Northern Ireland Assembly
Tuesday 25 September 2001 (continued)
Mr Close:
Does the Minister agree that, when saying that health must be our number one priority, we must show that that is true in both word and deed? Does he agree that words such as "scandalous", "unfair" and "insufficient" jump out at us after only a glance at newspapers of recent days? Cancer sufferers are let down by delays; there are delays in coronary care; and hospitals are short of 14 orthopaedic surgeons. Such shortages have been brought about by underfunding and must be corrected. Does the Minister agree that, instead of holding money in Executive programme funds to provide security against shortfalls, it should be used now to ensure that this nation is in a good state of health?
Mr Durkan:
I acknowledge the strength of the Member's views. I fully concur with him about the pressures on the Health Service, and the Executive have recognised that. With regard to making changes to the indicative allocations that were made last year, we have rightly paid particular attention to health, schools and roads. I do not disguise the fact that we need to provide more funding for health services, but we can only do that by providing money that would otherwise go to other programmes. We can also raise additional revenue through the rates. Everyone must reflect on the genuine priority that we attach to such things when deciding what steps we are prepared to take to find the necessary money.
With regard to the Executive programme funds, we expect to be able to find money carried over from monitoring rounds this year to take into next year's spending, and we will use some of that to fund health services above the indicative allocations. Money is not sitting idle. In the unlikely event of our not being able to achieve the predicted carry-over amounts, we shall use Executive programme funds to cover some of the existing pressures. We do not believe that that situation will arise, and so we will be in a position to proceed with allocations from the Executive programme funds between now and the revised Budget. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will be in a strong position to bid effectively for those funds.
Departments will be bidding for Executive programme funds in order to achieve, among other things, service improvements and service developments, which possibly include some of the areas that the Member has mentioned.
Ms Morrice:
I welcome the draft Budget and particularly the increase in finance for health and education. I hope that the Minister will include ring-fenced funding for road safety in the larger amount available for roads.
I am disappointed that there has not been greater emphasis placed on community relations and, in particular, the need to combat sectarianism. Given the events that have taken place in Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland, the Executive and the Minister should focus greater funding on combating sectarianism. What funding will be made available to deal with that matter?
Mr Durkan:
The expenditure for roads is included in the Department for Regional Development's budget, and road safety expenditure is included in the Department of the Environment's budget. That reflects a budgetary increase of 16·6% - the amount was increased last year and has been increased again this year. We all understand the reasons for that increase given the scale of loss of life on our roads, an issue that many Members raised.
Some of the funding for community relations activity falls within the budget of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and we want to maintain that level of funding. Some of the additional expenditure in the Department of Education will also fund work on community relations.
It is impossible to give every programme area the same high percentage increase. We have been able to - or have had to - give high increases to some areas due to compelling pressures or unavoidable liabilities. People must bear in mind that to make the difficult decisions about prioritisation we, as an Executive, are not reflecting only our natural preferences. We are reflecting what we believe to be the best decisions that can be made, based on matching our resources to our responsibilities.
Mr J Wilson:
I welcome the Minister's statement. Thankfully, it appears to contain less gobbledegook than many other statements on financial matters. I share his view that the serious staffing issues in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure must be addressed.
I am concerned about the Minister's opinion on the question of infrastructure. Is he satisfied that the draft Budget makes appropriate provision to correct the wrongs of years of direct rule through investment in clean water provision and the effective treatment of waste water, so that Northern Ireland's lakes, rivers and streams do not become part of the sewerage system?
Mr Durkan:
I thank the Member for his compliment about the lack of gobbledegook in my statement - although I will probably now proceed to indulge in some.
As an Executive, we have realised - and it has been mentioned in the Chamber - that we have a huge infrastructure deficit in certain areas. We have tried to meet that deficit with last year's and this year's allocations to, for example, the Department for Regional Development. We have sustained the necessary and planned increases in respect of water services and water and sewage treatment.
11.45 am
There are many pressing issues in that area, just as there are in roads and in other areas that people might term "the soft infrastructure", with regard to key facilities in health and education. One reason why we have provided the infrastructure fund as part of the Executive programme funds was to allow us to bring more distinctive attention to bear in those areas. We need to ensure that we get the most out of the investment that we make. We need to ensure that we meet standards that our own people and those in the EU would expect. I reflected in my statement that those were relevant and pressing considerations in the decisions that we have made.
I would like to make the point that water and sewerage services must be funded out of the total block grant - out of our departmental expenditure. We receive nothing in the Barnett formula for water and sewerage, because they are not part of public expenditure across the water. In circumstances in which we receive no Barnett allocation, the fact that we have been able to maintain the increased spending reflects some credit on the Executive. However, that in turn adds to the pressure in other programme areas, and people should bear in mind that important point in relation to revenue-raising and rates.
Dr Hendron:
I congratulate the Minister on his statement. I apologise for missing the earlier part - I was opening a conference by Nexus on sexual child abuse. In that regard, I notice in the statement that the children's fund is to be protected.
My question is along the same lines as Mr Close's remarks. Although I appreciate that the Treasury allocation and the regional rate provide the funding, I want to talk about how that funding is used. I accept that all Ministers, including the Health Minister, have done their best to obtain the funding for their Departments. However, it is absolutely ridiculous that Northern Ireland, with a population the size of Greater Birmingham, has four health boards and 19 trusts. Year in and year out we complain about the shortage of funds, yet we do not look directly at those structures. I accept that the Executive intend to have a review of public administration, and that point has been made many times. I want to know whether Ministers, if they so wish - and not necessarily with the agreement of the rest of the Executive - can look at structures in their Department, just as Sir Reg Empey was able to merge LEDU and IDB. That is vitally important in the context of health.
Mr Durkan:
I had better acknowledge the Member's question rather than thank him for it - a little outburst of honesty from the Minister of Finance and Personnel.
The Hayes report, although it concentrated particularly on acute hospital services, also made a number of observations and recommendations in respect of broader health services and management structures. The Minister has already indicated that the report will be subject to a fuller consultation and, in turn, subject to full consideration by the Executive. Some of the issues raised by the Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety arise in that context. He rightly identifies that the Executive are to undertake a wider review of public administration. All Ministers are free and able to look at various arrangements in their Departments. However, it would not make sense, in the context of a broader review, for Ministers to go on radical solo runs and to alter the nature of structures in circumstances in which congruent changes do not happen elsewhere in public administration.
That is part of joined-up government, but the issues identified by the Committee Chairperson have been previously recognised by the Minister, and the Executive are aware of them.
Mr Dodds:
There are fewer Members in the Chamber today than on this occasion last year. I hope that that will not be repeated at the SDLP conference, or the Minister will have to address a smaller audience than previous leaders.
Will the Minister tell us the increase, in figures and percentages, for the North/South implementation bodies and for the North/South Ministerial Council? That was the subject of some debate in last year's Budget.
The announcement of the deferral of the introduction of free nursing care for the elderly will cause great disappointment, especially as that is to proceed in Scotland. Does the Minister acknowledge that the proposal received unanimous support in this House? It has been widely welcomed. Will the Minister undertake to review the subject?
There will also be disappointment about the decision to retain the above-inflation rate increase for domestic ratepayers, which is double the rate of inflation. Will the Minister also take the opportunity to look at that? I can almost anticipate his answer. We can go into more detail on those issues later, in Committee and elsewhere.
I ask the Minister to look at those issues, particularly free nursing care, which affects the elderly in our community across the board.
Mr Durkan:
Like other Members of the Executive, I fully appreciate the importance of achieving free nursing care. For that reason, we allocated £3 million in last year's Budget to introduce it. However, it could not be introduced, for legislative and other reasons, so further commitments of approximately £6 million were made in the indicative allocations in next year's Budget. That is the baseline. That money will not now be adequate to cover the cost of free nursing care because of changing patterns of demand and other pressures, but it has not been withdrawn from the Health Service budget.
Members may recall that the Executive have agreed that, should any further money become available to ease our planning position for next year, first consideration will be given to any Programme for Government commitments that have been deferred. Members' comments about that particular commitment will be reflected and remembered by the Executive. Members are welcome to help to identify any other means to obtain additional resources.
The provisions to meet next year's legal obligations regarding the North/South implementation bodies are as follows: Waterways Ireland will receive £3 million; the North/South Language Body will receive £3·6 million; the Food Safety Promotion Board will receive £1·5 million; the Trade and Business Development Body will receive £3 million; the Special EU Programmes Body will receive £0·8 million; and the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission will receive £0·9 million.
The percentage increases are: 17% for Waterways Ireland; 6% for the North/South Language Body; 3·4% for the Trade and Business Development Body; 2·1% for the Food Safety Promotion Board; 47·5% for the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission; and 31·6% for the Special EU Programmes Body.
That reflects the fact that some of the spending, particularly in relation to providing secretarial support for the new Northern Ireland Regional Partnership Board, falls fully to the northern Administration and is not shared.
Mr Cobain:
I want to ask the Minister for some clarification on a number of points. In yesterday's debate on the draft Programme for Government, we were told that housing unfitness in Housing Executive houses would be reduced in the next two years and that all Housing Executive houses would be kept to a recommended standard. In the draft Budget, the finance directed to the Housing Executive is to be cut yet again. Will the Minister explain the relationship between the draft Programme for Government and the draft Budget, and where the money is to be made available?
Funding for the urban regeneration and community development programmes has been cut again this year. With regard to the Executive programme funds, the social inclusion/community regeneration fund is £34 million, yet the Department for Social Development gets £400,000 out of £33·5 million. The Minister keeps emphasising that each of those budgets contains a percentage to target social need. Will he explain how we will achieve that on an ever-reducing Budget?
Mr Durkan:
I remind Members that the Department for Social Development is getting an increase of 8·6% in the draft Budget. That includes an increase of 3·2% in the total housing budget. The Budget provides around £290 million for housing support by the Department, excluding house sales; that is an increase of 7%. However, total expenditure on housing also depends on the level of rental income that the Housing Executive receives from its tenants.
Taking that and other factors into account, the actual amount available for housing is over £630 million, based on the present estimate for the level of rental income. That level of provision will enable the Department to continue its capital investment programme in new housing, to maintain and renovate existing properties and to ensure compliance with fitness standards.
Members may wish to go back and check the various bids that were made previously on the Executive programme funds. Those bids informed the allocations that have been made and that have been reflected here. Further allocations are to be made from the Executive programme funds for next year. I am aware, and I can anticipate, that there will be some strong bids from the Department for Social Development, possibly in conjunction with other Departments.
The Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure (Mr ONeill):
I want to take this opportunity to welcome the additional resources for our Department, particularly for the museum service. I welcome the fact that Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland (MAGNI) will now be able to proceed with some of the work that it must do.
The Committee will be concerned about the arts sector. We are all preparing for Belfast's bid to be European City of Culture 2008. We shall be concerned that there is no additional identification for that area, particularly given some of the capital requests that are around.
On a more general issue, will the Minister confirm that the work of all the Departments to identify resources that can be redeployed against the priorities of the Programme for Government, and consequently against the real needs of the people, will continue?
12.00
Mr Durkan:
I thank the Chairman of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure for that. It should not be forgotten that arts fared well last year. There was an increase of £1·4 million in 2001-02 as compared with 2000-01. That has been carried forward to this year. It should also be remembered that the arts figures do not take account of possible assistance that I have every reason to believe the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure will be seeking from the Executive programme funds for at least one of the matters that the Member raised.
The Department of Finance and Personnel and the Executive will not stop Departments from trying to re-prioritise and examine whether or not their plans make the best use of the resources available. Any decisions taken must be consistent with the Executive's overall strategy and the Programme for Government.
I hope that the fact that the Chairman of the Committee has raised this question means that it will be the focus of the Committee's attention. That is important, because it is easy for all of us to focus on the bids that have not been met and chase after them when the money is not available to meet them. We need to make sure, not just that we know what has happened to bids, but that we know what is happening to planning.
Mr Poots:
We heard yesterday about the Programme for Government and the review of public administration, and Dr Hendron has already raised that issue. Where is the finance for the review of public administration? I understand that it is going to take £2 million, but I do not see that in the Budget.
We were also told yesterday that we were to have a children's commissioner in place by June. Leaving aside the funding for the children's strategy, which is a separate issue, where is the finance for a children's commissioner?
In the funding for victims, a bid for £500,000 was submitted and that was granted. A marker bid for a further £750,000 was lodged. How much additional funding has been included in the draft Budget, and how much will actually translate into practical support for the victims?
The Civic Forum seems to have done well out of this Budget: it is getting an increase of £200,000 over its current £300,000. That has been noted.
Mr Durkan:
Most of the issues that the Member asked about fall into the budget for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and that will see a modest increase.
The Executive are trying to address the needs of victims through a variety of methods. A consultation document on a victims strategy was published on 6 August. Further decisions and developments depend on the outcome of that. The Executive have contributed £1·67 million to the Peace II victims measures. That will address victims' needs in a variety of ways. In addition, £500,000 from the social inclusion Executive programme fund will be available to the Victims Unit this year, and in each of the next two years. Ongoing discussions continue with the Northern Ireland Office, as overlapping and converging interests are involved.
The increase for the Civic Forum represents the additional provision required to meet the full-year costs of the forum operating with its own stand-alone secretariat. Additional resources have also been made available to the Strategic Issues Unit in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, which has responsibility for major strategic cross-cutting matters such as the review of public administration and freedom of information policy.
Mrs Courtney:
I congratulate the Minister and his team on the statement. Does the Minister agree that the process of prioritisation and re-prioritisation is a crucial part of being in Government? Will he confirm that his ministerial colleagues were involved in - and agreed to - the decisions to make available additional resources for health, education and the roads?
Mr Durkan:
We were able to achieve adjustments from the indicative allocations that were agreed last year, and the fact that, in making those adjustments, we focused our attention on health, schools and roads shows that ministerial colleagues recognise the importance of investing in those services and funding those programmes.
It must be said, however, that Ministers have pressures on their own budgets, and they are responsible for services that face many difficulties. In some cases, those pressures are felt by the community and by the customer; in other cases, they arise from pressing contractual obligations or from infraction of EU regulations. Despite those pressures, we were able to recognise general priorities.
We must continue to examine our priorities. We must ask whether we are getting as much as we can out of the money that we spend and whether we need to do more. That task is not just part of the job of Government; it is part of the scrutiny role performed by the Assembly and its Committees.
Mr Carrick:
I thank the Minister for his Budget statement and note his reference to the need for Committees to prioritise.
As Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning, I trust that the Minister is aware of the need for an improvement in levels of literacy and numeracy. The poor levels of adult literacy and numeracy in Northern Ireland received considerable attention in yesterday's statement on the Programme for Government and in questions to Ministers. The figures for the lowest category of literacy and numeracy in Northern Ireland are three times those for Sweden.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Mr Carrick, we heard all of this yesterday. You must ask a question.
Mr Carrick:
I will ask a question. Cross-departmental action is needed, along with sufficient funding, to implement the strategy devised by the Department for Employment and Learning. Some 250,000 people in Northern Ireland are performing at the lowest levels. What financial resources will the Minister direct towards improving that totally unacceptable situation? How much is available for potential Executive programme fund bids in the current year, next year and 2003-04? What are the criteria for assessing the bids, which will, no doubt, exceed the funds available?
Mr Durkan:
I thank the Member for his questions, but I will not be able to answer them all. It is not that I do not have answers available, but I do not want to take up time that could be used for other questions.
Annual allocations have previously reflected the priorities needed in literacy and numeracy, as shown by the figures identified by Mr Carrick. The budget for the Department for Employment and Learning includes further funding for the further education sector, and it is in the further education provisions that the Department for Employment and Learning will be carrying forward its work in relation to literacy and numeracy. Obviously, the Member can continue to bring that matter forward.
The amounts of money for the Executive programme funds are as previously published. The Department of Finance and Personnel recognises that there is an outside chance that some of the money that we plan to allocate for next year might have to be absorbed to cover some of the projected carry-over. I do not believe that that will happen. The Department will make allocations in the Executive programme funds between now and the revised Budget, and it has not changed the figures for each year from those published previously.
Mr Byrne:
I welcome the Minister's Budget statement and congratulate him on the emphasis he has put on priority assessment of the quantum spending of each Department. Given that the Barnett formula is a factor which limits resources for Northern Ireland, what other ways are being explored to find more funding - particularly for infrastructure investment?
Will it ever be possible for Members to see Treasury figures regarding fiscal revenue receipts from this region, so that the Assembly can have a fuller appraisal of Northern Ireland's public finance position?
Mr Durkan:
I do not know if it will ever be possible for Members to see those Treasury figures.
We are determined to address the issue of the Barnett formula, and we do have to press for the changes necessary to secure a fair allocation of resources for services here. That must be based on an objective assessment of our needs. As Mr Byrne stated, we need to try to maximise the resources available from other sources. That must include adopting more effective procurement policies and levering in funds from the private sector through, for instance, public-private partnerships (PPP) where appropriate.
We also need to continue to find more efficient ways of working across Government, and there is a particular need to reduce the costs of administration. If we succeed in doing that, more money will be released for services and constructive investment.
We must also look at the arrangements for maximising return from our assets. That means ensuring the disposal of those that are no longer required, when that is possible. We must also take a strategic approach to addressing those issues through the Programme for Government. We need to ensure that our determination to find more money for services applies as much to the scrutiny and consideration of our spending plans as it does to the bids and submissions that we make to the Treasury.
Mr Hilditch:
When developing a Programme for Government and the Budget for 2002-03 the Executive listed "Growing as a Community" as one of their priorities. However, one section of the community - its senior citizens - continues to be the victim of cutbacks. Members have already heard Mr Dodds describe the health care situation. What resources could be made available to redress the voids created by the loss of community agencies, such as Y Services, which provided external and internal works at homes, and the virtual removal of the meals-on-wheels service in many constituencies? Will additional resources be made available to enhance the quality of life for senior citizens?
12.15 pm
Mr Durkan:
Free nursing care is not something that was available and is now being cut; we were trying to provide it, and it was previously budgeted for. The amount previously budgeted for free nursing care has not been enough to enable us to provide it in next year's Budget because of other pressures and other patterns of need. Those pressures and patterns of need also relate to the elderly population.
It is not a case of moving money out of elderly care and into another area. We are not moving money out of the health and social services baseline. The Budget contains improved provisions that will help older people. Free transport is provided for the elderly, and some of the spending on measures to counter fuel poverty will, in many cases, be going to the homes of older people and those whose homes are older and less fuel efficient.
In many cases the range of services falls to non- departmental public bodies such as health and social services trusts. Personal social services are seeing an uplift of 12·1% in the draft Budget proposals, and much of the rising demand and pressure in personal social services relates to the elderly population.
Rev Dr William McCrea:
The red warning light flashed yesterday when the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister made a 35-minute speech containing nothing about the Department of the Environment.
Is the Minister aware of a statement on the Budget issued today by Mr Foster? He points out that the Executive's allocation cuts £2 million from the resources grant payable to those district councils with the weakest rate bases. The weakest councils will find in the resource grant that they have to carry out their work with £2 million removed from their budget. Can the Minister tell us how those weakest councils will make up the deficit?
Is this not a form of taxation on the weakest, through the back door? Mr Foster's statement shows that the reason for this cut is to work towards compliance with EU legislation on waste management. The £2 million will be taken from the weakest in respect of waste management and will be given to the strongest. Where is the justice in that? How will the deficit be made up by those councils?
Mr Durkan:
I drew attention to this subject in the Budget statement, although I do not believe that the Member was present.
The Department of the Environment has an uplift of 8·1%, contrary to a suggestion implicit in the Member's opening remarks. As far as local government services are concerned, the grant to councils is not something that we can increase with the rate of inflation. That is what the Environment Minister advised the Executive. The Minister has made a statement to that effect.
The Executive and I dealt with a range of bids and pressures from the Department of the Environment and other Departments. Provision is being made for a 1·2% increase in local government services, and it is recognised that that does not match inflation. There is an overall 8·1% increase in that Department's budget. I look forward to reading the conclusions of the Committee for the Environment, in the light of earlier questions about Committees wishing to explore issues of re-prioritisation.
Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
Dr Birnie:
I beg to move
That this Assembly believes, in the context of the development of a Bill of Rights, that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has failed to discharge its remit, as given to it by the Belfast Agreement 1998, in its various contributions to the debate on developing human rights in Northern Ireland.
This motion questions whether the Commission has kept within its remit. It is not a motion about whether human rights are, to quote from the old book ? and All That', "A Good Thing". Human rights are a good thing, but they require careful definition. The Belfast Agreement said that the Commission was to 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 (ECHR) to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland".
Note that the agreement said "advise and consult on the scope". It did not say "campaign and dictate".
The critical point in today's debate is whether the Commission has kept within that remit, especially in the booklet 'Making a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland' published earlier this month. I believe that it has not. By definition, human rights apply to human beings, so it is not self-evident that a human being in Belfast should be afforded more or less protection than a counterpart in, say, Birmingham or Berlin. At the very least, the Commission needs to have done much more to establish its case. I will address three ways in which Northern Ireland's "particular circumstances" might be argued to be relevant, and evaluate the Commission's response.
First is the constitutional question. In other parts of western and eastern Europe there are also disputes about the national identity of variouse territorities. Significantly, the European-wide Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has enshrined the principle that national frontiers should stand, given consent and self-determination. Our Commission, the official human rights body, has pointedly, but unsurprisingly - given its own intellectual descent from the Committee on the Administration of Justice - declared neutrality on the constitutional position. Is it proper for an official human rights body to enshrine such neutrality? No.
Secondly, the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland should include the awful death toll consequent from terrorism over the last 32 years. In pro rata terms, it is equivalent to New York City suffering 20,000 fatalities, or three World Trade Centre atrocities. Using the "cost of the troubles" figures, of the 3,593 people who were killed between 1969 and February 1998, 56% died as a result of Republican group action, 27% at the hands of Loyalists and 382, or 11%, as a consequence of state action.
Undoubtedly, almost all the latter cases were legitimate self-defence. However, so far, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) has given privileged consideration to the perceived victims of state action as opposed to the greater numbers of victims of paramilitary abuse. Regrettably, they are again following the pattern set by the Committee for the Administration of Justice (CAJ). Persons with a CAJ background continue to have a disproportionate representation on the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC).
On page 46 of the September 2001 document 'Making a Bill of rights for Northern Ireland' the commission argues that search-and-seizure operations should not be used in the future, as they allegedly have been in the past, to harass certain sections of the community. No proof beyond the anecdotal is provided for their assertion of guilt.
In chapter 18, on the enforcement of any bill of rights, it refers to "human rights violations" rather than to violations and abuses. This seems to imply a sole focus on perceived state-led violations of rights. To date, the commission has added little or nothing to the most basic of rights - the right to life. It has leaned too far towards protecting the rights of those terrorists who in the past - and in the present - have taken innocent life.
The third way in which the NIHRC claims to be reflecting particular circumstances is with respect to social and economic deprivation in Northern Ireland. Every Member of the Assembly should be concerned about such deprivation - low wages, unfit housing, sickness rates, lack of basic numeracy and literacy, et cetera. We should all strive for improvement, as was said in the Budget debate. However, Northern Ireland is no longer uniquely deprived. Other parts of the United Kingdom, for example Wales, share similar gross domestic product (GDP) per capita levels, wage rates and illiteracy rates. Yet no one has credibly suggested supplementary rights to the European Convention on Human Rights in those cases.
Whatever the noble intent of most socio-economic rights, their realisation is crucially dependent on increased economic resources or public spending. Therefore, they may not be justiciable. In other words, they cannot be created by waving the magic wand of a court decision. They need public spending resources, voted for politically, through the Assembly.
In short, the commission has acted outside its remit, as defined in the Belfast Agreement. In this, as in everything else, we are arguing for full implementation - no more, no less. The commission, unconvincingly, tries to use section 69(3)(b) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to trump the agreement on page 14 of the September document. It interpreted its assigned task, to promote awareness of human rights, in the wider scope of promoting the human-rights culture. This matters because human rights can be a powerful ideology. It has almost become a secular religion, constituting as it does a novel, and sometimes disturbing, use of language and a way of prescribing how people should behave.
I will go through some of the commission's detailed policy proposals in the lengthy September 2001 document. On page 21 it recommends proportional representation for Westminster elections. On page 22 it suggests removing the debarment of the mentally ill from election candidacy and the reduction of the voting age to 16 or 17.
Page 33 refers, incongruously, to a right to positive action. It is unclear whether that implies positive discrimination and, therefore, the absurd right to be discriminated against in certain circumstances. The commission has previously endorsed the fifty-fifty policing quota of the Patten report.
12.30 pm
Pages 37 and 89 refer to "access to sexual reproductive healthcare". What does that mean in practice? Could it be a back door to introducing abortion on demand in Northern Ireland? Page 60 refers to equality for "long-term domestic partnerships" relative to traditional marriage. Page 76 recommends that education be conditioned to inculcate support for the ideology of human rights. Presumably, the commission's own interpretation of rights - and interpretations vary - would be the authorised version in schools.
That very extensive list - and much more can be found in the document - reminds me of Jeremy Bentham's dismissal of the French Revolution's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen as "imaginary rights, a bastard brood of monsters". In short, there is an attempt to achieve massive social engineering to reconstruct the totality of Northern Ireland, as though it were a blank sheet and to forget about what the wishes of the majority. What role in the process is left for the Assembly or for the sovereign Westminster Parliament? Not very much.
In Northern Ireland, certain interest groups have stirred up extraordinary expectations of the perceived improvements that could be delivered by a bill of rights, particularly with respect to the social and economic position. Those with such expectations are almost bound to be disappointed. That is politically worrying and indeed cruel. One indicator of the commission's rather grand view of its remit - indeed, its global reach far beyond this Province - is the commentary last week by the chief commissioner of the NIHRC, who was quoted in the press on 20 September. He criticised the American President, no less, for his choice of language to describe the attacks on Manhattan and Washington.
Every Member should pause before endorsing the commission's maximalist interpretation of human rights. A maximalist human rights culture is in danger of eclipsing this institution. Under direct rule, limited democratic accountability lasted for too long. The intervention of a massive bill of rights into all areas of policy-making would imply that judges would have decision-making powers that would otherwise rightly rest with this democratically accountable body.
In summary, we do not criticise human rights per se; rather, we criticise the way in which the commission has so far chosen to interpret them. Speaking in the House of Commons on the first day of the second world war, 3 September 1939, Winston Churchill said that that war was necessary in order to "establish, on impregnable rocks, the rights of the individual". Rights are worth protecting - a lesson that, in these weeks, is being learned once again on an international level.
The problem with the commission's document, and, indeed, its record to date, is that it combines undue protection for those who are the ultimate enemies of liberty, with the pursuit of other rights that are both undefinable and undeliverable. I therefore urge support for the motion.
Mr Attwood:
I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all after "Commission" and insert
"has been hindered in discharging its remit due to limits on its powers and resources but congratulates the Commission on its substantial contributions to the debate on and in developing human rights in Northern Ireland."
The proposer of the motion said that he was not criticising human rights per se. I welcome that, because the alternative would be grotesque. I cannot, however, welcome much else that he said.
Dr Birnie said that the bill of rights proposals do not refer to the right of self-determination or to the principle of consent. That is rightly so, because, as he knows, those issues are already exhaustively and extensively addressed in the Good Friday Agreement, in the amendments to the Irish Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann, arising from the Good Friday Agreement and in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Legislative and statutory guarantees already recognise the Irish people's right to self- determination and to the principle of consent. Given that there are constitutional guarantees in law and in practice, it would be highly improper if, in a bill of rights, we should then create a Constitution in regard to those issues.
I suggest that Dr Birnie's wish to see those principles addressed reveals his lack of confidence in that for which the Irish people voted and which was endorsed by the British Parliament, the Irish Parliament and the Irish people in the referendum and in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. There is every reason to be confident in relation to the constitutional position of the North, and there is no further reason to put into a bill of rights that which is already secured and guaranteed elsewhere in the British and Irish states.
Dr Birnie quoted the Good Friday Agreement, which says that the Bill of Rights should
"reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland".
In that regard, he then criticised the fact that the bill of rights outlines proposals in respect of economic and social guarantees. Are we not saying that in Northern Ireland there are particular circumstances that extend to economic and social issues? Should people who suffer economic and social disadvantage - whatever their background - not have the protection of the law and the benefit of good practice when it comes to improving their conditions?
The proposed bill of rights says that, given that the communities of the North have a common need and a common agenda in regard to economic and social guarantees and protections, these should be protected and enhanced. Dr Birnie, however, says that there should not be recognition of the particular inequalities, needs, disadvantages and requirements of both our communities as regards economic and social welfare.
Rather than saying that the bill of rights proposals should not guarantee economic and social rights, I suggest that in a society which is emerging from conflict and based around difference in that conflict, we should actively seek opportunities to promote common agendas and common needs. The bill of rights enables that to be addressed.
Dr Birnie also said that the issue of victims was inadequately addressed and that the needs of the victims of non-state abuses have not been addressed in the various interventions of the Human Rights Commission since its formation three years ago.
That is an inaccurate representation of what the Human Rights Commission has done. Those who can use the Internet - that does not include me - should download the submissions and casework of the Human Rights Commission from the past three years. It runs to three pages and covers 80 or 90 separate activities. When that material is analysed, it shows that the proposer's conclusion does not stand against the evidence. The evidence confirms that the Human Rights Commission has attempted to cover every aspect of life in Northern Ireland's communities in an effort to address and identify human rights issues. The commission's work is as exhaustive and expansive as its limited powers and resources allow.
I have no doubt that the proposer believes that, when it comes to interventions in court cases in Northern Ireland, there is a tendency for the Human Rights Commission not to address non-state abuses. There have been only 20 instances in three years in which the Human Rights Commission has sought to intervene, under its limited powers, in cases arising from killings and the use of violence in the North. In those instances, the cases tended to involve state killings rather than non-state killings, but the Human Rights Commission will also intervene in court cases relating to the activities of non- state organisations. The best evidence for that is that the commission intervened in the inquest into the deaths in Omagh. After the greatest atrocity committed against human life and standards in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, at the invitation of the Coroner for Greater Belfast, intervened on behalf of the families of the Omagh victims to assert their right to see the evidence that the RUC made available to the inquest. In that case, the Human Rights Commission intervened to ensure that the rights of the victims of a non-state organisation were protected and enhanced. There is no more eloquent and powerful evidence of the commission's readiness to intervene - without fear or favour and regardless of whether someone has been the victim of state or non-state violence - on behalf of citizens in the North.
If the proposer of the motion wants to talk about the Human Rights Commission and the Bill of Rights and about how they protect the victims in Northern Ireland, he should consider that evidence and see that they are impartial.
Dr Birnie:
The Member placed great emphasis on the Omagh case. Will he concede that the Human Rights Commission attempted to prevent the broadcasting of the BBC 'Panorama' programme, against the apparent wishes of the families of the victims of that atrocity?