---

Human Rights Judgments: Joint Committee on Human Rights Report

As I was about to say, we on these Benches believe that the Human Rights Act, which gives such prominence to our legal and parliamentary system in the European Convention on Human Rights, is a noble and long-established doctrine but that it has shifted the balance of our constitution too far. My party has said this before, and I say it again simply so that noble Lords know where we stand. However, the point that we are debating today and to which I urge the Government to respond is quite separate. I have indicated that we on these Benches may take a different view on whether our approach to the application of the Human Rights Act is the right one, but we are where we are and the Government introduced their human rights legislation, so that is the system under which the courts make their rulings. It is also the system that Parliament must scrutinise. Parliament, through the tireless work of many, including noble Lords present, does indeed play its part. What I find deplorable is the Government’s response, which has been quite dismal. It is one thing to disagree with the Government’s response to an issue; it is quite another for the Government simply to fail to respond at all—a point which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and my noble friend Lord Bowness made strongly. Last year, the JCHR recommended that the Government make a series of systemic reforms that would facilitate enhanced and more efficient implementation of human rights judgments. It is extremely disappointing that, almost 18 months later, the Government have yet to respond substantively to that report. Although some delay in assessing the feasibility of the committee’s proposals is understandable, surely 18 months is ample time to formulate a response. The delay is especially surprising given that there are obviously some serious procedural and systemic problems with the Government’s current approach, exemplified by the fact that only Italy and Turkey have a higher number of leading cases outstanding for longer than five years—a point which several noble Lords have made. I join other noble Lords in calling on the Minister to respond to last year’s report as soon as possible and to explain the reason for the delay. I understand that, earlier this year, the committee wrote to Ministers in the Ministry of Justice and in the Foreign Office to request a report detailing cases in which adverse judgments have been made against the UK and examining their implications for domestic law. This would be a valuable innovation not only because it would make for a more transparent process but because it may also encourage the Government to be more proactive in monitoring and implementing Strasbourg case law—a point which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, made in his admirable summary of paragraph 5 at the beginning of this debate. It would be particularly interesting to know what steps, if any, the Government have taken to meet the recommendation of the Committee of Ministers on efficient domestic capacity for rapid execution on judgments of the ECHR. Perhaps such a report could also include judgments made against other state parties that may have implications for our own domestic law. Again, in this context, it is disappointing that the Government have not even responded to the committee’s request, let alone provided the information that was requested. The JCHR is clearly concerned that, in a number of areas, the Government either have not responded to judgments adequately and thus run the risk of further adverse judgment or are simply dragging their feet on implementation. Two cases have already been covered in this debate in some detail. First, the Government have said that no legislative response is necessary to the case of Dickson v the United Kingdom. The committee appears to doubt this, arguing that the Government’s public-interest approach leaves the door open to further findings of incompatibility. It would be interesting to hear the Government’s view on this. Once again, I hope that the committee will get a timely response to its questions. Secondly, there is the issue of prisoner-voting, which has been well covered in this debate and is yet another instance of government inaction and delay. In March this year, the JCHR asked whether the Government intended to produce a further second-stage consultation and asked for an explanation of the Government’s view that the incompatibility identified by the Grand Chamber in Hirst v the United Kingdom could be removed without legislative reform. It also asked for an up-to-date timetable for draft legislation and whether the Government intended these reforms to be in place in time for the next general election. I am always ready to receive intermediate briefings in the course of this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has reminded me that the Irish Government ratified this if not overnight then the next best thing. My noble friend Lord Bowness has made a plea for the committee to be kept informed, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, on giving such a valuable background to this subject. I am concerned that the Government have not responded to these questions and appear to be attempting to kick the issue into the long grass. I urge them to rethink their approach and to provide a proper timetable for their response. I hope that the Minister will be in a position today to set out the Government’s approach on this matter clearly and without the delay and indecision that seem from this report to be all too common.