---

Human Rights Judgments: Joint Committee on Human Rights Report

I now close my speech with some points on which I hope we can agree. We agree in principle about the value of our Human Rights Act, but I have some more specific points. In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, talked about the court being overwhelmed with cases. We share the noble Lord's concern about the need to reform the Strasbourg court. We continue to engage with our colleagues in the Council of Europe to press for Protocol 14 to be fully ratified. We are also exploring what other measures can be taken to keep the court functioning with or without that protocol. We also agree with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that the Government should make greater use of remedial orders. They are an excellent tool for addressing the incompatibility of primary legislation and it is disappointing that they have been used only three times since the Act came into force. One problem is that remedial orders cannot be amended in Parliament, so they are not entirely suited to complex remedial measures, which may explain their limited use on recent cases. However, we are pressing—my department particularly is pressing—for them to be used more when appropriate. My noble friend Lord Parekh said that the JCHR should bust myths concerning human rights. As a Government, we do our best already and work hard to correct myths and misunderstandings about human rights. It is not always the easiest thing to do, particularly as some of the media concentrate on the Human Rights Act and concerns around it. Many myths have grown up about the Human Rights Act—that it somehow favours criminals, gives criminals the right to privacy, to obtain pornography and to give rights to rooftop protesters. Frankly, a lot of those myths are just not true. Nothing in the Human Rights Act could enable any of those things to happen or prevent the prosecution of those who are a danger to the public. On the contrary, the Act explicitly allows limitations on rights in the interests of public safety or for the prevention of crime. We believe—and I hope that the Committee does too—that the Act secures a fair balance between the interests of society and the protection of the rights of the individual. It is a protection to all of us, and particularly important to the most vulnerable in our society—those in the healthcare system and adults who have learning disabilities. I have done my best to answer some of the questions that have been raised in this important debate. We are proud that, overall, our record on the implementation of judgments is recognised as good both by the Committee of Ministers and by the Joint Committee. We will of course respond to the committee in the usual way. More importantly, we will continue to work to implement judgments and to respond to declarations of incompatibility. I hope that the Joint Committee’s next annual report can reflect even more positive progress in that area. I shall finish by mentioning two matters. First, no mention has been made so far of the Aslef case and the way in which Her Majesty’s Government have dealt with what was an undoubtedly tricky issue in regard to the best possible way of doing so. I should like to put on the record the fact that the report commends the Government on the attitude they took. Secondly, the real measure of this Government’s support for human rights and the convention is to be found, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, in our passing of the Human Rights Act and setting up the valuable Joint Committee on Human Rights, whose report we have debated today. I end by thanking once again all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate.