Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators for their responses to the introduction of this Bill to the House today. I believe that it is important and robust legislation and an important part of the architecture of the protection of human rights in this country. Quite a number of Senators have remarked on the various provisions in the legislation for equality review, protocols and inquiries. In particular, I note Senator Bacik's comments about public inquiries and that is spelled out in the legislation. I thank all Senators for their comments and welcome the range and scope of the discussion here today.

I join with Senators in thanking former Senator Maurice Manning and Niall Crowley, whose work in the Equality Tribunal I was also very familiar with, for the body of work in which they have been involved over a long period of time. As a number of Senators have remarked, this work has taken us quite far in terms of human rights obligations in this country and having appropriate responses and mechanisms to deal with human rights issues.

Clearly, there were very severe funding cutbacks to both bodies. It has been recognised across the House today that they have had their impact but it is really important that we move forward and support the work of the new body. For the information of the House, I would say that an extra €2 million has been allocated in 2014, which brings the funding up to €6.29 million, and that there has been approval for 15 extra staff, which is very important and worthy of note, bringing staff to 47. There has also been an agreement that there would be a review in 18 months. I pay tribute to the former Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, for the work he has done on the Bill generally. I certainly remember him making the case for extra staff and extra funding so that the body could do its work effectively. I certainly want to pay tribute to him. We all know his huge commitment to human rights and his work in that area over a long period of time.

A number of points came up to which I wish to refer. In response to a point made by Senator Reilly, I want to put my next point on the record because it is very important. My predecessor consulted with the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland around the time this proposal was announced. I can assure the House that there are no adverse implications for our commitments under the Good Friday Agreement or indeed for our relationship with Northern Ireland. Equivalence of protection relates to substantive human rights law and not to questions of institutional structures, which will always operate differently in different jurisdictions. Our body of human rights law under our Constitution is at least equivalent to that which exists in Northern Ireland. I made that point in the Dáil and again here. We do not have anything to apologise for in terms of the architecture we are proposing. Certainly, we have no reason to believe that it is viewed in that light.

Another area that was commented on by a number of Senators is the question of the definition of human rights. I will say a bit more about this definition. The definition in section 2 gives the commission a mandate to promote human rights in the widest sense, not limited to Irish law, conventions we have ratified or any existing international convention. The commission can seek to develop and promote new human rights standards and its discretion in that regard is unfettered. The definition in section 29 deals with legal or enforcement powers and, accordingly, it is appropriate that it refer exclusively to human rights that are recognised in Irish law. A number of Senators made that point.

My Department met with the Office of the UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights in October 2012 as part of the consultative process with that office following publication of the general scheme of the Bill. At that meeting, the Department explained that the rationale of having two separate definitions was to give the new body every possible freedom to work towards the enhancement of the human rights environment in Ireland. I would make the point that there was discussion about that and an understanding of why we were taking this approach.

There have also been calls for one unified definition of human rights in the Bill. Human rights are, of course, indivisible and inviolable but the technical device of having two definitions does not challenge that principle in any way. If we had to have just one definition, it would have to be a narrow definition confined to Irish law because we cannot give the commission or any other State agency legal or enforcement powers in respect of matters that are not part of Irish law. One narrow definition would be a retrograde step because the commission would lose much of its ability to be creative in the promotion of human rights. What we can do and what we are doing in the Bill is giving the commission the freedom to promote human rights on as broad a basis as possible and reflect new normative developments at international level in its work. In doing that, we must be clear that its mandate in monitoring compliance with specific human rights standards is limited, as it must be, to those enshrined in Ireland's legislative framework in accordance with the rule of law. The intention is to allow the commission to be creative in its promotion of human rights principles as broadly understood but to observe the rule of law in the area of enforcement of standards. I have said that there was discussion with the Office of the UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights. It noted that this approach seemed very close to how the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights sought to describe her own role relating to the protection of clearly defined rights and the promotion of broader human rights principles. It stated that it thought the two definitions approach is a good model of best practice which it thought other member states could look at. I am sure we will discuss this further but I wanted to put that on the record of the House because it is important to note.

In respect of re-accreditation, a new application later this year is required anyway regardless of whether we have a new commission or not. Existing accreditation expires before the end of this year. I want to clarify that there is no Government control in respect of control of appointments to the commission. The Public Appointments Service is responsible for making the selection and appointments will be passed by the President following the resolution passed by both Houses. Obviously, there is the opportunity in the Bill for engagement with Parliament. The commission and the Houses are free to engage. The Bill cannot impose obligations on Oireachtas committees for procedural reasons and for the Oireachtas itself under Standing Orders. I believe the change in name of the committee is a good idea and I support it but I do not believe it can be done under this Bill. Perhaps it can be taken up in another forum and followed through on by Senators.

It is, as Senators have said, an important message.

Senator van Turnhout raised concerns about potential cuts. As in the case with many other bodies, one would like to have a more protective mechanism built in but I do not think that is feasible. Obviously, the commission will have its own Vote but it is not possible, I believe, to build in that sort of protective mechanism. The fact that the legislation is robust and has potential for action in the area of human rights is illustrative of the Government's commitment to human rights and to having in place robust architecture in that regard. It cannot be denied that it has been a difficult time for the two bodies that are now being amalgamated. Given the basic legislation in place and the will that is evident across both Houses that this body work, there is great potential for good work to be done in the area of human rights and to build on the positive work that has been done by the two bodies in the past. I believe that with the improving economic situation Government will want to support these bodies to do the best they can to deal with the many new and challenging human rights issues that need to be addressed in this country.

There is no room for complacency. I agree with Senator Mullen that there must be open discussion on human rights. We cannot become complacent in the assumptions that we have about human rights one way or the other. Human rights in this country will, I am sure, always be subject to robust discussion by the citizens.

I thank all Senators for their contributions to the debate. I look forward to Committee Stage and to hopefully finalising this legislation in the Seanad prior to the recess. People definitely want to get on with this work. I hope from a legislative point of view we can ensure that that happens.