The British legislation purporting to implement the Belfast Agreement has now almost completed the last few parliamentary stages before it becomes law.
I have been concerned throughout its passage that the legislation should accurately reflect the agreement's equality and human rights provisions that, as we all know, are central to efforts to secure a lasting peace. Thus far, I have preferred to work away from the glare of publicity. Unfortunately, I must now say that there are several respects in which the Bill is seriously deficient.
One of the strengths of the agreement is that it reflects best international practice in relation to human rights. Unfortunately, in one of its key provisions - the establishment of a human rights commission - government proposals fail to meet even basic minimum internationally-agreed standards on powers for the effective investigation of human rights abuses.
The agreement provides specifically that the new human rights commission would have the power to initiate litigation itself.
The British government has unilaterally said that it is unwilling to provide it with these powers because to do so would go against its policy of confining litigation powers in human rights matters to actual victims. At this time in particular, does any sensible person seriously want to send a message to the parties to the agreement that this type of cherry-picking is acceptable? Can they, too, cherry-pick?
The Northern Ireland Assembly will have the power to destroy existing equality legislation in the areas of fair employment, race, gender and disability. Nothing in the agreement requires this. Given the self-evident importance of these matters, the Assembly should only be permitted to improve existing protections in this area, not undermine them.
The British government amendments slipped into the Bill on Monday night provide that the duty on public authorities to bring forward equality schemes will not now automatically apply to new public bodies, only existing bodies. It is likely that a whole series of new departments and other bodies will be created in Northern Ireland following the passage of the legislation due to reorganisation of the public service.
As a result of these amendments, none of these bodies will automatically be required to produce equality schemes.
No good reason has been produced for this move. The agreement makes no distinctions between old and new public bodies. This just seems to be the Northern Ireland civil service yet again playing games, attempting to immunise itself from change to the greatest extent possible.
The new equality commission set up in part to enforce the new equality duty will instead be able to exempt specific public bodies entirely from the duty to produce equality schemes or exempt particular functions of public authorities from that duty. Even with the highest calibre of independent membership, the risk of abuse of these powers must be a matter of concern. In any event, I consider these powers to be objectionable in principle.
There is currently no protection under the Bill for affirmative action measures taken by public authorities to tackle the disadvantage from which particular groups, such as women and the disabled, suffer. Incredibly, the British government appears to justify this omission on the grounds that the duty to provide equality is in any case so weak in the Bill that no such exception is necessary.
A vital part of the process of mainstreaming equality in the Northern Ireland public service is the participation in the process of decision-making of those groups most likely to be affected by policy proposals and the giving of reasons by public bodies as to why they have taken decisions which adversely affect these groups.
Despite commitments that these points would be included on the face of the Bill, no amendments have yet been produced to deliver on these promises.
Finally, new amendments to the Bill provide a revised procedure for those who seek to challenge certificates issued by a minister which justify discrimination on national security grounds.
A new procedure was required to implement a recent European Court of Human Rights judgment holding the United Kingdom in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights for failure to provide a judicial procedure to contest such certificates.
Amendments introduced on Monday night now provide, however, that those complaining will have no right to know the case against them. The special tribunal established to hear the case may sit in secret and exclude the victim and, to cap it all, the victim will have no right to have his or her own lawyer represent them. Instead, the government (the defendant, remember) may itself appoint a lawyer for those who com plain, and any such government-appointed lawyers will have no responsibilities to their "clients".
Let me be clear. I do not believe that these problems are irremediable, nor do I believe that they are the result of any lack of commitment to equality and human rights by Mo Mowlam, Paul Murphy or Alf Dubs. I know from personal experience that the opposite is true. I suspect, rather, that the problem lies in the advice being given to them by civil servant advisers who either do not know or do not care what the effect of their action will be. But it is now time for ministers to retake the moral high ground on these issues.
Inattention to detail must now stop. It is time to refocus attention and introduce the necessary amendments by report stage in the House of Lords, a mere few weeks away. Otherwise the optimism which greeted the agreement will be replaced by dangerous cynicism. To allow this to happen is to play fast and loose with peace.
It is not too late to rescue the situation, but it is coming very close to being too late.
Kevin McNamara is the former British Labour Party spokesman on Northern Ireland