Stuart Weir | ukwatch.net

Report: UK children's rights systematically violated

Tim Holmes — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:04:12 +0000

You can hardly have failed to notice that the children’s commissioners for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have combined forces in a joint report to the United Nations to condemn the treatment of children in the United Kingdom. But you may not have taken on board their central message, and you very likely missed an equally significant report last week on the effects of poverty on education and social mobility in the UK.

The point of this unprecedented initiative is to insist that children have human rights, separate from the family, and that their rights are being systematically abused. The commissioners have presented a dossier of human rights abuses of British children in violation of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) that, in the words of the Guardian report (Monday, 9 June) have “denied hope and opportunity to many of Britain’s 14 million children and adolescents”.

The report is to the UN committee set up to review compliance with the Convention; in its last review of the UK, in 2002, the Committee found “serious violations” of the Convention. An additional report from the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, a coalition of more than 100 civil society organisations, says that the government has passed 30 laws that breach the Convention since then.

The biggest complaints centre on the punitive juvenile justice system and public attitudes that demonise adolescents. But there is a deeper-lying cause for complaint and concern. At a Sutton Trust conference on social mobility in New York last week Ed Miliband, the Cabinet Office minister, and UK educationists, heard the results of a massive study of children born in the UK and US in 2000 and 2001. The study found that the damaging effect of being in a low-income home was more pronounced in the UK than in the US and that “there is a stronger income differential in the UK than in the US,” meaning that (as a US academic told the conference) “there are more behavioural problems among low-income children in the UK”, and that the transition from home to school was harder, especially for boys. (The gap between the UK and the US would be even wider were it not for Britain’s childcare provision.)

Meanwhile, the Department of Work and Pensions is said to be releasing figures on Tuesday (10 June) that show that the government is nowhere near meeting the target of halving child poverty by 2010; and that 200,000 more children fell into poverty in 2005-06, measured after housing costs.

For me these reports reinforce the need for us in Britain to press for a “rights-based democracy”. The UNCRC provides for a five-yearly review of the rights of children in the UK. The UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights similarly involves a five-yearly review of such rights here. Britain has signed up to both these UN instruments without taking seriously the commitments that they entail. Neither of course is written into UK law; and there is no domestic equivalent.

If Gordon Brown’s pledge to consult on a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities is to command any credibility, then he must rescind his ban on consideration of economic, social and cultural rights in any consultations that may yet occur. Not that much good would come of it. Brown made a great fuss about consulting on the extension of detention without charge, but he and his Home Secretary have set that process and all informed opinion aside in a blind and obstinate offensive that is now reduced to arm-twisting Labour MPs and apparently concluding dirty deals with the Ulster Unionists.

One of the Labour whips’ argument is said to be that Labour MPs who vote against 42 days could put David Miliband in No. 10. Well, I don’t know about that, but I have very reluctantly come to the conclusion that Gordon Brown is no more fit to be there than his immediate predecessor.

Democracy Now: Our Prerogative

Ellie Keen — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 22:28:49 +0000

New Labour governments long ago abandoned the early promise of an ‘ethical’ foreign policy, but it is not forgotten by the public. An ICM opinion poll a year ago found that they believe overwhelmingly in the elements of an ‘ethical’ foreign policy, and that they want it to be democratic.

People were adamant that parliament as a whole – not the prime minister, his ministers and cronies – should decide international policies. There was a huge majority against arms sales to countries that violate human rights; another wanted the UK to press hard within the EU for trading practices that are fairer to developing countries. Two thirds wanted Britain to be more independent of the US, even if that meant being critical in public.

What’s happened in that year to meet what people want? Not much. Gordon Brown is essentially following the policies of his predecessor. So the UK continues to be actively engaged in the occupation of Iraq, colludes in Bush’s unwavering support for Israel and fails with EU allies to create a new approach to Iran. And while the government refuses to withdraw from Iraq and hold an inquiry, there is no prospect of regaining respect and influence for good in the global South.

It is vital that the royal prerogative, which gives Brown and his ministers the power to act independently of parliament, is reformed so that the people’s representatives in parliament can share fully in making foreign policies on war, treaties, development aid and trade, and so begin the process of making Britain’s role in world affairs subject to popular opinion. But MPs are as much responsible for the undemocratic nature of foreign policy as governments. They are rarely prepared to challenge government, do not demand the resources they would need to do so, and fail even to devote to the task the two under-used resources that they possess – namely, themselves and their time.

We have been working at Democratic Audit to analyse parliament’s failure to exert oversight or influence. We found that MPs are too ready to accept that they are incapable of influencing policy on major issues or even keeping the broad sweep of policy under scrutiny. We also found that the idea that they are good at the detail of policy and can have influence at this level is illusory. In the last parliamentary session, the military high command and a growing majority of the public wanted the government to withdraw from Iraq, but still some 90 British troops there and in Afghanistan were killed and about 120 injured. The government agreed the new EU reform treaty while contemptuously refusing to engage in any dialogue with parliament about its objectives or negotiating position. The foreign affairs committee failed to get the government to end its silence over the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the light of mounting evidence about the indiscriminate Israeli use of cluster munitions.

We had hoped, however, that we would be able to point to ‘successes’ at a more detailed level. We found just two issues where MPs did make a difference.

First, the foreign affairs committee mounted a tenacious campaign to persuade the government to abandon its use of cluster munitions and to reverse its refusal to back an international ban on their use. The committee’s MPs won a partial success, encouraging the government to back the treaty to outlaw their use and end the use by British forces of ‘dumb’ cluster munitions. However, there are as yet no plans to work to outlaw ‘smart’ cluster munitions: they remain in service with the UK armed forces, and there is plenty of doubt about their ability to disarm themselves.

Second, in the case of Britain’s complicity in the ‘extraordinary rendition’ by the CIA, MPs failed to make the government ‘come clean’ on its collusion in the US’s illegal policies. The most that can be said is that they made government ministers uncomfortably aware that they were at least under scrutiny.

In both these cases, pressure groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch played a significant part in informing MPs and their committees and keeping up the pressure. Here, at least, people who are concerned to ensure that Britain plays an ethical role in foreign affairs, and does not spread death, injury and misery through its own actions can join in exerting pressure on Gordon Brown and his government.

Democracy’s Last Resort

Tim Holmes — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 12:50:01 +0000

Just over four years ago, Toby Olditch and Philip Pritchard, two carpenters from Oxford, broke into RAF Fairford with the intention of disabling American B52 bombers. It was just before the ‘shock and awe’ offensive against Iraq began. Their aim was to try to save the lives of at least some ordinary Iraqi citizens. They believed that even if, as was likely, the bombers could be made airworthy after their assault, even a few days’ delay in flights would have given some people the opportunity to flee to safety.

As it happens, they were caught before they reached even their first target. (They walked calmly once they were in the airbase rather than running, as they thought they would be less likely to be shot if they were seen by guards.)

On 22 May 2007 a jury of eleven women and one man at Bristol crown court acquitted the two men on charges of criminal damage. This was the end of a long ordeal for them both – they were first tried for the same offence in October 2006 after the court of appeal had ruled on whether they (and other protesters who had broken into RAF Fairford on other occasions) could argue that the invasion represented a ‘crime of aggression’ under international law that had effect in domestic law. They had been held in prison for several months and faced long prison sentences had they been found guilty.

As I understand it, the court of appeal ruled that the legality of the invasion was not an issue. This was not least because the government – or rather, let’s be real, Tony Blair – went to war under royal prerogative powers, which do not require parliamentary approval and are outside the jurisdiction of the courts. In a judgment that trawled back to Blackstone’s Commentaries of 1769 and a pre-war case of piracy in China, one judge described the protesters’ case as ‘an attempt to limit the government’s freedom of movement in relation to the actual use of military force’. He said: ‘It is unthinkable that the national courts would entertain a challenge to a government’s decision to declare war or to authorise the use of armed force against another country!’

Thank god, then, for the inconvenient existence of the jury. The court of appeal did (again on my understanding) rule that the criminal law allowed citizens to commit what would otherwise be a criminal act to protect their own or someone’s property, or to prevent a greater crime, if they sincerely believed that was what they were doing. Well, there was no question about the sincerity of either Toby Olditch or Philip Pritchard; their testimony breathed sincerity.

I am sure, however, that the jury was also persuaded by the enormity of the ‘shock and awe’ assault upon Iraqi cities and communities. On this count, Philip Pritchard’s evidence on the effects of cluster bombs and depleted uranium (DU) was utterly convincing and chilling. I think we all know that cluster bombs are not that effective in immediate action, but can go on killing and maiming men, women and children for years afterwards. I am ashamed to say that I was unaware of the evil effects of depleted uranium.

Depleted uranium gives shells and missiles a far greater penetrative power than conventional metals and so is great at bursting through bunkers and even greater at destroying houses and habitats. It also gives off radioactive material that pollutes the air people breathe and the water they drink or wash in; and people may breathe in or ingest this vile product over a ‘half life’ amounting to four and a half billion years. The effects on human beings, both alive and yet to be born, is devastating.

The US government does not respond to questions about DU use. Defence minister Adam Ingram confirmed in answer to a parliamentary question that British forces do use DU and other modern weaponry, the better to protect our troops.

It makes me sick as I contemplate this. The big lie inherent in the idea that the Yanks and the Brits use ‘clever’ and ‘precision’ weapons to avoid ‘collateral damage’ in their ‘strikes’ against their targets is shameful enough. But that they also use such indiscriminate and devastating weapons, which will claim victims for countless generations to come, is surely a war crime?

It may not be ‘justiciable’ in the domestic courts of the UK. But it is ‘justiciable’ in the court of human justice across the world, and thank god it proved to be ‘justiciable’ in Bristol. And for me it will be ‘justiciable’ when I come to vote.

Yes, what a pathetic sanction – when I come to vote . . . The prosecution was going to argue that Toby Olditch and Philip Pritchard could have used democratic means to make their case against the war. In response, Democratic Audit produced a legal brief for the defence that showed Blair assembled a very small group of ministers and officials to take the UK to war against the wishes of the people; and that when deceit and manipulation failed to win the argument, he resorted to the brute use of political power. The cabinet was kept largely in the dark and parliament was denied a vote until it was too late. The prosecution wisely decided to drop the democratic line of argument; it was not on their side.

As it happens, democracy came to the aid of the two men in the form of the jury. In this sense, the jury was the last resort when the cabinet, parliament and the courts had failed, as previous juries have been over the years – for example, over the destruction of GM crops. The British public is fairly sympathetic to direct action, as opinion polls for the Rowntree Reform Trust have shown – as long as the action is non-violent and careful to protect others from harm.

Toby Olditch and Philip Pritchard conducted an exemplary campaign. They prepared statements to justify their actions. They planned to attach such material to any bomber they sabotaged to make sure that no one would attempt to fly it. They prepared to give themselves up afterwards. In doing so, they not only frustrated the prosecution’s attempts to portray them as reckless and dangerous; they have also been able since to make an eloquent case for their action among the public at large.

Shortly after their acquittal, Jeremy Vine gave them time on his BBC Radio 2 chat show. They didn’t have as long to make their case as they had in Bristol. If those who managed to have a say on the programme are anything to go by, listeners were obviously amazed that they had been acquitted and there was a strong current of outrage centred on the idea that they were undermining our troops. But the very reasonableness of their action disarmed the most strident criticism; and one man had the last word, saying that in light of the danger from ‘friendly fire’, they may well have saved a few British lives.

The Bristol jury has struck a blow for democracy on matters of war – a democracy that is currently denied to us via our representatives in parliament. We should salute both Toby Olditch and Philip Pritchard’s action and the jury’s decision to endorse it. For the future, we need to examine very carefully Gordon Brown’s promised reform of parliament’s role in making war.

Government needs to be placed under a statutory duty to seek parliamentary approval in advance, or immediately afterwards if its hand is forced. True democracy demands no less.

Taming the Prerogative

Alex Doherty — Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:29:31 +0000

Among the previously promised reforms made orphans by Labour after Tony Blair became leader of the party in 1994, the most significant casualty was the pledge to bring the royal prerogative under parliamentary control. Yet it was possibly the least missed at least until it dawned on everyone that it was the royal prerogative that gave Blair the power to send British troops to kill and be killed in Iraq without consulting Parliament.

Perhaps it seemed that the prerogative was one of those quaint survivals that gave the Crown the right to sturgeon and swans or sanctioned the men in tights who rule over the flummery at the Palace of Westminster. In fact, the prerogative gives the prime minister and his government almost unchecked powers not only to make war abroad, but also to deploy troops at home (to maintain the peace), to make and ratify treaties, to conduct foreign policy, to negotiate for the UK in the EU and on other multilateral bodies, to share in Natos decision-making, to represent Britain at the United Nations, to organise and re-organise the civil service, to grant and revoke passports, to dissolve Parliament, to dispense peerages and honours, to appoint senior judges and to stop prosecutions.

These rights are medieval in origin and are formally used by ministers (and officials) on the Queens behalf. In effect, they give ministers wide-ranging executive powers that may be exercised without parliamentary approval or scrutiny. Parliament doesnt even have the right to know what these powers are. Ministers shrug off parliamentary questions about them by saying that it would be impossible to list them, that records are not kept of their use and that it would not be practicable to do so.

The prime ministers ability to engage in armed conflict overseas is the most outrageous of these powers, but a moments thought reveals how all-embracing the governments freedom to make foreign policy and enter into treaties actually is. Deals in the WTO; policy decisions at the World Bank, IMF and Nato; negotiations in the G7 and G8; diplomacy in the UN Security Council; the governance of the EU: these are all covered by the royal prerogative. This is a wide-ranging panorama of policies and decisions that intimately affect the everyday lives of the people of Britain and the world. The debates in Brussels (like the current debate on targets for carbon dioxide emissions) are vital matters; EU trade policies do more harm to the lives of people in developing countries than the aid we so generously hand out to them can redress. Think, too, of the impact of decisions at the WTO, IMF, World Bank, G7 and G8 on, for example, the economies of developing nations and the world poor, or global warming. And what is it that allows Blair to determine the conduct of the special relationship with his comrade-in-arms George W Bush, and to turn his back on our European allies? The royal prerogative.

The slogan that united the hundreds of thousands who marched in protest against the Iraq war applies in each and every case: not in our name. The prerogative puts into the hands of ministers decision-making powers that do not require parliamentary approval or get parliamentary scrutiny while they are engaged in rounds of activity that shape the world we live in. The bodies in which such decisions are taken are remote and opaque, and the UKs new freedom of information rules ensure that the role British ministers and officials play in them remains secret unless it is in governments interest to make it known.

And this does not just concern the great international issues. The directives and regulations that pour through Brussels have a substantial impact on domestic law in the UK: some say that the EU shapes three quarters of UK legislation. Similarly, when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister, she used the prerogative to impose the ban on trade unionism at GCHQ, the intelligence services listening post (and a crucial pillar of the special relationship).

You might think that the prerogative has no place in a modern Western democracy, that it is used as a smoke-screen by ministers to obfuscate the use of power for which they are insufficiently accountable. Well, thats almost exactly what Jack Straw said when, in an earlier democratic incarnation, he described the prerogative in 1994. His words were true then; they are truer now.

The Iraq war has provoked renewed interest in taming the prerogative. The House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee conducted a thoughtful review of prerogative powers a year ago and published a short bill as a model for future reform. It recommended that over time all prerogative powers should be placed on a statutory footing, and that there should be early legislation on decisions on armed conflict, treaty-making and passports. Well-known radicals such as Douglas Hurd and William Hague expressed their concern that prime ministers should be obliged to seek parliamentary authority before going to war.

There are those who would reassure us that the two votes on the Iraq war have created a precedent that will ensure that in future any prime minister contemplating military action will have to get parliamentary approval first. So there is no need for legislation to insist upon it. But decisions of such gravity cannot be left to a governments good will. Legislation is needed to put a stop to the exercise of public power without parliamentary authority, to put in place proper ministerial accountability and to give citizens the opportunity to make their voices heard.

Neil Gerrard, the Labour MP for Walthamstow (and regular Red Pepper contributor), has introduced a bill into Parliament, the Armed Forces (Parliamentary Approval for Participation in Armed Conflict) Bill 2005, the aim of which is to insist that in future prime ministers must seek Parliaments authority for armed action abroad. Gerrard, who came 12th in this parliaments ballot for private members bills, has strong cross-party support in the Commons, and the democratic reform campaign Charter88, now being revitalised by joint directors Ron Bailey and Peter Facey, is mobilising support outside Westminster.

Gerrard doesnt expect that his bill will go far. He sees it as a scouting mission for similar bills after the next election and for a wider reform measure that will make prerogative powers generally subject to parliamentary approval. Ministers must, of course, possess flexible executive powers; otherwise, they could not govern. But the use of those powers must be open to parliamentary approval and scrutiny and rejection.

It would be very difficult to frame a bill that would put all prerogative powers on a statutory footing and so make their use subject to parliamentary approval and scrutiny (though Liberal Democrat peer Lord Lester has had a go in the House of Lords). It is simply that no one, probably not even in Whitehall, really knows what they all are. So the public administration committees prescription looks like the best starting place: first, legislate at once on the three areas of most concern military action, treaty-making and passports (a human rights issue), and pass a Civil Service Act that would ensure that changes must also be made subject to parliamentary approval; second, demand a full list of prerogative powers from the executive and prepare a bill for comprehensive reform. Where it matters, Parliament should also be able to mandate ministers, as they do in some Scandinavian countries. But that is another story.

Stuart Weir is director of the democracy and human rights monitoring organisation Democratic Audit (www.democraticaudit.com). He is currently working on a study of the accountability of Britains foreign policies.