and who profess to support equality and to be against discrimination show by their language and their voting record that they are not fully behind the pursuit of equality and human rights for all the citizens of their country.

I ask the Government to raise at international forums, including at EU level and at the United Nations, the issue of the rights and freedoms of gay people which are being denied in many parts of the world today. Are we to stand idly by as a series of regressive laws in many parts of the world permit discrimination, the suppression of human rights and the denial of equality? Are we to stand idly by and say, "It is fine; that is another continent, a different culture, a different ethos."? What are we to say to a generation of young people who are looking at us if, as a Parliament or as a Government, we refuse to condemn or move to change what is happening in Uganda or Russia, where gay people can be killed or imprisoned and where one can be guilty by association? Harvey Milk fought for freedom in the United States of America. Many people across the continent of Africa are this day fighting for equality. In our country we are now seeing the coming to fruition of the work to bring human rights and equality to the fore. As the Minister said, this is at the core and the heart of what we do as a Government.

The Minister also referred to 38 countries where being gay is a criminal offence. Thankfully, we changed the law in this country in 1993. The Minister is correct when he affirms that there is no room for racism or discrimination in any part of the world.

I commend the Minister on the citizenship ceremonies for those who become Irish citizens. One Sunday after the Fine Gael Ard-Fheis, when walking past the Convention Centre, I saw hundreds of new citizens and their families, full of joy and full of life and vitality, being officially welcomed by their new homeland. It was a wonderful sight.

While canvassing this week I came across people from many different countries who want to vote and who want to participate in the local and European elections. They know about their candidates and what they stand for. They were aware of the differences between parties and policies. They said to me at the doors, "You did not push us away because we were from Poland. You stopped and you asked us for our vote." That is the type of Ireland we want, in which our new citizens can participate and where they feel they are welcome. However, I have a concern about whether the integration strategy in many cities and towns has worked. I wonder what is the view of the new Irish citizens or new immigrants.

What do they think about the Ireland they live in now? What do the Irish people think about the new immigrants who come to our country? It is important that this country has a debate on immigration and our new citizens, because we must have an integration strategy.

I want to pay tribute in the House to a group in Cork called Cois Tine, which operates under the direction of Fr. Angelo Lafferty, an SMA priest in Cork who does so much for integration. He brings together people of all nationalities and ethnicities into a fantastic multi-faith cultural programme where we can all be embraced and feel welcome. If we had the Cois Tine programme in many areas of our country, I do not believe we would have racism, and racist remarks made against people. That happens in our country, and we cannot shy away from that.

I join Deputy Padraig Mac Lochlainn in his condemnation of the article by Brenda Power in today's paper, which was wrong in terms of the Traveller community and what it represents. It fails to understand the ethos and the culture of the Traveller community. There are some Travellers who transgress and break the law, and who must be held to account, but this week I had two young Traveller women in my office who were not violent, aggressive or badly dressed. They did not speak badly. They were like any woman I know. They were concerned about their living conditions, their children's education and holding their family together. They wanted a better life for themselves and their families. What is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with that. Those young women were no different from any mother I know. The article by Brenda Power sent the wrong message. Those of us who had the privilege of serving as chair of the Traveller accommodation committee in Cork City Council recognise that in many cases Traveller women who were empowered had empowered themselves for the betterment of their families, and their children in particular. That is the reason the language we use is so important.

In welcoming the publication of the Bill to merge the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Equality Authority I am very pleased that one of the first tasks of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, will be to review section 37 of the Employment Act. As I stated recently in this House and also at other events, it is very important that section 37 of the Employment Act is changed because is causes a great deal of concern for LGBT teachers. While it has never been tested in the courts, the exemption is at the very least a chill factor for many people, not just those of us who are gay and who worked in the classroom but for those working in religiously owned or controlled workplaces.

In terms of this Government, we have seen the Ministers, Deputy Quinn and Deputy Fitzgerald, being very proactive in the areas of bullying and discrimination. Our approach to bullying and discrimination must be consistent. We cannot accept legislative provisions that potentially facilitate discrimination based on sexual orientation yet correctly ask those same teachers to prevent homophobic bullying. There is an inconsistency in that policy that must be addressed, and I am hopeful this Minister will be the Minister to act on that.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I commend the Minister for his progressive approach. He will be judged as a reforming Minister. A generation to come, a multiplicity of people will thank us for having Alan Shatter as Minister for Justice and Equality and for having a Government that puts human rights and equality at the forefront of its policies. It will be wrong if we allow other countries to be regressive when we are so progressive. We face a twin challenge, which I know this Government will address.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At the outset I thank sincerely the Technical Group for allowing me some of its speaking time to contribute on the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Bill. This is an important Bill to come before the House. I listened to the various contributions made in this debate which were thoughtful, informative and important to air here.

I want to raise a number of issue. In dealing with human rights and equality we must examine all that is happening in our society. Our country has made great strides forward with regard to rights and equality, and rightly so, but a number of issues and difficulties remain. I welcome that the Minister is in the House to hear this contribution because over a continuous period and through his other role as a person of the legal profession, he will be aware on numerous occasions, including in recent weeks, judges have spoken out during cases about young people in particular coming before the courts who have mental health problems. To be blunt, they are being brought to the wrong place. We talk about equality and protection of people's rights, and I am delighted our country has made huge strides forward in dealing with people who have mental health issues. Gone are the days when people had virtually no treatment. Not too long ago the treatment people received was electric shock therapy. That was a derogation of people's human rights but young people with mental health problems should not be coming before the courts because they should be taken care of in some other way, and I would like to see the Minister work on that in conjunction with the Minister for Health, and especially the Minister with special responsibility for mental health issues. I rely on the Minister to examine that in a sincere way. He will be aware of a case two weeks ago where a judge who had a young person before him demanded that the Health Service Executive come before his court the following week, and it was similar to the issue I raise, to explain the reason the person was being brought before the courts. That is an important job to be undertaken and I would like the Minister to examine it.

Deputy Durkan raised the issue of bullying. There is no place in society for bulling, particularly bullying of our beautiful young people attending schools. Cyberbullying, bullying by means of mobile phones and all of that was never an issue in the past but it is a horrible situation for young people to have to put up with. We have seen the outcome of persistent and continued bullying, and it should not be tolerated in our society. Our principals and teachers do their level best to try to tackle this problem but the horrible aspect of it is that it is a hidden practice. In the past, if bullying was taking place in the classroom or in the schoolyard it was obvious because one could see it, but this is a hidden, sneaky way of getting at young people. I was glad to hear Deputy Durkan speaking on that issue earlier but a great deal of thought, work and effort must go into trying to solve this problem because I would not like it to continue for the beautiful young children who will start school in September in all their innocence. I do not want them to be subject to any type of bullying or abuse as they go through the school system.

A major problem in this country, which we should not have because our country is so small, is the trafficking of people.

Since becoming Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter has tried to tackle the gangs that traffic people into this country. Every effort must be made to put an absolute stop to this practice. There is no worse type of abuse of a human being than trafficking, providing ill-gotten gains for a criminal gang. I support the Minister in his fight against this awful practice. With a country our size, we should not have any human trafficking. It is different for larger countries with extensive borders which are difficult to fully police.

Wherever a person is from and whatever a person’s religion, whether they have one or not, he or she is entitled to be treated with the utmost of respect.