| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.45 pm
Taken together, amendments Nos. 189, 190 and 191 go slightly further than the wording in the agreement. There does not seem to be a mandate in the agreement for demanding that the commission ensure the creation of such a north-south commission, although it is certainly in the spirit of the agreement--indeed, the language of the agreement implies that it would be reasonable--to take the matter a little further. I would be very supportive of that. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on that group of amendments.
I very much support new clause 3, which would allow the commission to be proactive as well as reactive in upholding human rights and ensuring that justice is done. It makes it easier for the commission to ensure that test cases--class actions--can be brought forward rather than an individual being required to bring forward a case which the commission could investigate. It seems right thatthe commission can embark on such an approach.
The amendments provide that, like the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the commission has specific powers to enable discovery of documents and to require witnesses to attend and testify before such an inquiry--together with adequate safeguards to ensure procedural fairness for witnesses. All in all, therefore, new clause 3 would significantly strengthen the commission's opportunities to act proactively. Given the clear spirit and intent of the agreement, it would be very helpful if the Government seriously considered accepting new clause 3, or something very similar, during their deliberations over the next few months.
Amendment Nos. 155, 43, 189 to 191 and new clause 3 would strengthen the sections of the Bill on the commission's work and are very much in line with the agreement.
Mr. Corbyn:
I should like to draw the Committee's attention to amendment No. 177, which was tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). It concerns the role of the Secretary of State in asking for a review within one year. New clause 14, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and others, would require a review at the end of the third year. My hon. Friend and I suggest that an earlier review might be more appropriate.
Given the growing power of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights and the importance of human rights that many Governments are now recognising, it would be appropriate if, in reviewing proceedings, the Secretary of State and the commission consulted the UN high commission on whether it feels that the Human Rights Commission's operations are in line with UN best practice. Indeed, the UN high commission could provide helpful advice. In Northern Ireland, we are--hopefully--moving towards a much more peaceful future, where respect for human rights is a cornerstone. The greater the transparency and the greater the involvement of international organisations such as the UN high commission, the more successful the Human Rights Commission is likely to be.
I welcome amendment No. 189, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and others, for its desire for transparency in the commission's work. I am however surprised that its says only that the commission "may . . . publish" some of its findings. It would be more appropriate for the commission to make public all its findings and research, so that people have much more confidence in it and do not suspect that some unpublished evidence is lurking around which might be the subject of leaks or speculation. Transparency is most important if we are to overcome all the difficulties in Northern Ireland.
Mr. John D. Taylor:
The Minister will recall that, in the multi-party talks prior to the Belfast agreement, there was considerable discussion of human rights, especially human rights in the Republic of Ireland. When the Council of Europe at Strasbourg debated the agreement, it requested in its resolution that provision be made for human rights in the Republic of Ireland, as required by the European convention on human rights.
In the multi-party talks, subjects such as family planning legislation, divorce legislation and compulsory Irish in schools were raised. In particular, there was
discussion about the discrimination against Protestants from Northern Ireland who marry people from the Republic and move there, but cannot find employment in the public sector because they have never learnt the Irish language. Of all the professions, schoolteachers are most aggrieved at that discrimination; they cannot find jobs, even in Protestant schools, because the rules forbid the employment of teachers who do not have a qualification in Gaelic.
The creation of a human rights commission in the Republic of Ireland would be an important part of the new arrangement within the island of Ireland, by which, I hope, Northern Ireland will be able to live at ease with its neighbour. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind as consideration of the Bill continues.
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster):
I agree with the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor)--one of the welcome features of the Belfast agreement is that parallel movement in the south will cover the problem to which he alludes. Indeed, further provision is made for joint participation on the human rights front; the two commissions will eventually, I hope, have a joint body where such issues can be raised when anyone, on either side of the border, fails to come up to scratch.
Mr. McNamara:
The thought occurred to me thatthat would be an excellent subject for a cross-border committee between Dail Eireann and the new Assembly--such a committee could explore all sorts of problems.
Mr. Temple-Morris:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. No doubt the right hon. Member for Strangford has heard what he said and will in time support such a progressive endeavour.
I underline what my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said about the importance of the clause and the functions of the commission. Under the Bill as it stands, the commission has a benevolence about it; it is an also-ran to almost everyone. However, it does not have many teeth, which is what a human rights body needs if it is to be effective.
That is why I think that the phraseology of the amendment is superior to that of the Bill. I also think, with respect, that the amendment would be more effective than amendment No. 155--although I agree with every word that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said--so I hope that the Minister will actively consider it. It is only right that all measures should be referred from the Assembly to the commission. Equally, the commission should not be obliged to submit its opinion in all cases; it should be free to do so when it wills. Currently, the proposal is on the weak side.
I put almost a higher priority on new clauses 2 and 3, which contain the real teeth. Those of us who have had anything to do with human rights matters will be aware that the power to bring injunctions is vital; the efficacy of the commission could be transformed if it were able to conduct its own investigations rather than only advise others.
Dr. Godman:
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), I believe that the
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough):
I support new clauses 2 and 3. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) has made the point that I wanted to make. I vividly recall how strongly I felt, hearing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State report on the Belfast agreement, that the human rights measures set a future standard for the whole of the United Kingdom--they represent a powerful articulation of what we should deliver.
My concern is that the Bill does not fully articulate all the points in the agreement. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde, I believe that new clause 2 would deal with one aspect of that. Moreover, I believe that new clause 3 would deal with the power to investigate.
To be proactive and to get to the bottom of abuses, a human rights body requires an investigatory power. The Paris principles state that human rights commissions should have powers
"apply to the High Court for an injunction".
That is utterly compatible with the agreement, which states, in paragraph 5 on page 17, that the commission's role not only should be advisory and consultative, but should include
"in appropriate cases, bringing court proceedings or providing assistance to individuals doing so."
That would give the commission the power of sanction, which would be most welcome.
"to examine any situation involving violation of human rights".
Without such powers, the commission will not be in accord with those principles or be as effective as it could be.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |