Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Jun 2014

Vol. 232 No. 5

Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Bill 2014: Second Stage

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to present this Bill to the House. It is now 15 years since the Equality Authority was established and 14 years since the establishment of the Human Rights Commission. In that time, the demographic, social and economic fabric of the State has changed profoundly. In particular, public expectations of the high standards of visibility, transparency and accountability to be achieved by our public bodies has increased significantly. The commitment and professionalism of the members and staff of the Equality Authority and Human Rights Commission during this time are to be commended. There is no question about that. However, these bodies have overlapping roles and it has become increasingly obvious that there is a compelling need for a more comprehensive approach to the protection of human rights and equality and to institutional arrangements in that regard.

Drawing together in a single, leaner and more streamlined body the main strands of the vital equality and human rights agendas will positively strengthen the ability of the new commission to effectively, efficiently, and cohesively promote a culture that respects the human rights and equal status of everyone in our society. The new commission will be positioned to maintain and build upon the reputations for excellence of the current Equality Authority and the Human Rights Commission.

The promotion and protection of human rights is at the heart of Ireland's domestic and foreign policies. Ireland has been and continues to be active in this regard in Europe and further afield. During our Presidency of the Council of the European Union last year, my predecessor put questions about the rule of law and protection of fundamental rights on the agenda of EU Ministers for Justice. Ireland was concerned, in particular, at the apparent rise in xenophobia, including anti-Semitism and other extreme forms of intolerance, including racism and homophobia, within the European Union and the failure in some cases to respond adequately. We were also concerned that justice institutions, the courts and police in particular, should function effectively so that fundamental rights are protected.

On 11 March last, as its response to the debate on fundamental rights and the rule of law initiated during our Presidency, the Commission published a communication on the rule of law. The proposed three-stage framework is a very solid response to the issues that we, and others, including the European Parliament, raised and will be considered in detail by our partners in the Council. Ireland continues to be proactive in this area. Along with several other member states and the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, Ireland is involved in a co-operative project to identify a methodology which will enable us to measure adherence to the rule of law and our shared EU values across all member states. I believe that this work has a vital role to play in protecting the fundamental rights of all EU residents and in tackling extreme intolerance across the European Union.

I mention our Presidency initiative on the rule of law and fundamental rights because it is directly relevant to the subject matter of this Bill. Just as coherence as between the internal and external dimension of EU human rights policy is important, and just as it is of critical importance to our credibility in the EU that we are seen to practice what we preach, so too must Ireland's active support for human rights in the wider world be supported by the existence of a credible national human rights infrastructure and robust legislation in this field. Extreme intolerance and flagrant abuse of human rights is also evident on the wider international stage. As Ireland prepares for a constitutional referendum on equal marriage for same-sex couples in 2015, in contrast, certain states are working hard to restrict the rights and fundamental freedoms of gay people. Our contributions to the protection of human rights in Europe and internationally would carry little weight without robust protection of human rights and equality here at home. The new commission has a key role in reminding us of our obligations and in offering independent and principled advice to our Government and indeed to Irish society generally in respect of issues that need attention.

I firmly believe that our society will benefit from having a strong and effective human rights and equality body. I also believe that this Bill gives the new commission a very strong mandate to carry out this vital work. The levelling up of powers and functions, the introduction of a new role in supporting public bodies to have due regard to equality and human rights issues in their work and the creation of a sliding scale of possible interventions and powers, which can be exercised in a nuanced way commensurate to the nature of the problem, including, as a last resort, an effective power of inquiry and powers to initiate court action, will all serve to make this a more effective body with stronger powers than its two predecessors combined.

The new body will also in due course seek accreditation with the UN as Ireland's national human rights Institution. This is of crucial importance to ensure it achieves the highest domestic credibility and international standing in respect to its independence and remit. The explicit intention of this Bill is to strengthen the new commission and ensure that it complies unequivocally with the Paris Principles. I am confident that the new body will maintain the high standard and the high standing and reputation the Human Rights Commission has achieved internationally and that this legislation stands comparison with the legislation underpinning national human rights institutions anywhere in the world. The commission will take over from the Equality Authority as Ireland's designated equality body under the EU anti­discrimination directives.

The legislation will also amend the European Convention of Human Rights Act 2003, most importantly to give effect to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the DG case by providing for an enforceable right of compensation in the case of unlawful deprivation of liberty due to judicial error in contravention of Article 5 of the convention.

I will outline the main features of the Bill. Sections 1 to 7, inclusive, are mainly technical provisions. Section 2 contains the necessary definitions, including a broad definition of "human rights", which ensures the commission is not limited to human rights recognised in existing Irish legislation in its promotion and awareness-raising work but can undertake work to promote human rights in the broadest sense. We had a detailed debate on that in the Dáil.

Part 2 comprises sections 8 to 28, inclusive. Section 8 is a standard provision which provides for an establishment day for the new commission, replacing the Equality Authority and Human Rights Commission.

Section 9 contains a number of provisions regarding the establishment of the commission as a body corporate with perpetual succession. It also sets out that the commission will be independent and be guided by best international practice in the area of human rights and equality. Most notably, these standards include the Paris Principles, as the set of informal rules relating to establishment and functioning of national human rights institutions are known.

Section 10 lists the detailed functions of the commission. These include providing information to the public on human rights and equality, keeping under review the adequacy and effectiveness of law in this area, practical assistance, including legal assistance to an individual under equality or equal status legislation and carrying out equality reviews, which are essential, and action plans. It also provides for the commission to appear before the High Court and Supreme Court as amicus curiae in proceedings before either court that concern the human rights or equality rights of a person. The section provides for continued participation with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in the joint committee as provided for under the British-Irish Agreement Act 1999. The section is also a principles section and sets out the principles that underpin the functions of the commission in encouraging and supporting the development of a society that respects and protects each person's dignity and human rights.

Section 11 is a technical provision that allows for the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and with the agreement of the commission, to confer additional functions on the commission. It will be important as time progresses that such a section will allow this to happen.

Section 12 contains the provisions in relating to terms of membership of the commission. Members shall hold office for a term not exceeding five years, which can be renewed. The commission shall comprise not more than 15 and not fewer than 12 members, one of whom shall be chief commissioner. We had some discussion in the Dáil on that position as well. The section provides that the members designate who were appointed on 19 April 2013 shall become the first commission, with each member being appointed for a term of either three or five years to ensure continuity of expertise and experience for future commissions by avoiding a scenario where the term of all members expires at the same time.

Section 13 outlines the selection and appointment process for membership of the commission. Members of the commission will be appointed by the President, on the advice of the Government following the passing of a resolution by each House of the Oireachtas. The commission is being established with the intention of being recognised, as the Human Rights Commission currently is, by the UN as Ireland's national human rights institution. Such institutions are accredited for UN purposes in accordance with the provisions of the Paris Principles, which are the internationally-recognised standards that apply to such institutions. The persons to be appointed will be selected by the Public Appointments Service following a Paris Principles compliant selection process to be undertaken by the service. To underpin the independence of the selection process, the section provides that the Government shall accept the persons recommended for appointment by the service, save in exceptional circumstances and for stated and substantial reasons.

Section 14 lists the conditions of membership including the circumstances in which the Government may remove a member of the commission. These circumstances are failure without reasonable excuse to discharge the duties of the office, incapacity to perform those duties or stated misbehaviour. A member may only be removed from office with the agreement of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Section 15 provides for filling of casual vacancies on the Commission and section 16 outlines how the commission shall organise its meetings. The commission shall meet not less than once every three months. Subject to the Act, the commission regulates its own procedures.

Section 17 provides for the commission to appoint from its membership Ireland's representative on the management board of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency as is provided for under Council Regulation No 168/2004. This is a new provision because, previously, the Government made this appointment. However, this new approach better reflects the requirements of the Council regulation and is designed to establish a structured relationship between the commission and the agency in the promotion of fundamental rights within the EU context.

Section 18 allows for the establishment of advisory committees and other formal methods of consultation with civil society. Such committees will allow for the commission to establish and maintain contact and co-operation with relevant agencies and with NGOs and other civil society interests. There is no doubt the commission would want to do this anyway but it will be spelled out in statute.

Section 19 is a standard provision providing that members of the commission will cease to be members when elected to either House of the Oireachtas or to the European Parliament.

Sections 20 and 21 provide for the appointment of a director for the commission and outline his or her functions. The director will be the Accounting Officer for the commission, which will have a separate Vote.

Sections 22 and 23 provide for the accountability of the director to both the Committee of Public Accounts and other Oireachtas committees. These are standard provisions.

Section 24 provides for staff of the commission and their remuneration. This section should be read in conjunction with section 45, which provides for the transfer to the commission of the existing staff of the Equality Authority and Human Rights Commission. The Bill provides for the commission to undertake its own recruitment in accordance with the standards set out in the procedures and codes of practice applicable to civil service recruitment generally. This section also provides that staff of the commission on transfer from the Equality Authority and Human Rights Commission shall become civil servants of the State and that the commission will be the appropriate authority within the meaning of the Civil Service Commissioners Act 1956 and the Civil Service Regulation Acts, 1956 to 2005, in respect of its officers. This is in line with the staffing arrangements of other independent organisations of a constitutional nature such as the Ombudsman, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, the Director of Public Prosecutions and including the Oireachtas. As civil servants of the State, the staff of the commission are not amenable to instruction by Government or by any Minister. These arrangements are designed to ensure the independence of the commission in full compliance with the Paris Principles, which require that the national human rights institution be legislatively empowered to determine its staffing structure and to select its staff in accordance with national law.

Section 25 requires the commission to prepare a strategy statement not later than six months after the commencement of this section. This statement will be for a period of 3 years. The commission will be directly accountable to the Oireachtas regarding its strategy statement. There will, therefore, be opportunities for discussion on this. The section also provides for the renewal of the statement every three years.

Section 26 outlines how funding will be made available, section 27 sets out how the commission shall prepare its accounts and section 28 requires the commission to prepare an annual report.

In Part 3, comprising sections 29 to 42, inclusive, the commission's legal and enforcement powers are set out. Section 29 contains a number of definitions relevant to this part of the Bill, again, including a definition of human rights that is appropriate to enforcement of rights guaranteed by the Constitution or otherwise given force of law within the State, including the European Convention on Human Rights and other international instruments that are ratified by the State.

Section 30 requires the commission to provide information to the public and keep under review the effectiveness of any legislation relating to the protection and promotion of human rights and equality.

Section 31 deals with a very important issue, namely, the preparation of codes of practice. These are a very important tool of the commission and can address issues such as the protection of human rights, elimination of discrimination, promotion of equality of opportunity in employment and promotion of equality of opportunity in regard to matters covered by the Equal Status Act 2000. Obviously, the commission would be required to consult widely, including with relevant Government Departments, prior to the submission of a code of practice. Once signed into law by the Minister of the day, a code of practice is admissible in evidence in proceedings before a court or tribunal. Therefore, the codes of practice are a very important power that will be available to the commission.

I regard this as a power that can be of crucial importance in improving standards of compliance with best human rights and equality practice. It is interesting to note that, to date, only one such code of practice has been prepared and approved, namely, that in regard to sexual harassment and harassment at work. I believe there is great potential for the commission to break new ground with these codes of practice. Instead of relying only on law and enforcement, it should not lose sight of the importance of organisational culture and the impact it can have on equality, and the contribution an appropriate code of practice can have is something we should encourage. I have no doubt the commission will use that power.

Sections 32 to 39, inclusive, are a continuation, with technical amendments, of provisions of existing equality legislation. Section 32 allows the commission to invite an undertaking to undertake an equality review and, following such a review, to prepare and implement an equality action plan. This is another important opportunity to have higher standards. The commission may also carry out a review or prepare an action plan on its own volition if it considers it appropriate to do so. To be subject to such a review and action plan, an organisation must have 50 or more employees.

Section 33 provides that, in connection with preparing either an equality review or an equality action plan, the commission may serve a substantive notice on a person to supply information with regard to an equality review or action plan. Again, this is a very useful and strong power to ensure equality is in place. Such a notice may also be served if an organisation fails to implement the requirements of an equality action plan as outlined in section 32. This section provides an opportunity for an organisation to appeal such a notice. Section 34 details how such a substantive notice might be appealed.

Section 35 introduces another important power. It outlines how the commission may, of its own volition or at the request of the Minister, conduct an inquiry. This section continues in force the existing powers of the Equality Authority and of the Human Rights Commission to conduct inquiries, which have not been used in practice in the precise manner set out in the existing Acts. In order to ensure that the power to be vested in the new commission is a real one which can in future be invoked in practice, the inquiry power has been redesigned, modelled on that contained in the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004. Hopefully, that will be used in the years ahead.

The detailed procedural and other rules in regard to an inquiry are set out in Schedule 2. In brief, it is intended that an inquiry may be carried out in respect of a public or private organisation, institution, sector of society or geographical area if there is evidence of a serious violation of human rights or equality of treatment obligations in respect of a person and the matter is of grave public concern. Prior to conducting such an inquiry, terms of reference must be drawn up and laid before each House of the Oireachtas and then published in the national media. This is a very serious initiative to take. The details on how it should be used are laid out very clearly in the legislation.

Section 36 provides for the publication of the equality and human rights compliance notice following or in the course of an inquiry, and goes into detail on how that would be addressed. Section 37 provides an appeal mechanism. Section 38 provides a register of all equality and human rights compliance notices.

Section 39 provides that, on the application of the commission, the Circuit Court may grant an injunction against a person who does not comply with a human rights and equality compliance notice. Again, there is recourse to the Circuit Court in that provision.

Section 40 provides for the provision of legal and other assistance by the commission. That can include the provision of legal advice and powers of the Equality Authority and the Human Rights Commission to conduct inquiries.

I have a lot of detail on many other sections. Senators will be clear that there are quite a number of examples of initiatives that have been taken already in terms of human rights, for example, in regard to the Garda Racial, Intercultural and Diversity Office and the human rights conference in Dublin in December, where we discussed best practice in human rights education and training for civil and public servants. There has also been the Irish Prison Service initiative, the human rights training programme, which has received a lot of international acclaim and led to many international visitors coming here to see the work being done in that area.

The point I want to draw out here is that the work already undertaken by the commission with its human rights education and training project across the civil and public service is an excellent example of the "soft" and "persuasive" powers which I believe will be influential, along with the strict enforcement powers, in the development of this positive duty. This will ensure our front-line public servants are sensitive to the specific difficulties that arise in various situations, for example, in dealing with migrants to our shores. This can be very important in ensuring fair treatment of people who may have been marginalised in their country of origin. Many types of training can be undertaken by the commission which are very helpful in terms of the development of a key understanding of human rights and the international challenges in that regard.

Moving on to Part 4, sections 43 to 51, inclusive, make provision for a range of technical and transitional issues consequential on the dissolution of the existing bodies and to ensure continuity as between these bodies and the new commission which replaces them. These are all standard provisions.

Part 5 comprises sections 52 to 55, inclusive. Section 52 is a technical section, to provide a definition of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003. Section 53 includes references to Protocols Nos. 11 and 14 in the definition of the convention in our domestic legislation. Protocols Nos. 11 and 14 both relate to the workings of the European Court of Human Rights. The reforms in Protocol No. 14 are designed to address the problem created by the large number of inadmissible or repeat cases so as to enable the court to concentrate on the most important cases. Protocol No. 14 also made new rules concerning the terms of office of judges of the European Court of Human Rights. The definition of "convention provisions" is also amended by including reference to Protocol No. 13, which relates to abolition of the death penalty.

Section 54 provides for a new section in the principal Act which will allow an enforceable right to compensation for a person whose detention is found to be in breach of Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights and where the detention was as a result of judicial error. This is a requirement of Article 5(5) of the convention. There is a background to this, with which I am sure Senators are familiar.

In 1997 it was decided that D.G., then a minor, who was considered to have a personality disorder and be a danger to himself and others should be placed in a high support therapeutic unit for 16 to 18 year olds. However, in June 1997 the High Court decided, as there were no secure educational facilities available, that he should be detained in St. Patrick's Institution. His detention was appealed to the Supreme Court which held that a child could be detained in a penal institution for a temporary period until secure detention was arranged for the child outside the jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's decision was appealed to the European Court of Human Rights which found that Ireland was in breach of the convention in that the detention was not for the purposes of educational supervision in accordance with Article 5(1)(d) and that there was a further violation of the convention as there was no enforceable right to compensation in accordance with Article 5(5) in the case of unlawful deprivation of liberty on foot of a judicial error.

Ireland is required to execute this judgment. This means ensuring persons who are detained in contravention of the provisions of Article 5, no matter what the circumstances are, including judicial error, have an enforceable right to compensation. The amendment is the only one remaining for implementation in regard to the judgment. Currently there is no enforceable right to compensation where the detention was brought about by a judge because there is judicial immunity in Irish law. Section 55 provides for the inclusion of the up-to-date version of the convention and Protocol 13 as Schedules to the Bill.

The Dáil completed its examination of the Bill on 4 June and, as Senators will know, there were some amendments. They will arise during the discussion, but I will mention some of them briefly.

In section 10(2)(d) and (e) we separated the wording to give greater clarity to the provisions on human rights. This suggestion was made on Committee Stage by a number of Deputies.

In section 21 we made an amendment arising from discussions on Committee Stage to make the director the Accounting Officer for the Vote of the commission.

In section 25, following an input by non-governmental organisations and other bodies, with Deputies in the House, we included an amendment to provide that the chief commissioner should set out his or her personal key priorities and objectives for his or her term of office. This amendment was made in response to points on the need for clarity on the objectives. It was considered useful that they be spelled out.

I emphasise the importance of the Bill in the context of the Government's commitment to strengthening the State's human rights and equality infrastructure. I am looking forward to our discussion and hearing the contributions of Senators. I am very keen to see the Bill enacted at an early date in order that the commissioners designate can be formally appointed to the new body. Senators will agree that the merger has been a long time in the making and I know that the commissioners designate are as keen as we are to have a reformed and solid legislative base in place for their important work on human rights. I commend the Bill to the House.

I welcome the Minister for this debate on the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Bill 2014. My party opposes a Bill that will restrict the independence of the two authorities concerned in a short-sighted measure. Government control of the new amalgamated body will limit its capacity to have a real impact in forwarding the founding vision of the two bodies. A narrow interpretation of human rights, restrictions on initiatives and investigations and control over membership will hamper the role of the new body. Cutbacks to the funding of the two organisations concerned in 2008, while understandable in the economic circumstances of the time, constrained their capacity to operate while maintaining integrity and independence. The Government's relationship with the interim board does not bode well for the likelihood of it respecting the independence of the new body in the future. The Bill will undermine critically the independence of the new commission and is out of line with international norms.

I will outline the reasons for my party's principled opposition to the Bill. The Bill will amalgamate the Irish Human Rights Commission, IHRC, and the Equality Authority into a single organisation, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. Fianna Fáil believes the integrity and independence of the two bodies in pursuing their founding missions will be lost. The Bill gives the Government significant control over the newly merged organisation through a limited interpretation of human rights, control over membership and restrictions on the investigations the body can undertake. This move fails to recognise that the two bodies to be merged have separate and distinct, if complementary, roles. The amalgamation will be detrimental to their respective missions and impinge on the spirit of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement which initiated the bodies. The roles of human rights and equality are central in public policy and it is important that the Government maintain a commitment to these pivotal concerns. It must not seek to covertly control the bodies set up to protect them. The Bill involves the merger of two independent statutory bodies that have clearly defined mandates and have been active for over a decade in Irish public life. Given this context, the argument for integration is not as self-evident as in other cases.

The IHRC was entrusted with the oversight and monitoring of human rights in Ireland. It was founded as part of the Good Friday Agreement. Human rights law in Ireland is drawn primarily from the provisions of Bunreacht na hÉireann, the fundamental law of the land. This is complemented by EU law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union enshrined in the Lisbon treaty in 2009. The Equality Authority was founded in 1999 and is charged with combating discrimination on various grounds, including gender, sexual orientation, race and religion. The two bodies play distinct roles in ensuring Ireland adheres to the highest ethical standards and lives up to its international and domestic legal and moral obligations. The current structure adheres fully to Ireland's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nation's Paris Declaration principles. The new body will have to submit again for accreditation under the Paris Declaration.

The number of people contacting the Irish Human Rights Commission rose steadily from 5,112 in 2011 to 6,104 in 2012. The increase was driven by a sharp rise in economic cases affected by austerity, which accounted for one third of all cases last year. Civil and political rights were raised by 35% of the people who contacted the commission in 2012, followed by economic, social and cultural rights. There were 203 cases related to cultural rights. The commission also offers opinions on laws from a human rights perspective.

The Equality Authority deals with around 8,000 inquiries annually. They focus primarily on issues such as disability, race and gender discrimination.

Both the IHRC and the Equality Authority experienced severe budget cuts in 2008. In November that year the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, former Deputy Dermot Ahern, announced cuts of 43% for the Equality Authority and 32% for the IHRC. These significant cuts were heavily criticised at the time, but they were necessary given the financial climate and severe budgetary constraints. The reductions did not impact directly on the structural independence of the bodies or their organisational capacity to pursue their objectives. Fianna Fáil did not proceed with a proposed merger at the time. The Government did not address the issues facing the organisations and kept funding at the level mentioned until this year, despite the heavy criticism dished out at the time.

The United Nation's principles on the status of national institutions, the Paris Principles, are international principles that set a benchmark for national human rights bodies in terms of structure and functions. They ensure effective independent operation. They emphasise the need for complete independence and a broad interpretation of human rights that the relevant body must be empowered to pursue. Ireland is accredited with an A rating in accordance with the Paris Principles, but this may be jeopardised in a forthcoming review, given the significant encroachment by the Government with this legislation on the work of the IHRC.

The announcement of the amalgamation was made in September 2011, but it has only now reached the legislative stage. The interim period was marred by hostility from the Department that undermined the IHRC. The selection panel headed by the former Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly, was stood down by the Department as it sought to expand the criteria in selecting a chief executive of the interim commission.

It is a clear case of the Department exercising control over the organisation. The independent panel is firmly subjugated to the demands of the Department, which did not want certain people being involved in or applying for such positions.

The stance that we take is one of principle. We feel that a merger is inappropriate and will do more harm than good. That is not to take away from the sincere case that the Minister has made. I respect her views and, as I have said before, I think that she is a very good Minister. In this instance, however, I will have to tender a different view on the legislation. That is part of democracy. I shall oppose the legislation.

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, to the House and this legislation. The Government announced in September 2011 that it was going to merge the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Equality Authority. That made eminent sense and honoured the commitment made in the programme for Government to be smarter, to reduce the number of agencies and to ensure that there was no doubling-up, with those agencies which had done similar work being brought together.

The Irish Human Rights Commission was and is a very good body. Maurice Manning was its president and was a former Member of this House. As Senator O' Donovan has quite rightly pointed out, it has an A rating when benchmarked against the Paris Principles, which is no mean achievement. Sometimes we forget what we have achieved in this country in terms of human rights compared to other countries. Certainly, we have a long way to go, but we have come a long way as well. It is interesting to note that 32 states in the United States still allow the death penalty. We heard recently about an appalling case where that went horribly wrong. At least we do not have that in this country. It is important every now and then that we should see the glass as being half full. I think that most citizens in this country espouse equality and want to see fair opportunity for everybody.

On the Equality Authority, I would not necessarily agree with the assessment that it has always been up to the mark that we would expect. I think of the case of the Equality Authority v. Portmarnock Golf Club, where the Equality Authority lost. It spent millions of euro of taxpayers' money fighting a case against a golf club. I would consider golf clubs by their very essence to be elitist places. I read an application form for one golf club recently which wanted to know what the applicant's parents did for a living, what the applicant did for a living and what school they went to, along with other similar elitist questions designed to help the club decide whether they were going to be accepted as a member.

Thankfully, the state of the economy in recent years has dictated whether such clubs take members, but the Equality Authority was not honouring its mandate in taking that case, which it lost. A former Minister had asked the Equality Authority to produce a code of conduct on equality for golf clubs - the Minister has referred to such codes as being an integral part of the upcoming legislation - but it did not do it. It was more interested in the headlines that it was going to get by beating Portmarnock Golf Club on the issue of female membership. I did not agree with the judgment of the Supreme Court, but it is the highest court in the land. The main point was the waste of resources in picking that type of battle when one looks at the many other equality issues which affect ordinary people.

Bringing these organisations together will future-proof this type of thing from happening again. The legislation, which I have gone through in detail, outlines many checks and balances. If we were able to achieve all that the legislation facilitates, we would be the best country in the world for human rights and equalities. It is a smart move to bring the two agencies together. I said to the former Minister, Deputy Shatter, that I would have liked the legislation to be enacted a lot sooner, but I know that the current Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, is committed to having it over the line before term ends, so we have about four weeks in which to do that. It is utterly achievable with co-operation from all sides of the House.

I am disappointed that Fianna Fáil is opposing Second Stage, because I do not believe it is against the principle of what we are trying to achieve. I believe that many people will realise that two agencies doing similar work is not a smart use of resources. There is a better way of doing business. Human rights and equality are intrinsically linked. They are not different or separate; they are one of the same kind. As such, it makes absolute sense that the Government should have a single national agency promoting the principles of human rights and equality. As I said, they are two sides of one coin. It makes absolute sense to channel our resources as effectively as possible. On a conservative estimate, this measure will save the taxpayer €500,000 per year. I note the Government's commitment to make available that €500,000 to ensure that the agenda of equality is driven and that certain actions can be taken.

For the various sectors where there may be issues to do with equality, writing national standards and expecting people and organisations to cohere with them is the right thing to do. The code of conduct to which the Minister referred is a key aspect of that. More than the Portmarnock Golf Club, if there are elements of an industry or a sector which do not espouse the high levels of equality that we would expect, a code of conduct for that sector or area of society is the right way to go. If the code of conduct is not being adhered to, there is always the option of going down the judicial route, but that should be the last step rather than the first, because every agency has a responsibility to respect the public purse. That clearly did not happen in the Portmarnock Golf Club case.

The Equality Tribunal is not affected by the legislation, but we need to look at that as well. I have attended some cases and I know that it does fantastic work, but there are areas where the legislation is being abused. I know of one example where a local authority had thousands of complaints. Each one of those complaints had to be investigated by the Equality Tribunal, but not one has stood up. All have been dismissed. I tabled an Adjournment motion on this matter a year ago. I do not know whether a case has been upheld in the past 12 months, but that was a flagrant abuse of the Equality Tribunal system by an individual making a complaint against a local authority. The upshot of it was that the local authority spent hundreds of thousands of euros preparing defences against those bogus complaints. That is a classic example of a waste of resources. In response to my Adjournment motion, the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, said that she was not inclined to examine whether situations where one had hundreds or thousands of complaints could be stopped, but it is worth looking at in the future.

However, it is important at this point that we get this legislation over the line, so that the Human Rights and Equality Commission can start doing its work, start putting its five-year plan in place and start to identify the areas within our society where inequalities need addressing.

We have a very good international reputation and there is much more we need to do. By the end of its term, this Government will have significantly advanced human rights and equality in this country compared to when it took office in 2011. Across the political divide there is political support for this because we recognise our international responsibilities and recognise the difference between right and wrong. We are, hopefully, moving towards the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which will be another significant step forwards in the battle for equality of opportunity for all sectors.

The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, of which I am a member, has had lengthy debates on this legislation which have fed into this comprehensive Bill. The principle of the Minister referring legislation to his or her line committee for examination of the heads of the Bill works very well, and this is a classic example. While it might be slow building blocks, we are getting there and this agency will be a crucial step in the right direction for human rights and equality in this country.

I welcome the Minister to the House. When the then Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, announced the merger of the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Equality Authority in 2011, it had been a very long time coming, subsequent to the disproportionate funding cuts to both bodies in 2008. Because Ireland's human rights and equality infrastructure has been significantly damaged, this Bill before the Seanad, having passed the Dáil, must be robust and imaginative enough to make up for much lost ground.

Three years on from that announcement, Ireland needs an independent, influential "A" status and powerful body to support the people of Ireland in the protection and equal respect of their rights. Ireland also needs, as Deputy Shatter noted on Committee Stage in the Dáil, an Act that will "set in motion a potentially constructive dynamic to promote the development of creative human rights thinking on new challenges in the field". There is a great sense of urgency for us to complete the legislative work on this Bill, and I welcome the Minister's swift engagement with this, and her declaration at the end of her speech of her sense of urgency, so soon after taking up her duties as Minister for Justice and Equality.

Having reviewed all of the legislative debates on this Bill, and having previously contributed recommendations for substantive changes to the heads of the Bill in 2013 as a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, my view is that the Bill before us today is almost there. It reflects genuine engagement by the Minister and officials of the Department of Justice and Equality with Oireachtas Members, civil society and the IHREC designate. This must be welcomed and I do so heartily. I am in agreement, though, with the recent views of a coalition of civil society, expressed in the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, publication of the shadow report submitted to the UN on Ireland’s compliance with its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ICCPR, that "some aspects [of the legislation] may require further amendment if the new body is to meet fully its mandate to promote and protect human rights in accordance with international standards and norms governing national human rights institutions".

First, we need an effective integrating vision, to avoid the overlap the Minister referred to in her speech, of human rights and equality in what this body can do. In the practice of its functions, the body must protect and promote human rights so all people are held equal in dignity and are equally respected. This means protecting and promoting human rights in different ways for different people. The new body must be able to protect and promote human rights in such a way that real, substantive equality will be the outcome. There is a missed opportunity in section 32 of the Bill, which spells out the detail of the commission’s function of undertaking equality reviews and action plans, about which the Minister spoke.

Equality reviews are a feasible alternative to the more complex option of undertaking an inquiry if, combined with a human rights review, this mechanism could provide a means of building better practice. This would provide a prime opportunity to think through and provide recommendations to practice ways of ensuring equal protection and promotion of human rights for various industries, sectors and public bodies. There is an opportunity in this Bill to amend an aspect of existing equality law that does not rise to the EU standard as outlined in the framework Directive 2000/78/EC. Under our existing equality legislation, the definition of religious belief is not sufficient. Our law refers to "religious belief" and should be changed to "religion or belief" to meet the requirements of the framework directive. I have raised this issue in the Employment Equality (Amendment) Bill put forward by Senator Bacik that seeks to amend the offensive section 37 of the Employment Equality Act. It could be done in that Bill or this Bill, so why not this Bill as it seems to be moving more quickly than the other?

My second substantive concern with the Bill in its current guise relates to the double definition of human rights, which the Minister mentioned in her speech. This has been covered at various Stages in the debate on this Bill. I have read Deputy Shatter’s initial response to these concerns and the Minister's more extended response to these concerns on Report and Final Stages in the Dáil. I respectfully submit that I remain unconvinced by the arguments the Government put forward to maintain the double vision on human rights.

I have two points to add to the ongoing debate about this issue. First, it is a retrograde step. Under the Human Rights Commission Act 2000, which governed the past IHRC of which I was a member, there were two definitions of human rights, but the broader one referred to all the functions of the IHRC bar one, namely, the function to institute legal proceedings. This made great sense because those human rights that might become the subject of some form of legal proceedings must have the force of law in the State. However, in its exercise of all of the other functions, IHRC drew on the broader definition of human rights to guide its work. Therefore, the substantive body of work developed by the IHRC not only provides a human-rights based analysis of many issues, laws, inquires, research and information, it also developed a very valuable method of applying a human rights based approach to its work, and international standards and norms were integral to this, even though they may not have the force of law in Ireland.

Second, this historically developed method will have to be set aside now. Although the Minister has argued that this reflects the way the High Commissioner of Human Rights uses definitions of human rights in light of a meeting with officials in the Office of the Deputy High Commissioner of Human Rights, I still find this strange. Could I be provided with any references, such as speeches or publications of the High Commission that would help me better to understand why this is the new best practice model? I found nothing on the UN website. It does not seem necessary. For example, under section 30 of the Bill, on the one hand the commission can only review the effectiveness of enactments relating to the protection and promotion of human rights and equality under the narrow definition. This means it does not consider international standards that do not have the force of law here. However, when it comes to recommendations subsequent to the review or analysis, it seems it can refer to these international standards, as the Minister said on Report Stage. This sounds like analytical gymnastics that are just too restrictive to ensure our new IHREC will develop robust muscles. Instead of freeing up its limbs, it sounds like putting unnecessary chains around it.

I will mention one more key issue, namely, the commission's independence, and will raise other issues on Committee Stage. There have been many significant improvements in the Bill regarding a legislative foundation for the commission’s independence, for example, regarding its staffing, and these are to be welcomed. However, some Government changes to the Bill, as the Minister pointed out on Report Stage in the Dáil, allow for increased engagement by the commission with the Parliament through work in committees. This is a very good thing. The commission’s independence of Government can be strengthened considerably by more effective parliamentary involvement in the oversight of human rights issues. One of the key ways to do this is to ensure dynamic engagement between parliamentary committees and the national human rights institution. This is part of the resolution of a report published in May 2014 by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, entitled Improving Co-operation between National Human Rights Institutions and Parliaments in addressing Equality and Non discrimination Issues, of which I was the rapportuer.

There is scope to include amendments to the Bill in sections 23, 25 - and the Minister spoke at length about the strategy statement issue in section 25 - and 28 to specify that the commission engage with parliamentary committees, particularly the justice committee, in the course of its work, and not only on general administrative matters. The justice committee should be specified.

Furthermore, I formally propose that in parallel with the adoption of this legislation the justice committee change its name to the Oireachtas committee for justice, defence, equality and human rights. This proposal was mentioned by Deputy David Stanton in his Second Stage speech on this Bill in the Dáil. Such a change would, in the first place, allow the importance the State places on human rights to be reflected in the functioning of the Oireachtas. Second, it would provide greater potential for the Irish human rights and equality commission to engage in a consistent and accountable way with Members of the Oireachtas whose specific responsibilities would extend to human rights oversight.

To conclude, there must be an independent, influential national human rights and equality institution in Ireland if we are ever to recover fully and ensure respect and dignity for all our people in an equal manner. Otherwise, although our GDP might start to grow, and please God it is growing, it will simply be more of the same for those who are vulnerable, violated or poor.

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, and the introduction of this legislation. It has already been passed by the Dáil and the Minister referred to some of the amendments made there. It is a long-awaited Bill. The Minister stressed the urgency with which it is being brought forward and some of us - clearly not all of us - hope it will be law before the summer. The members of the commission-designate are also very keen to have the legislation brought into force.

The Minister mentioned the key events to which the Government is committed, such as the marriage equality referendum in spring next year. It is vital that we have the statutory framework, such as that set out in the Bill, for a human rights body in advance of that referendum. It is extraordinary that Fianna Fáil is opposing it. In my innocence I had not realised it would take that view. It is particularly extraordinary given that party's history on this. Senator O'Donovan has kindly reminded us that some years ago, when the former Minister, former Deputy Dermot Ahern, made 43% cuts to the Equality Authority budget in 2008, I wrote at the time that a very quiet coup was taking place and that the Equality Authority was being undermined by the then Government.

Other Members have correctly paid tribute to Maurice Manning, the former president of the Human Rights Commission, but I wish to pay tribute to Niall Crowley, former director of the Equality Authority, who played a huge role in the promotion of equality issues, the protection of equality and in taking ground-breaking cases. I utterly reject my friend and colleague, Senator Conway's, critique of the Equality Authority in the Portmarnock Golf Club case. It is easy to dismiss that as a misguided case due to the outcome in the Supreme Court. Many of us disagree fundamentally with the reasoning in the Supreme Court judgment. It was not necessarily a predictable outcome and the authority was quite entitled to take that case.

I conducted a study with colleagues some years ago on gender discrimination in the legal profession. We found golf clubs to be significant sites of discrimination for women working in the legal professions. They were being excluded from golf outings and therefore excluded from the type of client-solicitor gatherings that would bring in money, enhance their reputation in the firm and so forth. It is easy just to dismiss golf clubs as elitist, and I agree with Senator Conway on that, but the action taken by the Equality Authority was not simply a populist act but an important one in terms of trying to promote the rights of women and their rights to be equal members in very influential and large institutions, such as that golf club.

To return to the Bill, it is vital that we move forward with the new merged body and ensure it can be as effective as possible in the protection and promotion of both equality and human rights. The justice committee has conducted hearings on the Bill and members of the commission-designate appeared before it. As Senator Zappone eloquently pointed out, it is hugely important to continue that strong interaction between the justice committee and the new merged entity. I am glad that aspects of the independence of the commission and of its links to the Oireachtas have been highlighted and strengthened in this Bill. The justice committee, on the initiative of Senator Zappone, is considering adding human rights to its title so it will have specific jurisdiction to deal with human rights issues as well as equality and justice issues.

We have received useful observations from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, and the human rights and equality commission-designate. I read them carefully in terms of trying to analyse the Bill and considering what aspects of it must be highlighted on Second, Committee and Report Stages. There are some key themes in the Bill. The first theme I wish to discuss is the definition of equality and human rights. I am glad there is no definition of equality in the Bill. It is appropriate that it is left undefined. I note the difficulties between the two definitions of human rights that have been highlighted by Senator Zappone and in the observations of the ICCL and the human rights and equality commission-designate. There is a narrow definition of human rights in section 29, in the part of the Bill dealing with enforcement and compliance. In some ways that is simply a practical issue. I am trying to get my head around it because-----

I agree in principle that the broader definition in section 2 should be there, particularly for the work of promotion and advocacy of human rights for a commission, but I can see a practical difficulty if a commission is trying to hold bodies within the State, either private or public, to account by reference to a set of human rights standards that are not contained in the Constitution or in any international treaty or in the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the State is a party. There could be a problem. I note the human rights commission-designate says that even if one uses the wider definition of human rights more extensively in Part 3, one would still have to exclude certain provisions. One could not have compliance notices, for example. It recommends that the wider definition be used, save for section 41 and sections 36 to 39, noting that those functions could only relate to law that is enforceable. It does, however, recommend that a wider definition be used in other sections of Part 3. I wonder if a middle ground could be devised here, because there could be a practical difficulty with extending it throughout all of the provisions of Part 3. That is one issue with the definition.

The second issue is the establishment of the new commission. Independence is a hugely important issue. Section 9 provides a guarantee of that. The funding issue has been highlighted along with the fact that the commission must have adequate resourcing to be effective. We have seen that from the rather controversial history of the Equality Authority, in particular. It is welcome that an amendment was made in section 21 on Committee Stage in the Dáil to make the director the Accounting Officer for the Vote of the commission. The commission will have its own Vote and the Minister has said that administrative arrangements for this are in train. That is hugely important because it was an issue in the observations on the first published version of the Bill produced by the commission-designate and the ICCL.

The third theme is enforcement. An amendment the Minister did not mention but which I consider important was to the title of Part 3, which was originally "Enforcement" and is now "Enforcement and Compliance". That is something the human rights commission-designate recommended because it is a more accurate depiction of the wide range of provisions contained in Part 3.

I wish to refer to three aspects of Part 3. The Minister highlighted some of them. First is the codes of practice issue. The sexual harassment code is a good example of the type of important promotional work bodies can do in seeking to ensure compliance with human rights standards. I hope to see more of that under section 31.

Section 35 deals with the power to conduct an inquiry. There have been recommendations from the ICCL and the human rights commission-designate that changes should be made. I looked carefully at the wording in section 35 - I realise we will deal with this in more detail on Committee Stage - and I believe it is of particular significance now, in the wake of the report Judge John Cooke produced on the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, bugging allegations. Judge Cooke devoted a significant part of his recommendations to the public interest inquiry power of GSOC. He said that one of the problems, and this was highlighted in the political controversy surrounding those allegations earlier this year, was the lack of specificity of criteria as to when GSOC could conduct a public interest inquiry. It is hugely important that there are very specific criteria in section 35 and that the commission may conduct an inquiry of its own volition, so it does not have to wait for a ministerial request. Also, if one looks carefully at the wording, even if it is requested by the Minister, it does not have to do it. It "may" conduct an inquiry if the commission considers it appropriate and so forth, and the criteria are set out.

This is the sort of power that was in the previous legislation, but was not practicable. This is a more practicable section, but this is not a power that should be or will be exercised lightly. It is important the initiative is left to the commission and that the criteria are clearly spelled out for it and that the procedures are set out in Schedule 2. I am pleased to see this. The GSOC example is an important example of where we are not specific enough and of how we can run into problems where we set out power to conduct a public interest inquiry.

I welcome the new provision in section 42. This new provision was promised in the programme for Government and was sought by different NGOs. It concerns public sector duty and provides that a public body, in the performance of its functions, shall have regard to the need for equality and human rights protection. This is hugely important. At the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality this morning, we heard of some impressive examples of the work being done currently in the Defence Forces by Commandant Jane Lawlor, gender equality officer, and of the practical way she has begun to ensure gender equality is not just an aspiration in the Defence Forces, but a reality. There is, for example, the insertion of a requirement for people at every stage of promotion to receive some gender and equality training. A requirement is also being introduced to provide that before any members go on a tour of duty abroad, they will complete training on gender based violence and so on. There are practical examples of how Irish troops serving with the UN abroad have made life safer for women and girls who must leave camps to collect water and so on. This work recognises the need to ensure protection. There are impressive examples in practice of how this positive duty on public bodies can be implemented, which is why I believe section 42 is so important.

I welcome Part 5, section 54 and the new enforceable right to compensation in case of judicial error and deprivation of liberty. In regard to the D.G. v. Ireland case, I was in practice and acting in cases where juveniles were detained following the precedent set in that case. Many of us were troubled by that judgment, but it was often used where parents were begging us for some way to ensure a child's safety. However, it was problematic and I am glad to see we have now remedied the issue addressed in the European Court of Human Rights decision.

This merger has been a long time in the making and most of us are keen to see the Bill come into being. I am very disappointed it will be opposed. I assumed, perhaps naively, we might have cross-party consensus on this, because it is essentially a good Bill. I agree there are areas that can be tweaked and discussed, but it is imperative we have a statutory framework for our national human rights and equality body.

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire. This is the first time I have had the opportunity in the House to wish her well in her new duties. I would also like to wish the Human Rights and Equality Commission the best for its work. This is an important body and it has important and sensitive work. As the Minister has said, the commission will be Ireland's internationally recognised body with responsibility for human rights.

I wish to make some general points. The Minister has invoked important ideas and concepts. For example, she referred to best international practice, including the Paris Principles, underpinning our approach to human rights and the work of the commission. The new commission will nominate members to the fundamental rights agency of the European Union and so on. The describing and circumscribing of circumstances in which members can be removed seems appropriate also.

Looking to the future, we must continue to reflect carefully on human rights, what they are, how we identify human rights, how we define them and how we go about enforcing them or ensuring compliance with best international practice or authentic human rights standards as identified. On the issue of having regard to best international practice, the identification and promotion of human rights goals must never become the exclusive province of any closed or elite group, however well educated, academically qualified or connected with the Government, civil power or the public service. Human rights work must be done with passion, but also with humility and in a listening spirit. It must have particular regard to the people it must serve, particularly minorities or those who are vulnerable, because these are the groups who most depend on our spirited defence of human rights. Our identification and defence of human rights and equality must be done in the context of respect for the letter and spirit of Bunreacht na hÉireann. Our constitutional values might even be sometimes in tension with what might be regarded as best international practice and this is an area in which we need to tread very carefully and with great respect for our Constitution and its important role in the work we must do.

We must recognise that the idea of human rights in itself poses particular challenges. After the horrors of the Second World War, states rightly came together to establish international laws, treaties and conventions and to promote human rights standards. This has been a positive and progressive development for the human race. However, in the absence of recognised concepts of natural laws and rights, we will always remain vulnerable to the possibility that the most powerful elements in our world will redraw the human rights map from time to time.

For example, the right to life of the unborn is not well championed by what we might call the identifiable human rights fraternity, in the western world in particular, at this time. Various human rights committees repeatedly interrogate countries that have sought in their laws to protect the unborn. Some of these so-called human rights defenders seek to restrict freedom of conscience in the case of certain health care workers for example. I am not aware of any international human rights body that sought to challenge our, frankly, corrupt abortion legislation, which was passed here last year, with all of the dangers and contradictions it entailed.

Language is also frequently abused. Notions such as "reproductive rights" are used as a Trojan horse when what is really being referred to are rights to abortion. People even talk about a concept such as a safe abortion, which is a concept foreign to anybody who realises an abortion can never be a safe experience for the unborn child involved. I cite the example of the unborn, simply because the unborn is, perhaps, today's victim of what can often be the arbitrary and selective nature of human rights discourse.

Given the demographic changes that are occurring in our world and in Europe, if we think, for example, about the emerging strength of Islam and the existence of particular strains of Islam, these have very different ideas about human rights and human dignity to the ideas that would be shared by a majority of those in this Chamber. Think of the emergence of China and its enormous economic power. Only yesterday, we saw our British friends kowtowing to the Chinese authorities, because China must now be propitiated because of its huge economic strength. This has enormous implications for our attempts to continue to vindicate human rights and to raise important concerns about human rights in China. We must constantly reflect on these issues, instead of just looking at the mechanics of this legislation or the balancing of rights or the extent to which the legislation facilitates or spancels the members of the commission, although I do not deny these are important questions. We also need to think about the concepts we as legislators must struggle to address and the issues on which the members of the commission must continue to reflect.

I referred to the emerging strength of Islam and of China. We can ask, legitimately and with great concern - with burning anxiety one might say - what is the future for human rights when it comes to determining women's full participation in civil and political life, or people's right to full participation in a democratic system of decision making. I suggest we must move from seeing things in terms of what we decide is right or wrong at a given time, according to the current international consensus or current shared consensus of those within the human rights circle. We must struggle at least to try to establish clearly in our minds what we believe is objectively right and wrong.

In a world in which many believe in God but in which many others do not, we face an ongoing challenge of trying to locate an absolute source of authority for concepts we all wish to take for granted, such as respect, tolerance, inclusion, and the protection of the vulnerable and marginalised.

The Minister mentioned that Ireland’s active support for human rights in the wider world must be supported by the existence of a credible national human rights infrastructure and robust legislation in this field. She is absolutely right. However, it also works in reverse in that the existence of a credible national human rights infrastructure and robust legislation in the field of human rights protection in Ireland must be reflected in Ireland's active support for human rights in the wider world.

This morning I asked the Leader to report back to us on what the Government has said and done, or intends to do, about the very disturbing case of Dr. Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, the Sudanese woman who has been condemned to flogging and, eventually, hanging for the crime of apostasy. She was raised in her mother's faith, orthodox Christianity, because her father, apparently, was absent in the course of her upbringing. The Sudanese authorities regard as a crime her marriage to a South Sudanese Christian. This is not something that any civilised government can just let go by or just shake its head at. It needs to be raised. Ireland needs to raise issues such as this continuously at international fora. This particular issue raises complex enough issues about the role of religion within states but also raises more obvious questions about people's freedom to practice and manifest their religious belief or the fact that they have no particular religious belief. Ireland must not be shy about raising these issues and being awkward on the world stage, irrespective of what economic issues arise. We should enlist the support of Muslim groups in our country, just as we rightly have done in expressing concern about the fate of Irish citizens who have been caught up in the turmoil in Egypt. I have one case in particular in mind, namely, that of the student who, as of a number of weeks ago, had been in jail for seven months awaiting trial. We need to co-opt the support of Islamic groups in the State, for example, to help us to communicate that what is happening is no true reflection of Islam and that human dignity entails necessary respect for freedom of religious belief and conscience. Freedom of conscious is another vital concept.

The Minister said that as Ireland prepares for a constitutional referendum on marriage equality for same-sex couples in 2015, certain states, by contrast, are working hard to restrict the rights and fundamental freedoms of gay people. That is terrible. It is important that there be listening and humility in regard to identifying what human rights are in this case. There will be those who will oppose the referendum. The former editor of The Irish Times and former Deputy, Geraldine Kennedy, says she expects the referendum not to succeed. If that is the case, it will be because a majority of people with total respect for human rights may regard human rights in terms other than those envisaged, and may not regard having our current definition of marriage redefined as a human right. Those affected must not be marginalised or stigmatised; they must be listened to. We must work out our understanding of what human rights entail, not by deciding what we must get the people to decide but by listening carefully to what the people actually decide. We must allow that to inform public thinking on this issue.

There is much more that I could say. I thank the Acting Chairman for his indulgence. Difficult issues will arise and differences of opinion simply cannot be wished away. We must search for the truth together in a mutually respectful way and take their lead from, rather than dictate to, the considered, reflected position of the people, in whom all decision-making ultimately resides.

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.

I welcome the Minister. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on Second Stage of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Bill 2014. I acknowledge the hard work of the Irish Human Rights Commission, IHRC, and the Equality Authority which together have ensured equality, human dignity and human rights have been at the heart of the ethos of legislation and policy in the State. The IHRC was formed following the Good Friday Agreement and established under the Human Rights Commission Act 2000. Similarly, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was established at the time.

As a member of the United Nations since 1955, Ireland has been a long-standing advocate of human rights and international peacekeeping. The IHRC has been recognised internationally for its autonomy from the State and its commitment to and credible reporting on human rights. It received an "A" accreditation rating from the National Human Rights Institutions Forum under the auspices of the United Nations, which was a fantastic achievement. It also demonstrates the autonomous nature of the commission under the Paris Principles, the informal set of rules created by the United Nations.

The Equality Authority was established in 1999, having formerly existed as the Employment Equality Agency. It has worked tirelessly to eliminate discrimination, which unfortunately continues in our society. The authority has highlighted and subsequently worked to eradicate discrimination in employment law and parental leave policy and worked towards the promotion of equality for carers and in policies affecting those with disabilities.

With the enactment of the Bill which proposes to merge the IHRC and the Equality Authority, the nation will continue to ensure the safeguarding of human rights and equality but in a more efficient, cost-effective and coherent way. Since the coalition Government took office in 2011 in the wake of the banking collapse of the previous years, among the priorities in the programme for Government has been a reduction of the number of public bodies. The merger is not only potentially saving taxpayers €500,000 but ensuring greater efficiency in the operation of the bodies since the IHRC and the Equality Authority have overlapping mandates, particularly in respect of discrimination legislation and policy. The new commission will be able to formulate policy and legislation in a more integrated way, making it easy for people to navigate the system, while ensuring greater efficiency in the output of policy and legislation.

Part 3 of the Bill outlines the enforcement powers of the commission, as well as providing for the dissolution of the IHRC. The Bill proposes amendments to the European Convention on Human Rights Act in Part 5 by providing for the right of compensation where a person believes his or her freedom is deprived by judicial error in breach of article 5 of the convention. That is a very welcome measure.

In 2007 the UK Government enacted legislation to merge a more cumbersome number of public bodies than is proposed here. It legislated to amalgamate the Commission for Racial Equality, the Disability Rights Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission to form a single body, the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The merger was successful and we find ourselves following in those legislative footsteps today. I am disappointed that Fianna Fáil intends to oppose the Bill. I am aware of the concerns raised about the Bill, in particular regarding the two definitions of "human rights" in Parts 1 and 3. The inconsistency means the human rights that can be at issue before the newly formed commission must be agreed to by force of law in the State. In other words, to be considered by the commission, rights must be enshrined in the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and existing equality legislation.

The Bill proposes to introduce a positive duty on public bodies, which is reflective of a commitment made by the Government under the Programme for National Recovery. The positive duty obliges the commission to provide guidelines and codes of practice for public bodies, which is a progressive measure. This ensures greater transparency in the governing of public bodies with a human rights and equality centred approach.

The powers of inquiry of the new commission will, in fact, be greater than the previous powers of inquiry of the Equality Authority, a very notable and welcome measure. It ensures the autonomous nature of the commission is maintained and that what is proposed is a commission independent of the Government. The enforcement powers outlined in the Bill ensure it will maintain the "A" rating received from the United Nations body which oversees the independence of human rights based commissions internationally.

I appreciate that the logistics of the Bill entail changes and a transitional process for both public bodies in terms of staff, management, the amalgamation of mandates, powers and the body of work which must be teased out and agreed. However, in time the newly formed commission will overcome the immediate obstacles and ensure the nation will have an independent, cohesive commission underpinned by legislation to strengthen and give voice to the human and equal rights of the people for a more equal present and a fairer future.

I also welcome the Minister. This is my first opportunity to congratulate her on her new role. She did good work in her previous portfolio and I welcome her appointment to her new one.

Like Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin will oppose the legislation, as it did in the other House. When the merger of these bodies was originally proposed, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, now Tánaiste, described it as an attempt to turn back the clock on the equality agenda. The legislation will undermine the human rights provisions of the Good Friday Agreement and may lead to a loss of focus and expertise. For that reason, we oppose the Bill.

The Bill dissolves some of the bedrock of the Good Friday Agreement, of which both Governments are co-equal guarantors and which was endorsed by the vast majority of people across the island. The Bill undermines the Agreement as a whole by sending the message to any party to it that there is the possibility to hollow it out one component at a time and that there is flexibility around its foundations. That is not acceptable. It could be seen as a betrayal of the vote of the people and undermining the political, democratic peace process. Sinn Féin wonders why the Government would seek to undermine or in any form unravel the very fabric of peace on the island or to give any signal that the Agreement is open for dismemberment or à la carte implementation. In that regard, I ask the Minister to say what consultation was engaged in on the implications for the Agreement.

The British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly has acknowledged that the potential of the Good Friday Agreement has not been fully realised. Some elements have not been implemented. With so much left to do under the Agreement, why would we take a step that might be seen as undermining it? It may cause the Government to lose the moral authority to challenge those who want to unpick the Agreement in the context of other aspects of society and what is happening in the peace process. We cannot afford to let that happen. Monumental work has taken place to get us to where we are today. As a co-guarantor of the Agreement, the Government has a duty to take it seriously. Rather than to send this signal with the Bill, it should be seen to promote and progress the Agreement. We should not be removing parts of it that need to be changed.

While we acknowledge that savings could be made by implementing the Bill, such savings could be realised elsewhere.

We must question whether any savings could be lost down the line should peace on the island be jeopardised in any way from any potential ramifications. The proposal is counterproductive. Like my colleagues in the Dáil, I am calling on the Government not to proceed with it.

Since 2011, my party has called on the Government to ensure that the bodies continue to benefit from the equivalency of human rights provisions set out in the Good Friday Agreement. As was mentioned by other Senators here this afternoon, under the UN Paris Principles, the Irish and Northern Ireland human rights commissions hold an "A" status rating, meaning that they must be appropriately mandated and financially secure so they are able to conduct their work effectively. It is imperative that the human rights and equality body is resourced and mandated adequately in order to carry out the work.

My colleague, Deputy Jonathan O'Brien, introduced a Bill in the Dáil to strengthen the Irish Human Rights Commission following the Government's proposal of a merger with the Equality Authority. This Bill would have the effect of increasing the commission's remit and would have given it the protection it deserves as a crucial element of the human rights provisions of the Good Friday Agreement. My party and I stand by the Human Rights Commission (Amendment) Bill 2011.

If the Government is to live up to the commitments under the Good Friday Agreement, which is an internationally recognised agreement, we need to make sure that these institutions are protected. It is for those reasons that we are opposing this legislation.

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.

Question put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 10.

  • Bacik, Ivana.
  • Barrett, Sean D.
  • Brennan, Terry.
  • Burke, Colm.
  • Coghlan, Eamonn.
  • Coghlan, Paul.
  • Conway, Martin.
  • Crown, John.
  • Cummins, Maurice.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Gilroy, John.
  • Hayden, Aideen.
  • Henry, Imelda.
  • Higgins, Lorraine.
  • Keane, Cáit.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Landy, Denis.
  • Mac Conghail, Fiach.
  • Moloney, Marie.
  • Moran, Mary.
  • Mullen, Rónán.
  • Mullins, Michael.
  • Naughton, Hildegarde.
  • O'Donnell, Marie-Louise.
  • O'Keeffe, Susan.
  • Sheahan, Tom.
  • van Turnhout, Jillian.
  • Whelan, John.
  • Zappone, Katherine.

Níl

  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • MacSharry, Marc.
  • Mooney, Paschal.
  • O'Donovan, Denis.
  • Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
  • Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
  • Power, Averil.
  • Reilly, Kathryn.
  • Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden; Níl, Senators Paschal Mooney and Diarmuid Wilson.
Question declared carried.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 24 June 2014.

When is it proposed to sit again?

At 10.30 tomorrow morning.

Top
Share