---

Human Rights Judgments: Joint Committee on Human Rights Report

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on having secured this debate on what is by any standards a very important issue, and one which I fear has been much neglected in political and parliamentary discussions; namely, are we as a country and a Government sufficiently energetic to comply with the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights? I can do no better than quote from paragraph 13 of the report’s recommendations, which seems to sum up many of our criticisms. It states: "““In our previous reports, we have drawn attention to a number of cases where significant delay in implementation has tarnished the otherwise good record of the United Kingdom in responding to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights””." There you have it in a nutshell—we have a good record and yet we are very slow in responding. Throughout the report, and that of the previous year, the question of delay, slow response or no response at all over a period, seems to sum up our main criticism. I appreciate the difficulties and that some of these issues are complicated and cut across several government departments, and therefore that the Government have to provide a co-ordinated approach. Of course, that is not as easy as a single department providing a response. However, I should have thought that we could have had a bit more action, and a faster reaction, than we have had up to now. The Joint Committee on Human Rights seems to me the only area in the whole British Parliament where there is proper scrutiny of the European Court of Human Rights. There may be other scrutiny in the Council of Europe and elsewhere, but in terms of the British Parliament this is the only committee that can provide such scrutiny. Therefore, I am delighted that we have now published two successive reports that indicate our concerns about the process. This morning I had a chat with one of the Law Lords. I mentioned this debate and said it was a pity that the Law Lords were not contributing to it. He told me that it was not appropriate for Law Lords to take part in these debates—or words to that effect—much as he wished that he could. I was not aware of that, and it is a pity. If ever there was a debate to which the Law Lords could contribute very handsomely, it is this one, given that they would speak from enormous experience. Something in our procedures and conventions seems to hold them back from doing so, which I regret. Prisoners’ voting rights are dear to my heart. When I was in the House of Commons I introduced, under the 10-minute-rule Bill procedure, a Bill to give rights to prisoners, which included the right to vote. That initiative made no progress, but I am delighted that it is now higher up the agenda. I only regret that the Government have not yet seen fit to do anything about it. My next point concerns not the report but the rights of Members of this House to vote. We do not have the right to vote. I have always felt indignant that, for reasons which have always escaped me, we do not have a right to vote to influence the Government. I regard that as a breach of democracy, but, I hasten to add, not as important an issue as giving prisoners the right to vote. As it says in our report, under European human rights arrangements people do not have to have an impeccable record as individuals in order to be entitled to the right to vote. In other words, being a prisoner is not in itself, and should not be, a way of debarring someone from taking part in our electoral proceedings. I turn now to some of the Irish cases, particularly the Finucane case, which I know is difficult. My understanding—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, also referred to it—is that we are talking about the possibility of collusion. The issue has been whether the Finucane case, and one or two others, should be heard under the Inquiries Act 2005. Last year’s report states that, "““the Inquiries Act 2005 is incapable of providing Article 2 compliant investigations into deaths in which collusion was a factor””." Collusion by implication must have been a factor. I know that the Finucane family have been very concerned that the inquiry into Pat Finucane’s murder should be held under earlier legislation, which the Government have resisted. The family want that because the Executive would not so easily be in a position to prevent certain evidence being put forward—I think that that refers mainly to the security services. Carrying out the inquiry under the 2005 legislation might negate the purpose of having such an inquiry. It is a matter of regret that that is not the case. There are some clear conclusions and recommendations in the report. The committee has looked into the work of the European Court of Human Rights and at the conclusions. We have seen instances where the British Government have not been in compliance. I urge the Government to look at the report in some detail to see what they can do to speed up dealing with some of these very difficult but important cases, which represent the attempt by the European Court to say something positive about the rights of individuals in this country.