| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
'--(1) On the expiry of the third year following the establishment of the Human Rights Commission, the Secretary of State shall invite the Commission to submit a report reviewing its activities to date and, if appropriate, submitting proposals for revising its mandate and structure.
(2) The Secretary of State shall, following public consultation on the report of the Commission, bring forward such proposals as he feels are appropriate, taking into account the report of the Commission and the process of public consultations.'.
Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend the Minister inadvertently misled the Committee--or perhaps I misheard him--when he was speaking about the powers of the new Human Rights Commission. He gave the impression that it was to be empowered to examine all legislation from the new Assembly. That is not what the Bill says. I propose in amendment No. 43 that the Assembly should refer proposed measures to the commission in draft and that, if the commission gives advice on whether the measure is compatible with human rights, that advice should be taken into account.
The Assembly should have a responsibility to send all draft legislation to the commission. The commission should have the discretion to choose which measures to comment on. For the commission to have scrutiny powers only when issues are referred by the Assembly would reduce its effectiveness. Requiring the commission to comment properly on all legislation would overburden it and disable it from acting strategically, concentrating on issues that are considered to be of primary importance. It is preferable for the Assembly to be required to receive the commission's views and consider how best to respond than for the initiative to come from the Assembly.
Amendment No. 44 would extend the power of the commission when considering various international organs and statutes to enable it to consider issues on the international stage as well as in the European context. The Paris convention of the United Nations is one example.
New clause 2 mirrors existing legislation for the Fair Employment Commission, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality, enabling the commission to initiate litigation if it considers that there is a pattern of human rights violations. That would enable the commission to be more effective.
New clause 3 would give the commission powers that it currently lacks to investigate breaches of human rights and the rights envisaged in the Paris principle. The crucial issue is what powers the commission should be given to make such investigations effective. The amendment would provide that the commission, like the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, would have the power to allow discovery of documents and to require witnesses to attend and testify at an inquiry, together with adequate safeguards to ensure procedural fairness for witnesses.
New clause 14 would make provision for the Human Rights Commission to report on its work after a number of years, and to consider what improvements might be made. That mirrors the provision in the Fair Employment Acts for an examination of what was happening under the Acts, which resulted in the report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, on which I hope to see legislation in the next Session.
Mr. McGrady:
The functions and powers of the Human Rights Commission are among the most important aspects of the Belfast agreement. It is important that the Bill reflects the letter and the spirit of the commitments entered into by the two Governments and the other signatories to the agreement.
The SDLP is not satisfied that the Bill gives full expression to the letter and spirit of the agreement on the Human Rights Commission. The commission must be a
powerful guardian of new standards resulting from the implementation of the agreement. In our debates on clause 54 and schedule 8, we have dealt briefly with the resources and personnel at the disposal of the commission and its composition. Those factors--finance, composition and personnel--will determine the quality, the style and the importance of the commission. The enormous wealth of international expertise might be brought to bear on the commission's problems.
The amendments are crucial to help the Human Rights Commission in its initiating role, its investigations of violations and non-performance on issues within its remit and its scrutiny of proposed legislation. Those are vital issues. I am fearful that a repeat of the assurance that the Minister gave on the issues raised on clause 54 and schedule 8--that the matters will be considered at length over the summer and reflected in amendments in the other place--will not give us a chance to tie down some of the existing requirements, agreed by two Governments and eight parties. The aim of the amendments is to ensure that the Human Rights Commission is fully able to undertake the matters referred to it.
It would be inappropriate to repeat the argumentsof my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), but perhaps I could refer to a further issue that is not reflected in the Bill. In paragraph 10, under the heading "Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity", the agreement says:
I repeat that we are not satisfied that the letter and spirit of the agreement are fully reflected in the Bill. We are, alas, very dependent on the Minister taking on board what has been said, listening to the consultation which he has promised during the summer months and making available amendments to implement the aspects that have been omitted and to create the joint committee before the matter goes to the other place for final consideration.
Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire):
Amendment No. 155 is essentially the same as amendment No. 43, which was moved by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), with the exception that it would replace the phrase "proposed Measures" in amendment No. 43 with "Bills". We thought it appropriate to reflect the change between the draft Bill and the Bill before us in the amendment. The amendment's aim is largely the same as that of amendment No. 43: to seek elucidation of the exact process by which the commission will comment and provide advice on Bills and draft Bills--not least because the commission will welcome such guidance.
Our ideal is that all Bills comply with human rights requirements. That could be achieved if all Bills were referred to the commission every time that it can make a contribution--at an early stage, just after the Bill is published, and once again at the end of the process, once the Assembly has amended them. It would certainly take far too long if the commission were invited or expected to examine every new dot or comma and every tiny change. We need to ensure that the Human Rights Commission sees the Bills on enough occasions and at the right times in order for it to comply with the requirements. At the same time, we must ensure that demands on it are not so strict and persistent that the whole process would be held up.
"It is envisaged that there would be a joint committee of representatives of the two Human Rights Commissions, North and South, as a forum for consideration of human rights issues in the island of Ireland. The joint committee will consider, among other matters, the possibility of establishing a charter, open to signature by all democratic political parties, reflecting and endorsing agreed measures for the protection of the fundamental rights of everyone living in the island of Ireland."
How does the Minister see that being provided for and, indeed, implemented under the powers of the Human Rights Commission and its sister group in the Republic of Ireland for the purpose of ensuring that the human rights of all citizens of Ireland--north and south--are dealt with comprehensively and harmoniously? As the Minister rightly said in relation to clause 54, this very important area took up considerable debating time in the inter-party talks.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |