I welcome Dr. Maurice Manning, president of the Irish Human Rights Commission, and his colleagues, Dr. William Binchy and Dr. Alpha Connelly. Dr. Manning is no stranger to the Houses. I am sure he has noticed the great changes since electronic voting was introduced in the Dáil, saving four minutes on every division.
Irish Human Rights Commission: Presentation.
That is not a reflection on the intensity of the work done since Dr. Manning left the Houses. It might even be constituted as an infringement of human rights.
Dr. Maurice Manning
The Human Rights Commission appreciates the sub-committee's invitation. I am accompanied by Professor William Binchy, a commissioner, and Dr. Alpha Connelly, chief executive of the commission. Our presentation will outline the background to the establishment of the commission, its achievements and some of the difficulties it has encountered. It will also note the achievements of the commission in the time since it came into being. I do not intend to go through that script. It is there for guidance and as a broad indication of what we have been doing. As we have been asked to speak for about ten minutes, I will provide some background and then ask my colleagues to deal with some of the specific aspects of the commission's work.
Human rights commissions are very new institutions. Some 20 years ago there were about six of them worldwide while today there are perhaps 60 to 70. Clearly they vary greatly from country to country given the circumstances and history of the particular country. There is therefore no model or template for a human rights commission to follow. To a great extent, each country must, within certain principles, do things its own way as it goes along.
Our commission was born of the Good Friday Agreement. Commissions were set up North and South. We probably have somewhat greater powers than the commission in Northern Ireland but under the Agreement we are enjoined to work together, which we do through a joint committee. As is clear from the script provided, we have done quite a bit of work in common.
Like all new institutions, we had considerable starting-up problems which need not come as a surprise to anyone involved in public life. I have detailed some of these difficulties, which are not unique to us. I think I have said in the script that many of the difficulties could be put under the heading of the Department of Finance, the sort of difficulties people have in getting proper staffing, getting the proper funding at the early stages and trying to find a person in the Department who will answer the telephone, who might not be the same person the following week. We have got over all those problems.
In effect we have been up and running for about two years. We have had our headquarters for just over a year. We have a very small budget of about €1.3 million and a staff of nine. We have been very lucky in the quality of the commissioners we have. I have circulated the list to the committee. It is important in looking at the work of a human rights commission to note the quality of the commissioners. We have a very varied group of commissioners with huge expertise, a wide range of experience and great commitment. This is central to the success of any human rights commission, as is the quality of the staff. We were lucky in being able to recruit our own staff. Even though the staff is small, each member is with us because he or she wants to work for a human rights commission as a result of having a strong belief in its mission, not because of being sent from elsewhere.
The legislation defined for us what human rights are and that too is in the script supplied. Human rights are the rights as laid out in our Constitution and those enshrined in the large number of international agreements to which Ireland is party. I have elaborated on those in the script.
Our powers are very specific and I have outlined them in the script. My colleagues will look at how we have used some of those powers over the past couple of years. There are many things we cannot do and do not do because they are not within the powers given to us.
We determined from the outset that, first, because of our resources and, second, because we live in a society which has a high regard for human rights, with strong constitutional guarantees, a Judiciary which by and large has been very respectful of human rights, a strong Parliament, a vigilant media and many non-governmental organisations which are committed to preserving rights, if we were to make a difference, we had to be very focused. Our strategic plan indicates our key areas of work. In everything we have done or tried to do we have tried to avoid duplicating the work of existing bodies. We have tried to work with groups already in the field. We are not an NGO and we keep our distance from NGOs just as we do from Government. We do not see ourselves in a position of hostility. We will work with any group which is working in the interests of the development of human rights. We have worked with a wide variety of NGOs, especially in the area of immigration and racism and prison reform.
As I say, we try hard not to duplicate the work being done elsewhere and to concentrate on adding value to that sort of work. We are open to questions from the committee. I will now ask my colleague Professor William Binchy to speak on the work of the commission in the areas of the administration of justice, and disability, two of our key areas.
Professor William Binchy
It is a privilege to be here. I will speak briefly on the themes mentioned, beginning with disability. Both themes are current at a legislative level as the committee is aware.
We have been working in the disability area since we got off the ground. Our focus now is on the Disability Bill 2004, about which we have made submissions. While the Bill is a useful contribution we feel it has a number of deficiencies and the approach we take seeks to protect economic and social rights. Our concern about the drafting of the legislation is that it does not contain any minimum core of commitment by the Government on an ongoing basis to provide appropriate levels of support for persons with disability and that when it comes to cutting the cake, so to speak, of available resources, it makes that a matter at departmental level in order that a Minister must make an assessment based on the amount of money he or she has. That is flawed because the Government might starve a Minister in a particular Department of appropriate levels of funding in order that the Minister would then be cutting a cake which, whatever way it is sliced, is not sufficiently large to provide appropriate support for persons with disability. Those submissions extend well beyond that point but the core of our criticism is that economic and social rights which should be guaranteed under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights are not given explicit protection under the legislative proposals.
More generally, at an international level, it is fair to say that there has been a movement — also reflected in the Bill — from an understanding or interpretation of the rights of people with disability as being essentially based on a medical model through a sort of social welfare or support model to the ultimate model, now taking place at a UN level, which is the idea that the human rights of people with disabilities should be seen in their fullest extent and that one should not approach this matter from a medical or social welfare context. That would mean that one must go through the panoply of traditional social, civil, political and economic rights, for example, freedom of expression, which would normally be seen as a traditional civil right, to ensure that people with disabilities have full vindication of these rights.
In New York, the UN is putting a convention together in this area. Although it is proceeding with some degree of urgency, it is inherently a slow process to get consent for the development of a new convention in this area. For the first time, national human rights institutions and NGOs have a voice at that United Nations convention process. The Irish Human Rights Commission has been there. It has co-ordinated the European human rights institutions' voice in that area and we are organising an international conference on the theme in April to deal with the question of national scrutiny and monitoring mechanisms in regard to the convention. That is an issue of considerable importance to us.
The administration of justice is a huge area. It is fair to say the commission is conscious that international security considerations will be high in people's minds. At the moment, those may underlie a range of legislative initiatives in this area. That is absolutely understandable, but equally, at a time when those security considerations are central in people's minds, institutions such as the Human Rights Commission must emphasise the human rights dimension, which can be ignored or understated in this area. Examples are the right to a fair trial, to bodily integrity and to liberty. Those rights must be asserted, sometimes against the popular consensus in certain areas that something must be done. It is important that those rights be stressed.
We have made submissions on different legislation, including all legislative proposals in the area of the administration of justice in recent years such as the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Bill, the European Arrest Warrant Bill, the Transfer of Execution of Sentences Bill and, most recently, the Criminal Justice Bill which is now before the Oireachtas. That Bill also contains certain proposals that have merit but the commission sees difficulties with several of the central measures. I will mention two by way of conclusion. We are concerned at the proposed entitlement of a superintendent to grant a search warrant in circumstances of urgency. We do not feel that the case has been made for the absence of judicial scrutiny before a search warrant is granted.
The second major concern regarding the legislation is the extension from 12 to 24 hours of the detention period for all arrestable offences. An arrestable offence sounds fairly serious and one could be imprisoned for five years for it. However, that does not mean that the individual concerned is necessarily at risk of being imprisoned for that long. For example, one can have both large and small thefts. They may be very petty. We think that, in those circumstances, the case for extension from 12 to 24 hours has not been made. The circumstances of a police station would make it inherently intimidating to be there, even with the best will in the world on the part of Garda officers. When one moves from 12 hours to 24, the dangers of false confessions or confessions that are induced rather than freely given is quite severe. It is true that there are anomalies in the law, for example, the long and short periods foreseen at the moment. However, the resolution of those anomalies should not be to extend the period from 12 to 24 hours.
More broadly, the commission intends to get involved in the area of the administration of justice such as the Offences Against the State Acts code on which a committee chaired by the former Mr. Justice Hederman of the Supreme Court relatively recently reported.
Dr. Alpha Connelly
I am pleased at the opportunity to expand briefly on what Dr. Manning and Commissioner Binchy have said. As Dr. Manning said, among the tasks entrusted to the commission are those of ensuring that the international human rights standards to which the State subscribes are observed by it and of promoting greater understanding and awareness of those standards in Ireland. I will say something about those standards in three key areas of the commission's work: economic, social and cultural rights; racism; and gender. I will be brief and give some examples so that members get a flavour of the work that the commission has been doing.
The commission has taken the view that there is very little understanding generally in the population of economic, social and cultural rights. People are familiar with the classic civil and political liberties. For example, they feature in our Constitution. However, economic, social and cultural rights do not feature constitutionally in the same way. People may not perceive economic, social and cultural issues from a rights perspective. They may not even be aware that there is such a dimension to those issues. The commission has decided to promote or improve understanding in Ireland of that category of rights. It is conducting a major study into the nature of the rights and the mechanisms for ensuring that they are realised and, if need be, enforced, if that is appropriate. Later in the year, coming out of that body of research, the commission will hold a major international conference. People will be invited from abroad as well as from Ireland to attend. That will, one hopes, have an impact on promoting the understanding of this category of rights and the implications for Ireland.
I will now turn to the great deal that the commission has been doing on racism. Very early, in September 2003, together with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, in the context of the joint committee of the two commissions we published a user's guide to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. That publication contains the text of the convention, explains its scope and details the international procedures whereby a state such as Ireland may be held to account for the obligations that it has assumed under the convention. As it provides for a UN committee on the elimination of discrimination, there is an international expert body to review states' performance. The purpose of the publication was to help NGOs and various other groups to know about the convention and what the procedures were, and inform them about it so that they could use it in the fight against racism in both parts of the island.
As such, that publication acknowledges in a very concrete way the vital role that NGOs and other bodies play in the defence of human rights. It demonstrates the willingness of our commission to co-operate with other actors in the human rights field and help them in the furtherance of a common cause. The commission has followed that publication separately in its own right. It has made a submission to the international committee of experts on a report of the State to the racial discrimination committee. That international committee will be sitting in Geneva on 2 and 3 March — very shortly, in other words — to review Ireland's report, that is, its record of how it is implementing its obligations under the race discrimination convention.
The commission has itself made a submission to that committee. It has made several suggestions as to how the State's record could be improved in the area. It has done so by concentrating on a select number of issues detailed in my written submission. In drawing up that submission, the commission not only consulted other relevant bodies, such as the Equality Authority and the national consultative committee on racism and interculturalism, but also many relevant NGOs in the area. That illustrates the commission's desire to work, as appropriate, with other bodies in the field while maintaining its own separate identity as a statutory body.
The commission has done almost the same exercise regarding the convention on the elimination of discrimination against women. It has made a submission to that committee on the State's reports to it and consulted other relevant bodies and persons in Ireland in drawing up its report, again focusing on a concrete number of areas, such as women in poverty, women with disabilities, migrant women and older women. In drawing up its report, it has listened to what other bodies are saying in the area — not necessarily that it agrees with them totally — and, where appropriate, supported them. It will be sending a delegation to the hearing by the committee in July 2005 in New York of the State's report. That will be formally published very shortly on the evening of 7 March by the Hon. Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness on our premises. I hope that all the committee members will receive an invitation to that.
I hope that I have given members some insight into the sort of international work and standards that the commission was set up to monitor and promote. It is a small organisation. As the president has said, it has very limited funding and staff. This year, it will be seeking additional resources to enable it to fulfil its very many functions. In particular, for example, it has yet to exercise some of its legal functions, such as instituting legal proceedings to vindicate the human rights of a person or class of person. Essentially, we will need more staff to enable us to do that appropriately. The commission must be adequately staffed and resourced and start to exercise the full range of its functions. I believe the sub-committee will find that in all the key areas of work the commission has chosen to concentrate on, its impact will be felt and one hopes that it will significantly strengthen the protection of human rights listed in the State.
I thank Dr. Manning, Professor Binchy and Dr. Connelly for their initial contributions. While all three could have spoken at much greater length, they are willing to allow the sub-committee the opportunity to put questions. I might abuse my position as Chairman by putting the first question to Dr. Connelly. I was interested in what she had to say about economic and social rights. The concept may not be new but I wonder whether human rights commissions throughout the rest of the EU have dealt with economic rights as such and how that impacts on government policy in the member states. Does it make a difference or is it just aspirational?
Dr. Connelly
That is an enormous question. It is certainly is not just aspirational. Each human rights commission, where it exists in an EU member state, has a special responsibility in monitoring how the state is complying with its obligations with regard to economic social and cultural rights. Some commissions, for example, will have taken a specific economic or social right. Our commission does not see itself in that position yet. That is down the road.
As to how this impacts on Government policy, I am afraid I do not know in terms of assessing or quantifying that. However, at the United Nations level the relevant section has produced a handbook, or will do so shortly, on economic social and cultural rights and is very concerned that national human rights commissions, not only in Europe but around the world, take it on board and ensure that it is covered in their work.
I echo the Chairman's words of welcome to the three members of the delegation. My question follows on what the Chairman has raised. During the debate on the National Forum on Europe, when the Charter of Fundamental Rights was being discussed as an integral part of the constitutional treaty, there was a tension shared between the British and Irish Governments on the one hand and the Roman law tradition countries of the rest of the European Union on the other regarding a concern they expressed about the vindication of economic, social and cultural rights. I am not a lawyer. At the debate, the UK representative was trying to explain to us the conflict between our tradition of common law and rights and the continental tradition. To cite one example, the Portuguese Government saw no difficulty in incorporating the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the constitutional treaty whereas the British and Irish Governments, which share a similar legal platform, had grave reservations. The former Deputies Dessie O'Malley and Michael O'Kennedy, during the working party which produced that initial document, expressed similar reservations. Will Dr. Connelly outline for the sub-committee where the danger lies as perceived by those lawyers because they were speaking as much as lawyers as they were as politicians? Going back to what Dr. Connelly referred to, is there a legal conflict? I believe it was made manifest in the case of people with disability rights in terms of adequate resources. What is the net issue in layperson's terms? I for one think I understand it but perhaps I do not.
Before Dr. Connelly responds, I believe Deputy Carey has a similar question to ask.
My question is along the same lines, but not nearly as well articulated as Deputy Quinn's. The Charter of Fundamental Rights was a political declaration prior to its incorporation into the constitutional treaty. As someone who was involved in the convention, I recall the quite trenchant arguments of Professor McCormick, a member of the British delegation, Mr. Heathcote-Amory and others as to the wisdom or otherwise of incorporating the Charter of Fundamental Rights as a part of the constitution rather than annexing it to it as a protocol. I believe there was a rowing back at the later Intergovernmental Conference from what was the preference of the Convention as to how far the Charter of Fundamental Rights should go. Given that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will be an integral part of the constitutional treaty in the area of economic, social and cultural rights and bearing in mind it will have justiciability when conferred with powers by national governments, does it strengthen, underpin, support or threaten any of the rights in earlier more recognised conventions? In other words, is it a sop or will it add value to existing rights, particularly in the area of economic, social and cultural rights? I am not sure whether I have framed my question coherently but that is what I am trying to get at.
Dr. Connelly
I believe Deputy Quinn is essentially asking why there is an issue. It seems to me there are a number of issues and these are part of what our study is intended to tease out. One issue involves entitlements in the social and cultural field that people have. How is that reconciled with the right of governments to distribute the public purse in a manner they believe to be appropriate? It is a question of getting an accommodation between the two. In my view the international standards recognise the role of governments. It is not as if they are threatening the role of democratic governments. In terms of the formulation of the international standards, they afford a good deal of discretion to governments, but they say, for example, that there are minimum entitlements which everybody has, irrespective of where they live in the world or by reference to what is in the public purse in a particular country, since some, like Ireland, are wealthier than others. In a way it is a false perspective in that it looks as if the two are in conflict with each other. In fact, the international standards, while saying people have certain entitlements, recognise the role of governments within the resources available to them to have a degree of discretion on how they are allocated. One hopes that it will be teased out in our research in order that we can determine more clearly how they interlock.
On the second big issue around economic, social and cultural rights, the question is, if there are rights, to what extent they are justiciable in a way that constitutional rights are, for example, which people can assert though the courts. That is an issue the commission will be reviewing in terms of the extent to which categories of rights are justiciable in other countries and how that works out. After all, if a court finds a person has a right to a certain social welfare benefit or a particular job, what if the state cannot deliver on it? Maybe it is just a rhetorical right in that case. The extent to which such rights are justiciable will be examined, but it is clear, I believe, that not all of them are. Those are two of the bigger issues that the commission will be researching.
On the specific question as to whether they pose a threat to existing rights, I will not comment on the EU charter because our commission has not looked at that specifically or analysed it. However, it is generally accepted at the global level that the category of civil and political rights such as those we find in our Constitution — the right to a fair trial, liberty, freedom of expression etc. — co-exist with economic, social and cultural rights. The one does not pose a threat to the other. They are all part of a whole body of human rights.
Like Deputy Carey, I had a modest involvement in the original Convention on the Charter of Fundament Rights where the question arose about the legal obligations of national governments. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs received legal opinion from Dr. Gerard Hogan in which he suggested that if Ireland at that time were to adopt the charter, it would require a constitutional amendment because it impacted on health and education and the perceived obligation of Government to provide resources. The question was raised at the time and there was a heated debate on the concept of the provision of services and how far a State's obligation went in the provision of them. By services I mean utilities. For example, I live in Leitrim, a dispersed area of the country. Did people in my county have a legal right to the same resources, amenities and access as those living in Dublin?
That was thrown out. The Government accepted it once it became clear that it would not subvert the right of a national government to decide how it dispersed its resources. I am curious to know whether delegates will progress this view. An element of human rights is involved in all of this, but it led to a heated debate and I was somewhat surprised that the process went so smoothly considering the legal opinion we received at the time. My question is simple. Why is it in this day and age and in spite of legislation that women are still paid less than men for doing the same job in this country? It is an area referred to by the IHRC in its plan. I appreciate that it cannot wave a magic wand and solve the problem. However, why must this be? It is a basic fundamental human right but it does not seem to be addressed here and we seem to accept it.
Professor Binchy
I will reply miscellaneously to one or two of the issues raised by the Senator. It is worth noting that South Africa, a country with limited resources, has a constitution which provides for the protection and justiciability of economic and social rights. A constitutional court has been exercising that function very happily and the experience there has been good. It has used its scrutiny intelligently and has not intervened inappropriately relative to the legislature and executive but has dealt with important issues, such as housing.
Senator Mooney mentioned Dr. Gerard Hogan's opinion. The tenor of recent Supreme Court judgments, most notably in the Sinnott case, would indicate a fairly strong doctrinal antipathy among some of the judges towards the area of protection of economic and social rights. Those members of the court are mistaken in that area. It is one matter to say the court should have an agenda which is clearly political and get involved in issues such as the rate of taxation and distribution of resources, as mentioned by the Senator. The courts should not become Ministers. It is another matter to say whether human rights need protection and vindication by courts.
When one looks at so-called economic and social rights, the severance between political and civil rights and economic and social rights is to some extent a product of the political international history of the past 50 years and the Cold War. As far as the Americans were concerned, these economic and social rights were unduly leftist. As far as socialist and communist countries were concerned, civil and political rights were empty without the base of economic and social protection. However, when one looks at particular rights, many of them are neither one nor the other but integral. The right to health is one classic example, as is the right to education where one is dealing with human beings who have individual entitlements against a background of State policy. It is very difficult to separate them into one category or another.
The international covenant of this area does not require the impossible. It does not require states to produce money if they do not have it. However, it requires a minimum floor below which a state is not to fall in the provision of resources in this area. Again, this is subject to the demands of inherent possibility, that there be progressive movement from here to there towards greater protection as time goes by. If a crisis develops and the State is economically obliged to move backwards, it must do so in a non-discriminatory fashion.
That issue is interesting in the context of the bill the State must pay now in terms of nursing home subventions. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states that the manner in which the State deals with that adversity must be on a non-discriminatory basis. That raises questions, for example, as to whether the health budget necessarily must exclusively take the hit. I raise this matter as a personal observation to demonstrate how these conventions have practical relevance to the issues which present themselves on a daily basis in national legislatures.
Dr. Connelly
I wish to make a brief comment as a follow-on to an issue raised by Professor Binchy. There is a widely quoted comment attributed to an African diplomat to the effect that human rights begin with breakfast. That clearly makes the point that if one is starving, one might have the right to a fair trial but one will not exist. It is all about minimal entitlements to a certain amount of food in order to exist as a human being at all. That puts it in a very graphic fashion.
I welcome the delegation. When we speak of the reservation of the Government, are we referring to Article 4 of the convention, or is it a separate item?
Dr. Connelly
The Deputy is picking up on the convention regarding race discrimination.
I apologise. Professor Binchy mentioned the Disability Bill, which has been in train for a long time. It has been six years in gestation and has twice failed. The president of the IHRC attended. What do delegates consider the main fault with regard to the Disability Bill in terms of human rights and economics?
Professor Binchy
The international covenant is the particular marker we are using in this context, but it is not the only one. It is worth stressing that it is not absolutely essential that these rights be justiciable and that one can go to the court and get individualised vindication in respect of one's particular position. However, the covenant states that if one does not have an entitlement to go to court, the administrative machinery must be such that the rights in the area must be accessible, affordable, timely and effective.
In this particular legislative initiative, the Government has made a commitment, independently of the legislation, to provide funding and then provide a legislative model for the provision of funding. We are concerned about the manner in which that legislative model is drafted because there is no written guarantee in it, for example, of a minimum floor below which the Government will not sink in terms of provision of resources. Neither is there an undertaking to continue, on a progressive basis, the development of funding in this area.
To leave it to each Minister in the relevant Departments to make a decision as to how that cake will be cut on the basis of how much money is allocated to the relevant Minister inverts the principle of subsidiarity or at least does not apply it effectively. The Government must take responsibility to provide sufficient funding for its relevant Departments in total in order that no Minister looks at the size of his or her cake and says, "There is no way I can cut in a manner which will provide adequate resources." That obligation should be placed at a governmental rather than departmental level. It is placed too low in this particular context.
To some extent, we are asking for clarification in express terms of the Government's stated intent. That should be stated within the legislative framework. It is not that the legislative model is necessarily inherently defective, rather that it does not contain within itself the guarantee of ongoingness and progressive assurance that these rights have been protected. The drafting changes could be done in half an hour, but the issue is the political will which would underlie the drafting changes.
I am sure the person drafting it is in the Department of Finance. Regarding the proposal to give the search warrant to the rank of superintendent, when speaking of human rights and the greater good, it is almost impossible to get a judge during a weekend. Sometimes one is hot on the trail of a criminal. For example, in Cork last weekend it was known a load of money had been moved very quickly. As that person's career is at stake if a warrant turns out to be false or wrong, he would have had internal research carried out. I am sure it is meant to be only an emergency measure where a judge cannot be found at weekends.
Professor Binchy
The Deputy is right in the sense that there can be a problem in that regard. We can all envisage cases where an emergency would arise. The question is how to deal with that problem. What this legislation does, speaking personally, is take what might be called the latest solution, which is to give an articulated power, based on an emergency, to the superintendent. We all understand human nature. What constitutes an emergency power if such a power is given to a superintendent? Inevitably, a culture might develop where something constitutes an emergency that might not necessarily, when considered, amount to an absolute emergency. That is the danger in setting up an entitlement like that.
In terms of dealing with that problem, it is a question of judicial administration to some degree and the provision of resources for judicial administration coupled with technology. The reason a judge is important in this case is not because of some magic that the judge commands but rather that the judge is an external disinterested person with a sense of fair play and justice who scrutinises the application. That scrutiny can take place with new means, for example, through telephonic, television or fax communications. It would not be beyond the ingenuity of the State to set up a system whereby an emergency judge would be on call — I understand there are such concepts in a number of countries — to deal with these situations and who could be communicated with using modern technology. It is not as if we are short of District Court judges. There are many of them available to deal with emergencies when they arise. I do not believe the commission would have any difficulty with the provision of modern communications with a District Court judge in those circumstances dealing with that but it is very important to preserve the external objective scrutiny in this area. It is not that we suspect gardaí of abuse. It is just that this measure would introduce a culture one would not seek to develop at this stage.
Dr. Manning, can I ask you about a matter referred to in page 11 of your initial submission, namely, the examination you are doing of the release procedure for long-term prisoners? What is your thinking behind that?
Dr. Manning
We believe there is a very real problem, one which is recognised by Government, in the case of a high profile prisoner who has been sentenced to life imprisonment and where there is no mechanism for his or her release or where it is up to the Minister or the Executive to take the decision. We do not believe that is desirable. We believe the Executive does not think it is desirable either. Generally, there would be a great deal of passing of the buck in any high profile case. We are doing some research into that and we hope to come back to the sub-committee with specific proposals on it before the end of this year as part of our work programme for this year.
May I make a request on our behalf? As things stand, we report to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which is our sponsoring Department. We have no problems with the Department but because we are enjoined to be utterly independent of everybody, it is not desirable that the Department should be our reporting Department. In effect, many of the human rights issues that arise will concern the security forces and so forth and our desired arrangement would be that, like the Ombudsman, we would report directly to Parliament. We would like to be in a position where our annual report is to the Houses of the Oireachtas and where we would be in a position to be accountable before this committee or a relevant committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas for what we have been doing over the past year, and to be accountable generally to the Oireachtas.
Would that require a change in legislation or is a procedure in place?
Dr. Manning
It would require a change in legislation. We are told by Government that it has no objection in principle to this but that it is a matter for the Oireachtas and to be addressed in legislation. I flag this issue, which is of concern to us. If this matter were addressed, it would strengthen the perceived perception of the independence of the commission and would also provide us with an opportunity to report back to the national Parliament on our activities.
That is an issue the committee can consider. We may decide to pursue it with the various Departments. Do my colleagues wish to make any further comments?
Throughout the submission I was wondering what the commission's view of itself was in terms of public perception. I was reluctant to suggest that its profile could be much higher. Perhaps one of the reasons for that is that it does not feed directly into the parliamentary process, which inevitably gives a higher profile. While I and, I am sure, all my colleagues are aware of its work, generally speaking, the commission has a reasonably low public profile. Most people do not know that it even exists. That is my perception. Dr. Manning might not agree.
Dr. Manning
The Senator's point is well taken. In part, it is in the nature of things that the profile will be low because much of our interaction is with specific groups in the particular areas in which we work. Within the area of disability, dealing with immigrants, racism and civil liberties groups, we would have a fairly high profile but we do not have a high national profile. As we all know, there is not much point in seeking publicity if there is no substance behind it. We are not in the publicity business but the Senator's point is well taken. We are aware of it and reporting to an Oireachtas committee on a regular basis would help to raise the profile.
Does Professor Binchy or Dr. Connelly wish to make any concluding remarks?
Professor Binchy
No.
Dr. Manning, Professor Binchy and Dr. Connelly, we thank you sincerely for your presence here this morning. Unfortunately, the session was not as long as we would have wished but Dr. Manning will be aware of the time constraints on all of us. We value your attendance. We hope to liaise further with you, particularly on your suggestion to try to review the reporting mechanism. I am sure that is an issue which we will contemplate and act on. We will now go into private session for a brief period.
The joint committee went into private session at 1.07 p.m. and adjourned at 1.27 p.m. sine die.