Stuart Weir (London, Democratic Audit): As is the way of things, only bad news from Northern Ireland makes it onto the British media. So it is that there was something of a media blackout on the report to government here from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, advocating a Bill of Rights for the province that contained significant economic and social rights. The report, or advice, was submitted on 10 December, international Human Rights Day.
The Commission is a statutory body, set up under the Northern Ireland Act, to recommend a Bill of Rights specifically for the province that reflects “the particular circumstances” of Northern Ireland and draws upon international human rights instruments. The Commission has worked hard since 2000 to meet this brief, but has continually met political obstruction because of its members’ interest in a broad and consensual proposal.
Its proposals are embedded in a deep consultation programme of the kind that democrats argued should inform government action on human rights, values and a constitutional settlement for the UK as a whole under Brown’s now dead governance initiative. The Commission has considered 600 submissions from individual people and agencies, and held public meetings, seminars and training events to get down as deep into what people in Northern Ireland want. It has been an inspiring process.
Northern Ireland’s Bill should, the Commission advises, contain basic civil and political rights, build in equality, create rights to health, education, work, accommodation and “an adequate standard of living”, and environmental and children’s rights. A majority of Commission members have agreed this proposal, but its two unionist members, Lady Trimble, of the UUP, and Jonathan Bell, DUP, are firmly opposed, as the unionist political hierarchy has been since 2000.
Dominic Grieve, the shadow Home Secretary and Attorney General, knows better than the people of Northern Ireland what they want, or what is good for them. In a speech at a Tory-UUP dinner a few days ago, he set aside all the assiduous consultation that has gone into the Commission’s advice, saying that such a Bill should not “be imposed” on them. The advice, he said, “makes my hair stand on end”, and there was no need for it in Northern Ireland.
His comments are also relevant to the debate on the Human Rights Act in the UK as a whole. He said that the “rights culture” was out of control not just in Ulster but throughout the UK. “The undeserving in society” could often use rights legislation “for personal gain”. The Conservatives would create a UK Bill of Rights with built-in safeguards to prevent those “whose own behaviour is lacking” from abusing its powers. A devolved administration at Stormont could then make changes to take countenance of “local needs and issues”, just as long presumably, as local people had no say.
As for socio-economic rights, governments and legislation were intruding too much into people’s lives.
There is not much point here in de-constructing the populist rhetoric within which Grieve masks the real objections to socio-economic rights which are held just as fiercely by his Labour counterparts, state bureaucrats, judges and the rest of the political and business elite. This is distressing because there is a need for serious and detailed debate, just as much on the left as on the right, about how socio-economic rights might be realised if those of us who advocate them are ever to succeed. (See here Claire Methven O’Brien’s article, “Entrenching Social Citizenship”, in Renewal, 16-1.) It is also distressing, as defence of the Human Rights Act depends on rescuing its public image from the distortions of political and media representation, in which Jack Straw recently played a shameful part.
I cannot resist an ironical foot note. Grieve spoke movingly of a Bill of Rights that “everyone in the UK could feel they have ownership of and could truly believe in and adhere to”. The nearest we have come to such a measure is that which the NI Commission has recommended. Any true attempt to gauge what the British public as a whole wanted would find that they are also in favour of a Bill that protects socio-economic rights. But we are not likely to see any such attempt.
Comments
What irredeemable nonsense.
The two unionist parties actually represent, of course, a large majority of people within Northern Ireland. The neutral Alliance Party has expressed its reservations. A coterie of unelected, unaccountable special interest groups each providing a wish list does not comprise “what people in Northern Ireland want”. The bill is of course an attempt to circumvent elected politicians.
http://threethousandversts.blogspot.com
Having been involved in several of the 'extensive consultations' undertaken I feel that perhaps Mr Grieve has his finger closer to the pulse of much of Northern Ireland's population than those within the NIHRC's camp. Having sat through a session at which over 90 per cent of those present at a consultation challenged the views put forward by a representative from the Human Rights Consortium, I can only express my utter surprise at her summing up of the event as she 'thanked everyone there for their 'support' for a full and inclusive Bill of Rights. One could be forgiven for thinking that she had been trained by Humpty Dumpty of 'Through the Looking Glass' Consultancy. People here are content for a Bill of Rights to provide some factors but few, aside from those in the Human Rights community want the social and economic rights wish-list as proposed - particularly in light of the fact that their last attempt to get a similar wishlist onto the statute book was rejected.
“The Commission has worked hard since 2000 to meet this brief, but has continually met political obstruction because of its members’ interest in a broad and consensual proposal.”
That’s the propaganda.
The truth is that many (not just Unionists) outside the self-serving quangocracy have serious objections towards this document.
It is full of nonsensical pronouncements, but the main objection to this Bill of Rights ever becoming law is that it would be the judges and the courts, not democratically elected representatives, who would be required to implement its findings. The independence of the judiciary, which is one of the touch-stones of any democratic state, is threatened by its inevitable politicisation resulting from this Bill.
Secondly, you say this Bill of Rights was drawn up specifically “for the province that reflects “the particular circumstances” of Northern Ireland and draws upon international human rights instruments. “ yet this bill “should” :
“contain basic civil and political rights, build in equality, create rights to health, education, work, accommodation and “an adequate standard of living”, and environmental and children’s rights”
With the possible exception of “political” rights (which are largely guaranteed by present legislation) which of those remaining “rights” deal
with “circumstances” “particular” to Northern Ireland?
Finally, it’s interesting to note that there were 10 Commissioners in the NIHRC. Only 8 agreed with the Report. 2 did not - Daphne Trimble and Jonathan Bell (DUP). They were refused permission to submit a minority report. For a body supposedly determined to guarantee “basic civil and political rights”, does that not appear to you a caviliar approach to the right of a minority to state a dissenting opinion?
Great article. The NI Human Rights Commission, as you no doubt are aware, does have other remits and it will continue to exist after this Bill's fate is decided.
I noted the release of the report here:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/ourkingdom-theme/damian-oloan/2008/12/08/cameron-fails-to-move-unionism-forward
Chekov,
The line that a Bill of Rights is undemocratic is tabloid nonsense. In itself, it is an illustration of democracy. It is passed by parliament. Judges are independent arbiters of whether government actions are consistent with their own legislative principles. Nothing more. At any point, it can be revised, by government. What it does do is add stability and consistency, not to mention offering an acceptable framework for legislators that could help protect us from our rulers degrading into excessively authoritarian creatures, by strengthening the status of the citizen. (Note these rights are not extended to residents or immigrants).
Also, those "unelected special interest groups" were civic society representatives, and their role was agreed under Good Friday, passed by referendum. They included Age Concern, the Christian/Catholic churches. Disability Action, the Children's Law Centre, trade union representatives, the Central Business Institute and another business sector representative. Their role was to provide advice on what would be appropriate regarding their field of expertise.
NI needs rights protection, in particular, as the Tories plan to abolish the Human Rights Act, and have even suggested a referendum on membership of the EU.
The Commission has put forward a strong and sensible set of proposals for rights protection, suitable for twenty-first century Northern Ireland, when many still have legitimate concerns about rights abuses linked to our divided and troubled past, and many more want the sort of modern rights standards - already adopted by other countries - which protect our shared future.
Sadly, so far, the DUP and UUP have chosen to dismiss the report - indeed, getting their negative press responses out even before the proposals had even been published. Yet, according to a series of independently conducted opinion polls over the years, a majority of ordinary unionist voters have shown positive support for a strong Bill of Rights, including for the protection of social and economic rights.
I hope that the DUP and UUP will re-consider their position. After years without political power, it is only to be expected that some now with their hands on the levers might be wary of measures which they fear could detract from democratic, representative decison-making. But I believe that such a fear is misplaced and is to misunderstand the nature of a Bill of Rights as a perfectly normal part of the checks and balances of a modern, democratic society. Similar fears have been expressed in other countries prior to adopting a bill of charter of rights. Once the law is seen in action, those fears fade.
As for the Human Rights Consortium - a campaign coalition made up of over 120 charities, trade unions and community groups from both sides of the traditional Northern Ireland divide, and representing hundreds of thousands of ordinary people - it will continue to speak up for a strong Bill of Rights to act as a guarantee of our rights and our responsibilities as citizens and as government. Special interest groups? Yes, we have a special interest in ensuring respect and dignity for the disabled, the elderly, the ethnic minority, the Troubles victim ... and we will make no apology for that.
Of course, notwithstanding the long consultation process which has led to the Commission's advice to the Secretary of State, it would be crazy to assume that all of their proposals represent a perfect wisdom that cannot or should not be open to strong and significant challenge.
Yet, equally, an ideologically-driven, politically partisan opposition to the Bill is no substitute for a reasoned public debate and it is to that which I now look forward.
I trust the government will make an announcement to that effect without undue delay and ensure that we get beyond the political nay-saying and see people put before politics .
Post new comment