Vol. 443 No. 5
7 Mr. Barry asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has raised in the Anglo-Irish Conference the advantages and disadvantages of a Bill of rights for Northern Ireland; and the action, if any, which was proposed by the conference.
16 Ms McManus asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the consideration that has been given under the Anglo-Irish Agreement to the advantages and disadvantages of a Bill of rights in Northern Ireland; when the matter was last raised by the Irish or British side; if he intends to pursue the matter in view of the widespread support among political parties in Northern Ireland for a Bill of rights; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
20 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will support the calling of talks between constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to discuss the content of a Bill of rights for Northern Ireland.
47 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government's attitude to proposals for a Bill of rights for Northern Ireland, entrenching in domestic law the provisions of the European Convention.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 16, 20 and 47 together.
The Government are in favour of measures to enhance the protection of human rights in Northern Ireland and consider that an enforceable Bill of rights would provide valuable guarantees to members of both communities that their basic rights were protected from legislative or executive abuse.
In February 1987 detailed proposals for a Bill of rights for Northern Ireland were put forward by the then Government in the Anglo-Irish Conference. Since then the matter has been pursued on a regular basis at meetings of the conference, most recently at that held in May 1994. It has also been the subject of ongoing discussion at official level in the Anglo-Irish Secretariat.
In these exchanges successive Irish Governments have made clear their support for the introduction of a Bill of rights for Northern Ireland. They have also drawn attention to the case made in its favour by all constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland and by bodies such as the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and the Committee on the Administration of Justice.
The British response has been that they are not yet convinced of the need for a Bill of rights but are open to further discussion of the matter and will keep it under review.
It is generally accepted that the question of a Bill of rights is one of the issues which would be particularly appropriate for consideration in fresh talks aimed at a balanced and comprehensive political settlement of the problem of Northern Ireland. In this context I welcome Sir Patrick Mayhew's observation that one possible feature of a political accommodation might well be some form of entrenchment of human rights.
I am not convinced, however, that in current circumstances it would be productive or appropriate to call talks between the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to consider the question of a Bill of rights in isolation. I feel that consideration of this issue would be most fruitful in the context of negotiation of an overall settlement building on the Joint Declaration. This could also facilitate its secure entrenchment against subsequent alteration or repeal. Moreover, while there is general support among the constitutional parties for the principle of a Bill of rights, it is likely that securing agreement on its scope and method of enforcement would be complex and difficult and best approached within the context of wider negotiations where a Bill of rights would be clearly seen as a complement to, and not as a substitute for, the other elements appropriate to a negotiated settlement.
I thank the Minister for his reply. This appears to have been discussed now for over six years and as recently as last month. I would not like to think that it is being held over as a prize to be given to the parties in the North for coming to conclusions on other matters but that the Bill of rights stands on its own merits and should be proceeded with anyway. Does the Minister agree that a Bill of rights could also be considered for this part of the country and that this might give some assurance to communities in the North who might otherwise feel apprehensive about any agreement?
It is my intention to keep the question of a Bill of rights high on the agenda. I regard a Bill of rights as extremely important. It may not be the ultimate panacea but I would see it as an element of a balanced and comprehensive accommodation. I do not see it being held over as a prize to be ultimately given if we arrive at a more comprehensive settlement. I can only give a personal view because this matter has not been considered by Government, but I would have no difficulty about having a Bill of rights for this part of the country as well. We are always seeking change from others; we too must demonstrate that we are prepared to make changes.
That is the reply I wanted.
What would be the scope of a Bill of rights? Would it include social and economic rights in addition to civil rights?
It would have to be widened in scope to include discrimination, control of emergency powers, protection of communal rights. I see it as being as wide and as deep as possible. A Bill of rights could be developed in the course of discussion. It would be a new and desirable element and the ultimate aim is that in terms of political rights and identities its scope would be as wide as possible.
Will the Minister agree that on a Bill of rights there are two broad avenues of approach: first, as Deputy Barry seems to suggest, to secure it as a preliminary step and, second, to secure it as part of an overall integrated constitutional framework for Northern Ireland? Will the Minister also agree it is desirable in the context of examining a future settlement for Northern Ireland to envisage a covenant, to use his terms, or a written constitution for Northern Ireland into which the enforcement mechanism for such a chapter of human rights would be built, with the equivalent of a court system to enforce those rights? Will the Minister further agree that to deal with human rights in isolation is fruitless? We need an overall settlement in which the people from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland have institutions and a constitution with which they have an affinity, and a court system which would enforce their rights. I agree with the Minister that if both parts of this island could agree on a set of human rights outlined in tabular form, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, it would be well accomplished to incorporate it in constitutional law both North and South.
Obviously there would be little point in having a Bill of rights unless the institutions are in place to offer protection. If we could achieve institutions in Northern Ireland that would have the support of both communities, we would make a great deal of progress. One of the basic weaknesses in Northern Ireland is lack of support from both communities for institutions. I previously spoke about a covenant and said that I envisage a covenant of rights and guarantees which would be capable of being applied, by agreement, to every part of this island and every aspect of the relationship between these islands. I see it as providing an assurance for all time to every citizen on this island that basic political rights, including political identities, can be enshrined to ensure that, even if there are changes, constitutional or otherwise, nothing could undermine them. The guarantees would have to be protected by institutions.
