JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT díospóireacht -
Thursday, 30 Apr 2009

Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland: Discussion with Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.

Chairman

Go mbeannaí Dia dhaoibh uilig agus céad fáilte romhaibh go léir go dtí an cruinniú seo den Chomhchoiste um Fhorfheidhmiú Chomhaontú Aoine an Chéasta.

The first item on the agenda is the minutes of the meeting of 5 March 2009. Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. The second item on the agenda is a discussion on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Apologies have been received from Deputies Seymour Crawford and Michael Ahern, Senators Ivana Bacik, Joseph O'Reilly and Cecilia Keaveney, Dr. Alastair McDonnell and the Minister, Ms Michelle Gildernew.

I remind members of the committee and those in the Public Gallery to please ensure that all mobile phones and BlackBerry phones are switched off for the duration of the meeting as they cause interference, even if on silent mode, with the recording equipment in the committee rooms. I ask that all present respect this instruction as mobile phones must not be used for any purpose, messages or otherwise, during our meetings in this House.

It is a great pleasure for me, on behalf of the committee, to welcome everybody to our meeting today and in particular to welcome the members of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Professor Monica McWilliams, Chief Commissioner, Commissioners Ann Hope, Colm Larkin and Eamonn O'Neill, the chief executive, Mr. Peter O'Neill, and Dr. David Russell, head of communications and education. I also welcome our colleagues from Northern Ireland, Mr. Pat Doherty, MP, MLA, and the other attendees. It is always a pleasure to have them with us.

The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was mandated to advise the British Government of the possibility of establishing a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. These rights are to be supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Good Friday Agreement states that the Bill should reflect the circumstances of Northern Ireland, drawing as appropriate on international instruments and experience. A forum on a Bill of Rights was established in December 2006 to produce agreed recommendations to inform the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's advice to the Secretary of State. The forum which consisted of representatives from each of the political parties and from across the voluntary and community sector, presented its recommendations to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in March 2008. Following consideration of more than 650 submissions, the forum report, in consultation with political parties and non-governmental organisations, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission submitted its advice to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland shortly before last Christmas.

The committee is keen to hear from the members of the commission about the content of the advice they have given and the consultation processes that informed it. It would be interesting to consider what responses to its advice it has received to date and to consider what sort of implementation process might be envisaged by the Northern Ireland Office.

It is my pleasure to call on Professor Monica McWilliams to brief the committee and her colleagues on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland and the work of the commission, after which comments and questions will be taken from our colleagues.

I advise the Commissioner and her colleagues that unlike Members of both Houses of Parliament who enjoy absolute privilege in respect of utterances made in committee, witnesses and visitors do not enjoy absolute privilege. Accordingly, caution should be exercised, particularly with regard to references of a personal nature. I am obliged to make that statement and I have no doubt the people here will not have a problem with it.

On behalf of all our colleagues, I wish to put on the record of the committee reference to the gun attacks on the Massarene British Army barracks in Antrim on 17 March in which British soldiers, Mark Quinsey and Patrick Azimkar, were murdered and also the killing of PSNI officer Constable Stephen Carroll two days later. These murders took place since this joint committee last met on 5 March. I know that all present will wish to be aware that an all-party Dáil motion on Northern Ireland was passed on 11 March, condemning these attacks and vowing collectively to press forward with political progress. As Chairman of this committee, I pledge our support to our colleagues in the Assembly and to all the elected Members in addressing the consequences of the attacks to help to ensure the stability of the power-sharing process in Northern Ireland. I have every confidence in the co-operative work of the Garda Síochána and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, to combat the threat to communities posed by dissident groups and I hope to have discussions with these bodies in the future.

Professor Monica McWilliams

Go raibh maith agat. We are delighted to be here today to give evidence to the committee members on the Northern Ireland Bill of Rights. Our advice on it which the committee has heard, we gave to the Government on 10 December 2008 which was a very symbolic day. We handed it over in a very symbolic place. It was the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many of the rights we were examining 60 years later were consistent with the rights in that declaration. It had followed the horrendous atrocities of World War II and it was an agreement by all countries that they should never again allow such atrocities happen. They sat down in all their diversity from around the world and committed themselves to a set of principles and a set of human rights which eventually led to the European Convention on Human Rights and which was one of the tasks this commission was to examine.

It was in that context that the commission came together in that symbolic place — the room in Castle Buildings in which the Good Friday Agreement was signed — to hand over our advice on a Bill of Rights. The mandate to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission came from that Agreement and almost eleven years later we eventually handed over this advice. It has taken this amount of time from when the Agreement was made to when the mandate on our part was finally fulfilled. This shows it was not an easy job but it was better to get it right than to rush it. Extensive consultation on the part of the people in Northern Ireland took place. Some significant commitments had to be implemented from the Good Friday Agreement but this was an important piece of the Good Friday Agreement. I do not need to remind the members of this committee that the Agreement was a treaty between not only two Governments and the parties but it also has international recognition. I say this because I want to emphasise to the committee that although many people see the devolution of policing and justice powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly as one of the final pieces of the Good Friday Agreement and sometimes it is stated publicly that when this happens all the pieces will be in place, the Bill of Rights is also a final piece of that Agreement and we all need to keep that focus in mind.

I emphasise that point because the Northern Ireland Office has committed to consultation. It indicated that that consultation would take place in the spring. Now it is proposed to take place in the late spring. We would like this committee to support our call to have it completed to allow people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere to respond by June. We are concerned that if this does not happen, we might miss the legislative slot initially promoted for the Bill of Rights — 2009-10. As the committee is probably aware, if the Bill of Rights does not make its way into the body of legislation before the next British general election, probably in 2010, we will be into an entirely new set of circumstances. Any further delay would concern us greatly.

Although it has taken some considerable time to produce this advice, it has the endorsement, in terms of support for a Bill of Rights, of all the parties in Northern Ireland. That is very good to have in a country coming out of conflict. What is included in the advice may have a diversity of opinion attached to it. However, this is the consensus opinion. Eight out of ten commissioners have agreed on the advice — two dissented. However, eight out of ten give us the right to say it is the consensus opinion of the committee. As members of this committee are well aware, getting cross-community and cross-party support on many issues, not just in Northern Ireland but also here in the Oireachtas and elsewhere, is difficult. We do not seek unanimity, particularly on issues of human rights. However, finding consensus is a good way to work and that is what we have attempted to do.

It now goes forward and we are very much looking forward to everyone participating, not just those in Northern Ireland because it also has implications for the Republic. As a consequence of the advice, we are in a position to progress our work further than we were hitherto able to do. As members of the committee know, the charter of rights for the island of Ireland was also the subject of a commitment given in the Good Friday Agreement. The commissioner, Mr. Colm Larkin, will speak further on that matter at a later stage. The objectives for us now are to move forward on consultation, to ensure there is legislation on a Bill of Rights and that we can progress as rapidly as possible with our charter of rights work with the Irish Human Rights Commission.

At this stage I should say other factors have come into play since we commenced our work on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. Within the UK context, they originally started speaking about a British Bill of Rights and responsibilities, but they have now begun to call it a UK Bill. They have actually dropped the word "Bill" and are referring to it as rights and responsibilities. We recently gave evidence at Westminster. We have also given evidence to the Northern Ireland affairs committee and are delighted to have been invited to give evidence here on the Bill for Northern Ireland and how it sits alongside a potential Bill for the entire United Kingdom and a charter for the entire island. Therefore, in a wider context we need to take in North-South and east-west relationships. The commission stands ready to do that work. We are engaged with the British Ministry of Justice under the Secretary of State for Justice, Mr. Jack Straw, MP, to take the matter forward. We have regular meetings with the British Minister of State, Mr. Michael Wills, MP, in London on the issue. Similarly, we need to be engaged with this committee on the issue of the charter.

We recognise the importance of the Human Rights Act which was incorporated and implemented two years after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. There was the same issue here with this country incorporating the European convention regarding the Constitution. That work was completed in 2000 for the United Kingdom. However, we also needed to take on board, not just in our mandate, the European Convention on Human Rights, in other words, to address the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland today to decide what rights should be added to the Human Rights Act. Therefore, we needed to consider rights supplementary to the Human Rights Act. We obviously looked at the European Convention on Human Rights. However, under our mandate we were permitted to consider international human rights standards.

We set ourselves very strict methodology in addressing all three parts of the mandate. Some of the questions concerned the justiciability of these rights. Some were clearly based on parity of esteem and mutual respect for the two main communities in Northern Ireland, while some addressed particular circumstances. It was a difficult and complex job of work. However, I am happy to say that, having handed over the advice, the support received from civic society sectors in Northern Ireland, non-governmental organisations and community and voluntary organisations has been incredibly heartening. One can imagine trying to do a job of work and keeping many of these very diverse sectors on board. They have now come out publicly. Obviously, when the consultation document is produced by the British Government, they will have a final opportunity to say what they would wish to see in response to the advice we have given.

I will close by simply saying we should not forget that this was an international treaty and that a commitment was made. It would be terrible if this was to sit much longer. The people of Northern Ireland deserve to have their Bill of Rights. It is part of the peace process. In many other countries coming out of conflict it is seen as a conflict resolution mechanism. Human rights were central to the Good Friday Agreement. The practice and action on the ground for many of the institutions involved arising from the Good Friday Agreement centred on human rights and it fell to us to produce this advice on a Bill of Rights.

We will be happy to answer any questions members of the committee might have for us on the matter. We will also be happy to address any other part of the work in which we are engaged in Northern Ireland and with our colleagues in the Irish commission.

Mr. Eamonn O'Neill, in particular, will discuss the level of political, community and civic support in Northern Ireland for a Bill of Rights. The commissioner, Mr. Colm Larkin, can address any issues raised on the charter of rights for the island of Ireland. If members wish, my colleague, Dr. David Russell, will respond to some of the issues in which the committee might be interested, in particular, the matter of what was the common travel area going through the British Parliament that affects greatly the Republic of Ireland. We are very concerned that if some of the proposals are implemented, it will increase the issues of racial profiling, the carrying of identity cards and who would be required to carry out these checks. We have engaged a great deal with the committees in the House of Lords and the House of Commons to flag the human rights compliance issues involved in introducing such a Bill at this time. However, given that we have done so much work on the protection of human rights regarding the issue of British and Irish identity, we strongly urge the committee in taking an interest to ensure there is no diminution of the rights to be British or Irish. Anything introduced through the British Parliament should not decrease the right of people to identify themselves in a place called Northern Ireland where this right has been strongly held and endorsed in the Good Friday Agreement. It is with that in mind that we have some concerns about some of the legislation going through.

Chairman

I thank the chief commissioner. Do any of the other commissioners wish to speak?

Professor Monica McWilliams

We are completely in the committee's hands.

Chairman

If they wish to speak, they have the floor.

Professor Monica McWilliams

Perhaps Mr. O'Neill might wish to say something about the political context of the Bill of Rights.

Mr. Eamonn O’Neill

As Professor McWilliams indicated, there was controversy regarding the presentation of the Bill of Rights in that two of the commissioners found that it was not possible for them to sign off totally on everything we had included in it. As a result, there was press and media speculation about the issue. It is important for us to take the opportunity to set the record straight for the committee and the work it is doing. I will give an example to indicate the level of work in which we were engaged.

In the mandate we were given when preparing the submission on the Bill of Rights for the Secretary of State, we were asked to take the "special circumstances" of Northern Ireland into account. When one uses that phrase, one thinks everybody knows what one is talking about. I suggest, however, that people's understanding of the phrase depends on their particular outlook — their political point of view. As we knew this would be an area of some concern, we spent a long time considering how we should deal with it before drawing up a test. The interesting thing about the test was that it was accepted not by consensus but unanimously by all members of the commission. When we presented the test to the five main political parties, it was unanimously accepted by them. Our job was to apply the test to each set of rights as we went along. Of course people had queries and questions about certain aspects of the test. Such debates were recorded. Difficulties emerged when, after approximately 50 meetings, people found that they could not finally sign off on all the recommendations we were making to the Secretary of State. Consequently, the media took it up and political parties began to run with it, forgetting that they had already agreed to it. We are of the view that this development did not reflect the reality of the process, which was genuine and good. It has stood the test. It is there for all to see and examine. The media hype and political speculation that surrounded all of this did not reflect the real opinion.

The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has been in existence for ten or 11 years. When the commission started its work, most of the inquiries it received came from the Nationalist Catholic community. That is clear from statistics that are available to the committee. It is interesting to note that the number of problems we are now informed of by members of the public is evenly divided among both communities. There is a high degree of acceptance of the work of the commission among the Protestant Unionist community. In addition, great progress has been made in the development of the thinking of some political parties. All the parties have agreed to support the concept of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. The debate now centres on what should be in the Bill of Rights. That is progress.

It has been suggested that the submission we made to the Secretary of State somehow does not fit with the Unionist parties, but that is not quite accurate. It is far from the truth, in our view. It is important to point out that the two members of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission who declined to sign off on it are party political members. They are not the only Unionists on the commission. Other members of what might be described as the Unionist Protestant community have signed off on it. The commission faces difficulties in trying to address issues of this nature while remaining independent. As an elected councillor for the SDLP in the North, I know that such difficulties are encountered by many bodies that try to be independent. When one goes to meetings of such bodies, one has to leave one's political baggage at the door. If one tries to bring it into the meeting room, the body in question will lose direction. The commission's unfortunate difficulties have not always existed. I make no bones about stating that manipulation by political parties created many of the difficulties we encountered when we tried to present this at the end. The rest of us are very upset about some of the constructions that have been put on this situation. However, we are convinced that what we have done is genuine. It will stand up to scrutiny. In our view, it reflects the mandate we were given. We would also argue that it reflects what will be good for all the people of Northern Ireland.

Chairman

I thank Mr. O'Neill for his helpful remarks. Perhaps Mr. Larkin would like to speak briefly about the charter of rights.

Mr. Colm Larkin

Now that the Bill of Rights advice has been completed and submitted to the Government, we are in a much more free position to step up our work on the charter of rights. The members of the joint committee will be aware that the charter of rights was referred to in the Good Friday Agreement. The Agreement instructed the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Irish Human Rights Commission to consider the possibility of establishing a charter, to be signed by all democratic parties, that would reflect and endorse agreed measures for the protection of fundamental rights on both sides of the Border. We now believe the way is open to start serious work on this issue. That serious work will have to be sustained and disciplined. It will have to focus on an outcome that people can rally around.

My own belief is that we needs to find a means of approaching the wide range of issues that would be raised by a charter of rights, just as we did when we approached the Bill of Rights advice. The climate of North-South relations has changed to allow progress to be made with this work. We note that some progress has been made in establishing a joint parliamentary forum between the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Oireachtas, with the agreement of Speaker Hay and the Ceann Comhairle. This could be of great help as we try to develop a useful context within which our work can be advanced. The main announcement that may be worth making is that last week, at our most recent meeting with the Irish Human Rights Commission, we agreed to go ahead with a wide-ranging conference on the charter of rights in November of this year. We hope to produce some papers, and to begin to clarify the issues that exist, in advance of that conference.

I will quickly go through the issues we will have to try to resolve. First, we will have to examine the status and scope of human rights protections in the two jurisdictions. The European Convention on Human Rights operates in both jurisdictions, although in slightly different ways. There are amendments and additions to its operation on either side of the Border. We have to scope that out. We will then have to look at the issue of equivalence harmonisation. We will need to consider how far we want to go in that regard. We will have to ascertain whether it is a work in progress, or something we want to achieve immediately with the charter of rights. We need to drill down into particular issues that involve areas of co-operation between North and South. We need to consider whether they need a human rights umbrella. We have to somehow structure a wide range of issues with a particular North-South impact, such as migration, the common travel area and economic and social rights, in a disciplined manner that will allow us to make decisions and reach accommodations. Now that we feel the way is clear to start this work, we hope we will get a lot of support from the parties here. We hope to make significant progress by November.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Larkin. I will open it to the floor.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Go raibh maith agat. At the outset, I join the Chairman and others in extending a sincere welcome to the representatives of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. I thank Ms McWilliams and her colleagues for their presentation and for the information they have shared with us this morning. On a personal note, I recall very well the commitment in the Good Friday Agreement to establish human rights commissions on either side of the Border. That was a positive, progressive and important aspect of all that the Agreement entailed.

As we are examining the situation north of the Border, it would be remiss of me not to reflect on the fact, as I have done previously in the Chamber of the House, that it is regrettable that the funding support for the human rights commission on this side of the Border was significantly curtailed last October, resulting in a significant reduction in its potential and the work it can undertake. Against the backdrop of the visit by the North of Ireland team to discuss this issue, I appeal to the joint committee, particularly members from the Government parties, to appeal to the Government to restore funding to the human rights commission here. This is very important because good work has been done and much more remains to be done.

A small indicator of the ever present need for human rights work to take hold — in terms of education and achieving a greater understanding of the rights of each citizen — was exemplified again this week in the exposure of the decision of a Tesco store in County Antrim to request young bag packers wearing the local GAA club jersey to leave the premises as a result of lobbying from whomever. When we look around us in this city, we take for granted the young people wearing jerseys from every possible sports organisation. This Saturday Leinster and Munster jerseys will be in great evidence for the rugby semi-final in Croke Park. It is most regrettable that Tesco caved in to bigotry. That the GAA jersey of the young people in question who were engaged in a charitable, fund-raising exercise was considered so offensive is a very sad reflection on the situation. Much work remains to be done.

I have a couple of questions. The human rights commission in the North presented its advice on the Bill to the Secretary of State last December. The onus and responsibility are on the Northern Ireland Office to bring the legislation forward and the British Government must introduce and pass it at Westminster. Do I understand from what the delegation has shared with us that there is a stalling on this matter, although the word "stalling" was not used? Have we not yet reached the consultation process? It is alarming that the advice was presented in December and almost six months later — tomorrow is May Day — the consultation process has not yet commenced.

It is important that in appealing for assistance the joint committee take note and reflect with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, on the various opportunities open in terms of North-South and east-west engagements and ensure this matter is given the importance and seriousness it requires. I share the concern expressed by Professor McWilliams that, in the event of a general election in Britain — an issue that has been much addressed — we will be in a whole new situation, with all that could entail. There is a great urgency about this matter. It is important, therefore, that we hear the messages being delivered today. As an all-party Oireachtas committee, we must undertake to act in unison and with some urgency on these matters.

On the study of equivalence to which Mr. Larkin referred, I understand, although I am not certain, that there may have been a study of equivalence in relation to equality. Is that correct? Perhaps Mr. Larkin will be able to elaborate a little on the study of equivalence in relation to human rights protections, North and South. Is it the commission's understanding that there is a particular, significant or small divergence or difference in emphasis, presentation and areas covered between the two jurisdictions? What steps can be taken? If the committee is to have any meaning, it must be an aid to achieving an outcome or result. Our role is in the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and we have all-Ireland participation. Is a study of equivalence in human rights protections under way? It is important that such an exercise is undertaken to ensure we have equivalence across the island of Ireland and an understanding in terms of meaning, terminology and other matters and that human rights have universal understanding and application.

I again thank the Chairman and delegation.

Mr. Pat Doherty, MP, MLA

I welcome the members of the human rights commission. I hope our other guests will forgive me for extending a special welcome to Monica McWilliams and Eamonn O'Neill with whom I served in the first Assembly in Stormont after the 1998 election.

At the end of the written submission, the commission asks for the joint committee's support in three areas. I fully support this request. To cover the issue in broad terms, I am acutely aware that it is more than four months since the human rights commission made its submission to the Northern Ireland Office. I am also acutely aware of the comments of senior members of the Tory Party, particularly Dominic Grieve who attacked the whole exercise, referred to the rights culture being out of control and spoke, sadly, about the undeserving in society.

The third request is that the Westminster Government put the Bill through in whatever time is left to it because there is a major danger that we may face a Conservative Party Government next time out. While we will deal with that prospect, as we had to do previously, our task is made more difficult when senior spokespersons use such language to attack the human rights commission's very good work. In that context, there is an onus on the Irish Government, as a senior partner in implementing the Good Friday Agreement, to quickly make clear to the Labour Party Government in Westminster that the legislation needs to be enacted immediately because a delay will create mayhem down the road.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

Perhaps Mr. Doherty should go to Westminster and make that point in person.

Mr. Pat Doherty, MP, MLA

I go to Westminster. If the Deputy is asking me to take an oath to the British Queen, he may as well ask me to eat grass because I will not do it. I am an Irish Republican and intend to remain one. I want to see a democracy developed on the island of Ireland.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

If Mr. Doherty had the casting vote, would he enter Westminster to keep out the Tories? Mr. De Valera set a precedent in that regard.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

My party colleague should not allow himself to be provoked.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd

Would Mr. Doherty not kick out the Tories if he could?

Chairman

Please allow Mr. Doherty to continue without interruption. Deputies may comment when they contribute to the discussion.

Mr. Pat Doherty, MP, MLA

I am committed to developing an all-Ireland democracy. It would make the work of the joint committee much easier if we were only dealing with this island. There is a broad time onus on the Irish Government given the attitudes emerging in Westminster. I hope Professor McWilliams can address that in her reply.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

I welcome our colleagues from Northern Ireland and thank them for their contributions. I regret I have another commitment and will not be able to stay. However, I will read the Official Report of the meeting with interest.

Colm Larkin stated we are discussing a series of different declarations on human rights, which must be reconciled with each other, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the draft Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland and the proposed Irish charter of rights. I presume there will be a reconciliation between the various documents so that there is not a contradiction between one charter and one Bill of Rights. That is the work for lawyers.

I support Deputy Ó Caoláin's comments on the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's colleague organisations in the South. There is sufficient political evidence south of the Border to indicate the Equality Authority and the Irish Human Rights Commission were vindictively punished through their recent budgetary allocations. If a Bill of Rights were formulated and a commission were charged with facilitating people to access those rights, its funding from the Central Fund would have to be ring-fenced, indexed to inflation and not come under the Vote for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. In many cases the rights contained in the charter might not be properly vindicated by public authorities at national or local level. It would be important, therefore, the same financial independence that exists for the Judiciary in this State would be extended to a commission or body charged with facilitating citizens' access to their rights.

The fastest growing minority belief system in this State is the secular, agonistic or atheistic category of people. Having read the draft proposals for the Bill of Rights, I am concerned the emergence of this cohort, mostly of Irish-born people, has not been recognised adequately in the discussion of human rights on an-Ireland basis.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd

I welcome the speakers from Northern Ireland. They have given us an overview of the comprehensive proposals they have presented to the British Secretary of State.

I have been doing a lot of reading of my history books on 1798, Sir Richard Musgrave's Memoirs of the Various Rebellions in Ireland, Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man, the British House of Commons papers on 1916 and the Official Report of the First Dáil. I am trying to tie up in my mind where we are as a country. I see all of these progressing down to fundamentally the issues that divided in the past between Britain and Ireland, North and South, Catholic and Protestant. In many ways the commission’s work is reflecting the distillation of history, bringing together all parties in the North and through working with the Irish Human Rights Commission. If this is the wisdom the commission has distilled, it is very helpful and constructive that most of its members have signed off on it.

Outside of the political and religious differences, what about other rights? What about the rights of senior citizens to proper care in the community? Are they asserted in this document? I know there is an assertion to the right to health care but I am concerned about the rights of senior citizens to care in their homes, community care and in institutional care.

Recently, we had a report in the South on the bad experiences of care residents in a psychiatric hospital in Clonmel, County Tipperary. The inquiry, which I believe was something of a whitewash, examined cases where senior citizens in the care of the State were abused. Some, for example, had fractures the causes of which could not be explained. These are significant issues which need to be addressed. How prevalent are these issues north of the Border? Would they form any part of the commission's annual report?

I am also concerned that elderly people, cared for in State institutions or private nursing homes, are regularly physically abused and abused in the treatment and quality of care they receive. I do not know if that has crossed the commission's table as an issue. I have written to the Irish Human Rights Commission on this issue but was not entirely happy with its reply. It believes these cases are better vindicated through the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, a health body independent of the State and the Health Service Executive, HSE. It is a matter of deep concern to me and I hope Professor McWilliams will comment on it.

Deputy Niall Blaney

I too welcome the consortium. It is very good of the Chairman to advance this cause in bringing the consortium and also to advance the work of this committee. There is cross-party and cross-Border support in advancing the three wishes of the consortium. I will support whatever the Chairman feels is necessary to advance these three issues.

Bringing this bill of human rights into law with cross-party support from all elements of society is of the utmost importance. It is as important as the work of Archbishop Robin Eames and Denis Bradley and their report for the Consultative Group on the Past. The reason we had 40 years of turmoil in Northern Ireland was the breakdown in human rights. I feel and fear that if we cannot overcome these two issues in the near future, we cannot have a sustained and lasting peace settlement in Northern Ireland. In recent weeks the Continuity IRA has been simmering at the edges and, in recent days, it has issued death threats. Things could deteriorate if political institutions and politicians across the board are not seen advancing the cause of dealing with human rights and reconciliation with the past. I am very much for dealing with these matters.

I also recognise what Professor McWilliams said in advancing the charter on a east-west basis. As co-chair of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, and I feel I speak for the other co-chair, Peter Hain MP, I would be more than happy to advance any elements of that dimension if our body could be used as a vehicle to do so. I look forward to working with the commission on that.

Deputy Joe McHugh

I apologise for being late. This is an important piece of work and I commend the Chairman on bringing it to this level as well. This is the forum in which to do this.

I also welcome the commissioner, Professor Monica McWilliams. She and her team are very welcome. I know from my contact with her in Denver during the summer that this is a subject very close to her heart. Certainly, the work she has been doing on it so far has been very helpful. I shall not elaborate in any great detail, since I have been late. Given that there are two commissions within the framework of the Good Friday Agreement, it is very important that they work together. Certainly, the great synergy we have on a North-South basis in terms of our knowledge of politicians throughout the political spectrum needs working on. Both commissions should work in tandem as I believe they do.

On a parochial level — and Deputy Blaney would agree with me on this — we sometimes find ourselves very involved in cross-Border affairs. In my constituency office in Letterkenny I receive a good many people from Northern Ireland making representations in terms of the human rights infringements they believe are not being dealt with in that jurisdiction. I assume the experience is similar in constituency offices in the North, where people from Donegal, Cavan or Monaghan come across. We need stronger synergies at a Border level and certainly if there are mechanisms for overlap, I should be willing to work closely with the commission on that.

Deputy Eamon Scanlon

I add my voice and support and thank our guests for coming here this morning. I see that two of the commissioners dissented from the report, which is a pity. Had they any special reasons for doing so?

Professor Monica McWilliams

I will try to deal with each of these questions and then, perhaps, Commissioner Larkin can pick up on those that related to the charter.

On the constitution about which both Mr. Doherty, MP, MLA, and Deputy Ó Caoláin asked, it is correct that we need this consultation to be timely. The date we have been given is June. We were told first it would be spring, but that is now nearly over and we now hear it will be June. If it is any later we are into a consultation process that will extend over the summer. It is now compulsory in Northern Ireland to carry out a 12-week consultation, and then we are into the autumn. We have missed the parliamentary slot for legislation, and who knows what the outcome of the next elections will be? However, it is quite correct as regards Mr. Dominic Grieve's MP pronouncement. I engaged with him last week at Westminster and this commission met him frequently. The Conservative Party is on record as saying that if it is re-elected it will repeal the Human Rights Act. The Tories are not even looking at any additional rights in the manner that we have promoted these rights, but rather suggesting that too many are included in the Human Rights Act.

There is grave concern among those in the human rights sector that we are most definitely looking at a diminution of human rights on the Statute Book if the Conservatives are returned. We are involved in debates in this regard at Westminster at the moment. The Conservatives have had a task force in place, but have not published a report on what they would do on the Human Rights Act if they are elected to government. Certainly, I know this from their initial responses to our Bill, although Dominic Grieve MP said he did not read the section on enforcement and implementation, which was further down the document but simply looked at the list of rights and thought they were overly extensive. When he read the enforcement and implementation section, however, he could see that we had placed a number of limitations on these, particularly given the more imaginative and innovative manner in which we have interpreted how the issue of social and economic rights should be addressed alongside political and civil rights in Northern Ireland. Our view is that it must contain social and economic rights if it is to be meaningful — and if rights are to be made real alongside the political and civil rights which most people have already identified as being necessary as a consequence of the situation and the conflict in Northern Ireland.

If we get consultation in June there may still be a window of opportunity to have legislation in place, although this commission is increasingly concerned about that. We are told by the Secretary of State and others that the matter is complex and we should not rush to legislate. However, the commission would say that on many aspects of the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, that same argument was made, as for example on post-Patten proposals on the reform of policing which were deemed to be complicated and complex. In the event, I am glad it was decided that this was taken to be an essential part of the Good Friday Agreement and that we should have legislation on the reforming institutions. We feel the same way about the Bill of Rights, and clearly that has now been sitting with them since 10 December. I do not know whether the Northern Ireland Office is down-sizing to the extent that it could not have brought this forward more rapidly, but this is a real concern of ours and we are very pleased that our colleagues in the Republic are aware of that.

On the matters raised by Deputy Ruairí Quinn, the issue of the funding of the Irish Human Rights Commission clearly sits with this jurisdiction, but it has implications for our work. If we are to engage with the Irish commission on the charter of rights then the two commissions need to be resourced to be able to do that work. There are other pieces of work, which Deputy McHugh has just raised, in relation to the issues of the Border that we are constantly having to work on. People who find themselves in Northern Ireland not realising that they have crossed the Border are being picked up by the UK Border Agency and then detained. The place of detention is not in Northern Ireland but rather in Dungavel in Scotland, which gives rise to many complications. Likewise, people coming to the Republic have got a visa for Northern Ireland. We have just completed a piece of work on that called "Hidden Borders", which deals precisely with this issue, the Border, North and South and questions of human rights compliance as regards the UK Border Agency. At our conference last Monday, constituents of Deputies Blaney and McHugh from Donegal and those of Mr. Doherty, MP, raised these points. They are constantly finding in coming from Donegal through Northern Ireland to get to the Republic — which is sometimes the quickest way — that they are being detained on buses and being picked up. Again, a concern of racial profiling is hitting in because of the colour of their skin, and that is a real concern in terms of human rights. We have produced a report and are responding to that. That is the type of work which both we and the Irish commission need to do more of. That is why it is necessary for us to be alert to the fact that the commission has the resources to continue to work with us on this basis, because we have a sub-committee on racism, and as the committee heard on the issue of migrant workers, this is important work and needs to go forward.

The Paris Principles set up the commissions, which are attached to the United Nations — we take a seat at the UN in Geneva, as does the Irish commission, through Maurice Manning. Both commissions attend those meetings and it is very clear that they demand that the commissions be independent of and be able to be critical of government — and not have any implications written into their resources as a consequence. They are also required to make their reports to Parliament, not to a particular Minister or Department. We are heartened in that when we make our reports they are presented to Westminster and Parliament. That is the standard for the commissions in other jurisdictions, too. We support the Irish commission, and have made representations on its behalf to the effect that its funding should be maintained and that we should continue to be able to do this North-South work in a dedicated and disciplined manner, as Commissioner Larkin has pointed out.

In response to Deputy Quinn's question about rights and secularisation versus religion, we make it very clear in our advice to the Government that rights are universal. Irrespective of whether somebody is a member of a church or a faith community or otherwise, these rights must still be maintained and protected. We faced a similar situation in Northern Ireland.

I will leave it to Mr. Larkin to respond to Deputy Quinn's other point about incorporation. There is a difference in that people here have the Irish Constitution, while we have a parliamentary system, to which we respond. The only legislation that is justiciable and must be responded to is the Human Rights Act. The entire European Convention on Human Rights was not incorporated into law; we make this point in our advice and suggest the freedom of movement protocol as one of those examples that affects Northern Ireland. It has never been incorporated but should be. Judges in Northern Ireland only rule on what is contained in the Human Rights Act, not on the other rights provided in the European convention, nor on those which result from the covenants consequential on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We paid attention to this matter which will have to be addressed in terms of equivalency in a future charter.

Deputy O'Dowd will be pleased to know that our next investigation will be into the human rights of senior citizens, especially those in residential care.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd

I am delighted to hear it.

Professor Monica McWilliams

We have very strong powers in this area. We have the power to compel witnesses, testimony——

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd

We should have that power in the South.

Professor Monica McWilliams

We have the power to go into places of detention. However, our powers are somewhat fettered in that we must give 15 days' notice, but we hope to have a review of this last power shortly in order that we can make unannounced visits. That would be a very important power because if we are alerted to human rights violations, we should be able to go in immediately and respond.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd

Are there other bodies with a statutory duty of care to those citizens?

Professor Monica McWilliams

Just like here, we have a body called the Regulation of Quality and Improvement Authority which is the authority that carries out inspections. However, we say we have the power of investigation.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd

I am delighted to hear it.

Professor Monica McWilliams

In the case of an investigation we would have a longer period of time in which to go in. Our previous two reports were on women in prison. We were able to spend six to nine months in the prisons, which gave us a much better view of systemic issues than if we just went in to undertake an inspection. We will be happy to send the report to the committee, but we must take up individual cases from time to time where there may be issues of forcible restraint, neglect, nutrition and medication. These are all human rights issues, but our advice on a Bill of Rights includes advice on the issue of social care and the provision of respite from caring activities. We speak of both as human rights. They may not have been seen as human rights, but they have a great impact on quality of life. We speak about the rights of senior citizens, but also about those who care for senior citizens. I am pleased to be able to tell the committee about the work we are doing in that regard. We are delighted that Deputy Blaney, as co-chair of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, can help us to advance this work. We know the next meeting is to be held in Swansea and would be more than happy to contribute to it, either with the Irish Human Rights Commission or with our colleagues in Westminster who have produced a very good report with the joint committee on human rights on a UK Bill of Rights and freedoms. There is clearly much work to be done on a North-South and east-west basis in deciding how to take it forward.

Deputy Niall Blaney

In order to be helpful, can Professor McWilliams forward a line to me? I will talk to my counterpart and see what we can work out in Swansea.

Professor Monica McWilliams

I thank the Deputy. He might find it is already in the post to him.

Deputy Niall Blaney

That was quick.

Chairman

The professor was up early this morning.

Professor Monica McWilliams

We have a Bill of Rights committee in the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission which is chaired by Commissioner Ann Hope. On Monday we agreed that we should write to this committee to see what other forums we could use, particularly those involving parliamentarians, as they would have the ability to impress upon the respective Governments the need to have this advice taken on board. These are the issues to be raised and I hope I have not left anyone out.

Both Deputy McHugh and I heard President Obama as he gave his address at Denver. He put human rights at the centre of his efforts to address global and local problems faced by the United States. I am happy to say that after my visit on St. Patrick's Day on 17 March, I met Senators and Congressmen with an interest in implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and who will table a joint resolution in the Senate and the House of Representatives effectively to seek a response on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. The Administration is very interested in the promotion of human rights as a way of resolving conflicts. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives have impressed on Secretary of State Clinton, the Vice President and the President the need for Northern Ireland to have this element of the Good Friday Agreement implemented as fast as possible.

Mr. Colm Larkin

Deputy Ó Caoláin made a point about equivalence and he is right. There has been a study of the equivalence of rights. Its author was Colm Ó Cinnéide from University College London and it was funded by the Equality Authority in Northern Ireland and here. We have used Mr. Ó Cinnéide extensively as an adviser on our Bill of Rights project. We have been in touch with him to ascertain whether he would be available for this conference that we are holding in November on the broader issue of a charter or rights for Ireland.

Ms Suzanne Egan of UCD who is also a member of the Irish Human Rights Commission has undertaken a very good study of the issues involved in a charter of rights. It is very clear that if our advice on a Bill of Rights was accepted, there would be big gaps on a wide range of human rights issues between the North and the South such as on children's rights and the criminal justice process. We have to think carefully about what we mean by equivalence. It is not necessary to have exact equivalence on every point of detail, as that would be almost impossible to achieve, rather it is about the methodology to be used to achieve necessary equivalence.

This work is demanding in terms of time and expertise. We found this out to our financial cost in compiling a Bill of Rights, as we broke our budget last year in having the work done on it. The question of resources for both human rights commissions is important if we are to make serious progress on a charter of rights.

Professor Monica McWilliams

Members can see how accustomed I am to giving evidence at Westminster and the Northern Ireland Assembly by referring to them as Members instead of as Deputies or Senators. I refer to them by a different title. I apologise for that and I hope the record will correct that.

With regard to Deputy Scanlon's point, it is very important to address the issue of dissent. Let me qualify what Commissioner Eamonn O'Neill said earlier in terms of political party manipulation creating difficulties for our work. It will always be the case that political parties will make comments on human rights commissions, and it goes by the very nature of the work we do that it will be at times contentious and controversial. However, it is at those times also that one is tested and one has to stand up and put forward the human rights standards.

Our commissioners are appointed as independent members. The legislation states that we have to be as far as practicable representative of the community from which we come. Indeed, our commission is representative, mainly in terms of religious-political identity and also in terms of gender.

Of the two members who dissented, one was from the Ulster Unionist Party and the other was from the Democratic Unionist Party, but they are appointed as independent members of the commission and they dissented for different reasons. The DUP member dissented because he took the view that economic and social rights could not form part of the advice on a bill of rights, that political and civil rights were part of the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland and that handing economic and social rights for decision making to the Judiciary was taking power away from the Executive and giving it to the Judiciary, although we would disagree with his view. Clearly, in Canada, South Africa and other countries that have produced bills of rights, this has not turned out to be the case. The issues of social and economic rights and, I must add, cultural rights, because obviously in Northern Ireland cultural rights are extremely important, were all in the Good Friday Agreement.

It is also important we were asked to address the protections that were put forward as proposals in the Good Friday Agreement and this was what we responded to. We would suggest we are not handing power to the Judiciary. The Assembly, as Mr. Doherty especially will know, produces a programme for government and in that it produces priorities for action and sets out timetables and targets. This is how we see the social and economic rights, such as health and housing, being protected. They would be progressively realised through the Assembly and its Executive and there should be no regression. It falls then, we would hope, to a committee on human rights in the Assembly and a commission such as our own to monitor the progressive realisation of those rights.

In any case, some of these rights are immediately justiciable, such as the right not to be destitute, the right to have emergency treatment to protect the right to life if one is not being given the proper treatment or adequate medical treatment, or the right not to be subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment. As they are all immediately justiciable, no one should be terribly concerned about their introduction. However, we have also incorporated many rights that are already enshrined in legislation through the European directives, for example.

What we did and what any decent bill in any country should do is to put all these rights under one umbrella so that every human being in Northern Ireland can identify themselves in that bill. It is a good sign of normalisation in Northern Ireland that most of the rights and complaints we are asked to respond to currently concern issues of health, housing and disability, which is important.

The second person who dissented was Lady Daphne Trimble who, as is well known outside of the commission, represents as a member of the Ulster Unionist Party and the Conservative Party. She clearly has different views to the commission on what should be in a bill of rights and has dissented in terms of how we would implement and enforce the rights. For example, we suggest that the Human Rights Act remain in place and that new legislation should be brought in which includes the Human Rights Act plus our supplementary rights. On issues such as this, she would have a difference with us on the enforcement and implementation but also in terms of the extensive nature of these rights we have advised on.

We do not know what particular rights Lady Trimble would like to see in a bill of rights. One view we have heard is that there would not be enough rights around parades. I point out that a separate body has been established in Northern Ireland regarding parades which was led by Lord Paddy Ashdown. It came to a number of recommendations which we have addressed in our bill or rights. The freedom of movement is one example of an issue we were asked to address and did so, and another is the issue of sectarian harassment, which we considered in regard to the right to be free from violence and sectarian harassment. Indeed, we mention other forms of violence and harassment in our advice. Therefore, it is not the case we have not addressed the issues that have arisen in terms of that review. The issues around parading in Northern Ireland have perhaps been more often around a balancing of rights rather than the inadequacy or absence of rights, which is how we would have responded to that particular charge.

There have been a number of other charges. For example, Lady Trimble would have a dispute with us on political rights. The Good Friday Agreement spoke to the protection in future of proportional representation in a community as divided as ours. She has a concern that we are enshrining for ever more that particular protection. We say that it falls to the Assembly if it so wishes in the future to lift that protection either from its coalition government or with regard to cross-community votes on contentious issues. If it wishes to remove those in the future, it can do so by cross-party consent in the Assembly and can amend the Bill of Rights at some future time. However, these were protections we were asked to address and we did so.

Lady Trimble takes that view, and it may well be that people in the country responding to the consultation take a similar view, but we felt it would have been remiss not to speak to contentious issues that had caused some of the conflict and not to have addressed them in a bill of rights which was about protecting people in the future. As members can see, there are ideological differences, with some holding that social and economic rights should not be included and others seeing the conflict being resolved differently.

We will all work very hard to get cross-community consensus but perhaps in the end it may be impossible to get unanimous agreement on a bill in this country, as in any country. If we can build in as much consensus as possible, it would be extremely useful. The commission is a human rights commission and it would have been remiss of us not to have addressed the international standards or the particular circumstances as we saw them with regard to rights that were abused, neglected or restricted in the past.

Mr. Eamonn O’Neill

I support what Professor McWilliams has just said and refer it back to what I said earlier about the test we had regarding the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. Anyone who has taken even a simple look at the situation that produced all the trouble in Northern Ireland cannot but realise that social and economic matters did count, and it is unrealistic to suggest they did not. Therefore, it is inevitable they were going to emerge as issues we would feel should be regarded in some way in the future human rights legislation.

Everyone had agreed the test so the difficulty arose when some found themselves ideologically opposed to some of the suggestions. Almost all the other commissioners, including me, had particular issues at different times in the preparation of our advice. We fought our corner and ultimately accepted the view of the majority in a spirit of co-operation. Unfortunately, the two who publicly dissented did not do likewise and therein lies something that needs to be logged clearly. I believe — and I speak as an individual as well as a commissioner in saying so — this was because of party political influence.

Chairman

I thank the delegates for their outstanding presentations, their unique insight into Northern Ireland, the depth of their knowledge, the enormous amount of research they have done and the great impact they have made. They have brought their individual and collective experiences and knowledge of the situation to the table in a broad, positive and consensual way. I fully endorse the strong emphasis they have placed on human rights, on democracy and on the role of elected democrats as the representatives of the people. They have alluded to the fact that there are certain responsibilities that elected politicians must discharge and that they have no desire to impinge on that function but rather to support and enhance it. That is very obvious from the presentations they made. I categorically endorse the chief commissioner's statement that all human rights are universal. The hallmark of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the universality of those rights. That is very important for us all.

I am mindful of the views expressed by Oireachtas colleagues in regard to the Irish Human Rights Commission. Clearly, we would wish to be in a position to provide it with greater resources rather than curtail it. However, we have a serious financial problem in that the projected Exchequer deficit for this year is some €30 billion. We are being constantly barracked in Parliament and elsewhere for having too many bodies, authorities, commissions and committees, with too much public money being allocated to all of them. The Government has reviewed such expenditure in an effort to redress the serious expenditure problem we face. Against that background, it continues to be our desire to sustain the Irish Human Rights Commission. I am at one with the membership of the committee in this regard. We will do what we can to allocate resources as they become available and to support the delegates in their efforts to secure sufficient resources for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.

I am very cognisant of the delegates' hope that the Northern Ireland Office will consult them and will complete that process by the end of June. We will support that in every way we can. I understand the delegates want the British Government to put the necessary legislation through before the next election. That is a significant challenge even for us, at arm's length of the situation. We will do everything we can from an east-west perspective and a North-South perspective, with particular reference to the North-South Ministerial Council, to drive and support that agenda. Elected Members here and in Northern Ireland will do their utmost to promote this.

The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission wishes to advance a charter of rights for the island of Ireland. It is good for us all that there be a unity of purpose on the universality and replication of the rights of all our people, North and South. We fully recognise that a bill of rights is an integral part of the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. I express support for that on behalf of all members of the committee and all Members of the Oireachtas. We are at one in our desire to support the full implementation of the totality of the Agreement.

I also endorse the delegates' remarks concerning the United States President, Mr. Barack Obama. He has brought a new calmness to the world. He has very long, warm hands and he has stretched them out across the world. He has a brilliant intellect and his leadership and vision for the new global world is critically important for the future. If other leaders follow his vision and attitude, we can hope to eliminate the serious threat of conflict that has existed in the past and which remains in the shadows. We can all make a contribution in our individual and collective ways to ensuring a better world in which human rights are paramount everywhere, including on both parts of the island of Ireland and on our neighbouring island.

I warmly and sincerely thank the delegates for their thought-provoking and informative presentations. It is clear that great thought, extensive consultation and extraordinary commitment has gone into the work of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. It is important that we acknowledge that today. The road ahead may be difficult but it will be easier to travel because of the commission's work, which will act as a guiding roadmap in the future. Despite the challenges that will present, we can achieve our aims if there is consensus. I fully endorse the delegates' comments on the key role of the Assembly. It has fundamental responsibilities and duties and it must put together the plans and programmes the Governments can work to and support. It is through this vehicle, as well as through the two Parliaments, the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, this committee and the other elements of the democratic structure, that we can give sustainability to the goals, desires and aspirations expressed by the delegates. We fully support them in this regard.

Is there any other business? No. I will take guidance from members on the date of the next meeting because I realise members are subject to competing demands.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I have a proposal. The normal scheduling dictates that the next meeting would take place shortly before 5 June, the date of the local and European elections.

Chairman

My preference is for the last week of May.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

There was a reasonable attendance today but also a significant number of apologies, for which I am sure there is good reason.

Chairman

There are various committee meetings taking place today.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

As we approach 5 June, there will be a suspicion that people may be involved in other activities, as the elections approach.

Chairman

Democracy requires that it should be so.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Lest I find myself in the position of suspecting anybody of abandoning their responsibilities, I suggest we defer the next meeting until after the elections.

Chairman

Are members agreed on Deputy Ó Caoláin's proposal? Agreed. Our next meeting will take place in the second week of June. The secretariat will communicate with the relevant people and ensure we get the date right.

I thank the delegates again for attending the meeting. We will now proceed to the restaurant for lunch where we can continue our discussion in a more convivial atmosphere.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.10 p.m. sine die.