Hansard

It would be better if I wrote to you. We think that the GB commission will have that power, but consideration of the powers that the GB body will have is not the main issue for our bill. Some issues with powers in relation to human rights are, in a sense, hangovers from the fact that matters are expressed more generally, now that the equalities and human rights roles are joined. I understand that we have different levels of inquiry for the two functions. To avoid doubt, we are happy to write to you to provide a bit of clarity.I ask the committee to reject amendments 105 to 110, which Marlyn Glen ably presented. I recognise what she is trying to do. In a sense, an issue of width and depth is involved, involving budgets and so forth. Amendment 105 would cast the inquiry power far too widely. The SCHR must have a reasonably clear focus. Under the inquiry power, the focus will be on considering whether public authorities have sufficient awareness of human rights, exactly as detailed in the 1998 act, and whether that is reflected in their policies and practices. Fundamentally, amendment 105 is unacceptable because the legal obligation to comply with human rights has been imposed on public authorities. That is why section 2(3) imposes a general requirement on the SCHR to have particular regard to the convention rights in exercising its functions.A fundamental principle is that the SCHR will not handle individual complaints. That has been clear from an early stage: it was dealt with in the consultation papers and so on. Amendment 106 would detract from that principle by empowering the SCHR to investigate individual bodies as a matter of course. That would not be consistent with the vision of the SCHR as a body whose main purpose is the general promotion of human rights rather than being another layer of regulation and enforcement.With regard to the point about resources, we are beginning to get into Scottish public services ombudsman territory if we narrow the inquiry power to specific inquiries into specific bodies. That would create the potential for the SCHR to overlap with and encroach substantially on the role of the ombudsman. The inquiry power is intended to complement the SCHR's general purpose to promote and raise awareness of human rights issues, by allowing it to investigate broad issues of concern rather than individual cases, but the amendments would detract from that by risking the SCHR becoming bogged down in consideration of specific cases. There would be budgetary considerations, as well, if we went in that direction.Under section 5, the SCHR's ability to conduct general inquiries will, in any case, include private companies and individuals in so far as their nature and functions bring them within the definition of public authority that is contained in the Human Rights Act 1998. The amendments may be aimed at extending the SCHR's remit to issues such as the provision of contracted-out services or matters of that sort, but it is not necessary to go in that direction, because of the existing powers.The purpose of the references to "excepted inquiries" in section 9—which have not been mentioned in this discussion—is to ensure that the SCHR will, if requested to do so by the relevant international oversight body, be able to conduct inquiries under international human rights instruments such as the UN convention against torture. In doing so, the SCHR will operate on behalf of the relevant international body and be expected to comply with its procedures, including the preparation and submission of reports. Such reports will be published by the international body in accordance with its own timetable and procedures and will generally remain confidential until published. Amendments 109 and 110 go against that by requiring the SCHR to submit such reports to the Parliament in the same way as other SCHR reports and so could, in practice, prevent the SCHR from undertaking monitoring work under conventions such as the convention against torture.I have touched on the point about the different role of the CEHR.The issue of who can be required to give evidence is linked to the issue about public bodies. We are able to require the staff of the public bodies concerned to give evidence but only to ask others. There is a question mark over the advantage of bringing in reluctant witnesses from spheres other than the body concerned. Most of the people who will have an issue to put before the SCHR will be happy to give evidence, as they are entitled to do. The question whether we require to compel them takes us further into other issues.As I have said from the beginning, the powers that the bill confers are substantial; they are not a compromise. We have tried to fit them into a sensible added-value role in the Scottish context, between the GB commission, which will deal with reserved issues, and the other commissioners and bodies that operate in Scotland. That is why the SCHR has been given the powers in the bill.Have I missed any of the points that were raised? I have a vague feeling that there was something else.