|
|
|
|
|
Northern Ireland: Bill of Rights
15 January 2009
Question asked By Lord Trimble
'To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proposals they have to consult on the advice received from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission concerning a possible bill of rights for Northern Ireland.'
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the Government intend to consult publicly on this issue. We will decide on the timing of this consultation, and the form that it will take, once Ministers have given due consideration to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission’s report.We recognise that there is a diverse range of opinion on this issue and look forward to hearing all views during our consultation.
Lord Trimble: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I draw attention to the fact that my wife is a member of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The noble Baroness will know that my wife, together with another member of the commission, dissented from its report on a matter of principle: that the commission had failed to abide by its remit to advise on rights that reflected the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland and the principles of mutual respect and parity of esteem.
My question is whether, in re-entering the consultation, the Government can ensure that due regard is paid to the views of the dissenting minority and that there is consultation on that, together with the views of the majority. I also hope that, in considering the consultation, the Government will treat with proper scepticism the self-serving statements that will emanate from the various special interest groups on this matter.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am aware of the noble Lord’s wife’s role in the commission and the fact that she dissented. All I can say is that there will be a very wide consultation, in which we look forward to hearing the widest range of views possible.
Lord Laird: My Lords, is the noble Baroness the Lord President aware that, in 2001, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission issued a similar report to the one that we are confronted with today? That was rejected at that time on behalf of the
Government by Desmond Browne, then a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, for being outside the commission’s remit. Is that the Government’s position today?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am aware of the views expressed by my right honourable friend Des Browne at that time. We have a new report, which we are currently considering. We will be consulting on it in due course.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, will my noble friend join me in congratulating the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission on the great job it has done for the people of Northern Ireland? Will she furthermore confirm that what it has done is entirely in line with the Good Friday agreement, which said that these rights,
“taken together with the ECHR ... constitute a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland”?
Will my noble friend confirm that that is what the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has actually done?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, many have expressed the view that the commission has exceeded its remit. However, the Belfast agreement did not set a definition of what constitutes the particular circumstances in Northern Ireland, and nor have the Government. The commission has clearly given very detailed consideration to how to interpret its remit and circulated the methodology in June. We have now received the report, for which we are grateful. We look forward to the consultation and to whatever happens in the future.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in praising the way in which the commission has gone about its work. When does the Minister anticipate the Government fulfilling their obligations under the Belfast agreement and implementing a bill of rights in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, we made a commitment in the Belfast agreement that we would explore the scope for a bill of rights for Northern Ireland and we are engaged in that process. We have received the report from the Human Rights Commission. We are grateful for the work that it has undertaken and we will consult in due course.
Lord Bew: My Lords, many noble Lords share the concern of the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Smith, to see the full implementation of the Belfast agreement, and I certainly share that concern. However, the concern about mission creep in the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission reaches into that group, particularly in the light of the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, in the case of Child E on 12 November, where he seemed to locate an example of mission creep and inappropriate action by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Does the noble Baroness understand that those of us who wish to see the Belfast agreement fully implemented with respect to human rights also have concerns about mission creep?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, as I said, the commission’s work has been much praised. However, the way in which it has worked has also received criticism. We are now considering what the commission had to say. We will make our views clear and consult in due course, but I recognise the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bew.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, since there is much mention of the Belfast agreement, does the noble Baroness recall that the requirement for human rights applies not only to Northern Ireland but to the Republic of Ireland, where there has been little progress? Will she make representations to see that the human rights requirement in the Belfast agreement is honoured in both jurisdictions?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord has to say, and I shall certainly reflect on it and act accordingly.
To read the debate in full click here
15 January 2009
» Return to House of Lords section
|
|