|
|
|
Sinn Féin Equality and Human Rights Spokesperson, Bairbre de Brún has expressed concern at the failure of the British government and the Human Rights Commission to address serious problems in the make up and operation of the commission. Bairbre de Brún has also written to the Chief Commissioner Brice Dickson about the need for it to restore public confidence in its willingness to protect the rights of all. Ms de Brún said: "The Human Rights Commission is a key component of the Good Friday Agreement which Sinn Féin strongly argued for and supported. We are very concerned at the Human Rights Commission's approach to a number of issues such as fair employment and the Chief Commissioner's inappropriate behaviour in the Holy Cross case. We approach this issue on the basis of wanting the best possible Human Rights Commission. "The Chief Commissioner's actions in respect of the Holy Cross case, particularly his correspondence with former PSNI Chief Ronnie Flanagan, has undermined public confidence. It was totally inappropriate. The rights of little children should not depend on the area in which they live or the religion of their family. "The Chief Commissioner has not dealt satisfactorily with these concerns about the way the Commission has developed under his stewardship. We have discussed our concerns and what is required to fix the problem with the two governments. We need to look at a restructuring that includes the composition, the appointments process and then the powers and resources of the Commission. The British government need to put in place the measures to guarantee the integrity, independence and effectiveness of the Commission. The Human Rights Commission is broken. It needs fixing. "I have written once again to the Commission stressing the need for it also to restore public confidence in its' integrity and its' willingness to promote and protect the rights of all regardless identity or political persuasion."
Pressure mounting
on human rights chief In the most serious crisis to hit the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission two serving members have called for the resignation of chief commissioner Brice Dickson. Commissioners Patricia Kelly and Frank McGuinness, interviewed in today's Irish News, are the first members of the organisation to say Mr Dickson must step down if the commission is to survive. This is the most significant development in a long-running row which has been closely linked to the handling of the loyalist protest at Holy Cross Primary School in 2001. Earlier this year it emerged that after the commission had agreed to fund a Holy Cross parent in a legal challenge of the policing of the protest, Mr Dickson privately wrote to the then chief constable Sir Ronnie Flanagan saying he did not believe the case had merit. Ms Kelly and Mr McGuinness today describe Brice Dickson's letter as a breach of trust, but their comments come amid fresh allegations: *In
October the commission published an 'Action Plan' underlining its
commitment to “remaining totally independent of government”.
But the Irish News has obtained emails believed to have been written
by Brice Dickson that show the document was drafted with the help
of “senior figures” in the Northern Ireland Office. The Human Rights Commission was one of the key institutions formed under the Good Friday Agreement and was intended to guarantee 'equality for all'. But in the last year
three of its members resigned over claims that commission proposals
for a new Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland could dismantle existing
fair employment laws. A decision by Ms Kelly and Mr McGuinness in September to withdraw from the day-to-day operation of the commission - they stopped short of resignation - means only seven commissioners remain of a panel which once totalled thirteen. The commission has now changed its rules so that the attendance of five members is sufficient to conduct business. Reacting to the apparent NIO involvement in the action plan, Ms Kelly said: “To me, the involvement of the NIO in the drafting of the plan compromises again the independence of the commission. “It is also reminiscent of the compromising of the commission in terms of the communication with Ronnie Flanagan.”
The crisis in the Human
Rights Commission With the Northern
Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) locked in continuing controversy,
Irish News journalist Steven McCaffery asks former and serving commissioners
how the organisation should move forward: • Christine Bell (Resigned from the commission in Feb 2002) “The chief
commissioner's position has been untenable for some time and it is
difficult to see how things can move forward without him resigning.
However, both governments, in particular the British government, have
a responsibility to affirm the importance of an independent commission
and they can best do this by ensuring an independent appointments
process and issuing a clear plan for implementing the various recommendations
that have been made by a number bodies.” • Inez McCormack (Resigned from the commission in Feb 2002) “I think
the only way to restore confidence in accountability and probity is
for the chair to resign. To restore independence and confidence, a
new appointments procedure, independent of the NIO and involving people
with human rights experience, should be established. The composition
of the commission should also include people with human rights experience
and reflect the composition of society.” • Patricia Kelly (A serving commissioner, she stood down from its day-to-day activities in September 2003) “Given
that the commission was funding the Applicant (the Holy Cross
parent) the independence, confidentiality and integrity of the
commission were compromised by the action of the chief commissioner
and other commissioners when they communicated with the respondent
(the Police) in the Holy Cross case. The recent Action Plan,
which was supposed to address this issue, fails to recognise and address
the fundamental nature of this breach of confidentiality. The independence
of the commission was further compromised by the involvement of the
NIO in the drafting of the Action plan. Sadly the chief commissioner
has failed in his leadership and it is with regret that I conclude
that he should resign immediately to enable public confidence to be
restored.” • Frank McGuinness (A serving commissioner, he stood down from its day-to-day activities in September 2003) “Independence
and the public perception of independence are essential to a properly
functioning human rights commission. Action must be taken to restore
confidence in the integrity of the NIHRC as an independent institution
that is competent to promote and protect human rights. Unless this
is achieved it will not be possible to attract the best possible candidates
for appointment to the commission.” • Chris McGimpsey (Resigned as a commissioner last week to stand in the assembly elections as a Ulster Unionist candidate) “I think
there is clearly a co-ordinated campaign being waged against the commission
in general and the chief commissioner in particular, which unless
it abates will destroy the NIHRC and the valuable work it has been
undertaking for the last number of years. If (Mr Dickson) was
to resign, it would be a blow the commission could not survive.”
• Patrick Yu (Resigned in July
2003. He could not be contacted yesterday. At the time of his resignation
he cited concerns over the commission's proposals for a Bill of Rights
and raised these in a letter to the secretary of state.) • Angela Hegarty (Resigned in 2000 for personal reasons. She could not be contacted yesterday).
The commission issued a joint statement last night which it said represented the position of serving commissioners - the Rev Harold Good, Margaret-Ann Dinsmore, Tom Donnelly, Lady Christine Eames, Tom Hadden and Kevin McLaughlin.
“Over the summer period and into October, the commission had a number of discussions. Those participating in these discussions included political parties, NGOs (non-governmental organisations) and officials representing the British and Irish governments. All points made to the commission were carefully considered but the wording of the resulting Action Plan, issued on 15th October, was the commission's and the commission's alone. “The independence of the commission was to the forefront of commissioners' minds throughout this process. Patricia Kelly and Frank McGuinness, who withdrew from the Commission in September, chose not to involve themselves in the discussions leading to the production of the Action Plan. “The commission's support of a case against the chief constable regarding the policing of the situation at the Holy Cross School has been documented at length by the Irish News over the past four months. The commission has long acknowledged that a letter should not have been sent to the Chief Constable revealing internal divisions of opinion. “The chief commissioner is confident that such a letter could not and would not be sent in any future case. Commissioners were always unanimous in their condemnation of the conduct towards the Holy Cross schoolgirls. “The commission
has nothing further to add. Given that there is strong support for
Brice Dickson from other members of the commission, he has indicated
that he will not be resigning.” TOM Comment: This statement clearly
demonstrates that the current structure of the Human Rights Commission
is questionable, to say the least. It is now patently clear that the
commission, as well as Brice Dickson, is irrevocably compromised. Following on from
today's Human Rights Commission statement, Troops Out Movement say: "We have no confidence in the Human Rights Commission
- it has now been shown that it is corrupt and it needs replacing!"
Report
rocks HRC ‘Naive’ commission struggles for respect A new report, obtained exclusively by the Andersonstown News, last night threw the Human Rights Commission into turmoil and called into question the future of the organisation, writes Jarlath Kearney. The 29-page report – produced for the Nuffield Foundation – was researched over eighteen months and compiled by noted academics Professor Stephen Livingstone and Anne Smith of Queen’s University, and Dr Rachel Murray of the University of Bristol. The interim document, dated October 2003, evaluates the effectiveness of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. It is believed that the Human Rights Commission received a copy of the report two weeks ago. The document contains a series of worrying criticisms in relation to issues such as independence, intra-Commission tensions, management issues and strategic planning. Among those interviewed during the production of the interim report were government, parliamentarians, NGOs, civil society, religious organisations, trade unions, the legal profession, academics and those who had used the commission’s services, as well as the staff and all Commissioners, both present and former. Overall, the assessment of the researchers is “that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is struggling to establish its effectiveness”, and that “it is far from clear that the NIHRC enjoys the respect of government or of civil society”. The report found “extensive dissatisfaction with the Commission’s performance to date among civil society groups”. “All in all, while the NIHRC clearly has a higher profile than SACHR (Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights)… it is doubtful whether it has as yet had a greater impact that SACHR.” The report cautions that the Commission is constrained by lack of resources and powers, government attitudes and an unfavourable judicial context. But despite stressing “that it is early days and that initial expectations of the NIHRC were perhaps too high”, the report continues: “The Commission’s inability to resolve (internal) tensions, and the distrust engendered by them, has revealed itself in an increasing emphasis on procedularism in its decision-making, a failure to reach a consensus on the Bill of Rights, the lack of a clear position on the Holy Cross dispute and ultimately to several commissioners’ resignations and withdrawals.” The document reports a “sense among many that the Commission has been naïve in how it deals with the government” and suggests that “the Commission appeared to select some projects on the basis that they would appeal to the unionist community or those hostile to its work, for example by focusing on non-state abuses, rather than primarily on particular human rights principles”. Time and again the document highlights the Human Rights Commission’s shortcomings. For example, its “limited impact”, a “crisis of legitimacy”, a “lack of control” and a lack of “strategic direction”. “Even where the Commission has produced solid reports which have been generally well received and respected, it has failed to follow up its recommendations to try to move these into concrete action,” says the report. In a number of damning conclusions the document states: “Those who had been supportive of the human rights agenda and the Commission from the start have become increasingly disappointed in its failure to deliver, with the Bill of Rights being cited as one of the main issues in this regard. The relationship with the government, as indicated above, bears little evidence that the Commission is taken seriously or that its recommendations have any bite. Further, more recently, the difficulties that the Commission has faced, including the resignations and internal divisions that have become apparent, have undermined confidence in the Commission from even its most closest allies.” The report is also critical on the issue of government appointments to the Commission. “The appointments process, being carried out by the executive, albeit with public nominations, in a climate of secrecy without legislative or adequate independent involvement, clearly does not comply with the Paris Principles. "In appointing the Northern Ireland Commissioners, knowledge of human rights was not cited as an essential criterion in the job specification,” the document states. In recent interviews with the Andersonstown News, the Commission has been criticised by ex-Commissioner Inez McCormack and by the Comptroller of New York State, Alan Hevesi. Speaking yesterday, one of the report authors, Professor Stephen Livingstone, stressed that his report was an interim one. “My concern is that this report is just an interim one. It is not a final report. The final report will not be ready for about another month and will take into account responses from various parties to the interim report. “Certain parts of the report may be amended according to updated information or other views received,” he said. The Human Rights Commission yesterday refused to make any comment on the report, although it is suggested some of the contents of the interim report will be challenged by the body.
Brice Dickson launches scathing attack on Paul Murphy Open letter from Chief Commissioner at the Human Rights Commission The departing Chief Commissioner at the Human Rights Commission, Brice Dickson, has released the following letter to the press and NGOs. The Chief Commissioner has himself experienced a bumpy ride over the past number of years with calls for his resignation following the on/off involvement of the Commission in legal action taken by parents of children in the Holy Cross Primary School dispute. The open letter: Rt Hon Paul Murphy MP 22 February, 2005 Before standing down as Chief Commissioner at the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission next week, I wanted to share with you some reflections on my six years in post. Most would acknowledge that the establishment of the Commission in 1999 was a landmark. While its predecessor, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, completed much valuable work during its 25 years (particularly in the field of political and religious discrimination), it did not have the power to investigate alleged violations of human rights abuses or to take cases to court. A more powerful body was required in a new era heralded by the Good Friday Agreement. But when the legislation creating the Commission was going through Parliament your government was unwilling to confer on it the full range of powers that human rights commissions around the world have been given, including our sister Commission in Dublin. The trade off was that in exchange for lesser powers the government would consider a report from the Commission after two years and judge then whether its powers were enough to make it effective. The Commission submitted such a report on schedule, but I regret to say that your government did not keep its side of the bargain. Fifteen months later, in May 2002, the government published a consultation document on the Commission’s powers but, with the exception of your statement in December 2004, the Commission has not been told to this day what exactly the government proposes to do to implement the recommendations we made four years ago. Sadly, it is a familiar story. Time and time again the Commission has submitted recommendations to government only to have them totally rejected or, worse, ignored. Despite our best efforts to get through to them, departments at Westminster, especially the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs, sometimes forget that we even exist, let alone accept what we are recommending. When the government was considering what laws to enact in reaction to the events of 9/11 it did not take us into its confidence or invite our thoughts. When we queried whether it was still necessary to have the juryless Diplock Courts in Northern Ireland we had to press several times before being shown any evidence to back up the NIO’s position that intimidation of witnesses was still prevalent. Agencies within your control have not always welcomed the attention of the Human Rights Commission. In recent months, for example, the Northern Ireland Prison Service has been so disconcerted by our interest in its work that it has actually banned us from making visits to prisons. The Police Service, by way of contrast, has shown itself to be very open and co-operative. It has actively sought our advice when there was no obligation to do so, it has responded positively to a number of our proposals, it has invited us to participate in its conferences and it has met with us regularly at a senior level to discuss matters of mutual interest. Not everything in the PSNI is perfect – in the past we have had to be critical of aspects of its human rights training – but in its willingness to move towards a human rights culture it puts other agencies in the shade. Most regrettable of all has been your government’s failure to support the Commission by filling the seats left empty by Commissioners who have resigned or retired. Since September 2002 you have allowed the number of Commissioners to decline from 13 to just six, despite the duty you are under to ensure that the Commission is representative of the community in Northern Ireland. You have known for six years that my own period as Chief Commissioner would come to an end on 28 February 2005, yet my successor has still not been named and there will now be no period of overlap between the retiring Commissioners and the new Commissioners in which to ensure that the transition runs smoothly. The UK has a relatively good record in protecting human rights and the situation in Northern Ireland has much improved in recent years. But I cannot help feeling that on many occasions your government is content to pay lip service to human rights without actually doing much to protect them in practice. The delays that have been put in the way of revealing the truth about the murder of Patrick Finucane, the obstructionism of the Ministry of Defence during the Bloody Sunday Tribunal, the tolerance of Loyalist and Republican “punishment attacks” (no-one in government is able to tell us how many people have been prosecuted for these crimes) and the appalling lack of support for prisoners and young people with mental health problems in Northern Ireland are all telling signs that New Labour is not quite the caring, rights-orientated government that we hoped it would be when it was first elected in 1997 (not that anyone in Northern Ireland was able to vote for it then, or now for that matter). I sincerely hope that you and your colleagues in government will accord the new Human Rights Commissioners a greater status than you have to their predecessors. There will be people serving on it, as before, who are highly committed to what they have been appointed to do and you risk disillusioning them, and society as a whole, if you do not listen and respond carefully to their suggestions for reform. If Britain wants to lead the world as a protector of human rights it could do worse than ensure such protection in its own back yard. Given the strength of my feelings I am copying this letter to the press. Brice Dickson Chief Commissioner
Dickson leaves frustrated After almost six years at the helm of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Professor Brice Dickson will step down today. He is moving on, frustrated and disappointed that the British government, in his words, has paid only “lip service to the concept of human rights". He also claimed that there are those in the security forces who “have got away with murder". When the commission was established on March 1, 1999, its remit was to ensure that human rights were upheld in the North of Ireland in accordance with international law — a lofty and noble ambition but one that Mr Dickson feels was not matched with a commitment from the British government. From the start, it had its work cut out. Collusion, Diplock courts, prison conditions, use of plastic bullets and discrimination are all part of the fabric of the North’s political landscape. From the outset, critics argued that the commission would be no more than a talking shop. It was not given real bite in the form of legal powers. The more cynical said that the commission was set up merely to give the illusion of movement on human rights in the North. After six years of lobbying, Brice Dickson is outspoken about the treatment the commission received. “The Human Rights Commission was frustrated, certainly in terms of investigating collusion. They didn’t give us enough teeth. We knew that at the start. “I'm proud of the work that we have done but we could have been much more effective. The main power which we insisted on was the right to force the production of information from the government. “We never got that, and that hampered our work. The British government hasn’t done enough to support the Human Rights Commission,” he said. Mr Dickson said that, despite repeated requests, the British government refused to budge. This led to a recent public confrontation between Mr Dickson and Secretary of State Paul Murphy. Mr Dickson said, “I told him what I thought needed to happen and how we had been frustrated. There really wasn’t much he could say." At the core of any definition of human rights is the right of citizens to be protected by the state. So does Mr Dickson believe that collusion between loyalist gangs and the British security forces took place? “I think it was very extensive during the Troubles. The full truth has yet to emerge, though. It is very regrettable that the current government is making it more difficult to get to the truth. “The present difficulties over the Finucane inquiry symbolise that. There are people in the security forces who have got away with murder. “I think the whole issue of collusion is sending out the message that there is one law for the state security forces and another for others. “It worries me that the truth is not known. The governments don’t want to wash their dirty linen in public and they think that they can ride out the storm.” Over the past six years, the commission has called for the juryless Diplock court system to be abolished and for the draconian Emergency Powers Act to be scrapped in the North. Its calls have gone unheeded. Mr Dickson said he believed that human rights were being used as a political bargaining chip in the peace process. “We argued that the Diplock courts should be abolished and replaced with a jury. If there was evidence that the jury was being intimidated, then they could be replaced by three judges. However, that argument wasn’t accepted. “The emergency laws are being kept as a a political bargaining chip.” Mr Dickson was also critical of the Special Branch, which he said acted outside of the law in the past. However, he had high praise for the PSNI, saying the service was making strides towards positive reform. Undoubtedly, the biggest impact the commission has made has centred on the conditions of women prisoners in Maghaberry, Co Antrim, and juveniles held in Rathgael in Bangor, Co Down. Two separate reports were critical of the prison authorities, which Mr Dickson said had not done enough to co-operate with the commission. Mr Dickson will now take up a post as chairman of international and composite law at Queen's University in Belfast.
New appointments for Human Rights Commission The British Northern Secretary Peter Hain MP, today announced the appointment of a new Chief Commissioner and seven Commissioners to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Professor Monica McWilliams has been appointed as Chief Commissioner, while the new Commissioner appointments are Jonathan Bell, Thomas Duncan, Professor Colin Harvey, Alan Henry, Ann Hope, Eamonn O’Neill and Geraldine Rice. The new Chief Commissioner will take up appointment on 1 September 2005. The new Commissioners will take up their appointments on or very shortly after that date. The Chief Commissioner’s term will last for three years and the job will be on a full-time basis. The salary range is £55k to £70k p.a. The Commissioners’ terms will last for three years and will be on a part time basis (four days a month) for which an allowance of £10,000 per annum is paid. Announcing the new appointments, Mr Hain said: “The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is a key part of the architecture of human rights protections in Northern Ireland, and an important feature of the Belfast Agreement. The Government has consistently been clear that it is in all our interests to have a strong, independent and self-confident Commission which draws support from all parts of the community. "I am confident that these new appointments will ensure that the Commission will make a significant contribution to the advancement and protection of human rights in Northern Ireland in the coming months and years. I look forward to working with the new Commission.” Brief summary of appointees’ careers: Professor Monica McWilliams Jonathan Bell Thomas Duncan Professor Colin Harvey Alan Henry Ann Hope Eamonn O’Neill Geraldine Rice The appointments were made by the British Northern Secretary Peter Hain MP who has a statutory duty under section 68 (3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, to ensure, as far as practicable, that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is broadly representative of the community in the north. Sinn Féin spokesperson on Equality and Human Rights South Down MLA Caitríona Ruane said that today's announcement will be judged on its commitment to deliver on the original expectations of the Good Friday Agreement if it is to command widespread public support. Ms Ruane said: "Seven years ago the Human Rights Commission was established under the Good Friday Agreement and was envisaged as being a key mechanism to advocate and protect human rights, particularly in a society emerging from a protracted conflict. "The reasons why the previous Human Rights Commission failed to command confidence are many but were essentially around the Commission's approach to key areas around the Bill of Rights process, its lack of powers and resources and most significantly, the British governments failure to appoint a representative commission. "It is therefore essential that any newly emerging Commission sets out to deliver on the vision which the Good Friday Agreement tasked it to achieve. For its part, the British government must, as a priority, provide the Commission with the gambit of powers and resources required by the Commission to enable it to deliver on the daunting but crucial task of forthrightly protecting human rights in our society. "Sinn Féin is opposed to political appointments to the Human Rights Commission as this results in political dog fights rather than the Commission acting as a champion of Human Rights. Given the very clear political make-up of a number of newly appointed Commissioners, the new Chief Commissioner Monica McWilliams will face a massive challenge particularly with the appointment of Jonathan Bell who has opposed human rights."
|
