Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Sheerin): I welcome Jonna Monaghan from the NI Women's European Platform (NIWEP) to give us a presentation. Jonna has provided a written briefing, which you will find in your packs. Jonna, welcome to our meeting. Thank you very much for taking the time to join us and for your written submission. I will let you proceed with your briefing.

Ms Jonna Monaghan (Northern Ireland Women's European Platform): Thank you very much, Emma and all members. We are really pleased to have the opportunity to speak to you today.

I will give a short introduction. My name is Jonna Monaghan, and I am project coordinator of NIWEP. The clue is in the name. We are a membership organisation that was set up to act as the link between the women's sector in Northern Ireland and the European and international level, and more and more of our work over the years has been at the international level. We have consultative status with the UN. Our core role is to share evidence and bring the voices of women from Northern Ireland to the international level and then bring back evidence, good practice and learning to the local level.

A core part of our role is representing women in Northern Ireland at the UN. In particular, we work with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). The name is really long, so we will use CEDAW for short. We coordinate the shadow report to that. You can see where I am going with this already. Our core work is about raising awareness of the UN human rights treaties and promoting the implementation of them, particularly CEDAW. We view implementing the recommendations of CEDAW as a clear road map, from women's perspective, to how women's human rights are fully met and upheld in Northern Ireland.

Today, we have a few key messages. The UK is a state party to CEDAW and all core UN human rights treaties, which means that the UK, and therefore Northern Ireland, has obligations under international law because the treaties are ratified. We see a bill of rights as a way of systematising those binding international obligations. Put simply, those rights are already there; they are not new. It is just about how we put them in place in a systematic way so that rights are clear and equitable to everyone. As others have said in previous evidence sessions, it is important that rights are justiciable, because that is central to making them meaningful and ensuring that they are more than aspirational and more than just values.

From our perspective, the importance of a bill of rights is about creating clarity for everybody in Northern Ireland on rights and providing a robust framework so that everybody can see that rights are fair and equitable. Put in plain English, nobody's rights are being taken away just because rights for everyone are being upheld. That is about fairness and rights being based on the principles of universality and equity.

That is particularly important because a bill of rights can underpin a rights-based approach to policy. I will say a little more about that later. That is important in developing Northern Ireland as a "diverse but cohesive" region. What we mean by that is that decisions are made based on need and taken in a way in which, on the whole, everybody's rights are upheld, with the core values providing a basis for implementing the existing rights and addressing the barriers to effective implementation.

In the weeks ahead, women's organisations will give more detail on exactly why a bill of rights is important from a women's perspective. In that context, NIWEP would like to say that the core issue is the lack of implementation and the lack of realisation of rights in a fair way. A lot of rights are enshrined in existing law, but they are not necessarily implemented in full or in a way that means that everybody can realise them in full. Everybody having the capacity and ability to realise rights is important. That is where a bill of rights really is important.

As an example, from a women's perspective, equality and employment legislation prohibits discrimination relating to pregnancy and maternity, but breaches occur on an ongoing basis. That means that women cannot enjoy those rights in full. That is a fairly straightforward example. Across the board, people from disadvantaged and lower-income backgrounds are less able to take part in political decision-making for a variety of reasons. Women have additional care burdens, which is an added barrier to them participating in public life if they so choose. That is another example.

CEDAW has highlighted issues with the implementation of the human rights of women and girls for many years. For example, the last time the UK was examined under CEDAW was in 2019. The concluding observations focused on concerns that legal protections for women and girls in Northern Ireland were falling behind those elsewhere in the UK in a number of areas, specifically domestic abuse and gender-based violence.

At that time, coercive control legislation was outstanding. We still do not have a specific strategy on violence against women and girls. There are other examples at strategy level. There is a gender strategy that is currently being implemented, but there is no childcare or carer strategy. Gender pay gap legislation has not yet been enacted in Northern Ireland, although it has been elsewhere in the UK. That sets out why we think a bill of rights is important: it helps to address those issues and provides a basis for taking action at a policy level and at an individual level if people feel that their rights have not been upheld.

The second key recommendation is that a bill of rights should be based on the international human rights framework. Seven UN human rights treaties are identified as core. I will not go over them now; they are in our paper. There is also the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Istanbul convention on violence against women and girls is another specific one from the Council of Europe. That is important because it provides an international set of standards and benchmarking. Essentially, Northern Ireland does not have to reinvent the wheel, because you can be sure that it is something that has been agreed and approved at international level.

Several treaties provide directions on how rights can be realised in practice. CEDAW emphasises that there needs to be legislation across the board to eliminate discrimination in all spheres of life.

This came to mind when I listened to Dr Wilson's remarks earlier: this links to progressive realisation and provides an underpinning for a rights-based approach to policy and decision-making. The bill of rights cannot, and should not, deal with all of it, but if the frameworks are in a bill of rights and are incorporated in legislation in Northern Ireland, that will provide a mechanism for legislation across areas and policies and practice to take that into account and contribute to a progressive realisation. That does not mean that local judgement is removed. The decision-making power on how rights are balanced and how, and to what extent, they are implemented will still rest with the Assembly.

It cannot be emphasised enough that Northern Ireland is already bound by these standards because the UK has ratified the treaties. We are really keen to see the treaties being incorporated into domestic legislation through a bill of rights. That would be similar to what is happening in Scotland, where they are preparing to incorporate CEDAW into domestic legislation, and Wales, which has incorporated the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. That would benchmark Northern Ireland as a leading region, not just within the UK but internationally as well. In Scotland, there are a number of reports from the Social Renewal Advisory Board that have recommended the same for Scotland as a way of transforming the design and delivery of public services and informing finance decisions. It expects that a national task force on human rights will make the same recommendation.

This is a real opportunity for the Assembly to show leadership and create a clear basis for a rights-based approach to develop in Northern Ireland. From a woman's perspective, that is something that would significantly help. I am more than happy to take questions, and there are examples of how CEDAW has been used, such as in relation to reproductive rights.

The Chairperson (Ms Sheerin): Thanks a million, Jonna. Thanks for your outline of the important issues from the perspective of someone who is working in the women's sector.

The last point that you made is something that I want to touch on. You referred several times to CEDAW, including reference to reproductive rights and how that works on the ground. One of the questions that I have is about how we can use a bill of rights as an accountability measure and an insurance policy on rights, creating the rights-based approach that you referred to and an attitude of rights whereby people think of rights as something that affects them and something that they can access as opposed to being an abstract notion in the sky that does not mean anything to the community and to individuals who live in the real world.

The Government have acceded to CEDAW as a convention, and we are still under its jurisdiction, and it should be implemented in all of the devolved Administrations. You made a reference to reproductive rights, and obviously it was through CEDAW that the UK Government decriminalised abortion in the North. However, we can see that even though that right is supposed to exist and is there in legislation, the outworking of that has not been realised because of political decision-making from a Minister who does not want to implement services.

I wonder how we can frame a bill of rights as being something that ensures accountability and ensure that a Minister, when making a decision, has to have rights as their first priority, along with equality and opportunity for everyone. You mentioned the universalism of rights and that they are for the entire community. How do we best legislate for a bill of rights to ensure that?

Ms Monaghan: That is exactly one of the reasons why we think basing a bill of rights on the international frameworks provides that kind of a mechanism. From a UN perspective, the UK is accountable to the UN or, more specifically, to the international community. There are reports on a periodic basis for all of them. For CEDAW, which is the one that we would be most familiar with, it is on a four-yearly basis. It is for Westminster to compile that report as the state Government but drawing in evidence from all the devolved Administrations involved. They have to give an account of what they have done to promote women's rights and gender equality. There will sometimes be specific questions on those recommendations. In the most recent concluding observations, one of the recommendations is to implement the CEDAW inquiry in full under the optional protocol. There are elements that have not been started, for example linking relationship and sexuality education, which is something we would highlight as critical and underpinning all that debate.

An accountability mechanism is, sort of, built in. The optional protocol provides the second accountability mechanism. Not all treaties have one, but several do, and they provide a mechanism to take a complaint if something is not being done and to ask for it to be investigated at international level. It is not a court system, but it is an international reputation issue, and provides a way to give strength to the recommendations. CEDAW is an example of that.

The example of how it has been used shows that local decision-making is not being taken away. It is not about the UK being taken to court, but it can strengthen the argument and provide reassurance to individual people that it is not just words on a page.

The Chairperson (Ms Sheerin): You would agree, then, that a bill of rights should be a framework or template to which Ministers have to align themselves? If we were looking at a bill of rights in terms of the Good Friday Agreement, the commitment was that the British Government should be legislating for a bill of rights. Do you think it is important to ensure that it has that accountability factor?

Ms Monaghan: There are many ways of achieving a bill of rights, but when we talk about a rights-based approach, it is essential that a bill of rights is something that Ministers would have to take account of when passing legislation or developing policies. That, to us, is the fundamental value of a bill of rights.

The Chairperson (Ms Sheerin): Thank you, Jonna.

Mr Nesbitt: Jonna, hi. I just declare, to begin with, that I worked with Jonna on the all-party group on UNSCR 1325, Women, Peace and Security, so I am familiar with CEDAW.

We have been told, pretty consistently, with regard to the progressive realisation of social and economic rights, that you would not be able to go to court and challenge the Executive about their Budget allocations. You could not go and say, "They haven't given enough money to the housing Minister; they have given too much to the Education Minister". You could only say, "The housing Minister, we believe, has misallocated his budget, perhaps because he's showing tendencies to be sectarian in his preferences".

Could we put gender budgeting into a bill of rights, because, at the moment, we are very weak on looking at the Budget impact on gender? Take, for example, sport. We know what the Department gives to Sport NI and what Sport NI gives to governing bodies, but we do not know the gender impact of how the governing bodies spend the money. Yes, if the Ulster Council has a specific programme to promote women's Gaelic football, we know what it has spent on that. The Ulster branch of the Rugby Union can tell us whether it has spent money on a specific programme to promote women's rugby, and it is the same with soccer. However, overall, we do not know. Can we put that sort of requirement to monitor the impact of gender budgeting and to ensure its progressive realisation into a bill of rights?

Ms Monaghan: Obviously, it would be for the Assembly to decide exactly what should go into a bill of rights, but, certainly, gender budgeting definitely fits with a bill of rights, and it is a logical and potentially helpful tool for implementing it, in the sense that, if you have a bill of rights in place, you will need tools to find out whether budget allocations been made in line with it. That is where gender budgeting comes in. It is worth underlining that it is not a tool for channelling additional resources to women. It is about looking at the impact of budget allocations. That is exactly the sort of tool that you need to use so that you can prove that your decision-making and your budget allocations are in line with a bill of rights. Critical to that is the need to significantly strengthen data collection. We have very limited breakdowns of data on a number of grounds. Certainly, it seems more difficult to get data on a gender basis than it is to get data on disability, minorities and so on. In a nutshell, you would definitely expect to see gender budgeting as part of the progressive realisation.

Mr Nesbitt: I appreciate that, Jonna. This is more of an observation particularly for the Chair or, maybe, the Clerk. I previously asked the Assembly Research and Information Service to look at data gathering in sport, but it was not able to do so. We as Committee should think more broadly about whether we want to commission further research on that to inform our thinking. Jonna, thank you very much. See you soon.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Hi, Jonna. Thank you for your presentation. I certainly agree with a lot of what you said. I want to give you an opportunity to elaborate on one of your comments, which was that you cannot put everything into a bill of rights. Surely your argument, in relation to social and economic rights, is that that needs to happen, particularly in line with CEDAW.

I want to pick up your brain on another point. You will appreciate that, although we have legislation here that protects women, for example, there is still a lack of implementation. To use a recent example, the mother-and-baby homes and the Magdalene laundries were part of a whole culture of misogyny and of not treating women and young girls very well. We need to learn lessons and ensure, through a bill of rights, that things like that never happen again. What are your thoughts on that?

Ms Monaghan: Thank you very much. When I said that everything cannot go into a bill of rights, I meant it in the sense that, for example, CEDAW has 16 articles on everything from employment rights and overall legislative equality to healthcare provision. You would not necessarily put in every single detail of those, but you would certainly put in the principles. Our view is that, having the principles in a bill of rights would allow them to filter through to decision-making across policy areas. I am definitely not saying that we should have these types of rights but not those types of rights in a bill of rights. We view them as indivisible in that sense.

Ms Ní Chuilín: That is grand, Jonna. I suspected that it related to CEDAW, but I wanted to give you the opportunity to put that on record. I am pleased with that, thank you.

Ms Monaghan: A bill of rights, with regard to mother-and-baby homes, I agree that, whilst in our paper we talk about de jure and de facto equality, legislatively, the rights are there but they are not being implemented in a number of ways for a number reasons. From a woman's perspective, that is where a bill of rights is critical.

As I said before, it is not about taking anybody's rights away, but it is a tool, and CEDAW and the other human rights treaties bear this out. Where there is a gap, it is about taking action to eliminate that gap. For instance, it might be used to address the pay gap between men and women and take action to bring women's income up to that of men. That, specifically, is what a bill of rights should enable us to do.

The way we look at it, it is not about taking the rights away from men. Nobody is saying that men should earn less money; it is about bringing women's pay up to the same level. That applies across the board to all issues. When we look at some of the injustices of the past, that is something that a bill of rights should prevent from happening again.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I agree 100%, Jonna. Thank you.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for coming the Committee. It is great to see you. I did not realise that you were so knowledgeable across all of the details. I have a similar question to that which I asked Robin. I am conscious of what a bill of rights as a pre-legislative scrutiny tool could provide us as legislators. We have two Bills coming before us at the minute. Pat Catney is bringing one around period poverty, which, in many ways, will have a positive impact on socioeconomic issues and equality. There is another one that will have unintended consequences in that it will widen the gap between those who have the means and wealth to pay for services and others, in marginalised communities, who may not. I am happy to go further details on that in another bill of rights meeting.

To what degree would it matter if a Bill coming through would have a negative impact on socioeconomic rights and on the welfare of women? Would that have a legal standing? If it were in a bill of rights it would be problematic in terms of the legislation passing, if that makes sense.

Ms Monaghan: It is good to see you, Paula. Just to check that I am picking you up correctly, is it about where the bill of rights stands and whether it should come before other legislation?

Ms Bradshaw: It is almost that pre-legislative tool that we would have to benchmark everything against. If we pass this legislation, it could have a positive impact on equality for women, or it could be negative. Internationally, would that be something that would be included in a bill of rights?

Ms Monaghan: That is part of what a bill of rights could be used for. CEDAW is broad enough because, unlike other treaties, theirs are fairly generic because they are intended to function in very different contexts, but a bill of rights could provide that sort of check, or incentive, in that, when other legislation is being brought through, you can check against it to make sure that it is not having a negative impact.

I do not want to compare it with an equality impact assessment in any way, but, obviously, an equality impact assessment is intended to provide that sort of check, and, when implemented properly, it can help to make sure that services are provided equitably for everyone. I expect that a bill of rights could be used to flag up if there are potential problems on any grounds, and that could be addressed using different mechanisms that either are in or follow from a bill of rights. Does that answer your question?

Ms Bradshaw: Yes. I suppose that, if I gave all the details, it would probably make a lot more sense, but the issues around it are quite sensitive.

The other issue is around gender-based violence. I am thinking in particular about some marginalised groups, maybe those who live in disadvantaged areas or who are from ethnic minority or cultural groups. To what degree could a bill of rights have more impact than even domestic legislation such as the Domestic Abuse Bill? Could greater protection be afforded against gender-based violence, over and above localised legislation?

Ms Monaghan: Again, I am not an expert on gender-based violence, and there will be other speakers who will have more detailed expertise on it, but a bill of rights could certainly support to enhance the provision that is currently there because it would formalise the rights of people of all backgrounds to seek services. I completely acknowledge that there are lots of additional barriers for women and people in general from more disadvantaged backgrounds and minority backgrounds to seek services.

The way that we visualise a bill of rights is that it would stay. It would integrate the principles of elimination of discrimination on the basis of race, disability and so on. There are other ways of looking at minorities than just race, of course, but that provides the principle that you can take action. Again, if additional support is needed for certain groups to access that service, that is where a bill of rights could provide the basis for justifying additional support and so on.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you very much.

Mr Durkan: Thanks, Jonna. I was going to ask about gender-based violence, but I appreciate that Jonna has said that that is not really her bailiwick, so I will forward my questions to the organisation.

I have one other question. Last week, we discussed the higher proportion of people living in Northern Ireland who have disabilities. Are there any particular challenges facing women in Northern Ireland as a result of having more caring responsibilities? Do those generally fall to women? I am thinking about that particularly in the context of us being a post-conflict society, of course.

Ms Monaghan: Absolutely, and it has been particularly borne out by COVID that, for a number of reasons, women in Northern Ireland tend to have even higher care burdens than women elsewhere in the UK and Ireland. It has to do with cultural perceptions and many other things. Again, speakers who will come in the following weeks can probably give much more detail on that, and that is one of the critical areas. We think that caring responsibilities prevent women from participating in the labour market, for example, or in public life. Addressing that in a general sense is particularly important for gender equality. Linked to gender-based violence, women with disabilities are particularly vulnerable because, where they are victims of domestic abuse, they often tend to be dependent on their abuser, so there are particular challenges for them in being able to access help and support. While a bill of rights cannot sort all of those issues out, it will help to highlight those kinds of issues and will, hopefully, help to look at what can be done about those.

Mr Durkan: Thanks, Jonna.

The Chairperson (Ms Sheerin): No other members are indicating that they wish to ask a question, so, Jonna, thank you again for your presentation this afternoon, for answering all our questions and for taking the time to join us at the Committee. I will let you take your ease now. Enjoy the rest of your day.

Ms Monaghan: Thank you very much. If there are any questions, please come back to us.

The Chairperson (Ms Sheerin): We will surely. Thanks a million.