Discrimination against Women (Hansard, 31 January 2002)

§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
My Lords, the Government believe that the United Kingdom already complies with the CEDAW convention and that we have effective legislation against sex 347 discrimination, including the relevant provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Human Rights Act 1998.
The Government are committed to reviewing the question of whether citizens should have an avenue of complaint to the United Nations human rights committees. However, we consider that the Human Rights Act should be given a chance to bed down properly before conducting such a review.

§ Baroness Thomas of Walliswood
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer, although I am a little doubtful about how much further forward that takes us. In relation to other human rights problems, did I understand her to say that it is not just the accession relating to the protocol for CEDAW but the accession relating to existing protocols that is under discussion? Does she agree that those who have already signed up to the protocol may feel that their systems are sufficient to guarantee individual, women's or racial human rights? They nevertheless signed up to ensure that their citizens can ultimately appeal to the United Nations. Is it not important that the United Kingdom should continue to sustain and support the United Nations and give our citizens their full rights of appeal on human rights issues?

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I can reassure the noble Baroness that Her Majesty's Government intend to continue to support and sustain the United Nations. We have done that in a plethora of ways. The noble Baroness rightly said that the CEDAW protocol is one of four protocols that will be considered; the others are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention against Racial Discrimination and the United Nations Convention against Torture. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor indicated on 1st November 2001 that there would be a review in relation to those four protocols. We hope that by the end of February we will be able to announce a date when that review will take place.

§ Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, as I understand it, the United Kingdom initially played a leading part in pushing for the protocol. Why are we now so loath to implement it ourselves?

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, the truth, as the noble Baroness knows, is that we already have extensive legislation that deals with virtually all of the issues that are covered by CEDAW. She will also be aware that CEDAW came into consideration only in 2000. Before that, the main priority was rightly given to the implementation of the Human Rights Act. When I cast my eye over the matters covered by CEDAW, I noted more than 28 different areas of law in which we have already legislated. It is important to consider our position in relation to this matter. Eight European countries have not ratified; they have 348 signed. Noble Lords know that before we take any such course, we consider the issues very carefully. We intend to do that if and when the review comes about.

§ Baroness Crawley
My Lords, while I welcome the Minister's encouraging reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and recognise the Government's good record on human rights and equality, is she aware of the disappointment felt by women's organisations throughout the country about the lack of action in relation to this convention? Can she assure us that the Government are seeking an early resolution to the problem?

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I certainly reassure my noble friend that the Government are aware of such disappointment. I assure her that the Government's commitment to equality and women's issues is as strong as it always has been. She rightly said that we have a proud record. We certainly do not seek to besmirch it by any tardiness. As I said, we will review the matter and there will be a full opportunity for extensive consultation on it. I am sure that my noble friend and many other colleagues will want to contribute to any such review.

§ Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, does the Minister agree that while actions speak louder than words, others will ask, "What do we actually achieve by signing the protocol?"? Is it not more sensible for us to concentrate on actively promoting our human rights agenda?

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, that is a strong view, and the noble Baroness was right to say that even if we signed and ratified the protocol, the committee would be able to make recommendations that would not be binding on us. All of the conventions to which we are currently party are binding on us; that is also the case with our legislation. The noble Baroness rightly said that primary importance should be given to our Human Rights Act. That is not to detract from the potential importance of the protocol. That is why we said that we will review it and do so thoroughly.

§ Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, does the Minister accept that this is not simply a case of establishing whether we have carried out a number of the legislative provisions that are required in relation to sexual and gender discrimination'? Does she also recognise that the UK's full acceptance of CEDAW would be an example to a number of countries whose legislation is wholly unsatisfactory? In the light of that, will she assure the House that she will move as urgently as possible towards the full ratification of the protocol?

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I certainly accept that that is an encouragement to others, and I understand the symbolic nature that many sought to underscore. All of that is understood. However, she will know that this country is not simply interested in 349 symbolism; we are interested in action. We intend to undertake the review, look at the matter frankly and openly and then do something that will, I hope, make things better for the women of this country and encourage others to do the same.