Professor Dickson

Question: There have been consistent claims of collusion between British security forces and loyalist territories. What impact has this had on the government's ability to promote human rights in Northern Ireland?

Professor Dickson: It has played very badly as you could understand. On the one hand the government maintains that it is applying the European Convention on Human Rights and wants to have an excellent record on human rights. On the other hand it seems to be doing all that it can to obstruct inquiries into collusion.

Despite the fact that Sir John Stevens, then investigating the murder of Patrick Finucane, came to the conclusion that there was evidence of collusion.

The systems put in place since then by the government, in particular with the Inquiries Bill which is going through parliament at the moment, indicate the government is not too keen to let the real truth be known in these situations.

They appear to be allowing government ministers to prevent any tribunal of inquiry that is set up from hearing important information relevant to the handling of informers. That has the potential to completely undermine the effectiveness of any investigation.

Question: Does that create the impression that the government has something to hide?

Professor Dickson: If the government does not have something to hide then it should be as open and transparent as possible in these investigations.

The current government, I hope, cannot be held responsible for the mistakes of previous governments so I don't see why the current government has to be so coy about bringing out into the open systems failures in the past.

Nor is it necessary for anyone to be prosecuted for what went on in the past. We are living in an era when truth is more important than justice as regards the conflict in Northern Ireland.

There is debate at the moment about a truth commission for Northern Ireland. If that takes place then all the dirty dealings on the part of the security forces in the past would need to be brought out into the open.

Question: Would you like to see a truth commission for Northern Ireland established?

Professor Dickson: The position of the Human Rights Commission is there should be some kind of truth recovery mechanism put in place.

We think there should be a lot more consultation throughout Northern Ireland on what form that mechanism should take and whether it should focus on mainly on getting to the truth, or also to some extent on establishing responsibility for certain actions.

The Good Friday agreement already has a kind of truth provision in it to the extent that there is an early release system for people who are convicted of crimes committed before 1998.

None of them can serve more than two years in jail unless, and this is where the inconsistency arises, they are members of the security forces as opposed to members of paramilitary organisations.

So if any kind of truth commission or truth recovery mechanism were set up, we think it would need to deal with all perpetrators on an equal basis be they members of the security forces or members of the unlawful paramilitary organisations.

Question: Has the issue of human rights been given the prominence in the peace process talks that you think it deserves?

Professor Dickson: No, I don't. I think the government, having set up the Human Rights Commission and done other things on the human rights front, has really neglected the area very much.

For example, the Human Rights Commission itself issued a report, as it was obliged to do by statute, two years after being created.

The report went in in 2001 on whether we needed extra powers to be a really effective organisation. The government to this day has still not issued a definitive report.

They have allowed, it seems to us, the powers of the commission to be used as one of the bargaining chips in the talks between the political parties.

I wouldn't be surprised if the two prime ministers don't make some reference to the powers of the Human Rights Commission which they see as something they can give to Sinn Fein in return for concessions from the republican movement.

The reality is that human rights should be above politics, and the Human Rights Commission needs effective powers whatever the political environment in which it is working.

Question: You've been making your case for more powers to the government, have you had any response from them?

Professor Dickson: We had a provisional response, something like 15 months after our report went in. That was in the form of a consultation paper which we responded to in August 2002.

Since then there has been nothing from the government about our powers, nor have they moved to fill the various vacancies in the Commission which have arisen through people having to leave the Commission for one reason or another.

The government could be accused of letting the Human Rights Commission wind down and become less effective due to the lack of numbers of commissioners and the lack of powers that we have.

Question: You would suggest that is through political expediency and negotiating tactics?

Professor Dickson: I am saying that the government has allowed human rights to be politicised in Northern Ireland, and the Human Rights Commission to be politicised.

That is very bad for the whole concept of human rights because political parties will try to manipulate the concept of human rights to suit their own political agendas.

By definition, human rights should be above the party fray, and we as a Commission would very much like the government to be more prominent in its defence and upholding of human rights standards.

Question: What impact have the various pieces of anti-terrorism legislation had on human rights in Northern Ireland?

Professor Dickson: Northern Ireland has a whole raft of anti-terrorism legislation that are on top of the on top of the anti-terrorism provisions that exist for the whole of the UK.

Just two weeks ago the United Nations' committee against torture, in its concluding observations in the UK's periodic report, said the government had failed to make out a case as to why these additional measures were still required in Northern Ireland.

They, too, have been allowed to remain in place as part of a part of a potential bargaining chip for the talks that are ongoing.

If there is movement from, in particular, the republican paramilitaries on certain issues then the government might be able to relax some of the extra anti terrorism measures.

Apart from being immoral in itself, that ignores the fact that there are very active loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland who are able to wreak just as much havoc as republicans.

Question: Are there specific anti-terrorism provisions that you would like to see repealed?

Professor Dickson: We'd like to see the repeal of the Diplock court system, which is still very much up and running. People are being tried and convicted of offences with no jury present.

In other words we have a kind of dual criminal justice system in Northern Ireland, with some people being tried with a jury and others tried for the same kind of offence without a jury.

Now however you look at it, that is an unequal way of doing things.

We are also opposed t the use of special arrest powers in Northern Ireland. We think the ordinary criminal justice arrest powers could do the job just as well.

Question: How do you react to the political parties in Northern Ireland which talk about human rights but are linked to paramilitary organisations that engage in things like punishment beatings?

Professor Dickson: We have been very vocal in condemning those parties for being hypocritical on the issue of human rights.

We have made a point of saying in our last two annual reports that the biggest perpetrators of human rights abuses of human rights violations in Northern Ireland are the paramilitary organisations.

And in fact the loyalist paramilitary organisations have carried out more punishment shootings and beatings than republicans in the last two years.

But for some parties to be calling for improvements in the human rights situation, and they are always pretty unspecific about what they mean by that, and on the other hand not to be doing all they can to bring these punishment beatings and shootings to an end is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Question: Much of the human rights focus in Northern Ireland is on issues such as terrorism and security issues, How much of a problem are other issues such as racism?

Professor Dickson: There are big concerns. There has been a very worrying rise in the number of racist attacks on Northern Ireland, and in the number of sectarian attacks as well, based on religion.

We are seeing more of the, if you like, ordinary human rights violations arising in Northern Ireland than ever before.

On the social and economic side as well, we are seeing denial of rights to people with disabilities where Northern Ireland lags behind the rest of the UK in that area.

We are seeing greater inequalities in income levels within Northern Ireland, we are seeing Traveller children denied proper access to healthcare and education.

Generally there are a whole raft of human rights issues that need attention in Northern Ireland apart from those connected with the Troubles.

Question: Across the UK there has been new anti-terrorism legislation and plans for further measures, are we seeing a general trend that now gives less respect to human rights in Britain?

Professor Dickson: Yes we are I think. And we are seeing an unfortunate tendency to set human rights up against security as if they are bi-polar opposites.

In fact providing security is an aspect of providing human rights protection, because the first right that people have is the right to be secure in their beds at night.

I think the UK government has over-reacted to the international terrorism threat. It is the only one of the 36 Council of Europe states to derogate from the European Convention because of the alleged post-9/11 threat.

There are also some other steps that could be taken, and have been recommended by important committees of parliament and Privy Councillors, instead of the internment provisions that are currently in the anti-terrorism act of 2001.

Question: Are we undermining Britain's traditional respect for human rights with an over-reaction to the terrorist threat?

Professor Dickson: It is an over-reaction and it is almost a "splendid isolation" approach. It is as if Britain, like America, has some kind of special position for itself and think that only it can see the right way to deal with terrorism or the right way to comply with international human rights standards.

Just as America is one of only two countries in the whole world not to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the other country being Somalia which doesn't have a government, so Britain is the only European country to step outside the European Convention when dealing with anti-terrorism measures and I just don't think it is necessary to do that.

One of the lessons from Northern Ireland is that excessive anti-terrorism measures can themselves become part of the problem that has to be solved, rather than part of the solution.

Question: So the government's anti-terrorism laws are going to prove counter-productive?

Professor Dickson: I think the detention without trial provisions are completely unnecessary.

Of course the government can easily sustain them because only a few people are involved and the population as a whole will not clamour and shout about it.

But there are other measures that could be taken, such as using evidence obtained through telephone taps or through supervised release in the community of those people who are being detained.

Those measures would at least sure that people aren't locked up indefinitely suffering mental anguish, to put it mildly, and ruining the name of Britain as regards human rights.

Question: Do we lack the checks and balances, the constitutional mechanisms, to prevent a government with a large majority doing whatever it wants with human rights?

Professor Dickson: Because we live in a system of parliamentary sovereignty rather than a system that has a written constitution, parliament can do whatever it wants including repealing or providing exceptions to the Human rights Act 1998.

But it is also a fault at the international level, because international standards of human rights are still not as developed as they need to be.

They don't tell democratic government show they should run themselves. They don't, for example, say anything about the need for power-sharing in a society that is divided.

They don't put restraints on a government that is elected with a massive majority as the current Labour government is.

We ought to put constraints on that government as to how it should consult with other constituencies and society, and as to how it should not abuse its electoral power.

There is considerable room for nuancing human rights and democratic standards through the world.

Question: Is there any question of that actually happening? Does the political will exist?

Professor Dickson: There are some signs that the whole concept of good governance is being infiltrated into the concept of human rights.

I think at the United Nations' level it is increasingly being realised that conflict resolution is not just about human rights, it is about putting in place democratic systems that are inclusive of all elements of society, that realise that power needs to be evenly distributed and fairly exercise.

As regards detailed standards and institutions at the UN or other inter-governmental level, there is still a huge amount to be done.

I hope that the recently announced proposals for reform to the UN itself, by increasing for example the members of the security council, that itself will eventually be put in place and trickle down to national and state levels.

Question: Finally, do plans for the introduction of identity cards pose a threat to human rights?

Professor Dickson: I think they potentially do, so much depends on the detail of the legislation that provides for them.

I think most people in society would welcome their lives being made more simple if they had one ID card. But they would be very alarmed, and rightly so, if their lives could be made terribly complicated if they were to lose their ID card.

There should also be safeguards in place to ensure that the information on the ID card is not used for improper purposes.

The Human Rights Commission view on this is that ID cards are acceptable in principle but there needs to be adequate safeguards in place to ensure that they are not abused.