---

Human Rights Judgments: Joint Committee on Human Rights Report

I thank everyone who has taken part in this important debate, including of course the Minister for his full but in some respects somewhat bleak reply. I am sure that these proceedings will be read not only in this country, but beyond it. In fact, the Committee of Ministers is to meet in Strasbourg from Tuesday to Thursday of next week and will be monitoring, among other things, UK compliance. I am sure that the committee will be interested in what has been said on all sides in this debate. I should say also that I have an unusual role in the Committee of Ministers of representing Cyprus against Turkey. The committee meets in the form of representatives from 47 different countries sitting in large concentric circles, and when I listen to the UK in the dock—often in debates that can take hours on a single case—I feel sorry for the excellent diplomatic representatives speaking on behalf of the United Kingdom because they have to put forward the best case they can on the basis of domestic departments which, I am sorry to say, let them down in certain important ways. Sometimes, therefore, they have to make bricks without straw. This imposes unacceptable burdens on the Committee of Ministers when 6,000-plus cases have to be supervised. That even a single British case should take as long as it does imposes an additional burden, and it is one of the reasons why what we are debating is of great practical importance. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked why the Law Lords have not taken part in this debate, and the answer is because of the separation of powers that is required by the convention. I commend the Government on having separated the judicial power so that we have a new Supreme Court. That may sound like a purist view, but I am sure in the end it is right constitutionally. Reference was made to combating unfair attacks on judges and on the Human Rights Act, and I agree with what the Minister said about that. I deeply regret that ever since the Human Rights Bill was introduced, some sections of the media have sought an absolute immunity for the press from any liability for invasions of personal privacy. I was myself lobbied by a large newspaper organisation at the time, and I am glad the Government stood against that lobby. However, it has meant that day after day, unfair attacks are made by self-interested press barons who seek to earn profits out of sometimes gross intrusions on personal privacy. What I particularly deplore is that I and others have used the convention in the interests of the press to get free speech more strongly recognised in our legal system, but the media will not accept a fair balance between free speech on the one hand and honour, reputation and personal privacy on the other. That, I think, is unacceptable both under the convention and to ordinary men and women. The Aslef case has been mentioned. I did not raise it because I was embarrassed to do so in view of the fact that I played a role in it, but I agree entirely with the finding of the committee that it is a conspicuously good example of a fair and wise implementation. Neither I nor committee is suggesting that the Government have an overall bad record in terms of implementation of the judgments of Strasbourg. That is not the case. The burden of our report, in so far as it deals with systemic problems and not individual cases, is that the committee system cannot work properly without a variety of measures being introduced in partnership with the Government. We are hugely overloaded. Week after week, we scrutinise almost every government Bill. We have thematic inquiries. We also take on this unique role, which no other member state’s Parliament does, of monitoring compliance with the European Court’s judgments. I listened very carefully to the Minister, who said that we will hear in two months’ time the Government’s official response to our report. Unless it changes, we heard it today. The only positive thing he was able to say about the systemic recommendations we have made is that we will get action reports, which is good news. But I did not hear him say anything positive about any of the other systemic recommendations. I am sure that he still has an open mind and has not completely rejected them. If he has, it will hamper the role of the committee, which would be a misfortune. It is fair to say that the experts are looking at the role of the Joint Committee on Human Rights as a model which can be applied in other countries across Europe. That is why we were singled out for special mention at the Stockholm conference. It is the role of the Government in helping the committee to work properly which is still lacking. I appreciate that the Minister was not able to tell us, even a year after our recommendations were made, what the Government’s response will be, but I hope that in two months’ time, he will have convinced his colleagues to do better in responding to those recommendations than he has done. The Minister referred to the Human Rights Act, about which I shall say a couple of things. Whatever the position of the Official Opposition will be towards the Human Rights Act if and when it wins power, certain things have got to remain. There has to be effective remedies in this country for violations of the convention. Otherwise, we get back to the bad old days when lawyers like me would go to Strasbourg for want of domestic remedies. Therefore, politicians may talk about tearing up the Human Rights Act, but whether we have a human rights Act or a British Bill of rights or a British Bill of rights and responsibilities, we are bound on the international and European plain and we cannot dilute those rights or obligations. The Minister said that the final say lies elsewhere, meaning that it does not lie with the committee, and referred to the supremacy of Parliament. Parliament is controlled by the Executive largely. If the Government have the will, they will be able to give effect to many of our reports. I will not add to what has been said on prisoners’ voting rights, except to deplore the fact that we cannot be told even now when the next consultation will begin. The Minister talks about practical problems: the Irish have solved them at a stroke by simply saying, ““Give them postal votes””. Subject to exceptions, that could be done overnight and well before the next general election. To conclude, we are very grateful for this debate, and for the Minister being called to account. His response is disappointing on systemic reforms. We hope, as he does, that next year we can be much more positive in our annual report, but that will depend on his colleagues being much more positive in their response. On Question, Motion agreed to.