Securing a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland

Prof Colin Harvey, a member of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and Head of the School of Law at Queen's University Belfast (and Amnesty member!), gave a comprehensive speech in London this week on the proposed Northern Ireland Bill of Rights.

I'm taking this opportunity to publish the text of the speech:

ACHIEVING OUR BILL OF RIGHTS?

Speech delivered at King’s College London, 22nd February 2010 by Colin Harvey

Good evening everyone. I am pleased to have this opportunity to talk to

you about the Bill of Rights process in Northern Ireland, and discuss

possible next steps. I would like to thank Professor Aileen McColgan and

the School of Law at King’s for making this event possible, and Maggie

Beirne for chairing the session.

The Bill of Rights process has reached a significant moment. The

Northern Ireland Office (NIO) is currently consulting on its response to

the Human Rights Commission’s final advice. This evening I would like

(in a personal capacity only) to sketch the context for the debate, say

something about the process, note substantive aspects of the

Commission’s advice, and then reflect on where we go from here.

Context

First, some context. Discussion of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland is

decades old. Through the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, the idea was there

and persisted. People often meant and understood different things. For

some, the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights

might achieve the objective of advancing human rights protection, for

others an additional next step would be required; a home-grown Bill of

Rights. The notion did develop over time that a Bill of Rights for Northern

Ireland might form part of any new constitutional arrangements. Most political parties, and many others, viewed the concept of a Bill of Rights

as a ‘good thing’.

The general context tended to be Northern Ireland

specific, with violent conflict and ethno-national division (British-Irish) –

and all the economic, social, political and cultural causes and

consequences of conflict – providing an evident ‘particular’ backdrop

requiring attention. Not the ‘unique’ circumstances of Northern Ireland

(for there is little that is ‘unique’ about violent conflict and ethno-national

division) but those ‘particular circumstances’ in the context of

international and regional human rights developments and trends. The

hope that as part of our peace process a Bill of Rights could emerge that

was a model for others, and signalled a collective commitment to a

principled new beginning for human rights protection.

Those decades of debate might be described as an extensive collective

effort to promote the idea of a ‘constitutional’ Bill of Rights, as one part of

a constructive agenda to create a new Northern Ireland. In other words,

an attempt to map out the constitutional legacy we might leave to future

generations: A Bill of Rights expressly for Northern Ireland as part of

working our way together towards a genuinely shared and truly

reconciled future.

The Bill of Rights Process

Second, the Northern Ireland Bill of Rights process. Although the

process is decades old, real momentum and focus was generated by the

Good Friday Agreement 1998. The Agreement provided a firm basis for

the creation of a new Human Rights Commission (one that would be

stronger than SACHR), and for the Bill of Rights process.

As is well known, the remit is set down in the Agreement. The

exhaustive (and exhausting) debates often seem to neglect a basic

point. If an independent statutory Human Rights Commission – in the

constitutional context of the Good Friday Agreement and the Northern

Ireland Act 1998 – is asked to provide advice on a Bill of Rights for

Northern Ireland is anyone genuinely surprised that it approaches its

task purposively (with agreed principles and an agreed methodology)

and seeks to offer sound human rights advice reflecting Northern

Ireland’s particular circumstances and anchored in international

instruments and experience? Is anyone who is familiar with human rights

law, policy and practice honestly surprised by the interpretation of the

remit and the final content of the Commission’s advice?

The process was launched precisely 10 years ago next week (1 March

2000). The Commission produced a range of consultation materials, and

with many others, attempted to promote a wide-ranging societal debate.

When it became clear that the political parties needed to become more

engaged, the Commission – with others – suggested the creation of a

Bill of Rights Forum. The St Andrews Agreement 2006 provided the

political basis for the establishment of a Forum of 28 members (14

political parties and 14 civil society). The Forum was chaired by Chris

Sidoti, and reported in March 2008. Although the terms of reference

referred to ‘agreed recommendations’, the final report opted to list its

recommendations with levels of support indicated (cross-party

disagreement on content remained evident).

From March – December 2008 the Commission worked to finalise its advice. One innovation here was the publication of an agreed methodology in June 2008. The Commission handed over its final advice on 10th December 2008 –

international human rights day and the 60th Anniversary of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights. Thus a key milestone in the process was

concluded. On 30th November 2009, the NIO published its consultation

response with a deadline of 1st March 2010.

The Commission’s Advice

Third, the Commission’s advice. I have already mentioned the debate

over remit. Whatever view is taken of that (and I have suggested above

that the approach can be justified), none of its proposals would, or

should, surprise anyone familiar with international, regional, or national

human rights law and the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland.

The advice is worth reading in detail and in full – I will mention a few

points. The Commission concluded that:

Existing provisions of the ECHR could be supplemented, for example,

the right to liberty and security of the person and the right to a fair

trial.

The Bill of Rights should respect the internationally recognised

principle of the indivisibility, through the inclusion of justiciable social

and economic rights (health, adequate standard of living,

accommodation, work, and social security rights). The advice also

includes environmental rights and a section of children’s rights.

A Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland should take care not to undermine

existing guarantees and protections. For example, by ensuring that provisions on equality, democratic rights, and identity were carefully crafted in order to ‘do no harm’.

A Bill of Rights should build on, and not undermine, the Human

Rights Act 1998. By learning the ‘human rights lessons’ from its first

ten years and ensuring it is not repealed in the process of enacting a

new Bill of Rights.

Oversight of a Bill of Rights was not merely for the courts. The

Commission recommended the creation of a new Assembly

Committee on Human Rights, as well as a periodic review

mechanism, and a future role for the Commission itself.

The NIO response was published on 30th November 2009. It is widely

viewed as a disappointing initial engagement with this significant

constitutional enterprise. The NI Human Rights Commission has reacted

to the NIO document. The five headings in its published response leave

little room for doubt or ambiguity of its view: it demonstrates a lack of

understanding of the purpose and functions of a Bill of Rights; failure to

take appropriate account of international human rights standards;

appears to be suggesting the lowering of existing human rights

protections; inadequate consultation; and misrepresentations of the

advice given by the Commission.

Next Steps?

What might the next steps be? How should this now be taken forward?

The NIO consultation period ends next week. People have already used

strong words in response to this consultation, and there is genuine and widespread disappointment. People embarked on this profound

constitutional enterprise in good faith because they wanted to leave a

lasting and credible legacy for future generations. Not one that

condemns us to repeat our awful past – but to help to nurture the shared

future that so many talk about, but which remains so palpably absent.

Many of the positive values of our best constitutional moments have

simply been lost or neglected in the last decade. The right sort of Bill of

Rights might help to remedy that (the wrong sort could make matters

worse, of course).

What then might the next steps be? There is little sign that people will be

willing to abandon a constitutional project that has spanned decades.

The answer may be simple: following conclusion of the consultation

period, a clear and public indication should be given by government of

the next steps with a timescale. The starting point should be to design a

Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland that respects and reflects the

Commission’s final advice, and takes full account of the various

consultations that have taken place. Whatever political configuration

emerges after the General Election, there is no reason why legislative

progress cannot be made towards a Bill of Rights (Northern Ireland) Act.

This need not await the outcome of consultations on a UK-wide

instrument (there are already innovations in Northern Ireland – that is, of

course, one logical result of both devolution and the peace process). It is

perfectly possible to proceed with the Bill of Rights (Northern Ireland) Act

in advance of longer-term constitutional developments. The basis for

progress is now there – but not as currently envisaged in the initial NIO

response.

In that overall legislative context, benchmarks, parameters and

principles should be clarified by government for taking this work forward

– including enhanced recognition of (and engagement with) the

extensive work that has already been undertaken, confirmation that

existing human rights and equality guarantees will be built upon (and not

undermined), the centrality of international human rights standards in

shaping a Bill of Rights, and an acceptance that the Northern Ireland

process has an integrity of its own (this should not be merely submerged

under a potentially extended discussion of a new UK-wide Bill of Rights

and Responsibilities). If the foundations are firm, and principled

benchmarks accepted, a Bill of Rights debate in Britain might even be a

sensible and productive one – but after the last decade of hard work and

constructive and carefully crafted proposals, it is not a credible excuse

for further delay in Northern Ireland.

Many here will know, but it is worth re-stating: the offer of joining in with

a wider – and emerging – new debate on rights and responsibilities in the

UK may be unappealing (to put it mildly) to many, and the terms of that

discussion can at times be intriguingly disrespectful of Northern Ireland’s

particular circumstances (just the thing that everyone claims to be trying

to respect). I do hope that those who are promoting this new UK-wide

process have fully thought through all the consequences for the delicate

and fragile constitutional balances now in place in these islands.

Whatever happens with that process, my point here tonight is that

progress towards a Bill of Rights (Northern Ireland) Act remains

possible, if it reflects and respects proposals which have already been

carefully tailored to address Northern Ireland’s circumstances.

To conclude: We still need a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. Not

simply any Bill of Rights, but one that respects this profound

constitutional enterprise, one which leaves a lasting and positive legacy

for future generations. I still believe that a truly shared future in Northern

Ireland depends on it. I still believe it is possible to achieve our Bill of

Rights.