Annual Human Rights Statement 2025 Launch: Address by Chief Commissioner Alyson Kilpatrick

Welcome to everyone who has joined us today, in Stormont and online.

It is a great thrill to have so many people interested in our work.

Thank you to the Assembly’s Chief Executive, Lesley Hogg, for helping us launch the Commission’s report on the state of human rights in Northern Ireland. It is exactly right that our local democratic institution is where we should be reporting on human rights.

This report is our assessment of the last 12 months.

12 months during which we fulfilled our statutory functions - the functions of an institution, established by the Belfast Good Friday Agreement, which was voted for by a huge majority in referenda north and south, and implemented democratically in Westminster and Stormont.

It was a commitment made to the Council of Europe, that the Commission would be protected as a fully functioning independent National Human Rights Institution, as to which I will say more later.

It is an important commitment of the Windsor Framework, that government will continue to support our work – so central it is to the Belfast Good Friday Agreement and to the UK’s international standing.

Crucially, it was not the establishment of the institution that really mattered, but its operation and effectiveness in practice.

The Commission is obliged to demonstrate its compliance with international principles, including its complete independence from government. While the Commission is treated as an arms-length public body, for practical accounting reasons, it is much more than that.

Its constitution, powers and duties are unique and based upon the international Paris Convention.

Government promised to protect and support this unique standing.

Why? Because it matters - at home and abroad.

This year feels – to me – to be particularly important.

It marks 75 years of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

It marks 25 years of application of the Human Rights Act, across the UK.

It also marks a year in which the very notion of universal human rights is increasingly under threat.

The European Convention on Human Rights was the first drafted by the Council of Europe, and remains its singular greatest achievement.

It is still the cornerstone of all its activities. Ratification of the Convention is a prerequisite of membership of the Council of Europe.

The UK is one of 46 members of the Council.

We can also mark 66 years of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.

Northern Ireland is the origin of many seminal cases before that court. We have benefitted from its oversight and have contributed to its jurisprudence.

When, in 1998, our politicians came together to agree a new foundation, upon which we were to build a post-conflict society, they did so in full knowledge of the operation of the Convention and the operation of the European Court.

It was accepted and understood that despite the many sacrifices made by the people of Northern Ireland, generations of pain, trauma and grief, lives lost and lives lived in fear and distrust, we could move forward but only if we embraced the human rights compact – only then would we have a just, equal, prosperous Northern Ireland for the next generations.

What the Human Rights Act did, was to make good the promises of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement, including the full incorporation of the European Convention into Northern Ireland law and, in turn, secure practical accountability at home.

It was a simple, yet profound piece of legislation.

Because all of the UK’s public authorities must comply with the European Convention or face the consequences in a domestic court or tribunal, rights can be enjoyed in practice.

For the last 25 years it has protected us when we are at our best and when we are at our worst.

The Human Rights Act introduced a real democratic accountability. It makes it express, in our national system, that democracy values everyone equally, even when the majority does not – particularly when the majority does not.

It forces public authorities to think about and record what they are doing - in a structured, intelligent and pragmatic way.

Incorporation of the Convention was neither accidental nor incidental.

It was deliberate, knowing and democratic. It was not limited by time. Most importantly of all, it was not limited in its application.

It applies to every single person in Northern Ireland.

It was intended to, and must, benefit all men and women, disabled persons and those without disabilities, adults and children, those born here and those born elsewhere, those identifying as British or Irish, those enforcing the law and those who come into conflict with the law, the tax payer and the unwaged.

Of course.

How could it not have been?

If it was to benefit anyone they knew it had to benefit everyone.

If we learned anything, as a result of conflict, it is that not everybody is born equal or allowed to thrive, but that without active protection and a legal system that acknowledges and enforces equality, many are doomed to a life of inequality and struggle.

We all understand that – instinctively – but sometimes allow ourselves to push it aside.

Over time, because incorporation changed things, those, for whom it created accountability, sometimes lashed out against it.

Those who do not have our best interests at heart, resent its constraints. They prefer to divide us and thrive off our despair.

By dividing people - encouraging them to question each other rather than those in power, our rights are deprecated without us even noticing.

Anti-human rights rhetoric encourages people to look at what others have and how they got it, rather than what has not been provided by the powerful.

The Convention and what it stands for – unity, equality, fairness, accountability – is the perfect scapegoat. But for the constraints of the Convention, the UK could be great again – so it goes.

Great again for whom exactly? - we are entitled to ask.

Not for ethnic minorities, not for women, not for the victims of crime, not for the survivors of abuse, not for the security forces, not for lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people, not for those with disabilities, not for children, not for families.

There are some who will say that the Convention was good in its day but it has lost the run of itself here, and rights have developed beyond what common sense allows.

To that, the answer is - human rights do not work, if they do not evolve. Evolution is tricky at times but it’s what people do – and human rights must evolve with them.

They mean very little unless they apply to people, regardless of where they started or what they represent, or whether they are part of, for example, a new wave of migration.

If you start to fiddle with the Convention or its universal application, you undermine it fatally.

Take a dent out of any of it, and it all begins to crumble.

You might be sitting pretty right now, but imagine a change in your circumstances, a change in societies tastes that don’t align with yours, a demographic shift that puts you in the minority, or, a stupid mistake that you make which causes others lose their respect for you?

What then?

The UK Government has pledged to keep the Human Rights Act and the Convention. They have committed to human rights and their universal realisation, which is welcomed.

But it can be more difficult to maintain a commitment to universal human rights during global crises, when many of the loudest opponents are engaged in a pile on.

We need to speak louder, to advocate for human rights and demonstrate how the Convention and the Human Rights Act have helped us and can continue to.

We must do that without fear or favour – that well-worn phrase, that must be revived and used truthfully.

Critics often categorise human rights and human rights advocates as ‘political’ – it is not meant as a compliment.

Human rights are political, in the sense that the politicians we elect to represent us and keep us safe have the power to improve and undermine rights protection. We must therefore engage with and challenge them, but it is wholly wrong to equate that with nefarious politicking.

Human rights keep us all safe.

They protect life and make life worth living, they allow us to express our faith or our lack of it, allow us to vote for one party or another.

Human rights allow us to go to any public authority and demand equal treatment, to assemble with others to celebrate, or to protest peacefully.

They ensure that children are protected and educated, that patients receive compassionate care that is dignified. They ensure that journalists can investigate abuse and tell us about it, they protect our service men and women from harm and protect us from harm, if they go wrong.

Human rights, if properly understood, care not one bit for party politics, for allegiance, or status. For example, they care not what, or whether, you follow a religion, where you were born, what you aspire to be, which party you vote for, or whether you fail to vote.

Neither does the Human Rights Commission.

This annual report gives some indication of the issues and the people that human rights touch upon and engage with.

It is what we do every day.

Much of our work does not attract public attention, but it goes on with as much vigour, because it matters to people and therefore matters to us.

We do at times engage publicly – not because we want attention for the sake of it – but because we have a statutory duty to educate and to promote a human rights culture in Northern Ireland.

That can be daunting, because it can pitch us against government and even, sometimes, against public opinion, but it is our job to continue, however uncomfortable.

The NI Human Rights Commission was established to be the National Human Rights Institution.

That is a term of art – it is a body that is recognised by the United Nations and subject to review and accreditation. It sits on a global stage with very particular purposes.

The High Commissioner has said this:

“NHRIs are uniquely placed to hold governments to account and advance human rights. As state-created and state-funded institutions, they enjoy special legitimacy and access to policy makers. At the same time, they are mandated to co-operate closely with civil society.

“They can thus function as a bridge between civil society and the authorities, while at the same time, being independent from both. As local actors, NHRIs have a deep understanding of the domestic context and can conduct persistent advocacy for change”

The Secretary of State, back in early debates on the formation of the Commission said:

“When it is formed, we will have one of the strongest human rights institutions in Europe...

“It will be a powerful voice and force in developing, through education and research, an active human rights culture in Northern Ireland. It will be independent of Government, employing its own staff and deciding how best to carry out its tasks…”

He went on:

“The term "human rights" is deliberately not strictly defined in the Bill, to give the commission the greatest possible freedom to determine for itself the standards of human rights protection against which laws and practices should be judged.”

Peter Bottomley MP noted that the Commission must not have to work through Ministers but that it needed “the ability not to do only what Ministers want. It needs to be able to do what it wants, even if Ministers are not convinced of the arguments”.

A National Human Rights Institution is meant to be prospective in its advice, in that it advises on the adequacy of law and policy as well the effectiveness of law.

Moreover, the reason that the power for the Commission to litigate in its own name has been considered and reiterated is that an NHRI must have the ability to advocate or litigate to change the law, policy or practice to ensure it accords with human rights standards.

Human rights standards are not set solely by local courts.

The power to litigate to challenge government action, including primary legislation, and ultimately to appear before the European Court of Human Rights would be pointless if the Commission was only ever meant to analyse the law as it stands and as interpreted by the domestic courts.

All of that was known and accepted when the Commission was set up.

The power to litigate to challenge government action, including primary legislation, and ultimately to appear before the European Court of Human Rights having been through the UK Supreme Court, would be pointless if the Commission was only ever meant to analyse the law as it stands and as interpreted by the domestic courts.

May I end with a word to my colleagues and to all the other human rights defenders out there.

We must keep going.

The Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner stressed recently:

“Maintaining independence and working on unpopular issues takes great strength and courage.”

He explained that independent NHRIs are human rights defenders and should have access to effective protection mechanisms.

Otherwise, he said:

“What is at stake is the weakening of effective human rights protection for all in democratic societies. It is only when NHRIs are able to operate independently and efficiently that they can also offer adequate protection to individuals and other human rights defenders.”

To those who are reading this report for the first time, please bear that in mind.

To those who are responsible for what is in this report, both within our office and as stakeholders, I thank you.

This work matters, and it is our duty to continue to the best of our ability, for the benefit of all of the people of Northern Ireland, who we are fortunate to serve.

To the young people who have shown interest in human rights – no pressure - but we are depending on you.

We have been inspired by you when we visit schools and any time we meet you about our work.

You seem to have a compassion and visceral appreciation for equality that is often lost later in life.

Get yourselves equipped with human rights tools and use them, not just for yourselves, but for others.

With that, I have the very great pleasure and honour to introduce Lord Anderson of Ipswich, David, if I may?

David is a barrister practising from Brick Court Chambers and a cross-bench peer.

He is a Visiting Professor at Kings College London, a member of the advisory council of Transparency International UK and chair of the European Institute at University College London.

David sits on the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords and chairs the trustees of Inter Mediate, a charity which facilitates peace negotiations in some of the world’s most complex and dangerous conflicts.

From 2011-2017, David served as the Government’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and continues to report publicly on related subjects including surveillance, intelligence-handling and Prevent (2025).

He was knighted in 2018 for services to national security and civil liberties.

I have given you an overview of his achievements, but I assure you it is only a snippet, because David is the rarest of people – he has an intellect that few can match, I wouldn’t even consider trying, which sits alongside what is often called ‘a common touch’ but is something very rare.

What David has in my experience is integrity, compassion and courage in the pursuit of public service, and a sense of equality and justice that has made him the best lawyer I have ever met.

That is why we asked him here today. It is what we strive for at the Commission and what I continue to work toward myself.

David, thank you.

Alyson Kilpatrick

Chief Commissioner