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

On behalf of the committee I welcome Dr. Anne Smith and Professor Monica McWilliams to discuss the findings of the report Political Capacity Building: Advancing a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. The witnesses are very welcome and we look forward to an interesting discussion and questions. I invite the witnesses to make their opening statements.

Dr. Anne Smith:

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to come before the committee. I will start by outlining some of the findings of the report. One particular finding was that all of the political parties agree that a political vacuum exists in relation to the bill of rights process, but unfortunately there is little or no agreement as to how to progress the bill of rights process. The two main unionist parties believe it is not their responsibility and that it is the responsibility of others to convince them that a bill of rights is needed for Northern Ireland. They are open to persuasion, which is positive. The other parties believe that it is up to them to bring forward the bill of rights process. Others believe it is not their role to do so and that it is actually the role of the British and the Irish Governments as co-guarantors of the agreement. In this context our report is important because it contains proposals as to how the British and the Irish Governments could advance the bill of rights process.

The report speaks of a policy framework under which the British and Irish Governments could get the parties together to start talking about a bill of rights. One of the findings of the report is that while there is agreement about a bill of rights, the language used in the interviews illustrated a diversity of understanding around what actually constitutes a bill of rights. Within the policy framework, there needs to be specific human rights expertise to help the political parties to understand what is meant by a bill of rights and what it does not mean. It is important that people do not have lofty expectations of what a bill of rights can and cannot deliver.

It is important that the British and Irish Governments support and endorse such a process, because there seems to be a divergence of opinion between the Irish and British Governments towards the Good Friday Agreement. The Irish Government has said that the Good Friday Agreement is the foundational architecture underpinning the entire peace process. However, the British Government is putting forward proposals to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British bill of rights, thereby undermining the protection of human rights as outlined in the Good Friday Agreement. Clarification is needed as to how the British Government in particular views the importance of the Good Friday Agreement in the context of the whole peace process in Northern Ireland. We hope to seek further funding in order to progress our idea that the two Governments can help this process.

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

I thank Dr. Smith. I invite Professor McWilliams to make her opening statement.

Professor Monica McWilliams:

I thank the committee for this opportunity to be with you all. I appeared at the committee previously when I was the Chief Commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. During this process we spent ten hard years - and I genuinely mean ten of the hardest years of my life - drafting the advice on a bill of rights, day and night, weekend after weekend, year after year. Under my previous chief commissioner, Brice Dickson, and then myself, we undertook a huge number of consultations and went out across the country to civic society, to every sector, to every meeting, to every place that we possibly could have gone across Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland are extremely politicised in their understanding of this peace agreement. They know that on page 17 of this agreement there is a proposal - they know it word for word - that the commission draft the advice on a bill of rights and give it to the British Government, which will then legislate. There was also a proposal for a charter of rights. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission have jointly fulfilled their mandates. When I was chief commissioner we also prepared the charter of rights, which we passed to the Irish Government and to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and there it has sat. We are not here to talk about the charter today - we are here to talk about the bill of rights - but both of them were part of the agreement. That agreement went out to the people in 1998 and I remember going into the streets, villages and towns of Northern Ireland on an open-deck bus to convince people to say "Yes" to this agreement, telling them that one of strongest foundations of the agreement was a bill of rights. We told them that if we had respect for human rights, what had happened would never happen again and there would not be a recurrence of the conflict. We drafted the advice on the basis of what had gone before, but also on what we would like to see in the future. As the committee is aware, there are many conflicts taking place in the world. People talk about transitional justice and the importance of human rights, and the advice was very much based on that. The advice was then sent to the Secretary of State, and it is good to see that it is included in the 2003 Joint Declaration. I draw the committee's attention to paragraph 2, annex 3 of the Joint Declaration:

The British Government is committed to bringing forward legislation at Westminster where required to give effect to rights supplementary to the ECHR to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland.

This 2003 declaration shows a commitment to the introduction of legislation. Since 2008 nothing has happened and it has been more of a regression. This has also been acknowledged by the Irish Government. Under the current Prime Minister, Mr. David Cameron, the British Government has declared under its election manifesto that it would scrap the Human Rights Act. Since then there has been a great deal of discussion about the implications for Northern Ireland and for Ireland if the British Government withdrew from the European Convention on Human Rights or from the jurisprudence of the European court. Even if the UK did withdraw, it would still have to adhere to the fundamental European Charter on Human Rights, which is overseen by the Council of Europe. There are quite a lot of constitutional issues at stake here. We drafted the advice when I was with the human rights commission and since returning to academia and to the university.

When Dr. Smith and I undertook the interviews with political parties and with the two Governments, the Irish Government participated and the Northern Ireland Office did not and responded only through correspondence but said it would respond to the final report. We were concerned that at the end of the process there would continue to be a vacuum.

In the Haass-O’Sullivan talks it was picked up and put in a paragraph that it may be taken forward under a committee dealing with culture and identity. There it has stayed. We have no idea in any current talks if the bill of rights is still on the agenda, if it has died a death, been buried, parked or if there is a push from either Government to have it resurrected and put back on the agenda.

We proposed that this vacuum needs to be filled. I recall, in particular when we were dealing with the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, the Patten Commission, taking the parties out of the situation to give them the opportunity to spend some dedicated time dealing with the issue by itself. They could be introduced to others who had faced a similar situation of drafting bills of rights in conflicted situations or even spend some dedicated time, peacefully and quietly, away from cameras where they could take the advice the commission offered in which some parties think the commission went too far and others might think it did not go far enough, but it was for the political parties to decide. Commissioners are very proud of that advice on the grounds that civic society in Northern Ireland was 100% behind it and did not fall out over it. It was over to the parties and the Governments. We are next. That is the stage we are at.

We propose two things, one of which is that there be some technical expertise to assist this process because we were shocked when we undertook those interviews at the lack of knowledge on what a bill of rights does and indeed what the Judiciary, the Executive and Parliament do. It seems that people misunderstood the role of each of those functions but also misunderstood the justiciability of some rights and not of others. The technical expertise is needed, as it probably was in respect of other issues in the Good Friday agreement but it is not a technical problem. It is a political one. We do not know whether the parties and Governments will now dedicate themselves to setting aside that time to deliver on this proposal.

An Irishman has taken over the directorship of the Fundamental Rights Agency in Europe, based in Vienna, who has that expertise. Is Europe the best place to do this, setting time aside in Vienna or somewhere else? Should it be in the United States as previously? Or should it be here in Ireland, North or South, or in Scotland, England or Wales? We also know that Scotland and Wales are taking a very different stand on the response of the current Prime Minister’s reaction to the European Convention and so it is of enormous constitutional value to have those discussions also at the inter-parliamentary level. There are several places where this can be taken up but it seems to have died a death. That is of great concern to us and that is what we say in the report.

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

I thank Professor McWilliams for that contribution and for her submission. There remains no consensus on the bill of rights, which is recognised in paragraph 69 of the Stormont House Agreement. Why is there no consensus?

Professor Monica McWilliams:

I think that is a regression. If the Chairman reads chapter 2 of our report, he will see that Rev. Ian Paisley and Ian Paisley junior both gave evidence to the Forum for Dialogue and Understanding which sat alongside the multiparty talks. At that time they were proposing a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. The legacy of the bill of rights goes back to the 1960s, to the Stormont Parliament debates. In interviews, spokespersons for various parties told us that it was a matter of great regret that a bill of rights was not brought forward in the late 1960s, that we may not have entered the conflict we did if attention had been paid to issues of human rights and equality. Attention was paid to equality and the Fair Employment Act 1976 was introduced and today in Northern Ireland people say what a good practice example it is for employment and the workplace. It seems that many of the problems around human rights and embedding a culture of human rights, which is extremely important for our future and for young people, lie outside the workplace.

The lack of consensus is a regressive step. It comes partly from the current Prime Minister, David Cameron. When he was in opposition, the Labour Government, which had raised the issue of bringing forward a British bill of rights, was moving out, and the Unionist parties had begun to move in the direction of a British bill of rights, with a chapter dealing with Northern Ireland. That is not what was in the agreement. We know that would be vetoed in the United Kingdom, UK, perhaps even by Scotland and Wales in terms of its impact on devolution. It certainly would be vetoed by the Nationalist side in Northern Ireland, in the same way that the Unionists probably exercise a veto in the Northern Ireland Assembly on pushing this forward.

The Patten Commission would never have got through the Northern Ireland Assembly had it fallen to the Assembly. It was very clear that legislation would go through Westminster. It is very clear this legislation should go through Westminster. In our report the Chairman will see that in our correspondence with the NIO it keeps referring to the parties in Northern Ireland having to reach consensus. Following the UK commission, the Secretary of State wrote to each of the parties asking how they would best take forward the proposals of the UK commission. The UK commission came up with two conclusions: first, it was divided on a British bill of rights; and, second, that the Northern Ireland provision for a bill of rights stands by itself and its process should not be allowed to interfere with the Northern Ireland process. The Secretary of State wrote to all the parties and did not receive one response from any party. That may be because the parties had decided at that stage to take a different direction or they did not wish to respond to the Secretary of State. In our report we say that as long as it is left to the Secretary of State to constantly put the pressure back onto the Northern Ireland parties it will go nowhere.

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

What is it about the bill of rights that some of the Northern Ireland parties are so against? What are their concerns?

Dr. Anne Smith:

I think it is partly to do with one of the findings of our report, the lack of understanding of what a bill of rights can deliver. In particular, whenever we talked about the bill of rights and the justiciability of certain rights, particularly social and economic rights, some parties felt that meant certain budgetary powers would be taken away from them and be handed over to the courts. That is not what a bill of rights involves. The findings of our report provide a forum and the expertise needed to address that lack of understanding. If people knew what exactly a bill of rights can and cannot deliver they would approach it more-----

Professor Monica McWilliams:

A bill of rights is really a protection for both communities. No longer in Northern Ireland do we talk about majority and minority. Those days are over. We talk about reaching consensus, coexistence and inclusion but all of that is aspirational. This would create a foundation. We hit the nail on the head when we said the legacy of what people see in human rights is what creates a great deal of antagonism between the communities. The Unionist community predominantly looked to the civil rights movement and saw its progress as a stick over the head with which it was beaten saying it did not do enough.

The civil rights movement brought attention to those issues. The Unionists in turn would say, "Well, we have taken care of housing, voting and employment, which were the three key issues of the civil rights movements. Therefore we no longer need a human rights bill". They would also say that the Human Rights Act takes care of all that. One would now ask who will take care of those rights if that Act is to be removed.

Any additional rights from the Unionist community's perspective are probably to do with the right to process and some issues around property and ethnic cleansing and so on, which they felt had occurred during the Troubles. From the Nationalist side it is a great deal more. The Alliance Party, although in favour of social and economic rights, argues that it does not want them to be a dominant influence on the bill of rights, whereas Nationalists do see social and economic rights as being part of a modern-day bill of rights as the rights are interdependent. If we are going to have the right to vote, we need a right to accommodation and an address in order to vote. In other bills of rights this is the case but we make those rights progressively realisable depending on resources so there are limitations on them. That was also the case in South Africa as it is in Canada.

There was a misunderstanding that those rights would also become legal rights and that judges would be taking up the decisions of government. That is never the case for a bill of rights. Members ask why there is so little consensus both sides. Indeed, other people like ethnic minorities almost feel they were left out of this discussion, yet they see something and should see something in a future bill of rights. At the end of the day no government - not the Irish Government, the British Government or any other government - ever welcomes a bill of rights because it is about holding the government accountable. This proposal for a bill of rights came out of a peace agreement. It was asked that in the future, governments would be held accountable for their actions and that people could trust their government to be accountable irrespective of what shades of opinion made up its composition.

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

I thank Professor McWilliams. I invite questions from members.

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

I welcome the presentation by Dr. Smith and Professor McWilliams. It is a very important subject which sadly has regressed since 1998 instead of going forward. Professor McWilliams mentioned that the bill of rights has come out of a peace agreement. That is an international agreement as well. The Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron's language when he talks about scrapping the Human Rights Act shows real right-wing Tory disrespect for an international agreement which his Government had entered into. People should not be open to persuasion on this.

Professor McWilliams mentioned that she campaigned in favour of the Good Friday Agreement when other political parties in Northern Ireland did not. It was endorsed by more than 70% of the electorate in Northern Ireland and by 94.3% of the electorate in the South. The bill of rights is an integral part of that agreement. The people have given a mandate to the governments and to the Executive in the North to implement it and it is most disappointing that it has not been done.

The 1998 Human Rights Act was the vehicle whereby the British Government satisfied its commitment under the agreement for complete incorporation into Northern Ireland of the European Convention on Human Rights. Any scrapping or diminution in those provisions amounts in effect to the British Government walking away from an international agreement that it has made. As we know, this agreement has been lodged with the United Nations. As it is an international agreement, governments do not have the option of removing parts of it as they see fit or not implementing parts of it.

Sadly, the lack of movement on the bill of rights has not generated the awareness among the electorate at large that it should. The importance of a bill of rights in persuading people to support the Good Friday Agreement proposals in April and May of 1998, which Professor McWilliams mentioned, is of significance. She mentioned the input of civil society. It beggars belief that the civic forum has not been reestablished in Northern Ireland. That is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive and the parties the North. I do not see how a civic forum could threaten anybody. It does not threaten society, or any particular political tradition or ideology either. Perhaps the civic forum could as part of its work give some impetus to the governments, political parties and the Executive to put in place the bill of rights? It is an integral part of the Good Friday Agreement which the governments should not be allowed to walk away from.

Mr. Mickey Brady:

I thank the witnesses for their presentation. I have known Professor McWilliams for a long time and am very aware of the work she has done on human rights in the North and her work as human rights commissioner. As for many aspects of the Good Friday Agreement, the Irish and British Governments have abdicated responsibility for the implementation of the bill of rights.

I have sat in the Assembly for past eight years. Talking to Unionists, they would almost see the whole equality issue as a threat to undermine their position. We could talk about civil rights and the three planks. Taking housing as an example, I sat on the social development committee and the housing situation in the North now is probably worse than it was in 1969. We have two, three and sometimes four generations living in the same house and social housing has not been provided. There are many issues which have not been provided for.

With the British Government intent on withdrawing from the Convention on Human Rights and setting up its own provisions, the implementation of a bill of rights in the North would strengthen the position of all sides and would not threaten to undermine Unionists' Britishness, for example. It would actually strengthen those aspects. Certainly there is a lack of responsibility. I am involved with Sinn Féin in terms of outreach to other parties and civic society whether it be the churches, the unions or whatever. There is a willingness but it is a question of reaching the point at which people have to sit down away from the glare and the spotlight and actually discuss these issues. We cannot get a definition of what a victim is and it is very difficult to get a definition of what a bill of human rights would actually entail. I think that is at the crux of the problem.

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

I welcome the witnesses. Their presentation addressed the foundational architecture or pillars for an inclusive society, which is key to the Good Friday Agreement. There are probably people watching this meeting in their own homes at the moment as it is being broadcast live. A lot of people will be scratching their heads and asking why would anyone be opposed to a bill of rights. Professor McWilliams outlined why governments would be opposed as it calls them to account. The difficulty seems to be that some people do not feel there is a need for one. I presume those people are not impacted by rights issues as a group. I think that is part of the difficulty.

The witnesses' paper stated that the two main Unionist parties believe it is the responsibility of others to convince them there is a need for a bill of rights. The same two parties probably had a view in the past that majoritarianism was okay, that a one-party state was okay, that a Protestant parliament for a Protestant people was okay and that gerrymandering was okay. Some might say that could have been wrong at the time. They might say discrimination did not really happen that much in jobs, housing and so on. While some people look at the past and say it was not really that bad, there are other sections of society which feel that they were left out. The Good Friday Agreement was about creating a fair and inclusive society and this is one of the pillars that was to hold it all up. We are left with this.

We put it to a vote and a majority of people on both parts of the island voted overwhelmingly in favour of it but nothing happened. People were scratching their heads and said they thought they agreed to this. It was part of the new way forward but the two Governments sat back and left it to the parties to decide.

There is common agreement across the broad spectrum of politics in Ireland that this is not going to happen and we will leave it to the new party. The difficulty is where we go from here. Clearly, only the two Governments will move it forward. One Government has broken off because it has said legislation introduced by the European Parliament is undermining British sovereignty and, therefore, it will go ahead and do its own thing. The crux of the matter is how we move forward from here. If we are serious about it and believe it is needed, and I think it is, how can we move it forward? It should be taken out of the responsibility of the parties because they cannot or will not agree. Responsibility for it has to be put back in the hands of the two Governments. One Government is pulling away from the process, while the other has made statements and so on but is not pushing ahead, even though there is supposed to be equivalence within the process.

One reason Unionists give for not agreeing to a bill of rights is that it would include people they do not believe should have full rights, such as gay and lesbian people. They will say there is no way they will sign up to such legislation. In a way, they are cherry-picking who should have rights and who should not, and that is part of the difficulty. That is why I am saying the process should no longer be the responsibility of those parties. If they cannot agree, we should be pushing forward.

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

To clarify, the Irish Government completely supports all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement, including the bill of rights. There is no consensus in Northern Ireland. I want to put that on the record. The commitment of the Irish Government has been demonstrated by the Minister, Deputy Charles Flanagan, the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock, and their officials who were involved in intensive talks in Northern Ireland.

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

I do not think the Chairman should be defensive about what I am saying.

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

I am not being defensive. I am just putting that on the record because the Irish Government has been involved, as I know first hand. As the Chair of the committee, it would be wrong to allow people to state here that the Irish Government is not doing anything. It is doing everything possible within the confines of the Good Friday Agreement. That needs to be said.

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

Again, I am looking at the success rate in the context of what we are trying to achieve.

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

I understand.

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

It is a long time since the Good Friday Agreement was signed. Professor McWilliams outlined the work her group has done regarding putting this together but, unfortunately, we have not had any movement.

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

There is no consensus in Northern Ireland on the bill of rights. That should go on the record.

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

The consensus is there with the Irish people.

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

Would Professor McWilliams like to respond?

Professor Monica McWilliams:

I also made the point that there would be no consensus on policing in Northern Ireland had it been left to the political parties. These are difficult issues to resolve after a long conflict.

If there is a withdrawal from the Human Rights Act and the Convention on Human Rights, that will also have an impact on policing. The Patten report and the legislation contain various clauses that oblige the police to adhere to position regarding the convention rights. Likewise, the Northern Ireland Assembly has a legislative responsibility to be compliant with the convention rights.

I will address the questions in turn. Trying to get consensus on human rights is probably not the best way to go because one could end up with the lowest common denominator. Some expertise and understanding about what these rights do for everyone is needed. I have concerns when people constantly look for political consensus on issues of such importance. However, it was put to me the other day that the Second World War - a shocking conflict - ended in 1945, that countries went about reconstruction and that the European Convention on Human Rights was introduced in 1950. The Conservative Government had a major hand in the latter but, by 1962, Europe was a different place and countries were co-operating and agreeing that there would be no recurrence of the human rights violations which have occurred on all sides in Northern Ireland. It has now been 17 years since the introduction of the Good Friday Agreement. Could we say the same? Could we say that we are in a completely different place, have an understanding of what of what we did to each other and an understanding of what human rights can do to prevent that from happening again?

On the first question in respect of a civic forum, I was one of the people who wrote the words regarding such a forum into the peace agreement. The proposal came from me and other colleagues in the Women's Coalition at that time because we wanted civic society to play a role in the future alongside the legislative Assembly. We also thought of it as a new way of bringing new people into politics and a very sensible place where people could spend some time on cultural, economic and social affairs, which is what the civic forum was to do. It is a great disappointment to me that it was abolished when the first Assembly collapsed in 2003. It should stay in place when there is a vacuum in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

I do not think it is the place for the bill of rights. Civic society is fed up discussing the bill of rights.

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

On that point, perhaps if the civic forum was working it could create awareness around the need for the bill of rights to be implemented

Professor Monica McWilliams:

I understand perfectly. The Deputy is quite correct. Many people would ask, "What bill of rights? What was that? Where is it?", particularly in light of all their engagement only for the process to have gone nowhere. A number of organisations in Northern Ireland are still working on it. These include the Human Rights Consortium, the Committee on the Administration of Justice and a number of others. By the way, their funding is running out because Atlantic Philanthropies is winding down its spending. They are facing a crisis. I mention this because as organisations become part of civic society, they have been left to do a lot of the heavy lifting but they do not have the necessary resources. A Northern Ireland human rights fund was established to enable them to do so. In our report we stated that if we feltthe civic forum, or a North-South civic forum, was the place to put this and try to raise awareness, so we would have done so.

Our concern is that this is a responsibility of political parties and Governments. Civic forums have been consulted. The advice of my commission and the previous one was drafted and is currently still agreed by the current commission. That is the input from the civic forum. I do not think it can do any more. It is now over to the political process to lift this and take it forward.

Dr. Anne Smith:

On that, we raised that in our interviews and there did seem to be did not seem to be much appetite for leaving the bill of rights in the civic forum.

Professor Monica McWilliams:

At some stage it would be good if civic society and political parties could sit down around the table, as they once did following the St. Andrew's Agreement, in a forum to discuss a bill of rights. That is an uneasy place for both to be in Northern Ireland because they are not accustomed to sitting around a table as they are in the Republic of Ireland, where there are social and economic partnerships and many European partnership models. We do not have any such examples in Northern Ireland at present.

What came out of that forum was that perhaps it did not stay together long enough to reach an agreement on certain rights but that a couple of options on how to move the process forward did emerge. We lifted them into the Human Rights Commission and did our best with them. We are not saying that civic society should be left out of the discussion because it has a lot to add in Northern Ireland in terms of peace building, human rights and transitional justice. All I am saying is that we would like to hear from the political parties and Government on this issue. That is the current situation, which brings me to my response to the second question.

I would simply ask whether Sinn Féin or any other party put the issue of the introduction of a bill of rights down for discussion at any of the recent rounds of talks and, if so, what priority it was given. In the course of our interviews for the report, we put this question to a number of people in both Governments and in the United States and the answer was that the issue is no longer really a priority for any of the parties and does not receive the priority it once did.

Deputy Crowe raised the issue of a potential undermining of sovereignty. If one listens to what the Judiciary in the United Kingdom is saying - in the Supreme Court and in the High Courts of Northern Ireland and other courts in the North - one will hear that this has never been the case. The UK has only ever lost 2% of all its cases at the Strasbourg court. Moreover, a new protocol is being introduced which Ireland, too, will probably have to sign up to. Protocol 15 allows for a large margin of appreciation for domestic jurisdictions in terms of how they apply the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of the principle of subsidiarity. That is about to be introduced and is something the Prime Minister will take into account for the future.

Members may be aware that Baroness Hale has argued it would be a huge step backwards if the convention rights were to be scrapped. It seems clear there is no issue of sovereignty. The person with perhaps the greatest expertise on this subject is Dominic Grieve, the Conservative Party's former Attorney General, who makes a plea for everybody to stop talking about sovereignty. If anything, he has said, sovereignty needs human rights. If there is a view that parliament should be able to do whatever it likes, he argues, then that is not what sovereignty was ever about. Mr. Grieve has written extensively on the issue in recent months and it is important he should so as a former Attorney General appointed by the Conservative Government. He makes a very important point. I hope I have answered all the questions.

Dr. Anne Smith:

On the issue of parliamentary sovereignty, this is where the expertise of human rights experts would come into play. There are different mechanisms to address parliamentary sovereignty under a bill of rights. That is why it is important to get the political parties around the table, supported by both the British and Irish Governments. It is what we will be pushing for in the coming weeks and putting forward more proposals for further funding. We hope we can take this forward. As Professor McWilliams said, too much work has been done in Northern Ireland on the bill of rights process to let it go.

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

In Dr. Smith's view, is the gay rights issue one of the difficulties some of the unions will have to overcome?

Dr. Anne Smith:

It has not been raised as a particular issue, as far as I am aware.

Professor Monica McWilliams:

It should be borne in mind that we completed our work in 2014, before gay marriage rights became a real issue in so far as Northern Ireland is now the only jurisdiction that does not have those rights. We will probably hear that sector arguing that it is why we need a bill of rights.

Mr. Mickey Brady:

The suggestion has been made that a bill of rights is not a priority. On the contrary, my experience as a Sinn Féin public representative, both in the Assembly and now as an MP, is that we are fully committed to the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, of which the bill of rights is an integral and important part. As such, I do not accept the claim it is not a priority for my party. Indeed, my colleagues in the South have been very instrumental in bringing forward the issue constantly and consistently. Having said that, I certainly will convey the delegates' views to my colleagues in the North.

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

To follow on from what Mr. Brady said, the bill of rights is an issue that is continually raised by Deputy Gerry Adams during questions to the Taoiseach and on Leaders' Questions. We have reiterated that it is central to the Good Friday Agreement and one of the outstanding aspects of the Agreement that remains to be implemented. People, irrespective of where they live, need access to human rights and they need a bill of rights. That is all the more important in a post-conflict situation. It cannot be stressed enough how important it is to developing a peace process and creating public confidence in that process. A bill of rights is central to those efforts.

It is clear from the witnesses' presentations that the public has bought into the concept of a bill of rights, is aware of it and supportive of it. The breakdown in progress has arisen because we do not have political unanimity on the matter and there is no effort it to push it forward by the two Governments. Indeed, there is a division between the Governments as to what types of human rights and what type of bill of rights should be implemented, particularly since the change of Government in London. David Cameron's position on breaking the link between European human rights and a distinctive body of British human rights has created a lot of alarm, certainly within Nationalist communities and in this jurisdiction. It comes back to several issues, one of which is the Good Friday Agreement and the international obligations associated with the implementation of that Agreement. This committee is an implementation body but we cannot get one section of the community in the Six Counties to sit here with us to discuss issues. That in itself creates difficulties.

Reference was made to civic society and how it can contribute to peace-building. I am very supportive of the delegates' views in this regard. They observed that it takes a political process to lift and move things forward, and the lack of that political support is inhibiting what they are seeking to do. The question, then, is how we move beyond where we are at now and create the political support that is required. The witnesses noted that it might require outside intervention in order to guide people in that direction and so forth. We need a situation where the process is driven publicly and the political people, or people of influence within society, are forced to push it forward. There is an obligation in this regard on the leadership within communities and within civic society, as well as on political and religious leaders. In that context, will the delegates indicate what support they have had from the religious institutions for pushing this forward? Has the contribution from those bodies, if any, been positive or negative? In the case of influential people within civic society, are there sectarian divisions evident in terms of the support or otherwise for making progress? Finally, is there a legal avenue under the international obligations within the Good Friday Agreement whereby a political party could take a leading role in having a bill of rights implemented?

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

The delegates stated they are seeking more funding to produce a policy framework to progress a bill of rights. From whom do they intend to seek that funding and what exactly do they envisage in terms of how such funding would be used?

On the issue of technical expertise, I absolutely agree with the points made. There is a view that politicians should come from the Law Library or from county families. In fact, most of us do not come from a technical background and have little expertise in dealing with Bills and associated matters. In politics, as in life, we have a lot of issues to deal with.

This bill of rights is a technical, legal document but if the parties engaged with the witnesses, and this committee might be helpful in that regard also, that technical expertise could be put in layman's terms, which would provide a clearer explanation. Decisions can be taken sometimes to park such documents somewhere, and that could be the issue. The witnesses might elaborate on that.

Professor Monica McWilliams:

I will go first. On the churches, we went to all the faith communities, not just the Christian churches, asking for their views, although not on this particular report because this report was entirely focused on the responses from political parties, and those of the governments. We had interviewed civic society and the sectors previously, and the churches have a very large role to play in that regard. There was a bit of a bad taste left after the forum on the bill of rights ended its work in that the Catholic Church had raised a concern that the right to determination might be contained in the advice, and it withdrew its support. Following consultations with the Catholic Church and other denominations it came back to the issue of what a bill of rights can and cannot do, and that is not one of the issues it will resolve. In the end, the Human Rights Commission got the support of the churches for the rights it was putting forward, particularly in terms of the rights for children that were included. It is a social justice issue so why would they not be supportive, although on certain issues such as women's rights, reproductive rights or issues to do with children, the members have seen the reaction that can come when those rights surface? The advice offered in 2008 went forward as having the support of all the sectors. I remember participating in all of those meetings and reassuring the faith communities that they needed to see themselves as being able to take this forward in any discussions with the political parties.

The polls that have been undertaken, and they were numerous polls in Northern Ireland on this issue, were quite expensive to undertake. The human rights consortium undertook a number, but some independent bodies did also. The surprising outcome of those polls was that there was no sectarian division. It should be noted that there is a class distinction in the support for a bill of rights; the members might expect that. The loyalist working class communities, and their party political spokespersons, have not always been supportive of a bill of rights. However, the Progressive Unionist Party, PUP, whose members we interviewed, continue to support a bill of rights. From that perspective, therefore, they are different from the two other Unionist parties in that the PUP fully support a bill of rights, did so at that time, and has continued to do so on the grounds that those rights could be identified by working class people and their communities, particularly with regard to the future. The polls have not shown any sectarian division, which was heartwarming from our point of view. That is useful to know.

There is a conundrum in that one would think the parties would reflect their constituencies on this issue yet there seems to be a bit of a divide in the Unionist community between what the people in the communities, and the parties, are saying. Dr. Smith can take up the point on our future funding because we did not want to leave this report as a research report sitting on the shelf. We made it a proposal to the Governments but we said also that, if possible, we would seek additional funding to facilitate a further process with the parties on the basis of our findings, if they so wish. We are prepared to do that, and the Rowntree foundation will be the body we would go back to on that.

The question is whether the parties are ready for that and interested in continuing to have a discussion around the proposal that was in both the Good Friday Agreement and the St. Andrews Agreement. Would everyone come to the table? There is not much point in having a certain side at the table; the process must be inclusive. The circumstances must be created for that and it should be given a priority that it has not received to date. The question is whether we will be asking our grandchildren what happened to the bill of rights rather than taking the opportunity, now that we have it.

I believe the Northern Ireland community could do with some confidence building regarding these discussions. We expect too many of our teachers in schools to produce new tools on human rights for the next generation that would be different in terms of understanding the meaning of human rights when it is not on the table in the current political process.

Dr. Anne Smith:

To follow on from what Professor McWilliams said, we have approached the Joseph Rowntree Foundation as a potential funding body but we still have to go through the same process we went through for this project. The deadline is the end of November and if we are unsuccessful, we will be looking at other sources. If anyone in the room knows of any other sources of funding, we are open to suggestions.

On the Chairman's point about using plain language that people can understand, I totally agree with him. We must avoid using "legalese", as it is referred to. That is where the use of human rights experts could come into play because they could use examples from everyday life to show how a bill of rights could help this particular issue. It is about relating the bill of rights with daily issues people face every day.

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

I ask about a legal recourse, if any is available.

Dr. Anne Smith:

Brian Gormally, from the Committee on the Administration of Justice, CAJ, has looked into that but, unfortunately, there is no legal sanction as such for a government not complying with an international obligation, apart from the effect on their reputation among the international community. Unfortunately, I do not believe there is any legal sanction a British Government could-----

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

Can a legal determination be made in terms of an obligation under an international agreement?

Professor Monica McWilliams:

It would be welcome to see somebody taking that forward. I consulted the Attorney General in Northern Ireland about this issue, which has been placed on the agenda at an international level. I believe those discussions on an international treaty not being upheld take place in Vienna. At one stage, the commission was considering going down that road. However, the Attorney General said that is where it would have to happen but that it would have to fall to one or other of the Governments to take it.

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

There would be an opportunity for the Irish Government to challenge it, if it so wished.

Professor Monica McWilliams:

There is an opportunity for both Governments if one felt that the other had not honoured it-----

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

Yes.

Professor Monica McWilliams:

-----but it is back to the political process.

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

Absolutely.

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

I thank the witnesses for coming in today. I am delighted to have Professor McWilliams here. It has been an informative discussion which has helped us in terms of our views on how best to introduce a bill of rights. The technical expertise could be valuable in terms of getting politicians from different parties into the room to deal with an issue that sometimes can be technical and legalistic.

On the issue of funding, we will be happy to write to the various Departments to see if we can secure funding for the valuable work the witnesses do.

The joint committee absolutely is trying to implement all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement and a human rights Bill for Northern Ireland is necessary. Members thank the witnesses and look forward to seeing them again.

Professor Monica McWilliams:

I thank the Chair for raising that issue about bringing in the expertise. Understanding these issues is not rocket science in respect of breaking down the rights but sometimes people get a bit overwhelmed as to how they apply to the international standards. That expertise is already there in the advice of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. We brought inpro bonolawyers of the highest level who gave of their time. Moreover, should the process be resurrected in any round-table seeking that expertise, they have told us they would do so again. The list of individuals who lent their time and expertise to that process is listed on the back of the Northern Ireland advice on the bill of rights that was given to the Secretary of State in 2008. Many good people are prepared to give their time again to help with these final pieces of the peace agreement. I thought that also is important and it would not cost huge money if a place could be found that is neutral. Again, there have been a number of discussions in this regard. I have proposed it many times to both Governments and were that to be taken forward, it would be really good.

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

As for 2008 and the politicians and people who made those decisions, it might be helpful to note that, as Professor McWilliams is aware, politicians come and go. Perhaps it is time now to have another go with some technical expertise to the various parties and politicians. That could also be of assistance because politicians are not here for ever. Professor McWilliams understands that we are subject to interview every five years.

Professor Monica McWilliams:

Yes, governments come and go. I thank the Chair.

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

Once again, I thank the witnesses. We will suspend for five minutes to facilitate the next set of witnesses.