Professor Monica McWilliams:

I think that is a regression. If the Chairman reads chapter 2 of our report, he will see that Rev. Ian Paisley and Ian Paisley junior both gave evidence to the Forum for Dialogue and Understanding which sat alongside the multiparty talks. At that time they were proposing a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. The legacy of the bill of rights goes back to the 1960s, to the Stormont Parliament debates. In interviews, spokespersons for various parties told us that it was a matter of great regret that a bill of rights was not brought forward in the late 1960s, that we may not have entered the conflict we did if attention had been paid to issues of human rights and equality. Attention was paid to equality and the Fair Employment Act 1976 was introduced and today in Northern Ireland people say what a good practice example it is for employment and the workplace. It seems that many of the problems around human rights and embedding a culture of human rights, which is extremely important for our future and for young people, lie outside the workplace.

The lack of consensus is a regressive step. It comes partly from the current Prime Minister, David Cameron. When he was in opposition, the Labour Government, which had raised the issue of bringing forward a British bill of rights, was moving out, and the Unionist parties had begun to move in the direction of a British bill of rights, with a chapter dealing with Northern Ireland. That is not what was in the agreement. We know that would be vetoed in the United Kingdom, UK, perhaps even by Scotland and Wales in terms of its impact on devolution. It certainly would be vetoed by the Nationalist side in Northern Ireland, in the same way that the Unionists probably exercise a veto in the Northern Ireland Assembly on pushing this forward.

The Patten Commission would never have got through the Northern Ireland Assembly had it fallen to the Assembly. It was very clear that legislation would go through Westminster. It is very clear this legislation should go through Westminster. In our report the Chairman will see that in our correspondence with the NIO it keeps referring to the parties in Northern Ireland having to reach consensus. Following the UK commission, the Secretary of State wrote to each of the parties asking how they would best take forward the proposals of the UK commission. The UK commission came up with two conclusions: first, it was divided on a British bill of rights; and, second, that the Northern Ireland provision for a bill of rights stands by itself and its process should not be allowed to interfere with the Northern Ireland process. The Secretary of State wrote to all the parties and did not receive one response from any party. That may be because the parties had decided at that stage to take a different direction or they did not wish to respond to the Secretary of State. In our report we say that as long as it is left to the Secretary of State to constantly put the pressure back onto the Northern Ireland parties it will go nowhere.