Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I apologise that I have to leave at 3.30 p.m. but I will read the witnesses' replies in the Official Report. I want to make a number of points. This discussion is extremely interesting in that it goes to the fundamentals of the Good Friday Agreement and I am happy that the committee is focusing on these issues. Interesting proposals were put forward around clarifying access. The Good Friday Agreement speaks of the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British or both as they may so choose but on the other routes to citizenship, Mr. Farrell set out some interesting proposals. That is something the committee could look to because as well as addressing the needs of families where there may be third party or even EU citizens who are married to individuals born in Northern Ireland, if a situation arose where this was further extended to those in Northern Ireland who will be able to be in possession of an Irish and an EU passport, it may strengthen our case in respect of the Border issue. That was a constructive and interesting proposal.

A point that came across strongly was about Ireland's duty as guarantors of rights. I see three or four proposals as to how we may wish to assert that in negotiations and I would like to hear the witnesses' views on where they believe we may end up on that. The first is that, ideally, we would retain the Human Rights Act, which is a fundamental pillar; second, as a minimum, we would retain applicability of the Human Rights Act, which represents the European Charter on Human Rights, within the territory of Northern Ireland; and third, any repeal process would be replaced with an equivalent value. That is something we need to start asserting strongly and we can assert that outside of the European negotiations. That discussion arose earlier in that there are issues Ireland needs to be discussing and highlighting in terms of reminding the UK, particularly as it enters an election period, of its guarantorship in that regard and making it clear that Ireland views that seriously.

In terms of ensuring that the replacement maintains a standard, an equivalence audit is one thing but mention was made also of the idea of an annual equivalence statement. That is something that could prove to be very strong and positive. What is important about it is having a baseline and ensuring that we do not have regression but allowing for a marker if a separation occurs. It was put in originally to bring Ireland up to the standards that pertained in some parts of the UK but if we sought advances in areas such as reproductive rights and other human rights in Ireland and if there is a gap in that regard, that equivalence statement would allow that discussion to become clear and would support those in Northern Ireland who say they want to keep in mind that commitment to an equivalence of human rights protection. It would a valuable thing to do. In terms of the cross-Border bodies, somebody mentioned having an input into the debate on human rights to ensure that those in Northern Ireland can have an input from their experience into shaping the wider human rights debate.

These are constructive proposals. I look forward to seeing where we go as a committee with them. I am very sorry that I cannot stay to hear the rest of the debate but I will follow it with great interest.

My last point is that I am a member of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly so I had an opportunity to hear Mr. MuiŽnieks's presentation. Mr. Farrell mentioned the others as well in terms of the importance of who administers the human rights. When we talk about equivalency of human rights, and it seems there is a determination now to pull back from that, will it be adequate to have an equivalent rights on paper if they are administered only within UK structures or is there a need to examine some form of international or at least cross-Border vindication of those rights that may come in under the replacement of the Human Rights Act? I am interested to hear the witnesses' views on that.