Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): I welcome Les Allamby, chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC), and Sinéad Gibney, chief commissioner of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC). The session is being recorded by Hansard, and the transcript will be published on the Committee's web pages.

You are very welcome. Thank you very much for coming to brief us on what is a very important issue. It is critical for us to get a good understanding of what you will be doing. I will pass over to you for an input, and we can then move to members for some questions.

Mr Les Allamby (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission): Thanks, Chair. We have a single statement of two halves, so if Sinéad kicks off, I will finish.

Ms Sinéad Gibney (Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission): Thank you so much, Chair and members. I am delighted to be here. Chief commissioner Allamby and I have coordinated our opening statement. I will talk to you about the shared history of our organisations and the work of the joint committee. Chief commissioner Allamby will then cover the dedicated mechanism and the Internal Market Bill, and we will then, of course, be happy to take questions.

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has an historic connection to the Good Friday Agreement and a long-standing and positive working relationship with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. We occupy the position of the national human rights institution and the national equality body in our jurisdiction. That follows our creation through the merger of two bodies in 2014. Those bodies had very strong relationships with their counterparts here, and those relationships have been maintained and, indeed, strengthened, over the last number of years.

Bringing it back to the Belfast Agreement in 1998, that international treaty laid the groundwork for the establishment of new human rights commissions in Northern Ireland and Ireland. Those are the two bodies that you see represented here today. The agreement set out the importance of maintaining existing rights and protections, bringing the standards on both sides of the border to an equivalent level and building on those for the future. The agreement also established the joint committee of the two Human Rights Commissions in order to foster collaboration and cooperation between the organisations. The first official meeting of the joint committee took place in November 2001. Since then, it has been an important forum for ongoing engagement and collaboration on human rights issues across the island.

In recent years, we have, of course, had a particular focus on the human rights and equality implications of the UK's withdrawal from the European Union. The equality and human rights framework that underpins the 1998 agreement assumed both countries continuing common membership of the European Union. Following the 2016 UK referendum to withdraw UK membership, both commissions agreed that that could create significant risks for rights protection and the effective functioning of the 1998 agreement.

In its subsequent work on these issues, the joint committee identified the following six priorities for ensuring the ongoing protection of rights on the island of Ireland in the context of Brexit. Those would:

The joint committee addressed those concerns in a series of publications, including our March 2018 'Policy statement on the United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union' and important discussion papers and research studies on Brexit, the common travel area, justice arrangements, EU citizenship rights and the birthright provisions of the Good Friday Agreement. In progressing this work, the joint committee has also engaged with policymakers and civil society in Ireland and Northern Ireland, both Governments and the European Commission's article 50 task force. The joint committee will meet next month. We plan to continue this work, focusing in particular on the commitment to no diminution of rights and the impact of the UK withdrawal on rights and equality on this island.

In a moment, I will pass you back to Les, who will speak on the newly formed dedicated mechanism in the Internal Market Bill. Before doing so, I will conclude with a few observations. As a newly appointed chief commissioner, I am very aware of the huge range of civil society organisations, trade unions and employer groups that work tirelessly in order to protect and promote rights and equality and without which our institutions would not exist today in the strength that they do. I am aware that, among many of those groups and sectors, there is uncertainty and concern at this time about the future of the human rights and equality protections that we all rely on.

Rule of law is to rights what democracy is to politics. Without these fundamental guarantees, we risk losing much hard-won ground. As the human rights and equality body for our jurisdiction, we are committed to doing all that we can to protect and promote rights and equality for our people. As members of this joint committee, we will do the same on an all-island basis. My message to those who are negotiating in boardrooms in Brussels, London and Dublin is that they should maintain a focus on rights and equality and prioritise lives, livelihoods and peace of our populations. Thank you.

Mr Allamby: Thanks, Sinéad. I will pick up on the dedicated mechanism in the Internal Market Bill. The joint committee's remit extends significantly beyond the dedicated mechanism. The two commissions have worked very closely together and alongside the Equality Commission to ensure that human rights and equality provisions under the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement will be protected into the future once the UK finally leaves the EU. As Sinéad mentioned, we focused on issues that had a cross-border and all-island dimension: justice and security issues; legal underpinnings of the common travel area after exit; citizenship and identity matters; and social and economic rights.

We have also worked closely with the Equality Commission and IHREC to ensure effective cooperation and the best use of resources going forward. We recognise that we will need to look at specific Northern Ireland issues, including those emanating from Westminster under reserved powers and Assembly and Executive legislation, as well as those that have an all-island dimension.

Turning to the Internal Market Bill, we took it at face value when we read the White Paper in mid-July and its introduction where the UK Government said:

So, it was somewhat of a surprise to hear the open admission fewer than eight weeks later that the Bill itself breaks:

We have looked at that development on two fronts. The first is the wider ramifications for the international stage. Playing fast and loose with international agreements has potential diplomatic as well as legal ramifications for trust and good faith. The second is the practical consequences closer to home. We, and the Equality Commission, have looked at the Bill in detail. We issued a joint briefing on a number of Government amendments to the Bill that reduce recourse to parts of the Human Rights Act in any challenge to the Bill.

The two commissions have drawn the conclusion that the Bill, as envisaged with those amendments, undermines the Good Friday Agreement's commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and that is a crucial underpinning of the agreement for both parts of the island of Ireland.

Four weeks ago today, when asked about the impact of the Internal Market Bill, my counterpart in the Equality Commission, Geraldine McGahey, and our chief executive explained that our initial assessment was that there was no immediate foreseeable negative impact. However, both commissions have sat down and considered the matter together in some detail, and we are not absolutely convinced that that can be guaranteed. The Bill, we believe, does, in fact, have the potential to impact on the dedicated mechanism in the future. Therefore, I am not convinced that other parts of the Bill beyond the breaking of international law may not have some adverse consequences on the protection of human rights and equality.

As a result, we and the Equality Commission together have sought from the Secretary of State clarity and reassurance that the Bill will not have any negative effects on our work. Again, my counterpart, Geraldine McGahey, set out clearly before you recently that she would push back very hard against any attempt to undermine hard-fought protections in the protocol on equality and human rights, and I concur entirely with that statement of intent. It is to that end that we issued a joint press statement this afternoon from both commissions in Northern Ireland and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission reiterating that call to ensure that the Internal Market Bill does not have any negative ramifications for the work of the dedicated mechanism.

I think that we are happy to answer any questions that you have on the joint committee and the role of the dedicated mechanism. Thank you, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Thank you very much for that. It was probably remiss of me to say that there are not just the three of us here; we have three members who are on StarLeaf, and we have one member who has nipped out. There are six of us here, and we will work our way round the various questions.

I will begin with a couple of questions. I think that the work that you do is incredibly important, and, somehow or another, for regular people in the street, once they have their human rights, which are being protected by somebody else, they do not give an awful lot of thought to them. It is only when people lose those rights or they are compromised that people really start to understand what the ramifications can be. I think that that is why it is incredibly important that you have that particular role in the Brexit process of flagging up issues that may be of importance or that may compromise those rights and that you have a forum in an official way to raise those issues. Can you give us some examples of the types of rights that you are specifically looking at? You may say that there is a landscape that you need to look at and to keep an eye on, so how are you determining and assessing what is in that landscape? Can you give an example or two of the things that you will be looking for that could be impacted? If we can have a real, tangible example, it might help people to realise exactly what you are doing and protecting for us.

Mr Allamby: I will kick off on that. At the joint committee, we have looked at the common travel area, for example, covering everything from cross-border healthcare cooperation and arrangements to freedom to move across the border either way to work and for social activity and a variety of other issues. Much of the common travel area is not underpinned by any law but is usually based on memorandum of understanding-type and gentleman's-type agreements between the Irish Government and the UK Government, with the exception of social security, which has some legislative underpinnings. One of the issues that we have looked at, for example, is that, if we leave the European Union, UK EU law will no longer have supremacy. The underpinnings in that are to do with freedom of movement and European Union law.

We know the rhetorical flourish about wanting to capture our borders back etc. I do not think that the UK Government will get rid of all European Union law when the UK leaves the EU, but that law will not have supremacy any longer. One of the issues for us is the need to have a proper legal underpinning. If the UK and Irish Governments were to fall out very badly over something, we would not want the common travel area to become a political football, for example. That is a piece of work that we have done on that.

An issue that I have spoken about before is that the common travel area does not cover everything. One of the areas that we discovered very early on was that childcare support in what is now universal credit was confined to putting children into UK childcare facilities. There was a case where a young woman was travelling from Fermanagh to Cavan to work and was putting her children into childcare in County Cavan, and HMRC was looking for a very substantial overpayment because she was not entitled to have that childcare cost met. Eventually, it was EU law that dealt with that. We were able to negotiate with the UK Government to introduce a set of regulations that now recognise that accredited childcare on either side of the border can be supported. That just makes sense for cross-border workers. There are some practical issues that we can deal with.

Justice and security is another one. If we got an effective agreement between the EU 27 and the UK, you would expect the European arrest warrant and data sharing etc all to remain in place. We did a piece of research that involved talking to senior Justice officials and police officers on both sides of the border about what would happen if we did not have a clear agreement that kept those in place. It is quite clear that there is significant cross-border cooperation between the PSNI and the gardaí. On the other hand, if we lose things like the European arrest warrant — much of the research used quite restrained language, and we found PSNI officers using words such as "suboptimal" — in effect, the kind of institutional arrangements for extradition and the sharing of data would be in jeopardy. Those are the kinds of issues that the joint committee will consider when looking at cross-border issues.

Those are two examples of the kind of work that we are doing. There are some things that have an all-island dimension, and there are, clearly, some things that are much more Northern Ireland-specific. That is the advantage of having a statutory role through Westminster, us and the Equality Commission. Effectively, the joint committee has a non-statutory role, but it is underpinned by the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.

Ms Gibney: We have yet to come together on the dedicated mechanism. We have just scheduled our first meeting to come together as three bodies to really dig into that and to understand, as you say, exactly what the day-to-day implications and the rights that will be impacted are. Obviously, the two institutions that will do most of the heavy lifting are our counterparts here in Northern Ireland. My immediate concerns for people in my jurisdiction, particularly those in the border counties, are frontier workers and non-Irish citizens who reside in Ireland. Those are the two categories that I immediately have major concerns about.

I know that some examples were brought to the Committee in the last session. Our colleagues in the Equality Commission mentioned, for example, people moving guide dogs across the border. Examples such as that will emerge only as we all get our heads around this over the coming months.

The other part of it is the more fundamental cooperation piece and how rights are affected by that. For me, that is a broader piece in which you do not necessarily pinpoint the specific rights; rather, the lifestyle that we all enjoy could be impacted by any problems that arise in North/South cooperation.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Do you envisage saying, "We are here and are ready to help if you think that your rights are being impacted", and people then come to you, or do you have your eye on a series of rights or pieces of legislation that you are looking for to make sure that they are compliant, or is it a bit of both?

Ms Gibney: It is a bit of both. As you say, Chair — the way that you described this was interesting — people do not necessarily appreciate their rights on a day-to-day basis. As soon as the UK withdrawal was voted on, people in our community and in the groups that I mentioned, which are civil society, trade unions and employers' groups, immediately saw the potential threats. A lot of the concerns that were raised at that time were very much assuaged by article 2 of the protocol. Our concerns have now been raised again because there is a new threat to the protocol.

It is absolutely a combination of both. The work of the joint committee and the various papers that I mentioned on, for example, citizenship rights, justice arrangements and so on will enable us to scan the landscape to make sure that we are alive to emerging issues. With the dedicated mechanism, we will then sit down and really get ready for those rights infringements and the equality and discrimination issues that may emerge. We, as institutions, are, through our composition, established well enough to deal with those issues as they emerge.

Mr Allamby: That is right. We and the Equality Commission are doing an early piece of work that looks at the scope of the dedicated mechanism. It is anchored in the equality, rights and safeguards section of the Good Friday Agreement. The UK Government have said that they will not diminish rights that fall within that. When the agreement was made, nobody thought that we were going to leave the EU, so it was not written with EU law in mind. Under the protocol, there are clearly some future-facing pieces of European Union law, such as those on equal treatment in employment, self-employment and access to goods, services and social security, and freedom from discrimination on the basis of racial and ethnic origin. We will keep pace with European Union law. On everything else, it is about having no regression and no diminution of our rights. If you read that section of the agreement, you will see that it is very broadly defined, but it has some specific rights. It includes things like a woman's place in political life, and it talks about equality of opportunity based on class, creed and disability, for example. How does that translate into European Union law rights that should not be diminished? We will have to test it out to see how it plays out.

We recognise, to a degree, that there will be some uncertainty. We want people to come to us with the issues, and we will then look to see how we can address them. The relationship between us and the Equality Commission is very strong, and we will work through how we use the resources together as effectively as possible. We want to make the mechanism work for everyone in Northern Ireland in a way that makes sure that people's equality and human rights are fully protected. It complements the work that both commissions do already. It is enshrined in legislation, so many of the powers that we have to deal with day-to-day non-EU issues are now in place to deal with the dedicated mechanism.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Obviously, a number of weeks ago, everybody was concerned about the Internal Market Bill, and, a couple of weeks ago, we had a presentation from colleagues that did not provide us with all the hope that we wanted. It is almost 2.55 pm, but I will sneak in a line from your statement, which says:

What sorts of uncertainties are there? How can we seek assurances that those uncertainties do not remain? It just seems odd and obscure that we are sitting in 2020 talking about uncertainty about our rights. It seems almost like we are in a dream state talking about the protection of rights at this stage. It is like something that we studied in history from the '50s and '60s when people were getting their rights sorted out, and now we are talking about there being uncertainties. What uncertainties do you have, and how can we pin them down?

Mr Allamby: I will start, and Sinéad may want to come in.

For example, a number of the amendments to the Bill are about the fact that the Government were prepared to break the international agreement and law, particularly on certain elements of the protocol. Those were not dedicated mechanism issues. However, the amendments said that your ability to use parts of the Human Rights Act to challenge any human rights infringements could not be used. That does not mean the whole Human Rights Act but parts of it. If you go back to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, you find that it is underpinned by the fact that both parts of the island were going to put the convention rights into domestic legislation. We did that through the Human Rights Act. For us, if you take that golden thread back and say, "You will not be able to use certain Human Rights Act challenges because of the Internal Market Bill", you can still say that the legislation is incompatible, for example, but it still leaves it to Parliament to decide. That starts to unpick parts of the Human Rights Act. The UK Government —.

Mr Sheehan: Les, can I come in there?

Mr Allamby: Yes.

Mr Sheehan: The attempt to disapply the Human Rights Act in these amendments undermines not only the no-diminution principle but the Good Friday Agreement, as you say. Is that not the case?

Mr Allamby: Yes. We are saying that putting the convention into domestic law through the Human Rights Act is one of the underpinnings of the Good Friday Agreement but that you cannot use part of the Human Rights Act to deal with the Internal Market Bill sets a pretty unfair and unnecessary precedent that could be used in other ways. It is the thin end of a very long wedge, potentially.

The UK Government have always been very clear that they were never going to reform the Human Rights Act until at least after we leave the EU, but there are no guarantees about what will happen to the Human Rights Act once the UK Government have left the European Union. I have no doubt, because they have said very clearly, that they will remain within the convention, but that does not prevent changes to the Human Rights Act. You have to look at this in a kind of holistic way. We are coming to the end of the guarantee of not reforming the Human Rights Act by the end of December. We do not know what will happen after that.

Interestingly, the Government have said to us, "But you still have judicial review (JR) to deal with the Internal Market Bill". However, the UK Government are currently looking at judicial review across the UK and at whether it strikes the right balance with the citizen's right to challenge public and local authorities and Departments. A number of the legal underpinnings are under review. If you look at this in the light of other developments, you will find that we think that it is really important to go back to the first principles of the convention and the Human Rights Act to ensure that the work of the dedicated mechanism is not going to be hampered by other developments in human rights and equality.

Mr Sheehan: For clarification, are you effectively saying, Les, that the British have said that if you want to challenge anything in the Internal Market Bill you are free to go ahead and take a JR, but, at the same time, they are trying to reduce the circumstances in which a JR can be taken?

Mr Allamby: No. There are two separate developments. They have said that there are parts of the Human Rights Act that you cannot use to challenge the Internal Market Bill. That includes section 6 of that Act, which, in effect, allows judges to say not only that something does not meet human rights standards but that something can actually be done about it. On the other hand, there is another set of powers in the Human Rights Act that allows you to say, "This is not compatible with human rights under the convention". However, you leave it to Parliament to decide whether to deal with that. That part of the challenge is still there, but it still leaves it to Parliament to decide what to do with the matter.

So, you have reduced your remedies but have not got rid of them completely. Judicial review is still there. My point is that, in the longer term, the Government are looking at judicial review and whether to maintain the same level of challenge. That is under review as well. Frankly, that is separate from the Internal Market Bill, but you cannot ignore the fact that the legal remedies that we have are being closely scrutinised by the Government at the moment.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): I see that we have lost Doug.

Ms Anderson: Thank you, Sinéad and Les, for your presentations. I welcome the fact that you referred to the joint statement that you will issue later today. You said that you are calling on the British Government to clarify that there will no breaches, more or less, of the Good Friday Agreement because of the Internal Market Bill. Is that right? Is that what you are asking?

Mr Allamby: Our statement says that we think that, to put it beyond any doubt, they should make it clear that the provisions in the Bill will have no negative consequences for the work of the dedicated mechanism or for the safeguards on non-diminution of rights and equality of opportunity under the Good Friday Agreement. So that everybody can be clear, we would like the Government, ideally, to put in an amendment that makes that absolutely clear. Having read the Bill, I am not sure that there is any malign intent to look at the dedicated mechanism in particular, but legislation can have inadvertent impacts. For instance, in a few years' time, we think that some of the Internal Market Bill provisions, should they come into effect, might come up against equality and human rights provisions. If they do, we would like it to be clear now that the equality and human rights provisions cannot be adversely affected by the Internal Market Bill. I am taking at face value that that is not the intention of the Bill, and it ought to be reasonable for the Government to make that absolutely clear. That is really what we are asking in the statement.

Ms Anderson: On the principle of the non-diminution of rights, have you been in contact with the NIO about what you are asking with regard to the Good Friday Agreement? The Government may or may not have given you a reassurance. You have issued the statement, but are you engaging with the British Government on this as well?

Mr Allamby: Yes, the two commissions are doing that. I have written, with my counterpart Geraldine, to the Secretary of State asking for clarity, and we have been promised a timely response. We are awaiting that response. We have also written jointly, as the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission, to express our dismay at the approach that has been taken to international law, as it has ramifications beyond the Internal Market Bill for confidence, trust, etc. The Secretary of State is, I think, aware of our views. We have had a reply to that letter, reiterating the UK Government's commitment to the agreement. As I say, one of the issues for us, for the reasons that I outlined earlier, is that, through the arrangements in the Internal Market Bill, there is a willingness to say, in effect, "Yes, we will break international law", albeit in a very specified way, and that does not set a healthy precedent, in our view.

Ms Anderson: You are not the only ones to think that. You will have heard that the international community regards the British Government as behaving like a rogue state, given their acknowledgement that they are willing to break international law. Are you concerned that Ministers would regress from EU case law, through clause 21 of the Withdrawal Act, post Brexit?

Mr Allamby: The UK Government recently issued a consultation document about how they will treat EU law after the UK has left the EU. They say that, essentially, you can still draw on EU law, in case law terms. However, the removal of the supremacy of EU law and the arrangements being put in place will, over time, allow courts and others, at a certain level in the first instance, to begin to diverge from EU law. Obviously, as EU law develops, the UK Government will no longer have to develop its own law in tandem with European Union law.

I do not see all EU law being unpicked the day after we leave, but the UK Government will have a degree of autonomy to decide which parts of EU law they will continue to abide by and which they will not. We will have to see the colour of the UK Government's money for what that means in practice and what a lack of harmony with EU law means for coherence across the island of Ireland, for example, or across the EU and the UK more broadly. I do not think that anybody quite knows yet what will happen with that, but it provides yet another element of uncertainty as to how we move forward.

Ms Anderson: What about EU rights, the rights that will be maintained if there is no diminution of rights? You talked about the rights equivalence across the island, as per the Good Friday Agreement. Given that case law may not apply — if we crash out on the thirty-first and there is tension between the British Government and the EU — how do we take forward the Good Friday Agreement? The common travel area is built on sand; there is no legislative basis on which people can try to exercise their rights. Some 30,000 people cross the border every day to work or study. You talk about childcare in Fermanagh and Cavan or in Derry and Donegal. On what basis can we ensure that there will be no diminution of our rights?

Mr Allamby: If there is any regression, the two commissions, as well as individual citizens, will have the right to take legal cases once we leave the EU. If, for example, legislation was to come forward that fell within the scope of the protocol, I would see enforcement as part of the role of the two commissions, as well as of individuals. I am a great believer in prevention being better than cure. Frankly, what we want to do is make sure that it does not happen in the first place. We will have roles to monitor legislation as it is made and to report to the UK Government on how they are implementing the non-diminution commitment. We will have a panoply of powers to deal with that, one of which is to take individual legal cases. We will want to make sure that the two commissions use those powers as effectively as possible.

Interestingly, when I meet UK Government Ministers, the point is made to me that the UK Government frequently go beyond EU law in equality provisions — I have seen it in Government documents — and, taking that at face value, we hope that it continues. If you go beyond EU standards, there will be no issue about the Good Friday Agreement.

Ms Anderson: I am concerned about our equality provisions here; they are nowhere near the equality provisions that you have in Britain.

Mr Allamby: Yes. We do not have a —

Ms Anderson: They will be impacted most.

Mr Allamby: — we do not have a single equality Act, for example.

Ms Anderson: No, of course.

Mr Allamby: There was a time when we were, frankly, ahead of the pack, but we have been lapped by England, Scotland and Wales on a number of equality provisions.

Ms Anderson: Sinn Féin has been clear that we need a single equality Act. Chair, I have loads more, but I will leave it there.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): I see, Doug, that you are back on with us. Can you ask a few questions?

Mr Beattie: I think so, Chair, if you can hear me OK.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Yes, indeed.

Mr Beattie: I apologise to Les, Sinéad and the Committee for having missed a lot of what was said, so if I ask questions that have already been asked, I apologise.

Les, at our session with your team on 16 September, Dr Russell said that, looking at the Internal Market Bill, he did not think that there would be an issue with regard to equality or human rights. Yet your statement, which was embargoed until 3.00 pm today, kind of says the opposite. Which is it?

Mr Allamby: Bearing in mind that the Bill had not been out very long — four weeks — we had an initial and very provisional look at it and felt that it was dealing with other issues. However, when we interrogated it further, and took legal advice on the potential ramifications, it became clear to us that there were, although probably inadvertently, hypothetical situations where we could look at issues with some of the provisions on indirect discrimination and in goods and services in the internal market and that they could rub up against some of the equality provisions that may develop in EU law.

Bear in mind that the six directives that I mentioned earlier include keeping pace with EU law. If EU law was to outpace UK law, and Northern Ireland has to keep pace with those provisions in EU law, the Internal Market Bill might have an impact. If the UK stays ahead of EU law, that will not happen. However, it is impossible to predict where we might go in the next 10 or 15 years in UK and EU law.

So, yes, we think that there could be ramifications. All we really want to do is head that off at the pass and say, "Please put in an amendment that makes it clear that that will not happen, regardless of how the UK and the EU develop their laws".

Mr Beattie: That is a fair comment, Les; I do not take issue with it. We want to make sure that human rights and equality are well protected, and what was said to us a month ago was that there was good cooperation between yourselves and the UK Government with regard to that.

If I am honest with you — I want to be honest — I am concerned about the tone of the statement. As you said, it is hypothetical, but the tone seems to be more than hypothetical. That concerns me slightly.

Mr Allamby: The tone is not meant to be unduly adversarial; however, it is meant to be firm and clear. It is meant to reflect how strongly the three commissions feel about the potential, in any way, to undermine the work of the dedicated mechanism before it has even started.

I recognise that we are looking at potential impacts and that we do not know what those may be. We do not even know if parts of the Internal Market Bill will eventually be introduced; it depends on the kind of deal that we get. We recognise that the European Commission has made a complaint about parts of the Bill. The uncertainty is not helpful. We would rather start with clarity that we will not find ourselves hobbled in future because something in the Internal Market Bill that was not designed to deal with the Good Friday Agreement has done so inadvertently. That is the basis on which we made the statement.

Mr Beattie: I will leave it there, Les, but I am confused. It is fair for you to say that a month ago we were just looking at that, but the tenor and tone has changed so radically in a month that I just had to raise it. However, you have answered it.

Mr Stalford: Good to see you again, Les. I presume that statutory maternity pay is a fundamental right recognised by all EU countries. In this country, women can expect 39 weeks of statutory maternity pay. In France, the figure is 16 weeks. I think that it is important to say that this notion that the UK is a rights backwater is simply not borne out by the facts. The citizens of the United Kingdom have a full array of rights that are recognised more fully than in other European countries, and that is just one example. It is important that that is put on record and that the narrative that we are in some way a rights backwater is just not borne out by people's experience of living in this country. I presume that you are aware of Mr Jolyon Maugham QC.

Mr Allamby: No, but enlighten me, Chris.

Mr Stalford: Jolyon Maugham QC is Mr Remain and director of the Good Law Project. He fought the Government repeatedly through the courts along with Joanna Cherry and people like that throughout the Brexit process. He said:

Just to be clear, domestic law outranks international law. Is that correct?

Mr Allamby: There is parliamentary sovereignty. To answer your first question quickly, there are a number of areas where the UK is ahead of EU law. However, in the past 25 or 30 years, there are a number of areas of reform of our law that have been driven by developments in the EU, including the working time directive, limiting the amount of hours that we might want to work. An end to age-discrimination provisions was driven by the EU. The UK ran with some of them and, in some cases, exceeded them.

Mr Stalford: Yes, the UK took on the notions and, in many cases, gold-plated them and went further than many other EU countries did.

Mr Allamby: Some of those were driven by EU law provisions and are now enshrined very effectively in UK law and have gone beyond the baseline minimum. Frankly, I would welcome the continued commitment of the UK to equality and human rights provisions, but we know in other areas that that is not the case, and that is part of the need for vigilance.

I will explain why I think that breaching international law is a problem. Eighteen months ago, I was at series of meetings in Geneva at the UN. The UK Government, and a number of officials, made, very lucidly and capably, the argument that once they had left the EU, on the international stage, the UK Government would have much more deftness and autonomy in order to be an honest broker because they would not have to agree positions with 27 other EU member states. I am afraid that my analysis is that, if you break international agreements or say that you are going to break international agreements and are open about that, that does not play out well on the international stage.

Mr Stalford: With the greatest of respect, you are moving from legal into political commentary, and that is a different thing.

Mr Allamby: The point that I am making, and which I made in my opening statement, is about trust. If you sign an international agreement and then break it, that has ramifications that are beyond just this piece of legislation. The UK Government see themselves — rightly so, and I welcome it — as a paragon of virtue on the international stage in upholding human rights and equality. If you see yourself as a paragon of virtue and make statements on the international stage about upholding the rule of law and the importance of international agreements, you have to start with what you do at home. That is the issue for us.

We are part of a wider group of national human rights institutions. The Equality Commission is part of a wider equality network across Europe, and those things matter in my experience. Parliament is still sovereign, but you have to look beyond the Internal Market Bill. If you ask me whether the breaches that the Government have been quite open about and the closure of some of the legal challenges under the Human Rights Act are confined just to the Internal Market Bill or whether they have ramifications beyond the Bill, I am saying that they do have ramifications and those ramifications are significant on the international stage. For us, with regard to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, we think that they are significant on the domestic stage as well.

Mr Stalford: With the greatest of respect, it is for Ministers to worry about Britain's standing on the international stage rather than Human Rights commissioners from Northern Ireland.

Mr Allamby: I am not overreaching in my ambitions —.

Mr Stalford: Maybe a bit.

Mr Allamby: National human rights institutions are about upholding the law. Our job is to promote and protect human rights, and those involve international standards that the UK Government have signed up to. Yes, we have a dual system where, in effect, we enshrine those in legislation through Parliament, but the UK Government sign up to a variety of other international standards. Therefore, that message, and part of our role, is about international as well as domestic standards. While it is not for me to lecture the UK Government about what they should do, it is perfectly proper for me to say that, in our experience, this has implications elsewhere, and I am saying is no more than that.

Mr Stalford: If the European Union is to be held up as a paragon of virtue on its standards, only 21 out of its 27 member states, for example, have a minimum wage. The UK has one of the most generous minimum wages with regard to economic rights and ensuring that people are paid a fair wage. The UK's a minimum wage is one of the highest in the European Union. When we get into language about paragons of virtue, that is dangerously close to editorialising and politicising the role. Having given a couple of examples of having a minimum wage, statutory maternity pay and a complex and robust human rights framework, it seems to me that the crux of the argument — correct me if I am wrong — from the Human Rights Commission appears to be that a measure designed to prevent trading posts in Larne poses a significant threat to the human rights standards of people in Northern Ireland.

Mr Allamby: We are saying that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that, in a few years' time, if, as envisaged, the Internal Market Bill becomes law, if someone wanted to move goods or services from other parts of the UK to Northern Ireland, and if our equality legislation, for example, had stayed pace with the EU but the UK's had fallen behind, could you use the Internal Market Bill and the provisions on indirect discrimination to argue against some of the provisions that we are keeping pace with elsewhere? We do not think that that is beyond the realms of possibility, and we simply want to close it off.

Mr Stalford: "Realms of possibility" is very wide, Les.

Mr Allamby: It is, but the Bill is not aimed at the dedicated mechanism. Its target, if you like, is not the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, but we are saying that it could be collateral damage on how it could play out. We would prefer that that did not happen. That is why we are asking for assurances, preferably through amendments to the legislation, to put it beyond doubt. That does not seem unreasonable.

Mr Stalford: I have one last point. The basis upon which the mechanism arrived in the Internal Market Bill is the clause that Sir Bill Cash put into the withdrawal agreement, which recognised parliamentary sovereignty. Are you saying that the measure should, or could, remain if the Government added a clause, or are you asking for the measure to be removed?

Mr Allamby: I am saying that it should be clear. We knew that the Internal Market Bill was coming. We read the White Paper, but there was nothing in the White Paper to suggest that it would breach international law. There was less than eight weeks between the White Paper coming out and the legislation being published. What we are saying is that it should be made clear in the Bill that none of its provisions should prejudice the protocol in the protection of human rights and equality, so that there can be no doubt. Then, if there is a dispute in two, three, four years' time about some provision of the Internal Market Bill, it will be absolutely clear that that cannot be used to erode any equality or human rights provision.

Mr Stalford: With respect, you did not really answer my question. Do you want the clause removed, or do you want a clarification inserted into the Bill?

Mr Allamby: I could live with either. To date, we have asked for it to be put beyond doubt in an amendment rather than remove the clause. That it is done, and not how it is done, is our primary objective.

Mr Stalford: That is fine.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): When you were talking, I was minded that the remark to the British Government might be, "If you are in a glass house, you should not throw stones". Somehow or other, it is our glass house that they are in. I understand the concern that, if they are going to uphold the rule of law and rights right across the world and call people out for breaching those rights, can they expose our rights to potential breach? You are saying that clarification could prevent us from that exposure to potential breaches of rights.

Mr Allamby: Yes. We want the UK Government to be in the vanguard of upholding the rule of law, human rights and equality — an ambition that we share with the UK Government. What we are saying is that, if you say, "We are prepared to break international agreements", even if that is only in a specified way and for a short period, that does not send a very positive message to others. It is really the issue of trust and good faith on the international stage.

Mr Sheehan: I have one short question. Do you expect to have any input into the review of the Human Rights Act, given the impact that it would have on the Good Friday Agreement?

Mr Allamby: I am sure that we, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Equality and Human Rights and Commission in England and Wales would all be very actively involved in any kind of conversation or consultation on the document. Clearly, how it would impact on the dedicated mechanisms would be one of the prisms through which we would look at any reform.

We do not know whether the UK Government are going to reform the Human Rights Act. Like everyone else, I read the Sunday newspapers occasionally and see plans, etc. The UK Government have announced one or two things in other Bills, but they have not announced a wholesale reform of the Human Rights Act. They always said that they would not do that until the UK had left the EU, but we know that that time is coming. Over the years, we have seen manifesto commitments from the Government about making changes to the Human Rights Act. So, it is important to be vigilant to make sure that human rights and equality are safeguarded as effectively as they can be both in and outside the dedicated mechanism.

Mr Sheehan: You would not expect to have any elevated position over and above the Scottish Human Rights Commission or anyone else?

Mr Allamby: As much as I would love to think that I would have an exalted position, I am not anticipating a call any time soon.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): George, may I just check whether you have any questions? Perhaps with the old microphone on. [Laughter.]

That is you. We can hear you now.

Mr Robinson: I agree with my colleague Christopher, who said nearly everything that I was going to say, Chair. At this stage, may I pass on an apology on behalf of Trevor Clarke? He is at another meeting at the moment.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): OK. George agrees with Christopher that the Human Rights Commission —

Mr Stalford: Quite right.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): — is a fabulous organisation that should have its funding increased, as we heard earlier. That is seconded by George.

Mr Stalford: We can take it from the SDLP's office costs allowance.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): I have just two very short —.

Mr Sheehan: Emma is there.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Of course. My apologies, Emma. Would you like to come in?

Ms Sheerin: Sorry, but, whatever I have done, I am now looking at someone else's meeting. I do not know what is happening. [Laughter.]

Ms Anderson: Do not put anything else up there. [Laughter.]

Ms Sheerin: That is not mine.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Is that George?

Ms Anderson: No. It is probably Assembly Broadcasting.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Go ahead.

Ms Sheerin: Can you hear me?

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Yes. We can.

Ms Sheerin: Sorry. There must be a wee lag.

Thank you very much, Les and Sinéad for your presentation. Chair, what you said at the start of the meeting about rights — that you do not miss the water until the well has run dry — is probably key in all of this. I have some questions. I know that Christopher made the point that we are dealing in hypotheticals so do not yet know and that risks remain. His perception, however, is that the UK is not a backwater when it comes to rights, yet in the North we do not have a single equality Act and we do not have a bill of rights. We are therefore reliant on other institutions for rights, and the EU has played a significant part in that regard.

Les, a couple of weeks ago, you provided a document in which you outlined how you are worried about the Government amendments to clause 45 of the Bill. I know that that worry relates to state aid and that the clause now disapplies a section of the Human Rights Act to do with aid. There is the worry that, once you open the door, there is space to disapply other elements of the Act. Can you advise how you are going to challenge that and ensure non-diminution of rights? If you are going to write a report in response, will that be enough? What action will you take after that?

Mr Allamby: The short answer is that the dedicated mechanism will not be up and running until the beginning of January. At the moment, we are really in the preparatory phase and, as Sinéad said, are looking to have our first tripartite meeting in the next two or three weeks.

We have started to do some very provisional thinking on how we will approach that work, but part of our role will be determined by whether there is an agreement between the UK Government and the EU27 and what that agreement looks like. We are doing the best that we can to scope out what the issues are that might be covered by the dedicated mechanism, but, until we see what the agreement is, it is very difficult to go much beyond that.

The Internal Market Bill and its main provisions are not central to the dedicated mechanism. You are absolutely right, however, to say that parts of the Human Rights Act cannot be utilised to deal with any human rights infractions under the Internal Market Bill. That sets a worrying enough precedent for us.

For example, if the dedicated mechanism proved to be very effective, and if the UK Government did not like the protection of human rights and equality, could they then turn around and say that they will not allow people to take certain actions under the Human Rights Act, or would they find other ways and say that they will breach other parts of the international agreement? Who knows? The point that we are making is that it sets a very unwise and, in our view, unfortunate precedent, and we want to make sure that the dedicated mechanism provides the most effective protection that it can for everyone in Northern Ireland.

Ms Sheerin: Thank you. That is where I am coming from as well. Can you guys hear me?

Some Members: Yes.

Mr Stalford: It is remarkable how Doug Beattie can throw his voice like that.

Ms Sheerin: Hello?

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Go ahead.

Ms Sheerin: Sorry. We have the UK Government's explainer document, in which they state quite clearly that they do not think that the agreement requires a North/South equivalence of rights. I wonder whether there is a role for the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission to play in the dedicated mechanism or whether that role will become null and void. The three organisations are supposed to work together.

Ms Gibney: Absolutely. We are one part of the dedicated mechanism. We are essentially not as dedicated, if you like, or are simply not going to be as involved as the other two commissions, because this is primarily impacting on the people of Northern Ireland.

We have talked about where there are all-island dimensions, and that is really why I am here today and why we have the joint committee. Rights are underpinned by certain principles and that equivalence. The idea that we need to think in an all-island capacity is really important, and that is really what we are about. The work that we have done as a joint committee over the past couple of years has really been about discussing and researching the various topics that we know impact on citizenship: freedom of movement; the common travel area; justice arrangements; and so on. We are looking forward to working with our colleagues to understand exactly what our role is in the dedicated mechanism, as it is not exactly clear yet. We have not been resourced in the same way — yet — that the two commissions here have been, but if we feel that there is a need for us to gear up, we will do that. As I said earlier, our primary concerns are probably for the frontier workers in the border counties and for the more fundamental North/South cooperation that is grounded in the all-island dimension of human rights.

Ms Sheerin: Thank you very much. I suppose that there is not an awful lot more for me to say, as this has been discussed at length. I am probably coming at this from the same perspective as you, in that we have the same worries, particularly over cross-border workers.

It is worrying to hear you talk about the fact that your organisation has not had the same resources. To me, however, key to this is the fact that the UK Government have stated explicitly that they do not think that there is a need for a North/South equivalence of rights, when a couple of miles makes all the difference to people who live North and South of the border. That is worrying.

Thank you very much for your time, and apologies for all the technical difficulties. I do not know whether you can still hear me. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): We can hear you loud and clear. Thank you very much, Emma.

That brings an end to the questioning. Thank you very much for the presentation and for giving us a copy of the statement. It was issued at 3.00 pm. We have a suggestion for passing that on in order to get some clarification on the concerns that it raises.

Mr Allamby: Thank you.

Ms Gibney: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): We may come back to you in December to arrange a follow-up meeting if the Committee thinks that that would be necessary and useful. Time moves very quickly, but doing that might give us a bit more understanding of the outworkings of things.

Ms Anderson: We will know whether we are picking ourselves out of the rubble or not, and human rights will be included in that.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): We therefore may do that, but thank you very much indeed.