| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Smith of Clifton moved Amendment No. 108:
- Page 11, line 12, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: This amendment is almost identical to Amendment No. 110 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Desai.
The Bill gives the Lord Chief Justice sole responsibility for devising the codes of practice relating to the handling of complaints against the judiciary. We do not believe it is good practice to leave the judiciary unfettered in investigating its own wrong doings in the rare cases that may occur. We believe that
Lord Laird: I have the highest possible regard for the noble Lord, Lord Smith, for his colleague the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and for the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who has tabled a similar amendment on human rights, and I am a strong supporter and advocate of human rights. We are talking about the whole concept of the independence of the judiciary. People may argue with the reasoning, but unfortunately it is a fact of life that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is not regarded highly in Northern Ireland and is regarded as one-sided. That is because of its composition and some actions that it has undertaken in recent years.
The word "consult" is very loose. One could consult on the telephone over a cup of coffee and then simply not take into consideration the advice that has been given. The Government have done that before with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and I approve of that. However, to refer in a document to the impartiality of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is, in the parlance that is current this month, an own goal.
Lord Desai: As the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said, my amendment is identical and for that reason it should really be taken as an amendment to Clause 16, not Clause 17, as printed on the Marshalled List. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, the clause says that the Lord Chief Justice shall consult. He does not have to agree with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission or anyone else. The problem is that a human rights perspective needs to be borne in mind when we are devolving power as well as reforming the criminal justice system. This was what the review said. The Committee on the Administration of Justice, which is a Northern Ireland NGO known for its human rights work, has recommended that some such clause be put in. I find it quite a reasonable request.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I oppose Amendments Nos. 108 and 110. First, I believe they are contradictory. Secondly, from a practical point of view they are mixing reality, perceived reality and everything else that attaches to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Many of us are sad that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is held in such low esteem by a majority of people. There are some very fine individuals in the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, but it is far too political for the Lord Chief Justice to be involved in consultations with it on matters legal.
Amendment No. 109, to which I have added my name, is grouped with Amendment No. 108. I have no doubt the noble Baroness will explain to me fully, as she has done previously this afternoon, why we should
Baroness Park of Monmouth: We are talking about a code of practice, not a mission statement. The code of practice is something that the Lord Chief Justice would be well placed to think about and would be able to consult a wide range of people. I see no reason why we should have to put on the face of the Bill one organisation which, as the previous discussion demonstrated, is in any case considered to be somewhat biased.
Furthermore, so far as I know, all judges in the United Kingdom have had to take account of the Human Rights Act and are well aware of its provisions. It is wholly unnecessary to make a point of putting one organisation, which is much more political than professional, into the Bill and thus not trust the Lord Justice to do his job in the proper way.
Lord Glentoran: I rise to say only that my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth has put the point far better than I could.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: The difficulty is with the Human Rights Commission as it is presently constituted. That is an important point. Therefore it is bound to be devoid of any acceptance or reality in many of its outpourings. I do wish that it would become a little more realistic and less what might be called para-political in its activities.
With regard to United Nations basic principles, the problem there is that we have almost as many interpretations of those principles as there are members of the United Nations—and that is saying something.
Lord Hylton: I have always found the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to be a helpful body in such dealings as I have had with it and with its predecessor, the former committee, on that subject. However, these amendments may not be strictly necessary.
Lord Fitt: The noble Baroness who has replied on behalf of the Government, along with other Members of the Committee who do not reside in Northern Ireland, may find it strange that noble Lords who live and reside in Northern Ireland are insisting that the final authority for any decisions taken should rest with the Lord Chancellor. I supported this on Tuesday about a particular appointment.
Running through these amendments one can see the insecurity between the two communities in Northern Ireland. That is always going to be there. When legislation went through both Houses in the recent devolution in Scotland, there was no disagreement between the Scottish Members. They wanted every facet of the devolutionary powers that could be given to Scotland to be given with full support. However, Scotland does not have a divided political and religious society. There is no question of the constitutional position being brought to the forefront in Scotland as it is in Northern Ireland, where the existence of the state is called into every discussion that takes place.
We have Unionist Members from Northern Ireland. They have not said it overtly; they have not said it in any way. But I, as someone who lives in Northern Ireland, can understand why they say that the final authority for many of the decisions set out in this Bill should be retained by the Lord Chancellor. As they see it—I am not sure that I agree with them on every occasion—there has been an erosion of their way of life and of everything that they hold dear in many facets of the legislation that has gone onto the Northern Ireland statute book, such as the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, the change to the name of the police and the setting-up of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.
I have not met any of the members of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, and I am not sure that the commission is as overtly political as some noble Lords said this afternoon. However, I know that, among the Unionist community, it is seen as one-sided. That is why they say that, when any decisions are taken or consultations take place, the final yes or no should be given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. They ask for a guarantee that nothing will happen in human rights legislation or be done by the commission that will, in any way, further erode their position in Northern Ireland.
We are dealing with a very sensitive subject, totally unlike any of the issues that are raised in the Scottish Parliament or in the Welsh Assembly. Although the Unionists have not said it this afternoon, I know that they want to maintain every vestige of the link that has existed—which they hope will continue to exist—with Britain. They view with concern anything that erodes that link or gives authority in Northern Ireland to someone who may at some time or other disagree with their perception of Northern Ireland and how it exists today. That is the reason for the amendments, and I suggest to the Government that they take those fears into consideration.
Lord Dubs: I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Laird, is not the greatest fan of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. I regret that. The commission is a brave attempt by the British Government to deal with their obligations under the Belfast agreement and to reassure all sectors of the community there about the commitment to human rights. We could argue about the membership, but this is not the time to do so.
I suggest that, if the noble Lord, Lord Laird, happened to be the Lord Chief Justice or if the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, happened to be the Lord Chief Justice, they would behave as the amendments say and would consult the commission. They would probably also consult the Lord Chancellor and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, said, a range of other bodies. That is what they would do, whether or not they liked the Human Rights Commission, because it goes with the responsibility of the post.
Having said that, I am inclined to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, that it would not be proper to put in the Bill a detailed obligation as to who should be consulted. I have faith that the Lord Chief Justice would consult widely and sensibly.
"( ) The Lord Chief Justice shall consult with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission before preparing the code of practice.
( ) The Lord Chief Justice shall have regard to the relevant international human rights standards when preparing the code of practice, including the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary."
4.45 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page