Jillian van Turnhout (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister is warmly welcome. Having this Bill before us represents a good day. I certainly welcome it and I will not reiterate what previous speakers have said. The Bill will provide a framework for human rights, which is so important. Human rights issues pose a challenge to all of us. My experience in dealing with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is such that I believe it is always great to have a framework document to return to in order to examine the language and vision. It is an important lens to be used in the work we do.
There are really just two points on which I am not entirely comfortable. I want to ask about both. We all agree about the importance of having an independent human rights and equality commission. We have a choice, namely, to invest in such a commission now or wait for years to pass, at which time we will have to invest in a commission of investigation into various violations of citizens' rights. There is a choice that the State can make. I would choose investing now because of the direct impact on people's lives.
I note what the Minister said about the amendments to sections 21 and 25 that have already been made. I am very cognisant of the cuts, in the order of 43%, to the Equality Authority in 2008. I was associated with the Children's Rights Alliance at the time. The cuts had a chilling effect, not just on the authority but also on civil society organisations, advocates and others because of their nature and the manner in which they were made. It is with surprise that I hear Fianna Fáil is opposing this legislation.
How can we actually protect from disproportionate cuts? Although I understand that the State may decide in a recession to make cuts, nobody would quibble with the fact that a 43% cut is totally disproportionate. Is it possible that we could consider a requirement on the Minister to explain to the House any cuts that affect the human rights and equality commission. The commission will have a distinct Vote. Therefore, could there be a protection mechanism? We want to ensure re-accreditation in Geneva. When I examined the principles relating to the status of national institutions, the Paris Principles, as they are known, I noted they refer to the composition and guarantees of independence and pluralism. The literature states:

The national institution shall have an infrastructure which is suited to the smooth conduct of its activities, in particular adequate funding. The purpose of this funding should be to enable it to have its own staff and premises, in order to be independent of the Government and not be subject to financial control which might affect its independence.

Is there something more we can do in this legislation to have a clear accountability mechanism if a future Government is to cut funding, for whatever reason?
My other question was partly answered through the amendments the Minister made. With regard to staffing, how can we ensure that no obstacle will be put in place if temporary staff need to be taken on for a specific project? There is potential for the commission to be told it cannot take on additional staff owing to a moratorium. The commission's funding and statutory function are not the issue, rather, it is a question of our not putting obstacles in place preventing the taking on of staff.
I support Senator Zappone on strengthening the relationship with the Oireachtas. Perhaps we should broaden the name of the justice committee. It does considerable human rights work at present but, perhaps, the human rights aspect should be very clearly reflected in its title. This would be very much welcome.

We then need to see the structures put in place to ensure regular engagement not only with the committee but also other aspects of work in the Oireachtas.

I am not sure if legislation can resolve the next issue I wish to raise. In reading the Bill it is not entirely clear what the chief commissioner's role is versus that of the chief executive. I wonder if we will see conflicts. How do we ensure there is clarity and a distinction between the roles? I have a fear of overlapping. I acknowledge it can be in the nature of things and a difficult issue. Many organisations I have seen have suffered greatly where there has been a breakdown in the relationship between the chair - the chief commissioner in this case - and the chief executive. Will the Minister elaborate on whether there is something that can be done to strengthen the legislation or articulate clearly the difference between the roles? I support the Bill fully.