COMMITTEE ON THE Friday 11 August 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: The Committee met at 10.03 am. (The Chairman (Mr Wells) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Wells): Ladies and gentlemen, our meetings have settled into a well-tested format. Lunch will be delivered at 12.10 pm. There will follow a short adjournment, and, when the meeting resumes, I encourage members to take their places and continue their lunch. I expect the meeting to finish at 4.00 pm, which will probably be the case for each meeting from now on. I hope that no one needs to be reminded of the mobile phone issue. Members may put them in the hold, but they cannot bring them into the room. [Laughter.] Folk are still trying to slip their mobile phones in, keep them on silent mode, and receive text messages. I must insist that they are switched off. I say that at the beginning of each meeting, and during each meeting, I hear the little “beep beep, beep beep” that tells me that members are receiving text messages. The full complement of DUP members is now present. Therefore, we will go through the apologies and list the deputies. Lord Morrow, will you indicate who is representing whom from the DUP? Lord Morrow: I will do so if I can think clearly. Mrs Foster: Unfortunately, I am not Lord Morrow today; I am probably Ian Paisley Jnr. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a big improvement. Am I right to presume that Mr Poots is representing William McCrea and that Lord Morrow is himself? Lord Morrow: Yes. Mr McFarland: Mr Nesbitt is representing Mr Kennedy, and I am expecting Mr McNarry to arrive shortly. Mrs Long: I am myself, and Kieran McCarthy is David Ford. Mr A Maginness: I am representing Seán Farren. Ms Lewsley: I am representing Mark Durkan. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What about the SDLP’s third representative? Ms Lewsley: There is no one else coming. Mr Ferguson: Pat O’Rawe is representing Michelle Gildernew, and I am representing Conor Murphy. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Will a third member from Sinn Féin be attending? Mr Ferguson: No. Mr Nesbitt: I attended a meeting of the PFG Committee for the first time last Friday. Before the meeting, my colleague Alan McFarland said to me on the phone that my first words to the Committee should be to tell the Chair that I am Alan McFarland. I asked him what he meant, and he told me that I would be deputising for him. I would have thought that attendance would have been as simple as three members coming from each party. It seems odd to ask members to state who they are and to hear them say, for example, that they are Seán Farren or Alban Maginness. I accept that that is the procedure, but it struck me as odd to ask members who they are. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Each of the four largest parties, plus the Alliance Party, formally nominated three of their members to attend the Committee. However, confusion has arisen when a fourth member from a particular party has attended, and no one knew who was deputising for whom. That is why we ask members to state the member for whom they are deputising. The system has worked well, and the Committee has maintained a good, quorate turnout. Mr Nesbitt: As I say, I was curious to know why that happens. I thought that parties could count — Mr McFarland: To clarify, this is the Committee on the Preparation for Government, and three members from each of the four largest parties, plus the Alliance Party, attend its meetings. Parties are allowed to substitute their named members with members who are experts on particular subjects, which means that extra light can be shed on the topics that are being discussed. That is why members are brought in to deputise. The Chairman (Mr Wells): To prevent members swapping, with each pretending to be the same member, something that has happened, it is important to know whom members represent. Mr Nesbitt: Does that mean that if three members name themselves at the beginning of a meeting, there can be no duplication for the duration of that meeting? The Chairman (Mr Wells): There could be duplication, but the members would have to name the members whom they were replacing. For example, a member could replace Mr Smith who had been deputising for Mr Jones. I am sure that that is clear. Lord Morrow: It is, but I think that it should be left for now. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The next item on the agenda is to agree the minutes of the meeting of 4 August. They have been circulated. Are members content that the minutes are an accurate record of proceedings? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Normally we would move straight to the substantive issue, but we have received a letter from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Consortium — Mr Nesbitt: I am sorry, Mr Chairman, but I have another point to make. I do not disagree with the minutes, but I am conscious that although they show when a member enters or leaves the Committee room and show which members were present at particular times, Hansard reports do not. Members know the purpose of Hansard. However, Hansard reports do not show whether I was present for something or whether I did not speak or vote. That may be because I was not there or I declined to the opportunity to speak. Given that Hansard indicates certain timings, would it help with clarity if the times at which members enter or leave meetings were recorded in small italics in the Official Report? The reader would then know whether members had been present for particular debates. That is only a suggestion; I am not saying that it must happen. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Hansard lists — . Mr Nesbitt: I have mentioned this matter to officials. That is why I have held back until now. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We can check that matter with the Editor of Debates, Mr Burrowes. Hansard reports include references to the time every 15 minutes. The difficulty is that those must be cross-referenced with the Committee minutes. Mr Nesbitt: Mr Chairman, one cannot cross-reference those documents. The Chairman (Mr Wells): One can work out whether a member was in the room when a decision was made. Mr Nesbitt: I am sorry, Mr Chairman; one cannot do that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): If you check the minutes, you will see that they list very clearly when members arrive and leave. Mr Nesbitt: That is correct. For example, the minutes might state that I left the meeting at 11.05 am. However, one cannot detect from Hansard whether I was present for a certain discussion. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We can ask Mr Burrowes to consider that matter. Mr Nesbitt: I have asked officials about the matter. I hoped that a comment might have been forthcoming this morning. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Obviously, Mr Burrowes will be upstairs, listening to this discussion. He will look into the matter, and we will ask him to come back to the two Chairmen and to make a ruling. Mr Nesbitt: I am not trying to be awkward, Mr Chairman, I am just trying to ensure that there is clarity on who is present when a discussion takes place. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Members of Hansard staff are present at meetings to list members’ names as they speak, so that the voice on the recording matches the name in the record. Are members content that we seek clarification on that matter? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Members will have a copy of a letter received from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Consortium. In the letter, the Human Rights Consortium requests the opportunity to appear before us to make a presentation. I have mentioned the letter now, because there is little sense in discussing a bill of rights and coming back to the letter later. We have considered calling witnesses, and we took the view that, no matter how valid their relevance to the work of the Committee, if we went down the route of inviting one set of witnesses, inevitably — this being Northern Ireland — within five minutes that information would get out, and people would question why we took evidence from the Human Rights Consortium, but did not take evidence from whomever else. That is the problem that we face. So far, we have decided not to call witnesses unless a burning issue emerges on which we require further clarification from a group or an individual. However, because of time constraints, and having seen the amount of work that calling witnesses has created for the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland, that has been our position. However, Maggie Beirne has written to us to say that her organisation is keen to appear before us. What do members feel about that? Mr Nesbitt: I noted the discussion on that matter in the Hansard report, and the comments that I made last week. There is a distinction to be made between the two statutory bodies — the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission, which, as Government agencies, are tasked to deal with those two issues — and other interested groups. I would decouple them from, as you rightly say, a plethora of other interested groups. If we invited one group, where would we stop? The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is not the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission that has asked to appear before us; it is the Northern Ireland Human Rights Consortium. Mr Nesbitt: I am not saying that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has asked to appear before us. You raised this issue because Maggie Beirne and Patrick Corrigan asked to appear before us. Mr Chairman, you posed the question: if we invite one of those groups, where do we stop? I am trying to point out the distinction between the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission, and the rest of the interested groups. Ms Lewsley: I wish to clarify that the Human Rights Consortium is an umbrella organisation for the majority of those other groups. It is different from the Human Rights Commission in that it is a self-contained body. Mr Chairman, you have rightly pointed out that, at our last meeting on 4 August, we decided that we would prefer to get on with the work in hand, and then decide whether we wished to call witnesses for any type of evidence or questioning. I propose that we do that. Mr Poots: I second that. Mrs Foster: The DUP supports that contention. In her letter, Maggie Beirne clearly makes the point that she has met all the political parties. We are all very aware of the work of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Consortium. Therefore, unless there is some other burning issue to address, we should move on. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The caveat is that, if we feel that we need to go back to any group, we can. Are members content with that position and the decision to advise the Northern Ireland Human Rights Consortium accordingly? Members indicated assent. 10.15 am The Chairman (Mr Wells): The next issue is the revised list of rights, which has been broken down into headings. Are members content to proceed on the basis of those headings? I emphasise again that they are in no particular order of priority; the list simply gives us a structure in which we can debate the issues in a rational manner. Mr McFarland: Chairman, unfortunately I was unable to attend last week, but I see from the Hansard report that the Committee did not carry out the exercise that it did on the other topics that it has covered. That exercise involved giving some thought to issues that could be influenced by decisions that the Committee can make. In its other guises, the Committee decided that there were certain issues that it could flag up and make noises about but, in essence, would have to park either for the Assembly or others to deal with. Would it be worth bearing in mind what effect we can actually have on the matter that is under discussion? We can spend quite a long time going round the houses on lots of interesting stuff without making a difference to anything. I raise this matter because the agreement was specific about the bill of rights. It might be worthwhile to refresh our memories about what it says in paragraph 4 of “Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity” before getting into three hours of discussion on issues that do not fall within the agreement, around which the parties here are focusing their discussions. The Prime Minister referred to this, and Peter Robinson is on record as saying that we are here to try to improve and modify the agreement. Clearly, if we get into areas that fall outside that scope, we will be wasting our time. We have two meetings left to get through this enormous list, some of which is extremely complicated, so it would be helpful if we could go through the issues and note those that it is possible to deal with and those that it is not. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I do not think that there is any great disagreement about the parties’ desire to have a bill of rights. Looking at the submissions, everyone is agreed on that. Mr McFarland: May I read what the agreement says, Chairman? It states: “The new Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission…will be invited to consult and to advise on the scope for defining, in Westminster legislation, rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights, to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland”. That is a fairly clear definition of what we should be looking for in a bill of rights. It attempts to define the rights, specific to Northern Ireland, which are not enshrined in law. Previously, we discussed the wish of the Human Rights Consortium and others to include socio-economic rights —healthcare, and so on — in the bill of rights, but that is outwith the agreement. This Committee is about preparation for Government, about getting the Assembly up and running. However nice it might be to examine, in the future, whether the agreement got it wrong, the fact is that this is a wide topic. As colleagues have pointed out, if we start taking evidence from all the parties here and all the groups that believe that they should have the right to medical care, regardless of cost, we would be into a long and protracted discussion. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a valid point. However, as I found when chairing the discussions on the institutions, any issues that are major impediments to devolution for one or more of the parties were parked, to be dealt with at a later stage. There are issues on which parties disagreed but felt could be resolved after devolution. There are minor issues on which the parties agreed; indeed, all the parties have agreed on issues that we thought would be impediments. The Committee is agreed that there should be a bill of rights. There may be some argument as to its content; however, this is not the vehicle in which to discuss the contents. However, no member has stated that the omission of a certain issue in a bill of rights is a major impediment to devolution. Mr McFarland: Absolutely. I wanted to clarify that up front, rather than spend three hours discussing it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The proposed format is to allow each party a couple of minutes to outline its major concerns on each of the three headings, and then open up the discussion. Each party submission raised issue. No one party highlighted a bill of rights as a major issue. Mr Poots: Mr Chairman, some members seem to think that they can discuss everything but the items listed on the agenda. You asked whether members were satisfied with the headings. The third heading is listed as “Dealing with the Past and its Legacy”. It should be “the Past and its Legacy”, with the subheading “Dealing with the Past and its Legacy”. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I did not hear any objections to the list, but Mr Poots has raised that amendment to the headings. Mr Poots: That is how it is referred to in Hansard. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The heading is “the Past and its Legacy”, with a subheading of “Dealing with the Past and its Legacy”. Ms Lewsley: The heading is wrong. Mrs Foster: It is on page 14 of Hansard of 4 August 2006. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I was present for that discussion. Mr Poots is correct. However, it does not greatly change the thrust of our discussion. Before we move to the substantive debate, are there any other problems with the headings? Again, no reasonable issue will be excluded because it is not included on the list. Alan is right; we could spend a long time discussing the bill of rights. However, that will not make much practical difference to whether we discuss the more difficult issues. Mrs Long: Can we be clear? My understanding is that today’s discussion would be on rights and safeguards, which some parties have already specified that they wish to discuss. Thus far, the procedure has been that if a member specified an issue for discussion, we discussed it. The second issue is human rights and the third is parades. Those three subjects form today’s agenda. To cut short the discussion on the bill of rights and human rights does not actually progress the Committee, because those were the subjects for discussion today. Mr Nesbitt: I note, and concur with, what Naomi has said. She summarised correctly that it was agreed at the last meeting that one meeting would be spent discussing each issue. I am also very conscious that everyone around this table, and elsewhere, emphasises the importance of equality and human rights to democracy. To give a two-minute presentation, and to say that we must get through the issues, would demean those issues. We are supposed to be spending time dealing with those matters. I am here to spend some time, not two minutes, giving my views. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I did not make it clear. Each party will give a presentation, and then we will have an open discussion. The presentations are simply to start the ball rolling and to set the scene for the bill of rights. Any subsequent discussion will be open-ended, and members can discuss the topics for as long as they like. I was making the point that, further to Alan’s comments, this issue may not be a major impediment to progress because there is general agreement that there should be a bill of rights. There may be arguments as to the content, but there is not much disagreement as to whether there should be a bill of rights. Ms Lewsley: The time is now 10.25 am, and we have not even started the business. Naomi and other members are correct: we have an agenda, which I want to start. Many members will agree that we should not get into huge amounts of detail today. Hopefully, this discussion will glean some consensus and agreement on the way forward and how we progress that. We can consider the detail at a future date. I just want to get started. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The normal procedure is to take the parties in alphabetical order, which means that the Alliance Party will start. Mr Nesbitt: I agree with Patricia that we should get started, but she said that we would consider the detail at a future date. When will that be? Ms Lewsley: That needs to be agreed. Mr Nesbitt: We have four issues to discuss and four meetings in which to discuss them. That will take us into September. On which future date will we consider rights and safeguards? Ms Lewsley: That can be agreed during the discussion today. Lord Morrow: This is just a scoping exercise. The Chairman (Mr Wells): In the other formats of the Committee, we have discovered that certain issues can be resolved without the need for future debate. There are also one or two thorny issues on which we disagreed and to which we will have to return. Until we have the discussion, we will not know whether a bill of rights falls into one category or the other. The number of issues that we thought would be difficult, but on which we have agreed, has been surprising. To allow everyone a chance to speak, we will not limit the discussion. It is unfortunate that Naomi always ends up going first. Mrs Long: That is not unfortunate at all. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Naomi, could you start and give us a general overview. Mrs Long: May I seek clarification? Are we to make a presentation on all three topics — a bill of rights, human rights and parades? The Chairman (Mr Wells): No, we will deal with the three issues separately. Mrs Long: The Alliance Party does not make a distinction between human rights and a bill of rights. We will address the two issues together. The Alliance Party has been a long-standing supporter of human rights and supports the introduction of a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law, through the Human Rights Act 1998, went a long way to addressing human rights needs. However, the Act was drafted in 1948 and deals only with civil and political rights. Since then, several European and international conventions have been drawn up that deal with economic and social rights and the rights of persons belonging to minorities. The British and Irish Governments are signatories to those conventions. Those social and economic rights, and the rights of persons belonging to minorities, must be addressed. Therefore, the Alliance Party supports the creation of a Northern Ireland bill of rights, which should draw, to a large extent, on the relevant and appropriate sections of the European and international conventions. There will be further debate on whether the mandate of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which stems from the Good Friday Agreement, extends to advising the Secretary of State on the scope of a bill of rights and the drafting of that bill. We want to put on record that we support the Commission’s interpretation that its mandate does extend that far. The Alliance Party supports a round-table forum of political parties and civil society to engage in the process of drafting a bill of rights. However, we want to ensure that such a forum would not detract from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission’s role as the primary body advising the Secretary of State. The forum would market-test the current thinking of the Human Rights Commission and look for ideas during the drafting and consultation process rather than try to draft a bill of human rights from first principles. We want to reiterate a point that we made in our opening submission: we believe in rights for individuals rather than group rights. We support economic and social rights and rights for persons belonging to national minorities, provided they are framed in terms of the individual. Any such protections — that is those associated with persons belonging to national minorities — must be multi-directional and not applied to one section of society only. We are opposed to any explicit rights for unionism or nationalism. We are also opposed to any form of wording that would entrench a vague notion of parity of esteem and further institutionalise sectarianism. International norms also recognise the right of people not to be treated as part of a minority against their will, and that is an important right. We support a draft bill of rights that focuses primarily on general principles, the interpretation of which should be a matter for the courts During our discussions on this Committee, we should not try to delve into those issues in too much detail or negotiate individual aspects of what should, and should not, be included in a bill of rights. If we could agree the nature of a round-table forum, and its relationship with the Human Rights Commission, and so forth, we could make a useful contribution to the process. However, the actual drafting of a bill of rights should be left to the commission. 10.30 am The Good Friday Agreement envisaged that an all-Ireland charter on human rights, which has been subject to consultation, would be developed by the Northern and Southern human rights commissions. The Alliance Party sees the charter as a means of ensuring a similar high standard of protection in both jurisdictions — not as a dissolution of national sovereignty, which would be contrary to the Good Friday Agreement and the principles enshrined within it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Thank you, Naomi. That was an interesting point; Naomi decided to take the bill of rights and human rights as one topic. Members seem to be content to take them together. Obviously there is a huge overlap, so it would save time to deal with them simultaneously. Mr Nesbitt: Chairman, I wish to decouple them, but it does not really matter. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Will you agree to debate them in tandem? Mr Nesbitt: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The DUP will now address the issue. Mrs Foster: The human rights remit was set out in the Belfast Agreement of 1998 and the joint declaration of April 2003 extended that remit. The development of the NIHRC’s proposal for a round-table forum comes from annex 3 on page 20of the latter. The DUP believes that the NIHRC has exceeded its remit on a number of occasions and intends to exceed it when it comes to the bill of rights. The bill of rights should be confined to those areas of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that do not reflect adequately Northern Ireland’s specific circumstances. In response to your question, Chairman, the DUP is indeed in favour of a bill of rights for Northern Ireland, but only in relation to that narrow remit. That remit has been vastly exceeded to date, and people are still trying to push the boundaries. The terms of reference cover matters that are of special concern to Northern Ireland, but lengthy consultation by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has sought again and again to draw that out. The DUP has spoken to the Human Rights Consortium and other groups that raise the issue of economic and social rights. Clearly, many of the groups within the consortium have issues that need to be addressed. We have said that on many occasions, but we do not believe that the bill of rights is the correct vehicle for dealing with those issues. Issues such as the healthcare system should be tackled through legislation before the Assembly. Although it would be remiss not to point out that the cost of social and economic rights is a huge issue, it is not an overriding factor. The DUP believes that the best place for those rights to be outlined is in ordinary legislation. The proposed round-table forum has not been established to date. The DUP met with Minister Hanson several times to discuss the modalities of that forum, but there has not been any agreement. Agreement will be very difficult to achieve, given the history of unionism and its engagement with the human- rights agenda. I have long argued that the unionist community has nothing to fear and everything to gain from human rights. However, because of our history, human rights are seen, regrettably, as a nationalist issue. Work must be done to build confidence and a sense of ownership of human rights. If, when it does come about, the round-table forum can help to build that confidence, that would be most welcome. The DUP as a party continues to have fundamental concerns about the Human Rights Commission and its composition. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Sinn Féin will now address the issue. Mr Ferguson: The Human Rights Commission’s remit for consulting and providing advice on a bill of rights for the Six Counties is in paragraph 4 on page 16 of the Good Friday Agreement. I restate that, as it will always be our reference point. I welcome confirmation from the other members that that will also be their starting-point. In Sinn Féin’s opinion, however, the first Human Rights Commission failed on several levels to present to the general public a non-partisan rights-based approach to the more sensitive conflict-related issues that require safeguards in any bill of rights. That failure has led to hostility, suspicion and political polarisation on several key issues. For example, the commission made a dangerous attempt to dilute long-established safeguards contained in equality of opportunity legislation, such as community-designation monitoring Another example was the Human Rights Commission’s attempt to undermine the status of the Irish language, which is protected under the EU Framework Directive and the Good Friday Agreement. Furthermore, the Human Rights Commission has failed to provide clear direction on rights to reflect parity of esteem and the principles of mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities, as contained in the Good Friday Agreement. Those criticisms aside, and in the hope that we can progress to a more substantive bill of rights enshrined in law, Sinn Féin acknowledges the sterling educational and outreach work that the first commission did to raise awareness of rights in general. However, the bill of rights has, sadly, been in hibernation, and the team working on it is nowhere near bringing to a conclusion its advice to the British Secretary of State before the bill can enter the legislative process at Westminster. Sinn Féin therefore recommends that the bill of rights be progressed by means of the establishment of the round-table forum by the autumn. I welcome the fact that the Human Rights Consortium also referenced the need for the round-table forum to be established. Sinn Féin reinforces that by stating that an internationally appointed person must chair the forum. Both Governments and four parties at this table have agreed to the establishment of the round-table forum, which should engage in an open, transparent and wide-ranging grass-roots consultation process with civic society and the political parties. Sinn Féin recommends that the two Governments consult with established human rights bodies on potential chairpersons for the round-table forum. The two Governments must conduct a short, sharp consultation process with representatives of civic society to determine who will be their representatives at the round-table forum. It is also important that recommendations emanating from the forum be given due weight when the Human Rights Commission formulates its advice to the Secretary of State on the content of the bill of rights. The bill of rights must be as strong as possible and include, at its heart, a robust commitment to social and economic justice. The bill of rights must be placed in the legislative process at the earliest possible date, and it must be a document of enforcement, not of aspiration. Ms Lewsley: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to today’s debate, which represents a step forward. The Committee may not have a round table, but all parties are sitting around an oblong table and discussing the issue, and that is important. I want to point out at the beginning of my presentation, as I did at our previous meeting on 4 August, that I hope that any decisions that the Committee makes do not become preconditions to restoration. The SDLP, like many other parties, wants to see the best possible bill of rights for Northern Ireland, one in which not only political rights but socio-economic rights are reflected. Above all, the SDLP wants a bill of rights that everyone in Northern Ireland can buy into, so that the rights are not solely for nationalists or for unionists but for every single individual who lives in Northern Ireland today. The best way in which to reach agreement on a bill of rights is through a round-table forum that involves political parties and civic society. The chairperson of the forum should be a person of international standing, appointed by the two Governments and should be able to choose his or her own independent secretariat. The round-table forum should report its findings to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which in turn should report to the Secretary of State. The Human Rights Commission could also, at the request of the chairperson, contribute to the round-table discussions. Finally, the round-table forum should get under way without delay, and its establishment should not depend on restoration. As Arlene Foster said, that was agreed some time ago in the Good Friday Agreement and in the comprehensive agreement. Like the DUP, the SDLP has made numerous representations to Minister Hanson, and to Minister Spellar before him, to get round-table discussions up and running. The SDLP believes that the Human Rights Commission has made a vital contribution to rights in Northern Ireland. When it was first set up, the Human Rights Commission launched a consultation on a proposed bill of rights. It has a role to play, but that role should be an independent one, separate from the round-table forum. However, as I said previously, it could be called to appear before the forum. In a wider context, the SDLP would like not just a bill of rights for Northern Ireland, but an all-Ireland charter of rights. We want the devolved Administration to human-rights proof its policies in future. It is also important that the Administration engage with the Human Rights Commission and work with it to ensure that policies are human-rights proofed in all the Departments. I have outlined the SDLP’s main issues. Alban will deal with the parades issue. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Parades will be dealt with separately. It will be a slightly more contentious issue. Mr Nesbitt: I welcome this opportunity for the main parties in the Assembly to have a lengthy discussion about rights and, in particular, a bill of rights. I will have more to say later on a bill of rights, but, Chairman, I will subscribe to your guidance that we should take only a few minutes for our introduction. I will deal only with definitions now, and I will give a further explanation of our position later. It is clear from the agreement that we are to have rights supplementary to those in the ECHR, and that those rights will reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. One discrete sentence in the agreement outlines these additional rights, which are: “to reflect… the identity and ethos of both communities and parity of esteem”. Naomi Long mentioned international norms, and I agree with that comment. I am very clear about the definition of identity. It is one’s culture, language, education and religion. Article 5 of the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities describes it as such. I am also clear about what ethos means. It is defined as the attitudes, aspirations and feelings of a community. Culture is one’s customs and social behaviour. Parity of esteem means that people are given equal respect. Thus, I am very clear what a bill of rights is, as stated in the agreement. I am clear that equality of treatment in identity and ethos is also covered. The agreement also refers to equality of opportunity, which is dealt with by the Equality Commission. It is clear what a bill of rights should be. I note that the Alliance Party, the SDLP and others have stated that they wish to support economic and social rights. I will deal with that matter in due course. I will give one quotation at this juncture. I will not give unionist quotations in the hope that I will not be seen as being biased. The Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, which the Irish Government established in 1994, asked for various papers to be commissioned. Nothing has changed since then, but Prof Boyle, Prof Campbell and Prof Hadden made a submission to the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. Those of us who are old enough will remember that Prof Boyle is Kevin Boyle of the former civil rights movement. 10.45 am That submission made it clear that any bill of rights for Northern Ireland should include provisions to ensure that communal rights are guaranteed. They suggested incorporating the major provisions of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities into a bill of rights. I support that position, and I have written to that effect on numerous occasions. A bill of rights for Northern Ireland should be based on what is contained in the ECHR and in the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Once again, I thank everyone for being so succinct. The presentations have been easy to chair. Five members have set scenes. I do not detect any great dissension — it is more the minutiae on which members are homing in. Several parties referred to their impatience with the delay in the establishment of a round-table forum to consider a bill of rights. Do we have a proposal to advance that? Ms Lewsley: I should have said that the SDLP proposes that. There is consensus that members want a bill of rights, and the best way in which to achieve that is to set up a round-table forum, made up of political parties and members of civic society. Therefore I propose that we do that. Mr Ferguson: I second that proposal. If we are to get any dynamic into this process, a round-table forum must be set up by the autumn. We should not delay any longer. Such a forum will offer an opportunity for members to get widespread grass-roots involvement in consultation on the need for a bill of rights, and on human rights in general. We must do that as expeditiously as possible. I welcome my UUP colleague’s constant references to the ECHR. That should be taken as a minimum standard, but we must put the strongest bill of rights in place. We should not be prescriptive by implying that, if it is not in the ECHR, we should not accept it. Ms Lewsley: On a point of information, Mr Chairman. Are we not trying to agree on a proposal before we discuss the detail? Perhaps I am wrong. Mr Ferguson: I think you are wrong. It is usually useful to ask the member to give way. Ms Lewsley: I did ask. Mr Ferguson: I did not give way. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Committee protocol is that members normally give way on a point of information, and that certainly was a point of information. Mr Ferguson: I was in full flow. Mr Nesbitt: Will Mr Ferguson take a question before we come to the proposal? Mr Ferguson: Yes. Mr Nesbitt: He said that if something is not included in the ECHR, that does not mean that we should not include it, or words to that effect. In other words, he is being wide ranging. On numerous occasions, Sinn Féin has referred to international law. Only recently, Bairbre de Brún referred to it. Mr Ferguson’s party referred to the requirement for Israel to abide by international law; Dermot Ahern and Tony Blair talk about abiding by it; and Mrs Long talked about abiding by it this morning. Last week, I said that this debate we must have rigour and structure, so my question to Sinn Féin is simple: does it wish to abide by the rules of international law? Mr Ferguson: Sinn Féin supports the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr Nesbitt: I asked a simpler question than that. Mr Ferguson: I am sure that the member did, but let me finish. My issue with what he said is simple: we should not use the ECHR to prescribe or redevelop our bill of rights. The ECHR is the minimum standard. One advantage in setting up a round-table forum here is, I hope, that it will let the grass roots on this island, North and South, develop a bill of rights that is stronger than the rights that are enshrined in European law. The simple answer to your question is yes, but it should not prescribe what we do. Mr Nesbitt: Does Sinn Féin believe in subscribing to international law or not? It is quite a simple question to answer. I am prepared to subscribe to international law. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Let Mr Ferguson answer that. Mrs Long has been quite patient. Mr Ferguson: I thought that I did answer it. I said that, although we welcome the ECHR and accept its recommendations, it does not go far enough. It will not restrict either the debate that we, or the public, will have. We should not be constrained by a minimal framework. Mrs Long: There are a couple of issues. The Alliance Party agrees with Ms Lewsley’s proposal that a round-table forum be set up. We may need to explore other issues if that is the starting point; for example, the structuring and chairing of the forum. It must be chaired by someone of international standing, although not necessarily by an outsider. It could be chaired by a local person of international standing. So the proposal needs to be qualified. However, the forum does require that kind of leadership. The relationship between the round-table forum and the Human Rights Commission should be looked at closely. It would be good to explore people’s views on the roles of those two bodies. An independent secretariat is needed to service the round-table forum. There are other issues to be explored, but, in principle, my party agrees that a round-table forum should be set up. Mrs Foster: My party agrees that there should be a bill of rights for Northern Ireland, based on its rigid and particular circumstances. It is rich for members to talk about adopting a maximum approach. Although I am not an advocate of the Belfast Agreement, it is clear about what is to be included in a bill of rights. Sinn Féin is glad to move away from the Belfast Agreement when it suits it. The Belfast Agreement and the joint declaration mention Northern Ireland’s particular circumstances. That is where we believe the debate should be. Although my party can join the consensus that there should be a Northern Ireland bill of rights, it cannot, at this stage, agree that a round-table discussion should be set up. That is because of the way in which discussion on human rights has taken place since 1998. My party believes that the bill of rights will be subject to a cross-community vote in the Assembly, and therefore a round-table forum is not the way in which to proceed at present. There is no point in a round-table discussion until the Assembly is restored and until we see where we are with it. That is the DUP position. The Chairman (Mr Wells): May I check that with you? In earlier comments, you indicated impatience that the forum had not been set up. Mrs Foster: No, I did not. I said that my party has had discussions with the Human Rights Consortium, on the round-table forum. I said we had met Minister Hanson but that we had difficulties with the chairing and composition of that forum. Check Hansard on that. My party’s position is that the round-table forum should not be set up until the Assembly is restored. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will. What is the Ulster Unionist position? Mr Nesbitt: I refer specifically to the round-table forum. My party leader and I met with David Hanson. We met also with the Human Rights Commission and discussed the matter. My party’s position is clear. It is not opposed to a round-table forum, but it is mindful of the contribution that that could or could not make. We have severe reservations. My party does not cherry-pick the Belfast Agreement or international law. We subscribe to international law and to the tenets of the agreement. Every party around this table subscribes to the fundamentals of the agreement. It clearly states that there should be a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. To have a round-table forum would prolong the process. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission said in September 2001 that it had been working on a bill of rights since 1999. It then said it would be giving its advice to the Government in early 2002. Therefore, we have been working on a bill of rights for six years, yet we have merely scoped what should and should not be included in it. We received a letter from David Hanson on 28 December 2005. All the other parties received that letter. We should all be accountable, and it is good that this quotation from his letter will be recorded and will be available on the Internet. David Hanson wrote to my party leader, and I presume that he wrote to the other party leaders. He said: “The Commission plans to prepare advice during the first part of 2006, share that advice with shareholders in June and then forward its final advice to the Secretary of State in September 2006.” When I put that statement from David Hanson — who is responsible for the bill of rights — in the context of where are now in August 2006, it is no wonder that people are a little bit disillusioned. I even refer to the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference report of 25 July 2006, in which a round-table forum for the bill of rights was considered in a rather nebulous comment: “Prospects … on the establishment of a roundtable forum … were reviewed.” In Civil Service parlance, “were reviewed” could mean anything under the sun. We have a difficulty here. Our party is clear. We know what should be included in a bill of rights — and we know what that means grammatically. We are not opposed to rights. I have not yet spoken on economic and social rights, but I will come to those. We are conscious that six or seven years after the agreement, the scope for a bill of rights has not been put to the Government. One reason for that is that the Human Rights Commission went way beyond its remit. Now we plan to have a round-table forum. When we met with the Minister in January, he was talking about the forum meeting in September. We asked him why he was waiting until September. Do not ask me why, because he is the only person who can say why, in January, he was waiting until September to have a round-table forum. It is no wonder that we are behind: the Human Rights Commission cannot stick to its remit, and we have to have a round-table forum, which will only elongate an unnecessary process. The process should have been much clearer and simpler, and that could have and should have been done sooner. I hope that I am making myself clear. I do not oppose a round-table forum in principle, but I do not see the benefits of drawing the process out. Ms Lewsley: I am getting confused. Is Mr Nesbitt asking why we have to wait until September for a bill of rights, or does he mean a round-table forum? Mr Nesbitt: I mean waiting until September for a round-table forum. Ms Lewsley: He is saying why wait until September for a round-table forum, but he has just said that he does not agree with a round-table forum. Mr Nesbitt: I did not say that. I said that we are not advocating a round-table forum. We do not see merit in it because a bill of rights is simple. We are looking at scoping it. We have already taken more than seven years since early 1999, so why elongate a simple process that could be dealt with easily. In January, all we asked Minister Hanson was to tell us why, when he was suggesting a round-table forum, would he wait until September to form it? Ms Lewsley: Does the UUP support a round-table forum? Mr Nesbitt: If one is formed, the UUP shall participate, because it believes in advocating its case. It does not advocate a round-table forum, but it shall participate in one. 11.00 am The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Nesbitt, are you saying that if we seek consensus on this matter, the UUP would support a round-table forum? Mr Nesbitt: No. We do not see the need for a round-table forum, and we will not support one. However, if the Minister uses his authority to form such a forum, we will participate; we will not abstain. I hope that I have made that clear. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do you wish to make any specific proposal on that matter? Mr Nesbitt: I have no specific proposal to make on a round-table forum. Mrs Long: On several occasions, it has been stated that the context for work on a bill of rights is the framework that is set out in the Good Friday Agreement. Now, the interpretation seems to be that to claim that one is a supporter of the Good Friday Agreement, one must agree with its every dot and comma. A similar debate took place at the PFG Committee dealing with the institutions. Both the Alliance Party and the DUP argued that, if one takes that view, there is no discussion to be had on, for example, institutional matters. Rather, we should discuss the potential for improvement within the confines of the principles established in the agreement. Any suggestion that there is no discussion to be had on a bill of rights and how it is framed, because it is framed in a particular way in the Good Friday Agreement, does not reflect the wording of the agreement, which states that the Human Rights Commission: “will be invited to consult and to advise on the scope for defining, in Westminster legislation, rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights, to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, drawing as appropriate on international instruments and experience.” As part of that consultation and advisory process, the commission may decide that, for example, its terms of reference be reconsidered. After consultation, the commission may advise that issues concerning language and how those rights are structured be rethought. The definition of the commission’s job is quite clear. However, after consultation has taken place, advice that is given at that point is not open to interpretation simply by examining the terms of reference. Therefore, we must be very careful. Our view on human rights and our support for the round-table forum is clear. We believe that it is important that those matters be properly enshrined. However, we have concerns about the language that is used about the ethos and identity of “both communities”. We ask how that sits with those who are not members of the two main communities. We ask also how that sits when considering international norms and the rights of persons who associate themselves with national minorities. There is a difference. We have stated also our position on the right of people not to associate themselves with national minorities. We must consider that matter very carefully, and I suspect that the issue is not as simple as some members are painting it to be. We must engage in much deep discussion, particularly in the context of the changing situation in a Northern Ireland, in which we have ethnic-minority groups, mixed marriages, and those who dissent and prefer to identify themselves in a more pluralistic way. It is their right to do that. We must look at the way in which the matter will be framed. It is not as simple as stating that there is no work to be done. Mr Ferguson: Thank you, Mr Chairman. In my opening remarks on 4 August, I said that we must not hold human rights or a bill of rights to ransom. Patricia Lewsley referred to that earlier. Progress on those issues should not be subject to the restoration of the institutions. Comments by Edwin Poots and his party colleagues imply that, because they are prepared to hold the country to ransom by not nominating to the institutions or supporting the restoration of those institutions, the human rights of, and a bill of rights for, the rest of the country, North and South, should be held to ransom as well. That is a matter of concern. My colleagues from the UUP have said that they will not openly support the round-table forum, but that they will not openly oppose it either. Therefore, both Governments and four parties have agreed to promote a round-table forum. If that is the case, we need to progress it. Anyone who does not support that will simply be holding the work on human rights and bill of rights to ransom in the same way that the DUP is holding the country to ransom over the institutions. Ms Lewsley: I would like clarification on some points. My understanding of what Arlene said is that, unlike the UUP, the DUP is supportive of round-table discussions but has an issue about the timing. Mrs Foster: We do not believe that round-table discussions should be held in a vacuum. The institutions need to be up and running. There is no point in having a discussion on human rights when the matter has to come back to the Assembly and be subject to a cross-community vote. The other concern that we have, and we have communicated this to the Human Rights Consortium, is that it would be a round-table forum stacked heavily with human rights “experts” and that the majority of its members would not be those people — politicians — who make the decisions. Ms Lewsley: In principle, though, the DUP is supportive of a round-table-forum? Mrs Foster: I do not have the authority to answer that today. I have set out the problems that the DUP sees with it. The discussion should move on to the matter of cross-community support for a Northern Ireland bill of rights. In an attempt to get some kind of consensus, I can confirm that the DUP agrees that there should be a bill of rights. How we get to that stage is a matter that can be discussed later. Ms Lewsley: Dermot Nesbitt has made his party’s position clear on the issue of round-table discussions. He mentioned also the six years of debate about the bill of rights and the problem of trying to get consensus among the political parties. We were worried, for instance, that the British Government would introduce a watered-down version that would not do a lot for the people of Northern Ireland. At this stage, Chairman, I would like to change my original proposal and, perhaps, break it into two. As I said, it is great that all five parties are around this oblong table, talking about a bill of rights. I propose, first, that we support a bill of rights and, secondly, that we support a round-table forum. Mr Nesbitt: First of all, in reply to Ms Lewsley’s asking whether there is any difference between the DUP and the Ulster Unionists, I say with a smile, “Good try, Patricia”. There is no substantial difference in unionism on that level. I am not speaking on behalf of the DUP, nor could I even begin to. Mrs Foster: Please do not. Mr Nesbitt: However, I make this point seriously: unionism sees the need for a bill of rights; unionism is not opposed to rights. I believe that people should have economic and social rights. Also, as a grandparent, I believe that children should be protected, but that does not mean that children’s rights should be included in the bill of rights. Unionism’s position does not mean that it is opposed to rights; it is not. I repeat my party’s position that, for various reasons, it does not advocate a round-table forum. Such an approach would prolong the issue. Arlene cannot comment for her party now, but no doubt she will do at some point. I do not say that to be provocative, and I mean that. However, if there is a round-table forum, the UUP will participate. It does not absent itself from the issues. I shall address Naomi’s comments. First, she mentioned every dot and comma of the agreement. This is not a dot-or-comma issue — it is a substantive matter about what should be contained in the terms of reference for a bill of rights. Indeed, because there has been political disagreement and people have tried to go beyond the scope of the agreement, six years down the line, there is still no bill of rights. As Patricia rightly said, we could not agree. Secondly, Naomi questioned whether there was any use in discussing institutional matters. The discussion on institutional matters came from the comprehensive agreement of December 2004, which came from the Belfast Agreement, which said that the operation of the institutions would be reviewed. The Belfast Agreement provided for a review of the operations of the institutions. Therefore, a review of the institutional matters, the operations of the agreement and accountability of Ministers has already been agreed. It is not correct to say that discussing institutional matters is beyond the terms of the Belfast Agreement because that agreement provided for a review of institutional matters. Naomi said also that it was incorrect to say that there is no work to be done. I am not saying that. All I said was that the issues that must be addressed are very clear. Let us address them, and move to other subjects. I shall comment on economic rights later. Michael Ferguson made the point that if the Committee does not make progress, it will hold up the process. I do not want to hold up the process; I have never wanted to do that. We have constantly advocated that the Government and the Human Rights Commission address this issue as it should have been addressed long ago. We are not holding up progress; it is those who wish to interpret the agreement in a different sense who are holding up progress. Mr A Maginness: I shall make some general comments. A specific proposal has been put forward. We should make a decision on that, rather than continuing a rather elongated, and probably very academic debate, about the content of a bill of rights. That does not serve any great purpose. There is clearly a difference of political opinion as to the contents of a bill of rights. The question of its content can be resolved in the future. The proposed round-table forum is a mechanism for doing that. When the forum takes place is, again, a matter for debate. However, we will not resolve whether political rights alone are covered in the bill or whether social and economic rights will be included. There is a clear difference of political opinion on that. That will not be resolved today and, even if we spent the next number of days on it, we would not resolve it. For the sake of progressing our business, therefore, we should make a decision on the proposal. There appears to be general support for it. Arlene has indicated that she will require a further understanding from her party on the proposal, which is fair enough. Nobody objects to that, but there is no point in prolonging the debate on issues that have clearly been established. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a very valid point, Mr Maginness. The next members to speak are Mr Ferguson, Mr Poots, Mrs Long and Ms Lewsley. Given that nobody has opposed Ms Lewsley’s proposal to accept the concept of a bill of rights in principle, if we could reach agreement on that, those members could address the problems that some parties have with the round-table forum, and we could try to reach consensus on that. Is everyone content with Ms Lewsley’s proposal, supported by Mrs Foster, that the Committee supports the creation of a bill of rights for Northern Ireland? Is there any dissension? 11.15 am Lord Morrow: There was no dissension before we started. [Laughter.] Mrs Long: Perhaps we could create some dissension by talking about the issue a bit more. Ms Lewsley: I think that that is why we are trying to cut the debate short. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It was insisted that we air the subject. Lord Morrow: Perhaps you were hoping that dissension would arise. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I hope that dissension does not arise while I am in the Chair. Do members accept in principle that Northern Ireland should have a bill of rights? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will now move on to the second proposal, which is that the Committee supports the formation of a round-table forum to help to establish a bill of rights. The main issue seems to be the timing rather than the principle. Mr Ferguson: I want to pick up on something that Patricia said about the timing issue. I am at a loss as to know why Patricia wants to split hairs and reframe the proposal. The only outcome would be that, on paper, the five parties agreed to a round-table forum. Ms Lewsley: I did not split the proposal about the round-table forum. I put the bill-of-rights proposal and the round-table-forum proposal together. Mr Ferguson: I do not mind that we have on record that all five parties agreed to that. Like Alasdair — Ms Lewsley: Do you mean Alban? Mr Ferguson: Gabh mo leithscéal. Like Alban, I want to progress the proposal that we agree to the round-table forum meeting either this November or as expeditiously as possible. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a pretty specific proposal. Mr Poots: I want to respond to earlier comments made by Michael Ferguson about holding up the process. It is not my colleagues who are engaging in criminal activity and pumping acid from diesel laundering into our rivers and streams. It was not my colleagues who murdered Denis Donaldson, and it is certainly not my colleagues who are holding up the process. It is the criminal terrorists in the IRA who are holding up the process by not going away. Mr Ferguson: I ask my colleague to allow me to respond to that. It would be remiss of me to sit here and allow a member to suggest that I am in any way associated with any form of criminality. That is offensive, and I want that to be noted as a matter of record. I ask the member to desist from making such correlations in his contributions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am pretty certain that Mr Poots did not name any individual. Mr Ferguson: That may be so, but his remarks are offensive, unacceptable and disrespectful. Mr Poots: The fact that the IRA still exists is offensive. As I understand it, both Sinn Féin and the IRA are part of the republican movement. No one has denied that in the past. If Mr Ferguson were to consult his leader, perhaps he would explain the republican movement to him. The paramilitary wing of the republican movement must disappear if we are to make progress by November. We will not progress a bill of rights in a vacuum. A bill of rights for Northern Ireland needs the support of both communities, and the only way to identify that support is through the parties and an active, working Assembly. However, the DUP is not holding up the process; the paramilitaries, who will not go away and leave the people of Northern Ireland alone, are doing that. One party in the Assembly, which aims to get into Government, is associated closely with that paramilitary organisation; they are the people who are holding up the process. Mrs Long: May I respond briefly to Dermot’s interpretation of my comments? When I made my dot-and-comma comment, it was not to suggest that it was not a substantive point. It was simply to say that it was established in other meetings that we are not confined to discussing these issues only in the context of the Good Friday Agreement. For instance, we have discussed alternative institutional arrangements and the devolution of policing and justice in much more detail than the Good Friday Agreement ever did. We should not become prescriptive; we should allow parties to raise the issues that they wish to at these sessions. If consensus cannot be achieved, it will be on the record. However, the right to raise issues remains. It would be a backward step to remove that right from the Committee. Mr Nesbitt: Will you take a point of information? Mrs Long: I will. Mr Nesbitt: I am glad that you have clarified that your dot-and-comma comment referred to a substantive issue. The phrase “dot and comma” implies minutiae of detail, as distinct from substantive issues. You talk about the devolution of policing and justice. Of course, we can refer to the agreement; it is clear that that is open to discussion, as are the institutional arrangements. However, the agreement is grammatically specific as to what the bill of rights should contain. Mrs Long: What is specific are the issues on which the Human Rights Commission is to consult and advise. The extent to which its advice and consultation may change the general context is not specified. That is a reality of consultation. Mr Nesbitt: It is not reality. Mrs Long: The other issue that you mentioned was the comprehensive agreement, which you outlined in the context of a review of the agreement. The comprehensive agreement went further on the arrangements for a review of the Belfast Agreement than those envisaged in the Belfast Agreement. Government recognised that even within the context of the comprehensive agreement — which was neither comprehensive nor agreed, incidentally — Mr Nesbitt: Will Mrs Long take another point of information? Mrs Long: No, I will not. I want to finish my own point before I take anyone else’s points. Government recognised that there were issues that would have come under the review arrangements that were set out in the agreement but which were not dealt with in the comprehensive agreement. At a meeting of the PFG Committee dealing with institutional issues, it was remarked that the discussions in the PFG Committee dealing with rights and safeguards would not completely encompass all the matters that could fall into the review of the agreement. From that perspective, the suggestion emerged that a Committee might be set up to review the institutions. The idea that the two are completely coterminous is nonsense, and that has been established in our previous discussions. As regards the round-table forum, the Alliance Party believes that, at this point, work could be done to establish the relationship that it would have with the Human Rights Commission and the way in which it would be structured. None of that requires devolution to have been restored. A bill of rights for Northern Ireland should not be a hostage of the political context. It should be allowed to proceed. There is no guarantee of devolution in the autumn. The Alliance Party still believes that the introduction of a bill of rights is an important matter that must be addressed. We do not see waiting for devolution as a way to progress it. If it must go via the Secretary of State and through Westminster legislation — as would be required anyway — we would be content for that to happen. Our distinct preference is that it should come through a devolved Assembly, but, in either case, we believe that the work must continue. We support the SDLP’s proposal that the round-table forum be set up now as opposed to post-restoration. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There seem to be two proposals. One is that there should be a round-table forum, and the other is that it should meet in November, which is pretty specific. Lord Morrow: Is that 23 November or 24 November? Mr Nesbitt: Who is trying to spin it out now? Ms Lewsley: For the third time, I will say that I believe that even meetings such as today’s are a big step. There are five political parties around a table, talking about the issue. We are trying to find consensus on the principle of a round-table forum. My proposal is that we get consensus that we will support a round-table forum. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is important that the DUP come in on this, because it has a difficulty with the timing of the proposal. Mrs Foster: I am not saying that the DUP will not consent to the SDLP’s proposal at a subsequent meeting, but I cannot give its consent today. Some members seem to think that just because four parties have signed up to something, we will go ahead with it. This is a scoping Committee that works by consensus, and I wish that some members would get with the game. Naomi has said that we need to start discussing human rights. The DUP will continue to discuss human rights with all relevant parties and to put forward its opinion that the bill of rights should not be the vehicle for all rights, a point that Dermot made too. There are other vehicles for introducing economic and social rights, and the DUP wants to explore those options with some of the interested parties. Naomi said that the introduction of a bill of rights should not wait until the Assembly is up and running. My response is simply to ask how else could cross-community support for a bill of rights be tested. The best way to test support is in the Assembly. Given the non-engagement of the unionist community with the human rights agenda, a cross-community vote in the Assembly would be vital to testing its acceptability to the entire community, which is what we are striving for. The Chairman (Mr Wells): After Mr Nesbitt has spoken, we will vote on Ms Lewsley’s proposal. Mr Nesbitt: If I may use the phrase in a different context, there is a clear, inextricable link between establishing a round-table forum and having more substantial rights than those contained in the Belfast Agreement. In June 2005, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Consortium brought us its proposed bill of rights for Northern Ireland, which said that: “Such rights were to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland and, taken together with the European Convention on Human Rights, would constitute a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.” Of course, a sentence describing the particular circumstances was cleverly omitted. I even looked to the words of Ann Hope for a definition. On 3 February 2003, when speaking on behalf of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU), in answer to why there should be social and economic rights, she said that it was: “to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, as it is charged to do”. Of course, it is charged to deal with the particular circumstances, but Ann Hope omits to define them also. I could go on and on. Amnesty International says exactly the same thing. I leave you with one further comment: the Committee for the Administration of Justice (CAJ) said in the January 2006 issue of its ‘Just News’ publication that: “CAJ has long argued that any Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland must protect socio- economic rights on a par with civil and political rights”. I agree that economic and social rights should be protected, but that is different from saying that it must be done through the bill of rights. I draw that distinction, but other parties have not, and some of their phraseology has been mischievous, as they have interpreted “particular circumstances” as meaning any particular circumstances. Ms Lewsley: May I ask that the vote on my proposal be deferred to a future meeting, not because some members are unwilling to take part, but because their circumstances require them to seek direction from their parties? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Will the DUP be in a position to give a view on Ms Lewsley’s proposal next week, Mrs Foster? Mrs Foster: I hope so, yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is that sorted out. We have given the issues of human rights and a bill of rights a good airing. Mr Nesbitt: We have not, because I wish to talk about social and economic rights. Will we discuss that next week? The Ulster Unionist Party puts on record its support for economic and social rights as distinct from a bill of rights. I am quite happy not to talk about that now if I can speak on the principle of economic and social rights when we return to the matter next week. 11.30 am The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have caught the drift that you are in favour of that, because you have mentioned it at least three times. Mr Nesbitt: Each time I mentioned it, I said that I want to put on record the fact that the UUP is for economic and social rights. This is an important Committee; it is a Committee of record. Ms Lewsley: With the greatest respect, everyone has raised the issues of a bill of rights and socio-economic rights, but none of us has gone into the detail of what we mean by that. I do not know whether this is the place to open up that whole debate. The proposed forum or a consultation on a bill of rights would give us the opportunity to discuss what we mean by a bill or rights and what it should contain. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will be in the Chair next Wednesday. Mr Nesbitt, you have my assurance that you can raise the issue then. Mr Nesbitt: Next Wednesday? The Chairman (Mr Wells): No, hang on — Mr Nesbitt: You will not be in the Chair next Friday. The Chairman (Mr Wells): No; you are right. Mr Nesbitt: Mr Molloy — dare I say — your partner, will be in the Chair next Friday. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The other Chairman will be in the Chair next Friday. We can contact him to make certain that the matter can be raised. Mr Nesbitt: I want to make this absolutely clear. The UUP has been pilloried at many forums because of claims that the party is not for various rights. Hansard is covering this Committee, and I wish to put on record the party’s position on economic and social rights. Mr McFarland: My understanding is that we were to first discuss the bill of rights — and we had a good discussion on that — and then move on to human rights. Presumably, it would be possible to raise a number of issues during the discussion on human rights. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I take the view of the parties to my left that there is no point — Mr A Maginness: There is no point. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is no point because, until we hear the DUP’s view, there will be no consensus on establishing a forum. Arlene is not opposing the proposal — she simply cannot tell us the party’s position today. However, she will be able to do so at next week’s meeting. The issues that Mr Nesbitt has raised would be better addressed by that forum, if it is to be set up. It is not the Committee’s role to deal with those issues. Ms Lewsley: It is not our place to go into the detail. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Sorry, Mr Ferguson, I did not call you because I thought that if there was no chance of reaching agreement on the general proposal to establish a forum, there would be even less chance of reaching agreement on holding a forum meeting on 22 November. However, if you insist on putting forward your proposal, I will certainly allow you to do so. Mr Ferguson: I am happy enough for the record to show that I reiterated the importance of holding round-table forum talks. Dermot has been at pains to point out that we have dilly-dallied for over seven years. The Committee is now agreeing to put off the decision for another week, so that we can all agree next week that there should be a bill of rights, but that perhaps it should be introduced in 2010. Mrs Foster: We have already agreed that there should be a bill of rights. Mr Ferguson: The problem is that we must get the forum up and running if we are to make progress on the issue. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do you want to put your proposal that a forum be set up by 22 November? Mr Ferguson: I am happy enough for the record to show that Sinn Féin has requested that. Mr McFarland: It is worth reminding ourselves that the parties raised issues of concern to them during the past two months’ discussions. It was agreed that any issue about which a party had concerns could be put on the list for discussion. It was also agreed that if parties raised an issue belatedly, they could still add it to the list. No party was to be prevented from raising an issue for discussion. Chairman, you were an advocate of that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Absolutely. Mr McFarland: I know that other members do not wish to discuss what Mr Nesbitt wishes to discuss, but the Ulster Unionist Party Assembly Group (UUPAG) wishes to have a discussion — Ms Lewsley: It is not that we do not wish to discuss it; we do, but we just do not feel that this is the appropriate time. Mr McFarland: However, there have been occasions in the past two months when four of the parties have thought that the fifth was blethering about something about which they should not have been blethering, but we went along with it, because that was the essence of the Committee. [Laughter.] Ms Lewsley is absolutely right; it is the first time that the five parties have been in a room with the option of discussing any issue that any party wishes to discuss. It has never before been the case that parties have said that another party has no right to raise an issue because the time is not right to do so. I understand that members wish to bring it up. My point is that Mr Nesbitt has made it quite clear that he would like to say something about these issues. Although we have come around to the bill of rights discussion — and we are on the verge of parking it, which seems sensible to me — there seems to be nothing to stop Dermot — from discussing whatever he wishes under our next topic, which is human rights. Ms Lewsley: Exactly. Mr Nesbitt: And I shall. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Throughout the debate, we have moved back and forth from the bill of rights to human rights; therefore, I have taken this debate as being a debate on both subjects. If Mrs Foster attends the Committee next Friday and says that the DUP is content to have the round-table forum established, the Committee, if it has any sense, will decide that social and economic rights should be discussed at that forum. Mr McFarland: That is in order, and we are happy with that. However, if Mr Nesbitt — Mr Nesbitt: I have told you to call me Dermot. Mr McFarland: If Dermot wishes to say something, and we have never before told a member that he or she cannot say something — The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Nesbitt is correct that I will not be in the Chair next Friday. We are out of sync because I chaired Wednesday’s Committee. I will ask the other Chairman to assure Mr Nesbitt that social and economic rights will be raised next week, after Mrs Foster’s update on the DUP’s position. Mr Nesbitt: Alan correctly said that no one has been precluded from speaking before on this rubric. I have not always been here, but I will take his word for it. Body language is important. I am perturbed, as I noticed that when I said, “And I shall”, Ms Lewsley gave a big sigh and looked at the clock, as if to say that she does not want to listen to a discussion on the bill of rights and human rights. I find that disturbing. Ms Lewsley: I am sorry. Mr Nesbitt: Those are important matters that we want to discuss. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The question is when. Mrs Foster: If Dermot feels so strongly, he should be allowed to make his points today, and if other parties wish to engage in the discussion, that is a matter for them. Mrs Long: I agree. My point was that this discussion should be as wide ranging as members wish. However, I caution people against reading too much into people’s body language in these meetings. For example, Lord Morrow looks very relaxed, but I assume that it is not because he is disinterested in what is happening. Reading too much into people’s body language would add a complicated layer to the Committee. Lord Morrow: I am relaxed because I simply cannot wait to hear what Dermot has to say. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It seems that we have consensus to allow Mr Nesbitt to comment on social and economic rights. Ms Lewsley: I am not trying to stifle debate in any way; I am merely trying to get as much work done as possible and get consensus around the table, so that the meeting will be productive. Some Members: Hear, hear. Ms Lewsley: It is not that the SDLP does not wish to participate in the debate on socio-economic rights; it is a question of the timing of that debate. Mr Nesbitt: I am pleased that Patricia said that she wishes the meeting to be productive, because that is why I want to mention economic and social rights under “Human rights”. It is the first time that the five parties have sat around the table to discuss human rights, and it is good that we express our views. We should not be stymied on this all-important issue. Economic and social rights came to the fore through legislation, not through bills of rights, in the Factory Act 1833 and the Coal Mines Act 1842. The statutory reports on those gave credence to economic rights. Those economic rights were based in statute. We want rights, but it is a question of the vehicle by which we get those rights. That is why I encourage members to recognise that there are more vehicles by which we can get rights than simply a bill of rights. The welfare state today is all about economic and social rights. It is a rights-based welfare state, and it is based in law. I am sorry that Alban is not here, because he is the lawyer — in a sense. Ms Lewsley: It has nothing to do with his body language. Mr Nesbitt: I mean no disrespect by that. I am not talking about a charitable dimension to the welfare state, but about the welfare-to-work programme, which is positive, whereby one tries to get work. We are talking about benefits for all. The European Social Charter, which the UK signed up to in 1999, is about economic and social rights. Yesterday, for example, I found the following website. On the website www.adviceguide.org.uk, I found some 18 pages of advice on economic and social rights. Those rights, which relate to work, holidays, holiday pay, sickness, health and safety, notice of dismissal, are enshrined in law. Should, for example, an employer tell his employee that he can have only two weeks’ holiday a year, the law can overrule the employer. There is a legal right to a minimum of four weeks’ holiday a year. Pay rights are dealt with on another page of the website. Workers are entitled to be paid if they cannot work because they are off sick, on holiday, on maternity leave, paternity leave or adoption leave. The website provides complete lists of pay rights and basic rights at work. There is a plethora of economic and social rights in law. Most people who advocate a bill of rights state that most of that will have to be manifest through law anyway, because rights provide the framework upon which the law is built. The law is already there. Therefore I cannot understand what economic and social rights are not already in place. The Institute of Directors’ submission was clear about that. I leave members with a good comment that I forgot to mention on why rights should not be broadened out: “It is our view that any issue which falls outside the reconciling objectives and the specific terms of the Belfast Agreement should not be included in the Bill.” The reference is to reproductive rights, and it was written by the Catholic bishops of Northern Ireland in their submission to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, in January 2002. The Ulster Unionist Party’s position is clear. It is for economic and social rights, and for the rights of the child. We are not opposed to any of those rights. However, that is not what the Belfast Agreement was about. That is not about a dot or a comma but about a substantive element of the agreement. Mr Poots: I assume that the Committee has completed its discussion on the bill of rights. Mrs Foster: That is the point that I was trying to make on the bill of rights. I hope that Mr Nesbitt will agree with me that it is not necessary that we put everything into a bill of rights. There are other legislative vehicles. Dermot, I have said it already — Mr Nesbitt: May I interject? As I tried to say earlier to Patricia Lewsley, she has had a good try at trying to split us, but she did not succeed. Mrs Foster: Absolutely. You and I will never be split up. Ms Lewsley: I am guilty of so much this day, I am telling you. [Laughter.] Mr Nesbitt: Arlene made a serious point, to which I gave a serious response. There is more unanimity in our discourse on this side of the table than may be perceived outside. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Far be it from me to break up the love-in between Dermot and Arlene. We are not finished, as some members have indicated that they want to make their views known on what Mr Nesbitt has said. Mr Poots: I thought that the Committee was moving on to discussing human rights. Mrs Long: This debate has been useful in that it has clarified the parties’ positions. The Alliance Party referred to economic and social rights; however, it is not prescriptive as to how those rights are to be protected. Those protections are necessary, but they do not need to be included in a bill of rights. There is less distance between our positions than might have been assumed at the beginning of the discussion. The bill of rights should be directed towards protecting equality of opportunity, treatment and access; equality under the law; and minimum standards of labour conditions, healthcare, education and the environment for everyone in the community. A balance must be struck, however, so we do not offer unqualified support. Voters have the right to choose a Government, who will direct public spending in particular ways and prioritise different issues. That must be done in such a way that the Government retain the flexibility to prioritise certain aspects. Our stance is that necessary protections must be provided. However, the rights of Governments and Assemblies to direct public spending in particular ways must not be interfered with. We are not talking about the all-encompassing rights agenda that some people have suggested, as that would prescribe certain actions that the Government could take. 11.45 am Mrs O’Rawe: I have listened to members’ views on social and economic rights. Sinn Féin believes that those need to be ingrained firmly in a bill of rights. We would welcome the Human Rights Commission’s acknowledgement that social and economic rights constitute an area of work that it will be concentrating on over the next few weeks. Ms Lewsley: That detail can be ironed out when we debate the content of the bill of rights at the round-table forum. We will have our opportunities, as political parties in civic society, to decide what should be included and what should not. Mr Nesbitt frequently makes the point that rights are enshrined in legislation, so what is the problem with including them in a bill of rights? Mr Nesbitt: There is an expectation gap. People think that if they have a right to something, they are entitled to it. Money determines allocation. Just because we have a right to something, we do not necessarily manifest or receive the outworking of that right. I have a problem in attending seminars organised by the Human Rights Commission or others at which experts tell us that we need social and economic rights. I will give two examples: on 11 November 2005, the University of Ulster’s transitional justice institute hosted Prof Sandra Liebenberg from South Africa and Prof Csilla Kollonay Lehockey from Poland, and each said how important it was to have economic and social rights. However, South Africa is the third most unequal country after Brazil and one other in the world, and people there did not have any social and economic rights. Poland is moving from a centralised communist society to a libertarian market economy, whereby it needs a lot of social and economic rights. In the UK, where we are residents — I choose the word “residents” instead of “citizens” — there are legal rights that places such as South Africa and Poland do not have. I do not need to be lectured to, in the best of senses, by scholarly professors from South Africa and Poland who say how important it is to have social and economic rights. I say to them, “You need them, but we do not need them here because we already have them.” Mr Ferguson: I want to reinforce the comments from this side of the table on the need for social and economic rights to be included in a bill of rights and, after that, to be enshrined in law. It would be remiss of the Committee to presume on the good will of any Government on social and economic justice given the history of the Six Counties since partition. We are sitting in this room because of the Good Friday Agreement. We had the agreement because of bad government and because of a history of discrimination and inequality. That is the very reason why we need to ensure through a bill of rights that that does not happen again. Those rights must also be enshrined in law so that we have protection before the law, whether that be for individuals or groups. It is important that we do not forget our history and why we are here sitting in this room today. Mr Nesbitt: Mr Ferguson said that discrimination was one rationale for the Belfast Agreement. That will be for another day. Next week, we will lead with equality, as I mentioned. Mr Ferguson: I look forward to that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have had a composite discussion on the bill of rights and human rights. Is there any issue under “Human rights” that was not dealt with during that discussion? Mr Poots: There are, perhaps, several issues that have not been addressed. I would like to address the issue of the Human Rights Commission. That body was established by the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which stated: “The Commission shall promote understanding and awareness of the importance of human rights in Northern Ireland”. Prof Brice Dickson said in 1999 that the commission’s role includes: “convincing people, especially those perhaps of a unionist disposition that human rights are for all, not just for one particular community”. Looking at the history of the Human Rights Commission, it is clear to me that that has not been done. A particular problem with the Human Rights Commission is the balance of its make-up. At its outset, no one sat on the Human Rights Commission who represented my political views. I was very surprised that, of all the people in Northern Ireland who have similar views to mine and those of my party, no one was deemed capable of sitting on the Human Rights Commission. That was even more surprising when one looked at some of the people who did sit on the commission. I am well aware that a number of people who were very well qualified to sit on the Human Rights Commission were rejected in the most recent round of appointments. It has been hard to establish why that was. In fact, there is no means of finding out why that was. If we have a Human Rights Commission that is unbalanced in the first instance, how is it to bring on board people whom it wishes to persuade that the human-rights agenda is inclusive and for everyone? We must look at the current imbalance in the make-up of the Human Rights Commission. Our party recommended that a deputy commissioner be appointed to the Human Rights Commission to help to re-establish some balance. We continue to recommend that. As for human rights per se, much of what a bill of rights would deal with is a matter for Government bodies. In Northern Ireland, there are people who wish to do the job of Government bodies. For example, there are people who wish to engage in policing without conforming to any bill of rights. Instead, those people conform to the rights of the street and of the back alley. There is not much point in addressing a bill of rights to Government while ignoring what is going on in our backstreets, where paramilitary organisations are still evicting people from their homes, exiling people and brutally attacking individuals. We cannot address a bill of rights to the Government in isolation from the fact that paramilitary organisations still exist in Northern Ireland and are still dispensing rough justice to individuals. That must be dealt with. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do you propose that the Human Rights Commission should appoint a deputy commissioner? Mr Poots: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Does any member wish to comment on that or raise other issues about human rights? Mr Nesbitt: I am conscious that it is almost noon, and if there is nothing more to be said on human rights, we shall discuss parading. We were supposed to be here until 4 pm to talk about human rights, which is a very substantive issue. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I suspect that the parading issue might take some time. Mr Nesbitt: Perhaps not. We have had a very quiet summer. Who knows? I view human rights as a more general matter than a bill of rights. I am talking about human rights that are additional to a bill of rights. We have talked about identity and ethos. This is why I asked Sinn Fein earlier whether it abides by international norms. I think that the answer was yes, and I hope that Hansard reflects that. However, that was not entirely clear. Mr Poots: It was a qualified yes. Mr Nesbitt: I note that UNISON, the public services union, made it very clear that all our citizens are entitled to protection by the highest international standards of human rights and civil liberties. We may not agree on whether we are British or Irish, but we can all agree that we are citizens of the European Union. I ask for the same rights — no more or no less — as other citizens of the EU. Those rights are enshrined in article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Moreover, article 5(1) of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that no party should: “engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights or freedoms recognized herein”. In its mission statement, the Human Rights Commission says that it uses international human rights standards as a yardstick. Some of the most sensitive issues are human-rights issues; for example, cross-border, or North/South, co-operation. As I said at the meeting on 4 August, democracy works on the basis of an understanding and an acceptance of human rights. We are in favour of cross-border co-operation on the basis of the agreement as ratified by referendum. Co-operation must be for the mutual benefit of both sides, and both sides must agree, which means unionism and nationalism. The comprehensive agreement of December 2004 did not seek to change the North/South-co-operation dimension. My difficulty is that my right is being denied by the Government’s proposals. On 6 April 2006, the Prime Minister said that North/South co-operation was for the express recognition of the identity of the two aspirations. That was not what was agreed in the referendums. He is going beyond the agreement of an international treaty and beyond international norms. He is siding with the Sinn Féin perspective, which is not what the people of Northern Ireland agreed by referendum. The written record will show that. Human-rights standards place great importance on the rights of the majority. That is clearly enshrined in article 20 of the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which states: “any person belonging to a national minority shall respect the national legislation and the rights of others, in particular those of persons belonging to the majority”. The majority clearly expressed a view on the form that North/South co-operation should take. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, in changing the terms of reference for North/South co-operation, is denying my right under article 20. Even worse, if there is no devolution after 24 November, the Prime Minister has said that a more rigid will shall be imposed from outside. The Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, made it very clear that that would marginalise the entire political process. The Prime Minister will put everything in Northern Ireland, including its elected representatives, into cold storage if a form of government is not signed up to, yet he is predisposed to co-operation not being based on an international treaty — namely, the agreement between Belfast and Dublin. There is a general rule in international law that, where treaties affect minorities, which could include those living in Northern Ireland, those minorities participate in the agreement to guarantee their rights. We would be denied that right after 24 November 2006. The Prime Minister is not acting in line with international humans rights, looking to the Office of the High Commissioner on National Minorities in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Remember what we are doing: we are talking about preparation for government. If we are to enjoy our human rights, full participation is clearly required, particularly on issues that affect us. The two Governments are proposing that we be totally marginalised from participation. 12.00 noon I am concerned about the Government’s position on wider human rights. The Government have ratified a convention, which they are obliged to implement, that they shall create — not that they might, or that they think it right or wrong — effective participation in Northern Ireland, particularly on decisions that affect us. My final point is on the wider dimension of human rights in relation to the intrusive nature of the neighbouring Government. For the record, the Venice Commission has considered the relation of a kin state — in this case, Ireland — to its kin minority, the nationalist population in Northern Ireland, residing in a home state, namely the United Kingdom. The Venice Commission stated clearly that a kin state could only give preferential treatment to its kin minority in education and culture, save for exceptional cases. I am not sure where Sinn Féin’s desire for speaking rights in the Dáil fits into that. Let me be very clear, in case members wonder why I mention that: Sinn Féin prefaces its wish for speaking rights in the Dáil by saying that it is a basic right and entitlement. Sorry, but that is not a right under international law. There is, however, a right to full and effective participation in the state in which one resides. I do not wish to be awkward; I simply repeat what I have said from the outset: I am — as we all are — a citizen of Europe. I ask for no more and no fewer rights than other citizens. However, those rights are not those articulated by Sinn Féin — they are quite the reverse. Sinn Féin has a jaundiced view of rights that goes back to the Europe of the 1930s. Mrs Long: I want to discuss the issues raised by Edwin Poots. In relation to paramilitary violence, the Alliance Party has pushed the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and other human rights groups to focus on non-state sectors, including paramilitaries. Traditionally, human rights have concentrated on the duties of the state. We define human rights much more broadly, as other organisations can impact on and, indeed, compromise, people’s rights. That must be taken on board. We believe that that falls within the definition of the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland and is, therefore, within the Human Rights Commission’s remit. In principle, we are not opposed to having a deputy chief commissioner in the Human Rights Commission. However, we want to explore Edwin’s comment about balance and how he perceives a deputy chief commissioner would be appointed. The Chief Commissioner, and any deputy chief commissioner, of the Human Rights Commission should be appointed on merit and ability and not to create sectional interest or balance within the team. We have said several times, and say again, that anything that entrenches the two monolithic communities, and solely represents those communities at the expense of diversity within Northern Ireland, is unhelpful in addressing change in society. Change in our society should be undertaken from a more pluralist view, not from society in general, but a more flexible view of people’s individual identities, particularly in the context of human rights. The right of people to define themselves is fundamental to that. We are very conscious that any attempt to entrench traditional divisions in our society runs contrary to the point of human rights. There would, therefore, be a conflict at the heart of the Human Rights Commission. In principle, we have no problem with the idea of a deputy chief commissioner, but we want to ensure that the person is appointed on merit. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Poots, in order to help the discussion, can you clarify that point? Mr Poots: I am aware that several people with legal backgrounds, and who specialise in human rights law, applied to join the Human Rights Commission and were not accepted. In my view, the people who were accepted had less human rights expertise than some of those who were rejected. I am concerned about this issue, and perhaps the entire appointment process should be addressed. If we want to reach out to the wider community, there must be balance in the commission, which would include the positions of Chief Commissioner and deputy chief commissioner. Mrs Long: Can I clarify? Balance in an organisation is not necessarily achieved by appointing people from the two traditions, or even by taking that issue into account. Balance can mean monitoring the composition of an organisation, encouraging under-represented people to apply, and so forth. Is that where the issue of balance is going, as opposed to so-called positive discrimination? I contend that there is no such thing as positive discrimination. If someone from a perceived unionist background is appointed as Chief Commissioner, must the deputy chief commissioner be a nationalist, and vice versa? I used the word “perceived”; people could be appointed to those positions who would not define themselves as “unionist” or “nationalist” but whom others may perceive to be unionist or a nationalist. If people define themselves as “neutral”, it would be difficult to achieve that balance. Mr Poots: The Human Rights Commission has a statutory duty to reflect the composition of the community. The point that was made about merit is valid, but appointments must comply with that statutory duty. That is the case with the Policing Board, where the chairman and the vice-chairman come from the two sections of the community. In the first instance, appointments to the commission should be made on merit, but perhaps the positions of Chief Commissioner and deputy chief commissioner could reflect community balance. Mr Ferguson: The remit, functions and composition of the North’s Human Rights Commission are set out in paragraph 5 of page 17 of the Good Friday Agreement. Paragraph 9 of page 17 and paragraph 10 of page 18 set out the comparable steps to be taken by the Irish Government to further strengthen and underpin the constitutional protection of human rights. As Edwin pointed out, the membership balance of the Human Rights Commission has been a contentious issue since its formation. It is out of step with the United Nations’ Paris Principles, which require membership to be pluralist and representative. The Human Rights Commission is not inclusive or representative. I support Edwin’s comments. The commission does not have sufficient powers of investigation to compel witnesses or documents, to enter places of detention or to take its own cases. I want to make several recommendations. The Human Rights Commission must be given additional powers and resources to enable it to carry out its remit. It must be given powers to investigate, to compel documents and witnesses, to enter places of detention and to take cases of its own without necessarily having to send a victim elsewhere. It is important that the British Government publish their response to the review of the powers of the Human Rights Commission as expeditiously as possible. Additional funding is needed, which should be made available to the Human Rights Commission to ensure that it can carry out its remit fully. Membership of the Human Rights Commission should be reviewed and appropriate action taken to ensure that it fully represents all communities. We do not want colleagues sitting around this table to feel that the commission excludes them or their communities. That would be unacceptable by any terms. It is crucial that we secure the establishment of an independent mechanism to oversee appointments. That will ensure that we have a pluralist and representative commission. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Ferguson, were those proposals, or was that a statement of your party’s position? Mr Ferguson: It was a re-statement of our position. It is obvious, for example, that Edmond — gabh mo leithscéal, Edwin — sees the membership of the commission to be as contentious as Sinn Féin does. It is important that we address that matter. The Chairman (Mr Wells): At the moment, the only proposal is that of Mr Poots for a deputy chief commissioner. Mr McFarland: I take it that Edwin’s proposal is that the Human Rights Commission should observe proper community balance, as stated in the agreement. I think that his suggestion was that, along the lines of the Policing Board structure, the leadership — the Chief Commissioner and the deputy chief commissioner — should also be balanced to reflect the community. That seems quite sensible. Patricia mentioned the joint human rights commissions, North and South. They were tasked with examining the possibility of establishing a charter for the island. They got ahead of themselves and produced a charter, although that was not their remit in the first place. Can anyone tell me how far the Irish Government have got with their “clear, comparable steps”? The agreement sets out what the Irish Government have to do by way of human rights, such as setting up a commission in line with that in Northern Ireland, etc. Does that fit into an institutional discussion — whether a human rights commission has been set up in the Republic, according to the agreement — or is it a human-rights issue? Can one of the experts perhaps explain where we have reached with the Republic of Ireland’s establishing an equivalent organisation and safeguards? The Chairman (Mr Wells): We could ask the researchers to check up on that. Ms Lewsley: The South has established the Irish Human Rights Commission. Mr McFarland: Does it have the same safeguards that apply here, as laid out in the agreement? They are very specific. Ms Lewsley: It is fully compliant. Mr McFarland: OK. Ms Lewsley: The SDLP does not see a need to appoint a deputy chief commissioner to the Human Rights Commission. The Chief Commissioner is appointed on merit and by process. The appointment of the other commissioners should be reflective of the community, and we believe that that is the case. However, we are supportive of enhanced powers and resources for the Human Rights Commission, and have voiced our opinion about that on a number of occasions. Perhaps we need to go further than that. Appointments to both the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland are currently made by the Secretary of State, and are excluded from the remit of the new C |