COMMITTEE ON THE Friday 4 August 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: The Committee met at 10.00 am. (The Chairman (Mr Molloy) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Members should ensure that their mobile phones are switched off, because they interfere with the Hansard recording system. I draw members’ attention to the requirement to declare any interests that might be relevant to the work of the Committee. I am not sure what those interests might be. I ask the deputies from each party to confirm whom they are replacing. Mr O’Dowd: Michael Ferguson, Kathy Stanton and I are standing in for our party’s usual team. Ms Lewsley: I am standing in for Mark Durkan. Rev Dr Robert Coulter: I do not know whom I am replacing. I was told to be here in a telephone call last night at 11.00 pm. Dr Farren: You have a choice of three members to replace. Mrs Foster: Mr Clyde, Mr Poots and I are standing in for our party’s usual Committee on the Preparation for Government (PFG) team. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have copies of the paper that the PFG Committee agreed on the issues to be considered under the title of “Rights; Safeguards; Equality Issues and Victims”. I propose that we work our way through that list to identify which issues members wish to deal with first. Before we do that, each party may present a five-minute introduction. The Alliance Party will start. Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The list covers many of the issues that the Alliance Party raised in its initial submission; namely equality issues, community relations, rights and safeguards, victims, and dealing with the past. Although the Alliance Party wishes to highlight several items on the list, it does not have a comprehensive list of concerns. We welcome the work that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) has done to develop human rights legislation. That work represents a step forward, but a bill of rights is necessary and must be developed. Our particular concern is that the focus should be on the rights of the individual, not on those of groups. Our fear is that those who are not associated with groups would find that their human rights were diminished. Therefore, it is important that the exercising of human rights is based on an individual’s rights, not on group rights. If people choose to exercise their rights in groups, that is entirely a matter for them, but a person’s ability to exercise his or her rights should not be in any way diminished because he or she has not chosen to be part of a group. That is particularly important in a changing Northern Ireland, which has an increasing ethnic-minority population and higher levels of inward migration. Individuals must be reassured at both a policy and political level that their rights will be respected in the same way as those of people who associate with the larger and more traditional groups in Northern Ireland. Therefore, the Alliance Party wishes to highlight that matter under the “Rights/safeguards” heading. The Alliance Party’s view is that, in addition to establishing people’s rights, there must be provision for the responsible exercising of those rights. Everyone has rights that should be established in law. However, how rights can be exercised in a responsible way must be established to ensure that other issues, such as good relations and stability in our communities, are not affected negatively. It is important that collective responsibility and a sense of community are maintained in order that, although the rights that are determined under law can be exercised, that is not done in a negative and destabilising way. At all times, people must respect the rights of others. There are clearly issues surrounding dealing with the past, and truth and reconciliation. There are several models for dealing with issues from the past. The Alliance Party has made it clear in all its submissions that simply transplanting the mechanisms that have been used in another community is not necessarily the way forward. It will have to be explored in detail, for the definition of a victim is a very sensitive issue in our society. We have to deal with it, because the rights of those who have suffered most have to be protected if any process that we take forward is to be stable and healing for our community. I will link “Good relations” directly to the shared future agenda. If we are to move forward as a society and have a stable base on which to build institutions and democracy, we must have some shared sense of community. That must be at the forefront of people’s minds. Returning to some of our discussions on the institutions, we believe that the ministerial code of conduct should include a responsibility to behave in a way that is conducive to the promotion of good community relations. There are several overlapping issues in relation to a shared future. Parades have been identified as one issue, but we see them as part of an overall community relations remit. The way in which those issues, and the rights and equality issues around them, are handled is a mark of how we handle other disputes in our communities. The parades issue is often a touchstone rather than the core issue. We need to look at it in that context. We wish to see a good-relations responsibility placed on statutory authorities, so that Departments and statutory agencies, when deciding how to administer their finances and discharge their responsibilities, would have to consider the impact of those decisions on community relations. We also wish to see the implementation of policy appraisal for sharing over separation in order that future decisions would be considered on whether they increase or decrease segregation. That is an important consideration. We recognise that it will not be the deciding factor on every occasion, but it should at least be an important consideration. That is a brief overview of some of the key points. We will raise and elaborate on other matters in future meetings, but that is probably sufficient for the meantime. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Thank you for being precise. Mrs Foster: Thank you, Chairman. I agree with Naomi that this is a huge area. I want to skirt through a couple of the issues and draw them out. When we get to the work plan we will be able to flesh them out in more detail. A bill of rights would require the support of an overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland, and it would also need cross-community backing in the Assembly. The Human Rights Act 1998 achieved many of the desired objectives and balance, but the DUP is not averse to discussing how to move the debate forward on a bill of rights. We have engaged with various non-governmental organisations (NGOs) on that. I am sure that we will discuss it when the time comes. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has exceeded its terms of reference as set out in the Belfast Agreement. Its focus should reflect the circumstances of Northern Ireland, but, unfortunately, in many cases it has exceeded that and has commented on issues that fall firmly outside its remit — issues that are the responsibility of the legislature. As for the other commission, it is no secret that we believe that the Parades Commission should be abolished. It is part of the problem — it does not provide a solution to issues around parades. An alternative framework needs to be found for dealing with them. The Parades Commission is an unelected quango that has made many inconsistent determinations; it has punished those who have obeyed the law and rewarded those who have engaged in or threatened violence. We believe firmly that the Parades Commission is one of the issues that need to be discussed. The sub-heading “Culture” on the generic list is broken down into “Ethnic communities”, “Nationalist” and “Unionist”. Each party will have a view on what is important under each of those. There is no necessity at the moment to go through the list of what the DUP believes should be included. We will consider those individually when we come to the work plan. It is suffice to say that the ethnic-minority problem is new to this part of the UK. The nationalist and unionist issues are probably well rehearsed, but the ethnic minority issue must be foremost in our minds when we discuss the issues, and it must be tackled. As far as the DUP is concerned, “Dealing with the past” encompasses quite a few other sub-headings. However, I do not see the plight of the disappeared on the list, and it must be included. The DUP also wants to include: compensation for victims, dealing with unsolved crimes, and sustainable funding for victims’ groups, which was highlighted most recently in a report from the Interim Commissioner for Victims and Survivors of the Troubles. The DUP agrees with Naomi Long that, when considering how to deal with truth and reconciliation issues, Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances must be taken into account rather than simply copy something from another area or country. It is unhelpful to look at what is being done in other places, because people there are dealing with their own specific issues. I have already highlighted that good relations are not confined to the unionist/nationalist divide. They also concern what is happening within the ethnic minorities. That will be discussed later. Finally, “Confidence building” is included on the list. Since the Belfast Agreement, the unionist community has suffered a huge loss of confidence, and it is no secret that the DUP has made a number of suggestions to the Government on how to build the confidence of the largest community. The DUP will be happy to expand on those measures when the time comes. Mr Ferguson: Sinn Féin has consistently pressed for progress on the human-rights and equality agendas, and it will continue to do so. Some detail of what is required to advance those agendas is set out in this paper. Much of what Sinn Féin has pressed for to advance those issues is, however, the responsibility of the British Government. The Irish Government also have a responsibility to advance this agenda in the Six Counties. The Irish Government have a co-equal responsibility to implement the Good Friday Agreement and to ensure that the British take the necessary steps to give effect to that agreement. There is an obvious need for an all-Ireland harmonisation of human-rights protection and equality provision. The Good Friday Agreement envisaged the establishment of a Human Rights Commission in the North and one in the South. It also envisaged a joint committee of representatives from the two commissions that would act as a forum for the consideration of human-rights issues on the island of Ireland, with a view to establishing a charter of rights for everyone, North and South. Sinn Féin is, of course, prepared and willing to engage with any party on how to progress that agenda. Agreement among the parties on this Committee on how best to progress the various human rights issues and the equality agenda would send out a positive signal that all parties are committed to the achievement of what was envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement in respect of both human rights and equality. However, reaching agreement on how to progress those issues is not a prerequisite for the restoration of the political institutions. Discussions on those issues will, presumably, continue beyond the restoration of the institutions, but they must not be used as an excuse to delay restoration. Issues raised by parties are listed under the heading, “Rights; safeguards; equality issues and victims.” Further issues may be added to the list in future. Although many issues are self-explanatory, it is not clear how the various parties will approach them or whether they will attempt to make a case that discussion or agreement on each issue is part of a necessary preparation for Government. It is not clear, for example, what any party will raise under the heading of “Confidence building”, although a couple of references have been made to that today. 10.15 am Sinn Féin’s template is the Good Friday Agreement, and the positions that we have formulated on the identified issues are, therefore, consistent with the Good Friday Agreement. As regards prioritising the issues and the importance of moving forward on the bill of rights, British Minister Hain agreed in February to establish a round-table forum to facilitate grass-roots consultation and provide a momentum to move forward with a bill of rights. The Irish and British Governments must support that. Sinn Féin hopes that a round-table forum will provide the momentum, information and recommendations for the Secretary of State to introduce legislation. The Human Rights Commission and its powers are also important, and those powers are high on our priority list. Sinn Féin believes that the British Government need to come forward with their review of the HRC’s powers, so that political representatives and the wider community can ascertain whether they are sufficient. We want more powers to be given to the HRC and more resources made available to it. We want it to be allowed to investigate more thoroughly. The resourcing of the HRC is of primary importance, because only 80% of it is located in salaries. An independent mechanism must be put in place to facilitate the method by which appointments are made to the Human Rights Commission, as it is an important issue. Sinn Féin believes that those appointments should not be political, but that they should comprise human-rights experts and representatives from NGOs and trade unions. Appointments should be Paris Principles compliant — international best practice should apply. The issues of “Dealing with the past” and “Truth and Reconciliation” have come up. My colleagues have referred to them, and they are important. All the relevant parties need to have a genuine focused debate on the timing and purpose of any truth process. I do not accept the notion that we cannot learn from other experiences. Central to that must be the acknowledgement by the British state of its role as a primary protagonist in the conflict. Clarification of actions throughout the process is also important. Ms Lewsley: The SDLP also has important points to make, but the issues that we will debate did not give rise to suspension. We hope that none of the parties will elevate those issues into a precondition for restoration. The SDLP is saddened by the fact that the bill of rights has taken so long to come to fruition. We have worked for a long time with the Human Rights Consortium to ensure that it is brought about. It has been mentioned today that British direct rule Ministers promised many times to establish a round-table forum. The SDLP wants such a forum, with an international chairperson who is independent of Government, parties, the NIO and the NIHRC, with its own secretariat. Most importantly, it must bring together all the political parties. The round-table forum should report to the NIHRC, which, in turn, should report to the Secretary of State. That would not prevent the NIHRC from contributing to the forum, if the chairperson requests it to do so. A worthwhile provision of the comprehensive agreement was that the forum could get under way before restoration, so the SDLP calls on all the parties to ensure that that happens. With regard to the issue of “Confidence building”, a peace process has been in place for a decade, and often we have taken small, minimal steps. We must now take a very large step to ensure that there is restoration of the institutions for the people of Northern Ireland. The key to the culture and identity issue is contained in page 2 of the Good Friday Agreement, which says: “parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities”. Parties must take that collective approach. “Dealing with the past” has been included as an issue, and the SDLP would like the disappeared to be included under that heading. There is a need for a victims’ and survivors’ forum, which should be victim-centred and victim-led. More funding should be made available for the work that the Historical Enquiries Team (HET) and the Police Ombudsman are carrying out on the past. Of course, all that work must be human-rights compliant; there should be no return to the failed proposals of the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. “Shared future” and “Good relations” have been identified as issues, and they must include everybody. It should not be a matter of those who shout the most getting the best rewards. Often people have no involvement with particular organisations, but as individuals their voices still need to be heard. We must therefore ensure that our approach is inclusive. The SDLP has called on all parties to encourage dialogue between the Parades Commission and residents, because that is the only way forward. The party is opposed to any dilution of the Parades Commission’s powers and to any reviews that would bring that about. I have touched on a few issues, and I am sure that the debate around this table will enable the Committee to discuss them in more detail. Mr Nesbitt: This is my first opportunity to participate in the Committee on the Preparation for Government, and I welcome this chance to engage in dialogue. I view the subject of human rights and equality — in the wider sense, as distinct from the aspects on which the Committee will focus — as fundamental to making progress in Northern Ireland. Members would probably all disagree with each other’s citizenship, but we could all agree that we are citizens of a greater Europe. Looked at from that wider perspective, I, as a citizen of Europe, can expect no more or no less than to enjoy the same rights and equalities that obtain elsewhere in the wider Europe. I note the remarks of Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the DUP, and I am sorry to have missed the early part of the Alliance contribution. There is a coalescing of views. I could not disagree with Sinn Féin that human rights and equality are important — it says that in nearly every one of its statements. The party says that the Good Friday Agreement is the template and that it wants to achieve what has been set out in that agreement. I agree with that as well. Therefore this Committee must have rigour and structure, and it must adhere to and address those issues in that context. Not to cherry-pick, but I note that, only this week, Prime Minister Blair referred to the human spirit, and that is very important. When he was in California, he referred to the essential elements of democracy: rule of law; justice; and human rights. In fact, any functioning political institution — the establishment of which is the purpose of this Preparation for Government Committee — must have an effective democracy, underpinned by an understanding of and adherence to human rights. That understanding and adherence form the basis of any democracy. Thus I hope that the Committee will take those two words on board — it must first understand the issues and then adhere to them. I note also that, in the past 10 days, the UK Government, the Irish Government, Sinn Féin and many others have said that we must abide by international law. Indeed, one of the Sinn Féin representatives in the Oireachtas said that if the Israeli Government do not abide by international law, they should be subjected to European trade sanctions. I agree with abiding by international law. That principle underpins many of the topics that this Committee should be examining. We talk about structure and rigour in the Committee, but if we do not understand the problem, we cannot address the issue and find a solution. We are told that a lack of equality, a feeling of second-class citizenship and even the British presence in Ireland are part of the problem. We certainly have an identity problem; it is mentioned in the Good Friday Agreement, or the Belfast Agreement, as it is properly known. I look to human-rights legislation to address that difficulty. As I understand it, only one piece of hard law that deals with group accommodation is currently invoked — the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. I do not wish to play on the words “national” or “minority”, because I am conscious that the word “minority” may make people feel inferior. I do not use the word “minority” in any such context. It just means a lesser number. The framework convention has been ratified by the British and Irish Governments — the latter having done so under the terms of the Belfast Agreement. Therefore we need to understand what that convention says in order to make progress on human rights. I have tried to lay down some parameters for examination during the Committee’s discourse on human rights. However, I am content that an outside agency be called to give evidence. I would very much like to hear the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission’s view on what rights need to be addressed. Without any party predisposition, I would like to hear from Colin Harvey, a professor of human rights law at Queen’s University. He is a former member of the SDLP and a member of the Human Rights Commission, so he could not be viewed as a unionist. I would like him to help us in our discourse. The economic subgroup has called many witnesses to give evidence and advice, so I do not have a problem with people coming to speak to the Committee. Those are my views on the human-rights dimension. It is an important issue and is central to our deliberations. We need rigour and structure, and we need to know what the problem is and where we are coming from. We already have a framework in situ, which is laid down in international law, and which we should abide by. I use the phrase “abide by”, because in my initial comments I talked about an understanding of and adherence to human rights. I agree with the sentiments of the DUP person to my left. Mrs Foster: My name is Arlene, in case you had forgotten. Mr Nesbitt: Yes, I know. This time yesterday I was in an aeroplane somewhere north of Iraq, so I am just trying to find my feet. I apologise, Arlene. This will be suitably transcribed, so I apologise on the record for not remembering Arlene’s name. I had no doubt she would remind me as she did. As Arlene stated, let us take, for example, a bill of rights, which is important. We already have an international bill of rights comprising the UN Convention and political rights. Therefore, we should again adhere to what is in the agreement. 10.30 am I welcome Arlene Foster’s comment about adhering to the Belfast Agreement. I will move quickly to my second point. I am sorry that I will have to leave at 11.10 am. Equality is the second dimension to this important issue and, again, structure and rigor are needed to address it. The issue of equality was seen as a problem, but I have no difficulty with officials from the Equality Commission telling the Committee what the problems are. We must find the problems and see whether issues highlighted in the 1998 agreement have been dealt with, and if not, why not, and find a way to rectify the problem. Indeed, we must consider whether the problems were properly analysed in 1998 and, if they were or were not, were solutions properly derived to combat the problems? Discrimination featured very strongly in 1998. Was that addressed or is it still a problem? That all builds into a shared future. The summary by Darby and Knox, ‘An Analysis of the Responses to the Shared Future Consultation’, stated that equality of opportunity will lead to a better future and understanding of each other, rather than the other way around. In other words, better community relations will result from equality of opportunity, rather than the other way around. The cause and effect is important. I am more than happy for Bob Collins, the Equality Commission’s Chief Commissioner, to speak to the Committee about discrimination. Robert will make a few concluding comments on truth and reconciliation and victims. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): At this early stage, parties are meant give short, five-minute presentations. Can you sum up quickly, Robert? Rev Dr Robert Coulter: This is my first time at the Committee, and I am not sure of the usual format. I have been asked to speak about victims. The first thing that comes to mind is that the old maxim of philosophical reason remains true: if the first premise is flawed, all that follows, including the conclusion, will be flawed. We must define what constitutes a victim. As there is diversity of opinion on that, it is vital to determine the definition at the beginning, so that all that follows can be debated within that context. The post of victims’ commissioner should be made permanent and not an interim post, as it is at present, because of the importance of the victims issue in the future. Victims’ groups should be registered and their financing should be regulated to ensure equitable treatment among groups and clear and understandable administration. Truth has been one of the rarer commodities in Northern Ireland in the past, and, like Pilate, I could ask: “What is truth?”. Again, we must have a definition of truth. On the issue of reconciliation, because victims have such a diversity of need, I agree that the emphasis should be on the individual and that each individual should be treated in his or her own right. There are many diversities among victims: a diversity of need; a diversity of reaction; a diversity of suffering; a diversity of memory — I could continue. Wearing my other hat in relation to forgiveness, we must look at the two sides of forgiveness. Both sides must be in operation if forgiveness is to take place: there must be a willingness to be forgiven, and a willingness to forgive. Far too much emphasis has been placed on the willingness to forgive without the willingness to be forgiven being brought to the fore. Perhaps a truth and reconciliation forum is not the best way forward for Northern Ireland; no one size of shoe fits everybody. Each individual has his or her own requirements: some people want to be left alone with their grief; some want to contact the Historical Enquiries Team, so that they might discover the truth; and some want to be part of a support group. There is diversity, and the situation in South Africa is not comparable to the situation in Northern Ireland. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): All the issues will be discussed in detail later. This is an introductory stage, and we will identify categories as we proceed. Rev Dr Robert Coulter: My apologies if I have overstepped the mark. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I am sorry to have cut across you. We will deal with individual issues presently. The Committee Clerks have compiled a list of suggested themes headed “Rights; safeguards; equality issues and victims”, of which members now have copies. Members can suggest additional issues — a couple of items have already been mentioned. We should try to position any new issues under the existing headings rather than create new categories. Items on the list are not in any order of priority and nothing is written in stone. Future evidence sessions may be informed by these headings. Mrs Foster: Can “The disappeared” be included under the heading “The Past”? Mrs Long: Perhaps “The Past” is not the best heading under which to include “The disappeared”. People continue to be exiled from society, and victims are being created even as we speak. “Legacy issues” might be a better heading. Mrs Foster: We could change the generic term. Mrs Long: I understand the thinking behind the heading “The Past”, but new victims can be created at any time. Mr O’Dowd: In previous meetings of this Committee, Sinn Féin said that it is happy to discuss any issues that are presented by any party. We are more than happy to discuss the issue of the disappeared. However, parties cannot come to meetings wanting the latest news headlines to be included on the list of issues. This Committee has been up and running for seven weeks, and the DUP has had plenty of opportunities to introduce the issue of the disappeared. We are more than happy to discuss that issue, but we do not want it to be used as a political football or as a point-scoring exercise. The way to proceed is to discuss the issue sensitively and constructively in order to help families to retrieve the bodies of their lost loved ones. Mrs Foster: I must respond to that. The person who has just spoken knows that it was not only the DUP that raised the issue of the disappeared. It is not simply a reaction to this week’s news; the disappeared has always been an issue. It is contained under the sub-heading ”Victims issues”, and the DUP insists that it be included on the list because the issue must be dealt with. Other parties will feel the same way. Mr Ford: The Alliance Party mentioned the issue of the disappeared at an early stage, as did the SDLP. Should “The disappeared” appear as a separate category under the sub-heading “Victims issues”? This is not about grandstanding; some of us have been talking about this issue for years. On the list, “Shared future” is a sub-heading under “Equality issues”, and “Good relations” is a sub-heading under “Culture and confidence issues”. “Shared future” means significantly more than “Equality issues” and should be linked to “Good relations”. Dr Farren: I wish to focus on David Ford’s last point. Along with “Good relations”, “Shared future” must be identified as an issue in itself, because, as the term suggests, it points to the future. I suggest that that sub-heading be removed. I do not see any distinction between the concept of a shared future and that of good relations. I want to see the issue of a shared future treated distinctly. Whether people refer to that as “Good relations” is neither here nor there in one sense, but it is of such significance that it must be identified as a heading in itself. Mr Ferguson: “Good relations” should be taken out from under the heading “Culture and confidence issues”. That sub-heading very clearly belongs under the heading “Equality issues”, primarily because the Equality Commission should be clearly identified as the public authority responsible for dealing with that matter. That matter should not lie with the Community Relations Council. The Equality Commission already has responsibility for promoting good relations in respect of race. “Good relations” should not be dealt with under its current heading; its home is with other equality issues. Ms Stanton: I wish to reiterate that point. The Equality Commission should be clearly identified as having sole responsibility for promoting good relations. Sinn Féin supports the establishment of a commission for national reconciliation under the authority of the North/South Ministerial Council, which would report to the Executive and to the Dáil, and would instigate and participate in consultation and research on the question of inclusivity. Mr Nesbitt: I largely agree with the points made by Seán Farren and David Ford, followed by those of Michael Ferguson. Although the issues are placed under four discrete headings, there is, nonetheless, overlap and interplay among three of the four headings. The heading “The Past” is slightly different — Arlene Foster has referred to the phrasing of that — but the other three headings clearly overlap. In my introductory comments, I said that John Darby and Colin Knox’s Government-commissioned policy document ‘A Shared Future’ was very clear in one of its conclusions that equality of opportunity would lead to good relations, rather than vice versa. Good relations will not lead to equality of opportunity, so there is a highly important relationship between equality and good relations. If we have equality and good relations, we will have a shared future. All those matters are subject to interplay. Under the sub-heading “Culture”, the sub-entries are “Ethnic communities”, “Nationalist” and “Unionist”. I have no problem with those wordings. However, it is highly important that, from an international law perspective, to which all Governments are expected to subscribe, a cultural dimension is fundamental to a bill of rights and to human rights. Culture is not decoupled from rights and safeguards — quite the reverse. The right to one’s culture is an integral part of one’s rights. I have no problem if we keep those matters separate, so long as the Committee accepts the fact that rights, safeguards, equality, culture and confidence issues may all interrelate and that there is interplay among them. Each matter is somewhat dependent on the other. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): All those issues are interrelated. The Clerks have decided to allow four days for evidence sessions and four days for this Committee to meet. As I said at the outset, there is no order of priority among the issues that are listed. The list consists of groupings to cover the issues. All the issues are interrelated and overlap at times. There is no order of priority in the groupings, and the Committee can decide which grouping it wishes to consider first. Mrs Long: This discussion does not concern only the structure of the four days of meetings, although I understand that that is the idea behind setting out the list. Simply placing “Good relations” under the heading “Equality issues” would limit our discussions, because that already frames that matter as simply an equality issue, which it is not. “Good relations” has a much wider scope than simply that of an equality issue. That is the point that we were trying to make. “Good relations” is not limited to equality, and it is quite clear that a wider discussion is required on that matter. Sinn Féin has gone further than disagreeing with the placing of “Good relations” under its current heading for the purposes of discussion. That party has said that it is within the remit of the Equality Commission to promote good relations. I made it clear in my earlier statement that we believe there should be a statutory duty on all Government Departments and agencies to promote good relations. That is already an issue for discussion, but we cannot prejudge that discussion by subsuming “Good relations” and “Shared future” under the banner of “Equality issues” because, as far as we — and to some extent, the SDLP and the UUP — are concerned, they have a much wider remit. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Let us start at the beginning of the list. There are four categories in the suggested list. Is “Rights/safeguards” an accepted heading? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): What sub-headings do members wish to include under that heading? Mr Ferguson: “Bill of Rights”. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are members agreed that “Bill of Rights” belongs under “Rights/safeguards”? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do Members have other issues? Mr Ferguson: “Human Rights”. 10.45 am Dr Farren: What distinction are you making? A bill of rights is more specific than the concept of human rights in general, but what is the specific distinction? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That may not matter, because the list is based on parties’ submissions. Dr Farren: OK. If someone sees a clear distinction, that is fine. Mrs Foster: I assume that there are separate headings because a Human Rights Commission exists, and we have some difficulties with it. Mr Ford: It may have been the case that two separate parties suggested different wording covering the same issue. Dr Farren: Fine; let us leave that for now. Mr Nesbitt: Mr Chairman, could you briefly summarise for me — the new boy at the table — in what context this agenda will be dealt with? That is not a negative question; I am simply seeking information. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I am not sure that I understand the question. Mr Nesbitt: Someone mentioned parties making submissions, four days of meetings, etc. I am conscious of how the Committee has operated previously, when party submissions were made and party representatives were questioned. How will the Committee handle the four issues that we are trying to agree? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The list emerged from the presentations made by all of the parties during the early stages of the PFG Committee. Clerks drew out of that list— Mr Nesbitt: I am not disputing that. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It was suggested that we break the work down into four days of evidence sessions, because that is the time limit within which we are working. We have been given an extension of one week for the preparation of a report, but if we are going to take evidence, we will break that down into four days. It is up to the Committee how to deal with each item on the list. Members may wish to call witnesses, for example. Is that clear enough? Mr Nesbitt: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Parades was another proposed topic. Is that agreed? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Would anyone like to add anything else under the “Rights/safeguards” heading? Right, there is nothing else at this stage, but we can come back to it. Let us move to “Equality issues”. Are members content with that heading? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The first sub-heading under “Equality issues” is the obvious one of “Equality”. Are members content with that? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members have any comments? Dr Farren: Those sub-headings are “Equality” and “Shared future”. As I said earlier, someone looking at this list might suggest that “Shared future” was being subsumed into some of the other topics. If we have four days, there is no reason why a morning cannot be devoted to “Equality” and an afternoon to “Shared future”, so that “Shared future” appears in bold type. That is an important concept, and not to have it recorded as such would convey an incorrect message. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Therefore we add it to the title, which becomes “Equality and shared future”. Dr Farren: Yes. That is the proper way to deal with it. Mr Ferguson: I would like to see “Good relations” included for the reasons that I have already given. The power and responsibility for that clearly lie with the Equality Commission. Mr Ford: Mr Chairman, Michael can keep repeating that if he wishes — Mr Ferguson: Excuse me. Mr Chairman, I was speaking. Mr Ford: Sorry. I thought that the member had given way. Mr Ferguson: You did not ask me to give way. I think it would be remiss not to include “Good relations” along with discussions on “Shared future”. They both fall within the remit of equality and, for that matter, human rights. From the point of view of responsibility for moving forward and ensuring that it is enshrined within a legal framework, “Good relations” must come under the heading of “Equality issues”. Mr Ford: Michael can repeat as often as he wishes that “Shared future” and “Good relations” fit solely under “Equality issues”. That is simply not accepted by at least two parties at this table. There is not much point in his continuing to repeat that point if we have to continue repeating our disagreement. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Let us all calm down. We have a number of new members in attendance today who have not dealt with this matter before. Mr Nesbitt: We have read the Hansard report, Mr Chairman. We are very conscious — The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I am not saying that you have not read it. Mr Ferguson: In the Middle East, no less. Mrs Foster: I was going to make a suggestion along the lines of Seán Farren’s. Just because we have four days does not necessarily mean that we must have four topics. I received the paper on the institutions yesterday, and there are considerably more than four topics in it. I suggest that we leave “Equality issues” with “Equality” and have “Good relations” and “Shared future” as a separate bold heading. We will probably deal with those on the same day because we are working within such a tight time frame. That is where we would like to see that topic placed. Mrs Long: At the very least, it should be a bold heading. If we are going to rework it as one session, I suggest that the heading should be “Equality and shared future” with separate sub-headings of “Equality” and “Good relations” underneath. Simply to subsume “Good relations” and “Shared future” under the equality remit is to prejudge the outcome of these discussions. That would not be acceptable to us or, I suspect, to other parties. Ms Lewsley: I agree. Let us be clear: the Equality Commission oversees the duty to promote equality of opportunity and the duty to promote good relations. However, the Community Relations Council also has a role in promoting good relations, as set out in the document ‘A Shared Future’. Therefore, there is not only one body dealing with this matter. We agree with Naomi’s recommendation. Ms Stanton: We can leave that as it is and discuss it under “Equality issues”. However, the Equality Commission already has responsibility for promoting good relations in respect of race. Therefore, it should be given the additional responsibility of promoting good relations between people of different religious and political beliefs. However, that is open for discussion. Mr Nesbitt: To repeat what Patricia and Naomi said, the Equality Commission has a clear legal remit — section 75(1) and section 75(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 deal with equality of opportunity and good relations — but just because it has the sole remit does not mean that it is the only body with any responsibility. As Patricia rightly said, the Community Relations Council has a role. I referred to the Darby and Knox policy document ‘A Shared Future’. All of that is to do with community relations, so it is much wider than simply a matter for the Equality Commission. Mr Poots: There appears to be general agreement around the table, so can we move on instead of waffling on? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are members agreed that the main heading should be “Equality and shared future” with the sub-headings “Equality”, “Shared future” and “Good relations”? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We now come to “The Past”. Mr Poots: I suggest that heading “The past and its legacy” and the sub-heading “Dealing with the past and its legacy”. That covers what has happened already and what is happening now. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we have agreement? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will move on to the sub-heading “Truth and Reconciliation”. Was another title suggested? Mr Poots: My suggestion was “Dealing with the past and its legacy”. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is this the right place to insert the issue about the disappeared? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are members content that “Victims issues” be inserted here? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Should anything else be added to this section? Members indicated dissent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We move to the heading “Culture and confidence issues”. The sub-heading “Good relations” has been removed from here. The first sub-heading is “Confidence building”. The second is “Culture”, and no priority is ascribed to the order in which the items within that sub-heading have been printed. Mr Nesbitt: I repeat that culture, in the understanding, definition and acceptance of those dealing in human rights, is a central element of human rights. The same is true of the sub-headings “Good relations” and “Shared future”, which are under the heading “Equality issues”. I am not sure that culture can be segregated from human rights, but if the Committee wishes to do so then I do not mind. The subject matter will be dealt with whether it is under a sub-heading or a separate heading. Mrs Foster: I recognise what Dermot is saying, but this is much wider than just the legalistic aspect of human rights. The DUP wishes to bring many issues to the table under the sub-heading that would not be on the human rights agenda. I would prefer that the sub-heading remain under the heading “Culture and confidence issues”. Mr Nesbitt: I do not disagree with what Arlene is saying but, as a lawyer, I look forward to hearing what she is going to ask this Committee to do that is not based on the law. Mrs Foster: You will just have to wait and see. Mr Nesbitt: The problem is that we have got an illegal lawyer. Mr Ford: We should not tell the judiciary that we said that. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Dermot, are you finished? [Laughter.] I do not mean that in any derogatory sense. Mr Nesbitt: What did you say? I hope that Hansard records what you said. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): All I said was: “Are you finished?” Mr Nesbitt: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I did not mean any disrespect. Dr Farren: I am at a loss to understand what confidence building might mean under the heading “Culture and confidence issues”. My understanding of the term goes back to the agreement. There is a host of measures, some of which would fall under the previous headings. However, if someone has a clear understanding of what it might mean in this context I would like to hear it. I do not recall in earlier meetings of the Committee any specific discussion of what confidence building might mean apart from the totality of measures that amount to building our confidence in our commitments to whatever we have to do. Mr Poots: There is a huge number of issues to be addressed under confidence building. Sinn Féin in particular in the past has derided the unionist community as being on its knees. A substantial element of that occurred in the aftermath of the Belfast Agreement and is about how the unionist community has been treated during that period. As things go on, I am sure that we will get our teeth into the meat of this. Dr Farren: That still does not indicate anything specific. Some of the measures I might understand Edwin to be referring to have to be dealt with in other sessions of the Preparation for Government Committee. We will soon be turning to the question of who we are going to invite to speak to us about the issues — and who we will be inviting to speak to us about confidence building. I am not terribly sure about who that will be. On the other issues that we have identified I am sure that I would have some suggestions for witnesses. 11.00 am The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I take it, Seán, that you are looking for sub-headings. Mr Poots: I can provide the flavour for which Seán is looking. We have an Equality Commission, and two thirds of its make-up is Roman Catholic, yet it is supposed to be delivering on equality issues. We have a divided society, yet we have an Equality Commission, which oversees businesses on equality and fairness issues, that has not delivered fair and equal employment in its own organisation. That has to be challenged. There is an issue with the Housing Executive and the number of houses that are being built in unionist areas. There is also the issue of the chill factor against Protestants in our universities. Another example is the Queen’s University Belfast School of Law, in which the unionist community is vastly outnumbered. Why has that not been dealt with? That is a small flavour of the range of issues that we wish to look at and challenge. Dr Farren: Those are specific issues that relate to equality measures, and those can be discussed under the heading “Equality issues”. I have no problem with the DUP raising those issues. However, if we take confidence-building measures separately, that would mean calling a lot of the same people back. I am just at a loss to understand that. Mrs Foster: I do not understand, Seán. We are not calling witnesses — except, perhaps, the Secretary of State — to attend the PFG Committee meetings on “law and order”. There is no need to call witnesses on every single topic. Parties will be aware that the DUP submitted to the Government a 64-page document on confidence-building measures for the community. I have it in front of me, but I am loath to go through every single part of it now. Suffice to say, it should stay on the agenda. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Can the Committee agree that Arlene wants “Confidence building” on the agenda and that if other parties have papers on confidence-building measures that they want to put forward — from whichever community they come — those papers can become part of their submissions? Ms Stanton: Sinn Féin does not have a problem with that, but we believe that confidence building is about showing leadership. When it comes to political representation, it is about restoring the institutions. Confidence-building measures involve the restoration of the institutions and power sharing. That is where confidence building begins — it is about leadership and about giving people confidence. Mr O’Dowd: I just want to correct a statement by Edwin. Sinn Féin has never stated that the unionist community is on its knees. We do not wish to see the unionist community on its knees. It is the DUP that is saying that there is no confidence among members of the unionist community, something with which I do not agree. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We shall not go into that. Mr Ferguson: John has raised one of the issues that Edwin has brought to the floor. I understand Edwin’s concerns, and we will probably agree that an independent mechanism should be put in place for appointments to the Equality Commission. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We are actually identifying what the issues are; we can debate them later. Confidence building forms part of them. Do we agree that “Ethnic communities”, “Nationalist” and “Unionist” should go under the sub-heading “Culture”? Are there any additions? Mr Ford: We are happy enough, Mr Chairman, as long as we do not regard those as comprising an exclusive list under “Culture”, but as exemplars. Otherwise, there could be people left out who do not belong to an ethnic minority and are neither nationalist nor unionist, which would hardly be inclusive. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is there anything you want to add to the list at this stage? Mr Ford: As long as they are taken as exemplars and are not definitive, I have no problem. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is that agreed? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have four headings now: “Rights/safeguards”; “Equality issues”; “The Past”; and “Culture and confidence issues”. Can we select the issue that we want to deal with first? It is not a priority, but one issue is the work programme. If the Committee decides to call witnesses, the time involved in that must be factored in. As many issues will have to be agreed by the parties, witness evidence may not be of much value. Mr Poots: Many of these issues are cross-cutting, and some have been discussed in the past. We should not get too hung up about the order, because some issues will cut across two or three headings. I do not see any difficulty in dealing with them as they are set out. I imagine that witnesses will be called to give evidence on the bill of rights and on human rights in general. The Equality Commission may be called to speak about equality. If witnesses are called, it may be better to deal first with the issues that do not require witnesses, in order to allow more time to arrange for witnesses to appear before the Committee. Mrs Long: Perhaps the least contentious solution would be to discuss the issues in the order in which they are presented. If we rearrange them, it might suggest that we were trying to prioritise one issue over another. I do not think that anyone would suggest that the order in which we deal with the issues in any way indicates their priority. I suggest that we deal with them in the order that they appear at present, accepting that that does not give them priority. We do not object if the Committee decides to call witnesses. However, the economic challenges subgroup has become bogged down with many delegations, and that has absorbed a lot of time. The subgroup has had a much longer time frame in which to continue its work. This Committee needs to bear in mind that, if witnesses are called, the tendency will be for other members to call witnesses to dispute the witnesses that they do not like, and that will result in a cyclical situation. Unless witnesses are urgently required to speak about human rights and parades, which are among the first issues for discussion in the proposed order, it may be better to reconsider calling witnesses later. A long list of witnesses may not be constructive. Mr O’Dowd: We have no difficulty with calling witnesses in principle. However, I accept what Naomi has said. Time is against us, and we have four, possibly five, sittings ahead of us. As the Chairman said, it is for the parties to put their points and to reach agreement on the issues, and we should proceed with that. Mr Poots: Will the order give Committee staff flexibility to move issues around if there is difficulty in arranging when witnesses appear before the Committee? We should not be too hung up on the order. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. Are members agreed on the order as set out? At the next meeting, the Committee will deal with rights and safeguards. Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are there any particular witnesses that members feel should be called to speak about rights and safeguards? Ms Lewsley: The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Rev Dr Robert Coulter: The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. Ms Lewsley: The Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities (NICEM). Dr Farren: Equality issues are separate. Mr Ferguson: The Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ). Mrs Foster: If we call NGOs, we will be here for a heck of a long time. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We can keep adding to the list and toing and froing. Mr Ferguson: Surely we are not going to be prescriptive either? Mr O’Dowd: Thirty seconds ago, most parties said that witnesses would not be required; now we are producing a list of potential witnesses. If we do not have an agreed list of witnesses, we will have no witnesses. Mrs Foster: I would be happy not to call any witnesses. Mr Ford: Mr Chairman, when this Committee met to discuss another strand of issues, you highlighted the danger of inviting witnesses unless they have something specific to add. Unless the witnesses are limited to a very small number of statutory bodies, this tit for tat will continue. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That is the problem. Many of the witnesses that have appeared before the economic challenges subgroup — and no disrespect to any of them — have concentrated on the issues that are important to them rather than deal with the main issues and impediments. Mrs Long: Would it be best for the Committee to do as it did on the policing issue? Parties would discuss the issue, and witnesses or written submissions could be requested to answer questions or technical points that we do not have the expertise to answer and where the input of witnesses is necessary. That may be a more constructive way forward. I am conscious that our first meeting on this is in one week’s time, which is a very short time considering that our remit is essentially unclear now. If the Human Rights Commission were to appear before the Committee to talk about human rights, a couple of weeks would need to be set aside — not just a morning. We must be realistic when calling witnesses and ensure that there are discrete issues that we want them to cover. The best solution may be for the Committee to have its preliminary discussions and identify areas in which that type of support would be necessary. Dr Farren: Perhaps this Committee needs a clear sense of what it is trying to achieve in relation to human rights. As things stand, there is a Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, a requirement to prepare a bill of rights and considerable disagreement among the parties about how to make progress. The Human Rights Commission has been charged with developing a bill of rights. This Committee is not here to reinvent a bill of rights or to consider existing fundamental human rights. Our consideration is the specific requirement for a bill of rights in Northern Ireland, problems that will arise in obtaining that and the issues that the bill should address. It would be helpful to hear from the Human Rights Commission as to the current state of play on the preparation of the bill of rights, so that the Committee can be well informed. If members can reach a collective position, we could consider how we want to see the bill of rights taken forward in the medium term. The Committee is not reinventing the wheel; it is dealing with specific issues that have arisen over the past few years and with which the parties have identified problems. Mr Ferguson: In general, I do not disagree with you, Seán. However, the parties around the table know that there was an agreement to set up a round-table forum for the purpose of generating a momentum, which is currently absent, in the creation of the bill of rights. If I am not mistaken, four of the parties agreed to that, and Sinn Féin wants that round-table forum up and running by the autumn. Reaching agreement on that would be a positive step. I do not know whether it is necessary for the HRC to come in to tell the Committee what needs to be done, because we have already agreed to it. Mrs Foster: I broadly support what Naomi said: the Committee should start the scoping exercise and any specific issues that arise can be raised with invited witnesses or requested in written form. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): This Committee works on the basis of consensus, so if some parties do not agree to call witnesses at this stage, perhaps we should first examine the issues that have been raised, as Naomi suggested. The Committee could return to the question of calling witnesses if members feel that they want specific answers from specific people. Ms Lewsley: Does the timescale allow for that? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Our next meeting is next Friday. Ms Lewsley: I understand that. What I meant was that if the issues that are raised result in members wanting to invite witnesses, will there be there additional time for that? Already, four days have been assigned to the different topics. That schedule brings us into the fifth week. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We are tight for time. However, the Committee could have an extra day to call witnesses under the “Other” heading on the paper. Some issues may not take up a full day, so there is that flexibility. It would probably mean sitting for an extra day to hear from witnesses, as their presentations can be quite lengthy. Are members content with that? Rev Dr Robert Coulter: I agree with what has been suggested and with what Arlene has said, because from my experience on the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I know that inviting a lot of witnesses led to a great deal of repetition. The Committee needs to define the areas on which it wants information in order to avoid that. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members agree? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Committee has received a letter from the Secretary of State notifying us of three Members who will be added to the list of Chairpersons for the economic challenges subgroup. They are: Naomi Long, Jim Wilson and Alban Maginness. Are members content with that? Members indicated assent. 11.15 am The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The economic challenges subgroup will be notified of those changes. The Committee has received another letter from the Secretary of State regarding its request to postpone the first plenary sessions from 4 September and 5 September to 11 September and 12 September to allow more time for the Committee to produce its reports. The Secretary of State’s response relates more to the part of the Committee that is dealing with “Institutional issues”, which this part of the Committee has already discussed, rather than to our request for a meeting with Mr Hanson to discuss the devolution of policing and justice. I suggest that we forward the letter to the part of the PFG Committee that is dealing with “Institutional issues”, which will meet on Monday 7 August. Are members content to do that? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The next PFG Committee meeting is on Monday 7 August, but the next meeting of the Committee dealing with “Rights; safeguards; equality issues and victims” is on Friday 11 August. Mr O’Dowd: It is perhaps not for discussion now, but it would be useful if advisers to the political parties sat closer to the parties, rather than at the back of the room. I do not wish to debate that now, but it could be included on an agenda for a future meeting. Ms Stanton: They do not want to sit at the back of the bus. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Members should prepare for an all-day sitting next Friday. Adjourned at 11.17 am. |