Professor Monica McWilliams:

I will go first. On the churches, we went to all the faith communities, not just the Christian churches, asking for their views, although not on this particular report because this report was entirely focused on the responses from political parties, and those of the governments. We had interviewed civic society and the sectors previously, and the churches have a very large role to play in that regard. There was a bit of a bad taste left after the forum on the bill of rights ended its work in that the Catholic Church had raised a concern that the right to determination might be contained in the advice, and it withdrew its support. Following consultations with the Catholic Church and other denominations it came back to the issue of what a bill of rights can and cannot do, and that is not one of the issues it will resolve. In the end, the Human Rights Commission got the support of the churches for the rights it was putting forward, particularly in terms of the rights for children that were included. It is a social justice issue so why would they not be supportive, although on certain issues such as women's rights, reproductive rights or issues to do with children, the members have seen the reaction that can come when those rights surface? The advice offered in 2008 went forward as having the support of all the sectors. I remember participating in all of those meetings and reassuring the faith communities that they needed to see themselves as being able to take this forward in any discussions with the political parties.

The polls that have been undertaken, and they were numerous polls in Northern Ireland on this issue, were quite expensive to undertake. The human rights consortium undertook a number, but some independent bodies did also. The surprising outcome of those polls was that there was no sectarian division. It should be noted that there is a class distinction in the support for a bill of rights; the members might expect that. The loyalist working class communities, and their party political spokespersons, have not always been supportive of a bill of rights. However, the Progressive Unionist Party, PUP, whose members we interviewed, continue to support a bill of rights. From that perspective, therefore, they are different from the two other Unionist parties in that the PUP fully support a bill of rights, did so at that time, and has continued to do so on the grounds that those rights could be identified by working class people and their communities, particularly with regard to the future. The polls have not shown any sectarian division, which was heartwarming from our point of view. That is useful to know.

There is a conundrum in that one would think the parties would reflect their constituencies on this issue yet there seems to be a bit of a divide in the Unionist community between what the people in the communities, and the parties, are saying. Dr. Smith can take up the point on our future funding because we did not want to leave this report as a research report sitting on the shelf. We made it a proposal to the Governments but we said also that, if possible, we would seek additional funding to facilitate a further process with the parties on the basis of our findings, if they so wish. We are prepared to do that, and the Rowntree foundation will be the body we would go back to on that.

The question is whether the parties are ready for that and interested in continuing to have a discussion around the proposal that was in both the Good Friday Agreement and the St. Andrews Agreement. Would everyone come to the table? There is not much point in having a certain side at the table; the process must be inclusive. The circumstances must be created for that and it should be given a priority that it has not received to date. The question is whether we will be asking our grandchildren what happened to the bill of rights rather than taking the opportunity, now that we have it.

I believe the Northern Ireland community could do with some confidence building regarding these discussions. We expect too many of our teachers in schools to produce new tools on human rights for the next generation that would be different in terms of understanding the meaning of human rights when it is not on the table in the current political process.