Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is not that there are a lot of bodies and that it would be nice to have them represented. This is quite different. Yes, there are lots of different interest groups and expert groups, but we have outlined the fact, that, with respect, has not been addressed, that the public duty and equality and human rights are a statutory obligation. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission is the point at which many different areas of interest and expertise have their intersection with the law. For example, there are many disability organisations with a significant perspective and expertise, but where they intersect with, for example, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, IHREC is able to provide a connection point in that regard. In lots of specific areas across civil society there are expertises and perspectives, but what IHREC has is that cross-cutting perspective as to how these rights issues in the wider sense and the multifaceted sense intersect with the question of international human rights and national human rights law. That is why IHREC has been given key advice not just in respect of international human rights but also in respect of constitutional law and other matters. It, therefore, has significant expertise. It is not simply a matter of an interest. It is an expertise that IHREC can bring and that cuts across rights in the widest sense. Again, this is a statutory obligation.

As for what the Minister of State has outlined in respect of section 13, there is no guarantee in that section that there will be an expertise on human rights and equality brought to play in respect of this important task of identifying potential judicial roles. There is no structure in place for that. There is every possibility that we may have somebody with human resources expertise, which is of narrow relevance to this, somebody else from the field of finance, somebody else from the field of corporate governance and somebody else with experience of the operation of the courts and nobody in the fields of human rights or equality. There is no mechanism to ensure that would not be the case. Even if there were to be a guarantee under the section, the Public Appointments Service would not necessarily be best placed to identify who might best carry forward that expertise.

Again, this is different, and I worry about the idea of human rights being treated as merely one of the things we would like to see represented. It is cross-cutting. It has legal weight. It is not simply that there are lots of bodies. This is not the same as saying that, for example, education and training boards and Teagasc would all love to be represented on the commission, asking why not and saying, "Sure, everybody could be on it." There is a specific reason IHREC was expected to be represented on it and was originally placed as such, as in other Acts, such as, as mentioned, the Legal Services Regulation Act. There is a strong precedent in that regard. This is not simply not doing a nice thing; it is a backwards step from the heads of Bill and a backwards step from previous legislation in this area. It is a downgrading of the focus we give to human rights and equality in respect of these legal matters. Since 2015, we have been on an upward curve. I worry that this will become legislation whereby we start on a downward curve.