Frank Feighan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for the delay. I welcome the representatives of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, Ms Emily Logan, who is the chief commissioner, and Mr. David Joyce and Mr. Mark Kelly, who are members of the commission. I also welcome the representatives of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Mr. Les Allamby, who is the chief Commissioner, Ms Virginia McVea, who is the director of the commission; and Mr. David Russell, who is the deputy director of the commission. They are here to discuss the potential effect that the UK Government's proposal to repeal the UK Human Rights Act 1998 could have on the Good Friday Agreement. I ask Ms Logan to make her opening statement. She will be followed by Mr. Allamby. Members of the joint committee will then be invited to ask questions.

Ms Emily Logan:

I thank the Chair. We are very pleased to be here along with our colleagues from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. We thank the joint committee for the kind invitation to address it this morning. We have decided that our guests from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission should speak first, if that is okay with the Chairman. Therefore, I hand over to my colleague, Mr. Allamby.

Mr. Les Allamby:

I thank the joint committee for inviting us to speak. I have inherited a strong long-standing working relationship with the Irish commission. This has been reinforced in the early days of both of our tenures as chief commissioners. I am particularly pleased that we are able to make a joint presentation to the committee today. I would like to lay out what we know about the proposal to repeal the UK Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, before exploring the ramifications of such a measure for the Belfast Agreement. I will be more than happy to take questions on that.

In September 2014, the UK Home Secretary, Theresa May, announced at the Conservative Party conference her intention to repeal the Human Rights Act. These kinds of announcements are sometimes no more than a play for the gallery, but in this case the announcement was followed almost immediately by the publication by the Conservative Party of a document, Protecting Human Rights in the UK. Two of the key objectives set out in the document were to repeal the Human Rights Act and put the text of the convention into primary legislation. Significantly, the document proposed to break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The effect of this would be to treat court judgments as advisory opinions. Instead, the question of which judgments the UK Government would follow and which it would not would be decided by means of some kind of parliamentary process. I might characterise this is as a "pick and mix" approach to court judgments. The document also proposed to limit the use of human rights laws to the most serious cases. No detail was given on what that might mean in practice. We still do not know what the Conservative Party has in mind in this respect.

The document published by the Conservatives also proposed to reduce the reach of cases to the UK. In this case, we have an indication of what they almost certainly mean. They are seeking to address the concerns of the UK Government about being held to account for what the UK armed forces do abroad, for example. Cases have been taken regarding the deployment of troops even though they are ill-equipped to deal with the conflict to which they are being sent, or regarding the behaviour of the armed forces in certain situations. The Conservative Party has also announced its intention to amend the ministerial code, which places a duty on Ministers and civil servants to respect international legal obligations. While this might almost sound prosaic, the idea of amending the ministerial code suggests there is more to this than might at first have seemed the case.

According to the Conservative Party document, it was intended to negotiate these changes through the Council of Europe in the first instance. However, the party was proposing withdrawing from the Council of Europe altogether if it did not prove possible to make such accommodations. One of the difficulties with that approach is the reality that Article 46 of the convention requires all signatories to abide by the judgment of the courts and those judgments are then supervised by the Council of Europe. The party was putting itself on a collision course with the Council of Europe. The reality is that if these proposals are put forward, the chances of them being negotiated with the Council of Europe are somewhere between negligible and nil. Those initial proposals subsequently appeared in the Conservative Party manifesto, albeit without reference to withdrawing from the Council of Europe. More recently, they appeared in the Queen's speech, which repeated the intention to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a Bill of Rights. On that occasion, it was announced that there would be consultation on the changes. The process of consultation is currently undefined and is without a timetable. My understanding is that the brakes have been applied to this process. The lack of detail reflects considerable unease within Whitehall about the original proposals.

There has been no mention in any of the proposals to date of what this means for the Belfast Agreement. As the members of the joint committee are aware, human rights and equality is one of the foundation stones of the agreement. It underpins the agreement. Annex 1 of the Agreement affirms the commitment to human rights, the intention to incorporate the convention with direct access to the courts and the remedies for breaches of the convention, including the power to overrule Northern Ireland Assembly legislation. At the time the Agreement was signed, the Human Rights Act was in its genesis. The Act came into effect in 2000, but the commitment to implement the human rights agreement was already there in 1998. The Northern Ireland Act subsequently enshrined the requirement of the Assembly to enact legislation which must be compatible with the convention. There are a number of checks and balances within the Northern Ireland Act.

Frank Feighan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am afraid I will have to stop Mr. Allamby there because we have a vote in the Dáil.

Mr. Les Allamby:

Okay.

Frank Feighan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Allamby have much more of his presentation to read?

Mr. Les Allamby:

I can canter through it if the Chairman wishes.

Frank Feighan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, we will come back to it. I apologise about this.

Mr. Les Allamby:

No, it is fine.

Mr. Les Allamby:

To recap quickly, Annex 1 of the Belfast Agreement affirmed the commitment to human rights, to incorporate the convention in terms of direct access to the courts and remedies for breaches of the convention, including powers to override Assembly legislation. That was done through the UK Human Rights Act and the Northern Ireland Act which subsequently enshrined the requirement for the Assembly to ensure its legislation was compatible with the convention. There are a number of checks and balances to ensure that happens, both by way of prevention and cure. For example, the Human Rights Commission and the Attorney General can offer advice on the status of legislation and whether it is compatible with the convention. If the Assembly were to go ahead and enact legislation that was contrary to the convention, the Secretary of State would have powers to override it. To date, the Secretary of State has never had to exercise these powers.

Also included in the Belfast Agreement was a provision for the commission to consult and advise on the scope of a Bill of Rights for defining in Westminster legislation supplementary to provisions included in the convention, to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. For us, that is clear evidence that adherence to convention rights is not to be trampled down. There are considerable ramifications for the Belfast Agreement. The three United Kingdom national human rights institutions have recently signalled to the Human Rights Council that the Act is a force for good and that the current proposals have ramifications, both internationally and domestically, for devolved administrations. This extends beyond Northern Ireland to Scotland and Wales.

The St. Andrews Agreement of 2006 reaffirmed that human rights and equality were at its heart. The Stormont House Agreement of December 2014 also made references to having proper regard to the fundamental rights protected by the convention, in terms of any resolution of the outstanding parading issues and the need to take appropriate steps to improve the way the legacy inquest function was conducted and, in particular, to comply with Article 2 on right to life requirements to ensure a proper, independent process was put in place for investigations into deaths in Northern Ireland.

Human rights are in the DNA of the Belfast Agreement and subsequent agreements. It is an international treaty which has been lodged at the United Nations by the two sovereign Governments, both of which are custodians of it. That means that, as articulated, the proposals are clearly matters for the Irish Government. Both commissions have welcomed the interventions made to date by it. I ask the committee to reinforce the message the Irish Government has already given that any proposal subsequently made must take into account the ramifications for the Agreement and be mindful of the international obligations within it and beyond when it is sought to make changes to the UK Human Rights Act.

Ms Emily Logan:

This is an important opportunity to recall the commitments made in 1998 to respect and protect human rights and equality of opportunity. In signing the Belfast Agreement and the Good Friday Agreement the parties affirmed their "commitment to the mutual respect, the civil rights and the religious liberties of everyone in the community". Since 1998 there has been substantial progress in implementing the human rights elements of the Good Friday Agreement. The founding of two national human rights institutions on the island saw the establishment of the former Irish Human Rights Commission under the Human Rights Commission Act, 2000, with a statutory obligation to ensure the realisation and protection of the human rights of all persons in the State. In 2014 the Irish Human Rights Commission was merged with the Equality Authority to create a new body, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, with an expanded mandate and enhanced powers. The 2014 Act explicitly provides for a stronger level of institutional independence and direct accountability to the Oireachtas.

The Belfast Agreement and the Good Friday Agreement laid down not only a mandate for both national human rights institutions but also a mechanism to ensure strong co-operation between them.

The Agreement specifically envisaged the establishment of a joint committee with representatives of the two bodies, North and South, as a forum for considering human rights issues on the island of Ireland.

The first official meeting of the joint committee took place in November 2001 and, since then, members have engaged on several key issues and collaborated on all-island events. Recent examples include the jointly hosted conference held in Newry which brought human rights and anti-poverty practitioners together to discuss poverty on the island of Ireland and ways of responding at a legal, policy and community level. In addition, this years conference on gender equality included expert speakers from across the island of Ireland.

As well as through the formal structure of the joint committee, the two commissions have had the opportunity to meet and participate regularly at a regional and global level in international networks of national human rights institutions.

In terms of the charter of right for the island of Ireland, under the Agreement, the joint committee of both commissions was invited to consider the possibility of creating a charter of rights for everyone living on the island of Ireland. The former Irish Human Rights Commission and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission together published their advice on a charter of rights for the island of Ireland in June 2011 and this was presented to the Irish Government, the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The joint committee recommended that, as a minimum, a charter of rights for the island of Ireland should reaffirm the political parties' commitment to the rights in the European Convention on Human Rights.

Members of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission are concerned and wish to reiterate Mr. Allamby's call that the terms of the Belfast or Good Friday Agreement may be affected if the British Government carries through on its pre-election manifesto promises to repeal the UK Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights. As Mr. Allamby has already indicated human rights protections were a core feature, not an add on, of the peace process and the negotiations around the Agreement.

Two referenda were held, North and South, on 22 May 1998, in which voters across the island gave their support to their respective governments to approve the Agreement. As part of the Agreement, the Irish Government committed to bringing forward measures to ensure at least an equivalent level of protection of human rights in the South as in the North. Repeal of the Act and withdrawal from the European Convention would have negative consequences for the uniformity of human rights standards across these islands.

The importance of promoting and protecting human rights is fundamental to safeguarding peace, respect and inclusion in communities across the island of Ireland.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Charles Flanagan stated in his address to the Seanad recently:

The formal human rights architecture, including the European Convention of Human Rights, is woven into the structures of the Agreements, to give shape and effect to their principles and aspirations.

The Irish Government has demonstrated that it takes seriously its responsibility to safeguard the Agreement. It is the hope of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission that this commitment will continue into the future. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission are committed to working together on human rights issues which affect people throughout the island of Ireland. Full implementation of this aspect of the Belfast or Good Friday Agreement can only be ensured if both commissions are properly resourced and their work supported. I would therefore encourage the members of the joint committee to do as Mr. Les Allamby has suggested in terms of commitment to the Human Rights Act and to ensure that there is continued commitment to the work of the two commissions into the future.

Frank Feighan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you Ms Logan. Before I call Deputy Pringle I wish to put some questions. In her presentation, Ms Logan states that withdrawal from the European Convention could have negative consequences for the uniformity of human rights standards across these islands, will she expand on this and specify the areas of particular concern?

Does Ms Logan believe that a Northern Ireland bill of rights would be a positive step forward in addressing the outstanding legacy issues that are impeding full reconciliation in Northern Ireland? Should the respective governments seeks to introduce a bill of rights as a matter of priority?

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to thank members of both commissions for their presentations. It is not clear whether the British Government will deliver on its intention to repeal the Human Rights Act. It might stagnate and not move any further. If the consultation commences on its proposals will both the Irish and British commissions participate in the consultation?

Given that the Good Friday Agreement is registered with the United Nations and is an international treaty, is it a potential breach of international law for the British Government to unilaterally introduce these changes? If so, what can either or both commissions do in respect of that? Is the commission in the South answerable to the Oireachtas? Is this an issue that the Oireachtas could take on board?

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Allamby and Ms Logan for their very informative and precise presentations. The protection of human rights is core to the lead up to the Good Friday Agreement. People were trying to find a way out of the mess and I absolutely and fully concur with that. The repeal of the Act and the withdrawal from the European Convention would be a terrible signal and would be viewed in that light by human rights activists both internationally and nationally. One would hope the British Prime Minister, David Cameron would draw back from that.

Has Mr. Allamby met or made a formal presentation to the British Government on this issue and has he stated clearly the implications of their suggestion? Equally has he made a formal representation to the Irish Government on this issue? Does he believe that David Cameron will have a significant majority to repeal this Bill, should he decide to do so eventually?

I appreciate very much the presentations that have been made.

Frank Feighan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose that the witnesses answer this round of questions.

Mr. Les Allamby:

Several issue have been raised. I was asked how I would deal with the question of uniformity and the consequences of the repeal and withdrawal of the convention. There are two dimensions, one is a wider international dimension that is beyond the Belfast Agreement.

The UK Government prides itself in terms of its foreign policy of talking to other governments about the importance of nation states meeting their international human rights obligations. Frankly it becomes very difficult to talk to other countries if one does not meeting one's own international human rights obligations. The idea that one can negotiate some kind of accommodation that states that if one does not like what judges in Strasbourg say, one can pick and choose what to follow has all sorts of ramifications. The UK Government has been before the court on 14 occasions in 2014. It has been held to have breached the convention on four occasions. The Russian Federation has been before the court on 129 times and has been found in breach on 122 occasions. I am pretty sure that Vladimir Putin would like a pick and mix approach to the European Convention. It has ramifications beyond these islands.

We all know where politics are. The Belfast Agreement was designed to be anchored for a generation and beyond. Quite frankly we are not quite sure where we will be politically in a month or six months time, not to mind ten or 20 years. The purposes of human rights and equality - I will come back to the bill of rights - were to be substantial bulwarks to ensure we can survive whatever the political situation is in Northern Ireland. Therefore this becomes very important. In a time of relative political stability, the issue of human rights and equality when the political relationship works very well, may assume less importance than at times when there are real political instabilities and tensions. Human rights should be there on universal basis that can ensure whatever the way the wind is blowing, we can recognise the rule of law and that includes human rights provisions. That is very important for us. In terms of the discussions, yes we have discussions with the Northern Ireland Office in particular and with the Secretary of State. I think it is clear that they are very sighted on the ramifications for the Belfast Agreement. I do not think they are under any illusions that the proposals as originally set forth would create some considerable difficulties.

My best, fairly educated guess is they welcome the consultation process and the idea that perhaps we might have some more mature reflection. I am less sanguine about the idea that it will simply stagnate and not happen. They have committed themselves to doing something. The question will be what. They could have quietly dropped it by not putting it in the Queen's speech and they chose not to do that. It is fairly clear to me that something will have to happen.

In the politics of this, the other issue is it could get caught up in the backwash of broader European Union issues. On a purely speculative but best-guess basis on my part, they may wish to get the European Union referendum out of the way before they move down this road, but who knows where we will be sitting after the European Union referendum and what the politics will be? There are certainly a number of MPs within the Conservative Party who are equally uneasy with these proposals and, therefore, it would be unwise to take for granted the idea that the whole of the Conservative Party will rally behind this. It is clear that many of the other political parties will oppose this. That is where we are there.

In terms of the bill of rights, briefly, we would like to see a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. For us, it is unfinished business in the Belfast Agreement. It was designed to supplement the European Convention. It was designed to be there in both times of stability and instability and that is why human rights are really important. Human rights should be there to ensure that when the state is under pressure, as opposed to when it is not, it abides by its human rights commitments. That is where human rights often come into best effect.

Frank Feighan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does anybody else wish to respond?

Ms Emily Logan:

On the question on the European Convention on Human Rights, domestically, the convention has been introduced through the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003. Contained in that Act are three core obligations that are significant in terms of defending and advancing human rights in this jurisdiction. Two of the key elements or core obligations are, first, that in applying the rule of law the courts are obliged to do so in a manner that is compatible with the convention and, second, that every organ of the State must perform its functions in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. The latter is an important provision in terms of protecting human rights as it explicitly regulates the manner in which public bodies undertake their business. I will ask Mr. Mark Kelly to elaborate.

Mr. Mark Kelly:

I return to the Chairman's question, because he zeroed in on the following phrase in our opening statement, as to what are the "negative consequences for the uniformity of human rights standards across these islands"? If this were to happen, it would fundamentally undermine the principle of equivalence which is embedded in the Good Friday Agreement and a situation would be created under which it would be possible for persons to go to court and for their lawyers to argue directly before the courts in this jurisdiction the case law of the European Court of Human Rights but that would no longer potentially be possible in the neighbouring jurisdiction on the island. That effect of that is twofold. It is, first, that one creates a jurisdiction in which the subsidiarity arguability of these Strasbourg standards is no longer directly available to those in the courts. One also then creates a cohort of persons, including a significant number who hold Irish passports and self-identify as Irish living in the neighbouring jurisdiction who would no longer have the same level of protection as those in this jurisdiction do. If one thinks about another outworking of it in terms of the Traveller community here, one would have an indigenous national minority who are travelling on the island who in one part of the island would have a completely different lower level of protection in the neighbouring jurisdiction than they would have here, and that offends against another fundamental principle of international human rights, which is that of non-retrogression. Our colleague, Mr. Les Allamby, in his opening statement, referred to another joint statement, which was made by the three United Kingdom national human rights institutions to the United Nations earlier this year, in which they put it simply. They stated:

our human rights laws must pass a simply test: do they take us forwards or back? We would not support a reversal of the leading global role ... [that] has played in protecting and promoting human rights

in the neighbouring jurisdiction and the other jurisdictions that neighbour us, if this were to go forward. Those are the two principal problems: the creation of unequal playing fields in terms of the protection of human rights and retrogression in terms of the current level of protection.

Mr. Les Allamby:

Ms McVea will follow up on the legacy issues that were being asked about.

Ms Virginia McVea:

A practical observation would be that, because the Belfast - Good Friday - Agreement did not describe in detail the framework for dealing with the past, what has happened in reality in the North is that Strasbourg has stood in the gap for us when we face the difficulty of how will we investigate the deaths, to what standards and what should be the process. It is the Strasbourg judgment in cases, such as Jordan, and the follow-up by the committee of Ministers, that has helped to ensure that processes occur. When one asks about the difficulties about withdrawal, one of our difficulties would be that we do not yet have agreement following the Stormont House arrangements on how that would work itself out and, therefore, Strasbourg and those judgments continue to stand in the gap.

If that were removed, we would have further difficulties in breach of other treaties ratified by the United Kingdom Government, for example, the covenant on civil and political rights, because it is the judgments of Strasbourg that have helped the United Kingdom Government stay on some of the right side of those ratified treaties as well. If we had not had those judgments and we had not had the processes that followed, we would have been in further breach.

Ms Emily Logan:

On the question on consultation, we are liaising closely with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. I assure the committee that we will be speaking with one voice and we will be working closely together on that.

Frank Feighan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Mr. Pat Doherty MP.

Mr. Pat Doherty:

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chathaoirleach. I thank all of the witnesses for their clear and precise presentations.

It has been rightly stated, both here and by the Irish Government, that the repealing of the Human Rights Act would constitute a flagrant breach of the Good Friday Agreement. I wonder what is their view as to what more the Irish Government, as co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement, can do.

I note that another Oireachtas joint committee, the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs, made a submission to the British Government on the potential referendum in Britain about leaving Europe. Should this committee, as guarantor or standard bearer for the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, put together a submission on behalf of the Good Friday Agreement, and also present it to the British Government? We cannot take this lightly. We all - the Irish Government, both groups here and, I would assume, this committee - are on the one page. What should we do as a committee to make it clear to the British Government that this is not acceptable?

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise. I had to go to two other meetings in the meantime. It is one of those crazy days. Unfortunately, I missed the presentations. However, I ready the documentation that had been advanced.

I merely want to comment. It would be absolutely reprehensible and totally unacceptable for there to be changes to or abolition of the Human Rights Act by the British Government. An important part of the narrative of the Good Friday Agreement, of which both governments are co-guarantors, that we often leave out is that it is an international agreement and it is lodged with the United Nations, and no one party to that agreement can make a unilateral decision to take a sledgehammer to an important part of the agreement. I was one of those who was glad to have the opportunity to canvas in 1998 in favour of the referendum here. Of course, that was a historic day for the country when the people on all of this island had the opportunity to vote on the one question on the same day. The referenda were overwhelmingly endorsed by the people of this country and that is a message we need to get to the British Government. Politically, we need to do it. We have been doing that through parliamentary questions, statements and Topical Issues here in the Dáil and in the Oireachtas in general.

The British Government is honouring an election pledge. We know that Governments are not good at honouring election pledges. We sincerely hope they do not honour the political pledge that it made in advance of the general election to abolish the Human Rights Act because I think it would be a total slight on another sovereign government and on important international agreements that are lodged with the United Nations. As has been said, both the British and Irish Governments are co-guarantors of the agreement. We want to see the Good Friday Agreement, the St. Andrews Agreement and the Weston Park Agreement fully implemented.

We have had many presentations in the past number of years from different representative organisations and advocacy groups in regard to the need for a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. We should be advancing rather than going backwards. That is a very important message that needs to go out to the public at large on the whole island and in Britain. Significant progress has been made, but we do not underestimate the need to build on that progress and deal with issues of concern which, if they are not dealt with, could cause trouble in the future, which none of us wants to see.

I apologise for not being present to listen the presentations. I have read the written submissions and appreciate the work that has been done. I fully endorse the presentations. I urge the witnesses to continue to advocate very strongly on these issues.

Dessie Ellis (Dublin North West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Have the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission engaged with the human rights bodies in England, Scotland and Wales? What is their attitude to the Irish commissions? Obviously they are well aware of the significance of this vis-à-visthe Good Friday Agreement, which is an international agreement. Will they explain how they are faring with that?

Ms Emily Logan:

I ask Mr. Allamby to take that question.

Mr. Les Allamby:

I can answer the questions posed by Deputy Brendan Smith and Mr. Pat Doherty on some of the useful things they could do.

The Ministry of Justice in the United Kingdom is responsible for carrying this forward, but it is clear that both the Northern Ireland Office and, significantly, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are extremely interested in how this moves forward. It is one of the great paradoxes that, despite the political populism that is antipathetic to the European Union and, at times, the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, the United Kingdom Government spends a great deal of time trying to extend its influence within those institutions and puts a lot of time and energy into its relationships with Brussels, Strasbourg and so on to ensure that it punches above its weight. I think that is what the Irish Government can do, in terms of talking to the UK Government and also on the international stage, where I think the UK Government is very sensitive to its field of influence. There are things the Irish Government can do because of its very good relationships on the international stage that can be extremely useful. That is where some of the pressure may come to bear.

On the question of whether we have engaged with human rights organisations in England, Scotland and Wales, the short answer is "Yes," as Mr. Mark Kelly outlined. The other commissions are very involved in this. The joint statement was put together to send to the United Nations Human Rights Council. It is very clear, for example, in Scotland that there is no appetite for abolishing the Human Rights Act. There is the Smith Commission and there is a Scotland Bill, and there will be considerable constitutional tensions if the proposals as set out were passed on a UK-wide basis. There is no doubt that there would be considerable issues with regard to Scotland getting out of the Human Rights Act as there is no desire for that to happen. Other constitutional issues are in play.

The proposals as set out would almost certainly end in a number of domestic and probably international courts. Whether or not that is resiled from when we see what the consultation brings forward, there is a great deal to play for at present. It is very important that we do the work now rather than waiting until something is produced. For me, time is of the essence. The value of the stepping back from implementing this quickly is that it provides an opportunity for commissions, governments and others who are players in this, including the Irish Government, to really make an impact

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Allamby said it could end up in some international court. Which actors would take it to the international stage? Would it have to be Ireland as a co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement? Should we be preparing for that by exploring the case?

Mr. Les Allamby:

I think it would be very useful to explore the ramifications. This is probably a case in which prevention is better than the cure. When the proposals come out, one of the things that will almost certainly be done in a number of places - and it would be very useful if it were done here - is an examination of the legal ramifications of the road that is being trodden. This will be a litmus test of whether it meets all its international obligations, as it is one of the areas on which, no doubt, there will be discussion once the proposals come into effect.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Based on what we know at present, it is very doubtful that it could meet international obligations.

Mr. Les Allamby:

Certainly there are a number of very significant legal issues that arise if the proposals set out in October 2014 are put into effect. There are a number of areas in which that would end up being tested. I think it is both domestically and internationally significant. There is an interesting dynamic around the European Union because, increasingly, the EU and the European Court of Justice, though the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, will have a role in looking at the convention in some of the work that it does. Confining this to Strasbourg is no longer possible. We are moving to a stage at which the European Union and its own court have a role to play in considering the European Convention on Human Rights. Our relationship with the UK and the European Union also has to play out, but there are significant other factors, and these international agreements have ramifications, as Deputy Pringle states, beyond these shores.

Mr. Pat Doherty:

May I pick up on Mr. Allamby's comment on bringing this issue to the international stage? While the American Administration is not a formal signatory to the Good Friday Agreement, it had a significant part to play in terms of chairing the meetings and supporting them. Would that be one of the forums that Mr. Allamby is thinking about?

Mr. Les Allamby:

I would have said "Yes." What was interesting in the referendum on Scottish independence, in which the involvement of the United States would have been seen as less immediate, was that, while it was careful in its comments, towards the end of the referendum process, the United States did make its views on it tacitly clear. I would have thought that, frankly, given its role in the creation of the Belfast Agreement, the US would be keeping more than a weather eye on this.

Frank Feighan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the committee, I thank Ms Logan, Mr. Allamby and their teams for meeting us today. The discussion has been very informative on an issue that is of profound significance to future peace and genuine reconciliation in Northern Ireland. It is also intrinsic to the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.