Official Report: Minutes of Evidence Report

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): I welcome Michael, Geraldine and Les to the meeting

Mr Les Allamby (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission): Apologies, Chair. I am not sure what has happened to my camera. I am not sure how to ready this, but, as long as you can hear me, it will be fine.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): We can hear you. That is the important thing.

You are welcome to the meeting. Thank you for coming along once again. We always appreciate catching up with you. Michael, is this your first time at the Committee, or have you been with us before?

Mr Michael Finucane (Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission): No, it is my inaugural meeting. It is lovely that Les is doing a variation on the cat ears theme. It gets you right here when you see that sort of invention. I welcome a new member.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Michael, you are welcome, and thank you for coming along today. I will pass over to the witnesses. Who wants to take the lead and give us an update? We can then move to questions and answers.

Ms Geraldine McGahey (Equality Commission for Northern Ireland): Mr Chairman, can you hear me OK?

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): I can indeed, yes. It is good to see you.

Ms McGahey: OK. Thank you. I will speak first, if that is OK with you. Good afternoon, Mr Chairman and members, and thank you for the opportunity to update you this afternoon on the ongoing work of the dedicated mechanism and the partnership working that has been taking place across the three commissions since our previous Committee briefing last December. At that point, we were in the final stages of preparation in advance of the end of the Brexit transition period and, with it, the commissions' assumption of the new roles and responsibilities in relation to article 2 of the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol, which sets out the UK Government commitment to ensuring no diminution of certain rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity as a result of the UK's withdrawal from the European Union.

We are now some three months into our new role, and we welcome the opportunity to update the Committee on the progress that we have made on carrying out our functions as the dedicated mechanism. The commissions have been working very closely and constructively together to progress this important work, but I would like to start by providing you with a brief overview of some of the work that the Equality Commission has taken forward in this area, working in close partnership with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC), including our legal policy, research and communications work. Les will follow me, and he will provide you with further detail on the work that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has progressed. Michael will then elaborate on the developments related to our joint work to progress all-island oversight arrangements.

We have progressed important legal work to examine the scope of the article 2 commitment to ensure that there is greater clarity and certainty as to what article 2 means. That has included work to clarify the range of rights protected under article 2 and the domestic legislation underpinning the EU law that falls within its scope. We have commenced the tracking and monitoring of legislative developments at domestic and EU level in order to ascertain whether they have any potential impact on the article 2 commitment. We have also been working to ensure that effective mechanisms are in place by which the dedicated mechanism will be kept informed of actual and planned EU legislative developments that are relevant to the article 2 commitment. Furthermore, we have progressed work to develop internal policies and procedures for the provision of legal advice and assistance to individuals who allege breaches of the article 2 commitment.

The number of enquiries received by the Equality Commission has, thus far, been relatively low as, indeed, was to be expected. Issues raised with the commission to date include concerns about the impact on assistance dog owners as a result of changes to pet passport arrangements, the impact of Brexit on citizens' rights and voting rights, the democratic deficit, and trade barriers to accessing goods and services. Significantly, a number of those enquiries do not fall within the remit of the dedicated mechanism and, as part of our awareness-raising role, we will continue to take steps to provide clarification on the parameters of the article 2 commitment. We are working to commission research in a number of key areas, including on the employment and socio-economic impacts of Brexit on the various section 75 equality groups in Northern Ireland, as well as on the potential reform of Assembly and parliamentary scrutiny measures in the context of the article 2 commitment.

Further to our duty to promote awareness of the article 2 commitment, we have taken forward work to develop a series of publications and other promotional materials aimed at increasing awareness and understanding of the UK Government's commitment and the role of the dedicated mechanism. Those materials, which will be published very shortly, have been designed to be accessible and user-friendly and, importantly, will set out our key information, including on individuals' rights to complain about any breach of the article 2 commitment. A text of our short-guide publication was provided to the Committee in advance of today's briefing.

Our awareness-raising initiatives have been taken forward in tandem with a series of stakeholder engagements. Since our last update to the Committee in December, we have continued to engage, alongside the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, with a wide range of stakeholders and partner organisations, including ongoing liaison with Northern Ireland Office officials, the Labour Relations Agency (LRA), the Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens' Rights Agreements (IMA), and equality and human rights groups.

Further engagement with stakeholders, including with trade unions, the legal profession and the Executive Office is planned over the coming months. Similarly, when we last briefed the Committee in December, I advised that four management posts had been recruited. Since then, however, we have recruited a number of temporary staff to ensure service delivery as we continue to progress recruitment to arrange a permanent post to support the legal, policy and promotional work of the dedicated mechanism unit.

I hope that I have given the Committee a helpful overview of the progress that has been made by the Equality Commission, working in partnership with the other commissions, since we last met in December. I will now hand over to Les to provide an update on behalf of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.

Mr Allamby: Thanks, Geraldine. I apologise for my camera: even though my hair needs dealing with, there is a technological issue that is beyond my wit to sort, so I apologise for that.

As you know, we are still in the early days of the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol and the article 2 mandate to ensure the effective implementation of the commitment to non-diminution of rights and safeguards or equality of opportunity section of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. Like Geraldine, we have recruited staff, we have begun to engage with stakeholders and we are working very well with the Equality Commission and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC).

It is important to remember that the two commissions are a small cog in a much larger wheel with regard to the overall agreement and our dedicated mechanism work. It is important to say that any of the work has to fall within the scope of article 2, and, in effect, there are three ingredients that have to be met for that. First, there must be action by the UK Government that diminishes rights that were available between 23 June 2016 and 31 December 2020. In other words, between the time that the UK decided to leave the European Union and the time that it finally left. Secondly, that right in question must be underpinned by European Union law, and, thirdly, that the diminution would not have occurred except for the UK's withdrawal from the EU.

That is not a straightforward message to convey to the public and other stakeholders. So, the Equality Commission has been looking at the scope, and we are looking at a number of areas. First, we are looking at immigration and migrant worker rights and what might be covered within the scope of the agreement. Secondly, we are looking at some healthcare issues and the common travel area, and, thirdly, we are looking more broadly at freedom of movement issues.

It must also be recognised that both commissions and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission have a role outside the dedicated mechanism. We have parallel statutory duties. So, we can also work on related human rights and equality issues, which may arise from other parts of the 1998 agreement. For example, in the last few weeks, the commission has given evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee at its current inquiry into citizenship. We have presented to independent Human Rights Act review members at an event facilitated by the Law Society and the Bar Council. So, we are seeking to ensure that the work inside and outside the dedicated mechanism that affects the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement is as seamless as possible.

Like the Equality Commission, we have received a relatively small number of enquiries to date. To give you a flavour, one is around a decision not to allow individuals with pre-settled status under the EU settlement scheme to claim universal credit and whether that might fall within the scope of article 2. As it happens, that matter is going to the Court of Justice of the European Union on a referral from the Law Centre Northern Ireland, which happened just before we left the EU. We have also done a joint piece of work on the impact of people being able to move freely across borders with guide dogs, and we have had a number of free movement citizenship enquiries. We have received a number of questions on whether the new arrangements amount to a democratic deficit in very broad terms but also some more specific questions, given how the rules apply to Northern Ireland.

It has been very much a mixed bag to date, and that is not altogether surprising, given that the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol was signed off well before the end of the transition period but the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) was finally reached only a week before the United Kingdom finally left the European Union.

I am happy to take questions from members, but, first, I will pass on to Michael Finucane from the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission.

Mr Michael Finucane (Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission): Thank you, Les. Thank you, Chairperson and members. I am very pleased to be here today representing the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. As set out in the UK Government's explainer document of August 2020 on article 2, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission will work together to provide oversight of and reporting on rights and equalities issues that fall within the scope of the article 2 commitment that have an island-of-Ireland dimension. It falls to the three commissions to agree how to advance that work. In my remarks, I will try to outline how we have progressed that to date.

Late last year, the three commissions agreed that a working group to progress the all-island work would be established and that it would comprise the respective chief commissioners, a board member from each organisation and the chief executives of each commission. The inaugural meeting of the working group was held earlier this year, on 9 February. The main business was to consider and finalise a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that would govern the work. Subsequently, the MOU was agreed by the board's three commissions. Aligned with the roles that were set out in the August 2020 explainer document, the three commissions agreed in their MOU that they would work together to provide oversight of and reporting on rights and equalities issues that fall within the scope of the article 2 commitment that have an island-of-Ireland dimension; that the commissions would report separately to the Governments of the UK and Ireland, as appropriate, on any issues that they have addressed jointly in the context of monitoring the article 2 commitment; that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and the joint committee of the NIHRC and IHREC, as established under the Good Friday Agreement, would bring any matter of relevance to the article 2 commitment to the attention of the Specialised Committee on the protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland as appropriate; and that any activities undertaken by the three commissions jointly would, of course, respect existing reporting structures and statutory roles and responsibilities.

On the practical working arrangements, the three commissions agreed that the working group will normally meet four times a year to consider areas for working jointly; that the chairing and hosting of the working group will rotate between the three commissions yearly, with the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland taking the role in the first year; that our joint working will be overseen at a strategic level by the respective boards of each commission; that any decisions will be made in line with existing governance arrangements for each board; and that an annual meeting of all of the members of the three commissions will be organised to review progress and any issues arising together.

In addition to agreeing the MOU, our first working group meeting provided a very useful opportunity to share information on the implementation of the dedicated mechanism arrangements to date across the three commissions. We also discussed plans for the first annual meeting of all of the members of the three commissions. We decided to schedule that to take place some time in the year when board members are able to meet in person. We hope that board members do not have to undergo too much retraining or further education to rediscover what it is like to meet in person in real time, but that is an issue that we will deal with as and when it happens.

Finally, we considered how to best carry out North/South civic engagement. In the short term, we agreed that the three commissions will run a cross-border online event aimed at raising awareness of the dedicated mechanism and the all-Ireland scrutiny role and to hear any concerns regarding the impact of Brexit on rights and equality of opportunity. As you have already heard from my colleagues, officials in the three commissions have been progressing that with the Centre for Cross Border Studies.

In conclusion, over the past number of months, we have put in place the practical foundations and arrangements for working together to address the rights and equalities issues that fall within the scope of the article 2 commitment and have an island-of-Ireland dimension. We will continue to build on those foundations. The main objective and motivation is the promotion of the rights and equality of all people across the island as they go about their daily lives under the new regime.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Thank you very much for the presentation. It is, obviously, very much a live process; each time that you come to us, there has been an update and some movement and changes. It is always good to be kept abreast of those changes in real time. These quarterly meetings have been useful from that perspective. I suppose that this is the first meeting that we have had while in the system; all the previous ones happened before Brexit officially kicked in, and we were in the transition period.

Have you noticed any difference now that we are in the process? Have things happened as you expected, or has it been a case of having to say, "Actually, this has really gone in a different way; we need to rethink that?"

How are you dividing your time between the priorities that you set? Is there one strand of work that seems of be taking up the majority of your time or is predominant, or is it just the case that your time is distributed equally between all your priorities?

Ms McGahey: If I could come in on the latter point, the officers, officials and commissioners within the three organisations are working very closely, so there is a common understanding of the issues. The work is divided out within each responsibility area of each organisation. The primary objective is to make sure that there is no duplication of effort. Information is shared on an ongoing basis.

For Les's organisation and our own, it has been about defining the scope of article 2. It is a complex issue. There are lots of pieces of legislation that intertwine, so it is about getting an understanding of all that. It is not just as simple as saying it is the six directives. You have to consider what underpins that and how that is incorporated into UK law etc. to look for all the tentacles. While that is going on, we have been very much focused on how we might get information from the European Union and how we can make sure that the communication channels are as were intended.

I mentioned that we are also researching the scrutiny that the Assembly and Westminster have of this whole process and how stakeholders can feed into that process. We are still very much up to our neck in researching legislation.

We are also conscious of the fact that if anyone does come forward with a fear or concern of an alleged breach, we have a quick timescale in which to respond. Proceedings must be lodged within a three-month period, so we have to be quite agile and try to pre-empt that. I am sure that you have seen the work that we have done in relation to pet passports and assistance dogs. Along with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, we have been engaging with DAERA and its Minister to get that firmly on the agenda, and the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I know that Les made reference to that.

That is our key focus at the moment: being agile, being sure that we have all the facts, and that there is a common understanding of what they are. I want to reassure the Committee that the three commissions do work closely together. Information is shared, and work is divided out on a basis that any legal advice is shared equally.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Is that three-month timescale from when a new law is brought in? I am wondering about the timeline if somebody makes a complaint. Obviously, that would be when they are impacted, so if there has been a change in the law that impacts on somebody's rights, by the time they realise and determine that and then reach out, and you then pick it up and move on, what capacity do you have retrospectively to say, "Well, actually, there is a problem with that law, so it needs to be changed"? Can it go back a way?

Ms McGahey: That is why I am saying that we have to be extremely agile and on top of what is happening. We have to keep a close eye on changes or proposed changes to legislation, and it is critical that we work with the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) to try to make sure that the communication channels committed to within the protocol are developed. It is three months from when the action occurs, so it is when the legislation or whatever was introduced, whatever the circumstances were — not when we become aware but when it actually happened. That is my understanding. I am sure that, if there is anything wrong with that, Les or Michael will correct me.

It is my understanding, that legal proceedings have to be implemented by then. It is not a case of coming to either of the commissions to raise the concern; it is when legal action is actually commenced.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): That is tough work. I have loads of other questions, but I know that a number of members want to speak, and we have kept you for some time today. I will pass to Doug, the Deputy Chair.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Chair, Les, Geraldine and Michael. It is always really interesting to hear a very complex issue. You know your brief really well, and I learn so much from you every time you speak.

I want to ask a general question. One of the article 2 rights says that there is an equal right to economic activity. We are saying that economic activity should not be diminished by the protocol. However, surely economic rights of people in Northern Ireland have been diminished due to the Irish Sea border. In exactly the same way, had I put up a border on the island of Ireland, forcing businesses, instead of looking South to where they might have done their trade, to look to Great Britain, that would have been a diminution of their rights. Is that an issue that you are trying to tackle, or is it something that you think is not an issue? I am really trying to get a steer on this.

Mr Allamby: I will pick that up, Doug. We are looking at it in terms of equality of opportunity, and that refers to class and creed, disability, gender and so on. We are looking at a particular section of the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement. It is the section entitled "Rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity". I suspect that you allude to the much broader issue, and I am not sure that it falls easily within that section. The particular directives around equal treatment, for example, that are in the annex, around employment, self-employment, access to goods and services, are very specific directives about equal treatment. So, a diminution of economic activity does not immediately strike me as falling within our purview. That does not mean to say that, if somebody were to come to us, we would not look at it quite carefully to see whether there was something within article 2. Much of the issue that you are talking about are, I think, other parts of the protocol.

Mr Beattie: OK. I get that, Les. I suppose that I am looking at this through primary colours, in many ways. What I am really asking is that, if you are a business sitting in Northern Ireland, and you had this economic activity where your link was to Great Britain, then the protocol comes in and stops that and forces you, rightly or wrongly, to have to trade with the Republic of Ireland, is that not a diminution of your rights, in the same way, as I have explained, if we were to put a border up on the island of Ireland, stopping trade North/South, so that you have to look east-west instead, would that be a diminution of that economic right?

Mr Allamby: It may well be, but the prism within which we have to look at this is the one section of the agreement, rather than the agreement as a whole. That is partly why I said, in my opening remarks, that we still have an interest in other parts of the agreement. The citizenship issues around identity, the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee's inquiry at the moment, is of interest, I am sure, to both our commissions. In our case, it is particularly so, because we have done some work on it. However, we know that it does not fall within the dedicated mechanism because it is a different part of the agreement.

Obviously, we have our general powers. Both the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission were created by the 1998 agreement, so we retain an interest in those other bits. However, in terms of the dedicated mechanism, I struggle to see how the reduction in trade, or some of the issues about having to fill out paperwork in order to trade between Northern Ireland and Britain, and vice versa, fall within our bit of the agreement. It is not about being obtuse; it is about the reality of the mandate that we have.

Mr Beattie: Les, thank you for that. As always, I listen and learn, as I do every time that you speak.

Ms Sheerin: Thank you for your presentation. We have had a few presentations. As I have, perhaps, raised before, some of the issues that we were expecting to see in the immediate aftermath of Brexit have not presented themselves because of the pandemic. I think that it was Geraldine who mentioned access to public funds and the lack of a right to apply for universal credit for somebody of pre-settled status. Throughout the pandemic, we have seen unemployment rise and people, who, perhaps, were on temporary contracts, being forced out of their jobs. Is there a correlation between the people in precarious working conditions being forced into poverty and that lack of ability to access welfare?

Ms McGahey: Emma, it was Les who was speaking about universal credit. Perhaps, it would be best if he were to respond to you.

Mr Allamby: It falls within my specialist subject on 'Mastermind'. Geraldine has a number of specialisms, but universal credit may be one of mine. The specific issue is a challenge under other parts of EU law. We have looked at it, and we do not think that it falls within the scope of article 2, but we have an interest in it because it presages wider issues for people. It is difficult for those with pre-settled status to remain if they do not have access to universal credit, because many of those people may be in low-paid employment. On your wider question, we will see what happens in the Court of Justice of the European Union, which is hearing the case in May. A similar challenge is going to the Supreme Court from organisations in Britain. The Child Poverty Action Group is involved in that.

There is a wider question around cross-border working, frontier workers and migrant labour in Northern Ireland. Clearly, if you have full EU settled status, you can access all social security entitlements. I hope that the answer to whether it is legal to restrict that to those with pre-settled status will be no, because it will have an impact. We are going to be reliant on migrant labour. We know the new arrangements for employers who want to bring in people from other EU member states. They are the same rules that apply to those outside and involve the individual having to earn a significant amount of money and acquiring a number of points. There are other schemes for particular groups of workers, and the schemes for seasonal workers have restrictive rights to their remaining within the UK. You, therefore, raise a broader issue. It is too early to tell, but we will see, in time.

I will give you one area that is worth keeping an eye on over the next two or three years: staff in residential care. As you know, much of residential and nursing-home care is private sector, and it has relied on migrant labour. If you say that people who will be brought in, in the future, will have to earn a certain sum, at least — considerably more than most people are currently paid — we are going to have to rely on local labour, or the private sector is going to have to pay more to bring people in. A number of people who are looked after in private homes are publicly funded, so, if the private sector pays more to bring people in, how will that be funded, and who is going to fund it? Money is short in local authorities in Britain, and money is short in the health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland. There are some conundrums, and we will have to see how those play out.

Ms Sheerin: Thank you very much, Les, and apologies, Geraldine, I did not take my notes down properly.

Chair, I just have one more question about the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) and the cut-off. I have spoken before about information sharing and the challenges that exist within communities across the North with regard to migrant worker populations and the language barrier and concerns around whether people are aware of the process that they will have to follow. Again, the pandemic has had practical implications around stopping the amount of travel and changing the contact that people have with each other. There has been more speculation in the news today around the rights of Irish citizens in the North to exercise the right to bring family members or loved ones here and citizenship, because the British Government view us as British by virtue of birth. Have you anything to say about that?

Mr Allamby: Geraldine, would you like me to pick this one up?

Ms McGahey: Yes, you are doing a great job, Les. Carry on.

Mr Allamby: The position is clear. There are temporary arrangements around the right to bring in family members, and they apply until 30 June 2021. After that, your rights, if you are covered by the Good Friday Agreement — again, it is not part of article 2 but the identity provisions — will lapse. There are some arrangements for late applications to the EU Settlement Scheme. We need to see the guidance, and we have been trying to get that from the Home Office, but there will be an issue if someone wants to bring in family members, you will be back to the same position as Emma DeSouza was in. I note that she gave her evidence this morning and launched a legal challenge, which was initially successful, then unsuccessful and, of course, then lapsed because they resolved the matter with the introduction of the law which assisted her. That issue is still very much live and an issue that we have commissioned a piece of work on to look at what will happen after 30 June to those who identify as Irish. The issue for us is that it should be a levelling up. In other words, people covered by the Good Friday Agreement, whether they identify as Irish or British, should be able to bring their family members in, but it is clear that the law will not allow that after 30 June 2021.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Thank you for those questions, Emma.

Mr Stalford: Thank you for your answers so far. It has been very interesting. In March 2011, the European Court of Justice ruled that car insurance companies specifically targeting female customers and offering them lower premiums, because the records showed that female customers were less likely to be involved in a car accident, contravened equal access to goods and services. They were, basically, ordered to stop making such offers on the grounds of sex discrimination. With regard to my access to goods and services from mainland GB, if that is in any way being restricted, am I, as a UK citizen, having my consumer rights violated?

Ms McGahey: That is an interesting point. I understand that it is part of the arguments in one of the judicial reviews that are taking place

Mr Stalford: Sorry, Geraldine. I cannot really hear. The sound is very bad. It is very garbled. It must be something to do with the internet connection.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Christopher, maybe you could put yourself on mute. It could be the feedback coming through.

We will let Geraldine answer the question.

Ms McGahey: Is that better, Christopher? Good.

As I was saying, we are very aware of the judicial review proceedings that are under way. The economic rights issue is one of the commercial aspects of one of the proceedings that are taking place.

I am not trying to fudge the economic rights issue, but we are keeping a watching brief on it, as Les said. We are not part of the judicial review proceedings, as you are aware, but we are looking at it closely to see the implications that it might have for the article 2 commitments and for the work of the dedicated mechanism unit. We do not have sight of any of the papers or the arguments that are being put forward, but we will keep an eye on it, and I undertake to come back to the Committee and to you directly, Christopher, if we are made aware of any of the issues that might impact on the work that we do. I am not trying to sidestep your question, but the reality is that, at this moment, it appears to be outside the scope of the dedicated mechanism unit. As Les said, we are keeping it under observation.

Mr Stalford: Since 2010 — you made reference to this already, but I do not know whether all members of the Committee are aware of it — 250 pups, or baby dogs, have been trained as assistance dogs in Northern Ireland. Under the terms of the protocol, that had to stop. Similarly, people who use assistance dogs for travel are required under the terms of the protocol to provide paperwork. We are in a situation where Northern Ireland accounts for less than 0·5% of the population of Europe, but 20% of the customs declarations are being applied on the stretch of water between Northern Ireland and GB. That represents total overkill on the part of the European Union; that is its choice.

Does preventing the training of assistance dogs and imposing burdens on blind and visually impaired people for travel constitute a breach of their rights on the basis of disability?

Ms McGahey: We feel strongly about that. Our view is that, in respect of pet passport requirements, there should be absolutely no adverse impacts on assistance dog owners in Northern Ireland due to Brexit. We have raised the matter with the AERA Minister and the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I am well aware of the fact that the pups that are trained as assistance dogs cannot be transported into Northern Ireland before they are 12 weeks old because of vaccinations etc, by which stage it is considered that they are too old for training. We feel very strongly about that. In September, when we briefed the Committee, it was one of the issues that the chief executive of the Equality Commission raised. It got a fair amount of media coverage at that stage. We have been very vocal about it.

We believe that changes to the pet passport that were requirements announced by the UK Government on 16 December 2020 mean that Great Britain

by the EU for the purpose of pet transport. It will result in some additional requirements on assistance dog owners who travel from Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we do not think that that is right. You cannot discriminate against people because of a disability. Those assistance dogs are part of that process. People with a disability are relying on them for a variety of reasons, not just to help with visual impairments.

The commission supports the adoption of measures that would remove any additional requirements that adversely impact on assistance dog owners, including any Northern Ireland assistance dog owners who are returning to Northern Ireland from Great Britain. They do not have to do anything when they are going the other way; it happens when they are coming back. That, we believe, is not right. The Equality Commission, along with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, has written to the AERA Minister, welcoming the Minister's decision to delay until the end of July 2021 the additional requirements for pet travel between Great Britain and Northern Ireland following the end of the transition period.

We also raised concerns about the potential impact of those changes on assistance dog owners, including in the context of the UK Government's commitments under article 2. We both raised that concern in evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. We highlighted the UK Government's commitments under article 2 and obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) in terms of the need to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on assistance dog owners in respect of requirements on pet passport arrangements post-Brexit.

We will continue to be very vocal about that in order to ensure the rights of disabled people are protected in the matter. It is not just about one-way travel; it is about two-way travel and making people feel comfortable and welcome without additional burdens.

Mr Stalford: Thank you, Geraldine. I appreciate that you were not trying to duck the question on consumer rights. The situation is obviously very nebulous, and there are lots of aspects of it that will have to be tested in the courts. With a bit of luck, we will be able to strip away about 99% of it. Thank you very much, Geraldine.

Ms McGahey: I want to make one more point before we leave that. The courts will determine any alleged breaches of the UK Government's commitments to article 2 provisions; that will not be for any of the commissions or the dedicated mechanism unit. The courts might have a lot of work ahead.

Mr Allamby: Christopher, can I add one thing to that? My answer to Doug was a bit downbeat about whether the matter falls within that section of the agreement, but it is pretty clear to me that there is a much stronger argument on this issue. A section of the agreement reads:

If people are not able to travel because they have to go through unnecessary bureaucracy in order to bring a guide dog from Scotland to Northern Ireland or wherever, it seems that there is potential for article 2 to play out. That section gives a much stronger case for saying that that is an issue, and, if it is not resolved amicably in other ways, it might fall into one of our two commissions' bailiwicks to do something further on.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Thank you. The echoey sound is because Christopher is the Principal Deputy Speaker and has such a large and plush office with a high ceiling.

Mr Stalford: It cannot compare to the SDLP office in Newcastle. I do not know who occupies that office.

Ms Anderson: I thank all three of you for the information that you imparted today. I have a lot of questions. I will try to refrain from asking them all, Chair.

Geraldine, you said that you had scoped out the range of article 2 rights. Are you still involved in that exercise, or has the scoping finished? Obviously, if there has been a breach of rights, we need to know the extent and coverage of it, and I am not clear on that point.

Ms McGahey: Martina, the short answer is no, we have not finished that work. I was trying to get across the fact that it is a very complex and large piece of work. It is not just as simple as the six directives; it is also about all the underpinning EU, domestic and UK legislation and how they all impact on each other and the tentacles that spread into other pieces. No, that work is not finished, but I want to give a reassurance that if someone comes to us with concerns about a potential breach of any of the commitments, we will immediately put in the resources to investigate that to assist that person within the time frame. That is why I made reference to the three months. It is a monumental piece of work. A lot of work has been done to date, but it is ongoing.

Ms Anderson: Do we have a time frame for when you anticipate it will be completed?

Ms McGahey: I do not have a time frame at the moment, but I am happy to come back to you when I get more information from the officers. I am sure that Les will do that as well, because we are working on this in partnership. Maybe when we get a chance to have a little bit of a discussion on the progress that has been made, we can come back with more detail.

Ms Anderson: Yes. We all find the regular briefings very useful and helpful.

Michael, I do not know if this question is for you as an Irish passport and EU rights holder, but Ireland is one of the few member states that does not afford its citizens who do not reside in the state the right to stand for election or to vote in European Parliament elections.

Is there work on that that you would take forward? Obviously, it involves legislative change, and it is the Irish Government who have to bring that forward; there are no restrictions from the EU's point of view. Is that something that might fall within the work that you do?

Mr Finucane: If it was raised as an issue with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission under this mechanism, it would have to trigger the all-Ireland dimension. It is kind of tricky, because if you live in a European Parliament constituency, my understanding is that you have a right to vote in that election, but, obviously, post Brexit, the North is no longer in an EU region, so that right probably would not arise.

Ms Anderson: There are many citizens from other member states who do not reside in the EU, but, because they are citizens of those countries, they are holders of rights from their particular member state. If they are EU rights holders they have a right to vote. If you look at the north of Cyprus, which is under Turkey's control, you see that Cypriot Turks can vote in the European Parliament election. That is an area that is worth delving into, because some of the laws of Europe apply here and we should have access to the European Parliament. There was a time when observer status was being talked about. That is something that your body should look at, Michael, or maybe you need someone to bring it to your attention in order for you to do so.

Mr Finucane: It is certainly an issue that we can look out for, Martina.

Ms McGahey: Martina, to support what Michael said, the Equality Commission and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission are taking legal advice on that very issue, and we can come back to you with more information on it at a future date. We are still waiting on further details to be provided to us, but we are conscious that some people feel that there is a breach or potential breach in that regard, so we are exploring the issue. There have been various pieces of case law on, for example, voting in Gibraltar, but that does not really stretch to the question that is being asked, and we are not aware of any case law that covers it, which is why we are seeking expert guidance.

Ms Anderson: My understanding is that the Irish Government have to, with the stroke of a pen, change their law, because there is no restriction from the EU's point of view. We have done a lot of work and research on that, and there is some information, but I am sure that you are already aware of all that. A lot of it comes down to the Irish Government.

Can I ask about the children who are EU citizens and live in the South but go to school in the North? How are they are being affected by Brexit? The EU protects the right of children to education across member states, but the North is no longer a member of the EU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights is gone. What are the implications, or are there implications, of that for those children?

Ms McGahey: Les might be best placed to address that.

Mr Allamby: It really depends on the immigration status of the children and their parents. Assuming that you are the child of an Irish national, you have the common travel area, which, as the protocol makes clear, still applies. If you are the child of a frontier worker and travel across the border to school every day, provided that the application has been made, again, you should be OK. If you are an EU citizen and have not made an application, a question arises over what will happen if somebody eventually discovers that you do not have the status that allows you to travel across the border every day. An issue will clearly arise from the fact that the UK is now putting in place some very significant arrangements in immigration law. It has just issued another immigration document, which is out for consultation, on refugees and asylum. I was at a meeting in the Home Office this week about the arrangements for coming through the ports and airports, for example, given that EU identity cards will no longer apply in the near future and that you will be expected to have a digital ID card instead. That is fine, but you will have to put some very specific arrangements in place, given that we will not have border controls North/South and South/North. Those kinds of issues, in policy terms and legal terms, still seem to me to be very much up in the air. Government officials I have talked to are very clear that they are cognisant of the border, but getting from them what exactly that means in reality still remains to be seen.

That is a very long-winded way of saying that it is very much a live issue not just for crossing the border to go to school every day but for lots of other arrangements. It is really important that anybody in the EU who lives in the South but works in the North, for example, makes sure that they apply for frontier worker status and gets that properly regulated so that they can travel freely. We still do not know how they will manage the competing tensions between, on the one hand, freedom of movement for Irish people on both sides of the border and frontier workers and others who have the right to move and, on the other hand, the clear need for them to put in place arrangements to stop human trafficking and modern slavery etc.

Ms Anderson: Les, when I listened to you, I could not work this out in my head, and I probably still cannot. The common travel area exists, although we know that its legislative standing is built on sand, despite people saying, "It's a comfort it's there. It's operating, and it's not going to go away". However, in this instance, if you are an EU citizen living in Donegal, you will have never had to apply for settled status — why would you? — but if your child goes to a school in Derry or you work in Derry, you will now become a frontier worker status applicant. How do both those things conflate? How are they in any way complementary to the common travel area that exists? It seems that it is all being conflated. It is not streamlined. It is not aligned here.

Mr Allamby: I think that that is right. The UK Government have said that, for people who arrive in Britain, they will base their border controls and perfectly legitimate issues, including ensuring that human trafficking does not take place and that Northern Ireland does not become a route in, on intelligence-based operations and other kinds of arrangements. It remains to be seen whether that will work. My worry, frankly, is that, when you look back at the terrible events that happened in Essex, when 39 Vietnamese individuals died in a lorry, you see that a number of the people who were prosecuted and who were part of that chain of exploitation lived on either side of and close to the border. There are, therefore, some really significant issues that we have still to fully interrogate to see how they will play out in practice.

Ms Anderson: Finally, I will ask one question on the common travel area. Is there any way that its status will move from where it currently is, which is that it does not have any legal standing? Will that be required by the human rights and equality commissions in order to, for instance, be able to deal with potential breaches that may arise as a consequence of a child going to school, cross-border workers going to work or frontier worker status, or whatever it might be? Do you envisage that being used at any stage? It is not nailed down.

Mr Allamby: The two Governments have been clear that the common travel area will continue to apply, and, on social security, they set out something a little more firm. We are still dealing with a memorandum of understanding and other kinds of arrangements.

We commissioned research as a joint committee with the Irish commission. That raised concerns that many of the underpinnings of the common travel area in any legal sense were created through EU law and freedom of movement, and we do not have those underpinnings to the same extent. From our point of view, as a human rights commission, we would like to see something much firmer and more formal with legal standing, and both Governments know that. I know that there are still discussions on some of the issues around the common travel area, but I am not aware of anything that is about to become a game changer and take the current arrangements onto a much more formal legal footing.

Ms Anderson: OK. Thank you all for those

Ms McGahey: Chair, if I could maybe come in on the back of what Les said and talk about racial profiling. I know that it is very much a peripheral issue, Martina. I am sure that all of you will be aware of various cases that the commission supported over the past number of years where immigration officers racially profiled people. That was not just people who were travelling through airports to leave or arrive in the country but those who were just leaving people off at the airport. Those settlements were in the papers and got plenty of media coverage at the time.

We are concerned about the rising incidents of racial profiling or the potential for it. I reassure you that we will use our powers where we see evidence of racial profiling. We have been calling for the racial equality law to be strengthened in that area in order to provide greater protection against racial profiling, and I want to put it on the record that that has not gone away. It is still very much there, and we will keep a watching brief on it as well.

Ms Anderson: Sorry, Chair, can I come in on the back of that? I have spoken to representatives of Translink and raised with them their allowing the police and the guards to come onto their buses and take people off them. It has been reported to me and others that those people believe that they were taken off those buses because of the colour of their skin and that racial profiling was taking place as a consequence. I have had to and fro conversations and meetings with Translink about that. Translink said that that is nothing to do with it and that, if drivers are pulled in, they have to pull in. Something is happening with cross-border, all-Ireland transport that feeds in to the deep concern that I share in particular about racial profiling, Geraldine.

Ms McGahey: We absolutely agree. I am well aware of a number of examples of people being taken off Translink services, whether buses or trains, to go through that process. The question really falls on whether it is Translink's policy or that of the immigration services or whoever else. Our view is that it is not Translink's policy. It does not have a policy of stopping, and its buses are like every other bus or vehicle, meaning that, if they are stopped at the border by the guards, they have to pull over. It is not within its gift to deal with that, so it is more for immigration.

We will keep that under close observation and are willing to support people who come forward with details about it. It is not so much an issue for Translink as it is for those who conduct those investigations.

Ms Anderson: That is helpful. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Only two other members have not spoken. Pat and George, do either of you wish to ask a question?

Mr Sheehan: I am OK, Chair.

Mr Robinson: I am fine, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): OK. That is grand. Thank you very much to both those members.

Geraldine, Les and Michael, thank you very much for your presentation. It is great to get the continuity of the quarterly updates from you to find out how things are going as they roll on. We look forward to the next update and to being able to get more information.

I will follow up with members after the evidence session, but we will maybe find out from the Department how it makes sure, as the Executive Office, that it is keeping an eye on article 2 requirements. If that is useful information to send back and forwards, we can keep each other informed of that.

Thank you very much for coming along. Geraldine and Michael, it was good to see you. Les, it was good to hear from you. I will maybe compliment you and say that you definitely have a voice that would be great on the radio. It is very good and sounds great. Thank you all very much for coming along.

Ms McGahey: Thanks, Colin.

Mr Finucane: Thank you.

Mr Allamby: Thanks, Chair. Take care. Bye.