Yes. Thank you very much for inviting the IPU to be part of this exercise. We are very pleased to engage with your committee, because we know that it has been at the forefront of promoting human rights. We are aware of several good practices that your committee has shown, which we think can inspire other committees around the world to better promote and protect human rights.
I want to make eight points about the work of parliamentary committees in relation to the work that the IPU has been doing, which I hope will be particularly relevant to your committee. My first point is about the parliamentary human rights committee model. I understand that, two years ago, it was decided that your committee should include human rights as well as equalities in its remit. The IPU has always been a strong advocate of having dedicated parliamentary human rights committees but, at the same time, we have highlighted the importance of making sure that those committees do not work in isolation from other committees but co-ordinate and co-operate closely with them. In some cases—I am not suggesting that this is the case in Scotland; quite the contrary—such committees have been set up just to pay lip service to human rights. If there is no real willingness and commitment within the Parliament as a whole, the human rights committee will not be terribly effective.
My second point is about the importance of parliamentary human rights committees setting out clear objectives and establishing a work plan for the full parliamentary session.
Thirdly, it is important that there is strong committee involvement in UN monitoring mechanisms. As Gianni has just said, at the moment the UN is favourably disposed to engagement with Parliaments. There is a momentum, and it is important that Parliaments seize that opportunity when it comes to the universal periodic review and the work of the UN treaty bodies by making sure that they are aware that the national report is to be prepared, that they put the issue on the agenda and that they discuss that report with the relevant ministries and officials. They should also find out whether it is possible for parliamentary representatives to be included in national delegations to those UN mechanisms. Most important, perhaps, is that they are aware of the recommendations and concluding observations that emerge from those mechanisms, and that they question the relevant authorities about implementation.
Fourthly, it is important that Parliaments work as much as possible with and draw on the expertise of their national human rights commission. Not so long ago, we did a survey that looked at the implementation of the Belgrade principles on the relationship and co-operation between Parliaments and national human rights institutions. It emerged clearly from that survey that national human rights institutions regularly present reports to Parliaments, but that there is a lot to be desired when it comes to feedback on those reports and follow-up action. I will illustrate that with a figure. When NHRI reports are presented, Parliaments take follow-up action in only 25 per cent of cases, and most of the actions that are taken are not conveyed or communicated to the NHRIs.
Fifthly, effective oversight of Government action should be made a priority by addressing challenges to such oversight. That is relevant to not just your committee but all parliamentary committees. A suggestion from the IPU is that those challenges could be addressed by drawing on the best practices that are listed in the “Global Parliamentary Report 2017”, which the IPU and the UN development programme launched last year. That report deals exclusively with the issue of parliamentary oversight, and it made quite a number of recommendations that are useful across the board in Parliaments.
My sixth point is about the importance not only of reviewing the compliance of draft legislation with human rights before the legislation is adopted, but of doing an ex post human rights impact assessment of the implementation of that legislation. It should be made clear when bills are adopted that there will automatically be a review of respect for human rights within two, three or five years.
Obviously, we are aware that the Human Rights Act 1998 is formulated on the European convention on human rights but, ideally, we should also think about the UN monitoring bodies.
09:15
My seventh point is on the importance of Parliaments taking the lead in promoting national debate on human rights issues. The IPU has seen time and again that it is important not to leave human rights to experts alone. Human rights often require tough political choices to be made. It is important that Parliaments, together with the audience at large, national human rights commissions, civil society organisations and academia, seize on the opportunity to offer a public national platform to initiate that debate. It is also important to go to citizens and to be on the move as much as possible.
My last point is on the importance of monitoring the impact of the committee’s work, in terms of processes and substantive results. Where has the committee been able to make a difference? That is useful not only for your own citizens but for us, because we are trying to collect as many global examples as possible in which we can show very clearly that a Parliament’s involvement was important not only from a purely procedural perspective but because it was able to better deliver human rights as a whole.