Sharon Keogan Questions NGO Coordination in Bill Submissions
Sharon Keogan challenged the role of NGOs in the committee's scrutiny of a bill, asking whether organisations including the National Women's Council, IHREC and Pavee Point coordinated positions and whether FLAC or PILA shaped shared submissions. She warned that coordinated, publicly funded NGO submissions risk 'groupthink' and questioned the minister's handling of submissions, citing 477 submissions with 84% on gender and gender identity.
Allegation of coordinated submissions
Keogan asked if several organisations advocated identical reforms - including repeal of section 19, adding socio-economic status as a ground, and NGO standing to bring legal claims - and whether those positions were developed independently or through coordination. She highlighted that the National Women's Council thanked FLAC in its submission and asked whether any body led a coordinated process.
Organisations named in the exchange
The exchange named the National Women's Council, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC), Pavee Point, the Free Legal Advice Centre (FLAC) and PILA (Public Interest Law Alliance). Keogan also referenced a 'Future of Equality Legislation' advisory group that was mentioned in the session.
Responses from IHREC and the National Women's Council
An IHREC representative said the commission is a statutory body, governed by appointed commissioners, and that its decisions are made independently; the representative said FLAC was not referenced in IHREC's submission but a FLAC member participated on an advisory group. The National Women's Council's representative said the council is membership-based, consults almost 200 member organisations and draws on member expertise (including Pavee Point) when developing policy positions.
Pavee Point and concerns about collaboration
A Pavee Point representative defended collaboration, saying NGOs consult one another and seek legal advice when necessary and warning against suggesting cooperation is improper. Keogan pressed on how the committee can be sure it is hearing diverse voices when multiple submissions appear similar or use the same legal advisers.
Implications for committee scrutiny
Keogan framed the line of questioning as part of the committee's scrutiny role, urging clarity on whether shared submissions represent independent views or a single coordinated campaign and raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the exclusion of dissenting submissions by the minister.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
This is a very important piece of legislation that we as the committee here must scrutinise and you're part of that scrutiny, unfortunately. So I'm going to talk about NGOs in general and the collaboration and the influence that you have in relation to this particular consultation process. So several of the organisations, the National Women's Council, the IHREC, Pavey Point and others appear to advocate for identical reforms, including the repeal of section 19, the addition of the socio-economic status ground and NGO standings to bring legal claims. Were these positions developed independently or was there a coordinated effort? If coordinated, who led that process? I see that the National Women's Submission thanks FLAC for its support in preparing the document. Given FLAC's legal expertise and the fact that both FLAC and its sister organisation, PILA, the Public Interest Law Alliance, are generally active in writing and advising on Oireachta's submissions, could the panel clarify whether FLAC or any other organisation played a role in coordinating or shaping shared positions across your organisations? And when publicly funded NGOs appear to coordinate their submissions, share or collaborate with the same legal advisors and advocate for identical reforms, how can we be sure that we're hearing in the diversity of voices and not a single coordinated campaign? I mean, last week we heard from the officials, I think it was 477 submissions made in this particular legislation and 84% of them were on gender and gender identity from various sides. And the minister completely ignored the side that he didn't want to hear from and left their submissions out of the submissions. So, is there not a risk of groupthink or worse, a conflict of interest here? So, if you can, each of you want to take that. I've mentioned three organisations there. Do you want to direct your question to somebody in particular to start? Was there, was these positions developed independently or was there a coordinated effort? If it was coordinated, who led the process? Yeah, who do you want to direct your first question to? It was to the National Women's Council, the IHREC and Paveau Point. The three of them are actually, I think that FLAC were mentioned in all of their submissions. Perfect. Who would like to respond? Yeah, perfect. Mr. Eric. I'm happy to address the question in the sense that the Irish Human Rights and Equalty Commission is not a non-governmental organisation. We're a statutory body established by statute in 2014. And we are governed by a wide range of regulatory bodies. But all of the decisions of the Irish Human Rights and Equalty Commission are made by the commissioners who are appointed by the president on the advice of the government. I don't believe there's a reference to the Free Legal Advice Centre in our submission. There's a reference to an advisory group called the Future of Equality Legislation. And that was a group which we assembled, made of the leading academic experts and authorities on equality in Ireland and indeed internationally and a number of other key organisations. But they were advising the commission who made their own independent decisions. Do you directly corroborate with FLAC? We'll just give Ms. Mitchell a chance to reply as well. Do you have direct collaboration with FLAC? With the Free Legal Advice Centre? Well, we haven't referenced them in our submission because they weren't part of that process. There was a member of FLAC on that body. And, of course, we engage with a huge range of stakeholders in our society, including the Free Legal Advice Centre. They're an organisation which is in existence for over 50 years, I think, yeah. Senator Keoghan, do you want Ms. Mitchell to reply as well? No, and the National Women's Council? Yep. Thank you, Senator, for your question. So, just to confirm that the National Women's Council is a membership-based organisation, we have almost 200 member organisations from various different sectors across the island of Ireland, both north and south, and they are representative of various different sectors, including migrant organisations, domestic, sexual, gender-based violence organisations, the LGBT plus community, and many, many others. So, in the development of our policy positions and recommendations, we would absolutely consult with our member organisations, and the views, opinions, experience, knowledge of our member organisations would very much be reflected in any policy positions or recommendations that we would produce and submit, including to Oireachtas committees. And on this particular occasion, in relation to our submission on this particular bill, it would be very standard practice for us to consult with different member groups, different organisations, different civil society groups as well, outside of our membership, very much acknowledging that our members have particular expertise, knowledge in certain areas. So, for example, with one family having expertise in relation to lone parents, in relation to Pavi Point in terms of the experiences of Traveller women, we would be very much drawing on that expertise and knowledge and reflecting that in our own positions of the organisation. I'm happy, yep. Mr Conant. Thank you very much, Chair. First of all, I have to be quite candid. I feel somewhat uneasy with the way the question is being framed and what's being insinuated, as if collaboration and coordination between different NGOs is maybe not such a good thing. Maybe the Deputy will have us operate in silos. You know, so there is cooperation, there is collaboration between different NGOs and between NGOs and other organisations who are not NGOs, such as IREC. So, for example, in Pavi Point, when we were developing our submission, we had an internal consultation process with our staff and some obviously were more qualified than others from a legal perspective. But we felt that we did need additional advice and it would be remiss of us not to go and get some further advice from the legal experts. We did, with FLAC and with IREC, to be quite candid. And just for your information, FLAC does have two units. One is a Roma Legal Advice Unit and the other is a Traveller Legal Advice Unit, which are really essential in offering advice to Travellers and Roma who are going through the legal process. So it would have been a remiss of us if we didn't avail of that expertise. And that's an ongoing way of operating. Thank you very much.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
