It is a very great honour to be invited to address this House today, and one which I greatly appreciate. I am particularly struck by the fact that Senators have made human rights the theme for this session of the Seanad. It is in that context of parliament and human rights that I will make my observations today. I will also say a few personal words about this House and its future.
Occasionally it is necessary to demystify human rights. Sometimes the language around human rights is complicated, even condescending. Sometimes "human rights speak" can almost be a foreign language, designed to exclude rather than include people. This should never be. The essence of human rights is very simple. They are the basic, fundamental and crucial elements of all our lives and ensure we can live the best lives possible.
If we look at any of the rights protected by the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the international conventions that flow from it, we see, not a list of rights to be somehow given to us, but the very basics that should exist in all societies — rights to life, health and education, among others. In an ideal world we would not even need to talk about achieving human rights. They would already be inherent in society, allowing us to live our lives in freedom and dignity. However, we do not live in an ideal world. Human rights need legal definition and enforceability if they are to be meaningful. They should be neither vague nor mystifying. Our human rights are simply all the rights laid out in Articles 40 to 44 of the Constitution, in any jurisprudence which flows from that and the human rights in all of the UN and European conventions to which we, as a country, have subscribed. There is no mystery, no obscurity. Our human rights are spelled out for us in black and white. They are not optional. They have the force of law, both our law and international law.
We must never accept that there is anything conditional about human rights. If they only apply to those who keep within the confines of what we find personally acceptable and we insist on that, then we have, in that decision, denied the most fundamental principle of all, namely: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". Human rights must be universal. Being in favour of human rights for all can often result in a criticism being levelled at those same human rights — that they somehow give rights to people who are "undeserving". After the recent riots in England, there was discussion in many newspapers about not letting human rights get in the way of charging and convicting alleged rioters. However, if we do not uphold the human rights of everybody equally, and in accordance with the law, we put at risk all human rights. This does not mean those who step outside norms of behaviour must not face the consequences of their actions. Rather, it provides a framework of protection for all in how such consequences are pursued.
Linking with Members of the Oireachtas is a key part of the work of the Irish Human Rights Commission. Human rights have to be at the heart of the work of any parliament. Parliaments are not only a fundamental pillar of democracy but have the possibility to play an active role in human rights protection and demonstrate a country's commitment to human rights. Parliaments across the world have a wide range of powers to directly ensure the protection of human rights. These include the rights Members avail of every day — the right to put questions to Ministers and Government officials, to request written reports and documents, to hold public hearings with statutory bodies and civil society organisations, the right to undertake field visits, especially to prisons and detention centres, and to ensure follow-up to the recommendations made by human rights bodies nationally and internationally.
In the Oireachtas, the role of committees is particularly important. In the Irish Human Rights Commission, I have previously recommended the establishment of a human rights committee that would undertake inquiries on human rights issues, consider Government Bills which have significant human rights implications and consider action taken by the Government to deal with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Such a committee could potentially be important for legislators in regard to situations where Irish legislation is deemed incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights Act. It is unfortunate that we do not have a full human rights committee such as exists in other parliaments around the world, with probably the best model being that of the British Parliament. Nevertheless, all committees of the Oireachtas should take human rights into account in their work. Human rights cut across almost every issue the Oireachtas deals with and it is essential that human rights are not confined to being merely matters for a justice or foreign affairs committee.
I take this opportunity to encourage Senators to ensure that there be more debates on important human rights issues in this House. For example, Ireland will come under scrutiny on 6 October at the United Nations Human Rights Council. This is a ground-breaking occasion, and will be the first consideration by the council of Ireland's entire human rights record. It is an important opportunity for Ireland to demonstrate clearly its commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms. As many other bodies in civil society have done, the Irish Human Rights Commission has contributed a report to this council concerning its audit of our human rights position and record and those things that need to be done or changed. The commission made 35 recommendations for areas in need of improvement. They included such matters as: the need for a national action plan on human rights; the need for a strong human rights infrastructure — which is a very topical and relevant issue at this time; and a call for ratification of key UN treaties. It is not acceptable that this country has yet to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers or to ratify in full the first convention of the 21st century, the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. We also advocated the need for the following: protection of those most vulnerable in the economic crisis; the need to reform the justice and penal systems in certain areas, especially concerning conditions in prisons; the need for stronger protections against racial discrimination and in the situation of Travellers; and the need for reform of the immigration and asylum system.
An Oireachtas debate on this issue and Oireachtas follow-up to the recommendations that the UN Human Rights Council will make are vital to the integrity of this process. In no way should Parliament be absent from this process and this House should take a lead role in ensuring this does not happen. Senators have the ability and the knowledge to make a real contribution and the House has a standing which would make that possible. More broadly, the Oireachtas also has a key role to play in supporting the Irish Human Rights Commission. The IHRC has repeatedly called to be directly linked to the Oireachtas, rather than to a Department. By that, I mean we should be answerable to the Houses of the Oireachtas for everything we do. This call has been echoed by international organisations and by civil society. Such a link would not only be in keeping with international best practice but would also acknowledge that human rights impact on all areas of law, policy and practice in Ireland and not, as I noted, merely as issues within the justice sector. Linking the IHRC directly to the Oireachtas would allow for more direct engagement with the work of the commission and would express Ireland's ongoing commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights.
It is foreseen, or at least it has been indicated, that the merged Irish human rights and equality commission would be linked to an Oireachtas committee and I greatly look forward to this. I expect the support of the House when the legislation comes before it.
Engagement should be a two-way process. The commission can support parliamentarians in their work. One of the primary functions of the commission is making recommendations on the compliance of legislation with international human rights standards and the human rights standards contained in the Constitution. The commission publicises and disseminates all its recommendations, including to the Oireachtas. We have seen our recommendations cited in Oireachtas debates and representatives have appeared on many occasions before Oireachtas committees. We encourage Oireachtas Members to continue to actively use our recommendations when there are debates on pieces of legislation with human rights aspects. We welcome hearing from any Member of the Oireachtas if we can provide information or guidance on an issue, and we hope that Members will encourage the referring of legislation to the commission for our comments.
I also encourage Members to monitor the follow-up and implementation of commission recommendations. I would welcome a regularly scheduled debate on the commission's annual report, which is laid before the Houses each year. I say a particular word of thanks to many Members in the Seanad who supported the Irish Human Rights Commission during some very difficult times in the past few years. I do not like praising a person behind his back but Senator David Norris was a particular supporter of the commission during some very difficult times in the past few years. He and many other Members took a dispassionate and supportive view of what Governments proposed.
As I well know, being a Senator is an ever learning process. One must master issues on an almost universal scale — economic, fiscal, social, cultural, local — and in the midst of all this it is essential that all parliamentarians have a good understanding of human rights. The commission is always willing to help in that regard.
The commission is committed to promoting human rights among civil and public servants, which is an important issue. These are the people who have at the primary level responsibility for the implementation of human rights and the upholding of human rights standards. We see this as key to ensuring the long-term sustainable creation of a human rights based society. Since April 2010, we have been running a project, with philanthropic support, to provide human rights education and training directly to the public service. As part of this project, we published a guide on human rights for the civil and public service, with 5,000 copies distributed to date. There is one in every Garda station and it has also been taken up by county councils in many parts of the country.
We have been rolling out direct human rights training for civil and public servants. In so doing we have been stressing the practical benefits to the civil and public service of engagement with this training, including through minimising legal risk. We are heartened by the positive attitude of many Departments and State services to engaging with human rights training, and we look forward to working in partnership on a wider scale with the civil and public service.
As an example I will mention our engagement with An Garda Síochána. In the early stages of my time as president of the commission I tended to preach to gardaí and very often I had good reason to. Gardaí were certainly lagging behind what was happening in Northern Ireland, where the Patten commission was undertaking a major structural root and branch reform of policing, with human rights at its heart. I made a few harsh comments about the Garda. There was a change and I found that within An Garda Síochána there was a large appetite for a human rights-based approach to police training, driven by some of the middle rank gardaí with the support of the leadership. I realised that working with people in partnership was a far more effective way of bringing about change in attitudes and in public service training and structures. In some ways, that is a great credit to An Garda Síochána while also being a model for us in working with the public sector. That is what I mean by engagement with the public service in human rights training.
I will conclude my observations on human rights by referring to one great and largely untapped source of help for both the Parliament and the Irish Human Rights Commission, namely, the existence here of a committed, dynamic and skilful civil society, many of whose members are represented in the Visitors Gallery. In the Irish Human Rights Commission we greatly value not just the friendship and support of civil society but the insights, expertise and perspectives its members so generously offer. I am delighted to see representatives of so many groups here today. Just as they help us in our work as an ongoing source of inspiration to us, so too can they be of enormous help creating a new dimension in the work of this House. They are a valuable resource waiting to give so generously of their expertise. It is an element the commission or this House will ignore to great loss.
I will turn to a subject close to my heart, namely, the current position of the House. Some of my happiest and most fulfilling hours were spent in this Chamber and in the work of the House. Many of the friendships made on all sides of the House during my years were enduring and enriching. This is a difficult time for all associated with the House and there can be no doubt that the Seanad has, to an extent, lost its way and, I suspect, much of its confidence over the past few decades. It has perhaps become too easy a target.
The current problems are attributable to no single cause. All institutions grow old and stagnate if not constantly renewed and critically reassessed. Over the years the Seanad did little of either. We can, if we wish, blame for this the complacency of too many Members, the absence for too long of any genuine will to reform or the comfort of living in a cocoon. All of us who served in earlier times must share this responsibility.
It takes two to tango and efforts at reform, and there were some, were met by a wall of indifference from successive Governments. No Government in my experience took the Seanad seriously. There were no votes in Seanad reform and no pressure to change. If Governments thought about the Seanad — they did not do so very much — they saw it as existing to facilitate government, not to be an independent source of influence or to add value to political life. It was not hostility but indifference, which in many ways is worse. In fairness, voices were raised and 11 different reports urging change appeared over the years. The report of the committee chaired by then Senator Mary O'Rourke in 2004 was a serious and honest attempt to carve out a distinctive role for a modern Senate. Sadly, and to my mind inexplicably, that report was not seriously acted upon. It was a crucial mistake and made the case for abolition that much easier to make.
That report also made clear that the problems of the House were rooted in its founding philosophy as much as, or even more than, the culpability of successive Members. If the House will indulge me a moment in history I will try to make that point. It is essentially a tale of two Senates. The Free State Senate of 1922 had clarity both as to what it should do and who its Members should be. The simple view of the day was that legislation should never be rushed, that it should be carefully and expertly scrutinised and that was the Senate's job. There was also the view that the post-revolutionary Dáil might well be lacking in business or other expertise and this Senate could well provide some of that. The third and most crucial element was reconciliation and reassurance; the Protestant and Unionist community were told that they were part of the new nation and had a major role to play.
The Seanad met, and met handsomely, all of these requirements. It took its job seriously and took its scrutiny so seriously that it frequently annoyed Ministers who resented having to spend so much time defending their legislation. Their observations were usually wise and often ahead of their time.
In terms of its composition, it was not just a pale shadow of the other House, it was radically different. The former Unionists were very well represented. Names like Jameson and Guinness, the Countess of Desart, the Earls of Mayo and Granard, Sir John Keane and the McGillacuddy of the Reeks sat side by side with Mrs. Tom Clarke, widow of the executed 1916 leader, Tom Clarke, and Joseph Connolly, the first Senator to hold ministerial office and, of course, the presence of William Butler Yeats and Oliver St. John Gogarty — a formidable and diverse membership.
However - and this remains the root of the problem about the new 1937 Seanad - there was neither ambition nor clarity in its conception. Mr. de Valera famously said "a bad Senate was better than no Senate" and sadly that is what happened. The Seanad Sub-Committee on Seanad Reform, of which Mary O'Rourke was chairman, did not put a tooth in it when it addressed the problems. It made two key observations: "The Seanad has no distinctive role in the Irish political system" and "Its arcane and outdated system of nomination and election diminishes Senators' political legitimacy". That was a brave report and these two observations go to the heart of the matter with two key questions which must feature in any reform proposals. What is the Seanad to do — how does it make a valuable contribution to the political life of the country and who should be in it — and how should they get there?
These are the questions Senators, as Members of this House, must wrestle with as referendum day approaches. It is a great responsibility and a huge challenge. I urge Members to bear one key issue in mind — the Irish people are fair-minded. They do not like being told what to do. They are indifferent, not hostile to this House and if they see a House united in its determination in showing it has a real and relevant contribution to make, determined to give value, then I believe anything is possible.
I believe a good case can be made. There is much that is good in the traditions of this House. This House has produced some outstanding Senators who did change and enhance public life. In my own time there was Mary Robinson and Catherine McGuinness, courageous and far-sighted reformers; John A. Murphy and Joe O'Toole, both fearless and iconoclastic; Ken Whitaker and Maurice Hayes, probably the two finest public servants in the history of the State; Seamus Mallon, one of the bravest men I have ever met; and the late Eoin Ryan and Jim Dooge, superb legislators; and perhaps the most memorable of all, the late Gordon Wilson, who stood for generosity and forgiveness. He did this even after the killing of his daughter and especially in the worst days of the Troubles. This is just a small list of truly outstanding people who served in this House — all of whom made a real difference. They set a standard, a benchmark of which any assembly could be proud.
This House today is different to any in which I served. When I look around today and at the performance of the House so far I see vitality and a sense of commitment which makes me envious. In a way I wish I were part of it. There is an energy here which if harnessed and focused, and focus is all important, could be highly persuasive in the public debate which will follow. There is diversity. There is the beginning of real diversity here, a beginning, only a beginning, but a genuine beginning. In welcoming diversity I am not undervaluing the key role of our political parties. I am a believer in the centrality of parties in our politics. Without distinctive coherent parties there would be chaos. We need them to give us coherent choice and the leadership to deliver change. There is no conflict between diversity and a coherent party system.
As one who had the honour to be Leader of this House I am conscious of the changes already begun under the leadership of Senator Maurice Cummins. I am particularly struck by the new public consultation procedure. I believe it has enormous potential to add a new dimension to the work of Parliament which has not been tried before. The House should do it its own way.
