In publishing its strategic plan for the next three years yesterday, the Human Rights Commission has given a public signal that it is open for business. This comes almost five years after it was first mooted in the Belfast Agreement, and yesterday's announcement has been long awaited.
The delay is due to a number of factors. There was a certain perception in Government circles that the setting up of such a body was less urgent here than in Northern Ireland, given the extensive rights guaranteed in the 1937 Constitution. The lack of a written constitution in the UK, along with the specific history of Northern Ireland, made it more urgent to have such a commission there, it was argued.
Professor William Binchy yesterday disputed the view that the long jurisprudence based on the 1937 Constitution obviated the need for the Commission. Often those whose rights were violated are those least likely to be in a position to take a long and costly case through the courts, he pointed out. He also said that the European Convention on Human Rights offers certain human rights guarantees that go further than those in our Constitution. Part of the remit of the Human Rights Commission is to ensure that the rights contained in the various conventions to which Ireland is a signatory are upheld by the State.
It does not end there. The legislation setting up the Commission is ambitious and far-reaching. It involves the vetting of legislation to ensure that it does not infringe human rights principles. Practices under existing legislation can be put under the same microscope. It also includes acting as amicus curiae in court, putting general human rights arguments in cases like that taken by Jamie Sinnott or the Irish-born children of asylum-seekers. This, and more, is set out in its ambitious strategic plan.
If the Human Rights Commission does all that it has set itself, it has the capacity to transform many practices in public life. It may also face hostility from those who have been content that Ireland has a paper commitment to various human rights instruments, but that these matter little in practice.
When formulating the legislation setting up the Commission, the Taoiseach said it was intended to be "a model for others to follow". This is an ambitious target indeed, shared by the Commission. But it can only be met with a wholehearted commitment from Government that it will have the resources it needs. It was dispiriting to learn yesterday that one of the reasons for the delay in its establishment was the need to "argue and bargain" with government departments over every aspect of its funding and to hear its chief executive, Dr Alpha Connelly, say that it has only half the funding of its sister organisation in the North, far short of the minimum required for it to function. It is to be hoped that the Government will follow through on the Taoiseach's vision, and not risk strangling the Human Rights Commission at birth.