Proposed new legislation to over-ride sections of the Northern Ireland Protocol poses a “significant threat” to human rights protections, a new report has contended.
Negotiations between UK and EU officials restarted last week. However, the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is continuing to make its way through parliament.
The Bill, which is set to be debated in the House of Lords in the coming weeks, would allow the UK Government to effectively tear up parts of the protocol.
Prime Minister Liz Truss, who drafted the Bill as Foreign Secretary in May, insisted the Bill is “consistent with our obligations in international law and in support of our prior obligations in the Belfast Good Friday agreement”.
But this has been challenged in a joint report produced by academics at the Human Rights Centre in Queen’s University Belfast and the Donia Human Rights Centre at the University of Michigan.
They said that despite assurances from the Government the legislation “empowers ministers to undermine hard-won human rights protections contained in the Belfast-Good Friday Agreement and protected in the Northern Ireland Protocol negotiated with the European Union (EU)”.
One of the authors of the report, Professor Christopher McCrudden of Queen’s University Belfast, urged the House of Lords to act.
“The House of Lords has the opportunity to fix this unacceptable and reckless unpicking of the protections that the EU and the UK agreed in the protocol to safeguard the human rights protections in the Northern Ireland peace agreement,” he said.
The Good Friday Agreement includes a section on rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity.
In the study, the academics have voiced concern that the UK’s exit from the EU would weaken these existing human rights and equality mechanisms in Northern Ireland.
The report also finds that the UK Government is “acting contrary to international law” through the introduction of the Bill, unless it can offer a justification for this breach.
The authors contend the attempt to ground such a justification in “necessity” fails, providing no justification.
The report concludes: “There are neither political nor legal justifications for these actions. In particular, the UK Government’s claim of necessity has no legal basis in general and none in respect of Article 2 (of the European Convention on Human Rights).”
Responding to the report, a UK Government spokeswoman said: “The Bill is consistent with our obligations in international law – and in support of our prior obligations to the Belfast Good Friday Agreement.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here