Examination of Witnesses (Questions 43-67)
MS FIONA
MCCAUSLAND,
MR PATRICK
CORRIGAN, MS
SARA BOYCE
AND MS
PAM TILSON
16 MARCH 2009
Q43 Chairman: Welcome. I gather,
Fiona McCausland, you are the Chairman leading the group, is that
right? We did not know you were coming, but you are most welcome
and we are delighted you are here to give evidence. Maybe you
would like to introduce your colleagues.
Ms McCausland: We have Patrick
Corrigan at the end from Amnesty International, Sara Boyce from
the Children's Law Centre Northern Ireland and Save the Children,
and Pam Tilson, who is working with the deaf community. I would
ask Pam to start off and give a brief background on the Consortium.
Chairman: Before that, and obviously
we are delighted she should do that, could I say that I have had
the pleasure of meeting some of you on behalf of the Committee
before and this is a relatively short session so I know you will
bear that in mind because we do have to conclude this just before
one o'clock. If you could bear that in mind in your brief introductory
comments that would be helpful.
Stephen Pound: Chairman, for the record
can I state I am a member of Amnesty International but that will
not in any way affect the statements I make. For the record, I
think it is important to state that I am and have been a member
for many years.
Chairman: Perhaps I should say that I
am a subscriber to them.
Stephen Pound: If anyone else would like
to join!
Q44 Chairman: Would you like to start?
Ms Tilson: Thank you very much,
Chairman, for the opportunity to address the Committee today.
As Fiona has outlined, we are here representing a range of organisations
which are members of the Consortium, but we are here representing
the Consortium rather than our individual organisations. The Human
Rights Consortium was established in 2000 to encourage widespread
community participation in the consultation process on the proposed
Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. Its membership has grown
to over 130 NGOs, trade unions, community and voluntary groups
and represents a huge number of people from a diverse range of
constituencies and communities across Northern Ireland. Some of
the organisations are region-wide sectoral organisations, such
as Disability Action, Save the Children, Age Concern and Mencap.
Others are geographically-based community organisations, such
as the Old Warren Partnership or the Federation of Community Groups
in Newry or the Upper Springfield Development Trust. We have a
wide range of membership from church-based and trade union organisations.
The unifying factor in the Human Rights Consortium is a firmly-held
belief that a strong and inclusive Bill of Rights can play a fundamental
role in the creation of a better, most just, inclusive and shared
Northern Ireland. The Consortium has helped put the Bill of Rights
on the agenda of local churches, trade unions and civic society
more generally and promoted dialogue with local political parties.
Our aim has been to mobilise widespread popular and political
support behind a strong and inclusive Bill of Rights for Northern
Ireland. Members, both as individuals and as a Consortium, have
responded to the various consultations from the Human Rights Commission
over the years. The development of the Consortium has really been
in two phases: from 2000-07 and from 2007 onwards. In 2007, the
Consortium was able to attract funding from Atlantic Philanthropies
to employ staff and fund activity. A board was established elected
from amongst the Consortium members to manage both the staff and
the budget. The Consortium from the outset has never taken a strong
view on the context of a Bill of Rights, instead focusing on building
widespread community support for the broad concept. The unifying
factor in the Human Rights Consortium is a firmly-held belief
that a strong and inclusive Bill of Rights can play a fundamental
role in the creation of a better, more just, inclusive and shared
Northern Ireland. Our work in 2005-06 focused on working to get
the Round Table Forum established with representatives from political
and civic society together to see where consensus might be reached
on the scope for, and content of, a Bill of Rights. On 10 December
last year, when the Commission, having looked at that report,
handed over its advice to the Secretary of State that was another
step on the road. As a Consortium we now want to see the Government
making the consultation on their response to the Commission's
advice meaningful and accessible. It must generate debate amongst
the public and it must be more than PDF on a website. Public engagement
with the process must be facilitated. We ask for your help in
ensuring that this happens. We ask for your support in delivering
a strong and inclusive Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, and
for your support in ensuring that it happens in the lifetime of
this Parliament.
Chairman: Well, congratulations on your
speed reading!
Ms Tilson: Patrick would like
to say something.
Q45 Chairman: Yes, but we do have
some questions so could I ask you to be very brief.
Mr Corrigan: I will be very brief
and excise my comments. I will simply abbreviate them to this.
One of the lessons which we draw from the public response to the
very tragic events of last week is that just about everybody in
this society wants to move forward, people do not want to go backward.
We feel that a strong Northern Ireland Bill of Rights can be a
cornerstone in the future of that notion of an equal society,
a shared society, one based on peace and justice. It is important
that such a Bill of Rights addresses the legacy of our past, as
I think the recommendations from the Commission point us towards,
that they deal with some of those narrower issues to do with the
community divisions and the issues of particular rights conflicts
that we have experienced here, but that it also offers a shared
vision for what our future can be together addressing some of
the issues that are common to all communities, whether green,
orange or other, and address those everyday needs, the socioeconomic
needs of people in this society as well. We do not wish to see
a Bill of Rights that usurps the place of politicians, we value
the devolved arrangements which we have here and we want to cherish
that role, but we see a Bill of Rights as a normal part of the
checks and balances of constitutional government and we think
Northern Ireland should join that international mainstream in
terms of having a Bill of Rights here, not just to address our
past but also to help forge the future that I think we all want
to see in this part of the world.
Q46 Chairman: Thank you. You heard
the evidence given by the Commission who told us of their very
good and cordial relations with you, and I am sure you feel the
same, do you?
Ms McCausland: Yes.
Stephen Pound: It would be interesting
if you said no!
Q47 Chairman: It would be very interesting.
How far does the advice provided by the Commission meet your expectations?
What, if any, specific rights that you would like included are
missed out from their advice?
Mr Corrigan: If I can open very
briefly and say that the Consortium, representing 130 different
community groups, NGOs, trade unions, a very wide membership representing
several hundred thousand people, within our diversity does not
take a single view on inclusion of particular rights or how that
content should be drawn. Broadly speaking, the Consortium as a
forum for civic society, welcomes the advice of the Commission
and thinks that it is reflective of the long consultation process
that they engaged in both in their present form and in their previous
constitution. We think that the methodology that they laid out,
which we understand all Commissioners endorsed and there was no
dissent from that methodology from political parties, and certainly
not civic society, was well thought through and well applied.
We welcome the proposals. We do think the proposals deal with
the narrow circumstances in Northern Ireland but also the wider
particular circumstances of this place and we would now like to
see the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee giving consideration
to that and in due course the Government without any undue delay
going to the people with a public consultation. We know from our
membership, which as I say is broad and cross-community in nature,
and also from an independent polling that the Human Rights Commission
and Consortium commissioned, that there is broad cross-community
public support for a Bill of Rights and a strong and broad Bill
of Rights, and we now wish to see that brought to the fore through
public consultation.
Q48 Chairman: Can anybody add to
that?
Ms Boyce: First of all, I would
like to reinforce what Patrick said. Obviously we do not take
a position on content but we were very supportive of the approach
the Commission took and we feel that the advice in terms of how
it has been laid out it is very clear to see how they have addressed
the mandate that was given to them, the way they have broken it
down and the methodology that is set out for everybody to see.
I think there can be no question but that they have addressed
each section of the mandate that was given to them, so that is
very helpful. We are campaigning for a strong and inclusive Bill
of Rights. What we mean by a strong Bill of rights is one of the
elements of that would have to be social and economic rights protections
because our bottom line is that the Bill of Rights must protect
the most vulnerable in society, the people whose social and economic
rights are most neglected, denied or restricted. We are very supportive,
therefore, of the inclusion of provisions on social and economic
rights in the Commission's advice.
Ms McCausland: I would like to
talk to the support that there is in the communities as our Consortium
is very broad-based and very equally divided between unionist
and nationalist communities. The polls that Patrick referred to
received a result of approximately 75% support for a Bill of Rights
in both the protestant and catholic communities. That would also
be reflective of our particular experience.
Q49 Chairman: What was the question
asked when you got that amazingly high response? How many people
did you poll?
Ms McCausland: "Do you support
a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland?"
Mr Corrigan: I think, drawing
from our own and the Commission's polling, there were straightforward
questions such as, "Do you support a strong Bill of Rights
for Northern Ireland", but there were also deeper questions
around socioeconomic rights and named particular rights and dug
a little deeper into people's views. We would be happy to forward
to the Committee the more detailed findings of those polls.
Q50 Chairman: How many people were
polled?
Mr Corrigan: I think just over
1,000, so standard operating procedure for independent polling.
Q51 Chairman: A thousand from each
community or a thousand across?
Ms Boyce: Across the community.
Mr Corrigan: Across the community.
That was commissioned from an independent polling organisation
at a level of representation that they recommended, so we know
it is a standard poll.
Q52 Chairman: You made a very important
statement when you said it was 75% from the unionist community
and 75% from the nationalist community. How can you be so sure
if it was a cross-community poll? Did you have 500 of each? I
am not casting aspersions on what you are saying, but if we are
to take this seriously into account we want to know the statistical
validity on which it is based.
Mr Corrigan: The polling was demographically
representative, including along the green/orange community lines.
Yes, the scrutiny of the survey holds up when one tries to dig
a little deeper and find out did these views hold equal weight
on both sides of the community and the answer is they did. Given
that a Bill of Rights and human rights generally at a political
level seem to be contentious, at a people's level, a community
level, the polling would suggest they do not see it in that way
and there is cross-community support out there even if at the
moment there is not cross-party consensus of what the content
should be.
Ms McCausland: I work for an organisation
as a youth worker at the Old Warren Partnership in Lisburn, which
is just outside Belfast, and it is a working class protestant
community. We have been working on supporting a Bill of Rights
for Northern Ireland and working using human rights as a framework
for our work since 1998. There is huge and historic support amongst
the unionist communities as well as nationalist communities for
human rights. We have used rights to change the area that we live
in from being what was called the second least popular estate
in Northern Ireland by the Housing Executive, the place that no-one
wanted to live, to being one of the most popular in that city,
and using rights to unify our community and being able to work
with communities, nationalist, catholic, republican communities,
such as the New Lodge, where we work together using rights as
a tool to improve the housing stock and using rights as a tool
working with Poleglass, another nationalist community, to bring
SureStart into our area. We would not have had that fantastic
scheme in the protestant Old Warren if it had not been using a
rights-based approach and we could not work with Poleglass. I
was brought up as British but I recognise other people in my country
do not see themselves as that. We have used rights as a framework
to be able to unify and work for the betterment of both communities
across the divide. A Bill of Rights is important to us. While
there are rights, the European Convention of Human Rights, this
is special for our country because here we have a country where
I have been brought up to be British, and that was just the way
it was, and my neighbour across the street was brought up to think
they belonged to another country, but using rights we can work
together to form a new contract with the government of our country,
which is Northern Ireland. That is why it is so important to people,
particularly in working class communities, but that benefits the
whole community right across unionist and nationalist and that
is why it is so important.
Q53 Chairman: That is a very powerful
argument for a specific Northern Ireland Bill of Rights and one
that certainly we take most seriously, but what do you say to
the dissenting voice of Lady Trimble and her colleague who thought
that what was produced by the Commission went way beyond that
and was not sufficiently specific to Northern Ireland? Lady Trimble
was not arguing there should not be a Bill of Rights in Northern
Ireland, she took issue because she felt that this went too wide
and went beyond the specific and particular circumstances of Northern
Ireland. I am not expressing a view, merely seeking to articulate
hers for the benefit of your comment. What would you say to that?
Ms Boyce: Can I start off in answering.
I have had an opportunity to read Daphne Trimble's note of dissent
and if we are looking at the core problems or difficulties that
she put forward in that she had with the final advice from the
Commission, one of the big difficulties she saw was around the
failure of the Commission to address in the mandate the mutual
respect for identity and the parity of esteem issue as she saw
it. When you go back and look at the way the Commission did approach
this task and look in detail at the methodology, I do not think
that criticism can be sustained because the Commission said all
of these rights taken together, all of the provisions together
in the Bill of Rights address that mandate in terms of mutual
respect and parity of esteem. That was one of the issues. For
us, the other issue that was raised was around social and economic
rights. It is a matter of interpretation in terms of to what extent
social and economic rights come within that mandate. The Consortium
would very clearly see that social and economic rights must be
addressed by the Bill of Rights given the mandate that came from
the Agreement.
Q54 Chairman: Does Sara Boyce speak
for you in that view of what I call the Trimble note of dissent?
Ms McCausland: Absolutely. We
would see social and economic rights as particular circumstances
of Northern Ireland, not necessarily that there is not deprivation
in parts of Glasgow, Birmingham or Manchester but it is the way
that deprivation has been played out. We are a specific area where
we have two people recognising themselves as different nationalities
and it is important that equality issues can be addressed in this
special contract which we have worked together across communities
to draw up, to be our special contract with government for our
particular circumstances in Northern Ireland.
Q55 Stephen Pound: In some ways you
represent the delivery element of the equation in terms of the
evidence we have had from the Commissioners. Your people are very
often the practitioners who deliver it. We keep coming back to
this issue of local versus universal. One of the points you make,
in my opinion quite rightly, is in reference to Traveller children.
You talk about high infant mortality rates in Traveller children.
From the point of view of the people who actually deliver, what
human right would make a difference that does not currently exist
for Traveller children without you impinging on their rights to
have very large families and to keep mobile?
Ms Boyce: I suppose in relation
to children and young people, Traveller children included, it
is an area that the Children's Law Centre and Save the Children
have been particularly focused on around the potential of a Bill
of Rights to provide additional protections.
Q56 Stephen Pound: You have done
a great deal of work.
Ms Boyce: Yes, the situation of
Traveller children is absolutely unacceptable. You have infant
mortality three times the rate among settled children. The levels
of discrimination is something we would get coming in on our advice
line to the Children's Law Centre, issues and incidents of discrimination
against Traveller children. What we would be arguing for in the
Bill of Rights is those standards that are set out in the international
legal instruments, the UN Convention and the Rights of the Child
primarily, that the standards, particularly the general principles
in that Convention of best interests of the child and non-discrimination
and right to life itself, but not just right to life, the interpretation
of the UN Convention is development to the maximum extent possible.
It is not just about survival, which is the case at the moment
for a lot of Traveller children, it is to the maximum extent possible.
What we would be arguing for in the Bill of Rights is the inclusion
of those principles, but also provisions in the UN Convention
around respect for culture which would also come in in relation
to Traveller children.
Q57 Stephen Pound: There is almost
an element of competing human rights. Sir Isaiah Berlin made that
famous statement about the rights for the shark do not equal rights
for the minnow. This is not the same issue here, but with travelling
families how can we possibly extend those rights to them if by
definition they do not wish to avail themselves of those rights
as constraining their absolute right to live in freedom as they
wish?
Ms Boyce: In my experience, and
I am wearing the hat of having worked with Traveller children
for about six years. All Traveller families I know would wish
their children and themselves to have rights protections that
do not currently exist. I do not know any Traveller family who
would say they do not want additional rights protections.
Q58 Chairman: If the rate of infant
mortality arises, as it does to some degree, because of their
nomadic lifestyle, how do you square the particular circle that
Mr Pound is talking about?
Ms Boyce: I think the onus and
responsibility is on Government and what people would like to
see coming out in terms of programmatic obligations in the Bill
of Rights is for Government to fully respect and resource that
nomadic lifestyle.
Q59 Chairman: Pay for it you mean.
Ms Boyce: What we have at the
moment is criminalisation of the nomadic lifestyle under the unauthorised
encampments legislation from a few years ago. It is widely accepted
that we have practically no emergency provision for Traveller
accommodation in terms of emergency halting sites and very little
development of standard halting sites. That would be a first step.
That is the fundamental underlying reason why Traveller infant
mortality rates are so high, because of the living conditions.
This is the problem that needs to be tackled and that is where
we would see the Bill of Rights kicking in in terms of the protections
it will provide.
Chairman: I think that is an answer that
would be of interest both sides of the Irish Sea.
Q60 Mr Grogan: Just very quickly
back to socioeconomic rights. What would be the essential rights
you would be trying to enshrine in that area? Is it essentially
to do with equality of access to employment, to training, to services
and so on? What are you getting at essentially?
Ms Boyce: Are you asking in relation
to Traveller children?
Mr Grogan: No, more broadly.
Stephen Pound: That is my hobby-horse
and we have moved on from that. My hobby-horse and cart!
Mr Corrigan: We would look towards
the Bill to create a level playing field for all, a safety net
for the most vulnerable, and there would be a broad range of views
within the collective Human Rights Consortium of the priority
that particular rights or particular constituencies should be
given. The Commission's advice on the particular additional rights
that they identified in addition to the European Convention on
the Human Rights Act would be the rights that there would be broad
agreement around, so rights of accommodation, health rights, rights
of workers. There would be a number of specific areas where we
feel there is a requirement for additional socioeconomic rights
protection. The role of the Consortium as a collective is not
to do campaigning on the particular content of one right as opposed
to another right, but broadly speaking we would like to see advances.
Q61 Chairman: I just want to ask
you two things. It was quite clear from what our previous witnesses
said that they paid enormous regard, and in my view rightly, to
what the politicians here in Northern Ireland think. Without a
reasonable consensus across the parties here in Stormont it is
difficult to see legislation agreed and sticking even though it
is, of course, the responsibility of Westminster Parliament. Do
you go along with that view?
Mr Corrigan: As we identify, and
as the international Belfast Agreement identifies, it is a Westminster
responsibility to deliver the Bill of Rights and we look to the
Westminster Parliament to do that as one of the final fulfilments
of the Agreement. In terms of the kernel of your point, all of
the parties, as you have rightly pointed out, have backed the
principle of a Bill of Rights but there is some disagreement and
diversity of viewpoint about the particular content that should
be found within. All that we can do, I guess, is speak on behalf
of the tens of thousands of people that our groups represent in
one shape or another and represent what we think is the view of
the majority of the population of Northern Ireland, ie they support
a Bill of Rights, and a Bill of Rights worthy of the name, a meaningful
Bill of Rights, one fit for the 21st century. Part of our role
is to continue to act as persuaders, if you like, to all of the
parties to see a good Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. We
note in the Commission's advice that they suggest particular responsibility
in terms of the review process of how a Bill of Rights might be
amended in the future, that there ought to be cross-party, cross-community
agreement within the Assembly before Westminster would move ahead,
but I guess we would say we would look to you as the guarantors
of our rights first and foremost to legislate for this and ultimately
it may be open to the Assembly to further debate this and lodge
a view about how it might be amended in the future if Northern
Ireland's particular circumstances change.
Ms Boyce: As a Consortium we have
not got there in terms of looking at it politically that there
is all cross-party and all-party consensus on the content of the
Bill of Rights, although obviously there is on the principle of
having a Bill of Rights, but if you look at the experience of
the work of the Bill of Rights Forum, and we were observers as
the Consortium and a lot of our members sat on the Forum, the
level of consensus that was achieved in the seven working groups
should not be underplayed or ignored in any way. There was very
significant consensus achieved, I know, from the Children and
Young's People Working Group, across all the parties, that were
represented in each working group. Sadly, that high level of consensus
was not maintained to the same degree when it went back into the
plenary session but we are hopeful still greater consensus can
be achieved and that is ultimately what we are looking for. It
is a very high bar but we want the maximum extent of consensus
possible. It is not going to be possible to get unanimity on every
single provision in the Bill of Rights and we are going to have
to accept that, but it is above party politics, it is at a constitutional
level, and we need to keep that in mind.
Q62 Mr Murphy: Following on from
that, is it your view, therefore, that a separate Bill of Rights
would be preferable for Northern Ireland?
Ms Boyce: Yes, that is what we
are campaigning for, a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.
Chairman: That is the purpose of their
campaign.
Q63 David Simpson: This is the same
question that I put to the Commission. Would you accept that a
UK-wide Bill of Rights would be acceptable if it incorporated
the issues that you have raised?
Ms Boyce: We have no problem per
se with a UK Bill of Rights. Obviously we have been monitoring
and tracking that process but it is not something we have any
position on. We want to see the Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland
finalised, it is very far down the road. It is a very distinct
process coming from the Agreement, so it is totally separate.
Just one note of caution we would sound is we wish the Bill of
Rights for the UK a fair wind but we would have concerns if it
impinged negatively in terms of the process and timing.
Q64 Chairman: What you do not want
is to see a delay, and I understand that.
Ms Boyce: Absolutely.
Q65 Chairman: We will take on board
what you have said. We will be questioning the Secretary of State
in a couple of weeks' time and certainly will be asking him some
questions about this. We will reflect and may well make a report
to Parliament. One thing we have committed ourselves to making
a report to Parliament on in the fairly near future is the report
of the consultative group. For reasons that we respect, and that
you heard, the Commission felt unable to give an opinion on a
Legacy Commission and on the fact that the consultative group
has recommended there should be no further public inquiries. Do
you wish to comment on either of those issues or are you in the
same position as the Commission?
Mr Corrigan: As the Consortium
we have no comment because we do not take a particular view on
any of the content issues. If I may say briefly with my Amnesty
International hat on, we welcome much of the Eames-Bradley report,
a very serious piece of work requiring serious attention. However,
we do have some concerns around their recommendation for a Legacy
Commission and the potential for immunity leading to impunity
for past human rights abuses, whether committed by state or non-state
actors. We would caution the Committee about some of those particular
recommendations from the consultative group, that we do not go
down a road of offering immunity for past abuses in exchange for
information or co-operation with a truth gathering process.
Q66 Chairman: You are making that
comment wearing your Amnesty International hat?
Mr Corrigan: Yes.
Q67 Chairman: Probably it would be
better if you were to send us a note of Amnesty's view which we
will take into account. When I say "take into account",
that does not mean committed to agree or disagree with, but truly
take into account. Thank you all very much. We appreciate the
points you have made. We particularly appreciate the powerful
argument you made, Fiona McCausland, when you answered your questions.
We will obviously reflect upon this as we deliberate further.
If there are any other points you wish to put to us when you are
conferring in private afterwards feel free to write to our clerk.
Anything that he receives by the end of March will be in good
time to be assessed.
Ms McCausland: I would like to
thank you on behalf of the Consortium and the delegation for the
time that you and your colleagues have given to us.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
| 
