Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)

Why are we in the current position if the social conscience of the Government is Senator Boyle and his cabal?

All this week we are, rightly, celebrating the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Today in Ireland we are restricting the inclusion of the promotion of human rights in consensus-oriented legislation for no apparent reason. Senator Norris is right in that we have received extensive consultation with human rights organisations, all of which are united in their views.

We have not heard a cogent explanation as to why this measure is being rejected, especially when it was contained in the original heads of the Bill. Why has it been removed? There is a need to look at the model in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where the legislation Senator Norris read to the House has been effectively introduced. Why can it not be introduced here and what is the issue? What are we afraid of?

The concept of this amendment is to promote human rights. Yesterday, Amnesty International published a document outlining ten actions for every Deputy and Senator. If we are to be serious about the advancement and promotion of human rights, the amendments put forward by us on this side of the House should be accepted. Unfortunately, the Government has ignored, in every step of the legislative process so far, attempts to include them and that is regrettable.

I will not go back over the debate we had last week on Committee Stage. The joint correspondence we got from Amnesty International, FLAC, the ICCL and Front Line asks a number of questions which should be answered by the Minister of State today. Is it purely about tax and revenue in the Department of Finance? Perhaps in his reply the Minister of State will address some of the concerns of the organisations, the representatives of which I know the Minister of State has spoken to. We must get an answer.

It is regrettable that we will again divide the House today on important legislation dealing with the promotion and advancement of human rights when we have not had a cogent message from Government as to why it has acted in such a way and the thinking behind this exclusion from the Bill. The Minister of State may indicate there is a five-year review but why not start today and include the bodies, as I argued last week? If the Department finds the practice is not working in five years, it could be reviewed then. Why are they being excluded today? We have not had answers from Government and we need them.