Written evidence from Lady Trimble, member
of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
INTRODUCTION
1. I am a strong supporter of the Belfast
Agreement which contains the mandate for the proposal for a Northern
Ireland Bill of Rights.
2. I am personally committed to human rights.
3. I remain a loyal member of the Northern
Ireland Human Rights Commission.
4. But over arching these commitments is
my commitment to the rule of law.
5. I believe that we must all respect the
rule of law: that all are equal under the law and that the law
applies equally to all.
6. So I cannot support any proposal for
a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland that ignores or seeks to
subvert the terms of reference as contained in the Agreement.
7. Not only is such wrong in principle:
it seems to me that any proposal to ignore or misinterpret the
terms of the Agreement on this issue opens a dangerous door to
those who would wish—on one side or the other—to subvert
other parts, or the whole of the Agreement.
8. The Agreement represents an historic
compromise between the two communities in Northern Ireland and
represents a chance for everyone in Northern Ireland to live in
peace with respect for everyone's point of view. But if the Agreement
is subverted for any reason or for any cause, then that—still
fragile—peace is in danger.
THE PROPOSALS
OF THE
NORTHERN IRELAND
HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION
9. The Commission proposes an "all
inclusive" Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. It seems
to me that such proposal simply ignores the terms of reference
in the Agreement which says that the rights proposed to be in
any Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland under the Agreement and
which are not already contained in the ECHR must (inter alia)
"reflect the principles of mutual respect for the identity
and ethos of both communities and parity of esteem, and—taken
together with the ECHR—to constitute a Bill of Rights for
Northern Ireland."
In my view the Commission report wrongly treats
this section as if it is a separate test rather than something
plainly integral to any additional rights and that this was so
understood by the original negotiators (and which has been so
vouched to me).
10. But an "all inclusive" Bill
of Rights goes far beyond that mandate and so is not a project
contemplated by or authorised in the Agreement.
11. I am prepared in Commission or elsewhere
to consider proposals for an "all inclusive" Bill of
Rights (though if that were being proposed I would prefer to consider
it on a basis of something for the whole of the United Kingdom).
12. But if there is to be a Northern Ireland
specific Bill of Rights then we must consider it only within the
terms of the Agreement which gives us authority for the project.
MY ROLE
AS COMMISSIONER
13. Since my appointment on 1 December
2007 I have been fully committed to my work on the Commission.
In particular I calculate I have attended over 50 meetings
on the Project: both here in Belfast, in London and at residential
weekends—a cumulative total of over 250 hours work.
And this is in addition to my other work on the Commission.
14. As the Project developed I began to
have increasing doubts about the direction we were taking as it
seemed to me that seeking an all inclusive Bill with rights of
all categories (environmental rights for instance) simply ignored
our terms of reference, whatever merit the proposals might have.
15. Last September I raised within the Commission
my serious concerns about the direction we were taking and how
wrong and dangerous this in my view was for respect for the Agreement.
Sadly, apart from one member, I did not receive any support and
members did not seem willing to take my concerns seriously or
to engage in debate or discussion with me. Accordingly, after
a residential meeting at the end of October I indicated within
the Commission that in conscience I did not feel that I could
sign up to the proposals which the majority of members wished
to put into our Report.
16. I expected that the Commission would
respect my position and that my Note of Dissent would be published
in the Report, as is usual. So I was shocked when at a meeting
on 17 November the Commission attempted to use the Commission
Standing Orders to stifle even the fact that I (and another member)
were dissenting. The most the other Commissioners would agree,
at this and a subsequent meeting, was that we could have a note
of our dissent (the wording to be agreed by other commissioners)
in the minutes of the meeting. But I felt that I could not properly
accept such suppression of my views. Accordingly I have to dispute
the version of events given by Commissioner Duncan on this to
your meeting on 16 March last. I also dispute the version
given by our Chief Commissioner to a meeting of the Joint Committee
on Human Rights.
17. It was only in this context that I felt
I had no alternative to seek independent publication of my views.
I would have much preferred that my Note of Dissent had been published
as part of the Report. That would have respected both my right
of conscience and the principle of collegiality.
1 May 2009
| 
