HC Deb 25 May 1973 vol 857 cc919-30

2.30 p.m.

Mr. Peter Archer (Rowley Regis and Tipton)

I beg to draw the attention of the House to a date that is as yet some months away. I do so because arrangements of the kind that I am inviting the Government to make take a little time, and it would be pointless to suggest in the week previous to this date that they should arrange appropriate celebrations. I accept, if it will assist the Under-Secretary, that we tend to overload our calendar with dates. But this is a date which will loom large in the history books of the future.

On 10th December 1948 the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It came at a time which, looking back now, may seem to us rather remote. It came at the end of an era when the world had witnessed what atrocities a Government could commit. Mankind had seen and shuddered. People were determined that never again should any group of men, much less governmental officials, inflict such tragedies on individuals.

The Governments assembled at the United Nations instructed a commission, under Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, to ascertain those standards of conduct which were common to the whole civilised world, those standards embodying the very minimum which men and women expected of their Governments, and they instructed the commission to formulate these as rules. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was the result.

The declaration is a document that would repay closer study than it sometimes receives. It sets out all that is best in human aspirations. It recites that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the declaration without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Then it declares that everyone has a right to life, liberty and security of person, and that no one shall be held in slavery; that no one shall be subject to torture or inhuman or degrading punishments; that everyone has the right to a nationality and to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; to freedom of opinion and expression; to freedom of peaceful assembly.

It then goes on to mention those rights which are now normally referred to as economic and social rights—the right to rest and leisure, including limitation of working hours; the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of a person and his family; the right of everyone to education.

Those are only some of the aspirations set out in the document.

December 10th this year will be the 25th anniversary of that document. Now, 25 years later, at this moment while we are debating, at the very minimum there are 100,000 people in prison not for anything that they have done but because they have expressed views that do not commend themselves to their Governments. There are at least 500 million people who never once in the whole of their lives have known what it is like to sit down to a square meal. There are people who find themselves the victim of torture practised by their Governments as a perfectly normal routine instrument of policy.

We ought not to be disheartened. We know that we do not end these atrocities by declarations, but it does not follow that we can dismiss these aspirations from our consciences.

This debate is about the expenditure of Government money. Some steps that could be taken would not require any expenditure, and I should like to mention three. The problem at the very beginning was that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights lacked the means of enforcement. There was no forum where the international community could investigate complaints of infringements—nowhere where it could focus the sanction of international disapproval. That, subsequently, has been supplied from at least two sources. It has been supplied, first, from a number of regional arrangements and, in particular, the European Convention on Human Rights. That has been effective more than once in remedying what might otherwise be a very real personal tragedy. But normally the European Commission has jurisdiction to hear complaints only if they are made by Governments who are signatories to the convention. Under Article 25 there is an optional protocol which empowers a Government to submit to the jurisdiction of the commission to hear complaints made by private individuals, so that ordinary people can complain to the international community even over the Heads of their own Governments. So a Government, if they feel that they have nothing to conceal, can submit their record to the scrutiny of the international community.

The Labour Government thought that they had no reason to fear such a scrutiny. In 1965 they accepted that optional protocol for an experimental period of three years. At the end of that period they saw no reason not to renew it for a further period of three years. So in 1968 it was renewed until the end of 1971.

In 1971 one might have thought that, no obvious problems having appeared, the Government would have had nothing to fear and would feel it safe to renew it for an indefinite period. For a reason which has never been explained, the present Government saw fit to renew it only for a further period of two years, so that at the end of 1973 the question will arise whether it is to be renewed again.

The Government could celebrate 10th December this year by an announcement that they propose to renew that optional protocol. This time one would hope that it would be renewed for an indefinite period.

The second source from which the lack of means of enforcement in the Universal Declaration might be supplied lies in the International Covenants on Human Rights of 1966. They contain limited measures of machinery for enforcement —not enough to satisfy all of us, but at least a distinct step forward in giving to the international community a responsibility for the observation of human rights. They were adopted in 1966. Her Majesty's Government have still not ratified those covenants.

We debated this matter at some length on 21st February 1972, when the Under-Secretary was kind enough to elaborate on the Government's reasons for hesitating to ratify these covenants. I shall not re-open all the arguments in the limited time that we have today, but I again submit that Her Majesty's Government might announce, on the 25th anniversary of the declaration, that they are proposing to ratify those covenants. If they were to do so it would certainly earn the approval of all the non-governmental organisations which have given so much time and thought to this question.

Finally, in that last debate the hon. Gentleman said that one reason why the Government were reluctant to ratify the covenants was that they had not yet clarified their intentions in relation to certain matters which the covenants contained—for example, the right to privacy. Much water has passed under the bridge since February 1972, and one might hope that the Government would celebrate the 25th anniversary a little nearer home by seeking to have on the statute book by that date a statute giving effect to the recommendations of the Franks Report, or, if that does not commend itself to the Government, and if they wish to deal with the right of privacy in some other way, by an alternative kind of statute. But year after year these matters are raised. There may be another 25 years' water flowing under the bridge, and still there is nothing to indicate that the Government propose to take any action on these matters.

I said that I was conscious of the fact that this was specifically a debate about the expenditure of public funds. None of these matters would require the expenditure of public funds. It might be replied with some force that human rights are not guaranteed by ratifying covenants; human rights are not implemented or denied in conference halls, in the courts of law, or even in this House.

I should be the first to agree that the cutting edge of human rights arises in grim prisons and dismal ghettos, in areas of squalor and famine, and that ratifying covenants is certainly not all that is required. I believe that the campaign for a kinder and more tolerant world would be very considerably strengthened by appropriate institutional machinery, and perhaps strengthened even more if Governments formed the habit of using that machinery where it exists.

But I accept that the battle for human rights will essentially be won or lost in the hearts of men and women. Surely here there is a great opportunity for the Government to give a lead in calling attention to the aspirations set out a quarter of a century ago in the Universal Declaration and in pointing out that they are about the way in which we all treat our neighbours.

It would not be too much to hope that a senior Minister—perhaps the Prime Minister, perhaps even the Sovereign—could be invited on some suitable occasion arranged for the purpose to declare that the United Kingdom believes in the rights of man, that we are prepared to submit our record to international scrutiny, to invite the media to take account of the work which has been done in this field over the last 25 years, to hold up a torch to light the way forward to a world where people are not victimised by reason of their race, sex or religious beliefs, where they are not imprisoned for their private conversations, and where they are not tortured for their peaceful associations.

When I asked the Government what was planned to celebrate the jubilee of the Universal Declaration I was told that it was proposed to hold a seminar in London. I took leave to follow up that inquiry, and on 28th February in answer to a Parliamentary Question the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs informed me that it was proposed that the subject of the seminar should be "The family in a changing society".

That is very commendable. I think that we would be the better for a study in depth of some of the problems which arise in this field. But we must be realistic. I know to my cost, because I was privileged in 1967 to lead the United Kingdom delegation to a similar seminar held in London, that whatever matters are discussed, however much attention Governments may give to them, whatever expertise is focused upon them, in the end they are not widely discussed in the news media. They do not become the subject of conversation in every supermarket, every church, every club, and every public house.

This is not sufficient to celebrate a quarter of a century of work for human rights, some of it admittedly bitterly frustrating, some of it sometimes surprisingly successful in preventing personal tragedies. I hope that the Government will produce something fitting to celebrate this anniversary which is likely to attract more attention and that they will seize the opportunity to remind us of all that is entailed.

I promise the Government that whatever they may do there are many non-governmental organisations which will regard this as an anniversary well worth celebrating. Already a conference of non-governmental organisations has produced two very important documents—a draft resolution on the abolition of torture and a draft resolution on human rights in armed conflicts which it is hoped will be placed before the United Nations at the next General Assembly, and it may even be that on 10th December of this year the General Assembly will find itself debating these matters.

Amnesty International has pledged itself to seek to persuade as many Governments as are prepared to listen to sponsor these resolutions at the next General Assembly and perhaps to seize the opportunity of the 25th anniversary to announce clearly their support for them. Many other non-governmental organisations will be supporting that initiative. I can speak for a number—the United Nations Association, the Anti-Slavery Society, the British Institute for Human Rights and the International League for the rights of Man. Perhaps it would be invidious to seek to list all the organisations. In any case, there are many more than there are time to list this afternoon.

If while all these declarations are being made the Government remain silent, they will lose a great opportunity to make clear where they stand and history books which write of these last 25 years will record that, while the Samaritans were being effectively busy, the priests and the Levites have learnt nothing in 2,000 years.

2.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw)

Once again the House is indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) for having introduced this subject and enabled us to express our views and pay tribute to the importance of the subject. I again pay a tribute not only to the hon. and learned Gentleman's sincerity in this matter and to the lead which he takes in the country, but also to the eloquence with which he expounds his case.

As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, anniversaries of United Nations agencies and other organisations throughout the world come thick and fast upon us. Today we are invited to celebrate a 25th anniversary, but all the time we know that we are invited to dedicate days and years. Next year I understand will be population year. I am not too clear about whether it is for or against, but that is the year which we have to celebrate. Even decades are pointed out as times in which we should take special active measures to propagate the doctrines which the convention is designed to protect.

I suppose there can come a period when the law of diminishing returns arises. Nevertheless, I am sure that what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said about this one will command the enthusiasm of everybody because there can be nothing more important than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which the hon. and learned Gentleman has so eloquently propounded.

We propose, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, to have a seminar at the end of this year to celebrate the 25th anniversary. The seminar will be devoted to the theme "The family in a changing society". We regard this as a study of the aspects of women's rights. I cannot say at present exactly how the seminar will be set up or which prominent people will, as we hope, take part in it, but we have, as a tentative budget, allocated £15,000 to the seminar, which shows that we take it seriously. I hope that the arrangements are adequate for the day which we wish to celebrate.

This year is also the 20th anniversary of the World Health Organisation. We propose to mark this anniversary also by some suitable activity.

Both these considerations—women's rights and health matters—are comparatively new in public estimation. Even in our own advanced country, women's rights are still actively campaigned for. As regards health, it was only a little over 100 years ago that Disraeli, standing I suppose at this Dispatch Box or a duplicate of it, demolished the opposition of the day to what was derided as "a policy of sewage" by saying that it might be sewage to the party opposite but was life itself to the citizens of Britain.

The hon. and learned Gentleman recited the majestic tenets of the Declaration of Human Rights and rightly said that, unfortunately, there are many institutions today in which human rights are flouted. We all regret it extremely when we hear of these cases, and it often happens, quite rightly, that the Government of the day are asked to intervene to put wrong right. We naturally wish to do so whenever we can. Also, we are often chided for not doing enough in this regard. But I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman, with his experience of public affairs, will agree that there are limitations to the possibilities which are open to any Government. In the first place, only a direct involvement of our own nationals can normally justify, either in law or in fact, our intervention on behalf of individuals. If our own nationals are not involved, only the most extreme cases of injustice obviously amounting to a breach of international law can justify intervention by us. When I say "can justify intervention by us" I should say "can give us a standing to intervene". Justification perhaps is a moral matter. It is the legal aspect to which one must unfortunately address oneself.

Secondly, we must have firm evidence rather than suspicion. Thirdly, we must be sure that our intervention will not result in a worsening in the condition of the victims whom we are trying to help. It is, I believe, in the general field rather than in the particular case that Governments can best forward the purposes which the hon. and learned Gentleman has propounded.

Mr. Peter Archer

Is it still the view of the Government that there is an international reason for intervention—that it becomes a matter of international concern in any situation which discloses a consistent pattern of violations of human rights?

Mr. Kershaw

That is a little hypothetical. We have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in any cases where the States concerned in these matters are signatories of it we shall draw the attention of the United Nations appropriate committee, and the Assembly, if necessary, to violations of the declaration. But normally in order to achieve, in respect of individuals, some relaxation of the rigours which they suffer it is necessary to make individual representations to the Government concerned. It is rather to that that I was addressing myself.

Certainly we have a right, shared by every signatory, to call attention to violations, and I am sure that we ought to do this, subject to my third proviso that we have to calculate whether the intervention will help those whom we are trying to help. Therefore, as I say, it is rather in the general field than in the particular that Governments can best press this matter forward. I am sure that the way in which the Government can best help is by doing whatever we can to build up the organisation, the prestige and the efficiency of international institutions which are devoted to the rule of law, and by disseminating amongst our own citizens—here I agree with what the hon. and learned Gentleman said—knowledge of what is being done and what can and should be done. I believe that this is the way in which the individuals whom we are trying to help, who are suffering deprivation of rights and liberty, can best be safeguarded in the future.

That is not to say that Her Majesty's Government ought not to intervene in particular cases whenever it is prudent to do so. I am afraid, however, that Governments of any complexion are frequently chided for not instantly remedying what seem to be, and usually are, injustices perpetrated in other countries. We must remember that other countries are just as sensitive as we are to foreign interference, and in almost all cases, I believe, far more so, especially if it is overt and can be seen. In many cases, even in recent ones, which have figured largely in the Press, in which so-called rescuers have rushed precipitately to our aid, the result has been achieved by many months of patient and tactful diplomacy, where as had it been openly conducted it would not have been effective. We often find that it is better to do good works by stealth. Indeed, in these days of heady nationalism and dogmatic beliefs I dare say that it is the only way in which it can be done.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned the Human Rights Convention. He has pointed out that we have not finally ratified it. The reasons were set out in the debate which we had in February last; namely, the difficulties of interpreting some of the clauses. Some of them do go rather far. The first one which he mentioned is interference with privacy. We still have not got in our law a definition of privacy, so it could be a little difficult to adhere to that convention.

Then there was also prohibition against making propaganda for war, which our journalistic friends regarded as dangerous because the possibility that an article could be so judged was a matter which would inhibit their proper reporting.

Then there were the problems of our dependent territories. The obligations laid upon the States which ratified the convention are very onerous indeed. We can hardly meet them in our own country.

We have the obligation of equal pay for both sexes, of free education, health and various other matters, which frankly an emerging territory is not equipped to undertake. In due course, no doubt, such territories will be able to do so, but we do not think that it is desirable to ratify a convention or a treaty in respect of which we have to make large or important reservations. This still remains the case with this convention, although, in the light of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, we shall certainly continue our studies into the possibility of ratifying it.

The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the right of individual petition under the European Convention, which we have applied for all our territories except Hong Kong. Therefore, it is on a temporary basis. We shall certainly consider what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said and will try to decide what is best to do when our present temporary adherence runs out. It takes rather a long time for all these cases to go through the commission and the court. I speak subject to correction, but I am not aware of any case which has gone right through both processes and has come out the other side, so to speak. I know that some are before the court, having passed the commission, but they have not yet been decided. During the whole of this time, therefore, the commission and the court have had before them these cases which depend upon the right of individual petition against the United Kingdom Government. It would be desirable that we should at least see the finish of some of the cases which have started before we finally make up our minds.

Mr. Peter Archer

I am reluctant to interrupt the Minister, but is he saying that we should wait to see whether these cases go against us before we decide whether to renew the option?

Mr. Kershaw

No. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not put words into my mouth. We are entitled to see what the full process is before finally making up our minds.

We have been extremely impressed during the course of these years by the expertise, impartiality and intellectual capacity of the commission to do its work. It is by the way in which it has discharged its duty that it has commanded the general confidence of all the signatories to the treaty, and we shall certainly examine our future attitude to the European Convention in the light of the respect which we have for those who have built up the commission and for the way in which it has worked and in this way advanced the purposes to which the signatories have dedicated themselves.

However, the processes are lengthy and we shall certainly consider what we should do. I have noted carefully what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. He has expressed a vivid wish that the 25th anniversary should be signally marked by the attendance of important people, and certainly we shall wish to do that. Our country has nothing to be ashamed of. Indeed, we have occasion to be proud of our record in matters of human rights. Because of our very extensive empire, which extended over a large number of countries which were not of the same race and background as ourselves, I suppose hardly any country could have found itself more exposed to criticism by the countries over which we ruled than ours. I believe, however, that we have divested ourselves of that empire in circumstances which have not been thought dishonourable, and that, therefore, in adhering to the Declaration of Human Rights we can say that we have done as much as any country to support it in our record and that certainly we should now support it as best we can in the international sphere. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for having introduced this subject.