Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to encourage
compliance with the Convention on Human Rights (1) in the United
Kingdom, and (2) across Europe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice
() (Con)
My Lords, the Government are fully committed to abiding by their
obligations under the convention, in line with the Brighton
declaration of 2012, agreed under the UK’s chairmanship of the
Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers. We will continue to
lead efforts to ensure the effective implementation of the
convention by all state parties, in accordance with the principle
of subsidiarity and the margin of appreciation afforded to them
under that declaration.
(Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his very well-deserved new role.
Noble Lords
Hear, Hear!
I thank him for his Answer, but I am afraid what Amnesty
International has called the “rights removal Bill”, which was
published yesterday, tells a rather different story. Its
provisions drastically dilute the positive obligations on the
police to protect the public from sexual and violent crimes, and
it attempts to break the vital link between our domestic courts
and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. How can
Ministers get on aeroplanes to talk about human rights elsewhere
in the world while promoting such a hatchet job at home?
(Con)
I thank the House for its welcome. As the House knows, this
afternoon we have an Oral Statement during which we can go into
some of these questions in more detail. If I may at this stage
confine myself to general terms, the Government’s view is that
this Bill will strengthen our human rights framework in this
country, in particular—and these are the key words I would like
to introduce—by introducing a better balance in the human rights
framework, a better balance between the judiciary and the
legislature, a better balance between UK judges and Strasbourg,
and a better balance between rights and obligations. We stay in
the convention; the rights in the convention are still there in
UK statute; but we seek to rebalance and clarify, in the words of
the Act, and thereby restore public confidence in our human
rights framework.
(Con)
My Lords, I also welcome my noble friend to his present place; he
is very welcome.
Would my noble friend agree that in a parliamentary democracy
there is a great deal to be said for leaving to the Supreme Court
of this country the ultimate interpretation of the meanings of
rights and their applications? If Parliament happens to disagree
with that interpretation, Parliament can reverse or modify it,
whereas if the ultimate arbiter is the European court, that is
not possible. Is that not a serious democratic deficit?
(Con)
My Lords, I respectfully agree with my noble friend.
(Lab)
My Lords, Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights
is very clear:
“The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final
judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties”.
This is more fundamental than subsidiarity or a margin of
appreciation, because now the Government plan to make our own
courts the final court of appeal. How do the Government reconcile
this with the clear obligations under Article 46 of the
convention?
(Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom remains bound by Article 46 of the
convention. In the unlikely and relatively rare event, let it be
hoped, that the United Kingdom is found in breach of the
convention, it will be a matter of political discussion and
settlement in the context of the Committee of Ministers, as has
happened from time to time in the past—for example in relation to
prisoner voting. That situation remains unchanged. It is the
Government’s view that, within this framework, we are achieving a
better balance in the mechanics of the convention rather than the
fundamental principles.
(CB)
My Lords, would the Minister agree that, by definition, there can
be no hierarchy of human rights and they should be exactly the
same whether for those in Europe or Britain, or for those seeking
refuge and asylum in small, leaky boats?
(Con)
My Lords, the convention recognises a margin of appreciation and
the principle of subsidiarity as to how each of the member states
implements their duties under the convention. There is no
hierarchy as such, but there are going to be variations in the
way those rights are secured. In particular, this Bill redefines
and promotes the right to freedom of speech, which lies at the
heart of our democracy.
(LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that the European
Convention on Human Rights will for ever be linked to David
Maxwell Fyfe who, supported by Winston Churchill, was one of its
principal authors. It is implicit in the Question asked by the
noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that, over the years since its
passage, we have been both a leader by example and an influencer
in Europe. Is the Minister really satisfied—I am sorry to say
this in welcoming him—to continue to be a member of a Government
who are quite clearly using civil liberties, human rights and the
convention itself as what is described as a wedge issue to
inflame and enthuse the right wing of the Tory party, instead of
giving the moral leadership that all parties have taken pride in
since its inception?
(Con)
My Lords, respectfully, I do not accept the characterisation put
forward by the noble Lord. The approach in this Bill is balanced,
as I have just explained, and is described in this morning’s
Times as a “constructive and sound” approach—a phrase that I
would readily adopt. I fully accept that the great tradition of
this country by great lawyers such as David Maxwell Fyfe should,
and does, continue. The UK is one of the most active members of
the Council of Europe. We have not only promoted the Brighton
declaration I referred to a moment ago, which finally came into
force last October, but we have recently been party to a further
recommendation on better dissemination of human rights
information across the Council of Europe and to a declaration to
revitalise Articles 5 and 6 on liberty and the right to a fair
trial. We have taken a lead in dealing with the situation
regarding Russia and on generally improving the mechanics of the
court. That leading role will continue.
(Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord to the Dispatch Box. When the
Human Rights Act was incorporated into the ECHR in 1998, I was a
delegate to the Council of Europe. I remember many speeches in
this Chamber and in the Strasbourg assembly about the importance
of that incorporation process. Many of the speeches were directed
to our new eastern European friends about the importance of the
ECHR. My noble friend’s Question is about the impact of this
proposed legislation in Europe. Does the Minister believe that
the Bill of Rights Bill introduced yesterday will enhance or
detract from compliance with the convention in Europe?
(Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his welcome. The Government
believe that, when we have cleared away the fog surrounding this
Bill, and fully understood it and together analysed it in detail,
it will be seen to be a reinforcement of human rights. It will
not detract from the framework of human rights or have any
adverse effect on our friends and allies in eastern Europe and
other members of the Council of Europe.
(Con)
My Lords, it is a convention right that one should have a vote
for the legislature that makes one’s laws. Can my noble friend
say whether he considers that that right is being vindicated in
Northern Ireland at the moment, which is subject to laws made by
a foreign power with no democratic say, or is democracy simply a
matter of a margin of appreciation?
(Con)
My Lords, I anticipate that that question is somewhat outside the
ambit of the present debate. I can add that, in relation to
Northern Ireland, the Government are satisfied that this Bill
complies with the Good Friday agreement, the withdrawal agreement
and other relevant enactments affecting Northern Ireland. I think
that is as far as I can go today.
