If I have to leave during a presentation, it will not be a reflection on anybody. I have to attend the Joint Committee on European Affairs to hear the French delegation to the convention. I will return as soon as possible.
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disability: Ministerial Presentation.
That is understandable. Minutes of the meeting held on 24 April were circulated with the agenda. Are they in order? Agreed.
The first item is the proposed UN treaty on the rights of persons with disability. At the request of the sub-committee, arising from the previous meeting, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Kitt, were invited to speak on the proposed treaty today. Deputy Kitt is overseas and has apologised for not being able to attend. He is represented today by Mr. John Biggar and Ms Caroline Phelan from his Department. Chairman continuing. You are both welcome. Mr. Biggar is head of the human rights division in the Department and will outline its views on this issue. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform had indicated that he would appear before the sub-committee today. This morning we were notified that he is otherwise engaged and cannot attend. He sends his apologies and his views are to be represented by Anne Doyle, Jim McCaffrey and Sandra Smith. These officials are from the disability equality unit in the Department and I welcome them to the committee.
I heard only a few minutes ago that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform would not attend this meeting. I have the greatest respect for the representatives from both Departments. The issues to be resolved that fall within the ambit of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform are quite serious. The clock is ticking regarding the meetings that will take place in June. I find that no reason has been given for the Minister's non-attendance. Perhaps the circumstances are of such a high security level that they cannot be shared with us. I find this late announcement of non-attendance to be simply unacceptable, particularly given the urgency of the issue. The Chairman knows that meetings concerning this issue will take place within a time scale that may not make it possible for attendance. The suggestion that the Minister has no objection to attending a meeting at a later date might strike him as benevolent, however it strikes me as being singularly useless.
I only learned when I came to this meeting that the Minister was not making himself available. I concur with what DeputyHiggins said about the Department officials. There are a number of human rights issues that are in the public domain. I would like to have heard the Minister outline his position on imminent discussions that are important to the disability sector and to us. Is this a cancellation or are we likely to hear from the Minister at a later date?
While I am not a member of this sub-committee, I have an interest in the area. I am disappointed that the Minister is not here. I have specific questions that I wanted to ask of the Minister. Given that there are political decisions surrounding this area, the official may interpret these questions as being quite political. If we cannot get answers to these in this political forum, surely it reduces the contribution that will be made on this issue.
I fully share the disappointment of Members. As I stressed earlier, notification of his non-attendance only arrived some hours ago and took us by surprise. It has been indicated that the Minister would be willing to take up a future invitation if we decide to issue it. The officials from the Departments are here in a non-political capacity. While they can report the views of their respective Ministers, their role is outside politics.
The Chairman has introduced the officials - and they are wonderful people - as representing their Ministers. They will represent the Ministers in relation to any matter we choose to raise, otherwise we will not proceed.
We must accept that they will not give personal views on political matters, rather, they will be giving the view of the Department.
Of course.
It is the views of the Minister we want. The Minister is making decisions on this issue and is procrastinating on some of them.
They will certainly represent the views of the Minister and will not give personal views on his decisions. There will be two presentations and I turn first to Ms Doyle and ask her to note that while Members are covered by privilege, others appearing before the committee are not. A number of lobby groups have made presentations to us and have voiced their concern about the Government's position on a possible UN treaty. At our last meeting in April, the sub-committee passed the following resolution:
The Sub-Committee on Human Rights supports the adoption of the United Nations Convention on Disabilities, and recommends the Irish Government, in accordance with its opening position, play a lead role at EU level to achieving a common EU position toward the achievement of a United Nations Treaty on the Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Ms Anne Doyle
I am here to make a brief factual statement to the committee on the negotiations taking place in relation to proposals for a UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I can outline the position in so far as it relates to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
On 19 December 2001 the General Assembly of the UN decided, on foot of a proposal by Mexico, to establish an ad hoc committee to consider proposals for an international convention for people with disabilities. Members of the committee will be aware that the first meeting of the ad hoc committee took place in New York in the summer of 2002. Government representation at the meeting was from the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. At the meeting, the committee concerned itself mainly with procedural matters. The second meeting of the ad hoc committee will take place in June and the expectation is that it will begin the task of examining the possible content and scope of what any proposed convention or other binding instrument might contain.
In preparation for this meeting, the UN Secretary General asked for the views of all member states about the proposals each would like to see included in his report to the committee. In accordance with normal practice, the EU decided to co-ordinate a common response to the UN Secretary General. Following receipt of the request from the UN Secretary General, the Greek Presidency took action to co-ordinate a common EU response. Consultations were necessary domestically, both at ministerial and interdepartmental level, to co-ordinate Ireland's position in regard to the work of the ad hoc committee and these consultations took place as quickly as possible. As the Department responsible for disability equality policy, the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform had to satisfy itself that any common position was entirely compatible with Government policy in the area. Equally, the Department of Foreign Affairs had to satisfy itself that both Ireland’s position and the EU common position which eventually emerged, were consistent with Ireland’s policy on human rights internationally, including existing obligations under international human rights instruments to which the State is party. Discussions between the two Departments took place to ensure the common Union position would be consistent with Government policy in all its aspects. These discussions have resulted in the adoption of an agreed policy position by the two Departments which fed into the negotiations at EU level. Negotiations took place among EU member states and a common position, subscribed to by all member states of the Union, including Ireland, has been adopted and forwarded to the UN Secretary General. Briefing supplied to the committee by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform outlines the position in this regard.
Ireland believes the guiding principle of any new legally binding instrument in the area of disability should be to ensure that persons with disabilities can better enjoy their human rights. Ireland, along with our EU partners, will aim to ensure that the processes and outcomes of the ad hoc committee meet this principle. In advance of the meeting in New York in June, Ireland continues to work with our EU partners in refining and developing our approach to the forthcoming negotiations. More work is required and Ireland continues to participate fully in EU preparations and in the work of the ad hoc committee.
As the EU continues to develop proposals to input to the work of the ad hoc committee, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform will continue to work closely with the Department of Foreign Affairs to ensure that these preparations and the work of the ad hoc committee are advanced as quickly as possible. The Department thanks the committee for this opportunity to outline the factual position relating to the development of the common EU position for the June meeting of the UN ad hoc committee in New York.
I thank Ms Doyle for her presentation. Before we move to questions mode, we should take the submission from Mr. John Biggar. He will explain to us the views of Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Kitt. I remind Mr. Biggar of the privilege rules that, while members are covered, others appearing before the committee are not. I invite Mr. Biggar to make his presentation.
Mr. John Biggar
The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Kitt, has asked me to express his regret that he is unable to attend today. As the chairman indicated, he is out of the country fulfilling a long-standing commitment. I also thank the sub-committee for the opportunity to present the views of my Department on the proposed UN convention on the human rights of persons with disabilities.
As members will be aware, there are a number of international instruments, known collectively as the International Bill of Rights, which set out the various human rights recognised in international law. These instruments are founded on a number of fundamental principles - that human rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person, all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, everyone is entitled to all human rights and freedoms without distinction of any kind. The issue, then, is not whether persons with disabilities are entitled to human rights, nor what these rights should be - the answer to that is clear. In accordance with these principles, and in accordance with international human rights law, persons with disabilities have exactly the same human rights as every other person, and are entitled to enjoy them without discrimination.
At the same time, it has long been clear that persons with disabilities face particular obstacles when it comes to the effective enjoyment of these universally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms. This is true in every part of the world, but particularly so in developing countries. It is thought that two-thirds of the 600 million people with disabilities live in developing countries. A considerable number of actions have been taken at international level with the aim of addressing this situation. I will briefly outline some of the more significant ones. The International Year of Disabled Persons was 1981. It called for a plan of action at national, regional and international levels, with an emphasis on equalisation of opportunities, rehabilitation and prevention of disabilities. A major lesson of the year was that social attitudes are a major barrier to the realisation of the goal of full participation and equality in society. In 1982, the General Assembly adopted the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons. Its purpose is to promote effective measures for the prevention of disability, for rehabilitation, for the realisation of the goals of full participation of disabled persons in social life and development and for equality. Equality was defined to mean opportunities equal to those of the whole population and an equal share in the improvement in living conditions resulting from social and economic development. In order to provide a time frame during which governments and organisations could implement the activities recommended in the World Programme of Action, the General Assembly proclaimed 1983-1992 as the United Nations Decade of Disabled Persons.
The possibility of a convention on the human rights of persons with disabilities was first raised in 1987. In that year a global meeting of experts to review the implementation of the World Programme of Action recommended convening a special conference to draft an international convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against disabled persons. This issue was taken up by a number of governments, but did not command consensus among the international community. Eventually, agreement was reached on a non-binding instrument, the Standard Rules on Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, which were unanimously adopted by the General Assembly in 1993. Although they are not binding on states, these 22 rules provide a framework to further implement the goals of equality and full participation of disabled persons in social life and development set forth in the World Programme of Action. The next year, the Commission on Social Development appointed a special rapporteur with the mandate to further promotion and monitoring of the standard rules, including the human rights dimensions of disability. The mandate of the special rapporteur has been renewed periodically since then, and currently runs until 2005.
The rights of persons with disabilities was identified in the 1996 White Paper on foreign policy as a priority area for Ireland's human rights policy at the United Nations. A number of other aspects of our foreign policy also address the question of disability, either directly or indirectly. For example, particular attention has been given to the question of land mines, a pervading menace which leave millions with permanent disabilities, most often in the countries least able to provide the necessary medical care and rehabilitation. Ireland Aid seeks to tackle this issue as part of its ongoing emergency and rehabilitation support. For instance, in 2002, approximately €1.8 million was allocated to dealing with this issue and its impact on people in a number of countries, including Angola, Afghanistan and Eritrea. Ireland Aid provides funding to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to carry out activities on human rights and disability issues, earmarking €190,500 and €150,000 respectively in 2001 and 2002 for this issue from our contribution to that Office. It is expected that a similar contribution will be made in 2003.
Part of this funding supported a major UN study on human rights and disability which was commissioned by the then High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mrs. Mary Robinson, and launched in January 2002. The Minister of State with special responsibility for overseas development and human rights, Deputy Kitt, participated at the recent Irish launch of the study. In 1996, the issue of human rights of persons with disabilities was not on the agenda of the Commission on Human Rights and it was decided that one of the contributions that Ireland could make to the issue would be to table a resolution on the subject. The main aim of these resolutions has been to restate the fundamental principle of equality and that any discrimination on the grounds of disability is a fundamental violation of the human rights of persons with disabilities. The resolutions have also sought to increase support for the UN Voluntary Fund on Disability and link work in the Commission on Human Rights into the work of the UN Commission on Social Development, in particular by enabling the special rapporteur on Disability to address the Commission on Human Rights. A major aim of the resolutions was to set out the existing international acquis in relation to human rights and disability. We believe we succeeded in that aim, and in adding a human rights focus to disability, which had previously been seen largely as a social development issue.
The resolutions tabled by Ireland did not address the substance of a convention on the human rights of persons with disabilities, although the 2002 resolution dealt with procedural aspects of the work of the ad hoc committee on the question. This was because there was not an international consensus in support of the convention approach. However, in December 2001, on foot of a Mexican initiative, the UN General Assembly passed resolution 56/168, which, inter alia, established an ad hoc committee to consider proposals for a comprehensive and integral international convention to promote and protect the dignity and rights of persons with disabilities. The first meeting of the committee was held in New York in July and August of last year. In advance of that meeting, my Department, along with the National Disability Authority, co-hosted an international conference to consider the question of the convention and to inform the preparatory work of the ad hoc committee. Ireland was represented at the committee by officials of the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Justice, Equality and Law Reform. That delegation also included, at the request of the Irish Human Rights Commission, Professor Gerard Quinn, who I understand addressed this sub-committee last month. The first meeting of the ad hoc committee concentrated largely on organisational questions relating to the future work and process of the committee. The second meeting will take place this June in New York.
European Union preparations for the next meeting of the ad hoc committee are being made in the framework of the Union's common foreign and security policy, which means that all decisions are adopted unanimously and by consensus within the Union. The EU has already submitted a common response to the requests of the UN Secretary General for views on a number of questions, including the nature and structure of the convention, the elements to be considered, follow-up and monitoring and complementarity between a new instrument and existing instruments. A copy of the common response has been made available to the clerk and, I believe, the members of the sub-committee. As already mentioned, Ireland is working with our EU partners on possible elements for inclusion in the convention. A further special meeting of the EU human rights working group was held on 16 May of this year for that purpose.
The EU continues to develop further concrete proposals for the work of the committee. However, it is already clear from the discussions earlier this month that many of the views put forward by Ireland, both on what might be included and what should not be, are shared by other countries within the EU. Ireland will continue to participate actively and constructively in the EU preparatory work and in the work of the ad hoc committee.
I thank Mr. Biggar for those comments and I am sure my colleagues will have many questions for him and Ms Doyle, and perhaps some of their colleagues may also wish to join in. Mr. Biggar concluded by talking about the views put forward by Ireland on what might be included and what should not be included. Could he give us an indication of what should not be included in a possible treaty?
Mr. Biggar
Referring to the position paper sent by the EU to the Secretary General, the EU believes the treaty should deal essentially with non-discrimination, equality, participation and autonomy issues and should be broad-based. We believe that too detailed a convention will not gain wide acceptance among governments. All the concerns about what should be included fall within that framework. We believe, for instance, it is important to include a specific, broad-based provision on non-discrimination. One of the issues that needs to be discussed in the ad hoc committee is the model of convention we are aiming for. Will we go for a framework convention along the lines of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or a much more detailed one such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child? In general, the view among the EU members is that we should go for the first model rather than something as detailed as the latter.
I take it from what Mr. Biggar has just said that there is no hesitation or reservation at this stage about the principle of a convention. If there is agreement on the principle of a convention and the discussion is about which model, can I take it that there is no reservation on the part of the Government about the inclusion of social, economic and cultural rights along with civil and political rights within whatever model we decide to follow? Will there be straightforward inclusion of those rights? I would prefer if Mr. Biggar were to reply straightforwardly that this is a matter that has not yet been resolved by the Irish Government and is the basis of the letter of the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, to theMinister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform expressing his concern. I am aware of this letter, as are other members of the committee and the public. This is why we considered it necessary for the Minister to come and defend what Ministers do and the views they hold.
It is absolutely essential that this is clarified. Following the public discussion of what we might call the Kitt letter - I mean no disrespect to the Minister of State; in fact, respect is a genuine concern - the discussion that took place among those who were familiar with the argument was that Ireland had taken a strong position - an initiating position - and had moved back and now found itself the country with reservations, the country that might prove a stumbling block.
My next question is to the representatives of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Is it the view of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and of the Government that we will vote for a resolution proposed by Mexico in relation to the convention, or will we support the Swedish position? If a resolution is put forward dealing with one particular process which may be slower, what is the position of the Government on this? I note that the submission from the Department of Foreign Affairs announces that the EU has reached a common position in its submission to the ad hoc committee. Speaking straightforwardly - because after all, in the view of the Minister, DeputyMcDowell, the Parliament is also a very blunt place - the view is that the new position would be much stronger and more helpful to both the principle and delivery of a convention had Ireland’s position not been weakened and is still weakening. These are all questions that can be straightforwardly answered
I am representing Deputy Quinn today as he cannot be here. I was here, however, when the representative groups of those who are affected by all this came here and made a presentation in good faith. I am left with a fundamental question I must ask myself: should I ask the people to whom I listened to rely on the Executive to address the delivery of rights? Should I listen to a ministerial view that suggests that the Executive alone shall adjust itself to the rights of citizens? My own view - because if I ask questions, people are entitled to my views - is that it would be profoundly wrong. The jurisprudence that stands behind this policy is deeply conservative and reactionary and goes against the more just approach which has been evolving since 1987. The urgency of our meeting is due to the considerable danger, not only to the national reputation, but related to the fact that a forward momentum that has been building up, particularly since the end of the 1990s, is in danger of being lost. Let us hear straightforwardly whether it is the view of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that it is the Executive, and only the Executive, that shall deliver in the area of disability. If he profoundly disagrees with me, let us hear from his spokespersons where he stands on this issue.
Mr. Biggar
Deputy Higgins asked many questions. I hope I can reply to some of them. Regarding the principle of the convention, that to a large extent was the point of the letter by the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt. If one looks at the position paper agreed in March one will see that it talks about a legally binding instrument. At that time, however, we had not decided finally on what form of instrument we might be looking at. There are a number of options. At this stage the EU is prepared to make the assumption that we will look at a convention and we have indicated our willingness to work towards such an outcome.
On the question of what rights might be included, we are clearly talking about the enjoyment of all existing human rights for people with disabilities. However, it is important also to take into account that the states have undertaken different commitments on civil and political rights, on the one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights, on the other. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 2 talks about taking steps, to the maximum of available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realisation of rights recognised in the covenant by all appropriate means.
It might be of help if I clarified my position. I am not worried about that. If Mr. Biggar tells me the Department has no objection to cultural, social and economic rights and that it accepts the principle of progressivism, and I do not have a problem with that.
Mr. Biggar
As I indicated, the EU position is that we are looking towards the enjoyment of all existing human rights for persons with disabilities. I think Deputy Higgins asked what the difference would be, if we took a vote, between a Mexican position and a Swedish position. I am somewhat puzzled by that. Sweden is a member of the European Union and is working with us and all other member states to reach a common position.Mexico has proposed a particular draft convention but there is by no means agreement within the ad hoc committee that this should even be the basis of work. We need to look at that issue. In any event, the question of a vote does not arise because the ad hoc committee works by consensus. We are talking about trying to reach agreement among 190 member states of the UN. Within the EU there are clearly 25 different positions if we count the acceding states——
Which position do we support?
Mr. Biggar
We support a convention that deals with non-discrimination and the effective enjoyment of human rights.
Some of Deputy Higgins' questions refer to Ms Doyle's Department, so perhaps she could assist.
Ms Doyle
The first question the Deputy asked was whether there was any hesitation in ascribing to a convention. I refer to a parliamentary question asked by Deputy Neville and answered by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The question asked for the details of the opposition at EU level in relation to a proposed UN convention. The Minister said "I am not opposed to the proposed UN convention on the rights of people with disabilities and I have consulted upon and fully agree with the position which has been taken by Ireland in the matter." The reply goes on to outline some of the factual information that Mr. Biggar and I have outlined to the committee.
Deputy Higgins went on to talk about agreement in principle about what kind of model to adopt and whether there is a distinction between social, economic and cultural rights, on the one hand, and political and civil rights, on the other. I will address those questions later, in the context of answering the third question, about the view the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform would take if there was a vote on separate resolutions tabled by Mexico and Sweden.
At this stage I would not like to pre-empt any future discussions, either departmentally, at EU level or in the UN. These negotiations are to take place next month, and there may be other proposals on the table at that stage. I would also be reticent in giving the views of either the Department or the Minister on the detail of these issues, where we would need to consider and develop a position in negotiation, as well as from our own position here.
Going back to the questions raised earlier, there is a debate going on about the role of the Executive and Legislature, as well as the role of the Judiciary, on the delivery of rights for people with disabilities. This is essentially a political debate and it is not part of my role here to engage in that debate with members of the committee.
I am glad Ms Doyle has acknowledged that this is profoundly a matter of political opinion. The suggestion that we can have an extreme version of the division of powers, as the Minister has argued, is a profoundly ideological and politically conservative position. In my questions I was not seeking to anticipate the detail of the negotiations. I wanted to hear very clearly whether there has been agreement at this stage between the two Departments that social, economic and cultural rights can and will be included in the common position that we wish the EU to support. The issue is whether we will support that position.
Ms Doyle
The position has not evolved to that stage. The EU position deals with non-discrimination, equality, participation and autonomy for people with disabilities.
I got the impression when listening to the presentation by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform that Ireland had come to a definitive position. I now get the impression from answers given by the officials that this is not the case and that the debate is still evolving. I agree that we are talking essentially about political issues here, but is it possible for either, or both sets of officials to comment on the state of play in a rights-based approach as opposed to a duties-based approach, a debate which constantly underpins any discussions in this area? I seek clarification that the position has not been defined because I got the clear impression initially that this was the case.
Before we take answers I call Deputy Neville to put his question.
I will not repeat what has been asked but I shall put one question that the official, as a representative of the Minister, will, I hope, be able to answer. What is the Minister's attitude to introducing statutory rights for people with disabilities? Has he got legal advice that there is a danger in doing that, and if so, what is that advice?
We have a question from Deputy Carey on the evolution of the process to date and a question from Deputy Neville on statutory rights.
Mr. Biggar
I would prefer to address Deputy Carey's question because Deputy Neville's question was addressed in a different direction. Deputy Carey asked about a rights-based approach. The best way to answer that is to draw attention to the report that Professor Quinn presented to this sub-committee last month. In the executive summary, he indicated that the disability rights debate is not so much about the enjoyment of specific rights as about ensuring the equal effective enjoyment of all human rights, without discrimination, by people with disabilities. Essentially, he equates the rights-based approach to a non-discrimination approach. This certainly would not be a problem as far as the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, is concerned, and neither would it be a problem as far as the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, is concerned.
Ms Doyle
It bears reiterating that Ireland fully recognises that a convention would have a major role in protecting and supporting people with disabilities in developing countries, Ireland and other developed countries. We are seeking to amplify existing UN instruments so that they are fully applicable to people with disabilities and the EU common position reflects this. The further question about what remains to be considered at EU level raises the question of how one does this. That detail remains to be developed going into this ad hoc committee.
Is the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in favour of statutory rights for people with disabilities? Has he taken legal advice on that and what is that legal advice?
Ms Doyle
I am not in a position to say more than the Minister said recently in reply to parliamentary questions, namely that the legislation on rights and duties for people with disabilities has been considered by the Government and has been referred to a Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion. That committee is examining the content and scope of the legislation.
Is there not a slight difference between amplifying existing instruments and bringing a new instrument into existence?
Ms Doyle
One could look at a new convention which would amplify the provisions in existing instruments or one could look at the notion of having protocols that would specify how each convention applied to people with disabilities. Perhaps there are other options. I certainly did not intend in saying that to give an impression that I was suggesting a particular approach. All I intended to say was that we fully recognise that the convention would amplify the content of the existing instruments.
I welcome the representatives. I take it regarding the proposed Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is the lead Department and that it, rather than the Department of Foreign Affairs, calls the shots in this area. I want to establish where the buck stops in this case. Am I right that it is with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform?
Ms Doyle
We have overall responsibility for disability equality policy but any UN convention would involve a very broad range of issues such as housing, work, welfare, health care, perhaps education and other issues. A range of Departments and ministerial responsibilities must be considered in this context. The role of the Department of Foreign Affairs is to represent us internationally in regard to human rights and all of those issues, so in effect it is a partnership.
I take it that the policy rests with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The rights-based issue and how such rights might be vindicated seems to have been the crux of the matter for some time. The delegation's briefing paper says that the Department "had to satisfy itself that any common position was entirely compatible with Government policy in this area". What is Government policy in this area? The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, in response to a question on this issue that I tabled in the Dáil, said that in regard to the UN Convention on Human Rights we had to take account of any impact it might have on national legislation. Is that a consideration, that such a convention might have an impact on our legislation or policy? How might such a convention impact on practice here in the future or has the Department looked that far ahead, if such a convention was to be implemented?
Some of my colleagues have adverted to the European context and media reports suggest that Ireland has changed position in that initially we were in the vanguard in favour of this convention but then the Government was dragging its heels and slowing it down. Reports also indicate that many of our European colleagues are concerned about this. Am I right that the European Union as a bloc has to formulate a finalised common position and bring that to the United Nations before other blocs of countries come on board? That point was made the last time this sub-committee met. What part is the EU playing in the mechanism of the UN convention and putting it together? Is it the case that if Ireland, for example, as has been indicated, was holding it up, it could hold up the whole convention at UN level? I would like some clarification because that seems to be the crux of what is going on.
We are dealing with profoundly political questions. I came here today on the basis that I would hear a presentation from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and be in a position to discuss that political approach with him, not least in the light of his comments in a speech last week. From that point of view I am sorry that the officials here, for whom I have the greatest respect, have been put into the front line. In some ways it is rather unfair because when we are dealing with political issues there are constraints on officials. Even though it is useful to have this debate and to hear an official view and officials parrying questions on behalf of their Minister with their usual expertise, we need the Minister here. He may have other very exceptional commitments but we need to have him back to deal with the profound political issues that arise here.
The question is whether this country is prepared to support a rights-based report for the disabled. It boils down to a "Yes" or "No" answer. The record to date suggests that we were taking an approach leading to an acceptance of a rights-based approach but there has been a total volte face. On that basis, it does not matter whether it is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Taoiseach. They fortunately, or unfortunately in my view, are in Government and in terms of the approach we will take to the UN agreement, and in particular our input to the EU common position, they are responsible for legislation coming before the House, such as the forthcoming disability Bill and so on. I do not want to press the officials unduly because they are not in a position to answer the kind of questions that affect us here. We want to know where this country stands in relation to the disabled and the officials are not in a position to give us the answer. That is why I demand the presence of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
There are aspects of the very carefully prepared paper produced by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which are slightly alarming. The Department reiterates strongly that it is responsible for disability equality policy and the Department accordingly "had to satisfy itself that any common position was entirely compatible with Government policy in this area". At a later stage the paper indicates the background and the discussions that took place between the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Department of Foreign Affairs "to ensure that the common EU position would be consistent with Government policy in all its aspects". Perhaps it is an overstatement to call that a sinister reference, but it seems clear that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform under the current Minister is putting down a marker to the effect that it is in charge and has an almost negative policy and that whatever the Department of Foreign Affairs thinks or whatever the people negotiating at EU or UN level believe, that is the policy that will prevail as far as Ireland is concerned.
Regarding the reference to "compatible with Government policy" or being "consistent with Government policy in all its aspects", it may not be fair to ask - I do not expect to get a full answer - but does that mean Government policy in all its aspects? Is it now suggested that everything must be entirely compatible? Is that Government policy? Is it a rights-based approach or not? I am not sure I want to ask the Minister, Deputy McDowell, that question, but I would like a simple "Yes" or "No" answer. Do we or do we not have a rights-based policy?
Perhaps we could get a response to the questions from Deputy Stanton and to the speech by Deputy O'Keeffe.
Ms Doyle
In order to answer the more difficult question, whether there is a rights-based approach, we will have to await publication of the proposed disabilities legislation.
Then we do not know.
Ms Doyle
I am not in a position to say anything about that legislation at this point. In relation to what we were saying to the committee earlier in our brief statement, we have fairly advanced equal opportunities and anti-discrimination legislation in Ireland and we also have a very strong policy of mainstreaming services for people with disabilities. We have also established the National Disability Authority. When we talk about looking at our legislative and other policies, we are talking about existing policy, the employment equality legislation, the equal status legislation, the Equality Authority, the office of the ODEI - those kind of issues, as well as policy in formulation.
We will await word from the Minister.
We are on the ministerial assumption.
Unfortunately I missed the start of the meeting and I understand the Minister sent an apology. Did he say why he was absent? Can we find out from him why he cannot be here? Is there some issue more pressing than this?
Can we find out from him when he will be here? That is what I want to know.
I said at the outset that as a committee we would take a decision on whether we would invite the Minister again and pursue the matter with him at that stage. It is up to the meeting to decide whether the invitation should be re-issued. We are aware of the fact that there is no obligation on the Minister to attend. However, he gave an indication and he had committed himself to attending today. Unfortunately, he informed us some hours ago that he was unable to attend.
I asked a question which arose from the briefing by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. This stated that "as the Department responsible for disability and equality policy, the Department had to satisfy itself with any common EU position that is entirely compatible with Government policy in this area." What is Government policy in this area?
It is not yet decided.
It refers in the briefing to the Department having to be satisfied with any common position. I understand what is meant by a common position, but the question remains as to how it is arrived at, though not necessarily finalised. Obviously there is Government policy somewhere. I would like to find out what it is.
Regarding mainstreaming, I understand that the Department of Health and Children promised - this too is a political point - to mainstream positions, yet not one has been mainstreamed this year and no funding is available. Mainstreaming is not happening in the areas where it is really important. I want to find out the Government policy alluded to. What is it?
Ms Doyle
Government policy in relation to disability equality is that people with disabilities should not be discriminated against in relation to employment, or any provision of services, under the equal status and employment equality legislation. There is a right of redress for people who consider they have been discriminated against and the Equality Authority is tasked with implementing the requirements of those two pieces of legislation. There is the further question of the development of the disability legislation, the publication of which we must all await in order to see what the policy is in that respect.
How can the Department, as specified in the note supplied, have discussions to ensure that a common EU position would be consistent with Government policy in all its aspects when the officials now tell me that there is no Government policy, that it is all in the air until we see the disability legislation? We are in Europe, trying to seek a common position in an area where we have not got one. Is that so, or is Government policy as dictated in broad terms by the Minister, Deputy McDowell, in his speech on the question of rights-based legislation last week the line that is being adopted and presented?
Ms Doyle
I cannot give the committee a more definitive answer although I know it is looking for one.
I will make one point, and it is not in order to provoke a question where it is inappropriate. Ultimately, it is the question of whether such rights as people with disabilities will enjoy are located in the person or in what the Executive will allow, or what a conservative traditional response to a conservative Executive might allow. They lead to two totally different sets of outcomes. That is why we need the Minister here to clarify his position in that regard.
Regarding the disability legislation, we know two Bills are promised. I was told in the Dáil by the Taoiseach that they would be published together and would be considered together. It now appears that the Disability Bill itself will not be published until the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill 2002 is enacted. This will defer it to the autumn or beyond. Has Ms Doyle any comment on timescale? Much depends on this legislation coming before the Houses and being debated and hopefully enacted in a positive way.
Ms Doyle
I will quote again from a parliamentary question from Deputy Dan Boyle answered by the Minister on 20 May. The Minister indicated that a Cabinet sub-committee will play a key role in facilitating cross-departmental co-operation in the development of legislative proposals over the coming months. I think therefore that the Deputy's inference is correct.
We have progressed as far as we can today with the constraints on us. I thank the officials for their attendance. They have illuminated the position as far as possible. It is the view of the committee that the Minister should again be invited to be present. When will the June ad hoc committee meeting take place?
Mr. Biggar
It will take place from 16 to 27 June in New York. The ad hoc committee is still working on the preparatory stage. On the committee, there are still several countries that are not at all convinced as to the appropriateness of a convention. Those countries are outside the European Union. While the EU is working towards the convention, we are probably far further ahead than many other countries. However, it will still take a considerable number of years before the process is concluded one way or another.
Can I have a proposal to re-invite the Minister, Deputy McDowell?
We should invite him as a matter of urgency.
Is that agreed? Agreed. We will have him here at the earliest possible date. Our next official meeting is scheduled for 19 June. The ad hoc committee will be in session at that stage. Do members feel it would be helpful if the Minister was here before the ad hoc committee’s session?
We will make ourselves available to suit him. It could be most useful to see him before the ad hoc committee’s meeting.
Regarding No. 3 on the agenda, members have been circulated with a draft report on the visit to Geneva. Is the report agreed? Agreed.
At our meeting on March 27, we agreed to schedule presentations from the West Papuan Support Group and the Burma Action Group for today's meeting. I intended to suggest that we invite them to our next meeting in three weeks, but I presume that our current priority is the Minister, Deputy McDowell.
Let us invite them to the first available meeting.
As there is no other business, that concludes the meeting.
The sub-committee adjourned at 3.45 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 19 June 2003.