How not to do it: Northern Ireland's Bill of Rights

| | | | | | | |

Fair Deal (Slugger O'Toole): In Preparing Britain for the future, the government proposes consulting the UK public about the Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. Such a Bill is based on a strong societal consensus and establishing a route to that consensus will be fundamental to its success.

Northern Ireland has been wrestling with its own Bill of Rights since the Belfast Agreement of 1998 and despite 10 years it remains a distant prospect. The task was set out thus:

4. The new Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (see paragraph 5 below) 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. These additional rights to reflect the principles of mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities and parity of esteem, and - taken together with the ECHR - to constitute a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.

A decade later, there is still no agreement on what the 94 words mean. In the first attempt, Nationalism and Unionism took up predictable positions (more from habit than thought) but the fundamental damage to the process was done by third sector representatives. Many queued up to turn their policy agendas into long lists of economic and social rights. With the NIHRC end product closer to Nationalist and third sector demands, government ignored it.

The St Andrews Agreement breathed fresh life into the process establishing a Bill of Rights Forum. This had representatives from the five main parties and the third sector. While Unionism approached it with a somewhat more open mind, Nationalism, but more so the third sector representatives, carried on exactly as before. Again next to no societal consensus was forged in its final 246 pages of proposals.

The UK Bill seems safe from this abuse of process. The Governance of Britain was explicit:

However, if specifically British rights were to be added to those we already enjoy by virtue of the European Convention, we would need to be certain that their addition would be of real benefit to the country as a whole and not restrict the ability of the democratically elected Government to decide upon the way resources are to be deployed in the national interest. For example, some have argued for the incorporation of economic and social rights into British law. But this would involve a significant shift from Parliament to the judiciary in making decisions about public spending and, at least implicitly, levels of taxation.

The NI experience shows it to be a wise decision. Ministry of Justice officials expressed interest in the work of the recent Forum but on consensus forging, they will learn how not to do it.

| | | | | | | |