---

Human Rights Judgments: Joint Committee on Human Rights Report

I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on securing this debate. I shall speak briefly as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to support what the noble Lord has said today and to emphasise that members of the committee of all parties and of no party believe that the issues which he has raised are of concern and should be addressed by the Government as soon as possible. There are concerns not just about the issues but also about the delay on the part of the Government in responding to clear recommendations which have now been set out in two reports of the Joint Committee, one of which was published more than a year ago. We have asked again that after that year, and after the publication of yet another report, the report to answer these detailed recommendations should be published by the end of this parliamentary Session. Clearly, time is running out for the Minister to meet that request. I do not think that this short debate is the place to repeat all the questions and the recommendations in the two reports. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has given a masterly synopsis of all the recommendations and the points of concern. Last year’s report made suggestions very clearly set out in paragraph 6 of this year’s report on how the UK’s domestic mechanisms for the implementation of judgments could be improved. It has already been pointed out that in 2007 the Minister then responsible said that the Government would respond after further consideration. To date, no substantive response has been received. It would be very helpful if, referring back to paragraph 6, the Minister could advise us on what progress has been made under every heading. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I, too, shall refer to the case of Hirst v UK in which the European Court of Human Rights found that a blanket ban on all prisoners having rights is incompatible with the right to participate in free and fair elections. In August 2007, the Government advised that they were considering responses to the first stage of consultation before deciding how to take the matter forward. One of our recommendations in this and in last year's report was that the Joint Committee on Human Rights should be kept advised about what is going on. The Minister will perhaps understand that, when the committee’s officers read on the Council of Europe website that the Government had submitted a revised action plan to the Council of Ministers which indicated that the Government were undecided about whether a further consultative exercise or a legislative solution were necessary, we were somewhat surprised that we had not been advised in correspondence by Ministers, especially since the matter was an ongoing topic. That prompted a further letter to the Minister and our requests on that particular issue are set out in full on page 25 of the current report. Therefore, will the Minister please address the questions raised? What is the current position on that issue? I emphasise that the Joint Committee on Human Rights is not promoting a particular solution. It only wants to know from the Government how they propose to address the issue in the light of the judgment. There are other important issues, including investigations into cases involving the use of lethal force by security forces in Northern Ireland, security of tenure for Gypsies and Travellers and other matters. Those are the merely illustrative of the cases and reasons for concern of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The delays in responding to the committee and bringing forward proposals to remedy the situation mean that the UK has been found in breach of convention rights, and the lack of information given to the committee about progress and the steps that the Government are taking cause concern. That is why I hope that this debate will give the Minister the opportunity to give the Grand Committee assurances and answers to points raised in the report. I do not believe in drawing invidious comparisons with our partners either in the European Union or the Council of Europe. However, given that we drafted the European Convention on Human Rights and were one of the first signatories, it is unusual that together with Italy and Turkey we have the largest number of outstanding cases where there is a delay of more than five years.