Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The Minister's articulation of her concern for the experience of trans people in our city and country is commendable. I share those concerns. I wish her Government partners and colleague also shared those concerns, given that transgender healthcare in Ireland is the worst in Europe. I will speak to amendments Nos. 6 and 14.

Amendment No. 6 is Sinn Féin's proposal on a definition of "hate" which is based in part on the work of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties when it first made a submission. It is also based on work done by the party with others. It proposes that "hate" would include bias, prejudice, contempt, hostility and bigotry. It proposes that "hatred" would be defined as, "a state of mind characterised as intense and irrational emotions of enmity or detestation against a person or a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their membership or presumed membership of a group defined by reference to protected characteristics". The amendment provides separate definitions for "hate" and "hatred", whereas the current definition of "hate" defines it as hatred. The Minister made a case against it but I feel that is circular. Sinn Féin and I do not think that is acceptable. We submitted this amendment previously and one of the subjects of debate today and one of the main concerns throughout this Bill's progress in both Houses has been the lack of definition of "hate" and "hatred". The Government's amendment still provides that hate is hatred even though there are multiple well-researched and internationally accepted definitions. Accordingly, I will be pressing that amendment. I do not think it is beyond the ability of the Attorney General to give us a definition, and that is our proposal.

I turn to amendment No. 14, in which we propose a definition of "protected characteristic". I think it is part of this grouping. We propose that the definition of "protected characteristic" be in accordance with the Equal Status Act. We feel this would give the Bill legal and definitional certainty while being inclusive enough to cover all cases. Various amendments are trying to delete references to religion, for example, and the original Government one expanded the definition of gender. We do not want the Bill to be at risk of legal challenge and legal uncertainty, which would be unacceptable given how long people have been waiting for these protections.

I note with regard to the Equal Status Act that in 2021 the Department of children initiated a review of the various equality Acts. All that has thus far been published in this term, unfortunately, is a summary of the submissions. That is an extraordinary omission by the Government. It is not the only omission. We have seen delay and stalling on conversion therapy. We have seen delay and stalling with the disregard of convictions. These are difficult issues in the current climate but responsibilities should not be shied away from.

We believe plain language should be used to ensure public support for the legislation, but also to give legal certainty and prevent legal challenges. Too many people have waited too long for these protections for the Government to risk those protections. Our amendment is not perfect, particularly in light of the failure to review the equality Acts, but there is an abundance of case law. It speaks to the need for definitional certainty across legislation. In Sinn Féin's view, the current definition does not help to do that.

I will make another point as I may not be able to come back in before the end. There are some persons, perhaps a minority of people in targeted communities, who are re-evaluating the response of increased imprisonment and considering potential alternatives. I make a personal point that we need to see more social, economic and educational initiatives to prevent hate crimes happening in the first place. There should be targeted support and funding for communities affected by hate crimes to address the community harms that exist. We should also be thinking about how we can support victims through compensation, professional support, free mental health support and greater use of restorative justice. I am in favour of a scenario where a select number of hate crime cases can be diverted away from traditional prosecution and sentencing and towards restorative justice programmes instead. Those actions would help to support communities, help to break down cultural and social barriers between offenders and victims, prevent hate crimes happening in the first place and reduce the likelihood of a person re-offending.