HC Deb 26 February 1948 vol 447 cc2263-72

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. J. Henderson.]

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

I want to raise a question on the Adjournment with regard to the proceedings of the Commission on Human Rights, which I feel have not received the attention they deserve in this House, although it is true the Prime Minister, in winding up the recent Debate on Foreign Affairs, when dealing with the question of a United Western Europe, used these words: There is another thing which unites us—equally important—and that is the recognition of human rights. The United Nations organisation is devoting much time to working out a charter on human rights, and that is good work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1948; Vol. 446; c. 622.] I am raising the smatter because I think the House would wish to know the attitude of the Government towards the documents which have recently been considered at Geneva—a draft international declaration, a draft international covenant and certain proposals, although not adopted by the Commission, on what is inelegantly called implementation. These documents differ considerably from the Foreign Office document published last June called "The United Kingdom Draft International Bill of Human Rights," which I regard, and which I think many members of the Commission regard, as a very valuable document containing constructive and helpful proposals.

Unfortunately, it does not now look as if the proposals of His Majesty's Government will be adopted—but something far less satisfactory. Fundamentally the immediate issue is whether we should be content merely with a declaration having no binding validity, and not intended to be enforceable, or whether we ought to insist, as the charter intended, on a binding and enforceable international covenant. I am not concerned at the moment with the question of the contents of the Bill of Rights. I need hardly stress the importance of getting this matter right and getting as much international agreement as possible. The charter contemplated that following the last war, some international machinery would be set up to define and protect human rights—the four freedoms, in the classic phrase of President Roosevelt—and that is the task of the Commission.

It was felt, in the light of the experience of Fascism and Nazism, that there was an intimate link between the recognition of human rights and the preservation of the peace of the world. Both in Germany and in Italy wholesale denial and disregard of individual freedom within those States was found to be the inevitable prelude to a war of aggression. It was said that peace could not be expected if we tolerate or condone the deliberate betrayal of individual liberty. The converse is true. Respect for human rights under an international organisation would be a major contribution to the preservation of peace, and I would remind the House that the United Kingdom draft contains the following significant sentence: In the last analyses perhaps the best definition of a Nazi or a Fascist régime is that it is a régime which does not recognise the dignity and worth of the human person and permit individuals to enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms. Some hon. Members, I fear, may think the present international outlook is so gloomy, with Czechoslovakia, the last bastion of freedom and democracy in Central Europe, now falling a prey, in the depressing but all too familiar pattern, to the intrigues and domination of a Communist minority, that the activities of the Commission on Human Rights are somewhat academic. I do not share that view. I do not believe the prestige of the United Nations has yet fallen so low that we need, or can afford to, abandon hope in it.

We must try to steer the proceedings of the Commission on Human Rights in the right direction. The meetings at Geneva, in which, as Members will remember, both Russia and Yugoslovia took part, showed that verbal agreement could be reached on a draft declaration on human rights containing plain and simple statements, but only provided, firstly, that such a declaration was couched in vague and ambiguous language, secondly, that it was not binding, and, thirdly, that it contained no machinery for enforcement.

Nearly all States will agree to a declaration proclaiming such ideals as freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, the right of assembly, equality before the law, an independent judiciary, freedom from arrest, the inviolability of the home and correspondence, and so forth, provided that they can interpret these ideals in their own way, and that it is not intended that any substantive obligations should be undertaken. In my view, to accept merely such a declaration would be a retrograde step. It would not carry out the intentions of the Charter. It would not register any progress in the ideals already enshrined in the Charter, but would merely cloak the divergence of outlooks existing between various countries in regard to such elementary matters as liberty and justice. Without a guarantee of any international recognition of the freedom of the individual, it would be quite illusory. If a Bill of Rights were to become a reality at all as a contribution to international peace, then, of course, it would be a gigantic achievement.

I should regard it as mere mockery and a sham to proceed with a pious declaration which would not be binding or enforceable, containing statements with diametrically opposite meanings in different countries. I read, for example, that last night the Communist demonstrators in Prague were singing "Long live the new freedom." That illustrates the current abuse of language. There will not be much freedom in Czechoslovakia for anyone who takes a prominent part in opposition to the new regime. I notice that already the immunity of arrest for Members of Parliament is to be ignored. Perhaps that is not unexpected. I have no doubt that we shall hear arguments from the Communists now in control of Czechoslovakia, as from other Communist countries, to show that a police State, with rigged elections, terrorist methods, persecutions, torture and murder of political opponents similar to those occurring in other Eastern European countries, are all essential to this "new freedom" for which the thousands are now shouting in Prague night after night. Personally, I have a strong prejudice for the old freedom as we understand it in Western Europe, with such imperfections as it may have.

I think there is a real danger if an international declaration is adopted which contains words that do not mean the same thing in different countries, but which are thought to mean the same thing. If we are to have merely a pious and unenforceable declaration as the extent to which international agreement can be reached today, I would prefer to postpone it, at any rate until a large nucleus of States are prepared to couple with it a binding and enforceable covenant, equipped with proper machinery for giving redress to individuals where any gross violation of human rights arises.

Incredible though it may seem, the United Nations were at one time contemplating submitting some international Bill of Right to last year's Assembly. It is now seriously suggested in some quarters that this instrument should be got ready and submitted to this year's Assembly. There is no case for such violent hurry. In the most favourable circumstances the task of preparing an international Charter of this complexity is very difficult, and controversy must be very considerable. We are familiar with the time it takes to pass relatively simple Measures in our own domestic legislation. In a Bill of Rights, we are dealing with a very wide range of matters affecting personal and political freedom, economic rights and constitutional liberties. It is now obvious that the real safeguard for individual liberty lies in having a free, healthy and independent political opposition. That is one of the problems that has to be dealt with in any international Bill of Rights. I do not think that public opinion or expert opinion has yet had a chance to formulate itself or express itself on the details of this matter.

I would, therefore, urge that the United Kingdom representative on the Commission, Lord Dukeston, to whom I should like to pay my tribute for the valuable part he has played in the discussions to date, be instructed to treat the whole matter as still in its early and initial stages. I believe that the efficacy of any international Charter will largely depend on its having the conscious and willing backing of an informed public opinion. After all, it is the concern not only of Governments but of all men everywhere. Indeed, the International Law Association, under the distinguished leadership of Professor Lauterpacht, has been devoting considerable attention to the matter, and it urged at its conference last September the necessity for adequate time, for patient preparation, and for careful discussion and study.

May I add that, as one who attended that conference, as also did the hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes), where we met lawyers from Communist countries as well as from non-Communist countries, I was impressed by the necessity of giving the most sympathetic study to the specific and distinctive contribution of Communist philosophy in this field, namely, that personal and political freedom and equality before the law are at best precarious and perhaps quite illusory unless they are accompanied by guarantees of social and economic freedom. This opens up a very wide chapter calling for careful discussion.

What then should we do? I would urge the Government to say that they will not proceed by way of a mere declaration, unless general consent can also be obtained to a covenant intended to be an international obligation, with machinery for enforcement, whereby the recognition of human rights can be placed under international guarantee, and individuals given something of a common international citizenship. This admittedly involves a substantial limitation of current ideas of national sovereignty, but no greater limitation than that envisaged, for example, by the Atomic Energy Commission for the international control and inspection of atomic energy and no less necessary if peace of the world is to be preserved.

The crux of the matter is enforcement. This must involve the setting up of some permanent independent body to which questions of human rights can be referred and which can be charged with considering petitions involving serious violations of human rights. It may be desirable to have an International Court of Human Rights. There must obviously be safeguards against the abuse of any such procedure, and one must not overlook the risk that if such a convention is adopted some States which are not a party to it may seek to use it for their own ends. I ask the Government to proceed on these lines even though it may take two or three or more years rather than assent to a mere declaration. If we want a Bill of Rights to be worthy of the name and framed in the spirit of the Atlantic Charter, then we must concentrate on essentials.

Most of us would agree with the remarks made by Mr. Arnold Toynbee, who said in a recent address: It is a foregone conclusion that the world in any event is going to be united in the near future. The only really big and formidable political issue today is not whether the world is going to unite politically, but whether it is going to do so as the result of another world war, or whether unification can be brought about through the development of an international organisation. Taking a long view, I think the best hopes for the world depend upon emphasising the rights of the individual in the world order. As the Prime Minister said in the speech from which I have already quoted, we are united with many other countries, not only by economic ties, but by the common recognition of human rights. The international outlook may be dim, but in this field I believe the civilised nations may, by patient constructive work, and honest statement, make a valuable contribution to the assertion of eternal moral values.

10.26 p.m.

Major Tufton Beamish (Lewes)

I want very briefly indeed to say how much I enjoyed listening to the speech made by the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher). If I may say so, we on this side of the House think he has done very well to raise this matter at this moment. Totalitarian régimes, whether of the Right or of the Left, will never be influenced by human rights Clauses, by the Atlantic Charter or by the Charter of the United Nations, because it is perfectly obvious to all of us who are reasonable people—I speak for everybody in this House at the moment—that totalitarian régimes, both of the Right and of the Left, have shown and will continue to show a cynical disregard for human rights of all sorts. It is perfectly true as well, that we mean something quite differently by the words "democracy," "freedom" and "liberty" from what dictatorship of the Right or of the Left mean by those words.

I should like to differ from the conclusion which the hon. Member for East Islington reached in saying that he could not see any point in the Government proceeding with the drafting of this Charter of Human Rights. The hon. Member was making the mistake of failing to differentiate between the peoples of the Eastern European countries and Spain and Russia and the governments of those countries. I believe most strongly that the peoples of those countries suffering from dictatorship would be grateful to us if we placed on record our detestation and abhorrence of the principles for which at this moment their governments stand. When the Minister of State replies, I hope he will say that it is the intention of the Government to continue to proceed on present lines, and that we will place on record our abhorrence of everything for which the twin evils of Communism and Fascism stand.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

I promised to be very brief, and it was a promise which I gladly gave because we are anxious to hear the Minister on this very important topic. I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) in the arguments which he has propounded in favour of a Bill of Rights as against a mere declaration or manifesto. A concrete Bill is needed at the present time to give the world a lead which it badly wants. War conditions and particularly recent events in Czechoslovakia have shown that no time should be lost in promoting such a Bill. Such a Bill is possible now. I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington in what he said about delay. It is quite possible to promote such a Bill at the present moment because the points of agreement between nations are known and the points of difference also are known.

I suggest that the proper course is to embody the points of agreement in a Bill so as to implement those points of agreement, and then work on the points of difference with a view to reconciling, adjusting, and co-ordinating them and if necessary bringing in a later amending Bill to implement them. I do think that world circumstances today make it essential that some step be taken—and taken immediately—and that step can be taken by means of a Bill leaving to a later stage legislation which will implement the points as and when they arise.

10.30 p.m.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil)

The House is indebted to my hon. Friend for having raised this subject tonight, and if I have left myself less time than is usual in replying to such a Debate it is because I have wished to hear as many sides of the subject as possible. It is a melancholy piece of irony that we are hearing a Debate on this subject tonight when we have heard today that the lamps of Czechoslovakia have been snuffed out. It is no exaggeration to say that these freedoms of which we have heard tonight embody one of the most important questions with which representative governments must concern themselves just now. Last night, as the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) has told us, people were shouting slogans about the new freedom, and he said that he preferred the old freedom. I think we would all say that representative Governments agree, and must enunciate quite clearly, that there is no new freedom or no new truth. Freedom and truth so far as the individual is concerned are things easily identifiable, and it is important in the interests of international stability as well as internal stability that we should clearly identify these factors.

It is perhaps appropriate that I should briefly refer to how this subject has developed and the part which the Government have played. As we have been reminded, the Charter contains the provision under which it is a task, and a task which all members of the United Nations must observe, to permit human rights and human truths and fundamental freedoms. It is the view of the Government that this task demands as a first step the conclusion of an international covenant. We have heard of the Draft of an International Bill of Human Rights which was issued as a non-Parliamentary publication last year. Many hon. Members have seen it, and my hon. Friend referred to the difference between this Draft and the Draft Covenant which has been circulated. It is true that the Draft Bill which was presented and argued most ably by Lord Dukeston had the biggest single influence on the Commission. The preamble has been dropped but no other substantial change has been made in this and we will attempt to see in our Amendments to the Commission's findings, which have been circulated, that no substantial point of any sort is omitted.

It is quite plain, as every hon. Member who has spoken tonight has said, that it is not enough that we should have signatures to a Treaty. There have been Treaties in the past the signatories to which were nothing more than signatories. We must, in these most troublous times, ensure that this Treaty is enforceable and enforced. The Human Rights Sub-Commission has addressed itself to this second point. It has suggested ways in which complaints by individuals that their rights under the projected Covenant are being violated might be considered, and the Government concerned invited to remedy them. My hon. Friend referred to this, and he will not expect me to be too precise when we are just at this deliberative stage at present.

These proposals have also been circulated to the Governments of all member States for consideration, and I assure the House that His Majesty's Government are studying these, and other proposals, and that they will make, at the appropriate time, the most constructive contribution upon this point of enforceability, and methods of enforcement, that they can. I should perhaps remind the House that, unfortunately, but not surprisingly, already some States who are members of the United Nations, who are signatories to the Charter, have declared, despite the signature, that they will not become parties to a covenant of this kind. The members who have already made statements of this kind are the U.S.S.R., Byelorussia, the Ukraine and Yugoslavia. They thought it did not go far enough. They referred to additional rights, such as the right to work; but they made no constructive criticisms when the draft was before them.

As far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, they admit the validity of these claims, and the desirability of moving towards that kind of ideal. We are obliged in principle to commit our- selves to some supplementation of that kind, but we think—and we have argued—that because other ends were desirable, that was not a good reason for deserting those rights and freedoms which can be clearly defined and which have general international acceptance. I do not say confidently that these other Powers will change their attitude. I would be dishonest if I did; but I say plainly that their position is unjustifiable and their defence has not had an easy acceptance in the Commission.

I would like to say one other word about the only subject which divided the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken. I declare myself on the side of my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington as to timetable. These drafts have been circulated to member States. The Commission is to meet again in May or June, and it was proposed that the Commission should attempt to put its final document before the Social and Economic Council by July, so that the Assembly this autumn might take a decision on it. I fear that would be wrong. We want definition, we want as wide and free an agreement as possible, and we want to be quite firm in ensuring that this is not just another pious resolution. I agree with the point about the peoples of Eastern, and unfortunately, Central Europe. We can, by disseminating the reports from the Commission, by publication and by broadcasting the speeches, keep alive the idea; but let us be quite sure that we are unanimous that this is an enforceable covenant. That will be, I am sure, the wish of all sides of this House.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.