UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 150-ii

HOUSE OF LORDS

House of COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE

JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

BRITISH BILL OF RIGHTS

Monday 14 January 2008

MR ROGER JEARY, MR JOHN USHER,

MS HANNAH REED and MS CAROLYNE WILLOW

Evidence heard in Public Questions 47 - 80

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Joint Committee on Human Rights

on Monday 14 January 2008

Members present:

Mr Andrew Dismore, in the Chair

________________

Memoranda submitted by Unite the Union, Trades Union Congress

and Children's Right Alliance for England

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Mr Roger Jeary, Director of Research and Mr John Usher, Legal Officer, Unite the Union; Ms Hannah Reed, Senior Employment Rights Officer, Trades Union Congress; Ms Carolyne Willow, National Co-ordinator, Children's Rights Alliance for England, gave evidence.

Chairman: We are now going into our second session for the afternoon. We are joined by Carolyne Willow, who is the National Co-ordinator for the Children's Rights Alliance for England; Roger Jeary, Director of Research, and John Usher, Legal Officer of Unite the Union; and Hannah Reed from the Trades Union Congress. Welcome to you all. I think we have got some declarations of interest at the start.

John Austin: Could I just place on record that I am a member of Unite,

Lord Morris of Handsworth: And me.

Mr Sharma: Me too.

Earl of Onslow: I am not!

Dr Harris: I am a member of the BMA, I do not know whether that counts.

Q47 Chairman: No, the BMA does not count, not in this context. We have got four of you so do not feel that everybody has to answer every question if it has been answered already otherwise we will be here for an awfully long time. We are a little bit late so if you could make your answers as succinct as possible. Perhaps I could start off by asking Carolyne, do you welcome the debate on a Bill of Rights?

Ms Willow: Yes, we do. We have set out five main reasons for that. First, despite the Human Rights Act and all the international treaties that the UK has helped to draft and has ratified there continues to be grave lack of public awareness and understanding of human rights in the UK, so we see this as an opportunity to assert human rights principles and requirements. Secondly, we believe that children now enjoy a much higher political priority nationally, internationally and across all the main political parties, so we very much hope that something substantial and good comes out of this process for children. Thirdly, given the cross-party support to end child poverty, we very much hope that social and economic rights, which we may come to, will not be dismissed out of hand and will be given serious consideration. Fourthly, there is now a mass of evidence of the UK's human rights failings and in my sector, the children's rights sector, this is very well documented so we feel that there is unprecedented pressure to actually increase the rights that children in particular have. Finally, we hope that this process allows us to revisit questions about what an effective remedy is for vulnerable groups of people like children, so not only the content of a Bill of Rights but also the process. We do have serious reservations, as I am sure you would expect, in relation to any dilution of the UK enforceable rights as they currently stand, the Human Rights Act, but we are very willing to be optimistic at this stage.

Q48 Chairman: Hannah, could I ask you, from the trade union point of view do you think it is a good idea to have a debate?

Ms Reed: The TUC welcomes the debate and, indeed, the Government's Green Paper on The Governance of Britain looking again at our constitutional arrangements and opening up a national debate as to whether there should be a Bill of Rights. The TUC's view is that if we do move towards developing a Bill of Rights in the UK there are two bottoms lines. First of all, we believe that the existing European Convention rights are non-negotiable and we would be very concerned about any moves to derogate from existing Convention rights. Perhaps more importantly from the trade union perspective, we hope that the debate on the Bill of Rights gives us an opportunity within Britain to explore the possibility of building on existing Convention rights, particularly increasing the range of collective rights and trade union rights across the UK. Trade union rights to bargain collectively, for trade unions to organise and, indeed, the right to strike are well-established within international human rights principles and laws. We are signatories within the UK to those minimum standards and we welcome the debate on the Bill of Rights as a means of ensuring that individuals and trade unions across the UK are able to access those rights within the UK.

Q49 Chairman: Roger, how do you think the people you represent would benefit from a British Bill of Rights?

Mr Jeary: Firstly, we would have to say from Unite that we share the views Hannah has just expressed about welcoming a debate on this issue, but in terms of a Bill of Rights itself we would be concerned as to what was in fact included within it and the extent of a Bill of Rights before we came to a conclusion that was the answer for our members. We do see a Bill of Rights as potentially providing a mechanism for benefiting our members within Unite to extend the collective rights which currently exist within the UK. As Hannah has referred to, there are many international standards which the UK Government has signed up to but a number of those, as has been recorded on a number of occasions, the UK Government has failed to provide or deliver and, in fact, has been in breach of those rights. A Bill of Rights for our members would certainly provide the opportunity, provided that a Bill of Rights included collective rights. We would have severe reservations were we to go down the road of a Bill of Rights which did not include collective rights and we would see that as worse than not having a Bill of Rights at all. We think the potential for a Bill of Rights does provide our members with an opportunity to actually address one of the issues which Unite has been hammering on about for the last two or three years and that is creating a level playing field within Europe which we believe currently British workers do not enjoy. We have registered our views on that on a number of occasions with different select committees and government ministers and the disadvantages that brings to British workers when choices are made about closures of factories and outsourcing of jobs, we believe as a result of most of the other Member States, in particular the 12 new accession states to the EU, all of which have included, with the exception of Malta, the issue of collective rights within their constitutions and that is something which we believe would be of great benefit to our members, to share the same level of benefit that gives to workers.

Q50 Baroness Stern: I want to ask you a few questions about the content of a possible Bill of Rights and we have already started this discussion. I would like to start by asking Carolyne, you have already said that you would like a British Bill of Rights to incorporate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in order to give better protection to children and I wonder if you could give some practical examples of what difference this would make and why it would be a good thing to do.

Ms Willow: Okay. There are some specific examples where children would benefit right now were the CRC incorporated. Those include the duty on the state to disseminate human rights information, which is a fairly uncontroversial duty, and right to access information. There is an overarching right in the Convention on the Rights of the Child in Article 12 to express views and to have those views given due consideration, so that would apply in all settings and in all decision-making processes. The right of the child to know who their parents are and to give consent to adoption. These are examples that are not currently reflected in domestic law. The right to privacy in civil and criminal proceedings. Article 40 of the Convention on Rights of the Child gives an extremely strong privacy protection to children which is not reflected in domestic law. Appearance in court and custody as a very last resort, that is another example of where the Children's Convention has tailor-made human rights for taking account of children's developing states and particular vulnerabilities. Our current position is that we would want the Convention on the Rights of the Child incorporated in its entirety without the reservations and with the optional protocols and, in addition, we would see there is a strong case for a children's section within a Bill of Rights so they have the incorporated rights within the CRC. This is where the evolution of the Convention on the Rights of the Child has brought us: new thinking and new jurisprudence from the Committee on the Rights of the Child. The children's section could include a range of things, including a duty on all those bodies carrying out a public function to positively uphold the rights of the Convention on the Rights of the Child having particular regard to Articles 2, 3, 6 and 12. These are the four Articles in the Convention on the Rights of the Child that the UN Committee has designated as general principles which run across all the rights in the Convention and they relate to non-discrimination, the child's best interest, the right to life and maximum development and to the child's views, which I mentioned earlier. The right to an effective remedy tailor-made for children. This would be a fairly innovative and new provision, not just for us but internationally. There are currently international debates about a complaints mechanism for the Convention on the Rights of the Child itself. These debates are happening internationally about what a complaints mechanism would look like to really be effective for children. The kinds of things that are being thought of include a duty on bodies carrying out a public function to inform children of their rights and remedies that are available to them; flexible time limits taking into account that it might not be until they are out of a situation that they feel strong and confident enough, or even are aware of their rights, to seek a remedy for past violations, children who come out of prison or long-term residential care, for example; the ability of interested organisations and class actions, which I think colleagues here would be interested in, on behalf of children, availability of Legal Aid, access to independent advocates, and decisions and judgments written in accessible language. You are probably short of time so let me give a couple more substantive examples of what might be in a children's section: a requirement on public authorities making decisions about the best interests of individual children to ensure any decisions take full account of the child's ascertainable wishes and feelings; a duty on the state to provide information on the Bill of Rights and children's rights in the National Curriculum; a duty on the state to provide information to parents at key moments, parents of newborns, entry into the formal education system, maybe at particular moments, a child who has been considered for custody, a child entering long-term residential care and so on. Finally - the list is longer but I am saying "finally" because I do not want to take too much time - the right to family life and to remain in contact with parents and siblings. There is not a specific provision in the Convention on the Rights of the Child in relation to the value and importance of sibling relationships and contact but that is part of children's rights thinking today. You will be aware that the Convention was adopted in 1989, drafted from 1979-89, so expectations and norms around children's rights have changed significantly.

Baroness Stern: Thank you.

Q51 Lord Morris of Handsworth: From what has been said so far and in the submissions, collective rights for both Unite and the TUC are a must-have in any Bill of Rights. Can I ask particularly the TUC, why do you think it is necessary to include collective rights, such as the right to organise, strike and to free collective bargaining, in a British Bill of Rights? Can you give some practical examples of where it would make a real difference?

Ms Reed: Thank you, Lord Morris, for the invitation to respond to that question. I would like to say at the outset that we believe there is much independent research within the UK and internationally which shows the beneficial role which trade unions play within the civic, democratic and social arenas. Trade unions play a very positive role in promoting equality, ensuring dignity within the workplace and encouraging individuals to participate in our democratic processes. However, there is a concern within the UK that due to the failure of our law to recognise the fundamental human rights of trade unions and of our members, the ability of trade unions to fully participate is being constrained. We recognise that the European Convention which is implemented into UK law through the Human Rights Act does protect the rights to freedom of association, however Article 11 is very limited and effectively only gives rights to individuals to join trade unions or, indeed, to choose not to join trade unions. It does not include the fuller rights for individuals to be represented by their trade unions collectively in workplaces, to bargain collectively or, indeed, to organise collective action. The conclusions of international agencies, such as the ILO Committee of Experts and, indeed, the supervisory bodies of the European Social Charter, have repeatedly found over the last ten years that UK law breaches the rights of trade unions and breaches the rights of individual members of trade unions. What practical difference would incorporating ILO Conventions, such as ILO Conventions 97 and 98, or, indeed, Article 5 and Article 6 of the European Social Charter make within the UK. First of all, it would ensure that all individuals would have the right to be represented by their trade union collectively in a workplace. Just this year the ILO Committee of Experts raised concerns about the threshold for small firms, which excludes individuals working in small firms employing fewer than 20 individuals, to access statutory recognition rights within the UK. Secondly, in guaranteeing these rights it would also ensure that individuals who participate in lawful industrial action are adequately protected from victimisation and dismissal. Thirdly, as was indeed highlighted in the recent ASLEF case before the European Court of Human Rights, by enshrining these collective rights within UK law it would ensure that trade unions' rights to autonomy, to set their own rulebooks, to determine how they operate, was reinstated. Unlike most other voluntary sector organisations within the UK, the unions are severely restricted in how we govern ourselves, how we determine who can be in our membership and who should not, and how we operate our democratic processes. We would like to see basic human rights confirming the rights of trade unions' own autonomy reinstated within UK law.

Q52 Lord Morris of Handsworth: You have made reference to Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights dealing with freedom of association. Can you say whether you think the protection for collective rights is adequate or not? You have touched on it and I am not sure what the message is.

Ms Reed: The TUC very much welcomes the slightly more expansive interpretation undertaken by the European Court of Human Rights in recent years on Article 11 but, as I have already said, there are concerns that the rights of freedom of association included within Article 11 are very limited. Basically it only gives rights to individuals to join trade unions, to be members of trade unions or, indeed, as we now know post the closed shop, to opt out of being in a trade union. Article 11 does not cover the fuller employment rights recognised by the ILO and the European Social Charter, rights to bargain collectively and, indeed, rights for unions to organise. We would very much welcome advances in UK law to guarantee these fundamental human rights for trade unions and for individual members.

Q53 Lord Morris of Handsworth: Thank you. My last question is primarily one for Unite based on what we understand Unite's position to be. Your comment says that: "A Bill of Rights that favours property and trade rights over collective or individual rights is worse for those who live in Britain than no Bill of Rights". Why do you think it would be better not to have a Bill of Rights than to have a Bill of Rights which excludes collective rights?

Mr Jeary: I think the answer to that, Lord Morris, is very simple. If you introduce a Bill of Rights in the UK and Britain you are establishing a set of rights which are fundamental to the citizens and human beings who live within the borders of this country. If by excluding, or not including, collective rights you are, in fact, diminishing the value of those collective rights still further, because people will see that as being not something which this country believes is a basic right of the people living in this country, that would seriously undermine our ability to take forward some of the issues that Hannah has referred to when we talk about freedom of association and the need for that. Freedom of association in itself for trade unions is worthless if it does not come with the collective right to recognition, the collective right to bargain on behalf of its members and the collective right to take action where necessary to defend the rights of its members. It is those collective rights which we see as being essential to redress the balance of power for the individual. Collective rights, and we make reference to this in our written submission, was looked at very carefully by the Supreme Court of Canada where they said: "Recognising that workers have the right to bargain collectively as part of their freedom to associate reaffirms the values of dignity, personal autonomy, equality and democracy that are inherent in the Canadian Charter for Rights". There is a clear linkage between expressing very clear collective rights with the individual as well.

Q54 Lord Morris of Handsworth: I recognise the interest that you promote, and that is quite legitimate, but a Bill of Rights would benefit the millions of citizens of the United Kingdom and some of those citizens would not have the collective rights because they are not subjected to, if you like, collective bargaining. Are you saying that it would be better for the rights that a Bill of Rights would confer on millions of people not to be conferred if collective rights is absent from the provision?

Mr Jeary: First, let us look at the right to collectively bargain. Millions of workers are excluded from that right at present because of UK legislation because they work for smaller firms and the redistribution of jobs that we have seen over recent years has increased the number of smaller employers quite significantly. Already people there are being excluded from their rights. Surely the point of having a Bill of Rights is to provide the sort of human rights that we would expect to see in any civilised nation state. That must include, in our view, the collective rights, and to exclude the collective rights from a Bill of Rights, as I have said, would in effect diminish collective rights to be of no real importance and, whether they be members of trade unions or not and, therefore, choose to participate in the collective right process, millions of individuals benefit from the collective rights process, first because they happen to work in places where collective rights exist and which are pursued and they benefit from them whether they are members or not, but, second, generally it is recognised by the research and actions of trade unions that trade unions do indeed bring, not only to the workplace but the community at large, a great deal in terms of the benefit of rights of individuals, not just to the workplace but through the social campaigns that collectively we are able to organise if we have those rights. I think the exclusion of those rights would be to the detriment of the nation as a whole and that is why we say quite clearly that if a Bill of Rights is to be introduced which does not include collective rights then we would rather not have a Bill of Rights at all.

Q55 Dr Harris: While the trade unions have the floor, I would like to ask whether you have any views on the language the Government uses, presumably with policy intent, of having a Bill of Rights that is not just a Bill of Rights but a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, implying some onus on the individual or at least the citizen. Do you have any views on that?

Mr Jeary: I think we clearly accept that if you have rights then you have responsibilities as well. Whether a Bill of Rights is the right place to enunciate those responsibilities we have some concerns because that could lead to undermining the individual rights by making them conditional upon exercising certain responsibilities.

Q56 Dr Harris: Why do you say where you have rights you have responsibilities? A one-year old child probably has rights, I think you would accept that, but what responsibilities would you impose on a child?

Mr Jeary: Personally, I would not.

Q57 Dr Harris: You just said that ---

Mr Jeary: I am talking in general terms. Where there are rights in general terms then they very often are accompanied by some responsibility. If I take the right of freedom of speech we would see there is a responsibility to use that freedom carefully and without inflaming any hatred of any sort whatsoever. That is a responsibility.

Q58 Dr Harris: I would like to explore that because it sounds great, but let us say there was a Nazi somewhere and I wanted to incite hatred against Nazis because I feel quite strongly about that and I use inflammatory language to do that, should I not be entitled to do that or should my right to free speech be constrained by your view of what should be polite in that circumstance?

Mr Jeary: What I am really saying is that the responsibilities that individual humans have within a nation state are more than adequately covered by other legislation than to be included within a Bill of Rights. Quite clearly when we talk about the issues about political speeches and the right of people to express views of a political nature, for example, that is a fundamental right, but not where it incites hatred of one part of the community or another.

Q59 Dr Harris: Even when it is lawful to do that, because we have laws, do we not?

Mr Jeary: We do, and that is what we are saying in terms of the responsibility issues, that there are adequate laws or adequate means to establish criminal and civil law to ensure that individuals exercise their responsibilities in a manner which is acceptable.

Q60 Dr Harris: Are you not just saying, and I do not mean to paraphrase you wrongly, that the responsibility is the responsibility to stay within the law, not a wider responsibility and, therefore, it is essentially otiose because it is self-evident that you have a responsibility to stay within the law or face the consequences, or would you say it is more than staying within the law?

Mr Jeary: We are saying exactly that, that it is the responsibility of individuals to stay within the law and the exercise of that responsibility is covered by criminal and civil law.

Q61 Dr Harris: Do you have anything to add?

Ms Reed: Our understanding of a Bill of Rights is a statement of human rights and we would have an understanding that human rights apply to all human beings and, therefore, would have some concern about entitlement to human rights being contingent upon compliance with certain responsibilities. However, it is important to note that the debate that has taken place so far around the Bill of Rights and responsibilities is not necessarily very clearly defined. As a membership organisation with the TUC we are continuing to develop our policy on a Bill of Rights and as the Government publishes any future consultation documents and maybe spells out in greater detail what is meant by responsibilities in this context then we will, of course, engage in that wider debate.

Q62 Dr Harris: Carolyne, your written evidence gives quite a lengthy view about your concerns about this. Without repeating what is in there, because we already have that, do you want to add to your concerns where you say that linking rights and responsibilities is especially dangerous for children?

Ms Willow: Yes. It is especially dangerous to children but it is not a new debate for us in the children's rights movement because almost as soon as the notion of children being rights holders established international pressure and force then politicians and others started to discuss and put on the table the notion of children also having responsibilities. Just to reiterate: a Bill of Rights tends to be a statement of accepted human rights and human rights are not contingent on behaviour. We can see through the playing out of antisocial behaviour legislation, for example, that even if a parent says, "If you do this, you lose these rights", that is not intentionally defined to hit hard on children but in reality because of their stage of development and particular vulnerability it can disproportionately impact them both in the numbers of children affected and the injurious harm on children. This is why children have their own Human Rights Treaty, the international community have recognised the preciousness of that period of life both in terms that it is very easy to harm development but equally we have the best of chances to really help the positive development and growth of human beings.

Q63 Dr Harris: The Government in some of its speeches has talked about, at least for citizens, that with rights comes duties and it has got a bit more flexibility when it comes to citizens because one always has extra rights as citizens, such as to vote, for example. How do you feel, particularly for children? Do you think there is a distinction between children being thought of as citizens if, for example, there was a citizenship ceremony for 18-year olds to participate in and do you think that would have an impact on the status of sub-18 year olds who have not gone through that ceremony?

Ms Willow: It would have an impact on the one-year old that you referred to. The idea that human beings become full members of society at the age of 18 and that ought to be marked with a ceremony immediately raises questions about all the other human beings who are below the age of 18. We have consistently urged caution about the idea of citizenship ceremonies. Whatever individuals or families want to do in their own private lives to mark the passing of particular ages and the acquisition of additional legal rights and responsibilities, we believe that should be left to individuals and families to determine.

Q64 Dr Harris: Would you object to a coming of age ceremony which was state-sponsored and made compulsory which did not imply citizenship implications but just celebrated or recognised the additional rights that people attain at the age of 18?

Ms Willow: We cannot see the arguments for it in terms of the benefits for the individuals and for children per se. Our focus is on having political commitment and will and legal enforceability for the rights that are there in the international Human Rights Treaty for Children. It is not evident to us from the Green Paper what the gains or the benefits for individual children or for children collectively are meant to be.

Q65 Mr Sharma: Can I go to the Prime Minister's famous speech on 6 June to the GMB when he said that it is time to train "British workers for British jobs". What is your view of the human rights implications of the Prime Minister's wish to train "British Workers for British jobs"?

Mr Jeary: First, it is not for me to interpret what the Prime Minister meant by that phrase. From a Unite perspective, what we are concerned about is a Bill of Rights is about human rights regardless of someone's citizenship or nationality. If somebody is living in the jurisdiction of a Bill of Rights then they should be able to access those rights and be treated with the dignity that those rights give to people. I take the point you are making, but I suspect perhaps the Prime Minister might choose his words differently if he was given a second chance because it is open to misinterpretation and I am sure he did not mean it in the way that some mischievously interpreted it. Nevertheless, from our point of view we are quite clear that a Bill of Rights is about human rights, it is about everybody living within the area that the Bill of Rights covers and that has got nothing to do with being necessarily British, it is to do with living in the United Kingdom.

Ms Reed: The TUC would certainly share those views. Indeed, we would recognise that many of the individuals in the UK who are perhaps in greatest need of protection under any potential Bill of Rights are asylum seekers and refugees and, indeed, some migrant workers and, therefore, as Roger has already said, our understanding of a Bill of Rights is a Bill of Rights setting out human rights and qualifications for human rights should be the fact that you are a human being.

Q66 Chairman: Earlier on you mentioned the socio-economic rights, how detailed do you think the rights should be?

Ms Willow: The Convention on the Rights of the Child, as I am sure you are aware, has very broad requirements in relation to social and economic rights. Our proposal is to incorporate them as they stand, which other countries have done, notably Norway most recently, and then it would be for the courts to determine and interpret the applicability of those rights. We believe that we should not skip from the first generation rights, civil and political rights, straight on to third generation rights, to issues around the environment and so on, without giving proper and serious consideration to social and economic rights. The indivisibility of civil and political and social and economic rights is well-established. The Committee itself in its 2004 report on the international covenant emphasised that nearly a third of Council of Europe Member States have accepted the complaints mechanism for the European Social Charter which indicates growing acceptability, at least among Council of Europe States, and in Central and Eastern European States their revised constitutions have often incorporated social and economic rights. At this point in time we think the debate should be open on social and economic rights for all, although we do think there is a particular strength in the argument around children given the cross-party support to end child poverty. If it is ended by 2020 as the three main political parties want, then what happens in 2021, 2022 and so on? Particularly with this Prime Minister who has made the eradication of child poverty not just a national priority but an international priority it absolutely makes sense at this point in time that that is given serious consideration. I was going to answer some of the arguments against but maybe I should wait for you to give me the arguments against.

Q67 Chairman: Roger, what is your view on social and economic rights? Do you think we should have them? How detailed do you think they should be? Carolyne earlier on indicated that she felt there should be a separate section for children in a Bill of Rights, do you think there should be a separate section in a Bill of Rights for trade unions?

Mr Jeary: I will come to that final point in a moment. On the question of economic and social rights, the whole issue of a Bill of Rights is still very much a matter of debate within Unite and within the trade union movement as a whole as to what should be included and what should not. Were it to be decided through debate that there should be the inclusion of such rights as are included in the South African constitution, the right to adequate housing, the right to healthcare, the right to basic education, these are all very much in line with Unite's policies and ones which we would be quite happy to support. A reservation that we might have at this moment in time is the interpretation in law of these rights and how they would be interpreted in law and that is something which through the detailed consultation mechanism which this type of legislation requires would have to be looked at very, very closely before we decided exactly how we might include what all of us in this room, hopefully, would agree are basic human rights. On the issue of whether we should have a separate entity for trade unions, again it is something we have not considered specifically as to whether that should be the case. If the arguments that we have put forward are adhered to in terms of collective rights, some of that clearly reflects very heavily on trade unions rather than other bodies, but the collective rights that we demand in many respects are similar to collective rights that other organisations would want to have in representing the people who belong to their organisations. I am not sure that it is absolutely necessary to have a separate section on trade union rights within this. Again, as I say, this is us evolving our own ideas and policies as we go along and the important thing is to ensure that there is widespread consultation on these aspects of any proposed Bill of Rights.

Q68 Chairman: One of the key issues is justiciability, which is the one you have just touched on, and I will ask Hannah about this because, on the one hand, the Prime Minister when I put it to him was very concerned about justiciability, and I raised that with him at the Liaison Committee at the end of last year, and, on the other hand, in South Africa they seem to have found a reasonable balance as to the right way to do it if you look at what the Constitutional Court in South Africa has been able to achieve. What are the TUC's views on justiciability?

Ms Reed: May I start off by saying, if you will give me the time, that the TUC is still having ongoing consultations internally about the content of a Bill of Rights and, therefore, on the scope of which economic or social rights should be included within any future Bill of Rights. As we have already stated, we do believe that there are certain collective rights which may well be defined as social and economic rights which, if there is a Bill of Rights, should be included in a Bill of Rights. Regarding justiciability, first of all as regards collective rights relating to trade unions, we do not believe there is a problem of justiciability in terms of rights to bargain collectively or rights of trade unions to organise. The jurisprudence of bodies such as the ILO and the Council of Europe already demonstrate that those are substantially procedural rights which can be accessed and determined through the courts. We do recognise if you go beyond those rights into other areas of social and economic rights there may be other issues of justiciability which come to the fore but, as Roger has already highlighted and as you have raised, other accession states within Europe and, indeed, South Africa have a very comprehensive Bill of Rights which do include social and economic rights and different legal systems have found ways of adjudicating on such matters. The TUC at this stage is still consulting our affiliates as to which rights, if any other social and economic rights, should be included within a Bill of Rights debate. We will happily return to this issue, including justiciability, at a future point.

Q69 Chairman: Carolyne, you raised the issue of justiciability, is there anything you would like to add briefly?

Ms Willow: The principle that the courts should be able to interfere in policy making and in relation to children especially has already been established in terms of the Human Rights Act. If there were to be a very broad public debate and consultation on what ought to be in a Bill of Rights we are absolutely certain that economic and social rights would be high up on people's agendas and if we were to ask for the characteristics and features of what is important to British values and living here in Britain, everybody having a minimum income guaranteed, an adequate standard of living, and for that to be enforceable is the other ---

Q70 Earl of Onslow: What happens if you do not have a minimum income and the money is not there, how do you enforce it?

Ms Willow: Well, we are the fourth richest country ---

Q71 Earl of Onslow: That was not my question. How do you enforce it? Surely that is a policy objective rather than a Bill of Rights objective.

Ms Willow: If it was a challenge with a victim rather than a challenge on a piece of legislation that contravened the Bill of Rights then there would be redress and remedy for that individual. If it was a challenge on a piece of legislation that allegedly contravened what was in the Bill of Rights then presumably there would be a process like we currently have with the Human Rights Act, the Declaration of Incompatibility and so on.

Q72 Earl of Onslow: Surely standards of living and how rich a country is, is not something which is amenable to a Bill of Rights.

Ms Willow: It is relevant because ---

Q73 Earl of Onslow: If you do not have the money or the wealth to do something, if an Act says you have to have it and it is not there, there is nothing the Act can do about it.

Ms Willow: I use it as a comparison because debates around economic and social rights in this country are often predicated with, "Well, what about the resource implications?" and it is absolutely relevant that we are an extremely rich country.

Q74 Earl of Onslow: I understand all of that but you cannot legislate for water to go uphill. You cannot do that, it does not work. That is all I am saying.

Ms Willow: These minimum standards are already established in Human Rights treaties and instruments that we have ratified. The law of treaties requires that governments that ratify human rights instruments implement them, so there is already a legal and moral obligation on states like the UK to be implementing economic and social rights.

Q75 Chairman: Would you see them qualified in the same way as the South African constitution, for example, in relation to the availability of resources and future growth of the economy and so on?

Ms Willow: Like my colleagues here, we are evolving our policy. At this present time our position is that we want full incorporation and there are no get-out provisions within the Convention on the Rights of the Child in relation to resources, in relation to an adequate standard of living, access to health and healthcare services, for example. This is the start of the debate. We have looked at the South African constitution and have seen that is one obvious option that the UK could take.

Q76 Lord Dubs: Could we turn briefly to the process of how we get there. In other words, how would you like to see the public and, indeed, if I can call trade unions civil society groups, civil society groups involved in formulating a British Bill of Rights? How do we ensure that the ownership is there for your members?

Mr Jeary: To start with is the need to have the widest possible consultation and the mechanism for that has to be very seriously considered by government. This is such an important area of constitutional law that simply going through the motions of having a website with the opportunity for people to express a view is not good enough, quite frankly. It may be part of the mechanism to engage the wider population but what we would want to see is a properly structured debate which enables representative groups as well as individuals to ensure that a full debate on all the issues, some of which we have touched on today and many more which we have not, are given a full and frank airing and that is open not only to trade unions but all other organisations, collective organisations, alongside the individual right to make representations. Maybe that could be through some form of commission which would provide that opportunity to have detailed evidence presented to it.

Q77 Lord Dubs: As far as children are concerned, is there any way in which you would envisage children and young people being involved in such a process?

Ms Willow: Absolutely. It is absolutely essential. We believe that the Equality and Human Rights Commission could take a strong lead here. We think the debate needs to be above party politics to engender trust, openness and the active engagement we are led to believe is wanted. The Children's Commissioners in England, Wales and Scotland could be part of the process because of their good links with children and expertise in producing materials and going out and engaging with children. As a starting point we would want information to the public to set out the bottom lines as they currently stand. We do not think it would be beneficial for the discussion we had right at the beginning to present this as a blank sheet of paper, we want people, and within that children, to be informed of the human rights obligations that the UK currently has accepted and is required to implement as a starting point. That has to be where we travel from. There has to be human rights education as part of this process because it has not happened before.

Q78 Lord Dubs: My last question is this: I think you would accept that there is a certain amount of media and political hostility in this country as regards human rights legislation, the press and some of the papers are not very sympathetic and so on. Do you think that a full public debate of the sort we have just been discussing, and to which you have given your backing, would lead to enhanced protection for human rights within a Bill of Rights? Would the outcome be positive or is it liable to exacerbate the opposition?

Mr Jeary: I think a lot depends on how informed the debate is that takes place. There is always a danger in the sort of open debate that we are advocating that it is taken over by vested interests which perhaps are not interested in the broader concept of a Bill of Rights and would see it as an opportunity to attack, as others have already, the effect of the limited Human Rights Act provision that we have in this country currently. I do not think that is a reason not to have the debate. I do think there is a need for this debate and we have got to give the opportunity to responsible people to come forward and take forward, as Carolyne has just said, where we go from where we are. The one thing we have made absolutely clear is the one thing a Bill of Rights should not be doing in any way is undermining those human rights that exist already in this country.

Q79 Mr Sharma: Carolyne, you would like to see an entrenched Bill of Rights, not easily capable of being amended, but you also see a need to "review and evolve the Bill in recognition of the organic nature of human rights". How would this work?

Ms Willow: We see that there seems to be a growing consensus that any amendment to a Bill of Rights ought to be supported by two-thirds in each House of Parliament. In our opening position of not only the Convention on the Rights of the Child but all the international treaties that the UK has ratified to be incorporated as part of the Bill of Rights we would see that there could be some provision within that to take into account where treaties and the option of protocols are added, for example, and the interpretations of the human rights monitoring bodies.

Q80 Chairman: Thank you very much. Does anybody want to add anything to what you have had to say?

Ms Willow: Can I just add a point in terms of the public debate and the media hostility. Now would be the time for political leaders to stand shoulder to shoulder in terms of strong and clear commitment to human rights in terms of trying to tackle and get over some of the inbuilt conservatism within the British media. Also I would say that the media hostility for children and other vulnerable groups is not uniformly hostile and there are ways in, there are areas around human rights that the public and the media are not aware of and when they become aware they share the same level of shock and disbelief and intolerance that those of us working in human rights have. I do not think we should automatically assume that the media is fully informed and has taken a fully informed position on human rights, they can be lacking in information and understanding just like the rest of us.

Chairman: Thank you very much.