COMMITTEE ON THE Friday 11 August 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: The Committee met at 10.03 am. (The Chairman (Mr Wells) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Wells): Ladies and gentlemen, our meetings have settled into a well-tested format. Lunch will be delivered at 12.10 pm. There will follow a short adjournment, and, when the meeting resumes, I encourage members to take their places and continue their lunch. I expect the meeting to finish at 4.00 pm, which will probably be the case for each meeting from now on. I hope that no one needs to be reminded of the mobile phone issue. Members may put them in the hold, but they cannot bring them into the room. [Laughter.] Folk are still trying to slip their mobile phones in, keep them on silent mode, and receive text messages. I must insist that they are switched off. I say that at the beginning of each meeting, and during each meeting, I hear the little “beep beep, beep beep” that tells me that members are receiving text messages. The full complement of DUP members is now present. Therefore, we will go through the apologies and list the deputies. Lord Morrow, will you indicate who is representing whom from the DUP? Lord Morrow: I will do so if I can think clearly. Mrs Foster: Unfortunately, I am not Lord Morrow today; I am probably Ian Paisley Jnr. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a big improvement. Am I right to presume that Mr Poots is representing William McCrea and that Lord Morrow is himself? Lord Morrow: Yes. Mr McFarland: Mr Nesbitt is representing Mr Kennedy, and I am expecting Mr McNarry to arrive shortly. Mrs Long: I am myself, and Kieran McCarthy is David Ford. Mr A Maginness: I am representing Seán Farren. Ms Lewsley: I am representing Mark Durkan. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What about the SDLP’s third representative? Ms Lewsley: There is no one else coming. Mr Ferguson: Pat O’Rawe is representing Michelle Gildernew, and I am representing Conor Murphy. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Will a third member from Sinn Féin be attending? Mr Ferguson: No. Mr Nesbitt: I attended a meeting of the PFG Committee for the first time last Friday. Before the meeting, my colleague Alan McFarland said to me on the phone that my first words to the Committee should be to tell the Chair that I am Alan McFarland. I asked him what he meant, and he told me that I would be deputising for him. I would have thought that attendance would have been as simple as three members coming from each party. It seems odd to ask members to state who they are and to hear them say, for example, that they are Seán Farren or Alban Maginness. I accept that that is the procedure, but it struck me as odd to ask members who they are. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Each of the four largest parties, plus the Alliance Party, formally nominated three of their members to attend the Committee. However, confusion has arisen when a fourth member from a particular party has attended, and no one knew who was deputising for whom. That is why we ask members to state the member for whom they are deputising. The system has worked well, and the Committee has maintained a good, quorate turnout. Mr Nesbitt: As I say, I was curious to know why that happens. I thought that parties could count — Mr McFarland: To clarify, this is the Committee on the Preparation for Government, and three members from each of the four largest parties, plus the Alliance Party, attend its meetings. Parties are allowed to substitute their named members with members who are experts on particular subjects, which means that extra light can be shed on the topics that are being discussed. That is why members are brought in to deputise. The Chairman (Mr Wells): To prevent members swapping, with each pretending to be the same member, something that has happened, it is important to know whom members represent. Mr Nesbitt: Does that mean that if three members name themselves at the beginning of a meeting, there can be no duplication for the duration of that meeting? The Chairman (Mr Wells): There could be duplication, but the members would have to name the members whom they were replacing. For example, a member could replace Mr Smith who had been deputising for Mr Jones. I am sure that that is clear. Lord Morrow: It is, but I think that it should be left for now. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The next item on the agenda is to agree the minutes of the meeting of 4 August. They have been circulated. Are members content that the minutes are an accurate record of proceedings? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Normally we would move straight to the substantive issue, but we have received a letter from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Consortium — Mr Nesbitt: I am sorry, Mr Chairman, but I have another point to make. I do not disagree with the minutes, but I am conscious that although they show when a member enters or leaves the Committee room and show which members were present at particular times, Hansard reports do not. Members know the purpose of Hansard. However, Hansard reports do not show whether I was present for something or whether I did not speak or vote. That may be because I was not there or I declined to the opportunity to speak. Given that Hansard indicates certain timings, would it help with clarity if the times at which members enter or leave meetings were recorded in small italics in the Official Report? The reader would then know whether members had been present for particular debates. That is only a suggestion; I am not saying that it must happen. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Hansard lists — . Mr Nesbitt: I have mentioned this matter to officials. That is why I have held back until now. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We can check that matter with the Editor of Debates, Mr Burrowes. Hansard reports include references to the time every 15 minutes. The difficulty is that those must be cross-referenced with the Committee minutes. Mr Nesbitt: Mr Chairman, one cannot cross-reference those documents. The Chairman (Mr Wells): One can work out whether a member was in the room when a decision was made. Mr Nesbitt: I am sorry, Mr Chairman; one cannot do that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): If you check the minutes, you will see that they list very clearly when members arrive and leave. Mr Nesbitt: That is correct. For example, the minutes might state that I left the meeting at 11.05 am. However, one cannot detect from Hansard whether I was present for a certain discussion. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We can ask Mr Burrowes to consider that matter. Mr Nesbitt: I have asked officials about the matter. I hoped that a comment might have been forthcoming this morning. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Obviously, Mr Burrowes will be upstairs, listening to this discussion. He will look into the matter, and we will ask him to come back to the two Chairmen and to make a ruling. Mr Nesbitt: I am not trying to be awkward, Mr Chairman, I am just trying to ensure that there is clarity on who is present when a discussion takes place. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Members of Hansard staff are present at meetings to list members’ names as they speak, so that the voice on the recording matches the name in the record. Are members content that we seek clarification on that matter? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Members will have a copy of a letter received from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Consortium. In the letter, the Human Rights Consortium requests the opportunity to appear before us to make a presentation. I have mentioned the letter now, because there is little sense in discussing a bill of rights and coming back to the letter later. We have considered calling witnesses, and we took the view that, no matter how valid their relevance to the work of the Committee, if we went down the route of inviting one set of witnesses, inevitably — this being Northern Ireland — within five minutes that information would get out, and people would question why we took evidence from the Human Rights Consortium, but did not take evidence from whomever else. That is the problem that we face. So far, we have decided not to call witnesses unless a burning issue emerges on which we require further clarification from a group or an individual. However, because of time constraints, and having seen the amount of work that calling witnesses has created for the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland, that has been our position. However, Maggie Beirne has written to us to say that her organisation is keen to appear before us. What do members feel about that? Mr Nesbitt: I noted the discussion on that matter in the Hansard report, and the comments that I made last week. There is a distinction to be made between the two statutory bodies — the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission, which, as Government agencies, are tasked to deal with those two issues — and other interested groups. I would decouple them from, as you rightly say, a plethora of other interested groups. If we invited one group, where would we stop? The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is not the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission that has asked to appear before us; it is the Northern Ireland Human Rights Consortium. Mr Nesbitt: I am not saying that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has asked to appear before us. You raised this issue because Maggie Beirne and Patrick Corrigan asked to appear before us. Mr Chairman, you posed the question: if we invite one of those groups, where do we stop? I am trying to point out the distinction between the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission, and the rest of the interested groups. Ms Lewsley: I wish to clarify that the Human Rights Consortium is an umbrella organisation for the majority of those other groups. It is different from the Human Rights Commission in that it is a self-contained body. Mr Chairman, you have rightly pointed out that, at our last meeting on 4 August, we decided that we would prefer to get on with the work in hand, and then decide whether we wished to call witnesses for any type of evidence or questioning. I propose that we do that. Mr Poots: I second that. Mrs Foster: The DUP supports that contention. In her letter, Maggie Beirne clearly makes the point that she has met all the political parties. We are all very aware of the work of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Consortium. Therefore, unless there is some other burning issue to address, we should move on. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The caveat is that, if we feel that we need to go back to any group, we can. Are members content with that position and the decision to advise the Northern Ireland Human Rights Consortium accordingly? Members indicated assent. 10.15 am The Chairman (Mr Wells): The next issue is the revised list of rights, which has been broken down into headings. Are members content to proceed on the basis of those headings? I emphasise again that they are in no particular order of priority; the list simply gives us a structure in which we can debate the issues in a rational manner. Mr McFarland: Chairman, unfortunately I was unable to attend last week, but I see from the Hansard report that the Committee did not carry out the exercise that it did on the other topics that it has covered. That exercise involved giving some thought to issues that could be influenced by decisions that the Committee can make. In its other guises, the Committee decided that there were certain issues that it could flag up and make noises about but, in essence, would have to park either for the Assembly or others to deal with. Would it be worth bearing in mind what effect we can actually have on the matter that is under discussion? We can spend quite a long time going round the houses on lots of interesting stuff without making a difference to anything. I raise this matter because the agreement was specific about the bill of rights. It might be worthwhile to refresh our memories about what it says in paragraph 4 of “Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity” before getting into three hours of discussion on issues that do not fall within the agreement, around which the parties here are focusing their discussions. The Prime Minister referred to this, and Peter Robinson is on record as saying that we are here to try to improve and modify the agreement. Clearly, if we get into areas that fall outside that scope, we will be wasting our time. We have two meetings left to get through this enormous list, some of which is extremely complicated, so it would be helpful if we could go through the issues and note those that it is possible to deal with and those that it is not. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I do not think that there is any great disagreement about the parties’ desire to have a bill of rights. Looking at the submissions, everyone is agreed on that. Mr McFarland: May I read what the agreement says, Chairman? It states: “The new Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission…will 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, to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland”. That is a fairly clear definition of what we should be looking for in a bill of rights. It attempts to define the rights, specific to Northern Ireland, which are not enshrined in law. Previously, we discussed the wish of the Human Rights Consortium and others to include socio-economic rights —healthcare, and so on — in the bill of rights, but that is outwith the agreement. This Committee is about preparation for Government, about getting the Assembly up and running. However nice it might be to examine, in the future, whether the agreement got it wrong, the fact is that this is a wide topic. As colleagues have pointed out, if we start taking evidence from all the parties here and all the groups that believe that they should have the right to medical care, regardless of cost, we would be into a long and protracted discussion. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a valid point. However, as I found when chairing the discussions on the institutions, any issues that are major impediments to devolution for one or more of the parties were parked, to be dealt with at a later stage. There are issues on which parties disagreed but felt could be resolved after devolution. There are minor issues on which the parties agreed; indeed, all the parties have agreed on issues that we thought would be impediments. The Committee is agreed that there should be a bill of rights. There may be some argument as to its content; however, this is not the vehicle in which to discuss the contents. However, no member has stated that the omission of a certain issue in a bill of rights is a major impediment to devolution. Mr McFarland: Absolutely. I wanted to clarify that up front, rather than spend three hours discussing it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The proposed format is to allow each party a couple of minutes to outline its major concerns on each of the three headings, and then open up the discussion. Each party submission raised issue. No one party highlighted a bill of rights as a major issue. Mr Poots: Mr Chairman, some members seem to think that they can discuss everything but the items listed on the agenda. You asked whether members were satisfied with the headings. The third heading is listed as “Dealing with the Past and its Legacy”. It should be “the Past and its Legacy”, with the subheading “Dealing with the Past and its Legacy”. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I did not hear any objections to the list, but Mr Poots has raised that amendment to the headings. Mr Poots: That is how it is referred to in Hansard. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The heading is “the Past and its Legacy”, with a subheading of “Dealing with the Past and its Legacy”. Ms Lewsley: The heading is wrong. Mrs Foster: It is on page 14 of Hansard of 4 August 2006. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I was present for that discussion. Mr Poots is correct. However, it does not greatly change the thrust of our discussion. Before we move to the substantive debate, are there any other problems with the headings? Again, no reasonable issue will be excluded because it is not included on the list. Alan is right; we could spend a long time discussing the bill of rights. However, that will not make much practical difference to whether we discuss the more difficult issues. Mrs Long: Can we be clear? My understanding is that today’s discussion would be on rights and safeguards, which some parties have already specified that they wish to discuss. Thus far, the procedure has been that if a member specified an issue for discussion, we discussed it. The second issue is human rights and the third is parades. Those three subjects form today’s agenda. To cut short the discussion on the bill of rights and human rights does not actually progress the Committee, because those were the subjects for discussion today. Mr Nesbitt: I note, and concur with, what Naomi has said. She summarised correctly that it was agreed at the last meeting that one meeting would be spent discussing each issue. I am also very conscious that everyone around this table, and elsewhere, emphasises the importance of equality and human rights to democracy. To give a two-minute presentation, and to say that we must get through the issues, would demean those issues. We are supposed to be spending time dealing with those matters. I am here to spend some time, not two minutes, giving my views. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I did not make it clear. Each party will give a presentation, and then we will have an open discussion. The presentations are simply to start the ball rolling and to set the scene for the bill of rights. Any subsequent discussion will be open-ended, and members can discuss the topics for as long as they like. I was making the point that, further to Alan’s comments, this issue may not be a major impediment to progress because there is general agreement that there should be a bill of rights. There may be arguments as to the content, but there is not much disagreement as to whether there should be a bill of rights. Ms Lewsley: The time is now 10.25 am, and we have not even started the business. Naomi and other members are correct: we have an agenda, which I want to start. Many members will agree that we should not get into huge amounts of detail today. Hopefully, this discussion will glean some consensus and agreement on the way forward and how we progress that. We can consider the detail at a future date. I just want to get started. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The normal procedure is to take the parties in alphabetical order, which means that the Alliance Party will start. Mr Nesbitt: I agree with Patricia that we should get started, but she said that we would consider the detail at a future date. When will that be? Ms Lewsley: That needs to be agreed. Mr Nesbitt: We have four issues to discuss and four meetings in which to discuss them. That will take us into September. On which future date will we consider rights and safeguards? Ms Lewsley: That can be agreed during the discussion today. Lord Morrow: This is just a scoping exercise. The Chairman (Mr Wells): In the other formats of the Committee, we have discovered that certain issues can be resolved without the need for future debate. There are also one or two thorny issues on which we disagreed and to which we will have to return. Until we have the discussion, we will not know whether a bill of rights falls into one category or the other. The number of issues that we thought would be difficult, but on which we have agreed, has been surprising. To allow everyone a chance to speak, we will not limit the discussion. It is unfortunate that Naomi always ends up going first. Mrs Long: That is not unfortunate at all. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Naomi, could you start and give us a general overview. Mrs Long: May I seek clarification? Are we to make a presentation on all three topics — a bill of rights, human rights and parades? The Chairman (Mr Wells): No, we will deal with the three issues separately. Mrs Long: The Alliance Party does not make a distinction between human rights and a bill of rights. We will address the two issues together. The Alliance Party has been a long-standing supporter of human rights and supports the introduction of a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law, through the Human Rights Act 1998, went a long way to addressing human rights needs. However, the Act was drafted in 1948 and deals only with civil and political rights. Since then, several European and international conventions have been drawn up that deal with economic and social rights and the rights of persons belonging to minorities. The British and Irish Governments are signatories to those conventions. Those social and economic rights, and the rights of persons belonging to minorities, must be addressed. Therefore, the Alliance Party supports the creation of a Northern Ireland bill of rights, which should draw, to a large extent, on the relevant and appropriate sections of the European and international conventions. There will be further debate on whether the mandate of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which stems from the Good Friday Agreement, extends to advising the Secretary of State on the scope of a bill of rights and the drafting of that bill. We want to put on record that we support the Commission’s interpretation that its mandate does extend that far. The Alliance Party supports a round-table forum of political parties and civil society to engage in the process of drafting a bill of rights. However, we want to ensure that such a forum would not detract from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission’s role as the primary body advising the Secretary of State. The forum would market-test the current thinking of the Human Rights Commission and look for ideas during the drafting and consultation process rather than try to draft a bill of human rights from first principles. We want to reiterate a point that we made in our opening submission: we believe in rights for individuals rather than group rights. We support economic and social rights and rights for persons belonging to national minorities, provided they are framed in terms of the individual. Any such protections — that is those associated with persons belonging to national minorities — must be multi-directional and not applied to one section of society only. We are opposed to any explicit rights for unionism or nationalism. We are also opposed to any form of wording that would entrench a vague notion of parity of esteem and further institutionalise sectarianism. International norms also recognise the right of people not to be treated as part of a minority against their will, and that is an important right. We support a draft bill of rights that focuses primarily on general principles, the interpretation of which should be a matter for the courts During our discussions on this Committee, we should not try to delve into those issues in too much detail or negotiate individual aspects of what should, and should not, be included in a bill of rights. If we could agree the nature of a round-table forum, and its relationship with the Human Rights Commission, and so forth, we could make a useful contribution to the process. However, the actual drafting of a bill of rights should be left to the commission. 10.30 am The Good Friday Agreement envisaged that an all-Ireland charter on human rights, which has been subject to consultation, would be developed by the Northern and Southern human rights commissions. The Alliance Party sees the charter as a means of ensuring a similar high standard of protection in both jurisdictions — not as a dissolution of national sovereignty, which would be contrary to the Good Friday Agreement and the principles enshrined within it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Thank you, Naomi. That was an interesting point; Naomi decided to take the bill of rights and human rights as one topic. Members seem to be content to take them together. Obviously there is a huge overlap, so it would save time to deal with them simultaneously. Mr Nesbitt: Chairman, I wish to decouple them, but it does not really matter. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Will you agree to debate them in tandem? Mr Nesbitt: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The DUP will now address the issue. Mrs Foster: The human rights remit was set out in the Belfast Agreement of 1998 and the joint declaration of April 2003 extended that remit. The development of the NIHRC’s proposal for a round-table forum comes from annex 3 on page 20of the latter. The DUP believes that the NIHRC has exceeded its remit on a number of occasions and intends to exceed it when it comes to the bill of rights. The bill of rights should be confined to those areas of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that do not reflect adequately Northern Ireland’s specific circumstances. In response to your question, Chairman, the DUP is indeed in favour of a bill of rights for Northern Ireland, but only in relation to that narrow remit. That remit has been vastly exceeded to date, and people are still trying to push the boundaries. The terms of reference cover matters that are of special concern to Northern Ireland, but lengthy consultation by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has sought again and again to draw that out. The DUP has spoken to the Human Rights Consortium and other groups that raise the issue of economic and social rights. Clearly, many of the groups within the consortium have issues that need to be addressed. We have said that on many occasions, but we do not believe that the bill of rights is the correct vehicle for dealing with those issues. Issues such as the healthcare system should be tackled through legislation before the Assembly. Although it would be remiss not to point out that the cost of social and economic rights is a huge issue, it is not an overriding factor. The DUP believes that the best place for those rights to be outlined is in ordinary legislation. The proposed round-table forum has not been established to date. The DUP met with Minister Hanson several times to discuss the modalities of that forum, but there has not been any agreement. Agreement will be very difficult to achieve, given the history of unionism and its engagement with the human- rights agenda. I have long argued that the unionist community has nothing to fear and everything to gain from human rights. However, because of our history, human rights are seen, regrettably, as a nationalist issue. Work must be done to build confidence and a sense of ownership of human rights. If, when it does come about, the round-table forum can help to build that confidence, that would be most welcome. The DUP as a party continues to have fundamental concerns about the Human Rights Commission and its composition. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Sinn Féin will now address the issue. Mr Ferguson: The Human Rights Commission’s remit for consulting and providing advice on a bill of rights for the Six Counties is in paragraph 4 on page 16 of the Good Friday Agreement. I restate that, as it will always be our reference point. I welcome confirmation from the other members that that will also be their starting-point. In Sinn Féin’s opinion, however, the first Human Rights Commission failed on several levels to present to the general public a non-partisan rights-based approach to the more sensitive conflict-related issues that require safeguards in any bill of rights. That failure has led to hostility, suspicion and political polarisation on several key issues. For example, the commission made a dangerous attempt to dilute long-established safeguards contained in equality of opportunity legislation, such as community-designation monitoring Another example was the Human Rights Commission’s attempt to undermine the status of the Irish language, which is protected under the EU Framework Directive and the Good Friday Agreement. Furthermore, the Human Rights Commission has failed to provide clear direction on rights to reflect parity of esteem and the principles of mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities, as contained in the Good Friday Agreement. Those criticisms aside, and in the hope that we can progress to a more substantive bill of rights enshrined in law, Sinn Féin acknowledges the sterling educational and outreach work that the first commission did to raise awareness of rights in general. However, the bill of rights has, sadly, been in hibernation, and the team working on it is nowhere near bringing to a conclusion its advice to the British Secretary of State before the bill can enter the legislative process at Westminster. Sinn Féin therefore recommends that the bill of rights be progressed by means of the establishment of the round-table forum by the autumn. I welcome the fact that the Human Rights Consortium also referenced the need for the round-table forum to be established. Sinn Féin reinforces that by stating that an internationally appointed person must chair the forum. Both Governments and four parties at this table have agreed to the establishment of the round-table forum, which should engage in an open, transparent and wide-ranging grass-roots consultation process with civic society and the political parties. Sinn Féin recommends that the two Governments consult with established human rights bodies on potential chairpersons for the round-table forum. The two Governments must conduct a short, sharp consultation process with representatives of civic society to determine who will be their representatives at the round-table forum. It is also important that recommendations emanating from the forum be given due weight when the Human Rights Commission formulates its advice to the Secretary of State on the content of the bill of rights. The bill of rights must be as strong as possible and include, at its heart, a robust commitment to social and economic justice. The bill of rights must be placed in the legislative process at the earliest possible date, and it must be a document of enforcement, not of aspiration. Ms Lewsley: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to today’s debate, which represents a step forward. The Committee may not have a round table, but all parties are sitting around an oblong table and discussing the issue, and that is important. I want to point out at the beginning of my presentation, as I did at our previous meeting on 4 August, that I hope that any decisions that the Committee makes do not become preconditions to restoration. The SDLP, like many other parties, wants to see the best possible bill of rights for Northern Ireland, one in which not only political rights but socio-economic rights are reflected. Above all, the SDLP wants a bill of rights that everyone in Northern Ireland can buy into, so that the rights are not solely for nationalists or for unionists but for every single individual who lives in Northern Ireland today. The best way in which to reach agreement on a bill of rights is through a round-table forum that involves political parties and civic society. The chairperson of the forum should be a person of international standing, appointed by the two Governments and should be able to choose his or her own independent secretariat. The round-table forum should report its findings to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which in turn should report to the Secretary of State. The Human Rights Commission could also, at the request of the chairperson, contribute to the round-table discussions. Finally, the round-table forum should get under way without delay, and its establishment should not depend on restoration. As Arlene Foster said, that was agreed some time ago in the Good Friday Agreement and in the comprehensive agreement. Like the DUP, the SDLP has made numerous representations to Minister Hanson, and to Minister Spellar before him, to get round-table discussions up and running. The SDLP believes that the Human Rights Commission has made a vital contribution to rights in Northern Ireland. When it was first set up, the Human Rights Commission launched a consultation on a proposed bill of rights. It has a role to play, but that role should be an independent one, separate from the round-table forum. However, as I said previously, it could be called to appear before the forum. In a wider context, the SDLP would like not just a bill of rights for Northern Ireland, but an all-Ireland charter of rights. We want the devolved Administration to human-rights proof its policies in future. It is also important that the Administration engage with the Human Rights Commission and work with it to ensure that policies are human-rights proofed in all the Departments. I have outlined the SDLP’s main issues. Alban will deal with the parades issue. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Parades will be dealt with separately. It will be a slightly more contentious issue. Mr Nesbitt: I welcome this opportunity for the main parties in the Assembly to have a lengthy discussion about rights and, in particular, a bill of rights. I will have more to say later on a bill of rights, but, Chairman, I will subscribe to your guidance that we should take only a few minutes for our introduction. I will deal only with definitions now, and I will give a further explanation of our position later. It is clear from the agreement that we are to have rights supplementary to those in the ECHR, and that those rights will reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. One discrete sentence in the agreement outlines these additional rights, which are: “to reflect… the identity and ethos of both communities and parity of esteem”. Naomi Long mentioned international norms, and I agree with that comment. I am very clear about the definition of identity. It is one’s culture, language, education and religion. Article 5 of the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities describes it as such. I am also clear about what ethos means. It is defined as the attitudes, aspirations and feelings of a community. Culture is one’s customs and social behaviour. Parity of esteem means that people are given equal respect. Thus, I am very clear what a bill of rights is, as stated in the agreement. I am clear that equality of treatment in identity and ethos is also covered. The agreement also refers to equality of opportunity, which is dealt with by the Equality Commission. It is clear what a bill of rights should be. I note that the Alliance Party, the SDLP and others have stated that they wish to support economic and social rights. I will deal with that matter in due course. I will give one quotation at this juncture. I will not give unionist quotations in the hope that I will not be seen as being biased. The Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, which the Irish Government established in 1994, asked for various papers to be commissioned. Nothing has changed since then, but Prof Boyle, Prof Campbell and Prof Hadden made a submission to the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. Those of us who are old enough will remember that Prof Boyle is Kevin Boyle of the former civil rights movement. 10.45 am That submission made it clear that any bill of rights for Northern Ireland should include provisions to ensure that communal rights are guaranteed. They suggested incorporating the major provisions of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities into a bill of rights. I support that position, and I have written to that effect on numerous occasions. A bill of rights for Northern Ireland should be based on what is contained in the ECHR and in the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Once again, I thank everyone for being so succinct. The presentations have been easy to chair. Five members have set scenes. I do not detect any great dissension — it is more the minutiae on which members are homing in. Several parties referred to their impatience with the delay in the establishment of a round-table forum to consider a bill of rights. Do we have a proposal to advance that? Ms Lewsley: I should have said that the SDLP proposes that. There is consensus that members want a bill of rights, and the best way in which to achieve that is to set up a round-table forum, made up of political parties and members of civic society. Therefore I propose that we do that. Mr Ferguson: I second that proposal. If we are to get any dynamic into this process, a round-table forum must be set up by the autumn. We should not delay any longer. Such a forum will offer an opportunity for members to get widespread grass-roots involvement in consultation on the need for a bill of rights, and on human rights in general. We must do that as expeditiously as possible. I welcome my UUP colleague’s constant references to the ECHR. That should be taken as a minimum standard, but we must put the strongest bill of rights in place. We should not be prescriptive by implying that, if it is not in the ECHR, we should not accept it. Ms Lewsley: On a point of information, Mr Chairman. Are we not trying to agree on a proposal before we discuss the detail? Perhaps I am wrong. Mr Ferguson: I think you are wrong. It is usually useful to ask the member to give way. Ms Lewsley: I did ask. Mr Ferguson: I did not give way. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Committee protocol is that members normally give way on a point of information, and that certainly was a point of information. Mr Ferguson: I was in full flow. Mr Nesbitt: Will Mr Ferguson take a question before we come to the proposal? Mr Ferguson: Yes. Mr Nesbitt: He said that if something is not included in the ECHR, that does not mean that we should not include it, or words to that effect. In other words, he is being wide ranging. On numerous occasions, Sinn Féin has referred to international law. Only recently, Bairbre de Brún referred to it. Mr Ferguson’s party referred to the requirement for Israel to abide by international law; Dermot Ahern and Tony Blair talk about abiding by it; and Mrs Long talked about abiding by it this morning. Last week, I said that this debate we must have rigour and structure, so my question to Sinn Féin is simple: does it wish to abide by the rules of international law? Mr Ferguson: Sinn Féin supports the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr Nesbitt: I asked a simpler question than that. Mr Ferguson: I am sure that the member did, but let me finish. My issue with what he said is simple: we should not use the ECHR to prescribe or redevelop our bill of rights. The ECHR is the minimum standard. One advantage in setting up a round-table forum here is, I hope, that it will let the grass roots on this island, North and South, develop a bill of rights that is stronger than the rights that are enshrined in European law. The simple answer to your question is yes, but it should not prescribe what we do. Mr Nesbitt: Does Sinn Féin believe in subscribing to international law or not? It is quite a simple question to answer. I am prepared to subscribe to international law. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Let Mr Ferguson answer that. Mrs Long has been quite patient. Mr Ferguson: I thought that I did answer it. I said that, although we welcome the ECHR and accept its recommendations, it does not go far enough. It will not restrict either the debate that we, or the public, will have. We should not be constrained by a minimal framework. Mrs Long: There are a couple of issues. The Alliance Party agrees with Ms Lewsley’s proposal that a round-table forum be set up. We may need to explore other issues if that is the starting point; for example, the structuring and chairing of the forum. It must be chaired by someone of international standing, although not necessarily by an outsider. It could be chaired by a local person of international standing. So the proposal needs to be qualified. However, the forum does require that kind of leadership. The relationship between the round-table forum and the Human Rights Commission should be looked at closely. It would be good to explore people’s views on the roles of those two bodies. An independent secretariat is needed to service the round-table forum. There are other issues to be explored, but, in principle, my party agrees that a round-table forum should be set up. Mrs Foster: My party agrees that there should be a bill of rights for Northern Ireland, based on its rigid and particular circumstances. It is rich for members to talk about adopting a maximum approach. Although I am not an advocate of the Belfast Agreement, it is clear about what is to be included in a bill of rights. Sinn Féin is glad to move away from the Belfast Agreement when it suits it. The Belfast Agreement and the joint declaration mention Northern Ireland’s particular circumstances. That is where we believe the debate should be. Although my party can join the consensus that there should be a Northern Ireland bill of rights, it cannot, at this stage, agree that a round-table discussion should be set up. That is because of the way in which discussion on human rights has taken place since 1998. My party believes that the bill of rights will be subject to a cross-community vote in the Assembly, and therefore a round-table forum is not the way in which to proceed at present. There is no point in a round-table discussion until the Assembly is restored and until we see where we are with it. That is the DUP position. The Chairman (Mr Wells): May I check that with you? In earlier comments, you indicated impatience that the forum had not been set up. Mrs Foster: No, I did not. I said that my party has had discussions with the Human Rights Consortium, on the round-table forum. I said we had met Minister Hanson but that we had difficulties with the chairing and composition of that forum. Check Hansard on that. My party’s position is that the round-table forum should not be set up until the Assembly is restored. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will. What is the Ulster Unionist position? Mr Nesbitt: I refer specifically to the round-table forum. My party leader and I met with David Hanson. We met also with the Human Rights Commission and discussed the matter. My party’s position is clear. It is not opposed to a round-table forum, but it is mindful of the contribution that that could or could not make. We have severe reservations. My party does not cherry-pick the Belfast Agreement or international law. We subscribe to international law and to the tenets of the agreement. Every party around this table subscribes to the fundamentals of the agreement. It clearly states that there should be a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. To have a round-table forum would prolong the process. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission said in September 2001 that it had been working on a bill of rights since 1999. It then said it would be giving its advice to the Government in early 2002. Therefore, we have been working on a bill of rights for six years, yet we have merely scoped what should and should not be included in it. We received a letter from David Hanson on 28 December 2005. All the other parties received that letter. We should all be accountable, and it is good that this quotation from his letter will be recorded and will be available on the Internet. David Hanson wrote to my party leader, and I presume that he wrote to the other party leaders. He said: “The Commission plans to prepare advice during the first part of 2006, share that advice with shareholders in June and then forward its final advice to the Secretary of State in September 2006.” When I put that statement from David Hanson — who is responsible for the bill of rights — in the context of where are now in August 2006, it is no wonder that people are a little bit disillusioned. I even refer to the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference report of 25 July 2006, in which a round-table forum for the bill of rights was considered in a rather nebulous comment: “Prospects … on the establishment of a roundtable forum … were reviewed.” In Civil Service parlance, “were reviewed” could mean anything under the sun. We have a difficulty here. Our party is clear. We know what should be included in a bill of rights — and we know what that means grammatically. We are not opposed to rights. I have not yet spoken on economic and social rights, but I will come to those. We are conscious that six or seven years after the agreement, the scope for a bill of rights has not been put to the Government. One reason for that is that the Human Rights Commission went way beyond its remit. Now we plan to have a round-table forum. When we met with the Minister in January, he was talking about the forum meeting in September. We asked him why he was waiting until September. Do not ask me why, because he is the only person who can say why, in January, he was waiting until September to have a round-table forum. It is no wonder that we are behind: the Human Rights Commission cannot stick to its remit, and we have to have a round-table forum, which will only elongate an unnecessary process. The process should have been much clearer and simpler, and that could have and should have been done sooner. I hope that I am making myself clear. I do not oppose a round-table forum in principle, but I do not see the benefits of drawing the process out. Ms Lewsley: I am getting confused. Is Mr Nesbitt asking why we have to wait until September for a bill of rights, or does he mean a round-table forum? Mr Nesbitt: I mean waiting until September for a round-table forum. Ms Lewsley: He is saying why wait until September for a round-table forum, but he has just said that he does not agree with a round-table forum. Mr Nesbitt: I did not say that. I said that we are not advocating a round-table forum. We do not see merit in it because a bill of rights is simple. We are looking at scoping it. We have already taken more than seven years since early 1999, so why elongate a simple process that could be dealt with easily. In January, all we asked Minister Hanson was to tell us why, when he was suggesting a round-table forum, would he wait until September to form it? Ms Lewsley: Does the UUP support a round-table forum? Mr Nesbitt: If one is formed, the UUP shall participate, because it believes in advocating its case. It does not advocate a round-table forum, but it shall participate in one. 11.00 am The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Nesbitt, are you saying that if we seek consensus on this matter, the UUP would support a round-table forum? Mr Nesbitt: No. We do not see the need for a round-table forum, and we will not support one. However, if the Minister uses his authority to form such a forum, we will participate; we will not abstain. I hope that I have made that clear. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do you wish to make any specific proposal on that matter? Mr Nesbitt: I have no specific proposal to make on a round-table forum. Mrs Long: On several occasions, it has been stated that the context for work on a bill of rights is the framework that is set out in the Good Friday Agreement. Now, the interpretation seems to be that to claim that one is a supporter of the Good Friday Agreement, one must agree with its every dot and comma. A similar debate took place at the PFG Committee dealing with the institutions. Both the Alliance Party and the DUP argued that, if one takes that view, there is no discussion to be had on, for example, institutional matters. Rather, we should discuss the potential for improvement within the confines of the principles established in the agreement. Any suggestion that there is no discussion to be had on a bill of rights and how it is framed, because it is framed in a particular way in the Good Friday Agreement, does not reflect the wording of the agreement, which states that the Human Rights Commission: “will 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, to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, drawing as appropriate on international instruments and experience.” As part of that consultation and advisory process, the commission may decide that, for example, its terms of reference be reconsidered. After consultation, the commission may advise that issues concerning language and how those rights are structured be rethought. The definition of the commission’s job is quite clear. However, after consultation has taken place, advice that is given at that point is not open to interpretation simply by examining the terms of reference. Therefore, we must be very careful. Our view on human rights and our support for the round-table forum is clear. We believe that it is important that those matters be properly enshrined. However, we have concerns about the language that is used about the ethos and identity of “both communities”. We ask how that sits with those who are not members of the two main communities. We ask also how that sits when considering international norms and the rights of persons who associate themselves with national minorities. There is a difference. We have stated also our position on the right of people not to associate themselves with national minorities. We must consider that matter very carefully, and I suspect that the issue is not as simple as some members are painting it to be. We must engage in much deep discussion, particularly in the context of the changing situation in a Northern Ireland, in which we have ethnic-minority groups, mixed marriages, and those who dissent and prefer to identify themselves in a more pluralistic way. It is their right to do that. We must look at the way in which the matter will be framed. It is not as simple as stating that there is no work to be done. Mr Ferguson: Thank you, Mr Chairman. In my opening remarks on 4 August, I said that we must not hold human rights or a bill of rights to ransom. Patricia Lewsley referred to that earlier. Progress on those issues should not be subject to the restoration of the institutions. Comments by Edwin Poots and his party colleagues imply that, because they are prepared to hold the country to ransom by not nominating to the institutions or supporting the restoration of those institutions, the human rights of, and a bill of rights for, the rest of the country, North and South, should be held to ransom as well. That is a matter of concern. My colleagues from the UUP have said that they will not openly support the round-table forum, but that they will not openly oppose it either. Therefore, both Governments and four parties have agreed to promote a round-table forum. If that is the case, we need to progress it. Anyone who does not support that will simply be holding the work on human rights and bill of rights to ransom in the same way that the DUP is holding the country to ransom over the institutions. Ms Lewsley: I would like clarification on some points. My understanding of what Arlene said is that, unlike the UUP, the DUP is supportive of round-table discussions but has an issue about the timing. Mrs Foster: We do not believe that round-table discussions should be held in a vacuum. The institutions need to be up and running. There is no point in having a discussion on human rights when the matter has to come back to the Assembly and be subject to a cross-community vote. The other concern that we have, and we have communicated this to the Human Rights Consortium, is that it would be a round-table forum stacked heavily with human rights “experts” and that the majority of its members would not be those people — politicians — who make the decisions. Ms Lewsley: In principle, though, the DUP is supportive of a round-table-forum? Mrs Foster: I do not have the authority to answer that today. I have set out the problems that the DUP sees with it. The discussion should move on to the matter of cross-community support for a Northern Ireland bill of rights. In an attempt to get some kind of consensus, I can confirm that the DUP agrees that there should be a bill of rights. How we get to that stage is a matter that can be discussed later. Ms Lewsley: Dermot Nesbitt has made his party’s position clear on the issue of round-table discussions. He mentioned also the six years of debate about the bill of rights and the problem of trying to get consensus among the political parties. We were worried, for instance, that the British Government would introduce a watered-down version that would not do a lot for the people of Northern Ireland. At this stage, Chairman, I would like to change my original proposal and, perhaps, break it into two. As I said, it is great that all five parties are around this oblong table, talking about a bill of rights. I propose, first, that we support a bill of rights and, secondly, that we support a round-table forum. Mr Nesbitt: First of all, in reply to Ms Lewsley’s asking whether there is any difference between the DUP and the Ulster Unionists, I say with a smile, “Good try, Patricia”. There is no substantial difference in unionism on that level. I am not speaking on behalf of the DUP, nor could I even begin to. Mrs Foster: Please do not. Mr Nesbitt: However, I make this point seriously: unionism sees the need for a bill of rights; unionism is not opposed to rights. I believe that people should have economic and social rights. Also, as a grandparent, I believe that children should be protected, but that does not mean that children’s rights should be included in the bill of rights. Unionism’s position does not mean that it is opposed to rights; it is not. I repeat my party’s position that, for various reasons, it does not advocate a round-table forum. Such an approach would prolong the issue. Arlene cannot comment for her party now, but no doubt she will do at some point. I do not say that to be provocative, and I mean that. However, if there is a round-table forum, the UUP will participate. It does not absent itself from the issues. I shall address Naomi’s comments. First, she mentioned every dot and comma of the agreement. This is not a dot-or-comma issue — it is a substantive matter about what should be contained in the terms of reference for a bill of rights. Indeed, because there has been political disagreement and people have tried to go beyond the scope of the agreement, six years down the line, there is still no bill of rights. As Patricia rightly said, we could not agree. Secondly, Naomi questioned whether there was any use in discussing institutional matters. The discussion on institutional matters came from the comprehensive agreement of December 2004, which came from the Belfast Agreement, which said that the operation of the institutions would be reviewed. The Belfast Agreement provided for a review of the operations of the institutions. Therefore, a review of the institutional matters, the operations of the agreement and accountability of Ministers has already been agreed. It is not correct to say that discussing institutional matters is beyond the terms of the Belfast Agreement because that agreement provided for a review of institutional matters. Naomi said also that it was incorrect to say that there is no work to be done. I am not saying that. All I said was that the issues that must be addressed are very clear. Let us address them, and move to other subjects. I shall comment on economic rights later. Michael Ferguson made the point that if the Committee does not make progress, it will hold up the process. I do not want to hold up the process; I have never wanted to do that. We have constantly advocated that the Government and the Human Rights Commission address this issue as it should have been addressed long ago. We are not holding up progress; it is those who wish to interpret the agreement in a different sense who are holding up progress. Mr A Maginness: I shall make some general comments. A specific proposal has been put forward. We should make a decision on that, rather than continuing a rather elongated, and probably very academic debate, about the content of a bill of rights. That does not serve any great purpose. There is clearly a difference of political opinion as to the contents of a bill of rights. The question of its content can be resolved in the future. The proposed round-table forum is a mechanism for doing that. When the forum takes place is, again, a matter for debate. However, we will not resolve whether political rights alone are covered in the bill or whether social and economic rights will be included. There is a clear difference of political opinion on that. That will not be resolved today and, even if we spent the next number of days on it, we would not resolve it. For the sake of progressing our business, therefore, we should make a decision on the proposal. There appears to be general support for it. Arlene has indicated that she will require a further understanding from her party on the proposal, which is fair enough. Nobody objects to that, but there is no point in prolonging the debate on issues that have clearly been established. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a very valid point, Mr Maginness. The next members to speak are Mr Ferguson, Mr Poots, Mrs Long and Ms Lewsley. Given that nobody has opposed Ms Lewsley’s proposal to accept the concept of a bill of rights in principle, if we could reach agreement on that, those members could address the problems that some parties have with the round-table forum, and we could try to reach consensus on that. Is everyone content with Ms Lewsley’s proposal, supported by Mrs Foster, that the Committee supports the creation of a bill of rights for Northern Ireland? Is there any dissension? 11.15 am Lord Morrow: There was no dissension before we started. [Laughter.] Mrs Long: Perhaps we could create some dissension by talking about the issue a bit more. Ms Lewsley: I think that that is why we are trying to cut the debate short. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It was insisted that we air the subject. Lord Morrow: Perhaps you were hoping that dissension would arise. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I hope that dissension does not arise while I am in the Chair. Do members accept in principle that Northern Ireland should have a bill of rights? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will now move on to the second proposal, which is that the Committee supports the formation of a round-table forum to help to establish a bill of rights. The main issue seems to be the timing rather than the principle. Mr Ferguson: I want to pick up on something that Patricia said about the timing issue. I am at a loss as to know why Patricia wants to split hairs and reframe the proposal. The only outcome would be that, on paper, the five parties agreed to a round-table forum. Ms Lewsley: I did not split the proposal about the round-table forum. I put the bill-of-rights proposal and the round-table-forum proposal together. Mr Ferguson: I do not mind that we have on record that all five parties agreed to that. Like Alasdair — Ms Lewsley: Do you mean Alban? Mr Ferguson: Gabh mo leithscéal. Like Alban, I want to progress the proposal that we agree to the round-table forum meeting either this November or as expeditiously as possible. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a pretty specific proposal. Mr Poots: I want to respond to earlier comments made by Michael Ferguson about holding up the process. It is not my colleagues who are engaging in criminal activity and pumping acid from diesel laundering into our rivers and streams. It was not my colleagues who murdered Denis Donaldson, and it is certainly not my colleagues who are holding up the process. It is the criminal terrorists in the IRA who are holding up the process by not going away. Mr Ferguson: I ask my colleague to allow me to respond to that. It would be remiss of me to sit here and allow a member to suggest that I am in any way associated with any form of criminality. That is offensive, and I want that to be noted as a matter of record. I ask the member to desist from making such correlations in his contributions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am pretty certain that Mr Poots did not name any individual. Mr Ferguson: That may be so, but his remarks are offensive, unacceptable and disrespectful. Mr Poots: The fact that the IRA still exists is offensive. As I understand it, both Sinn Féin and the IRA are part of the republican movement. No one has denied that in the past. If Mr Ferguson were to consult his leader, perhaps he would explain the republican movement to him. The paramilitary wing of the republican movement must disappear if we are to make progress by November. We will not progress a bill of rights in a vacuum. A bill of rights for Northern Ireland needs the support of both communities, and the only way to identify that support is through the parties and an active, working Assembly. However, the DUP is not holding up the process; the paramilitaries, who will not go away and leave the people of Northern Ireland alone, are doing that. One party in the Assembly, which aims to get into Government, is associated closely with that paramilitary organisation; they are the people who are holding up the process. Mrs Long: May I respond briefly to Dermot’s interpretation of my comments? When I made my dot-and-comma comment, it was not to suggest that it was not a substantive point. It was simply to say that it was established in other meetings that we are not confined to discussing these issues only in the context of the Good Friday Agreement. For instance, we have discussed alternative institutional arrangements and the devolution of policing and justice in much more detail than the Good Friday Agreement ever did. We should not become prescriptive; we should allow parties to raise the issues that they wish to at these sessions. If consensus cannot be achieved, it will be on the record. However, the right to raise issues remains. It would be a backward step to remove that right from the Committee. Mr Nesbitt: Will you take a point of information? Mrs Long: I will. Mr Nesbitt: I am glad that you have clarified that your dot-and-comma comment referred to a substantive issue. The phrase “dot and comma” implies minutiae of detail, as distinct from substantive issues. You talk about the devolution of policing and justice. Of course, we can refer to the agreement; it is clear that that is open to discussion, as are the institutional arrangements. However, the agreement is grammatically specific as to what the bill of rights should contain. Mrs Long: What is specific are the issues on which the Human Rights Commission is to consult and advise. The extent to which its advice and consultation may change the general context is not specified. That is a reality of consultation. Mr Nesbitt: It is not reality. Mrs Long: The other issue that you mentioned was the comprehensive agreement, which you outlined in the context of a review of the agreement. The comprehensive agreement went further on the arrangements for a review of the Belfast Agreement than those envisaged in the Belfast Agreement. Government recognised that even within the context of the comprehensive agreement — which was neither comprehensive nor agreed, incidentally — Mr Nesbitt: Will Mrs Long take another point of information? Mrs Long: No, I will not. I want to finish my own point before I take anyone else’s points. Government recognised that there were issues that would have come under the review arrangements that were set out in the agreement but which were not dealt with in the comprehensive agreement. At a meeting of the PFG Committee dealing with institutional issues, it was remarked that the discussions in the PFG Committee dealing with rights and safeguards would not completely encompass all the matters that could fall into the review of the agreement. From that perspective, the suggestion emerged that a Committee might be set up to review the institutions. The idea that the two are completely coterminous is nonsense, and that has been established in our previous discussions. As regards the round-table forum, the Alliance Party believes that, at this point, work could be done to establish the relationship that it would have with the Human Rights Commission and the way in which it would be structured. None of that requires devolution to have been restored. A bill of rights for Northern Ireland should not be a hostage of the political context. It should be allowed to proceed. There is no guarantee of devolution in the autumn. The Alliance Party still believes that the introduction of a bill of rights is an important matter that must be addressed. We do not see waiting for devolution as a way to progress it. If it must go via the Secretary of State and through Westminster legislation — as would be required anyway — we would be content for that to happen. Our distinct preference is that it should come through a devolved Assembly, but, in either case, we believe that the work must continue. We support the SDLP’s proposal that the round-table forum be set up now as opposed to post-restoration. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There seem to be two proposals. One is that there should be a round-table forum, and the other is that it should meet in November, which is pretty specific. Lord Morrow: Is that 23 November or 24 November? Mr Nesbitt: Who is trying to spin it out now? Ms Lewsley: For the third time, I will say that I believe that even meetings such as today’s are a big step. There are five political parties around a table, talking about the issue. We are trying to find consensus on the principle of a round-table forum. My proposal is that we get consensus that we will support a round-table forum. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is important that the DUP come in on this, because it has a difficulty with the timing of the proposal. Mrs Foster: I am not saying that the DUP will not consent to the SDLP’s proposal at a subsequent meeting, but I cannot give its consent today. Some members seem to think that just because four parties have signed up to something, we will go ahead with it. This is a scoping Committee that works by consensus, and I wish that some members would get with the game. Naomi has said that we need to start discussing human rights. The DUP will continue to discuss human rights with all relevant parties and to put forward its opinion that the bill of rights should not be the vehicle for all rights, a point that Dermot made too. There are other vehicles for introducing economic and social rights, and the DUP wants to explore those options with some of the interested parties. Naomi said that the introduction of a bill of rights should not wait until the Assembly is up and running. My response is simply to ask how else could cross-community support for a bill of rights be tested. The best way to test support is in the Assembly. Given the non-engagement of the unionist community with the human rights agenda, a cross-community vote in the Assembly would be vital to testing its acceptability to the entire community, which is what we are striving for. The Chairman (Mr Wells): After Mr Nesbitt has spoken, we will vote on Ms Lewsley’s proposal. Mr Nesbitt: If I may use the phrase in a different context, there is a clear, inextricable link between establishing a round-table forum and having more substantial rights than those contained in the Belfast Agreement. In June 2005, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Consortium brought us its proposed bill of rights for Northern Ireland, which said that: “Such rights were to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland and, taken together with the European Convention on Human Rights, would constitute a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.” Of course, a sentence describing the particular circumstances was cleverly omitted. I even looked to the words of Ann Hope for a definition. On 3 February 2003, when speaking on behalf of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU), in answer to why there should be social and economic rights, she said that it was: “to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, as it is charged to do”. Of course, it is charged to deal with the particular circumstances, but Ann Hope omits to define them also. I could go on and on. Amnesty International says exactly the same thing. I leave you with one further comment: the Committee for the Administration of Justice (CAJ) said in the January 2006 issue of its ‘Just News’ publication that: “CAJ has long argued that any Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland must protect socio- economic rights on a par with civil and political rights”. I agree that economic and social rights should be protected, but that is different from saying that it must be done through the bill of rights. I draw that distinction, but other parties have not, and some of their phraseology has been mischievous, as they have interpreted “particular circumstances” as meaning any particular circumstances. Ms Lewsley: May I ask that the vote on my proposal be deferred to a future meeting, not because some members are unwilling to take part, but because their circumstances require them to seek direction from their parties? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Will the DUP be in a position to give a view on Ms Lewsley’s proposal next week, Mrs Foster? Mrs Foster: I hope so, yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is that sorted out. We have given the issues of human rights and a bill of rights a good airing. Mr Nesbitt: We have not, because I wish to talk about social and economic rights. Will we discuss that next week? The Ulster Unionist Party puts on record its support for economic and social rights as distinct from a bill of rights. I am quite happy not to talk about that now if I can speak on the principle of economic and social rights when we return to the matter next week. 11.30 am The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have caught the drift that you are in favour of that, because you have mentioned it at least three times. Mr Nesbitt: Each time I mentioned it, I said that I want to put on record the fact that the UUP is for economic and social rights. This is an important Committee; it is a Committee of record. Ms Lewsley: With the greatest respect, everyone has raised the issues of a bill of rights and socio-economic rights, but none of us has gone into the detail of what we mean by that. I do not know whether this is the place to open up that whole debate. The proposed forum or a consultation on a bill of rights would give us the opportunity to discuss what we mean by a bill or rights and what it should contain. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will be in the Chair next Wednesday. Mr Nesbitt, you have my assurance that you can raise the issue then. Mr Nesbitt: Next Wednesday? The Chairman (Mr Wells): No, hang on — Mr Nesbitt: You will not be in the Chair next Friday. The Chairman (Mr Wells): No; you are right. Mr Nesbitt: Mr Molloy — dare I say — your partner, will be in the Chair next Friday. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The other Chairman will be in the Chair next Friday. We can contact him to make certain that the matter can be raised. Mr Nesbitt: I want to make this absolutely clear. The UUP has been pilloried at many forums because of claims that the party is not for various rights. Hansard is covering this Committee, and I wish to put on record the party’s position on economic and social rights. Mr McFarland: My understanding is that we were to first discuss the bill of rights — and we had a good discussion on that — and then move on to human rights. Presumably, it would be possible to raise a number of issues during the discussion on human rights. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I take the view of the parties to my left that there is no point — Mr A Maginness: There is no point. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is no point because, until we hear the DUP’s view, there will be no consensus on establishing a forum. Arlene is not opposing the proposal — she simply cannot tell us the party’s position today. However, she will be able to do so at next week’s meeting. The issues that Mr Nesbitt has raised would be better addressed by that forum, if it is to be set up. It is not the Committee’s role to deal with those issues. Ms Lewsley: It is not our place to go into the detail. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Sorry, Mr Ferguson, I did not call you because I thought that if there was no chance of reaching agreement on the general proposal to establish a forum, there would be even less chance of reaching agreement on holding a forum meeting on 22 November. However, if you insist on putting forward your proposal, I will certainly allow you to do so. Mr Ferguson: I am happy enough for the record to show that I reiterated the importance of holding round-table forum talks. Dermot has been at pains to point out that we have dilly-dallied for over seven years. The Committee is now agreeing to put off the decision for another week, so that we can all agree next week that there should be a bill of rights, but that perhaps it should be introduced in 2010. Mrs Foster: We have already agreed that there should be a bill of rights. Mr Ferguson: The problem is that we must get the forum up and running if we are to make progress on the issue. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do you want to put your proposal that a forum be set up by 22 November? Mr Ferguson: I am happy enough for the record to show that Sinn Féin has requested that. Mr McFarland: It is worth reminding ourselves that the parties raised issues of concern to them during the past two months’ discussions. It was agreed that any issue about which a party had concerns could be put on the list for discussion. It was also agreed that if parties raised an issue belatedly, they could still add it to the list. No party was to be prevented from raising an issue for discussion. Chairman, you were an advocate of that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Absolutely. Mr McFarland: I know that other members do not wish to discuss what Mr Nesbitt wishes to discuss, but the Ulster Unionist Party Assembly Group (UUPAG) wishes to have a discussion — Ms Lewsley: It is not that we do not wish to discuss it; we do, but we just do not feel that this is the appropriate time. Mr McFarland: However, there have been occasions in the past two months when four of the parties have thought that the fifth was blethering about something about which they should not have been blethering, but we went along with it, because that was the essence of the Committee. [Laughter.] Ms Lewsley is absolutely right; it is the first time that the five parties have been in a room with the option of discussing any issue that any party wishes to discuss. It has never before been the case that parties have said that another party has no right to raise an issue because the time is not right to do so. I understand that members wish to bring it up. My point is that Mr Nesbitt has made it quite clear that he would like to say something about these issues. Although we have come around to the bill of rights discussion — and we are on the verge of parking it, which seems sensible to me — there seems to be nothing to stop Dermot — from discussing whatever he wishes under our next topic, which is human rights. Ms Lewsley: Exactly. Mr Nesbitt: And I shall. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Throughout the debate, we have moved back and forth from the bill of rights to human rights; therefore, I have taken this debate as being a debate on both subjects. If Mrs Foster attends the Committee next Friday and says that the DUP is content to have the round-table forum established, the Committee, if it has any sense, will decide that social and economic rights should be discussed at that forum. Mr McFarland: That is in order, and we are happy with that. However, if Mr Nesbitt — Mr Nesbitt: I have told you to call me Dermot. Mr McFarland: If Dermot wishes to say something, and we have never before told a member that he or she cannot say something — The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Nesbitt is correct that I will not be in the Chair next Friday. We are out of sync because I chaired Wednesday’s Committee. I will ask the other Chairman to assure Mr Nesbitt that social and economic rights will be raised next week, after Mrs Foster’s update on the DUP’s position. Mr Nesbitt: Alan correctly said that no one has been precluded from speaking before on this rubric. I have not always been here, but I will take his word for it. Body language is important. I am perturbed, as I noticed that when I said, “And I shall”, Ms Lewsley gave a big sigh and looked at the clock, as if to say that she does not want to listen to a discussion on the bill of rights and human rights. I find that disturbing. Ms Lewsley: I am sorry. Mr Nesbitt: Those are important matters that we want to discuss. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The question is when. Mrs Foster: If Dermot feels so strongly, he should be allowed to make his points today, and if other parties wish to engage in the discussion, that is a matter for them. Mrs Long: I agree. My point was that this discussion should be as wide ranging as members wish. However, I caution people against reading too much into people’s body language in these meetings. For example, Lord Morrow looks very relaxed, but I assume that it is not because he is disinterested in what is happening. Reading too much into people’s body language would add a complicated layer to the Committee. Lord Morrow: I am relaxed because I simply cannot wait to hear what Dermot has to say. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It seems that we have consensus to allow Mr Nesbitt to comment on social and economic rights. Ms Lewsley: I am not trying to stifle debate in any way; I am merely trying to get as much work done as possible and get consensus around the table, so that the meeting will be productive. Some Members: Hear, hear. Ms Lewsley: It is not that the SDLP does not wish to participate in the debate on socio-economic rights; it is a question of the timing of that debate. Mr Nesbitt: I am pleased that Patricia said that she wishes the meeting to be productive, because that is why I want to mention economic and social rights under “Human rights”. It is the first time that the five parties have sat around the table to discuss human rights, and it is good that we express our views. We should not be stymied on this all-important issue. Economic and social rights came to the fore through legislation, not through bills of rights, in the Factory Act 1833 and the Coal Mines Act 1842. The statutory reports on those gave credence to economic rights. Those economic rights were based in statute. We want rights, but it is a question of the vehicle by which we get those rights. That is why I encourage members to recognise that there are more vehicles by which we can get rights than simply a bill of rights. The welfare state today is all about economic and social rights. It is a rights-based welfare state, and it is based in law. I am sorry that Alban is not here, because he is the lawyer — in a sense. Ms Lewsley: It has nothing to do with his body language. Mr Nesbitt: I mean no disrespect by that. I am not talking about a charitable dimension to the welfare state, but about the welfare-to-work programme, which is positive, whereby one tries to get work. We are talking about benefits for all. The European Social Charter, which the UK signed up to in 1999, is about economic and social rights. Yesterday, for example, I found the following website. On the website www.adviceguide.org.uk, I found some 18 pages of advice on economic and social rights. Those rights, which relate to work, holidays, holiday pay, sickness, health and safety, notice of dismissal, are enshrined in law. Should, for example, an employer tell his employee that he can have only two weeks’ holiday a year, the law can overrule the employer. There is a legal right to a minimum of four weeks’ holiday a year. Pay rights are dealt with on another page of the website. Workers are entitled to be paid if they cannot work because they are off sick, on holiday, on maternity leave, paternity leave or adoption leave. The website provides complete lists of pay rights and basic rights at work. There is a plethora of economic and social rights in law. Most people who advocate a bill of rights state that most of that will have to be manifest through law anyway, because rights provide the framework upon which the law is built. The law is already there. Therefore I cannot understand what economic and social rights are not already in place. The Institute of Directors’ submission was clear about that. I leave members with a good comment that I forgot to mention on why rights should not be broadened out: “It is our view that any issue which falls outside the reconciling objectives and the specific terms of the Belfast Agreement should not be included in the Bill.” The reference is to reproductive rights, and it was written by the Catholic bishops of Northern Ireland in their submission to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, in January 2002. The Ulster Unionist Party’s position is clear. It is for economic and social rights, and for the rights of the child. We are not opposed to any of those rights. However, that is not what the Belfast Agreement was about. That is not about a dot or a comma but about a substantive element of the agreement. Mr Poots: I assume that the Committee has completed its discussion on the bill of rights. Mrs Foster: That is the point that I was trying to make on the bill of rights. I hope that Mr Nesbitt will agree with me that it is not necessary that we put everything into a bill of rights. There are other legislative vehicles. Dermot, I have said it already — Mr Nesbitt: May I interject? As I tried to say earlier to Patricia Lewsley, she has had a good try at trying to split us, but she did not succeed. Mrs Foster: Absolutely. You and I will never be split up. Ms Lewsley: I am guilty of so much this day, I am telling you. [Laughter.] Mr Nesbitt: Arlene made a serious point, to which I gave a serious response. There is more unanimity in our discourse on this side of the table than may be perceived outside. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Far be it from me to break up the love-in between Dermot and Arlene. We are not finished, as some members have indicated that they want to make their views known on what Mr Nesbitt has said. Mr Poots: I thought that the Committee was moving on to discussing human rights. Mrs Long: This debate has been useful in that it has clarified the parties’ positions. The Alliance Party referred to economic and social rights; however, it is not prescriptive as to how those rights are to be protected. Those protections are necessary, but they do not need to be included in a bill of rights. There is less distance between our positions than might have been assumed at the beginning of the discussion. The bill of rights should be directed towards protecting equality of opportunity, treatment and access; equality under the law; and minimum standards of labour conditions, healthcare, education and the environment for everyone in the community. A balance must be struck, however, so we do not offer unqualified support. Voters have the right to choose a Government, who will direct public spending in particular ways and prioritise different issues. That must be done in such a way that the Government retain the flexibility to prioritise certain aspects. Our stance is that necessary protections must be provided. However, the rights of Governments and Assemblies to direct public spending in particular ways must not be interfered with. We are not talking about the all-encompassing rights agenda that some people have suggested, as that would prescribe certain actions that the Government could take. 11.45 am Mrs O’Rawe: I have listened to members’ views on social and economic rights. Sinn Féin believes that those need to be ingrained firmly in a bill of rights. We would welcome the Human Rights Commission’s acknowledgement that social and economic rights constitute an area of work that it will be concentrating on over the next few weeks. Ms Lewsley: That detail can be ironed out when we debate the content of the bill of rights at the round-table forum. We will have our opportunities, as political parties in civic society, to decide what should be included and what should not. Mr Nesbitt frequently makes the point that rights are enshrined in legislation, so what is the problem with including them in a bill of rights? Mr Nesbitt: There is an expectation gap. People think that if they have a right to something, they are entitled to it. Money determines allocation. Just because we have a right to something, we do not necessarily manifest or receive the outworking of that right. I have a problem in attending seminars organised by the Human Rights Commission or others at which experts tell us that we need social and economic rights. I will give two examples: on 11 November 2005, the University of Ulster’s transitional justice institute hosted Prof Sandra Liebenberg from South Africa and Prof Csilla Kollonay Lehockey from Poland, and each said how important it was to have economic and social rights. However, South Africa is the third most unequal country after Brazil and one other in the world, and people there did not have any social and economic rights. Poland is moving from a centralised communist society to a libertarian market economy, whereby it needs a lot of social and economic rights. In the UK, where we are residents — I choose the word “residents” instead of “citizens” — there are legal rights that places such as South Africa and Poland do not have. I do not need to be lectured to, in the best of senses, by scholarly professors from South Africa and Poland who say how important it is to have social and economic rights. I say to them, “You need them, but we do not need them here because we already have them.” Mr Ferguson: I want to reinforce the comments from this side of the table on the need for social and economic rights to be included in a bill of rights and, after that, to be enshrined in law. It would be remiss of the Committee to presume on the good will of any Government on social and economic justice given the history of the Six Counties since partition. We are sitting in this room because of the Good Friday Agreement. We had the agreement because of bad government and because of a history of discrimination and inequality. That is the very reason why we need to ensure through a bill of rights that that does not happen again. Those rights must also be enshrined in law so that we have protection before the law, whether that be for individuals or groups. It is important that we do not forget our history and why we are here sitting in this room today. Mr Nesbitt: Mr Ferguson said that discrimination was one rationale for the Belfast Agreement. That will be for another day. Next week, we will lead with equality, as I mentioned. Mr Ferguson: I look forward to that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have had a composite discussion on the bill of rights and human rights. Is there any issue under “Human rights” that was not dealt with during that discussion? Mr Poots: There are, perhaps, several issues that have not been addressed. I would like to address the issue of the Human Rights Commission. That body was established by the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which stated: “The Commission shall promote understanding and awareness of the importance of human rights in Northern Ireland”. Prof Brice Dickson said in 1999 that the commission’s role includes: “convincing people, especially those perhaps of a unionist disposition that human rights are for all, not just for one particular community”. Looking at the history of the Human Rights Commission, it is clear to me that that has not been done. A particular problem with the Human Rights Commission is the balance of its make-up. At its outset, no one sat on the Human Rights Commission who represented my political views. I was very surprised that, of all the people in Northern Ireland who have similar views to mine and those of my party, no one was deemed capable of sitting on the Human Rights Commission. That was even more surprising when one looked at some of the people who did sit on the commission. I am well aware that a number of people who were very well qualified to sit on the Human Rights Commission were rejected in the most recent round of appointments. It has been hard to establish why that was. In fact, there is no means of finding out why that was. If we have a Human Rights Commission that is unbalanced in the first instance, how is it to bring on board people whom it wishes to persuade that the human-rights agenda is inclusive and for everyone? We must look at the current imbalance in the make-up of the Human Rights Commission. Our party recommended that a deputy commissioner be appointed to the Human Rights Commission to help to re-establish some balance. We continue to recommend that. As for human rights per se, much of what a bill of rights would deal with is a matter for Government bodies. In Northern Ireland, there are people who wish to do the job of Government bodies. For example, there are people who wish to engage in policing without conforming to any bill of rights. Instead, those people conform to the rights of the street and of the back alley. There is not much point in addressing a bill of rights to Government while ignoring what is going on in our backstreets, where paramilitary organisations are still evicting people from their homes, exiling people and brutally attacking individuals. We cannot address a bill of rights to the Government in isolation from the fact that paramilitary organisations still exist in Northern Ireland and are still dispensing rough justice to individuals. That must be dealt with. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do you propose that the Human Rights Commission should appoint a deputy commissioner? Mr Poots: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Does any member wish to comment on that or raise other issues about human rights? Mr Nesbitt: I am conscious that it is almost noon, and if there is nothing more to be said on human rights, we shall discuss parading. We were supposed to be here until 4 pm to talk about human rights, which is a very substantive issue. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I suspect that the parading issue might take some time. Mr Nesbitt: Perhaps not. We have had a very quiet summer. Who knows? I view human rights as a more general matter than a bill of rights. I am talking about human rights that are additional to a bill of rights. We have talked about identity and ethos. This is why I asked Sinn Fein earlier whether it abides by international norms. I think that the answer was yes, and I hope that Hansard reflects that. However, that was not entirely clear. Mr Poots: It was a qualified yes. Mr Nesbitt: I note that UNISON, the public services union, made it very clear that all our citizens are entitled to protection by the highest international standards of human rights and civil liberties. We may not agree on whether we are British or Irish, but we can all agree that we are citizens of the European Union. I ask for the same rights — no more or no less — as other citizens of the EU. Those rights are enshrined in article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Moreover, article 5(1) of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that no party should: “engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights or freedoms recognized herein”. In its mission statement, the Human Rights Commission says that it uses international human rights standards as a yardstick. Some of the most sensitive issues are human-rights issues; for example, cross-border, or North/South, co-operation. As I said at the meeting on 4 August, democracy works on the basis of an understanding and an acceptance of human rights. We are in favour of cross-border co-operation on the basis of the agreement as ratified by referendum. Co-operation must be for the mutual benefit of both sides, and both sides must agree, which means unionism and nationalism. The comprehensive agreement of December 2004 did not seek to change the North/South-co-operation dimension. My difficulty is that my right is being denied by the Government’s proposals. On 6 April 2006, the Prime Minister said that North/South co-operation was for the express recognition of the identity of the two aspirations. That was not what was agreed in the referendums. He is going beyond the agreement of an international treaty and beyond international norms. He is siding with the Sinn Féin perspective, which is not what the people of Northern Ireland agreed by referendum. The written record will show that. Human-rights standards place great importance on the rights of the majority. That is clearly enshrined in article 20 of the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which states: “any person belonging to a national minority shall respect the national legislation and the rights of others, in particular those of persons belonging to the majority”. The majority clearly expressed a view on the form that North/South co-operation should take. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, in changing the terms of reference for North/South co-operation, is denying my right under article 20. Even worse, if there is no devolution after 24 November, the Prime Minister has said that a more rigid will shall be imposed from outside. The Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, made it very clear that that would marginalise the entire political process. The Prime Minister will put everything in Northern Ireland, including its elected representatives, into cold storage if a form of government is not signed up to, yet he is predisposed to co-operation not being based on an international treaty — namely, the agreement between Belfast and Dublin. There is a general rule in international law that, where treaties affect minorities, which could include those living in Northern Ireland, those minorities participate in the agreement to guarantee their rights. We would be denied that right after 24 November 2006. The Prime Minister is not acting in line with international humans rights, looking to the Office of the High Commissioner on National Minorities in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Remember what we are doing: we are talking about preparation for government. If we are to enjoy our human rights, full participation is clearly required, particularly on issues that affect us. The two Governments are proposing that we be totally marginalised from participation. 12.00 noon I am concerned about the Government’s position on wider human rights. The Government have ratified a convention, which they are obliged to implement, that they shall create — not that they might, or that they think it right or wrong — effective participation in Northern Ireland, particularly on decisions that affect us. My final point is on the wider dimension of human rights in relation to the intrusive nature of the neighbouring Government. For the record, the Venice Commission has considered the relation of a kin state — in this case, Ireland — to its kin minority, the nationalist population in Northern Ireland, residing in a home state, namely the United Kingdom. The Venice Commission stated clearly that a kin state could only give preferential treatment to its kin minority in education and culture, save for exceptional cases. I am not sure where Sinn Féin’s desire for speaking rights in the Dáil fits into that. Let me be very clear, in case members wonder why I mention that: Sinn Féin prefaces its wish for speaking rights in the Dáil by saying that it is a basic right and entitlement. Sorry, but that is not a right under international law. There is, however, a right to full and effective participation in the state in which one resides. I do not wish to be awkward; I simply repeat what I have said from the outset: I am — as we all are — a citizen of Europe. I ask for no more and no fewer rights than other citizens. However, those rights are not those articulated by Sinn Féin — they are quite the reverse. Sinn Féin has a jaundiced view of rights that goes back to the Europe of the 1930s. Mrs Long: I want to discuss the issues raised by Edwin Poots. In relation to paramilitary violence, the Alliance Party has pushed the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and other human rights groups to focus on non-state sectors, including paramilitaries. Traditionally, human rights have concentrated on the duties of the state. We define human rights much more broadly, as other organisations can impact on and, indeed, compromise, people’s rights. That must be taken on board. We believe that that falls within the definition of the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland and is, therefore, within the Human Rights Commission’s remit. In principle, we are not opposed to having a deputy chief commissioner in the Human Rights Commission. However, we want to explore Edwin’s comment about balance and how he perceives a deputy chief commissioner would be appointed. The Chief Commissioner, and any deputy chief commissioner, of the Human Rights Commission should be appointed on merit and ability and not to create sectional interest or balance within the team. We have said several times, and say again, that anything that entrenches the two monolithic communities, and solely represents those communities at the expense of diversity within Northern Ireland, is unhelpful in addressing change in society. Change in our society should be undertaken from a more pluralist view, not from society in general, but a more flexible view of people’s individual identities, particularly in the context of human rights. The right of people to define themselves is fundamental to that. We are very conscious that any attempt to entrench traditional divisions in our society runs contrary to the point of human rights. There would, therefore, be a conflict at the heart of the Human Rights Commission. In principle, we have no problem with the idea of a deputy chief commissioner, but we want to ensure that the person is appointed on merit. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Poots, in order to help the discussion, can you clarify that point? Mr Poots: I am aware that several people with legal backgrounds, and who specialise in human rights law, applied to join the Human Rights Commission and were not accepted. In my view, the people who were accepted had less human rights expertise than some of those who were rejected. I am concerned about this issue, and perhaps the entire appointment process should be addressed. If we want to reach out to the wider community, there must be balance in the commission, which would include the positions of Chief Commissioner and deputy chief commissioner. Mrs Long: Can I clarify? Balance in an organisation is not necessarily achieved by appointing people from the two traditions, or even by taking that issue into account. Balance can mean monitoring the composition of an organisation, encouraging under-represented people to apply, and so forth. Is that where the issue of balance is going, as opposed to so-called positive discrimination? I contend that there is no such thing as positive discrimination. If someone from a perceived unionist background is appointed as Chief Commissioner, must the deputy chief commissioner be a nationalist, and vice versa? I used the word “perceived”; people could be appointed to those positions who would not define themselves as “unionist” or “nationalist” but whom others may perceive to be unionist or a nationalist. If people define themselves as “neutral”, it would be difficult to achieve that balance. Mr Poots: The Human Rights Commission has a statutory duty to reflect the composition of the community. The point that was made about merit is valid, but appointments must comply with that statutory duty. That is the case with the Policing Board, where the chairman and the vice-chairman come from the two sections of the community. In the first instance, appointments to the commission should be made on merit, but perhaps the positions of Chief Commissioner and deputy chief commissioner could reflect community balance. Mr Ferguson: The remit, functions and composition of the North’s Human Rights Commission are set out in paragraph 5 of page 17 of the Good Friday Agreement. Paragraph 9 of page 17 and paragraph 10 of page 18 set out the comparable steps to be taken by the Irish Government to further strengthen and underpin the constitutional protection of human rights. As Edwin pointed out, the membership balance of the Human Rights Commission has been a contentious issue since its formation. It is out of step with the United Nations’ Paris Principles, which require membership to be pluralist and representative. The Human Rights Commission is not inclusive or representative. I support Edwin’s comments. The commission does not have sufficient powers of investigation to compel witnesses or documents, to enter places of detention or to take its own cases. I want to make several recommendations. The Human Rights Commission must be given additional powers and resources to enable it to carry out its remit. It must be given powers to investigate, to compel documents and witnesses, to enter places of detention and to take cases of its own without necessarily having to send a victim elsewhere. It is important that the British Government publish their response to the review of the powers of the Human Rights Commission as expeditiously as possible. Additional funding is needed, which should be made available to the Human Rights Commission to ensure that it can carry out its remit fully. Membership of the Human Rights Commission should be reviewed and appropriate action taken to ensure that it fully represents all communities. We do not want colleagues sitting around this table to feel that the commission excludes them or their communities. That would be unacceptable by any terms. It is crucial that we secure the establishment of an independent mechanism to oversee appointments. That will ensure that we have a pluralist and representative commission. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Ferguson, were those proposals, or was that a statement of your party’s position? Mr Ferguson: It was a re-statement of our position. It is obvious, for example, that Edmond — gabh mo leithscéal, Edwin — sees the membership of the commission to be as contentious as Sinn Féin does. It is important that we address that matter. The Chairman (Mr Wells): At the moment, the only proposal is that of Mr Poots for a deputy chief commissioner. Mr McFarland: I take it that Edwin’s proposal is that the Human Rights Commission should observe proper community balance, as stated in the agreement. I think that his suggestion was that, along the lines of the Policing Board structure, the leadership — the Chief Commissioner and the deputy chief commissioner — should also be balanced to reflect the community. That seems quite sensible. Patricia mentioned the joint human rights commissions, North and South. They were tasked with examining the possibility of establishing a charter for the island. They got ahead of themselves and produced a charter, although that was not their remit in the first place. Can anyone tell me how far the Irish Government have got with their “clear, comparable steps”? The agreement sets out what the Irish Government have to do by way of human rights, such as setting up a commission in line with that in Northern Ireland, etc. Does that fit into an institutional discussion — whether a human rights commission has been set up in the Republic, according to the agreement — or is it a human-rights issue? Can one of the experts perhaps explain where we have reached with the Republic of Ireland’s establishing an equivalent organisation and safeguards? The Chairman (Mr Wells): We could ask the researchers to check up on that. Ms Lewsley: The South has established the Irish Human Rights Commission. Mr McFarland: Does it have the same safeguards that apply here, as laid out in the agreement? They are very specific. Ms Lewsley: It is fully compliant. Mr McFarland: OK. Ms Lewsley: The SDLP does not see a need to appoint a deputy chief commissioner to the Human Rights Commission. The Chief Commissioner is appointed on merit and by process. The appointment of the other commissioners should be reflective of the community, and we believe that that is the case. However, we are supportive of enhanced powers and resources for the Human Rights Commission, and have voiced our opinion about that on a number of occasions. Perhaps we need to go further than that. Appointments to both the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland are currently made by the Secretary of State, and are excluded from the remit of the new Commissioner for Public Appointments. Those appointments should be transferred to the new office, which at the minute plays only an advisory role. Dermot has talked about the connection between North and South; Alan has asked for clarification in regard to the Irish Human Rights Commission in the South. I hope that, in future, when the issue is raised, the UUP will support a charter of rights for the island of Ireland to ensure that all our rights are delivered. Lord Morrow: On a point of clarification, Patricia, did you say that you believe that the commission is reflective of the community? Ms Lewsley: Yes. Lord Morrow: Despite our telling you that it is not reflective of our community, do you still think that? Ms Lewsley: The commissioners have been selected. Lord Morrow: Thank you. 12.15 pm Mr Nesbitt: Naomi talked about merit versus balance and came down on the side of merit every time. However, I subscribe to Edwin Poots’s position: the statutory duty is to have balance, as far as is practical. I know that others support fifty-fifty recruitment to the police. Mrs Long: Do you take the point that the Alliance Party does not support that? Mr Nesbitt: It is accepted that fifty-fifty recruitment to policing is discriminatory. I do not question the individual merits of any one person on the Human Rights Commission or on the Equality Commission. I look at it in the round. I read the press statement in July 2005 on the appointment of new commissioners to the Human Rights Commission. The political affiliations of the new commissioners are: two from the Women’s Coalition, two from the SDLP, one from Alliance and one from the DUP — and, in case Naomi was about to ask, Geraldine Rice is the commissioner affiliated to the Alliance Party Mrs Long: I am well acquainted with Geraldine Rice. Mr Nesbitt: When judging whether the Human Rights Commission is balanced as a collective entity, it would be difficult to say that it is, given the political affiliations of its commissioners. Michael mentioned the Paris Principles, to which Sinn Féin also alluded last week. The Paris Principles refer only to national human rights bodies: the Human Rights Commission is a regional body. There is no direct link between the two. I want to clarify a North/South issue, after which I will conclude. Mr Ferguson: I referred to the Paris Principles primarily because they insist on pluralist and inclusive representation. Presumably, you wanted to lecture me, Dermot, but I want to point out that I made that reference simply because they recommend that approach. Mr Nesbitt: I do not want to lecture you. I could have picked up your point wrongly, but I understood that you were extending the reference to the Paris Principles in order to suggest additional powers, which you went on to list. Mr Ferguson: I did, yes. On a point of clarification: are you opposing my recommendation, for example, that the Human Rights Commission should have additional powers and resources? Mr Nesbitt: My party has made a clear and detailed submission on that. The UUP’s position is that although it sees merit in powers per se, it would not support additional powers for one simple reason: the Human Rights Commission has not implemented the powers that it has already, most obviously, its power to consider the scope for a bill of rights. The Human Rights Commission has taken six years to do that. When a body, such as the Human Rights Commission, which has certain powers, asks for further powers, it makes me say wow. It has powers; it has expanded those powers; it has taken six years to consider a bill of rights; and now it wants new powers. The Human Rights Commission has received much additional money to exercise its existing powers. At this juncture, therefore, the UUP, as clearly stated in its written submission, does not support its receiving additional powers. The Government have many reservations also on the granting of certain powers, such as the right of entry, etc. The UUP is in favour, not of additional powers, but of the implementation of existing powers. Patricia Lewsley referred to North/South matters. Let me be clear: I am not saying that borders can never change. The provision for holding a referendum to remove the border was enshrined in law long before the Belfast Agreement, which changed the period of time required between polls from 10 years to seven years. As the original law was passed by Parliament some time ago, it could change. For change of any nature to take place, there must be agreement. The UK Government and the Irish Government are doing that without the agreement of the majority. Turning to international law, I return to the remarks of Prof Boyle, Prof Campbell and Prof Hadden, three legal experts in human rights. In their submission to the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, they said that unionists are entitled to retain their constitutional link with the United Kingdom, and they asked whether that means that a reciprocal right to equivalent constitutional or institutional links with the Republic of Ireland should be granted to nationalists. That is a proposition put by Sinn Féin. If unionists have their links, nationalists should have their links as a right. The professors concluded that the only support in international law and practice — not just law, but practice, too — is the right of members of a minority to develop and maintain cross-border linkages. Naomi mentioned individual rights and the right to opt out and not be part of a national minority, which, again, is enshrined in international law. Therefore, Sinn Féin is beyond the pale, if I can use that Dublin phrase, with respect to international law. Mr Ferguson: Dermot, the most respectable place on the island is beyond the pale, and you are a national minority. Mr Nesbitt: We could debate that, and we will. Ms Lewsley: Mr Chairman, I would like Lord Morrow to clarify one point. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The fact that we are going to eat lunch does not mean that we cannot return to the debate. Ms Lewsley: I would just like one small point clarified. I was asked about representation on the Human Rights Commission, and I said that I felt that it is balanced. Is Lord Morrow saying that the unionist commissioners are not representative of the DUP community, even though Jonathon Bell, a DUP councillor, is one of them? Lord Morrow: The membership does not adequately and equally reflect the unionist community. Ms Lewsley: As a whole? Lord Morrow: As a whole. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are members in a position to take a vote on Mr Poots’s proposal that a deputy chief commissioner be appointed to the Human Rights Commission? Mr Ferguson: No, I do not think that we are. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are not in a position to take that vote now, so we will break for lunch The Committee was suspended at 12.22 pm On resuming — 12.51 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): Ladies and gentlemen, I hope that you all enjoyed your lunch. It was up to the usual high standard. We have a quorum, but we must be careful to maintain it if people drift away to make telephone calls. Mr McFarland: Michael Copeland is deputising for Mr McNarry. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is this the first time that you have attended the Committee, Michael? Mr Copeland: That is correct, and I must commend you on the quality of the lunch. Mrs Foster: It will not be his last. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): We normally ask members whether they have any interests to declare. Mr Copeland: I declare that I have an interest in parading, by virtue of my membership of the Loyal Orange Institution for more than 30 years. Mr Ferguson: I hope that that will not make you a bad person. Mr Copeland: Thank you very much indeed. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I assume that there are no other first-time members present who have not made a declaration of interest. It probably relates more to institutional issues and to policing and justice than to this part of the Preparation for Government Committee. I welcome Mr Copeland. He has become about the fifty-seventh MLA to sit on either the Committee or the subgroup: everyone is involved. We have not yet concluded on Mr Poots’s proposal to appoint a deputy chief commissioner to the Human Rights Commission. However, I detected some opposition to that. Lord Morrow: I presume that you have given up on the idea of completing the agenda today. The Chairman (Mr Wells): If we get to the end of “Parades” today, we will be doing well. I saw that as the difficult issue, not human rights. Mrs Foster said that she wished to speak to Mr Poots’s proposal. Mrs Foster: That is correct. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Does anyone else want to speak on that, or can we move to the vote after Mrs Foster has spoken? Ms Lewsley: I have had an opportunity to speak, so my name can be removed from the list. Mr Ferguson: I wish to speak on membership of the Human Rights Commission, but I will wait my turn. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mrs Long also wishes to speak to the proposal. When those three members have spoken, we will seek consensus on it. Mrs Foster: The Human Rights Commission’s statutory duty is contained in section 68(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998: “In making appointments under this section, the Secretary of State shall as far as practicable secure that the Commissioners, as a group, are representative of the community in Northern Ireland.” There has been some discussion about that matter, but my party does not accept that the current Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission complies with that statutory duty. Reference has already been made to the current commission and to the fact that some commissioners are — or have been — directly linked with political parties. We do not live in a vacuum, so that has an impact on how people view the commission. I do not say that those people have no right to be on the commission. Of course they have a right to be there, but their political links have an impact on how people in my community view the commission and its workings. Naomi asked whether my party supports direct positive discrimination. I want it put on record that we do not. We are against that. We oppose the positive discrimination that exists in the recruitment of PSNI officers. Therefore we will not oppose that for one institution and support it for another. If the Human Rights Commission is to fulfil its role and be representative of Northern Ireland society, we feel that a deputy chief commissioner must be appointed, based on the statutory duty and on merit. Mr Ferguson: Sinn Féin does not support the proposal for the appointment of a deputy chief commissioner. The Irish Human Rights Commission does not draw its membership from political parties. Edwin meant well when he highlighted the fact that all political parties but one — Sinn Féin — are represented on the Human Rights Commission. We take the view that there should be no political representatives on the commission. Mr McFarland: The Ulster Unionist Party is not represented on the commission. Mr Poots: I did not mention any political party. Mr Ferguson: I was just being facetious. I take Mr McFarland’s point. Sinn Féin is of the opinion that, like the Irish Human Rights Commission, the commission in the North should have no political representatives on it. It is worth pointing out that the Irish Human Rights Commission is seeking to amend the Human Rights Commission Act 2000 in the South, because it is concerned that the Government are not paying due regard to its recommendations. The scandal around the residential home issue bears witness to that. Sinn Féin supports the Irish Human Rights Commission’s proposal to amend the 2000 Act to ensure that the Government pay due regard to its recommendations. Mrs Long: The Alliance Party accepts that the Human Rights Commission must be representative of the community in Northern Ireland. That is different, however, from saying that the membership should be proportionate to numbers of elected representatives. There is a distinction. The commission can be broadly reflective of the wider community and take account of ethnic minorities, without being rigid. Mrs Foster: The commission lacks ethnic-minority representation. Mrs Long: Yes; that is a concern. No one has an issue with the commission’s need to be broadly reflective of the community. Mr Nesbitt was perturbed to find that I was unaware that Geraldine Rice sits on the commission. None of those who sit on the commission at the moment is a political nominee. Commissioners applied and were appointed. They had to declare political and other interests, as one does for public appointments. However, they are not political nominees. The Alliance Party opposes any change that would permit the appointment of political nominees. Another question is how one defines “reflective”. There was much criticism of the original commission. It was panned by nationalists as being too unionist, because they counted the numbers of Protestants on it and assumed that they were all unionists, and claimed that unionists were over-represented. 1.00pm Similarly, the commission was panned by unionists as not being unionist enough, and, therefore, too nationalist. Unionists viewed the protestants who were on the commission as not really being unionists. Therefore there is an issue about how one uses “protestant” and “catholic” when it comes to political aspiration and whether people see the body as reflective of the community. It could not have been too unionist and too nationalist simultaneously. There is a conflict and a paradox in the way in which people view the commission. Edwin Poots’s proposal that there should be a deputy chief commissioner has been put in very narrow terms. The Alliance Party does not object to his proposal; however, we cannot support it on the basis of his suggestion that it will achieve balance. If the Chief Commissioner were from an ethnic minority, how would the balance have been redressed. Mrs Foster: The balance would certainly be improved if there were someone from an ethnic-minority community on the Human Rights Commission. Mrs Long: If the Chief Commissioner were a member of an ethnic-minority community, how would community balance be restored by appointing a deputy chief commissioner? That is the premise on which the proposal has been based, and that is the problem that I have with it. I do not have a problem with there being a deputy chief commissioner. Lord Morrow: I cannot understand why Naomi finds it difficult to support the concept of a deputy chief commissioner. It does not matter what others have said about having a deputy chief commissioner — we are talking about the post. What difficulty does Naomi have with supporting the proposal for a deputy chief commissioner? Mrs Long: I am not opposed in principle to the creation of the post, but it must be looked at in the context of our discussions. We cannot divorce proposals from the context in which they are being discussed. A deputy chief commissioner was not proposed in order to relieve the burden of duties from the Chief Commissioner or to deputise for the Chief Commissioner when she is not available. The proposal was that the post is needed in order to reflect balance in the community. I cannot support the proposal on that premise. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Poots, are you going to press the issue, or do members have an alternative proposal? Mr Poots: I felt that there was considerable support for the proposal during the earlier part of the discussion. Sinn Féin was first to break ranks. There was no apparent reason for parties breaking ranks and moving away from the proposal. I am not sure whether they have been pulled on this during the break, but there was no opposition earlier. There is no reason for the objections now. Mrs Long: My position has been consistent from the beginning of the discussion. My first action, when Mr Poots’s proposal was made, was to explore the premise on which it was based. He made it clear that he felt that it was necessary in order to reflect the community. At that point, I said that I would not be comfortable with the proposal. Hansard will reflect that. This is not about people changing their position. We are not opposed to the creation of the post, but we are opposed to the use of the post in the way in which Mr Poots has suggested. Lord Morrow: That is an argument for another day and another place. [Inaudible due to mobile phone interference.] — if that deputy chief commissioner were to be appointed in a particular way to do a balancing act. Mrs Long: I have not heard any other argument being put for having a deputy chief commissioner. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a good point. Lord Morrow: Mrs Long has an argument. Mrs Long: I did not. I have suggested that there is a range of options, but none of them has been proposed. Ms Lewsley: I said that I was against the proposal. I do not see the need for a deputy chief commissioner. Lord Morrow: Ms Lewsley said that she felt that the post was reflective of the community. Ms Lewsley: I said that it was reflective of Lord Morrow’s community, which was the question that he asked me. It is not reflective of the ethnic-minority community. Lord Morrow: That is not what Ms Lewsley said. Ms Lewsley: Lord Morrow was asking me in the context of its reflecting — Lord Morrow: Therefore, does Ms Lewsley think that one unionist on the Human Rights Commission does reflect our community? Ms Lewsley: I think that there is more than one, but that depends on your definition of “unionist”. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Poots, do you wish to put your proposal to the Committee? Mr Poots: Yes. However, there is little point in pursuing it if three other parties oppose it at this point. I do have clarity from the Alliance Party on its concerns, which can be addressed. However, I do not have clarity from the other parties as to why they would object. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Therefore you will not pursue it. Mr Poots: Patricia thinks that the make-up of the Human Rights Commission is balanced, and she is entitled to that opinion. The commission is far from balanced; that must be made clear. Sinn Féin has no clarity on the issue. Ms Lewsley: My argument is that, if Mr Poots believes that the make-up of the Human Rights Commission is not balanced, creating an extra post will not help. The structure of the appointments process must be changed. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I cannot see the restoration of devolution on 24 November hingeing on this one issue. Mr Nesbitt: My party sees merit in having a deputy chief commissioner for many reasons, one of which is to assist the commission’s work. I agree with Arlene that this is not about positive discrimination. If we cannot support fifty-fifty recruitment in the PSNI, we cannot support it elsewhere. There is another way. Generally, in any appointments system, affirmative action is taken, by which I mean that particular people are encouraged to apply. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is an adequate airing of views on the bill of rights and human rights. Mrs Long, do you wish to speak on an issue that the Committee has not heard before? Mrs Long: Yes. The Republic of Ireland has incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into its domestic legislation. That commitment was set out in the Good Friday Agreement. Other countries have simply adopted the ECHR, but the Republic of Ireland has opted to enshrine similar protections in domestic legislation. Can we clarify the position in the Republic of Ireland — without making a value judgement on the approach — because a cross-border dimension is clearly involved? Mr Nesbitt: I understand the DUP’s difficulty. At the time of the appointment of the most recent Chief Commissioner, I recall the DUP party leader made it clear that his party would have nothing to do the Human Rights Commission while there was only this Chief Commissioner. However, that has nothing to do with this matter. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I was about to say that I could not see the link. Mr Nesbitt: I was not making a point; I was simply reflecting on the DUP’s difficulty. Mr Ferguson: Nice try. The Chairman (Mr Wells): You have placed it on the record, Mr Nesbitt. Mr Nesbitt: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Poots, do you wish to say something about Mrs Long’s proposal? Mr Poots: I referred to the relationship between human rights organisations other than Government-sponsored organisations. We cannot ignore that issue in Northern Ireland. When we are ready to roll with devolution, Mr Ervine, Mr McGuinness, Mr Adams, and others currently associated with human-rights abusers, could be nominated. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I assume that you mean Martin McGuinness, not Alban Maginness. Mr Poots: Yes. This Committee must address that issue, because those people could be going into government while human-rights abuses may be ongoing within the organisations with which they are associated. Mr Ferguson: Edwin is making an art out of insulting people today. That comment is another example. Sinn Féin made the point that there should be no political representation on the Human Rights Commission, and that should allay Edwin’s unfounded fears. If Edwin wants to make a proposal on which we can all agree, perhaps it should be that we review the appointments process. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That strikes me as an argument that should have been made earlier. Mr Ferguson: Yes, but do you see how easily I picked it up? The Chairman (Mr Wells): I hear what you are saying, Mr Poots. Do you want to make a proposal? Mr Poots: A separate discussion is required on people’s associations with organisations that are engaged in human-rights abuses. I do not mean second-rate criminal organisations in Manchester or organisations that are part of the gang culture; I am talking about organised criminality and organised paramilitary groups. Mr McFarland: Lord Morrow will confirm that we have had two months of detailed discussions on that issue. My understanding was that the DUP would go nowhere near a Government with Sinn Féin until criminality had ceased. The issue would therefore arise only in that context. Whether Martin McGuinness is Deputy First Minister or not, the DUP will only enter Government when it is happy that criminality has ceased. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The PFG Committee dealing with law and other issues will also discuss that. Mrs Foster: Reference was made to human rights applying to states. We are raising the issue of human rights applying to other bodies, such as paramilitary organisations. Should the human-rights discussion concern people’s rights vis-à-vis the state or should it include rights vis-à-vis paramilitary organisations? It is not solely about Government. The Chairman (Mr Wells): My point is that the issue of criminality and punishment beatings will be dealt with in meetings of this Committee in a separate format. Mrs Foster: That does not mean that it should be separated from a human-rights discussion in this format of the PFG Committee Lord Morrow: The issue still relates to human rights. The Chairman (Mr Wells): If the issue can be adequately discussed in another format of the Committee, do we need to have a long discussion on it? I am asking a question; I am not stating an opinion. Mr Poots: We will deal with the past and its legacy later. Perhaps we can leave the issue until we discuss the disappeared and other human-rights abuses as part of the wider issue of the past. Human-rights abuses have occurred in the past, but they do not need to happen in future. We have an opportunity to ensure that they do not happen in future. Mr McFarland: When negotiations begin in the autumn, the Democratic Unionist Party will have to decide whether to go into government with Sinn Féin. That decision will presumably take those issues into account. Irrespective of whether we need to debate this issue in more than one strand of this Committee, the question of whether criminality and paramilitarism have ceased will remain. If the DUP accepts that criminality and paramilitarism have ceased, and those are the criteria on which the DUP has said that it will enter Government, this issue does not arise. The issue will arise, however, if it is suggested that anyone who has ever been connected with a paramilitary organisation has a residual legacy of human-rights abuses and is therefore unacceptable to be in government. Sinn Féin uses the same argument when it says that anyone who has ever been a member of the RUC is unacceptable as a PSNI officer because, as far as Sinn Féin is concerned, RUC officers were human-rights abusers. Those are daft arguments. The DUP will presumably make a choice as to whether Sinn Féin is acceptable, at which point we will all move on. Mrs Foster: This point has been made at the PFG Committee dealing with institutional issues: even if the premise is accepted that the Provisional IRA is no longer in business, does Alan seriously suggest that there will no longer be residual terrorism from loyalists, dissident republicans or other groups in Northern Ireland? Safeguards must be put in place, so that the instability of the in-out, in-out situation that has existed since 1998 is not perpetuated. We are talking about human-rights safeguards as well as safeguards for the institutions, so that those safeguards are in place after devolution, should it occur. Mr McFarland: We have yet to discuss the stability of the institutions in the PFG Committee dealing with institutional issues. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is the next topic to be discussed. Mr McFarland: Edwin Poots raised the point about whether Martin McGuinness was acceptable, in human-rights terms, as a Deputy First Minister to Rev Dr Ian Paisley. He seemed to suggest that human-rights safeguards should be in place to prevent Martin McGuinness from becoming Deputy First Minister. We will never get to the stage at which Martin McGuinness is Deputy First Minister until the DUP believes that Sinn Féin has stopped all criminality, paramilitarism, and so forth. There will be no deal and no Government until the DUP accepts that Sinn Féin is clean, so to speak. Therefore what point was Edwin making? 1.15 pm Mr Poots: The acceptability issue does not relate to Sinn Féin exclusively. For example, if the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party Assembly Group (UUPAG) decides to appoint one of its members, namely Mr Ervine, to a ministerial post, that would create real problems on the back of Mr Haddock’s attempted murder, and on the back of the attack on and murder of a gentleman in Tobermore. Mr McFarland: As we discussed, the Assembly has safeguards related to the ministerial code, conduct of Members, etc. Those are clearly laid out. Mrs Foster: They did not work very well in the previous Assembly. Mr Poots: Mr McFarland has just made the case for discussing this matter. Mr McFarland: That is a different type of safeguard. That is not a human-rights issue; it is a matter for discussion in the PFG Committee dealing with institutions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): When Mr Nesbitt raised a matter that he felt was important to his party, we allowed him to have his say. Mr McFarland: Absolutely. The Chairman (Mr Wells): On the same principle, Mr Poots sees this as an important matter. Mr Poots: I am happy to leave the matter until we deal with the past and its legacy. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That would be helpful, because we must allow a significant amount of time for discussion of parades. Thank you for helping us, Mr Poots. We can now move on with the agenda. Mrs Long: What about the issue that I raised on the need for research on the position of the Republic of Ireland on European human-rights protections in its domestic law? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do members agree that that research should be carried out? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is our protocol that we always agree to any member’s request for research to be carried out. The next issue is parades. I suggest that we use the same format for our discussions as before. We will allow each party, in alphabetical order, to give a short presentation on its current position on the matter. We will then open up the discussion and try to reach some agreement on the way forward. I think that we all accept that this is a rather contentious issue. Mrs Long: I wish to preface my remarks by referring to the context in which we are discussing the parades issue. From the Alliance Party’s perspective, parading is a cross-cutting issue. In addition to the human-rights context, “Parades” must also be considered in the context of “Good relations” and “Shared future”. Parading also has ramifications on matters such as “Rule of law”, which the PFG Committee dealing with law and order issues will discuss. It is a cross-cutting issue, and that must be reflected. In setting out our position today, the Alliance Party is looking at the issue from the human-rights perspective, because today’s meeting was set aside for human rights. Parading was subsumed in that topic. That is the context in which I am prefacing our statements. The Alliance Party does not accept that there is an unqualified right to parade or to object to a parade. The claimed right to march, parade or walk is derived from freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. It is not an absolute right, and it must be balanced with the competing rights of others to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement. The Alliance Party also believes that the alleged distinction between traditional and non-traditional parades — in a human-rights context — is largely meaningless. There is a clash in our society of competing rights, and parades have become a forum for a debate about much wider communal and cultural battles over territory and resources. We accept a predisposition to allow parades. That is the current reality, given that most go ahead and only a small number are disputed and contentious, and therefore come under additional scrutiny. There must be some form of independent body to mediate and, finally, to arbitrate on those competing claims and rights. Before the Parades Commission was set up, that arbiter was the police. Our concern about the police being the arbiter is that they tended to err on the side of considering the weight of the threat of public disorder. That could skew the decision-making process, rather than allow each case to be considered on its merits outwith the threat of violence from those who want to parade or those who do not want the parades to take place. The Alliance Party, therefore, believes that the Parades Commission, as a vehicle, is welcome in that — to some degree at least — it has been able to detach the issue of the merits of the individual parades from the threat of violence and public disorder, although we realise that that is not a complete distinction. We have concerns also about how the parades issue fits into the context of a shared future and good relations. For example, some people may wish to establish the right to have a parade but choose, on the basis of good relations and a shared future, not to exercise that right. Similarly, others may wish to establish the right to oppose a parade, but choose not to exercise that right and permit parades to go ahead. That type of mutual-accommodation approach is more likely to be successful than a more legalistic and arbitrary approach, but an independent body is needed to arbitrate when local agreement cannot be reached. Such a body represents an important mechanism. I do not wish to go into the other aspects of the parades issue — good relations, rule of law and shared future — although they all have an effect. Examining the issue in the context of human rights, as I have done today, covers our position. Lord Morrow: I shall quote from article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights: “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.” Mr Nesbitt: Was that quotation from article 11 of the ECHR, or are you reading its expanded interpretation? Lord Morrow: It was article 11. Mr Nesbitt: That was the full article about the forces of the law? Lord Morrow: Yes. Solving the problems that have been associated with parades is a fundamental prerequisite to political progress and stability in Northern Ireland. Although there are no easy answers to dealing with those issues, it is clear that the Parades Commission has failed to bring about a solution to the problems. In fact, very often, its approach has exacerbated difficulties within the community and it has proved to be part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. The problems with the Parades Commission are not simply questions of the personalities involved or questions of detail, but matters of fundamental principle, which are not capable of being addressed within the present structures. In a number of crucial regards, the Parades Commission is structurally unable to meet the challenges with which it is faced. Although no structures can be a panacea to the difficulties that are faced in this area, it is possible to create arrangements that can play a valuable role in helping to solve the problem. Just as the difficulties that surround the question of parading cannot be divorced from wider political questions, it is also now true that wider political issues cannot be divorced from a solution to the parading question. There are clearly a number of problems with the current arrangements. Decisions are seen to be arbitrary, unfair and inconsistent. The Parades Commission lacks the confidence of the majority of the community. There is a lack of transparency in the process. Bad behaviour is rewarded, and there is no regulation of parade protests. The DUP’s proposal outlines a long-term solution to the problem. The proposal includes splitting the mediation function from the determination function, and establishing two separate bodies: one to deal with mediation, the other to deal with determination, where necessary. That would allow the mediation body to concentrate on resolving issues affecting contested parades and agreeing arrangements without the need for a formal determination hearing. That would establish a process whereby contested parades could be identified and dealt with separately from the vast majority of uncontested parades, which will not require any determination. Where it is impossible to resolve a contested parade to the satisfaction of the affected parties, the determination body — that is, the parades tribunal — would operate as a tribunal in a quasi-judicial capacity, with decisions taken in accordance with established law and guidelines. The parades tribunal would regulate the contested parade and any contested parade protest. The formulation of guidelines would be critical, but would be predicated on a presumption in favour of a parade’s proceeding. The traditionalism of a parade would weigh further in its favour, and each determination would be tilted towards providing incentives for good conduct. The guidelines would be established in statute and would have the force of law. In order to allow proper time for matters to be considered, 28 days’ notice should be given before the planned event, with a determination at least 21 days in advance of the event. That would allow time for attempted resolution or appeals of the decision. To be allowed to continue, any protest against a contested parade would be subject to any and all conditions set by the parades tribunal. The tribunal would sit in public and, where possible, take evidence in public and publish the detailed reasons for its determinations. The mediation body or the parades mediators could be called to give evidence to the tribunal about their efforts to resolve the matter, as could the parties involved. The police could also give evidence, where necessary. The panel from which the parades tribunal would be drawn would be limited to between five and seven members. A former or current judge would chair the tribunal. The issue of disorder, either as a result of a previous parade’s going ahead or not going ahead, would not be a factor that could be taken into account by the tribunal in favour of those who are responsible for the disorder. In the final analysis, however, police decisions would always be critical. More emphasis would be placed on the conduct of those parading and on those protesting against the parade. If a previously lawful parade were illegally interfered with, that would count in favour of the next parade. However, where parade conditions have been breached, that would count against the next parade. The parades tribunal would weigh the value of any proposal made to rectify a previous breach. It is important that good behaviour — rather than bad — is rewarded. Notification of uncontested parades would be given to the police, but a determination would not be required. The parades tribunal would periodically review the list of contested and uncontested parades. Where it is proposed to change the classification of either a contested or uncontested parade, an opportunity shall be given for representations to be made. In conclusion, the Parades Commission is part of the problem, rather than the solution. The solution must, therefore, lie in creating new arrangements that seek to avoid, where possible, the requirement for a determination. However, where a determination is needed, the process must be seen to be open, transparent and fair. A first step is a process that can enjoy community confidence, operated by those who command respect. New arrangements cannot solve the problems associated with parading, but they offer the opportunity to get out of the present cul-de-sac and provide the potential for a better way forward. Mr Ferguson: Mr Chairman, members’ previous contributions imply that this issue is simply about the right to march. It is more fundamental than that. For example, there are more than 2,000 loyal orders marches every year. Only a few of those are contentious. 1.30 pm When a parade is contentious, the loyal orders should demonstrate some common sense, and not insist that those marches are forced through communities where they are not welcome or wanted. That seems like good common sense to me. Mrs Long: You mentioned that good common sense would suggest that, when a parade is contentious, the loyal orders should not force the issue. Would it also be good common sense if, on some occasions, communities that may not want a parade to go through their area were flexible and gave consent? It might be good common sense to do that on some occasions. Mr Ferguson: Nice semantics, Naomi. Perhaps you should put that to the residents’ groups in the areas where people wish to march, rather than to me. Mrs Foster: He does not represent them. Mrs Long: I am asking you because you mentioned good common sense. I am seeking clarity. Mr Ferguson: I cannot speak for residents who do not want an unwelcome parade to go through their community. As I said, there are over 2,000 marches every year, only a small number of which are contentious. When a community does not want a march to go through its area, the loyal orders should respect that, should not march, and should not insist that any commission or other body create a situation where that march is forced through an area. When the loyal orders feel that they cannot be reasonable in that respect, they should have the courtesy to sit down with residents’ groups in those communities. They should facilitate dialogue and pay residents the courtesy of asking. Members would have to admit that some of those parades go through communities only because there are Catholics living there. The loyal orders should at least pay residents the courtesy of asking first. That is not unreasonable. The assertions that parades are traditional and that there is a right to parade cannot simply be taken for granted. I have watched marchers in parades down the Ormeau Road, putting five fingers in the air in reference to what happened at the Ormeau Road bookmakers. That was insulting, offensive, and should never have happened. We have seen many such marches, and we have seen horrible things, such as the scenes on the Springfield Road last year. If that sent out any message, it was that the leadership of unionism is poor and weak. They should have encouraged those people who wanted to march down the Springfield Road, or elsewhere, to sit down with those communities to ask them whether it was OK. Political unionism failed to provide that leadership. This year, however, we saw some changes. Michael Copeland is sitting across the table, and he and I spoke on the eve of one such march. We tried to use our influence to support common sense and peace. The points that I have made are fairly simple. If you want to walk through an area where you are not wanted, do not go. If you feel that you must walk through that area, sit down and talk to the residents first. Mr A Maginness: The SDLP’s position on contentious parades and the Parades Commission is well known. We supported the formation of the Parades Commission because there was obviously a difficulty, not just in relation to contentious parades, but in the manner in which the police determined decisions at the time. It was clearly unacceptable for the PSNI to make determinations, and to police those same determinations. It made a lot of sense for an independent body to make determinations on contentious parades. We were, and continue to be, very supportive of that regulatory mechanism for parades. We feel that the Parades Commission has done a reasonable job in very difficult circumstances. That is not to say that we agree with everything that the Parades Commission does. We accept its decisions, because it is important that if a body is established to be impartial and act independently, people should accept its decisions whether they like them or not. We know the history of contentious parades. Loyal orders wish to assert what they regard as traditional marching or walking rights in areas that have undergone radical demographical changes over a number of years. The SDLP’s view is that when communities do not accept that, the loyal orders should not exercise what they regard as their traditional right to march. Alternatively, they should talk with the local communities affected by the proposed parades. If effective dialogue were taking place between the loyal orders and local communities, many contentious parades could be resolved very quickly. Failure by the loyal orders to engage in such dialogue is preventing resolutions to what are really local problems. There can be no blanket resolution of the parades issue. Although contentious parades are localised and affect a small number of areas, they are important because they affect the political temperature and atmosphere of our society when they either go ahead or are prevented. In those circumstances, we urge the loyal orders to pursue dialogue vigorously to reach a local accommodation. We have a divided society, and contentious parades are symptomatic of those divisions. Having a united society that was agreed on the way in which it should go forward would help to eliminate some of the contentious aspects of parading. There is no doubt that, in some areas, contentious parades are exacerbated by the negative overall political situation. Building a society here that is based on partnership, co-operation and power sharing should lead to an easing of the community tensions that give rise to contentious parades. Lord Morrow seems to be referring to a document. It would be interesting if our DUP colleagues would share that document with us, so that we can see the rationale behind its proposals. However, subdividing the functions of the Parades Commission by creating two separate bodies, a mediation body and a determination body, which would introduce a tribunals system, would be wrong and counter-productive because it would involve a quasi-judicial system of tribunals that would become more and more legalistic and hidebound by professional legal intervention. In such circumstances, greater problems are created. At the moment, the Parades Commission deals, on a very pragmatic level — [Inaudible due to mobile phone interference.] — by legal complexities. People go to the Parades Commission, present their points of view plainly and clearly, and the commission makes a determination on that basis. To subdivide the functions would be wrong and unhelpful in the present situation and, I stress, would not be a substitution for intensive dialogue at a local level. The Parades Commission conducts a degree of mediation, which is to be welcomed and should be sustained, and, to that extent, it does a reasonably good job. Perhaps more resources could be made available to the commission so that that function could be enhanced. The criticisms that Lord Morrow levelled at the Parades Commission are unfair. The commission has acted as openly and transparently as it can in the circumstances, and, in the main, it has acted fairly. It is important to recognise its independence and its intent to serve the interests of the whole community, not just a section of it. It is important also that the commission, when making its determinations, takes into account not simply what could be regarded as traditional rights, but rather the impact that a parade could have on community relations, security and public order. Finally, article 11 of the ECHR is so qualified that there can be no sense of an absolute right to parade or to walk or to march — whichever one wants to call it. The very reasonable restrictions that have been put in place by the state through the Parades Commission, and through the policing of parades are consistent with the requirements, in a democratic society, for the preservation of public order. There is no solace for the loyal orders in article 11. I re-emphasise that it is up to the loyal orders to engage in local dialogue to resolve what are essentially local problems. The SDLP is opposed to any review of the Parades Commission at this time, or in the near future, and it is opposed to any dilution of the commission’s powers. Mr McFarland: I will provide a little background, and my colleagues will expand on various issues during the discussion. Karl von Clausewitz once said that: “war is the continuation of politics by other means.” In the past 10 years, parading has become the continuation of war by other means because it has become a political weapon that is being used to destabilise society. How do we know this? Well, Gerry Adams told us in Tullamore in 1994 — an RTE journalist listened to a briefing of Sinn Féin faithful and heard Mr Adams ask them whether they thought that the parading issue had just happened. He said that it had not, and that it had taken Sinn Féin three years to stir up community groups and to get them on to the streets. According to that report, there is no doubt that the parading issue was a political weapon to get people on to the streets. The result has been riots and the PSNI’s having to remove people forcibly from the streets, with the accompanying television pictures that we have all seen. There is no doubt that it became an issue with which to beat the police and unionist culture generally. 1.45 pm A few years ago, good sense came into the situation when some very wise people in the loyal orders in Londonderry decided that there had to be a better way. They got together with businesses, and the result, interestingly enough — until this year when they ran into a funding problem — was a week-long Apprentice Boys’ festival, with people coming from all over the country to examine unionist culture in a non-threatening way. That good sense has been followed by work from some equally wise heads in the North and West Belfast Parades Forum (NWBPF), and, for two years, we have had the makings of solutions to the parading issues — although there was a breakdown last year. Today, newspapers are reporting that it appears that a recent meeting with Ardoyne residents appears to have found agreement on a parade that will pass the Ardoyne shops. That is to be welcomed. The NWBPF comprises members of political parties, indeed both unionist parties, community groups — some of which have very close links with paramilitary organisations on both sides — churchmen and representatives of the loyal orders. That seems to be the logical way of dealing with the situation, with people discussing and resolving issues. As Sinn Féin starts to move towards Government, and as it is clearly starting to discuss policing issues seriously and to become responsible, it is interesting that the tension over parades has decreased, as I have just evidenced. Could it be that Sinn Féin’s political weapon on policing has ceased to be as important regarding parades, and that the recent accommodation on parades is due to Sinn Féin’s moving, perhaps by the autumn, to take up a responsible position on policing, meaning, therefore, that it no longer needs the parades issue with which to beat up unionists? Goodwill all round will solve the issue. My colleagues will set out other issues during the course of the discussion. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Thank you, once again, for sticking to time. We have heard disparate views on parading — to put it mildly. The only proposal that I detected was from the DUP on splitting the mediation and determination functions in the Parades Commission. I will come back to the DUP to see whether it wishes to beef that up into a formal proposal. However, other members got their retaliation in by saying that if it were proposed, they would shoot that idea down in flames. That is politics. Mrs Long: There may have been another seed of a proposal. Alban said that the DUP proposals were quite detailed and that it that might be useful to have sight of them in order to study them in more depth. I would second that proposal, because it would be useful. I agree that with good will on all sides, local dialogue is probably the way in which this matter will be resolved. However, discussion does not always lead to agreement, as we have found in this Committee on more than one occasion. There has to be some method for dealing with residual issues, which cannot be agreed locally. With regard to the DUP’s proposal on separating the arbitration and mediation function in the Parades Commission, the Alliance Party has been quite clear about its support for the Parades Commission and the principle of having a body to deal with the parading issue. However, separating the arbitration and mediation function is something that should be explored further. It has merits, if the situation is considered dispassionately. Mediation is the first step in the process, but parties may be hampered, as they may be unprepared to make generous offers that could colour the outcome of arbitration at a later stage. If the same people arbitrate as mediate, people could become less flexible during the mediation process. The decision of those who arbitrate should not be influenced by the demeanour of parties during mediation. People may be overenthusiastic with their generosity during mediation, knowing that agreement will not be reached, but they may try to create a good impression in the hope that arbitration will go in their favour. That is not beyond the bounds of belief, and it could influence decisions. There is a corollary here. If a person is intimately involved in a mediation process immediately preceding arbitration, it may be difficult to remain impartial during the arbitration process, even though impartiality is critical. Therefore splitting arbitration and mediation merits further consideration. We may not all reach consensus on that, but it would be interesting to explore it further, because the processes in the Parades Commission have created difficulties in how it discharges its functions. The previous commission focused mainly on arbitration, because initial attempts at mediation were unsuccessful. We are cognisant of the fact that engaging in a lengthy mediation process could affect the Parades Commission’s ability to arbitrate. Things are slightly different now, and, to some degree, Alan has outlined the context for that change. There has been a change in dynamic, which has allowed the new Parades Commission to be more hands-on with mediation. However, it will be increasingly difficult if it then has to arbitrate in those situations. That warrants further discussion. I share Alban’s concerns that one could end up with an unwieldy, legalistic process, which may counteract what people say around the table about goodwill being the solution, rather than an unwieldy process. However, the DUP’s proposal merits exploration through discussions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is interesting, because I thought that the only issue on which the Committee had reached consensus on parading was the fact that we would discuss it on Fridays. The proposal is that the DUP provide more information on its proposal. If no one wishes to speak against that, we can reach consensus. Did you read from a prepared document, Mr Morrow? Lord Morrow: The DUP has a prepared document, and we are happy to distribute that, so that all the parties can read our proposals. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there more detail in that document, or is it simply as read out? Lord Morrow: Other parties had not seen the DUP’s proposal, and that is why I read it out in full. It will all go on the record, so members will have an opportunity to read it in Hansard. However, if we can get photocopies of the proposal, we can pass those around. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Hansard would also appreciate a copy of your document. A member of the Committee staff will distribute copies to all the parties. That seems to be agreed. Alban has stated that he is unhappy with the DUP’s proposal, and I suspect that Sinn Féin is also unhappy. Mr Poots: Alban seems to be confused about not having had an opportunity to read it, and I can understand that. The tribunal was something that would be set up after mediation. Alban was concerned about its quasi-judicial nature, but the first aspect would not have any quasi-judicial nature to it — it would be purely mediation. Perhaps the main issue that we have identified with the Parades Commission is that it has two roles — one is mediation and the other is quasi-judicial involvement in determining what happens in parades. The DUP feels that to separate those functions would assist and improve the current situation. Lord Morrow: Has there not been a request for mediation right around the table? Mr A Maginness: I accept that the Parades Commission involves itself in mediation; that is an established fact. That role is right and proper, and it should be pursued and enhanced. However, I reiterate that the DUP’s proposal would create a complex legal process, which would go over and beyond a simple determination by the Parades Commission. It would involve a panel drawn from Parades Commission members in tribunals, which would be chaired by judges or ex-judges, and that would inevitably become complex. As we all know, tribunals, including industrial tribunals, were set up to be simple, straightforward means of resolving differences in the workplace. However, industrial tribunals are now among the most complex of legal processes. One enters that process at one’s peril if one does not have a lawyer. Lord Morrow: Even if you have a lawyer. Mr A Maginness: It is certainly more expensive when you have one. Mrs Long: Is that an advertisement for legal services? [Laughter.] Mr A Maginness: I think that there is a danger inherent in that. As has happened on many occasions, once the Parades Commission makes a determination, judicial reviews are sought. Those matters are heard in the High Court. That is an already existing remedy for people who are dissatisfied with a Parades Commission determination. To go along those lines would be to make determinations more and more complex and legalistic. Mr Copeland: At first glance, I find much merit in the document that Lord Morrow read out. I do, however, feel that such is the content that I would like time to read and consider the document. I am probably the least experienced person at the table in putting forward views in this format, and I therefore ask that members judge my comments with a degree of kindness. In New York in the late 1800s, an attempt was made to ban a procession — or a parade — celebrating the Twelfth of July. Varying degrees of influence were applied, and the parade was permitted, under protection of the law, to proceed. During the ensuing trouble, between 12 and 16 people lost their lives, some of them at prestigious addresses such as Central Park and Park Avenue. The following year, the Grand Lodge of America, having concluded that it had established the right to parade, took a decision to no longer exercise that right, and over the next decades it slipped into obscurity. We look at the issue of parading through the colour-tinted glasses of our respective communities. We are not specifically talking about orange parades, although the practicality is that we are; we are not specifically talking about loyal order parades, although in Northern Ireland we are. English is a very peculiar language. I came in here this afternoon and was offered boiled goats’ cheese, and I had to determine whether it was the goat or the cheese that had been boiled. The way in which we use language can create difficulties. Mr Ferguson continually uses the words “marching” and “through”. That terminology is a consequence of a decision that was taken at some time to make parading an issue. He may consider it to be legitimate, politically and historically, to have done so. 2.00 pm My view is that in a democracy — and we are enjoying a degree of what passes for democracy here — every time a citizen’s foot falls on the road in protest or on parade, that very action defends the rights all those who may or may not agree with that parade. The more that we reinforce the legalistic hullabaloo that has surrounded the Parades Commission, the less likely it is that responsibility will be accepted by those who can affect the issue. The same people who have made parading an issue can make it a non-issue. I have been an orangeman for 30 years. I cannot recall participating in anything that remotely resembled, or could be described as, a march. Indeed, the term “marching” has only recently come into parlance, even within the unionist and loyalist community. They were described as walks, parades or processions. I fully accept that people may have objections to parades taking place. My baseline is that, in a democracy, anyone who wishes to parade should be afforded the right to do so under law. Anyone who wishes to demonstrate against a parade should also have the right to do so under law. There is a massive misunderstanding in some quarters about the reasons, history and traditions that are associated with parades. I am sure that Mr Ferguson will recall inviting me, and some prominent elected members of the DUP, to join him at the head of a procession that went down the Falls Road. He may recall my answer on that occasion. Mr Ferguson: How quickly can we go? Mr Copeland: He was not able to provide a flute band or a banner, and I had another appointment. Lord Morrow: You said that you would provide them. [Laughter.] Mr Copeland: I had another appointment. He had no issues with my parading down the Falls Road. When a certain section of our society exercises a freedom as opposed to a right, surely it must be in the interests of all society that it be allowed to do so. Last year, a group of white-supremacist fascists — Nazis, for want of a better word — exercised a right, protected under the Constitution of the United States, to parade through Toledo, Ohio. It would have been a non-event except for the fact that those opposed to the parade allowed the situation to descend into lawlessness. The current Parades Commission is immeasurably different from the previous one, which retreated into a bunker and took a legislative approach. The lack of knowledge and understanding that it displayed, which has been inherited by the current commission, is astounding on occasions. On one occasion the Parades Commission claimed that some pieces of music were contentious. When I asked the commission how its decision was arrived at, it told me that it was as a result of heavy and continual lobbying by nationalist groups. I have always held the view that music itself cannot be contentious — songs can be contentious, depending on their lyrics. It transpired that the Parades Commission had accepted that there was a level of contentiousness, purely on the basis that people claimed to be offended. An examination of some of the music concerned led the Parades Commission to re-examine their own attitudes and to accept that they were neither fit nor qualified to take the decision to apportion contentiousness to certain pieces of music. The pieces of music were, in particular, ‘The Sash’, ‘Derry’s Walls’, and ‘The Billy Boys’. It can be demonstrated that ‘The Sash’ contains an Irish air called ‘My Irish Molly’. The onomatopoeic structure of the music indicates that it was originally written to be sung in the Gaelic language. The music for ‘Derry’s Walls’ came from ‘God Bless the Prince of Wales’, and ‘The Billy Boys’ is a Glasgow Rangers razor-gang song from the 1940s or 1950s. It astounds me that people are invited from America by Sinn Féin to make judgements about the music that is played at parades. The tune of the ditty referred to as ‘The Billy Boys’ comes from ‘Marching Through Georgia’. I have seen documentation from people of some calibre from the United States, who, on hearing the tune of the Union Army’s most famous marching song during the American civil war, called it a Belfast street-song. The parades issue will be resolved when we accept that there are two different opinions, and that one section of the community’s attempt to prevent an outward expression of the cultural identity of the other damages us all. In other words, we may find a way forward when those who have made it an issue cease to do so. Mrs Foster: I thank Alan for mentioning where this issue originated. I am from the Protestant community in Fermanagh, which is very much the minority community. It is at the sharp end of intimidation and attacks on orange parades. Republicans use the parades issue as a weapon to do just that. Church parades consisting of 10 or 12 men with an accordion band, which have been held for years, are suddenly deemed offensive because republicans think that they can stop them with the threat of violence. The kernel of the DUP’s paper is that good behaviour should be rewarded and bad behaviour should not. I think in particular of the Parades Commission’s determinations on parades in Newtownbutler and Rosslea in County Fermanagh. The Protestant community in those areas has been decimated by ethnic cleansing, and through a range of other means of intimidation and attack by republicans. Republicans cannot abide Protestants demonstrating their culture on one Sunday in the year; they cannot show tolerance to that small lodge. Sinn Féin finds such demonstrations completely offensive, and that speaks volumes about its intent on a range of issues. I want that put that on record because some very colourful descriptions have been given of loyal orange parades. I have no experience of such parades in County Fermanagh. Alban said that the SDLP would not even consider a review of the Parades Commission, and that is very disappointing. The DUP is asking for a review, although, frankly, it wants the Parades Commission to be done away with. However, it is very prescriptive to take the view that a review should not even be allowed. It is also the first time that I have heard a colleague from the legal profession say that he does not want any extension of the legal process in tribunals. The Parades Commission, as it stands, is part of an illegal framework. As Alban rightly said, people take judicial reviews to the High Court. I firmly agree with Naomi Long that it would be best practice to split the mediation and determination functions. It would be good practice, and it might create movement on the parading issue. That is what the DUP suggests in its paper. I do not accept that some of the Parades Commission’s decisions have been necessary and proportionate, in accordance with article 11 of European Convention on Human Rights. They have been wildly disproportionate in some cases — again, I am thinking specifically of Fermanagh. At the very least, a review of the Parades Commission should be considered. The DUP’s position is that it wants the Parades Commission to be scrapped, and we have made our reasons very clear. Lord Morrow: I want to respond to one or two of Alban’s comments. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will let Mr Ferguson speak, and then you can raise those points, Lord Morrow. Mr Ferguson: I want to pick up on comments that Alan McFarland and Michael Copeland made. To accept their comments would be to imagine that there had never been any difficulty with any orange parade for the past two centuries, when we know that that is not true. The attempt to say that Sinn Féin is responsible for the mayhem that emerges from loyal marches is completely unacceptable. It is worth repeating that several thousand loyal or orange marches are contentious. People are welcome to parade up and down — if the word “march” offends, Members can call it what they will. I will not fall out over a word. We cannot divorce orange marches from the history of this state. We cannot divorce them from the experiences of unionist misrule, discrimination, inequality, triumphalism, loyalist death squads, and all that goes along with that. If we have learnt any lesson in recent times, it is that commissions, arbitrations and tribunals have not been the way in which to resolve those issues. When local communities and the loyal orders have been willing to discuss parades, they have found a way forward. There are good examples of that. Naomi asked whether communities would be happy for parades to march through their areas. We have seen the answer to that on the Springfield Road, the Ormeau Road and elsewhere. When dialogue between the loyal orders and host communities takes place, common sense prevails and a way through is found. That must be the way forward. A million parades tribunals could be established, and the Parades Commission could be reviewed, but the way in which to resolve this issue is through dialogue. However, let us not for one minute try to divorce the problems behind these marches from the historical experience of being nationalist, republican and Catholic on this island, particularly since partition. A century ago, there were pogroms in Catholic villages after orange marches. Let us put it in context, folks, and understand why we are around this table discussing the issue. It is not a case of people being unreasonable about others wanting to march down their street. A blind eye cannot be turned to this issue: it will not go away, because it has an historical association with unionist misrule, discrimination and inequality, and the impact of loyalist death squads on Catholic and nationalist communities. Mr Nesbitt: I have five points to make. The first concerns the balancing of competing rights, which Naomi raised initially. I do not totally subscribe to the idea that we are balancing competing rights, although it gives a nice balance to the argument. A large number of the Parades Commission’s determinations are laid out in a pro forma, with various rights attached and the judgement reached. The rights of the organisers, primarily the orange institutions — although in Kilkeel, it is the Ancient Order of Hibernians (AOH) — are to be considered in the context of articles 9, 10 and 11 of the ECHR. Article 9 refers to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; article 10 to freedom of expression; and article 11 to freedom of peaceful assembly. As Alban and Lord Morrow highlighted, all those rights contain a caveat about ensuring a balance to preserve a democratic society and national security. Alban pointed to article 11 as the crucial element, although he said that it gave no solace to the loyal orders. On an interpretation of case law, those freedoms oblige states to ensure that conditions exist for public meetings and assembly to take place. States have a responsibility to ensure that. Determinations in such cases mostly err on the side of the threat, implying a skewed logic and, perhaps, an overall bias. It is right of assembly versus the threat of public disorder. That threat is not a competing right, therefore, there is an imbalance in allowing freedom of assembly, but not if it is likely to result in disorder. The Parades Commission often says that a decision on a parade is based on the fact that to allow it would damage community relations and would be likely to lead to public disorder — one could almost write the script. The matter is skewed, because the right of assembly is being balanced with the threat of public disorder. The Parades Commission must find a balance between competing rights. 2.15 pm Secondly, the rights that it says that it, as a commission, must uphold are contained in article 8 of the ECHR and article 1 of the ECHR’s protocol. The commission must consider those who live, work, shop, trade and conduct business in the communities. Article 8 deals with respect for a person’s private and family life, home and correspondence. The Parades Commission has used a rather bad interpretation of that article. In case law, the right to private and family life is more a matter of, for example, whether a stepfather who marries has the access rights to his stepchildren. In other words, how is family life defined and what rights do people have as a family? That does not exactly fit in with the parading issue. Article 1 of the first protocol deals with entitlement to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. I presume that individuals primarily enjoy their possessions within their own curtilage, because they are one’s own possessions. I have a difficulty with the matter of balancing rights. The Parades Commission balances rights with the possibility of public disorder, and that skews its decisions. Thirdly, if I can paraphrase Alban correctly, he said that a better political environment might be conducive to resolving the parading issue. Why do we not have a better political environment? I will not rehash the issues, but if all parties were to subscribe to the principles and practice of governance that apply elsewhere in Europe, Northern Ireland would not be without governance. Fourthly, I agree with Arlene and Naomi: it seems that bad behaviour is rewarded instead of good behaviour. That also skews the issue. My fifth point concerns Mr Ferguson’s comments on discrimination, inequality, unionist misrule and loyalist death squads. Regrettably, that mantra has been thrown at us for years. Unionists have not been in government in Northern Ireland since 1972. That was a long time ago, so I am not sure what misrule he refers to. That was another generation. I simply ask Sinn Féin to abandon its myopic perspective of Northern Ireland and to look instead to the world of the twenty-first century. All the statistical evidence that has been gathered since the fair employment law was established in 1989 — 17 years ago — shows that there is no discrimination against the Catholic community. We will examine that issue next week. There is no inequality, so please do not ask this generation, and this Committee, to have visited upon it Sinn Féin’s perception of what happened to past generations. Lord Morrow: There is a perception that when unionists, orangemen or Protestants celebrate their culture, it is triumphalism. When nationalists do the same, they are just celebrating their culture. Whether it be a fleá cheoil, or whatever, they can take over a village and celebrate their culture. I was interested to hear some members say that there are only a few contentious parades — and that is true. We hear much about minority rights. Does a minority have the right to march or parade in a peaceful and lawful manner? Where is the threat when 10% of the community want to parade in a lawful and peaceful manner? That is something that they have been doing since they were the majority community, but because they have been ethnically cleansed, they have been pushed out. The inference is that they must ask the community that ethnically cleansed it for permission to walk down a road. It would have been a fine gesture if the majority community had approached the Parades Commission and said that although the other community was in the minority, it was prepared to demonstrate that it believes that the minority community’s culture is legitimate and lawful, and that it is that culture’s right to walk. It would be a fine gesture for the majority community to tell the minority community to go out and enjoy its parades in a lawful and orderly manner. If any members feel that the status quo is sufficient and that “no change” will be the way forward, they are saying that we are going nowhere. Dermot made a salient point. We hear about 50 years of misrule. Direct rule was imposed in 1970 or 1971, which was 36 years ago. Mr Nesbitt: You were able to count that; I could not. Lord Morrow: Since then, almost 3,500 people have been killed under the utopian system that we have had. Would someone like to tell me how many people were murdered in this country during the previous 36 years? I have no doubt that they would not come up with a figure of 3,500 — I suspect that it would be in the hundreds. I do not want to be beaten over the head all the time with talk of 50 years of misrule. I was but a child then. Mrs Foster: I had not even been born. Lord Morrow: We knew all about the 36 years of misrule when we were at the cutting edge of republican terrorism; our communities were ethnically cleansed from the border areas and our people were driven out; our orange halls were burned to the ground; and our parades were interfered with and stopped. I speak not as a member of the Orange Order. If any members think that the Parades Commission is the only solution, and that there should be no change, they are saying that there will be more of the same. Every attack and every demonstration against an orange parade leads inevitably to another orange hall being burned to the ground. That will continue until the nationalist community has someone with leadership qualities to say that enough is enough. The unionist community has a right to exist, to celebrate its culture and to parade in a peaceful and lawful manner. Until some nationalists have the courage to stand up and acknowledge that, we will see much more of the same trouble. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There appears to be a slight dichotomy between the two positions. The two sides do not seem to be moving closer. [Laughter.] Mr Ferguson: I got that impression too. The Chairman (Mr Wells): To give a fair reflection of the membership, we will hear three more contributions. After Mrs Long, Mr Ferguson and Mr Copeland have spoken, I suggest that the DUP proposal be put to the meeting. If it is unsuccessful, members may consider other proposals. Mrs Long: Given that the proposal is going to be put, I will state the Alliance Party’s position on it. The Alliance Party cannot endorse the DUP paper today. We have given it only a cursory reading, and we have noticed some areas that need amendment. However, we have seen some merit in the proposals also, so we want to explore the paper in more detail. Discussion has moved away from human rights to parades, but the interpretation of fundamental human rights has arisen again. Michael used the phrase “driven through a community”. The people who live in a particular area or community have certain rights, such as the right to live free from threat and intimidation. However, they do not have the right to deny others access to and through that community. That brings us to territorial rights over particular areas. These apply not only to Orange Order parades through nationalist communities, but equally to republican parades that border onto unionist communities — or, indeed, to many other parades that occur despite the discomfort of the host community. Although we are focusing on loyal order parades, the issue is not exclusively for the loyal orders. There seems to be an assumption that community identity takes ownership of physical location. That is contrary to good practice on human rights. We must be very cautious about how we proceed. I accept that communities have the right to live free from fear of threat and intimidation, but that is very distinct from being able to ring-fence pieces of territory and deny access. That leads on to a wider discussion, which we need to have at some point but perhaps not today, about the conduct of parades and protests. Often a parade is deemed contentious simply because the host community is not comfortable with it. However, I see parades that appear contentious to me; I may not be a member of the host community, but I can still find a parade offensive. Therefore, the conduct of parades and the perceived threat that emanates from them is another issue. I will give two examples. If you take a loyal order parade, the parade in itself may not be particularly contentious, but the conduct, the attire and the demeanour of some of the individuals involved in the overall procession may cause people to feel intimidated or threatened by their behaviour. We must address that. Likewise, I have seen some republican parades where the conduct, attire and demeanour of individuals could cause fear and intimidation in the community. We are caught on the hook of this territorial issue with parades. There is a wider issue about the impact of parades on good relations. I did not touch on it earlier because I was referring to human rights, not good relations. However, they are interlinked. An individual’s right to live free of intimidation is at times affected by the conduct of particular parades and by protests against parades, which can be violent and disorderly. We must explore those links. 2.30 pm The Alliance Party contends that the idea to split the Parades Commission’s functions of arbitration and mediation merits close scrutiny. That does not necessarily mean splitting the body, but it may mean splitting the functions and changing the way in which it does business. I reiterate that the Alliance Party is not in a position to endorse the DUP paper, but we would not want it to be set to one side. We should discuss the paper, as it raises some key principles. For instance, in recent times, rewarding bad behaviour has worked both ways. A move from that to the predication of decisions upon the reward of good behaviour would have a positive impact on the parades scenario. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are you suggesting, in the event of Mr Poots’s motion falling, a proposal to give the paper further consideration? Mrs Long: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Well, we will keep that proposal on the stocks perchance Mr Poots is not successful. Mr Poots: It is Lord Morrow’s proposal. Mr Ferguson: With the greatest respect, sometimes Naomi presumes that the defence of individual rights will protect group rights. This is clearly one of the cases in which it does not. Mrs Long: Will you take a point of information? Mr Ferguson: Yes. Mrs Long: I have never argued in favour of the protection of group rights. My only interest is the protection of individual rights. The protection of group rights leaves gaps, because individuals are not protected. The protection of individual rights protects all people. If they wish to associate in groups, to claim and exercise those rights, that is a matter for the individual. Mr Ferguson: As I said, with the greatest respect, Naomi often confuses individual rights with group rights and somehow thinks that group rights undermine individual rights. I reiterate that because — Mrs Long: Reiteration will not make it fact, Michael. Mr Ferguson: No, but it makes me feel good, OK? Mrs Long: I do not deny you your right to feel good. Mr Ferguson: OK. However, we are not talking about the denial of an individual’s right to walk down the Springfield, Garvaghy or Ormeau Roads. Individuals can walk down those roads at any given time. We are talking about parades through those areas, without the community’s consent, and where it is offensive. Parades cannot be divorced from the way in which communities experience them. It is a mistake to suggest that stopping those parades would diminish individuals’ rights. Dermot and Maurice are right: we have had direct rule since 1971. Due to the paraphernalia of discrimination and inequality that has been institutionalised since partition, we are sitting around a table talking about human rights and equality. We are dealing with institutionalised discrimination and a situation in which Catholics are twice as likely to be unemployed as Protestants — Lord Morrow: So, nothing ever changes? Mr Ferguson: Maurice, if we did not think that there was an issue, we would not be here discussing human rights and equality agendas and trying to improve matters to ensure that everybody is treated equally. Unionists have a responsibility — Mrs Foster: That is right. Mr Ferguson: To be honest, my colleague across the table who interrupted me is all the more responsible because she is not prepared to go into Government and do what needs to be done — Mrs Foster: You are right. Mr Ferguson: While she is not prepared to do that, direct rule British Ministers are eroding the education and health systems. Mrs Foster: Martin McGuinness did a good enough job of ruining the education system while he was the Minister. Mr Ferguson: I think Martin did us a favour by eradicating academic selection; the majority of communities suffer from that. Setting that aside, we cannot airbrush history just because my colleagues across the table want to take a revisionist view of it, or want to ignore, for example, the fact that if you were a Catholic, you could not necessarily get a job or a house. Mrs Foster: Are we talking about parading, or are we talking about jobs? Mr Ferguson: The statistics reinforce that to this day. Lord Morrow: So, you never move on. Mr Ferguson: Quite the opposite, Maurice. Mr Copeland and I and other people who work in interface areas have demonstrated that we can move on. If individuals want to march down the Springfield Road, that is fine, but let us not have sectarian banners belonging to murder gangs, and let us not play offensive tunes with sectarian connotations. It is time for local residents to bring that to an end, agree accommodation and move forward. Let us put the institutions back in place so that we can get on with the bigger issues that will support stability. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am conscious of the fact that Mr McCarthy has played a blinder today — he has not spoken once. Mr McCarthy: Do you want me to start? Mrs Long: He has been biting his tongue. The Chairman (Mr Wells): He has not had a chance to say anything. Mr McCarthy: I am happy to listen. Naomi is doing a good job, as is everyone else. I am looking at the clock in the hope that we will finish by 4.00 pm. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It has been a faultless performance, Mr McCarthy. Mr Copeland: Mr Ferguson and I represent two different constituencies that are, broadly speaking, similar. Each has a substantial population, with a diversity of people. They are similar in every way, except in their religious beliefs and, perhaps, political opinions. Surely, the time has come for tolerance, where we can appreciate the exercising of a freedom by someone with whom we disagree, as a reinforcement of our own freedoms in society. There may be misconceptions of my perceptions of what an orange parade is about. Mr Ferguson’s views on those have been placed upon him by history, but we are where we are. The Orange Institution, the Apprentice Boys of Derry and the Royal Black Preceptory will not go away, nor will the organisations or cultural exhibitions or outworkings of the section of the community to which Mr Ferguson belongs. We must examine a way forward whereby the people who can solve those serious issues are not permitted to hide in the smoke of quangos and legislation. One can enforce views from the top down, but, unless there is broad acceptance and toleration, the police will be brought into conflict with more people. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Nesbitt will be the final member to speak. This must be the last word on the matter. Mr Nesbitt: Is that it, at 2.40 pm? The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will then vote on the two proposals. Mr Nesbitt: Will it take an hour and twenty minutes to vote? The Chairman (Mr Wells): No, but I have not heard anything new for a while. Mr Poots: For about 30 years. Mr Copeland: For about 300 years. Mr Nesbitt: Thank you for your words of support and encouragement. Naomi is correct. She is not complicating the matter between individual rights and group rights. International human rights law does not recognise group rights, but individual rights. I shall give an analogy: if a person decides to play for a soccer team, that is an individual choice, but that team acts as a group and plays as a team. Therefore, individual rights do not preclude the accommodation of the rights of individuals who have chosen to act as a group. That is Naomi’s point, and it is correct. I am sad that Mr Ferguson has forgotten nothing and learnt nothing. That may sound patronising, but it is not meant to be. I am serious. He said that Catholics are more likely to be unemployed than Protestants, and that the unemployment rate of Catholics to Protestants is 2:1, but that is statistically invalid. I will not go into that today, but I want Mr Ferguson to show me where it says that he, as a Catholic, is more likely to be unemployed. It is quite the reverse: unemployment is due to other factors. The chances of getting a job are determined by three factors: discrimination, educational attainment, and population change. Ian Shuttleworth’s book entitled ‘Fair Employment in Northern Ireland: A Generation On’ stated that the larger the family, the less chance of its children receiving a grammar school education and gaining qualifications. There is a correlation between family size, population increase and one section of this community. Statistics show that, over many years, the Derry City Council area has seen one of the highest employment growth rates in the UK; yet, in the past, it also experienced one of the highest unemployment rates because the number of people entering the workforce was disproportionate to the number of jobs being created. There is an imbalance in the proportion of Catholics and Protestants entering the workforce, which skews unemployment statistics. However, there is no evidence, from statistics produced since the establishment of fair employment law in 1989, that discrimination is the cause. Rather, structural and population factors are the cause. Nothing has been learnt and nothing has been forgotten. We will return to the issue next week — this is merely a warm-up. Mr Chairman (Mr Wells): First, I wish to take the DUP’s proposal. Members have received a copy of the proposal. The proposal is to split the Parades Commission’s functions to create a mediation body and a determination body. Do we have consensus? Mr McFarland: Mr Copeland and Mrs Long said that the proposal has merit, but, as parties have only received a copy of the proposal today, it would be sensible for parties to discuss the proposal and revisit it in the Committee. The parties have stated that we will not reach consensus. However, it would be unfortunate if the proposal were ditched now without an opportunity to examine it. The proposal could raise its head again later in the year, and it would be sensible to try to refine it. Therefore, if the proposal does raise its head again, there will be a greater level of consensus, as members will have had an opportunity to examine it. Lord Morrow: I agree. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will not put the DUP proposal today. I will put Mrs Long’s proposal, which is that we give the DUP’s document further consideration. I encourage parties to bring documents on any issue to the table for consideration. Although I do not want to influence decisions, it would set a difficult precedent if we began to ditch documents without considering them in detail. Do members agree? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have reached consensus three times in a row — that is extraordinary. Are there other parades issues or do parties feel that they have aired their views? Mr McFarland: There are cross-cutting issues. Naomi mentioned the conduct of protests and parades and how that impinges on good relations. I have no doubt that this issue will raise its head again in discussions on equality, sectarianism and all the other issues that come under the banner of a “shared future”. Indeed, I suspect that, on several occasions over the next weeks, we will debate issues that wander all over the place. 2.45 pm Mrs Long: That is a valid point. One issue was the impact of the rule of law, and how that specifically impacts on parading. Clearly, removing the threat of violence from a situation changes the context for all discussions on parades. Related issues are bound to arise in other discussions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is now 2.45 pm. We have finished our discussion on rights and safeguards. We could move on to discuss equality and shared future issues. Mr Nesbitt: Mr Chairman, I said that it would take you an hour and 20 minutes to organise the vote, so congratulations to you on completing it in five minutes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do members wish to continue our discussions? I am available all afternoon, so there is no problem. I have already lost many brownie points at home. Mrs Foster: I suggest that we return next week to discuss equality and shared future issues. Mrs Lewsley: I second that. Mr Poots: Consensus has been achieved again, Mr Chairman. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. That is four times in one meeting on parades and human rights. There are some housekeeping issues. Item 4 on the agenda is the revised Committee work programme. Again, this keeps changing, but the programme gives members an idea of when the Committee will meet, the likely subjects for discussion, and who will chair the meetings. It allows members to keep their diaries free and to plan ahead. There is not much for the Committee to decide — we are basically stuck with this programme for the next few weeks. Mr McFarland: The actual content of Committee meetings varies week by week because it is related directly to how well the Committee progresses. Apart from needing to know who will chair the meetings and the make-up of the party teams, we will just have to deal with the issues on a meeting-by-meeting basis. We may get two days’ work completed in a day — not that I think that we will — but the content of each meeting will have to be monitored. Discussions on parades could have lasted into next week, but they did not. As we have finished those discussions slightly early, we know that the Committee will discuss equality next week. I do not see a way around taking a day-by-day approach. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Next week, members will be prepared with their contributions on those issues. Up to now, proceedings have gone extremely well. Folk have kept to the point, and to time, and have obviously put a bit of effort into the meetings, which is appreciated. The next meeting to discuss institutional issues will be on 14 August 2006 at 10.00 am. Mr Molloy will be in the Chair. The next meeting on rights, safeguards and equality is on Friday 18 August 2006. Again, it will be an all-day meeting, which should last until 4.00 pm. Adjourned at 2.49 pm. < previous / next > |