---

Human Rights

rose to call attention to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, last week we celebrated international women’s day and the promotion of equality for women. Yesterday we approved a law to combat discrimination based on sexual orientation. We are about to mark the bicentenary of the abolition of the infamous trade in slaves, but there are many other forms of modern slavery. As was pointed out in Monday’s International Herald Tribune, in an article by the executive director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, Antonio Maria Costa, "““we have the moral duty and legal obligation to prevent and suppress its modern equivalents””." The Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill seeks to tackle a serious abuse of human rights, often amounting to sexual slavery. Happily the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, has been given lead responsibility for the Bill in this House, and I am delighted that she will reply to this debate, the subject matter of which is wide-ranging and topical. A democratic society governed by the rule of law needs constantly to nurture a culture of respect for human rights. It must secure in law the effective protection of human rights against arbitrary and unnecessary restriction or abuses of power by public authorities, or by private bodies exercising public powers. It needs to recognise that civil and political rights and economic and social rights are interdependent, and that all three branches of government must be actively engaged in their advancement. These are statements of the obvious, but there are few countries where they are a practical reality. Nor is there room for complacency in this country. It is all too easy when the public are threatened by the scourge of terrorism or serious crime and disorder to treat respect for human rights as a disposable luxury, to pander to populist pressure from reactionary media in the pursuit of political power, and to surrender the rights of vulnerable and unpopular minorities. The Human Rights Act has strong Liberal Democrat support. Its purpose is to nurture a culture of respect for human rights, and to enable our own courts to give effective remedies for breaches of the convention rights by British public authorities. Alone in Europe, we have no written constitutional Bill of Rights. The Human Rights Act is the next best method of constitutional protection. It reconciles effective British judicial remedies for human rights violations with the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy. The courts are empowered to declare but not to strike down legislation ruled to be incompatible with the convention rights, leaving it to government and Parliament to pass remedial legislation, or, if they will not, to defend proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights. The Act is based on the assumption that the executive and legislative branches as well as the judiciary share a common commitment to representative democracy, respect for human rights and government under the rule of law. It could not work without that shared commitment. It requires government, public authorities and public officials to justify policies, practices and decisions which have an adverse impact on human rights on the basis of evidence and not mere assertion. In other words, it promotes a culture of justification. The Act was not welcome to Euro-sceptic Conservatives whose political memory does not extend to the aftermath of the last world war, when Winston Churchill, Harold Macmillan, Maxwell Fyfe and other leading Conservatives led the European movement and championed the need for the European convention. We hope that in this debate Her Majesty’s Opposition—represented on this occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, who cannot be regarded in any way as a Euro-sceptic—will recognise the great benefits that the Human Rights Act has brought. One benefit is the relief given to the hugely overburdened European Court of Human Rights. The Strasbourg court is choking on 80,000 or more pending cases, with some 250,000 cases by 2010. The case load is increasing exponentially. Without the Human Rights Act, British citizens would have had to rely upon recourse to the European Court, with ever increasing delays in obtaining a final judgment. Another benefit is increased British legal influence on the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Judgments of our courts closely examine the convention case law, and British judgments are now given great weight by the European judges because they engage in a dialogue based on common principles and a common human rights discourse. The Human Rights Act is no ordinary law. It is a constitutional measure of greater practical significance than the measures we rightly cherish as part of our constitutional heritage—the Bill of Rights and Claim of Right, the habeas corpus Acts, and Magna Carta itself. Its values are expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its progeny, including the UN international covenants and the European convention. The values are universal and are deep-rooted in British political and legal tradition. They are our birthright and part of our common humanity and human dignity. That leads me to correct a mistake in Hansard, in order to reassure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, who is to take part in this debate. In the report of last night’s debate, there is a Freudian mistake, not I think by me, but by the unfortunate Hansard reporter who no doubt listened to my poor enunciation. It is quite an important mistake. I have been reported as saying that, "““the principles of human rights are universal, that they derive not only from the secular Enlightenment but from all the great religious divisions””—" that last word should be ““traditions””— "““including the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and that they all recognise the need for a fair balance between competing rights and freedoms””. —[Official Report, 21/3/07; col. 1323.]" Maybe the Hansard writer has a sense of humour. The Act exerts a magnetic force over the whole of our legal system. Our courts respect its force and do not permit human rights protection to be weakened by arguments based on political expediency or administrative convenience. The courts strike a fair balance between the rights of one individual and another, as well as the interests of the community. They avoid the trap of legalism or of a narrowly literal interpretation. They are to be commended for that and for protecting legislative and executive powers against judicial usurpation. There is no risk in this country of a Government of unelected judges. They have approached the Strasbourg jurisprudence through, rather than round, British law, weaving the convention rights into the fabric of the British system. That is vital if the process is to command public confidence. We must not alienate British public opinion by the way in which we deal with these matters. The Act has also increased the parliamentary accountability of the Executive with the aid of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I have been privileged to serve since it was first established. Ministers and civil servants are much more aware of their human rights responsibilities, and Parliament is much better informed when debating proposed measures, as we saw in two debates only yesterday. If noble Lords read the debate on the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill, they will see the dialogue that took place with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. There was also the debate on the sexual orientation regulations. There is no doubt that the JCHR and its input is now an established part of our procedures and has altered the terms of the relationship between the Government and Parliament. The approach of the Human Rights Act is holistic, by which I mean that all three branches of government are involved, rather than only the judiciary. The JCHR takes account of all the international human rights instruments by which the UK is bound. The courts treat its reports as relevant—but no more than that—when deciding issues of convention compatibility. It gives them an important context. The Government’s review of the implementation of the Human Rights Act has dispelled myths and misconceptions about the Act. The Act has had a beneficial impact on UK law and government policy. It has not damaged the Government’s ability to fight crime. It has been misapplied on occasions, because of deficiencies in training and guidance, particularly to public authorities and services, for which the Act itself is not to blame. The Government are to be commended for having made sure that almost £6 million was spent in training all our judiciary before the Act came into force. The Government have published welcome new guidance to enhance understanding of the Act.From October, the Commission for Equality and Human Rights will be in a position to carry on that work.We hope that the commission will give sufficientpriority to human rights, in addition to its demanding equality brief. The legitimacy of the Human Rights Act is under frequent and unfair attack by the tabloid press. The Sun ran a campaign last summer to, "““rip up the Human Rights Act””." The right honourable David Cameron has suggested that the Act is, "““practically an invitation for terrorists and would-be terrorists to come to Britain””," and that it should be repealed and replaced with a Bill of Rights based on British traditions and balancing rights and security. While the stronger constitutional protection of human rights through a Bill of Rights would be welcome, repealing the Act and replacing it with a Bill of Rights is, in the words of the right honourable Kenneth Clarke, chair of the Conservatives’ Democracy Task Force, ““xenophobic and legal nonsense””. The Conservative Party has now set up a Bill of Rights commission. It consists of seven distinguished lawyers, two of them Members of this House, all barristers, six of them men, with the only woman as secretary to the committee. I wish them well, but I suggest that they might broaden their membership to include a substantial lay and minority element. Much as I respect my fellow barristers, the subject is too important to be left even to barristers, however distinguished. There is a powerful case for developing a British Bill of Rights to strengthen the protection given by the Human Rights Act. It would need to reflect British political and legal values, drawing on not only the convention but the other international human rights instruments and the constitutional rights recently developed by the courts from the common law. It would contribute to our public philosophy and public education on the meaning of British citizenship, providing a code of values for each new generation. The process of obtaining genuine popular consent through public consultation across the country would be as important as the outcome of the process. Next week, the British section of the International Commission of Jurists will launch a discussion paper, to which I and others from this House have contributed, which seeks answers to key questions about whether and how to achieve a Bill of Rights for Britain. Finally, two years ago, when the Government accepted the right of individual petition to the UN Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, they undertook to review whether to accept the right of individual petition for British cases under the other UN human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Human Rights Committee. The review was due to begin last week, and I believe it did so. At present, we are out of step with every other member state of the EU, the great majority of members of the Council of Europe, and Commonwealth countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. I very much hope that the Minister will respond positively to what promises to be a fascinating debate, even though I realise that the most she can do today is to tell us, with her characteristic charm, that the Government are looking into the matter and do not necessarily have closed minds. I beg to move for Papers.