Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Today we will hear from a number of groups on a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. We will meet first with representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU. I welcome Mr. Eugene McGlone, president of the congress, Ms Patricia McKeown, past president and member of the executive council of the congress, and Mr. Jack O'Connor, general president of SIPTU and member of the executive council of ICTU.

Before I invite the witnesses to make their presentation, I advise them that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of utterances at this committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease to make remarks on a particular matter but continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter to only a qualified privilege in respect of their remarks. They are directed that only comments and evidence related directly to the subject matter of this meeting are to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a Member of either House of the Oireachtas, a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I call on Mr. Eugene McGlone to proceed with his opening statement. We will have contributions from the three witnesses and then open the meeting to members for questions.

Mr. Eugene McGlone:

I thank the Chairman and Members of the Oireachtas. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions welcomes the opportunity to present its evidence to the committee. We believe we have a major role to play to underpin the peace process in Northern Ireland and, indeed, on the whole island of Ireland. I am the current president of ICTU and am accompanied by Ms Patricia McKeown, past president and member of the executive council and a member and former chair of the Northern Ireland committee of ICTU, and Mr. Jack O'Connor, the immediate past president of ICTU. His day job is at SIPTU and he is a member of ICTU's executive council and its general purposes committee. Ms McKeown and I have chaired ICTU's Northern Ireland committee and continue to serve on it. We are joined and supported today by colleagues from ICTU's secretariat, Ms Clare Moore and Mr. Peter Rigney, and by the current chair of the Northern Ireland committee, Ms Pamela Dooley, who was originally going to make a presentation but offered her speaking time to Mr. O'Connor to ensure the committee gets a flavour of the all-island nature of ICTU and sees that our concerns are not merely Northern ones. I will share the time with Ms McKeown and Mr. O'Connor.

Congress is the single trade union centre on the island of Ireland. Given that there are two distinct jurisdictions on the island, it is unique among European trade unions in that regard. Having a single, cohesive trade union centre and voice for workers in Ireland, particularly over the last 50 years, adds weight to any argument we make on social and economic matters.

We are also the largest civic society organisation in Ireland with the apex body representing some 800,000 workers. Our mission statement requires us to strive to achieve economic development, social cohesion and justice by upholding the values of solidarity, fairness, equality and human rights. The Northern committee of congress is a representative body of over 230,000 workers in Northern Ireland. In membership terms it is also the largest single civic society organisation in Northern Ireland and the most diverse, covering as we do the full spectrum of political opinion.

The trade union movement first committed itself to a bill of rights for Northern Ireland more than 50 years ago initially through a body known as the National Council for Civil Liberties. Throughout the decades of the conflict we continually strove to challenge discrimination in the workplace and in society and to campaign for peace. This is evidenced, for example, by our work on the declaration of intent which congress entered into with all employers to challenge discrimination in the workplace. It is further evidenced by the large numbers of people who over the past 40 years in particular came onto the streets to demonstrate for peace in response to trade union calls. Some members of this committee joined our demonstrations and I thank them for that. I include in that the march back to work which followed the Loyalist UWC strike in the early 1970s.

Regrettably since the peace agreement we have again had to make that call for people to demonstrate for peace on several occasions over the past few years. I pay particular tribute to the work of one of our former presidents, Inez McCormack, who died recently. Her efforts particularly on equality and human rights are reflected in many of the clauses in the Good Friday Agreement. Inez and her union, Unison, and my union put up large banners on our buildings calling on workers to vote for the Good Friday Agreement. This was achieved due mainly to the work of Inez and others in securing commitments which were vital to enabling the trade union movement advocate full and unequivocal support for the Good Friday Agreement in the 1998 referendum. It is of central concern to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions that the clear commitment to produce a bill of rights for Northern Ireland and the consequent charter of rights for the whole of the island is now 15 years overdue. I must emphasise that these rights include the whole social chapter encompassing workers' rights, particularly the right to collective bargaining and to have trade unions recognised for bargaining purposes to protect workers at their place of work. I thank the committee for listening to me and I now hand over to my colleague, Patricia McKeown.

Ms Patricia McKeown:

The trade union movement has given direct effect to our commitment to a bill of rights for Northern Ireland in several ways over the years. Congress and a range of affiliate unions are members of the very important Human Rights Consortium which has presented extensively to this committee and our colleagues in the consortium are giving evidence here again today. Through our work in the consortium Congress participated in the year long bill of rights forum where we acted as convenor to the working group on social and economic rights on which all political parties participated. We have engaged in training and awareness raising with our membership on the centrality of equality and human rights to the peace process. We participated extensively, primarily as members of the Human Rights Consortium in lobbies of the British, Irish and US governments on the need for full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and in particular a bill of rights for Northern Ireland and we gave extensive evidence to the recent UK commission.

We are pleased to say that the one strong recommendation on which that commission agreed was that we should have a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. We are aware that the committee has already received extensive evidence from our colleagues in the Human Rights Consortium on its activities in surveying, and polling the people. They demonstrate an 80% buy-in for a bill of rights from the population. On the issue of social and economic rights this rises to over 90%. These rights are of greatest concern to ordinary people, identified by them, the rights to health, housing, education, jobs and an adequate standard of living. These, together with trade union rights, are supported in the same measure by our members in the trade union movement.

Despite the obligation imposed by the Good Friday Agreement and statements in successive programmes for Government we have no framework for equality or human rights-based budgeting. Current decisions on resource allocation are not based on objective need and the historic patterns of discrimination have not changed in the most deprived areas or sections of our society.

It will shock the committee to learn that life expectancy for the most disadvantaged in Northern Ireland has reduced since the Good Friday Agreement 15 years ago. Premature death amongst the long-term unemployed has increased and suicide rates for the long-term unemployed are at record levels. It was very shocking to learn from the press yesterday that the first case of rickets in a child in West Belfast was confirmed, a disease of poverty and inequality which we thought we had eradicated. The committee will be aware of the large body of evidence which indicates that a society with the levels of inequality such as those experienced in Northern Ireland is an unfair and unsafe society. This places everything we have worked for in the peace process in jeopardy. A total of 15 years of political stalling is having the worst possible impact on society. The right to life itself is being jeopardised.

The UK commission has recommended a separate bill of rights for Northern Ireland thus the key excuse given to us by the UK Government for two and a half years is no longer valid. The second excuse given to us by the UK Government is that there is no political consensus in Northern Ireland. There have been issues on the Good Friday Agreement on which there was no political consensus. The pressure was exerted by the signatories to the agreement and a process was engaged in and consensus was reached. The only steps taken by the current British Government has been to write a letter to our political parties in Northern Ireland in 2011. Congress is no longer prepared to accept this level of inaction from Government, given the growing division in our society and the increasing tensions on matters of safety and security. I will hand over to my colleague, Jack O'Connor, to conclude.

Mr. Jack O'Connor:

We believe that the absence of implementation of this core commitment in the Good Friday Agreement is further destabilising society on this island, for example, political parties which voted against the recommendations made by the bill of rights forum, including recommendations which guaranteed cultural identity, dismissed core rights which could quite possibly have prevented the current demonstrations. The evidence of history tells us that when a new generation is denied fundamental social and economic rights it will seek status elsewhere. Our people in the Six Counties are picking up what they believe to be evidence of growing ranks in the paramilitaries and we believe that is no coincidence.

We know and acknowledge that this committee has diligently examined the situation over the past two years and we have arrived at a critical point when what it does and says can make a difference for the better. On behalf of all of those in the Congress of Trade Unions I request that the committee brings forward as a matter of urgency its recommendations on the need for full implementation of the bill of rights for Northern Ireland. We further request that it impress the urgency of the situation on the Irish Government as a co-signatory of the peace agreement and that it call on the Government to engage in urgent dialogue in this regard with its co-signatory, the British Government.

We in the trade union movement on the island have consistently argued for the past 15 years that continuing dialogue between politicians and the people can result in agreement on a bill of rights. This should be a far less contentious issue than the issue of policing and justice which has been dealt with. What is not acceptable is for division and a lack of political consensus in Northern Ireland to be used as an excuse for a failure to implement this fundamental part of the Good Friday Agreement. It was the will of the people that we have a bill of rights. It was their will in 1998 and it is still their will in 2013. The difference, as committee members have heard, is that fundamental rights such as the right to life for a growing section of working-class people in our society are at risk. As a consequence, so is the peace process which people strove so hard to achieve.

On behalf of congress, I thank the committee for the time afforded to us. We will try to deal with questions or issues committee members may wish to raise.

Dr. Alasdair McDonnell, MP:

As some of us must leave shortly, I apologise to our guests in advance. If we are seen scurrying away, no slight or offence is intended.

Mr. Paul Maskey, MP:

I thank the delegation for coming before the committee and its presentation. We really appreciate the time and effort made.

Ms McKeown mentioned west Belfast and I must concur. What we see happening is scandalous in this day and age. The constituency I represent has the highest unemployment rate throughout the North. A bill of rights, if implemented and agreed to, would help in dealing with all of the issues we face in areas of high deprivation, including social needs. We are very much in support of a bill of rights being agreed to. I agree with Mr. O'Connor that if it is not agreed to, the two co-signatories of the Agreement must come forward and ensure a bill of rights is implemented in the North. It is very important to sustain the peace process and enhance the areas which have suffered the most with regard to generational issues such as west Belfast where for generations there has been severe underinvestment owing to direct British rule, with Ministers flying in once a month and paying lip-service to the views expressed. They have nothing but contempt for this and other areas in the North, including rural areas which also suffer from massive deprivation. The implementation of a bill of rights is core to moving forward and we must all work harder to ensure it will happen.

I hope the committee can push the two Governments in the right direction and the political parties which are opposed to a bill of rights. We need to begin to challenge the parties opposed to it and ask why they are opposed to it. We will hear some strange answers because I cannot understand for the life of me how anybody could disagree with a bill of rights because it would not cost anybody anything. It is the same as equality - equality costs us nothing. I hope the committee will push in the right direction and as hard as it possibly can. Do our guests think we should exert particular pressure on people in this regard? What is the ICTU doing to try to push it forward? I would like to have a conversation on this issue.

Ms Margaret Richie, MP:

The delegation is welcome. I have had various discussions on constituency issues in recent years with the ICTU and they have always been based on the issue of rights, whether in health or education. Has the ICTU met the new Secretary of State on this matter, notwithstanding the fact that her predecessor had set his face against a particular bill of rights for the North? If so, what has been her response? One of the issues is that we must turn around the British Government on this issue. The committee must send a clear message to it through the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Executive, although responsibility for this matter resides with the Secretary of State. What has been the result of the ICTU's representations? I know the results of my parliamentary questions to her and her predecessor.

Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegates for their presentation. Mr. O'Connor has made a very good point, that if people do not believe they are getting justice in their communities, they might move towards paramilitaries. For me, the issues of the right to a fair trial and a bill of rights were brought into sharp focus last week when I went with an all-party Dáil delegation to meet a group of people. In Northern Ireland one can be put in prison without being told why and without any hope of a trial. I was shocked to learn this because I had thought it was a thing of the past. I ask the delegates to excuse my naivete. My understanding is that one may be allowed to see a solicitor - not of one's own choosing - for approximately an hour or so and that when one's trial comes up, one gets to see the solicitor again. I had to be told this several times because it was very difficult to get it into my head, coming from a civilised state, that such a thing could take place. Whatever someone is accused of, at the end of the day we need consistency in human rights, as otherwise it is inevitable that we will see problems. How aware is the ICTU of this issue? I was not aware of it. If the ICTU is aware of it, what do the delegates think of it and what can be done about it?

Mr. Eugene McGlone:

We certainly welcome the engagement referred to by Mr. Maskey and will certainly pursue the issue. Our colleagues from the political parties in the North who are in the room have engaged consistently with us on matters such as this. In a sense, we are speaking to the converted from Northern Ireland and, unfortunately, it is the unconverted who are not present. We could engage in proselytising with them. We will certainly pick up on the issue and drive it forward.

I am from west Belfast and the news yesterday on the levels of deprivation, poverty and social injustice was not good. It was not something with which I was comfortable or happy to hear. I am not proud of it. It is an indicator of neglect, but it is not unique to west Belfast, as it is seen in many constituencies in Northern Ireland. While west Belfast has been highlighted on this occasion, all of the political parties and groupings in any constituency should be concerned enough to lift their heads and say there is something wrong.

The people in our society do need to have their rights enshrined in legislation and the opportunity to test these rights. Among them are the right to a decent standard of living, the right to an education and the right to a good health service. As Ms McKeown pointed out, the right not to suffer from rickets is absolute. We should not envisage any child in Ireland today suffering from rickets and we should not think in terms of having to deal with diseases or disorders which affected people 70 or 80 years ago and which we thought had been wiped out.

Ms McKeown will deal with the question on the Secretary of State in more detail. The short answer to Ms Ritchie's question is "No"; we have not met the Secretary of State. We have been seeking meetings. At this stage, our focus must be on persuading the parties in Stormont to approach this issue together. If we and our friends around the table cannot persuade their colleagues in other political parties to join in, we will face a difficulty. The Secretary of State will not take this route just because we ask for it, but she will probably be more persuaded if the Ulster Unionist Party and the DUP are also involved. Ms McKeown will pick up on this point as well as the issue raised by Deputy Flanagan.

Ms Patricia McKeown:

I will comment on all three questions, if I may. As to what more we can do, we will not stop. A core policy of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, is our insistence on the completion of the Good Friday Agreement in terms of the commitments on equality, a bill of rights for Northern Ireland and the necessary process for dealing with the past. The absence of political will in these areas is destabilising our society.

We have been consistently told by the British Government that it is not under pressure from political parties on the island as regards a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. We do not know whether this is the case. If it is, it is incumbent on our political parties to exert pressure. If they have done so already, the British Government needs to be called to account for claiming otherwise. This point has been reiterated at our meetings with the Northern Ireland Office. It has also been raised in the British-Irish parliamentary process, through which people have been briefed by the Northern Ireland Office and the British Government. This situation must be addressed.

We held several meetings with the Secretary of State's predecessor, who was open in his distaste for a bill of rights. However, the UK commission has taken it out of the road. We have requested a meeting with the current Secretary of State, but we do not know whether she has a different opinion. In light of the UK commission's report, we hope that a different perspective will be taken.

Of course we know that we live in a society in which our criminal justice system, which has been under review for a long time, does not meet all international human rights standards. Better people than me will give evidence to the committee today - for example, human rights lawyers - which will put this matter in a clearer context. We give evidence on a regular, cyclical basis to UN organisations such as the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. We pay particular attention to the absence of some fundamental labour and trade union rights. We know what some of the civil and criminal justice issues are.

All of the above formed an extensive part of the year-long engagement between civil society and the political parties, assisted by expert lawyers from across Europe, in the bill of rights forum. Important work was done and a large measure of consensus was achieved, but we got caught between a rock and a hard place in the final part of the process. People became entrenched in party political voting on all of the recommendations. Behind those recommendations was extensive work. Everyone had a sharp learning curve and people from whatever walk of life made expert inputs. We need to return to having a large measure of consensus.

Everything stopped after the human rights commission passed its recommendations to the then Secretary of State some time ago. There has been no continuous dialogue. There was only continuous dialogue in the first place because, on foot of lobbying by groups such as the consortium and ourselves, the British Government pushed for the process. We need another push. For the past 15 years, we have argued that, had there been a continuous process of dialogue between political parties and the people, we would be in much better shape as regards a bill of rights, as there would be a greater and in-depth understanding in our society.

As congress knows, ordinary people have expressed their opinions through the work of the consortium. They want social and economic rights, and we believe these should be based on objective needs. The patterns of discrimination in our society must be challenged, but this is not occurring to any great extent. On the 15th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, the picture and the map look much the same as they did prior to the agreement.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms McKeown.

Mr. Jack O'Connor:

In the course of making his point, Mr. Maskey queried how anyone could be opposed to a bill of rights. It is important that we emphasise his query. From a rational perspective, opposition defies logic.

As to the question of what else we can do, we in ICTU believe there is an obligation on both Governments to press ahead with this issue. If they wait for everyone, it will be too late. Each of us has a responsibility in our respective roles to do everything we can to reassure those who have concerns about the prospect of a bill of rights, to address whatever fears they may have and to encourage them to ventilate those fears. ICTU has a role to play in this regard and we have been endeavouring to do so over the years.

There is also the question of why people would be opposed to equality. There are certain obvious reasons, in that they have a vested interest in a lack of equality. Ironically, it is increasingly clear that even those people are misguided. No less an authority than the IMF acknowledges that exponentially growing inequality played no small part in the global economic collapse that threatened global society as we know it. The IMF believes that the decline in collective bargaining in developed Western societies was one of the causes of exponentially growing inequality. Unlike in the South, our workers in the Six Counties have a legal entitlement to collective bargaining, which one would imagine certain people would fear even more than a bill of rights. This is relevant in the context of the charter of rights aspect of the discussion. Perhaps the committee might bear this issue in mind.

The issue to which Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan referred is arising within my union in the Six Counties. We are not a large organisation in the North, but we do organise there. The question of how to respond properly is the subject of some deliberation in the union. Human rights are for everyone irrespective of what he or she believes.

That is the key to ensuring people have enough confidence in the democracy to abide by the rules and regulations and expectations of human behaviour that participation in a democracy involves. However, if people have reason to point out, with justification, that democratic behaviour and practices do not apply to them, it opens up an issue, especially in deteriorating economic circumstances and the demoralisation that goes with it. I do not know if that is a full answer to the points raised by Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan but the point we are making is that human rights, as enshrined in a bill of rights, is provided for in the Agreement. The people voted for it across the entire island and the Governments signed up for it. It is key to ensuring the progress that has been made is maintained and that we can go on to a better future for everyone.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to call Mark Durkan, MP, Deputy Joe O'Reilly, Deputy Sean Crowe and Michelle Gildernew, MP.

Mr. Mark Durkan, MP:

I thank the deputation for the presentation and, more importantly, for the work the trade union movement has done. It was especially epitomised by the doggedness of Ms Inez McCormack going into the Agreement and since. We need to understand that it is not just the current British Government that has been lacklustre in its attitude to this. It was the same with previous British Governments. It is one thing for people to hide behind the fact that under the Agreement the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was to bring forward a proposal, but British Governments disappeared completely behind that and said it was nothing to do with them. Even if the commission produced anything, it was to be subject to political consensus. This created impossible standards. Any of us who raised the issue in the context of impasse talks and negotiations that took place during the Agreement were told that no one else was pushed about it or we were told it was not for that time and that we needed to sort out a wording difficulty without getting onto that topic. The attitude of the British Government now, and of some in opposition, is that the Agreement has survived so long without it that there is a question over whether it is needed now. They are using its absence as proof that it is not needed. That presents a challenge to those of us who want a robust, relevant and articulate bill of rights.

The answer lies in a number of points. Mr. Jack O'Connor made reference to a number of issues that are being expressed on the back of the current protests. Those of us who advocate a bill of rights should use the opportunity to say that if people are saying rights are being stifled and neglected and are going downstream, and if they say the political process is unable to protect or assert those rights, perhaps we need something extra, such as another reference point or protection point beyond just the political dynamic. For those of us within the political process, when it comes to trying to watch out for particular interests where individual and community rights are at stake, the reliance is on the negative or veto-type aspects of the Agreement. This can help to stop bad policy, but sometimes it stops policy developing at all. On a range of issues that are silting up in the North, nothing is happening because there are vetos in pocket. If a Minister dares to table legislation that he or she personally wants to move on, the danger is that something else kicks in and it does not move. A bill of rights that is articulate in respect of social and economic matters could create better protection so that people could have the debate safe in the knowledge that, if serious issues were to arise, they could be taken under the bill of rights.

Some 15 years on from the Agreement, some people will say that certain policy issues have been neglected, and in many ways those policy issues would have a better chance of moving if the political process was complimented by a strong bill of rights. We would not have to dead-end issues in the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Northern IrelandExecutive in the way we do.

This other point this committee could address, given its embrace and the fact that its invitation extends beyond the parties that attended, is the charter of fundamental rights. The Good Friday Agreement did not just envisage a bill of rights for Northern Ireland but also espoused the goal of a charter of fundamental rights for the island. This was to be a bit different because the charter of fundamental rights was to be capable of being signed by all the political parties on the island. We were quite deliberate on the wording in the Agreement. That was about people making undertakings not just to citizens now but also to each other and to different traditions into the future. Perhaps a better starting point for us is to say that we are having difficulty moving along the debate on the bill of rights, as well as the British Government, and that we could light up the debate on the charter. Engagement on the charter of fundamental rights, through engaging the parties and non-party interests, could provide a helpful sidelight in the context of the Constitutional Convention. Some of the issues we need to talk about, in terms of how we see matters right now and into the future, might get a different take and might get some more traction if we try the debate from that end rather than saying the bill of rights comes first and the charter later.

Joe O'Reilly (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome our guests and thank them for coming. Their presentations were very clear. Do the witnesses think they should be formally engaged with the dissenting political groupings? I understand the only dissenters to a bill of rights in the North are the DUP and the UUP. Should ICTU have some formal engagement with them to try to break down resistance, given its street cred and mass membership? What is the ICTU evaluation of the resistance? How resistant are they to it? Is there any sense emerging among elements of Unionism that their interests are also at stake? One would have thought some people in Unionism do not see a bill of rights as being in conflict with their interests in the position they are in now. I accept that this Government must become the pusher and must invoke its position and apply the necessary pressure. The committee should encourage that.

Mr. Jack O'Connor mentioned that the recent spate of troubles would not have happened if there had been a bill of rights. That is interesting. Can he be more specific on this point? Would a bill of rights have prevented the position taken on displaying the flags? How would it have prevented the issue from arising, or is it that, over a period of time, it would have created the kind of societal well-being that eliminates trouble?

From this remove, there is no reason it should not progress. Obviously, there is resistance at Unionist level and there will be a need for an initiative by our Government. Perhaps the witnesses can respond to these points.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses.

The discussion started off on the case of rickets in west Belfast. We all agree poverty is not something which happens only in the North of Ireland but that it happens all over Ireland. We know 100,000 children go to bed hungry at night and that deprivation and discrimination happen on the island of Ireland. Most people would not understand why some would be opposed to human rights. That is a big conundrum most people would be in.

The parties agreed to the right to free political thought; the right to freedom of expression and religion; the right to pursue democratic national and political aspirations; the right to choose one's place of residence; the right to equal opportunity in all social and economic activity, regardless of class, creed, disability, gender or ethnicity; the right to freedom from sectarian harassment; and the right of women to full and equal political participation. Who in their right mind would be opposed to that?

Rather than looking forward to that inclusive Ireland we all thought would come out of the Good Friday Agreement, are some people are looking back to the good old days? Is that what it is about? The difficulties the British Government has were mentioned and that the Conservatives have a view on a human rights. Do we really need all that type of malarkey? The two Governments have also signed up to this. It is almost as if they have adopted a passive role in regard to it. They are not persuaders for change. They say they must get agreement from the parties and that there is no point in them doing anything in this regard. If we were to wait for agreement from the parties, would anything happen in regard to many of the big issues we face? When do these people believe will be a good time? Do we want to wait another 15 years, put it on the backburner, say it is not really important and say the Assembly is still meeting and that there are problems in the South as well?

We had a discussion earlier about legislation relating to ex-prisoners. That is a big issue in regard to the Good Friday Agreement and getting those people on board. We all agree many of the people sent to jail in the North would not have been there but for the conflict. There was agreement at the time that we would try to move things on and that people would not be discriminated against because of their background and yet 15 years later, we are introducing legislation which will discriminate against people because of their background. How important is that? That would not happen if this was in place.

Much of this is about people looking back rather than forward. That is one of the biggest difficulties we have in trying to push this forward. It is also about some people being opposed to it and others taking a passive role. Responsibility now lies with the two Governments. They must pull it together. Do the witnesses agree with that?

Ms Michelle Gildernew, MP:

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. I welcome the witnesses. It is good to see them. They hit the nail on the head when they said they were preaching to the converted. There is widespread support for the bill of rights here. I refer to the point Ms McKeown made about challenging the British Government and applying pressure. It would be worth challenging it further because it sounds like pressure from ourselves and the SDLP does not count unless pressure is applied by the DUP and the UUP. That is the only pressure it will listen to. We have raised this consistently with the British Government and people in the British Labour Party.

The very people who are hypocritically on our television screens talking about the erosion of rights - we have heard the flag protest was not necessarily about the flag but about the erosion of rights - are consistently denying us a bill of rights and are trying to scupper it. I would very robustly challenge the British Government to say from where the pressure is coming, if there is pressure, and also from where it is not coming.

I did not hear about the child in Belfast with rickets but in the dim and distant past, after the Second World War, vitamins A and D were put into margarine to try to avoid rickets. To think we have a disease like rickets in our population is incredible. We have been making those points about health inequalities, early intervention, supporting families, Home Start and Sure Start and trying to give parents the support they need to make the right decisions for their children.

Poverty was spoken about here. The austerity measures in the South seem to be affecting the working class communities, which are the most vulnerable in our society, and not the people who have wealth and who can share it. When one sees the impact welfare reform will have on the most vulnerable in our communities, it seems like the policies of both Governments on the island are more detrimental to people in working class communities who have most to gain from a bill of rights.

In regard to the list of human rights, I attended an event last week with the parents of children with severe disabilities who are in a special school. They are in a very safe environment for 15 years but when they turn 19 year of age, they are turned out of it. There is no right to equal opportunity in all social and economic activities, regardless of class, creed, disability, gender or ethnicity. Those people are left bereft after their child leaves formal education at 19 years of age with no chance of social and economic activity on any kind of rights basis. It comes up in every walk of life in which we are involved. Tomorrow I will speak at an event in County Fermanagh, where Invest NI is getting a hammering about how effective it has been in that county. The Minister in charge is from that county but we see the economic rights of people, urban and rural, are being dissipated and at times one feels there is very little one can do about it.

I do not have a specific question but would say the witnesses should challenge the British and Ireland Governments to see from where the pressure is coming. The point was made that there was not consensus around everything in the Good Friday Agreement. This is something all people in the North need, whether they think so or not. We will continue to support the witnesses in their work. We should not leave the British Government or the Irish Government off the hook. Mr. Maskey seconded the suggestion that this committee write to the Taoiseach on this issue, and I concur with that.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Gildernew. We are under a bit of pressure because our members got carried away with their questions, so it is a bit rich of me to ask the witnesses to be brief. Could I ask them to be conscious of the time but not to cut short their answers?

Mr. Eugene McGlone:

I will pick one issue, Ms McKeown has one or two she wants to pick up and Mr. O'Connor has been making notes. One or two comments were made which demand some further explanation and responses. Mr. Durkan spoke about the idea afoot that the Good Friday Agreement seems to have survived and there is no need to do anything else. The person saying that must be blind and deaf and live up a mountain in a hermitage. Looking at any of the news programmes emanating from Northern Ireland, it is quite clear the peace process is starting to come asunder, whether it is over daily protests on the streets over the flag issue, which was raised in the past four contributions. That is indicative of serious concerns and issues.

It is a significant idea related to whether a flag should be put up on the City Hall in Belfast or not but it becomes irrelevant because clearly there is concern among some of those articulating these issues that they feel alienated from their society.

We are of the view that a bill of rights is for everyone, it is not selective. Those people would have the same rights as we would and that every other citizen should have. The bill of rights should underpin their rights on a number of issues, such as feeling safe in their own environment. They must not feel they are under pressure in terms of cultural identity. Currently with the growth of activity from dissident republicans around Northern Ireland, it is clear the Good Friday Agreement has bedded down in the way we hoped it would and the way that worked to bed it down. We are of the view that it is a symptom of the continuing polarisation in society that is being accelerated simply by virtue of the fact that there is not a guaranteed rights package that everyone can buy into. Everyone bought into the Good Friday Agreement and the devil was in the detail. Fifteen years later, we are not even discussing the detail in any real sense. That is something that must be looked at.

In a sense it is laughable. We sent a delegation to Colombia to talk about the lessons that can be learned from the peace process that might assist in the peace process that will hopefully evolve in Colombia and there were Unionists on that delegation. It is strange that the trade union movement can bring together people from diverse political backgrounds in Northern Ireland and take them to Colombia to talk about the development of peace but we cannot get them to sit down and agree a bill of rights for our own people in a wee place like Northern Ireland, along with a fundamental charter of rights for the island of Ireland. It is strange we cannot develop such a process among ourselves.

Deputy O'Reilly asked about ICTU formally engaging with the Unionist parties. We engage as much as we can, we have formal engagement with the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and with the DUP and the Ulster Unionist Party, as well as with the SDLP, Alliance Party and Sinn Féin. We meet with them as often as we can and we press them on the issue. We are aware of some of their concerns but not all of them and we cannot understand why someone would oppose a bill of rights. Why would someone say it is unnecessary? There are those who suggest we should look at a British model for a bill of rights and that we should latch on to that. That is not what is contained in the Good Friday Agreement. We want the Northern Ireland bill of rights as guaranteed in the Good Friday Agreement. We think it is necessary, and that we have the maturity to develop it and build upon it.

Ms Patricia McKeown:

I do not share Deputy Crowe's surprise that there are people in our society who are not signed up to a fair, just and equal society. The society I come from was constructed on the basis of discrimination and prejudice and out there is a world where there are those who deny women's rights, still practise religious and political discrimination and engage in all the other forms of discrimination that the Good Friday Agreement was designed to encapsulate as needing to change. They are still there. They are not always in government but they are in positions of power in our society and that is why strong enforcement of our equality laws and a justiciable bill of rights is so important.

Engaging on a regular basis with the political parties that oppose the suite of proposals over the years on a bill of rights is something we do as a matter of course. Of course we engage with them. We represent the people who elect them, our members, on a regular basis on the importance of human rights. When we gave evidence as ICTU to the British commission when it visited about a year ago, we were in the company of some tough loyalist working class communities who were giving evidence on why we should have a strong, justiciable bill of rights. They got it. They got it because they were engaging in a process of understanding what happens to people in an unfair, discriminatory society and they were identifying that as happening to their community as well as to "the others over there". We still live in a society where some people want to hold political power by saying people will lose something if they do not vote for a particular party and that "they" will get it all. It is as crude as that. We are a divided, riven society where sectarianism is alive and well and 15 years after the Good Friday Agreement, it is incumbent on all of us to something about that.

I can understand Mark Durkan shares our frustration that 15 years have passed and what do we do? That charter of rights, however, is supposed to be based on the existence of a strong justiciable bill or rights for Northern Ireland. I would not be opposed to a twin track process but we will not move away from the need for a strong, inclusive bill or rights because the absence of movement on that has delayed the charter of rights for those 15 years. We have years' experience of intensively working on a cross-party basis, with civil society and us on one side and the politicians on the other. It is not as simple as saying there are two, possibly three, political parties that would just vote against a bill of rights. Every political party in the North has a policy in favour of a bill of rights in some form, and has had for years. It is this bill of rights for Northern Ireland, that is part of the Good Friday Agreement, that is in dispute. I have seen resistance to it for many reasons. There is no dismissing the fact that some people are resisting it because it is a constitutional issue in their view. We are part of the United Kingdom, so why would we want a bill of rights for Northern Ireland? That was articulated many times. There are others who see it as an attack on the power of elected politicians. If there was a bill of rights, particularly social and economic rights, part of the power of elected representatives to make decisions on resource allocation is being taken away. As we got into the process of how bills of rights work, and the evidence came out that it would support the power of a politician to be part of the resource allocation process. Rather than distracting, it strengthens their role.

There was not, however, enough time. In these 15 years, we spent a year in a room, civil society and the political parties. Maybe much more time in the room would have changed people's attitudes and there would have been more learning. That must happen. We are saying it must happen again. Major work remains.

For those who would argue that 15 years have passed and we have managed without a bill of rights, I point to the fact that our people are dying faster than they were when that agreement was signed. It is working class people who are dying, it is the disadvantaged, it is the people who still suffer from traditional patterns of discrimination who are dying. They are not dying in a conflict, they are dying in a peace process, which is even more shocking.

Mr. Jack O'Connor:

On Mr. Mark Durkan's point that this has worked for 15 years without a bill or rights, that is a frightening attitude. There are indications that we might be coming to the point where they would be proved wrong, especially in the context of economic decline, austerity and the alienation it fosters in a society as people retreat into traditional avenues in that environment.

I was struck by what Mr. Durkan said about simultaneously focusing on the charter of fundamental rights. In so far as I understood what he was saying, I agree with it. My only regret is that I did not think of it first. There could be issues for the trade union movement in this regard.

I must inform Deputy Joe O'Reilly that I did not go far as saying that a bill of rights would have prevented what has happened. As a trade unionist, I am reluctant to speak in such absolute terms on any issue. On a more serious note, I said that a bill of rights could have prevented it. I made that assertion because those who voted against the recommendations of the bill of rights forum were voting against certain guarantees in relation to cultural identity. That was highlighted as an issue by the people who were protesting. I would not suggest that any one thing would have such an effect. It took us a long time to get to where we are. This is one of the ingredients we strongly believe is critical if more progress is to be made and if the progress that has been made is to be consolidated.

Deputy Crowe and Michelle Gildernew made the point that deprivation and poverty are not restricted to west Belfast or certain areas on the north east of the island. They are aware that I totally agree with that view. Regardless of one's political views, one will agree that it is absolutely appalling, as we celebrate the centenary of the great Dublin Lock-out, that we have returned to the era of children on this island going to bed hungry. I totally agree that austerity places the greatest burden on working-class people and those who depend on public services. I think that is obvious. Such people have carried two thirds or 78% - depending on how one measures it - of the fiscal consolidation imposed in this jurisdiction over the past five years or more.

I totally agree with the point made by Michelle Gildernew that working-class people have the most to gain from a bill of rights and from equality. They are not the only people who would gain, however. There are many examples of people who see themselves as being better off, and might think they have a greater vested interest in things staying as they are, finding themselves as individuals on the wrong side of the absence of a bill of rights. More to the point, a bill of rights and what it implies is critical to the task of building a prosperous economy. It is critical if we are to attract investment, reassure potential investors of the security of the environment in which they would be operating and make progress with the possibilities offered by the Good Friday Agreement for the benefit of everyone on this island.

I reiterate that it is absolutely critical for every one of us, including the members of this committee, to strongly encourage both Governments to set the pace in this regard. That means more than saying that something is to be imposed. It means fighting to win over those who are opposed to this proposal. Perhaps the trade union movement could do a bit more in that respect as well.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. O'Connor and the other members of the delegation for their thought-provoking contributions. We understand their loud sense of frustration. Perhaps I would differ in so far as I would not share the sense that things have not progressed in the past 15 years. Although obvious challenges are being faced at the moment, a great deal of movement has been made in Northern Ireland in the last 15 years.

The bill of rights issue is dominating our radar. The commission that was established by the UK Government could not reach consensus on a pan-British basis for Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland. There was a sense from the commission that a bill of rights for Northern Ireland needs to operate as a distinct entity.

While I take Mr. O'Connor's point about the extent to which one can be committed to something, I emphasise that the Irish Government is committed to this. Obviously, there is a need to evaluate that commitment continually. I will use my office to ensure the Taoiseach knows we have had this meeting when he meets David Cameron on 11 March. Formal correspondence on this matter will be issued on foot of today's meeting.

I have listened to various contributions. Paul Maskey made the point that there are other voices out there. This committee tries to act as an honest broker. When there are divergent views, as in this case, it might be helpful to hear them. Deputy Crowe mentioned that he is baffled about why this issue is not being resolved. We need to hear divergent views. Our committee will try to assist by pursuing this issue as an honest broker. We are committed to it. It is an integral part of the Good Friday Agreement. We appreciate the contributions that have been made today.

Mr. Eugene McGlone:

On behalf of the ICTU, I thank the committee for its courtesy in hearing us out and for its intentions with regard to the meeting of 11 March next. I would like to emphasise Mr. O'Connor's point that we do not believe the implementation of a bill of rights will solve all our problems. It would help in the same way that getting the grass cut enables one to hurl a bit better. That is what we need to be doing.

Ms Michelle Gildernew, MP:

Could I make a quick suggestion? Maybe we should take a twin-pronged approach to this issue. We have agreed to go to the top and raise it with the two Governments. Maybe we should have a bottom-up approach as well. Maybe the bill of rights should be on the clár for the all-Belfast event that is being planned for the Skainos centre. Maybe we should take it to people in the loyalist community and ask them what they have to fear from it. That is just a suggestion.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegates again.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will continue our discussion on a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. I welcome the following: Ms Adrienne Reilly, protection of rights co-ordinator at the Committee on the Administration of Justice; Ms Sara Boyce, policy co-ordinator on employability at Include Youth; and Ms Helen Flynn, campaigns and membership officer at the Human Rights Consortium. As they were in the Visitors Gallery during the previous session, with their agreement, I do not propose to read the note on privilege again. I call on Ms Flynn to make the opening presentation.

Ms Helen Flynn:

We are grateful for the opportunity to present our evidence and I thank the Chairman and members for their invitation to address the joint committee. We last gave evidence to it in May 2012 and I propose to provide an update on that evidence.

On the previous occasion we identified two main obstacles to progress on a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. The first was the work of the United Kingdom commission on a bill of rights, while the second was the lack of political consensus in the North. A substantial amount of our work since last May has focused on the work of the UK commission on a bill of rights. The commission was established on 18 March 2011 as a coalition compromise to address the opposing visions of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats Party for the future shape of human rights protections in the United Kingdom. Put simply, the former wishes to scrap the Human Rights Act, while the latter wishes to protect it. This was highly worrying, but the work of the commission also had wider implications.

Throughout the lifetime of the commission the UK Government repeatedly used it as an excuse to defend the lack of progress on the Northern Ireland bill of rights, stating a section or an add-on to any UK bill of rights proposed by the commission would be the Government's preferred vehicle for developing rights specific to Northern Ireland. We strongly disagreed with the idea of tagging on a Northern Ireland bill of rights to a UK bill of rights in the event that one was introduced. For this reason, we ran a short campaign to allow members of the public in Northern Ireland to respond to the second consultation process of the UK commission last September. The subsequent responses outline two main concerns. A distinct debate is under way in Northern Ireland on a bill of rights and nothing done at a UK level should be allowed to cut across this initiative or reduce current protections. The Northern Ireland debate takes as its starting point the existence of the Human Rights Act since it gives practical effect to the European Convention on Human Rights. This Act should, if anything, be augmented and must not be weakened.

The responses to our campaign accounted for slightly more than 60% of all submissions received by the UK commission on a bill of rights. We followed up this work with meetings with the chair of the commission and UK politicians to ensure our message was as clear as possible. The consortium was relieved to note that the report of the commission on a bill of rights released on 18 December 2012 as it validated our assessment. While the commission failed to reach consensus on many topics in its report, including whether to proceed with a bill of rights in the United Kingdom, its report had this to say about a Northern Ireland Bill of Rights:

In particular we recognise the distinctive Northern Ireland Bill of Rights process and its importance to the peace process in Northern Ireland. We do not wish to interfere in that process in any way nor for any of the conclusions that we reach to be interpreted or used in such a way as to interfere in, or delay, the Northern Ireland Bill of Rights process.

The remaining barrier, in the opinion of the UK Government, is a lack of political consensus on a bill of rights among parties in the North. It could not be argued that the UK Government has been overly-zealous in attempting to overcome this hurdle. On the contrary, it appears to be using it as a reason to sidestep the issue. The only intervention in the debate by the UK Government was in 2011 when it wrote to all five main political parties and tagged on a line about seeking suggestions on ways to make progress on a bill of rights. This is not an adequate display of leadership. The UK Government is failing to fulfil its responsibilities under the Good Friday Agreement. Fifteen years after the agreement was signed, the time to hold the British Government to account is long overdue.

The Human Rights Consortium is encouraged by recent statements by the Irish Government, as co-signatory of the agreement, and look forward to hearing from the joint committee on its work plan for a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. Ms Reilly from the Committee on the Administration of Justice will now speak about the impact of the absence of a bill of rights.

Ms Adrienne Reilly:

I thank the Chairman and members for listening to us today. Much of our contribution reflects the earlier contribution of our colleagues in the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. As a large membership organisation, we speak from experience. I work for the Committee on the Administration of Justice and I am also on the board of the Human Rights Consortium. I propose to take stock of the current position and the reason it is more urgent than ever to move on a bill of rights for Northern Ireland.

The Good Friday Agreement was signed 15 years ago in Belfast and while much has changed in relation to the political institutions and devolution of policing and justice, a great deal remains the same. Many issues were highly contested in the roll-out of the peace process, whereas a process of implementing a bill of rights is a much simpler task. As I noted, certain matters remain as they were prior to the signing of the Agreement. A comprehensive framework to deal with the abuse of rights at a government level is absent and there is a lack of accountability mechanisms or a framework for the protection of basic rights. These elements are absent.

In the past six months there have been a number of outbreaks of serious public disorder. In July and September last year there was disorder about parades and more recently there has been disorder which appears, on the face of it, to be about flags. Those of us working on the ground know that many other socioeconomic and human rights issues have compounded these events. For those seeking a way to resolve the current issue, it is worth recalling that a legal framework based on the equality of treatment duty on public authorities was intended to be included in a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. In the words of the Good Friday Agreement, bill of rights would provide additional rights to "reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland" and "reflect the principles of mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities". In short, the bill of rights was meant to provide a fairness framework within which issues involving a conflict of rights could be addressed. I refer, for example, to flags and cultural identity, as well as many of the other issues that are causing serious unrest and, as I stated, being compounded by the situation with regard to socioeconomic issues. These issues could have been addressed in a bill of rights and the introduction of a bill of rights should be regarded as an important safeguard for everybody in Northern Ireland.

The Human Rights Consortium has always found its strength in the issues that unite rather than divide communities. As Ms Patricia McKeown of the ICTU noted, housing, poverty, unemployment, education and other socioeconomic issues have brought communities together in their discussions on a ill of rights. People want minimum standards and protections on these issues; it is as simple as that. A bill of rights would do what many bills of rights and constitutional settlements have done across the world, namely, increase ownership and a shared sense of community cohesion in a divided society. The consortium believes it would be seriously remiss of us to allow the 15th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement to pass without fulfilling the provisions of the Agreement which have not been implemented, notably the introduction of a bill of rights. The Agreement provided for a bill of rights to address the issues I highlighted within a human rights framework. The danger in continuing to leave these matters unaddressed is that, as we have seen, problems begin to fester, communities do not believe they have gained from the peace process and marginalised communities become more polarised. Mr. Mark Durkan, MP, has noted that we have been without a bill of rights for 15 years and that, therefore, it is okay. It is not okay because, as we have seen in the flag protests, there is unravelling taking place owing to the failure to fulfil the commitment to introduce a bill of rights.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To clarify, Mr. Durkan was not expressing that sentiment.

Ms Adrienne Reilly:

What I meant was that he was highlighting an argument made by others who believe we do not need a bill of rights. I should have stuck to my script.

The Human Rights Consortium is encouraged by and welcomes the recent statements made by the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach in which they spoke about their commitment to support the bill of rights process.

As the committee is aware, the Agreement was written in such a way that there could be no veto by the Northern Ireland parties on a bill of rights. We call on the committee to press the Irish Government in its role as a co-signatory to the Agreement to take all necessary steps to ensure the UK Government fulfils this outstanding obligation on a bill of rights without further delay. I hand over to my colleague Ms Sara Boyce, who will briefly outline some specific requests we have for the committee.

Ms Sara Boyce:

Go raibh maith agat. I am a policy co-ordinator with Include Youth, a rights-based NGO working with young people at risk and vulnerable young people. We are also members of the Human Rights Consortium. With other children and young people's organisations, we have been actively involved in the campaign for a bill of rights since its inception, on the basis that children and young people, who form a quarter of the population in the North, are among the most vulnerable in society and currently lack a comprehensive legal framework for protection of their rights. From 2001, when the Human Rights Commission had its first consultation in the distant past, Include Youth has responded to consultation on behalf of the young people with whom we work, right up to the second consultation from the UK Commission on a bill of rights last year. We have been consistently advocating for a strong bill of rights that would include protections for children and young people. In 2001 I was involved in consulting with P7 schoolchildren - 11-year-olds - from all education sectors across the North, including maintained schools, state schools, Irish language schools and special educational needs schools. Those schoolchildren are now in adulthood, having turned 18 years of age. It is deeply disappointing that the promise made to them in the Good Friday Agreement was not realised throughout their childhood, so that they went through their childhood without the rights protections they had been promised. We will soon be into a second generation, which is worrying for all the reasons we have heard already.

The Human Rights Consortium has had a number of engagements with the committee. We want to avail of the opportunity to put some concrete proposals to the committee. In view of the committee's remit with regard to the implementation of the Agreement, we are interested to hear the committee's plans as we approach its 15th anniversary. The consortium believes that an important exercise the committee could usefully undertake would be to conduct a review or audit of the implementation of the Agreement, which would obviously include an assessment of where the bill of rights process is at, as well as the development of concrete proposals regarding a roadmap to move us forward towards ultimate delivery of the bill of rights. We also hope there will be a full debate on the Agreement's implementation in April and that the committee will use its influence to ensure that debate happens.

We extend an invitation to the committee to come to the North again and spend some time with the consortium's member groups in both loyalist and Nationalist communities - but also other communities that are sometimes overlooked - because a bill of rights would apply to all communities that most need and would benefit from the protections it could offer. On behalf of the delegation I thank the committee for the time it has given us. We will be happy to take questions and comments.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was certainly helpful.

Ms Michelle Gildernew, MP:

I thank the delegation for a succinct and meaningful presentation. Many good suggestions have been made. I do not see any reason to disagree with any of the three ideas proposed. A review or audit of the Agreement is something we would like to see happening. That would be helpful, and if we can assist in any way on any of those issues, including the debate in April, we will do so. I see no reason to disagree with any of the comments made. Because of the work Ms Sara Boyce has done with children and young people - she will have heard my comments to ICTU on the post-19 group - it is especially poignant that she engaged with young people who are now over 19 and are probably being dumped on their families with very little stimulation of any kind. I am aware the delegation is representing the Human Rights Consortium, but I am concerned about the human rights of these young people and would welcome its views.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The delegation mentioned that the two main obstacles are the work of the UK Commission on a Bill of Rights, which came back and said it did not want to delay the matter, and the lack of consensus. The report of the commission stated that it did not want any delay and did not want its work to be used as a barrier. In regard to the lack of consensus, some will argue that the parties should be pulled together to see if agreement can be reached. That sounds reasonable, although it is 15 years down the road. If that does not work, what timescale should we be working towards? If the two governments cannot get all the parties to agree to some bases in regard to a bill of rights, what should we be working towards? It is not specifically a matter for us but for the two governments. A meeting is planned between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister, and the British Prime Minister said this was one of the issues that would be raised. Does the delegation agree with that approach?

There is also the important issue of synergy in regard to human rights. If there is a bill of rights in the North there must be similar legislation in this jurisdiction, such as the all-Ireland charter. How important is that? The last thing we want is for one section of the island to move ahead on one issue and the other section to fall behind. Some of the legislation being introduced would be the opposite of what is being introduced in the other jurisdiction.

Mr. Mark Durkan, MP:

I thank Ms Adrienne Reilly for her clarification. In the discussion we heard about some of the political party opposition to this in the North. We need to recognise that a very natural source of opposition in the North is the permanent government. The Civil Service instinct, by and large, is to say that a bill of rights would create an impossible situation, as it would interfere with decisions on the planning and allocation of resources by the Government, and the Government would be second-guessed in every decision it made. That is part of the argument that is made. Those who make that argument have been able to ram it home in the years of certain masters in certain parties, almost to reinforce their own antipathy. There is a certain Civil Service neuralgia around some of this. That scepticism has been there for a long time. We should not kid ourselves that there are only pockets of party political resistance or scepticism about this issue. I say that not to agree with it but to recognise that it is part of the nature of the challenge.

Like Ms Michelle Gildernew, I fully concur with the worthwhile suggestions that are being made to keep the ball rolling and get things moving. My own observations earlier on the charter were not to look to the charter as an alternative to the bill of rights but maybe as a way of trying to achieve a different level of engagement, particularly from Unionist parties, given some of the issues they have raised about matters in this State and so on. We may be able to create a situation in which they can engage with the charter and we can use that to create a different backlight around the debate on the need for a bill of rights.

We need to give people an example of the difference a bill of rights may bring. An emerging issue that will affect people right across the community in Northern Ireland and which will have a particularly sensitive impact on sections of the loyalist community, following the flag protest and arguments, relates to the welfare reform measures that are being passed. The notion of a bedroom tax was suggested in Westminster as a way to deal with issues in London and elsewhere. The justification for such a tax is that if people occupy social housing that is too large for them, the bedroom tax is a way of encouraging them to move to housing that is a better size for them, making the larger house available for others. If we translate such a measure into places like the Fountain Estate in my constituency, we are basically saying to the small loyalist community members there that they should not be living there and should go somewhere else or should pay extra for being there. The bill of rights proposed in the agreement would give people the right to choose where they live. However, if the bedroom tax is implemented, people will be told that if they choose to stay, it will cost them.

We need to think about how the North could have been in a better position to influence legislation going through Westminster, that is now going through the Assembly in a sort of karaoke form. If we did, Northern sensitivities based around rights and particular community sensitivities around those rights might have been front-loaded into that debate a lot earlier. Even if we could not have changed the Westminster Bill fundamentally, there would have been a lot more leeway created for the North, but, unfortunately, the Assembly kind of slept in on that. If there had been a bill of rights and people were alert to the situation earlier, some reaction might have kicked in and we might have a different outcome that would matter to people. This is something that will hurt a lot of families in years to come.

Mr. Paul Maskey, MP:

I thank the witnesses for their presentation and appreciate the work that has been done and the contribution made to society. As Ms Gildernew says, with regard to the proposals for a review and audit of the Good Friday Agreement, that is something we should do. We called for this previously and I hope we can get agreement for this committee to look at that. I do not think we can wait another 15 years for a bill of rights and that is the problem. It is imperative on all of us to do whatever we can to ensure a bill of rights happens sooner rather than later and whatever this committee can do towards achieving that would be very useful. Perhaps researchers in Leinster House might just do some quick research looking at some of the outstanding issues that have not been delivered on.

I accept the point made that we need to meet all communities affected by not having a bill of rights. Some 25% of our population are children and in some of our constituencies some 43% of children suffer from poverty. This is a massive issue and I believe the committee should also look at taking some of the child and poverty issues on board. As I said earlier, following on what Patricia McKeown said regarding poverty and other issues in our constituencies, the majority of people seriously affected by not having a bill of rights are those from a disadvantaged social and economic background community.

Mr. Durkan has talked about some of the issues in the context of civil servants who advise something cannot be done because it will be too difficult, but this is something we must all challenge. The reason our political parties are in government is to challenge these civil servants to ensure that the people affected are supported the most. We must continue to do this. It is not good enough that my constituency or Mr. Durkan's constituency have some of the highest unemployment rates on this island. We must challenge those who have responsibility with regard to a bill of rights to deliver on that front. I hope this committee takes up some of the recommendations put forward today and that we can implement them. Hopefully, that will draw us closer to getting the bill of rights we all deserve.

Ms Sara Boyce:

Ms Gildernew said we need real examples and both I and the consortium agree. This is what the consortium has been working towards for many years. Given our broad membership, with over 200 organisations, the real concrete issues are our starting point. Many of these are social and economic issues, but there are also civil and political rights issues where breaches of rights are happening. We take these issues and consider how looking at these issues through a rights-lens or framework would change things. That is how we can convince people of the difference the protections in a bill of rights would make.

Linking this to the example given by Ms Gildernew in terms of young people with disabilities, I know from our organisations - we work with many young 16 to 21 year olds - that some of them have learning disabilities and there is an issue with regard to the lack of continuation of services once they hit 18 and move into adulthood. I am conscious that I am here as part of the consortium rather than in terms of a young people's organisation, but I would like to comment on where I see a bill of rights making a difference. The consortium has been arguing that it does not look at the content of the bill of rights per se, because it is up to individual member organisations to argue for the content. However, one of the bottom lines we have as a consortium is that it should build on international human rights standards, which are only minimum.

Two obvious standards in this regard are the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the more recent UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. In terms of the rights of children, article 23 would shift the debate and discussion and the parameters around which some of the decisions are being made or are not being made. Currently, the only recourse desperate parents have - parents of children with additional needs are desperate - is a judicial review. This should not be their only recourse, but should be an option of last resort. This is not where we want things to be. We want to have a framework that informs how policy decisions are being made. As Mr. Durkan said, these decisions are often made by civil servants. Such a framework must become part of the norm of how things are done and how decisions are made.

I am sure Ms Flynn and Ms Reilly will also want to pick up on the issue raised by Mr. Durkan of where resistance comes from. He said that resistance often comes from the permanent government and its mandarins, the civil servants. In the North, our experience comes from the experience of the Human Rights Act and here in the South the experience comes from the constitutional referendum on the rights of children. There will always be some opposition to these moves until they are in place and up and running. Recently, I attended the launch by the Northern Ireland Policing Board of its annual human rights report and it was very encouraging to hear such a robust defence of the Human Rights Act by one of the assistant chief constables. This Act is part of how the board makes its decisions and it sees the Act as a useful and helpful tool in terms of day to day decisions. That is where we want to get to with the bill of rights.

Ms Helen Flynn:

In terms of the Civil Service, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has begun some training with the Civil Service on human rights and has seconded some civil servants to lead that programme. Hopefully, this will have some interesting results. On the issue of a timeframe for the bill of rights, that is not how we look at the issue. Obviously, we do not want to double the wait from 15 to 30 years without a bill of rights. We fear that we will get to 20 years, two decades, and we will still not have a bill of rights. However, we do not feel it is helpful to think of that kind of timeframe.

The issue of consensus is an obstacle, but we feel it is up to the British Government to create a process. Ms Gildernew and Ms McKeown were present at the bill of rights forum where there was a process in place and people could discuss the issues.

The problem now is that the UK Government, we believe, has no interest in actually having a process in place. The process needs to come from the Government and we need the Irish Government to put pressure on the UK Government to put that process in place and to begin these conversations. The bill of rights is one thing but the actual process of getting there and discussing rights and what they mean in Northern Ireland is another very valuable process for us.

Ms Adrienne Reilly:

Deputy Crowe and Mr. Mark Durkan made reference to the all-Ireland charter of rights and the bill of rights, to their complementarity and to the question of which should come first. In the Good Friday Agreement, the strongest and most cohesive message was that a bill of rights, based on protecting human rights and supporting what is contained in the European Convention on Human Rights, was necessary. Before the last Human Rights Commission in Northern Ireland broke up and new commissioners were appointed, it put together a template involving a joint committee comprising members of the two human rights commissions in the North and the South. It was like a tracking device of existing complimentary human rights mechanisms. However, the bill of rights process has been much longer and much more robust. It has come from the bottom up. We have heard the suggestion today that perhaps we should start bottom-up engagement but we have had that for nearly 12 years. It has come from the bottom up, from communities and the member organisations and has come with real examples of human rights issues and the need for a framework for them. The bill of rights process is the best one, supported by a charter of all-Ireland rights. We need parity of esteem and equality of human rights treatment. That is why, from a consortium perspective, we strongly advocate that the bill of rights process is the one to provide the over-arching framework on which to move, either singularly or in a parallel process, so we do have equivalency of rights.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does anyone else have any further comments?

Mr. Mark Durkan, MP:

Regarding Ms Boyce's comment about the PSNI, there is a strong emphasis now on the benefits of the Human Rights Act in giving the police a very good light to go by in terms of dealing with contentious issues. The Chief Constable made that very point himself when speaking in Derry last night. He spoke about how important and valuable the Human Rights Act had been. He was less emphatic about the importance of a bill of rights as well but I would suggest that he be invited to a session and I am sure he will be given a stronger orientation in that regard.

Ms Adrienne Reilly:

I wish to make one more comment on that issue. It has been our experience in our direct training work with groups from all across Northern Ireland that a lot of these groups have been very resistant to the idea of a bill of rights but want to engage with human rights mechanisms. When we get into a discussion about this, the Eureka moment happens, the light comes on and then they fully support a bill of rights. We see that all across the board. It is a question of how we engage with people and that is actually why we are here today. We need the committee to support what we are doing because while the process is happening on the ground, we also need the process to happen at Government level. That is what we are asking for.

Ms Helen Flynn:

I would like to thank the committee for meeting us, listening to us and for taking our suggestions on board.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There were a few invaluable proposals made today. The one that stands out is for us to spend time with the groups and if we can do that, we will. We are always delighted to go up North. Indeed, we just decided in private session today that we will go up North again shortly. We would be willing to do that and meet groups from within loyalism and nationalism. We are trying to be the honest broker here and to facilitate the debate. If there are divergent views, we need to hear them all and hopefully we can do that.

Regarding where we are at, we are 15 years into the Good Friday Agreement and we are still asking the question as to how to move the process forward. We must start by finding out where we are at now. The UK Government, as recently as this year, said that it cannot achieve consensus on a pan-UK basis. We must find out where we are at now. The UK Government recognises the distinctive role for the Northern Ireland Government in looking at this issue in a distinctive fashion. We need to open the channels of conversation between Westminster and Dublin. As I said earlier, the Irish Government is committed to a Northern Ireland bill of rights and this committee can use its influence to help that conversation to progress. Deputy Crowe mentioned that we do not know if it will be on the agenda for the meeting between the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister but we can certainly request that it would be. Indeed, we would be delighted to do that.

We wish the witnesses well with their work. We will seek their counsel and advice on reaching out to different groups, given that they represent an umbrella group for more than 200 organisations. They have met them all and have worked tirelessly at a grassroots level and maybe the political needs to mix with the civil level more in Northern Ireland.