We will have to suspend the meeting shortly because of a vote in the Dail. The first item on the agenda is a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. I welcome the members of the Human Rights Consortium, Ms Fiona McCausland, chairman, Ms Helena Macormac, board member, Mr. Kevin Hanratty, campaigns and consortium manager, and Ms Helen Flynn, campaigns assistant.
We will suspend the meeting for a short period so members can vote.
Now that we have resumed, I wish to make a few comments on the Human Rights Consortium. It represents a broad range of almost 200 non-governmental organisations, NGOs, and community groups from both communities in Northern Ireland and calls for a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. A delegation of the committee met with members of the Human Rights Consortium in Derry in March to discuss community support within Northern Ireland for a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. During that meeting members of the consortium said that there is currently 80% support across the communities for that bill of rights. Today's meeting provides an opportunity to explore and debate the issue further.
Also, the committee received correspondence this week from Mr. Peter Cheney, deputy editor of Agenda Northern Ireland magazine, in which he asks whether the committee, for balance, has any plans to hear the views of sceptics or opponents of a bill of rights. He states that the Democratic Unionist Party, DUP, Ulster Unionist Party, UUP, the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland and the Traditional Unionist Voice, TUV, are either opposed or have become more sceptical over time about a bill of rights. The committee will most likely consider separately the request to provide an opportunity to those opposing a bill of rights to appear before the committee. It would be helpful, in the context of today’s meeting, if the consortium could perhaps comment on Mr. Cheney’s assertions.
There are rules about privilege at the committee. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their utterances at this committee but if they are directed by the committee to cease making remarks on a particular matter and if they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their remarks. Witnesses are directed that only comments or evidence relating to the subject matter of this meeting are to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against a Member of either House of the Oireachtas, a person outside of the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Kevin Hanratty to make his presentation. I understand Ms Fiona McCausland and Ms Helena Macormac wish to make brief introductory remarks.
Chairperson, Deputies, Senator, Members of Parliament, we are very grateful for the opportunity to present our evidence today. I thank the Chairperson and members for their invitation to address this important committee.
The Human Rights Consortium has been campaigning for a long time for a strong inclusive bill of rights. We welcome all opinions on a bill of rights and believe the engagement of all opinions in that process is important in terms of producing a positive and shared outcome. We welcome the committee's engagement with all viewpoints on a bill of rights.
With the permission of the Chair, I will begin our presentation and Ms Fiona McCausland, our chairperson, and Ms Helena Macormac, a board member, will follow on from my short introduction. We will give members a brief overview of the work of the Human Rights Consortium and some of the details around the process of developing a bill of rights for Northern Ireland, and outline some of the difficulties of that process.
Let me put our work in context. The Members of Parliament for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Belfast South, and Newry and Armagh will be very familiar with the peace agreement in Northern Ireland. Like any peace agreement, it was tailored to address the specific local context and the circumstances we faced coming out of conflict Some of these we now take for granted and others were given more lip service and never implemented properly.
To recap, questions on constitutional status were addressed by means of changes to Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution to allow for recognition of the principle of consent by the people of Northern Ireland and the granting of rights to them to identify themselves as British, Irish or both British and Irish. Strand one established the democratic power-sharing arrangements in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Similarly, strands two and three established the North-South and east-west relationships. Policing and criminal justice chapters dealt with wide-ranging reforms and reviews of both of those sectors. Issues such as prison release, decommissioning and normalisation were among other issues that were addressed and provided for within the protections and proposed reforms of the Good Friday Agreement. While some of these provisions have caused serious difficulties and have had longer implementation processes than originally planned, all these elements of the agreement more or less have been widely implemented. Comparatively speaking, the aim of a strong bill of rights is relatively straightforward and, when compared with the difficulties faced by some of these other provisions in terms of decommissioning, devolution of policing and justice powers, a fairly simple process.
The agreement was framed to address a variety of contentious disputed issues within the conflict, recognising the complex nature of the dispute and the fact that all areas of life in Northern Ireland were affected by the conflict and, similarly, providing a nuanced solution to all of those areas. One element that is missing in my narrative of implementation but which was a central part of the core of the Good Friday Agreement is the section on rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity. A full analysis of the implementation of that specific chapter would take longer than we have today, but given the remit of the consortium, I wish to focus on one specific key element of that chapter: a bill of rights for Northern Ireland.
The inclusion of a bill of rights was further recognition by those involved in the negotiations of the point I have made, that the conflict affected all aspects of life in Northern Ireland, rights were abused in all communities and principles of equality were undermined. We believe, just as many who endorsed the agreement originally back in 1998, that regardless of whether democratic institutions at Stormont and other provisions provided the basis for stability and peaceful and democratic politics, a bill of rights also formed a key element in these new arrangements. A bill of rights designed to take account of the particular rights violated in Northern Ireland could do two very important things. One, it could establish a rights framework to guide our new government and politicians in the work of shaping a new society, essentially ensuring every person in Northern Ireland had a common set of mutual rights regardless of religion, political opinion or background. Two, it would ensure, if tailored to our local needs and implemented properly, the abuse of rights, which sparked and fuelled the conflict, would never be repeated again. This specific set of rights, this level of protection has yet to be delivered, and that is 14 years after the Good Friday Agreement was reached.
The Human Rights Consortium has been in existence for the past 12 years and has been campaigning for a bill of rights for the fulfilment of that specific promise in the Good Friday Agreement. Starting originally in 2000 as an ad hoc group of civil society organisations trying to encourage submission to the original bill of rights consultation run by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, we evolved into a full-time campaigning organisation calling for what we describe as a strong, inclusive bill of rights. Since 2006, with the aid of funding, we have been able to put our campaigning efforts on a full-time basis, with the recruitment of a core staff team. Throughout those 12 years, the bill of rights campaign has attracted hundreds of groups and thousands of individuals. With a current membership of 196 organisations, including trade unions, NGOs and community and voluntary groups from all sectors of the community and geographic areas in Northern Ireland, we represent hundred of thousands of individuals. Each group believes a strong and inclusive bill of rights can play a fundamental role in the creation of a more just, inclusive and shared Northern Ireland. This remains one of the key undelivered elements of the agreement. We request the support of this committee to help to change that.
I thank members for their time. My colleague, Ms Fiona McCausland, will continue.
I work for the Northern Ireland Anti-Poverty Network and I am chairperson of the Human Rights Consortium. Before I started to work with the Anti-Poverty Network, I was a development worker in the loyalist working class areas in Lisburn.
To simplify the process to date, it is a good news story in terms of the unprecedented levels of cross-community campaigning. We have had the failed expectations to deliver at a political level. It is a very complicated discussion.
Following the Good Friday Agreement there has been a series of consultations, discussions and engagements, focused on developing an agreed picture of what should be contained in our bill of rights for Northern Ireland. It has not been an easy task and these engagements have involved consultations by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and have involved a wide range of community groups and civic society throughout Northern Ireland. The initial consultation was in 2002 and the last consultation was in 2010, so it has been in the making for quite a considerable period.
The Bill of Rights Forum, which sat between December 2006 and March 2008, was probably the main core of that discussion. The process involved spending a lot of time listening to positions from civic society and political parties, but we did not get around to the actual process of negotiations. The document we had at the end of the process was very extensive and comprehensive and basically set out the positions of the different and diverse parties, but we only had two to three days to negotiate and that was too little, too late. That is not to dismiss the very positive engagement that took place between political parties and civic societies. This gave us an understanding of the issues and the barriers to moving the process forward. The relationships established at that time have developed. In the absence of both a deadline with some pressure and of a willingness among members to compromise and negotiate, however, a process that was managed and designed to facilitate all of the above was doomed without that space to negotiate fully. As Mr. Hanratty indicated, the concept of a bill of rights was included in the Good Friday Agreement because of the past abuses of rights. As an anti-poverty campaigner who comes from a working class area, I know that the interface between poverty and conflict has been well documented. As Dr. Mary Robinson said, poverty is an abuse of human rights. It is no surprise that the areas that were most economically deprived in the 1960s and 1970s saw the highest numbers of deaths during the conflict. These areas are still suffering the most. Northern Ireland holds the title of having the highest level of post-conflict traumatic stress disorder in the world. I suggest this is partially due to wealth inequality. People find it difficult to address these issues because of the level of poverty in these areas. That is why we have retained social and economic rights within our request for a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. It was understood to form part of the settlement. That is another reason this concept needs to be taken forward.
Some of our politicians do not like social and economic rights. However, such rights must take a prominent position in any solution that seeks to ensure we never return to the mistakes of the past. If the abuse of social and economic rights was part of our problem, the protection of these rights must form part of the solution. It is no coincidence that the areas which suffered deprivation in the past are now providing ground for recruitment within mainstream loyalism and dissident republicanism. A bill of rights should be a key part of addressing these issues and making sure everybody feels included in the new Northern Ireland. It should involve a human rights-based approach. The principles of equality legislation should be used to move things forward.
Our position on a bill of rights has not been plucked out of thin air. It has been tried, tested and endorsed by our membership and the public at large. The message that has emerged from polling and consultation is clear. People want a strong and inclusive bill of rights that contains social and economic rights which could make a difference to their lives. More than 80% of the people of Northern Ireland want a specific bill of rights for Northern Ireland. Over 90% want rights to education, housing, health and adequate standards of living to be included. When the last UK Government consulted people on this issue in 2010, some 34,000 members of the public in Northern Ireland clearly told the Northern Ireland Office that they wanted these protections to be set out in a bill of rights. That is an unprecedented level of public solidarity in any Northern Ireland consultations.
I thank the committee for its time. My colleague, Ms Macormac, will now address it.
I work for the Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities, NICEM. I will finish our presentation by outlining briefly the current position on the progression of a bill of rights. According to the Northern Ireland Office, its lack of further movement on the development of a bill of rights for Northern Ireland can be blamed on two things - the lack of consensus on the way forward among local political parties in Northern Ireland and the desire to await the outcome of the UK bill of rights process.
I will speak, first, about the lack of political consensus. The most recent intervention in the debate by the Northern Ireland Office was in 2011 when it wrote to all five main political parties to seek suggestions on ways to make progress with a bill of rights. Consensus among the political parties in Northern Ireland will not emerge on foot of letters from the Secretary of State. At least two of the five main political parties are opposed to taking a Northern Ireland bill of rights forward. They have failed to show the leadership required to implement this outstanding element of the Good Friday Agreement. It is clear that the Northern Ireland Office needs to sponsor an engagement or discussion among local political parties on a bill of rights.
The UK bill of rights process is fundamentally different from that in Northern Ireland. It has different origins, a different rationale and a different process. It is clear that it will develop a very different set of outcomes that will not meet the most basic parameters of the debate on a bill of rights in Northern Ireland. The British bill of rights debate originated before the 2010 Westminster elections, when David Cameron and Gordon Brown were competing about who could be the first person to write a UK constitution. The establishment of the UK commission on a bill of rights following the elections was an attempt by the parties in the coalition Government there to do something, despite their opposing views on the future status of the UK Human Rights Act. Given their frustration with its implementation, it is obvious that the Conservatives are interested in removing or undermining the Act. The Liberal Democrats are determined to defend it.
The current UK process is an attempt to delay the obvious conclusion that the two parties' positions on the issue are not compatible. If we put faith in the UK process as a means of breaking the Northern Ireland bill of rights impasse, we will fail to take account of the specific nature of the Northern Ireland bill of rights debate. Provision for a bill of rights was included as part of a peace settlement in a deeply divided society in order to provide confidence and security for everyone in that society that their rights were being protected. The conversation with the communities in that society has continued in the last 12 years, as opposed to two or three years in the rest of the United Kingdom. Specific and coherent views on what they would like to see in a bill of rights have emerged from those within these communities. They have said they would like to see a focus on socioeconomic rights. The Tories seem determined to rule out a similar focus within a UK bill of rights.
It is clear that progress will most easily be made if a process that brings all political parties to the table is sponsored by the British Government. As Ms McCausland pointed out, previous attempts at dialogue of this nature have been flawed. The question of how best to put pressure on political parties to compromise has not been answered. It is much easier to design a process to facilitate such dialogue, encourage the exploration of various models for Bill of Rights and examine the levels of enforceability possible. The British Government needs to bring parties to the table for substantive engagement, rather than a mere repetition of tried and tested arguments. Unionist anxieties about a strong bill of rights need to be removed. Public demands for social and economic rights need to be addressed. A serious process of discussion can achieve this. Most importantly, it is essential to remember that we can design our local bill of rights to suit our particular circumstances and situations. Like our peace agreement, our bill of rights must be tailored to suit local circumstances and difficulties.
Civil society maintains that there is a need for a strong and inclusive bill of rights that includes the protection of international human rights standards. We will judge the outcome of any dialogue on that basis. It is clear that anxieties about the enforcement of social and economic rights and the desire to have a meaningful bill of rights that would benefit those who are most vulnerable are not mutually exclusive positions that cannot find common ground. A process that leaves all options regarding the content of a bill of rights open and does not seek to impose solutions, but instead facilitates compromise and agreed positions on all sides is an achievable goal that needs to be brought forward urgently.
The Good Friday Agreement held out the promise of a new, peaceful and stable Northern Ireland. The preparation of a bill of rights was supposed to be a key element in ensuring peace and providing that stability. This missing element continues to be much needed. We ask the committee to help us by supporting in any way possible our efforts to bring this process to completion.
I thank members of the committee for their patience in listening to what we have had to say. Ms McCausland, Mr. Hanratty and I will be happy to try to answer questions they might have.
I now invite members to ask questions.
I thank the delegates for their presentation. With the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and others, they have done a great deal of hard work over many years. I would like to ask a question about Ms Macormac's final statement. I accept that it is useful to share information at forums such as this, as it helps to raise the profile of the issue and include people in the process. How does she think the issue can be moved forward? Some of us have pushed this agenda strongly in any way we can. However, there is resistance to our work. We can continue to shout and argue the case. It might be useful for people sitting around the table to consider how this committee, collectively or individually, may be able to help move the case forward.
I also welcome Dr. McDonnell and thank him for his submission. I have just a few questions. Is there a timescale for the proposed UK bill of rights? Will it be implemented in some months or years? Will the witnesses also elaborate on the work of the political parties in Northern Ireland on this? Have they met together to discuss how to implement the bill of rights or not? The witnesses have asked us to put pressure on the British Government. As Dr. McDonnell said, we can talk and shout, but is there anything more constructive we can do to try to push the bill of rights needed in Northern Ireland?
I too welcome Dr. McDonnell. To follow on from some of the previous questions, like others I share the frustration at the inability to bring this matter to a successful conclusion. The proposition of bringing parties around the table again is fine and I have no objection to exploring that. The difficulty is that if there is not an imperative for some parties to agree, they may be willing to sit it out for however long it takes and not reach agreement. One of the difficulties is that the British Government approach has allowed parties have a veto in terms of setting up a bill of rights, whereas no such veto existed in the Good Friday Agreement.
I accept the point that this is not linked to the British bill of rights and it should not be, although I think it does have an impact. I remember meetings with previous Secretaries of State, one of whom was John Reid, who were quite cool towards the idea of a bill of rights because of the implications it would have in terms of a bill of rights debate in Britain. I see that as a difficulty and I think the British Government has been allowing this to be dead-handed by Unionist opposition, even though polling shows a broad support for the idea of a bill of rights across all communities. The question is - How do we crack this? There is a reluctance on the part of the British Government to press the issue. There is no veto in the Good Friday Agreement to the establishment of a bill of rights, so how do we move beyond constructive dialogue to getting a product from that dialogue?
With regard to how to move it forward, many people have asked whether we have spent long enough at this and whether it is time to say it is not going to happen and to put our time into something more productive. We have worked a long time on it, but it has also taken a long time to get the Good Friday Agreement implemented. We voted on the Good Friday Agreement as a whole and we expected it to be fully implemented. It is implicit within the agreement that this part is needed to tie up the issues, such as looking at the causes of the conflict in terms of inequalities and human rights abuses, or even perceived human rights abuses. This was key in the agreement and that is the reason it was mentioned so many times in it. Therefore, to give up now is not an option for us. The agreement must be fully implemented or else we risk going back into that cyclical violence that is experienced in other areas emerging from conflict.
On how we can move it forward, as with any of the other areas that have moved forward, it must be placed as a central issue in the agenda of government. It is part of an international agreement signed by the United Kingdom and Ireland and that is where the power must remain. Policing and justice was, potentially, a more contentious issue and despite protestations from at least half of the parties that this would not happen, it did happen, because there was the political will on every side to see that part of the agreement implemented. We believe it is now our turn and that is why we are asking the committee to look at the final bits of the agreement that have not been implemented. This is what we signed up to. Mr. Hanratty may want to add to that shortly.
I will move on to the UK Bill of rights, which is a newer process. Our consultation started in 2002 so the process has been much longer, but the fact it has been used to hold up the implementation of the British bill of rights is not acceptable to 50% of the population. The British bill of rights has a totally different genesis from the concept of the Northern Ireland Bill of rights and that is the reason we have been trying to separate it. The British bill of rights has been a red herring and has made it difficult, but we have made very strong representations that the process must be kept separate. This is supported in Wales and Scotland. The British bill has been put on hold and in the view of Rebecca Brooks has been shelved, as she reported last week. That is all the information we have. Without the support of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland constituencies, it seems it is felt that the UK Bill of rights is stagnated and cannot move forward. However, I have noted that some of the DUP Members of Westminster have used that to delay looking at the Northern Ireland bill of rights. That is a difficulty, but it is a red herring.
To add to that, very clearly there are issues with regard to the bill of rights from the position of Unionist political party representatives. First, they have concerns with regard to social and economic rights around the enforceability of those rights and how that sits in a parliamentary democracy in terms of the relationship that is established between courts, elected representatives and citizens. These are well rehearsed arguments and concerns, but I believe they are concerns that can be overcome. As I mentioned previously, our peace process - the Good Friday Agreement - was specifically tailored to suit our circumstances. We can very specifically design our bill of rights to do the same, to overcome those concerns and fears and to fit within our structures in terms of the judicial and Assembly process and to overcome the concerns of our politicians.
The difficulty is that we have never come to a position where we have got down to solid negotiation. The bill of rights form process was an opportunity to do that, but it was a failed opportunity. It spent 15 months stating and discussing positions, but never got down to compromise. Mr. Conor Murphy's question about how we can inject that compromise and move beyond initial positions is valid. We believe the first step is an actual process and that is what is lacking currently. There should not be a veto on any part of the Good Friday Agreement. I noted recently that Senator George Mitchell gave evidence to the committee and some parts of his evidence were very important. He talked about the frustrations and the process we went through to get the Good Friday Agreement, but he said that he was aware of even greater difficulty around implementation. This issue is one of the long outstanding difficulties we have in terms of the agreement and is one of the final pieces of the jigsaw in terms of fulfilling the promise that was made in the agreement.
In terms of the difficulties that Unionist political parties have, Senator Mitchell spoke about the bill of rights in the United States and how it plays a key part in protecting citizens from Government. However, he also said that was only one side of the coin of liberty. He said the other part was about how economics focuses on addressing poverty and deprivation. We have spent the past 12 years in Northern Ireland discussing a bill of rights, how our coin of liberty and rights can be shaped to mould a bill of rights that addresses both sides of the coin. That is the reason, particularly for civic society groups, there is a focus on social and economic rights. It may be a difficult question to address, but it is very important and was clearly put in the Good Friday Agreement for a good reason.
The next speaker is Deputy Martin Ferris, followed by Deputy McHugh. I am going to take all the questions now because another group is coming in.
I thank the witnesses for their presentation. It is very frustrating to see this issue outstanding after 14 years, and I commend the members of the delegation on their perseverance and their determination to see it come to fruition. I fully concur that social deprivation, poverty and inequality affect every community across this island. The necessity for a bill of rights to address the social and economic problems on the ground is an essential struggle for all us. The problem is to try to make it a political issue that legislators, in particular, cannot walk away from and must address.
The witnesses stated in their presentation that polling they have carried out shows overwhelming support for a bill of rights, particularly in affected communities. Can they see a role for public pressure to be put on elected representatives and by extension, the British Government, to help bring about a bill of rights that would be shaped to the needs and requirements of our communities and our people? If the political will existed at British Government level, it would happen. What are the views of the delegation on that? From their experience, is there a difference between the Labour Party and the Tories on the issue?
I join in the welcome for the delegation today. It is always good to get an honest perspective. Today we are looking at how to move this forward, but it is also important to outline where we are at right now. If we look around this room, we can observe that we are lacking representation from the Unionist community. That has been the case since the formation of this committee. It is always important to point that out. They are still welcome to come here, and if there are fears about titles and language, we should look at the possible amendment of the Good Friday Agreement to call it the Good Friday Agreement-Belfast Agreement. That invite is still open. If we are to move this process forward, we need them here. This is an implementation committee, and if we are implementing aspects of the Good Friday Agreement, we need everybody around the table.
It is good to have the delegation here, because it keeps reminding us that while 1998 is a long time ago, much has changed and there has been a lot of good, but there remains much to do. We have our own challenge at the political level to implement another aspect of the Good Friday Agreement, which is the North-South parliamentary forum. We have been making good progress in the forum. There has been much dialogue and negotiation, and this has happened because we had everybody present. I would like to acknowledge all the work done by the Speaker of the Assembly, Mr. Willie Hay, our own Ceann Comhairle and his predecessors in trying to bring that process forward.
The parliamentary forum will be integral to helping this committee do what it is trying to do. Mr. Hanratty pointed out that the final piece of the jigsaw is the bill of rights. Ms McCausland mentioned the red herrings and the Scottish stuff. That is completely out of our control, but we should look at what we can control and I would ask all parties in the North to look at re-engaging on the North-South parliamentary forum, because I think that is a process within which we can pursue many of the worthy objectives towards which the delegation is aspiring.
I welcome the delegation today. I would like to elaborate on Mr. Hanratty's point about the Unionist issues with the bill of rights and the socioeconomic issues that are causing them difficulty. Which issues specifically are causing them difficulty? Is it an ideological thing? Are they afraid that this is creeping socialism and that the delegation is trying to enshrine socialist principles in legislation, or is it just related to a couple of issues in respect of the bill of rights?
The last question comes from Ms Michelle Gildernew, MP, MLA.
Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirligh. I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their presentation.
Time has a way of standing still sometimes, and before I was born, my family were campaigning for housing rights in Tyrone. The housing executive was set up after that, but this morning on the radio we hear that there are still housing issues which are more about territory than about the right to a roof over one's head. We therefore see very clearly the need to have a bill of rights enshrined, as there are still abuses of rights taking place. It is obvious that the Unionist parties are by and large trying to stall any progress.
This committee needs to do what we can to show our muscle and to do what we can to hold the British and Irish Governments to account to implement this aspect. I know we will be talking about another aspect of that later today, but implementation is not happening in this area and it is a major outstanding issue that needs to be dealt with as quickly as possible.
As an elected representative, I can see that there are issues in respect of having socioeconomic rights and a bill of rights. One might be concerned that it would step into the legislative role and the democratic process. People might vote for a right wing party because they agree with their point of view that housing should be provided privately and so on, whereas a left wing party might have a more state interventionist point of view on the issue. Therefore I can sympathise with that view.
Is there a way of bringing some of the sceptics on board for issues that they might agree with on principle? Can we bring the sceptics into the negotiations in order to find out what it is they are sceptical about, and how broad the rights might be?
I will answer the questions about social and economic questions first, if that is useful. There are concerns from Unionist political parties from an ideological point of view, due to the conservative political and ideological background of the UUP and the DUP. I do not like to speak on their behalf, but historically some of the opposition to social and economic rights has been based on their concerns about the intervention of such rights, and whether that would undermine the role of an elected representative in allocating what they would say are the finite resources that an assembly or executive has to implement. We understand those concerns. They are well rehearsed internationally when it comes to the implementation of social and economic rights. However, it is important to remember that elected representatives would be the first people responsible for implementing any bill of rights with social and economic rights at its core. It would be their duty to decide how these rights were implemented. It would not be a stick with which to beat politicians. In fact, it would be a guide or blueprint for good governance in terms of the basic standards that, as a divided society, we want to recognise for all sections of the community.
There is a long-standing jurisprudence on social and economic rights whereby they are realised in a different way. They are progressively realised, so if a person wanted to earn a right to housing and adequate living, the person could not have turned up at a politician's constituency office and demand such rights overnight. They have to be progressively realised over time. Governments set benchmarks and indicators for how those rights are realised, and if they fail to move towards the progression of those rights, they can then be held to account. Other relationships must be established in terms of individuals taking petitions to courts as well, but there are means and methods of addressing concerns about that. For example, the Human Rights Act in the UK and the European Court of Human Rights operate what they call a margin of appreciation, which gives the latitude to elected representatives to allocate resources to take decisions within their remit in a way that does not allow for interference of the courts. The courts accept that the people who are well briefed on these issues and most up to speed on how resources should be allocated are the elected representatives from these communities. In terms of entering the debate and moving it forward, these are the arguments and discussions we need to have. I totally accept that sceptical parties need to be around the table. We want them to be there negotiating exactly this type of detail, looking at models of implementation and enforceability, and considering how we can maintain international human rights standards - standards, for example, within the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as other international covenants. How can we maintain these standards while considering implementation, levels of enforceability and how these fit within a Northern Ireland context? These are not two opposing positions that cannot meet somewhere in the middle.
Deputy Joe McHugh asked whether parliamentary forums could have a role.
Dialogue is welcome, particularly with elected representatives who have the responsibility to take forward implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. A number of members of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Assembly have already engaged in trying to raise the concept and engage in discussions on a bill of rights. We would welcome any help this committee or its members who sit in those various forums could offer in bringing that debate forward.
It may come across from my presentation that engagement among Unionist politicians by people who are sceptical about a bill of rights, or some of the rights we want to include in such a Bill, has been completely negative. It has not. For example, the conversations we had in the bill of rights forum between December 2006 and March 2008 were very positive. The engagement and contact and the general discussion about rights and education, not just in the civic society sector but also among elected politicians, were very positive. It is just that the process failed when it got to the final hurdle in negotiating on a common position. The answer to the question is that we would welcome engagement that would move the process forward in any manner.
The delegates have covered all of the questions asked. Are there concluding remarks?
As our polling results show, there is a mandate from civil society in terms of a desire for this; it is just that the demand is not necessarily showing among politicians in terms of political engagement to date. To reiterate what my colleagues said, whatever the committee can do to move the debate forward with our politicians would be welcome.
I will just mention in that regard that when the Tánaiste spoke at the Alliance Party conference recently, he mentioned the importance of a Bill of Rights. It is being kept on the agenda and we will obviously contribute to it as a committee. I thank the delegates who have given us good information. We will make sure it informs our deliberations on this matter in the next few months.
