Ms Alyson Kilpatrick:

I wish members a good afternoon and thank the committee for this opportunity.

Since we last appeared before the committee, the UK Government and European Commission reached agreement on a new way forward on a protocol now known as the Windsor Framework. We regard it as a positive step in addressing the complex trade issues, including those on medicines and pet travel. While we welcome the exclusion of the annex 1 equality directives from the Stormont brake, we have concerns. Any new additions to the list of annex 1 equality directives may now be subject to a cross-community Assembly motion. That is an unwelcome new hurdle which could contribute to divergence.

Our second concern relates to the trade directives in annex 2 to the Windsor Framework. Some of these trade directives have equality or human rights impacts that we have identified as falling within the non-diminution protection. For example, manufacturing standards for lifts affect accessibility for disabled people. The Stormont brake means that the keep-pace obligation applies in a more limited way. Equality and human rights considerations, therefore, need to be built into every stage of the Stormont brake to minimise inadvertent damage to rights and, hopefully, reduce further divergence on the island. Regular and structured stakeholder engagement will be essential to that.

We are also very concerned about rights protections in Northern Ireland in the current climate. The direction of travel is clear from the Illegal Migration Bill, retained EU law Bill and legacy Bill, all of which raise grave questions of compliance with fundamental rights and international commitments.

To give one example, the Secretary of State was not able to vouch that the Illegal Migration Bill complied with the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR. We have identified multiple compliance issues with the ECHR and the Refugee Convention. We also believe the Bill breaches Article 2 of the Windsor Framework since the EU asylum acquis provides minimum protections from which the UK is seeking to depart. This would also increase divergence of rights on the island and have potentially serious implications for those crossing the Border.

More worrying still, while Human Rights Act reform is stalled for the time being, some of its principles are reflected in the Illegal Migration Bill, which seeks to remove oversight of the European Court of Human Rights through interim measures. Article 2 of the Windsor Framework provides something of a defence against these attacks on rights but it is not a panacea. It is certainly no substitute for the promised bill of rights for Northern Ireland, which is a commitment yet to be realised.

The Belfast-Good Friday Agreement commits to ensuring the equivalence of rights on the island of Ireland. Divergence has a direct impact for people here, especially those living in Border areas. In the context of 30,000 daily Border crossings, we are particularly concerned about electronic travel authorisations, ETAs. We welcome the UK Government clarification that Irish residents who would not usually require a visa to visit the UK will be exempt from requiring an ETA. This development has partially addressed our concerns. However, non-residents will still need to apply for an ETA when travelling from Ireland to Northern Ireland. In our view, any barrier constitutes a detriment to the enjoyment of rights on the island. We know that if some people are required to demonstrate their right to travel, it will affect everyone and could lead to an increase in racial profiling.

We are experiencing a period of particularly intense and consistent attacks on human rights and this wider culture is particularly affecting the rights of migrants. Brexit created new categories of rights holders in Northern Ireland and we know that migrants and minority ethnic people in Northern Ireland are being asked to prove their rights to access services, for example, in the area of health. We are being told of people being improperly refused access and having to jump through additional bureaucratic hoops to access services to which they should be entitled. These issues are of particular concern for some of the most vulnerable in our society, including migrants. For example, Roma people seem to have been particularly affected.

The research also highlighted the importance of the framework for the protection of rights, including access to remedies and compensation, where appropriate. A diminution of remedies is a diminution of rights.

We will continue to monitor the divergence of rights and have commissioned an update to the research. My colleague, Ms McGahey, at the ECNI has been leading this on behalf of the three commissions. In our view, the divergence of rights falls within the ambit of the Belfast-Good Friday Agreement and is connected to North-South equivalence. We are, therefore, asking the committee to consider the divergence of rights as part of its mandate and to engage with us further as we continue with this work.