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.