Written evidence from the Northern Ireland
Human Rights Commission
Human Rights Bill for Northern Ireland Inquiry:
Clarification of issues relating to the handling of dissent on
the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's advice on a Bill
of Rights for Northern Ireland.
I have been requested by a number of our Commissioners
to provide additional information in relation to an issue raised
by Lady Trimble in her evidence to your committee on a Human Rights
Bill for Northern Ireland.
In her memorandum to the committee dated 1 May
2009, Lady Trimble states:
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. (Paragraph 16)
The publication of "notes of dissent",
minority reports or the individual views of Commissioners in NIHRC
reports is not provided for in NIHRC standing orders and would
not be construed as usual practice. The minutes of the Commission
meeting held on 17 November 2008 confirm that any dissent
from the content of the Commissions advice on a Bill of Rights
could be recorded in minutes and this dissent was included in
the minutes of the meeting held on 29 November 2008. The
wording of the dissent in the minutes is agreed between the person
wishing the minute to note their views and the Chairperson of
the Committee with the minute taker accurately recording the outcome.
This is the standard practice for all Commission meetings and
would not have been altered for the minute of this meeting. Relevant
extracts from these minutes are as follows:
EXTRACT FROM
THE MINUTES
OF THE
COMMISSION MEETING
HELD ON
17 NOVEMBER 2008
The two descriptions given by Tom Duncan and
Monica McWilliams are, in my view, accurately supported by the
agreed minutes of the relevant Commission meetings. Their descriptions
do not seem however to deviate from the version of events outlined
by Lady Trimble in her memorandum to your committee.
2.1 Commissioners discussed the process for approving
the Commission's advice on the Bill of Rights. Commissioners noted
the process for decision-making in the Standing Orders for Commission
meetings and considered how disagreement might be accommodated
if one or more Commissioners dissent with aspects of the advice
in respect of the Bill of Rights.
2.2 Daphne Trimble requested the inclusion of
a minority report as part of the Commission's advice to government
on a Bill of Rights. Commissioners considered the request but
decided that Standing Orders did not allow for the publication
of a minority report. Jonathan Bell and Daphne Trimble asked that
their dissent from this decision be formally noted.
2.3 It was agreed that a special Commission meeting
will be convened to approve the Commission's advice on the Bill
of Rights. Commissioners noted that any dissent from the content
of the advice will be recorded in the minutes of this meeting.
EXTRACT FROM
THE MINUTES
OF THE
SPECIAL COMMISSION
MEETING HELD
ON 29 NOVEMBER
2008
1.8 In accordance with Standing Order 22, the
Commission recorded a consensus decision (8 out of 10 Commissioners)
supporting the report, with two Commissioners, Jonathan Bell and
Daphne Trimble dissenting from the report as a whole.
Lady Trimble does not explain why she disputes
the version of events given by Commissioner Duncan and the Chief
Commissioner relating to the treatment of her dissent by other
Commissioners. I have extracted therefore the relevant transcripts
of Commissioner Tom Duncan's evidence to NIAC on 16 March
and the Chief
Commissioner's evidence to the JCHR on 24 February
and copied them below.
The two descriptions given by Tom Duncan and
Monica McWilliams are, in my view, accurately supported by the
agreed minutes of the relevant Commission
meetings. Their descriptions do not seem however
to deviate from the version of events outlined by Lady Trimble
in her memorandum to your committee.
TOM DUNCAN
(RELEVANT EXTRACT
FROM NIAC EVIDENCE
DELIVERED 16 MARCH
2009)
Discussion after 54 meetings of the
Working Group was concluded at the end of November 2008. At almost
the final stage, two of the Commission members indicated that
they wished to record their dissent from the report. There was,
in fact, no minority report presented at the conclusion of the
final meeting of the Working Group and both dissenting Commissioners
declined the offer to have their views included in the minutes
of the meeting when their dissent was first voiced, the minutes
which would be available before the handover date for the advice
of the Commission. The views of the two dissenting Commissioners
are, however, in the public domain.
Monica McWilliams (relevant extract from
JCHR evidence 24 February 2009)
Let me explain the process. I am very much
aware of Lady Trimble's note of dissent and I did address the
issue of a diversity of opinion. First, the Commission is representative
of the community. Second, it was an option Lady Trimble wishes
to have a minority report but it is important for the record that
there never was a minority report.
Q11 Earl of Onslow: I know, because you
did not allow it.
Professor McWilliams: No, that is not the
case. We actually asked if there was a minority report and could
we see it. There was not a minority report but there was a note
of dissent. It is also important to note that I proposed, as Chair,
that we read the note of dissent or we take the note of dissent
and we were more than happy to have any dissenting opinion
recorded in the minutes; indeed, we said we would go as far as
to have the minutes published before the advice so that that dissent
could be widely disseminated. Lady Trimble did not take up that
option. I would also wish not to mislead you in that we did not
wish the entire note of dissent to be read into the minutes. What
we said was that we would take the issues of dissent and the points
of dissent and we would record them in the minutes. (Qs 10 and
11, A Bill of Rights for the UK and the work of the Northern Ireland
Human Rights Commission)
June 2009
| 
