HL Deb 11 December 1973 vol 347 cc1032-4

2.37 p.m.

LORD HALE

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will initiate at the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Communities proposals for a joint declaration of human rights based upon the European Declaration of Human Rights and seeking to reconcile the differing practices in the Nine member nations.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE)

My Lords, all the Member States of the European Community, except France, have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights. I understand that the French Government have recently announced their intention to ratify. I can therefore see no reason for a declaration in the terms proposed by the noble Lord.

LORD HALE

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that we also welcome the news to-day from the Parliament of Europe about a long-term proposal for a Workers' Charter? Is anything more important, as a first step on the road to federalism, than a statutorily enacted Charter of the Nine preserving essential human rights and freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom from political and economic plugging, and freedom from long detention without trial? Is it not first, necessary that we should have some careful consideration about providing a unified law on these essential matters among the Nine?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the noble Lord's Question related to the Convention which depends on the Council of Europe, and that I have answered.

LORD MAYBRAY-KING

My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether, in a world where millions of people are deprived of the elementary rights set down in the Human Rights Charter, it would not be a good thing for the Council of European Ministers to reaffirm their belief in the Charter of Human Rights?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, must be referring to the Universal Declaration. The European Ministers who have ratified, and France which has announced its intention to ratify, have thereby announced their adherence to the European Convention, which is a different document.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would confirm the Answer which he gave yesterday, that there would be the right of individuals to petition the Court?—because little notice has been taken of that fundamental decision by Her Majesty's Government.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes, my Lords; I confirm the Answer that I gave yesterday.

LORD HALE

My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that I was the Chairman of the Human Rights Committee at the Council of Europe at a rather important period of its operation and I am well aware of and heartily support all that has been done there? But this is rather a different matter. Will he not give the matter further consideration? Might it not well be that at the height of the festive season of this joyous year, when we are all dreaming of a white Christmas, a heart-warming message from him would be singularly appropriate?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the noble Lord's Question related to the European Convention, and I have answered it. But in answer to the last part, I wish him a happy Christmas.

LORD AVEBURY

My Lords, the noble Lord's Question related not only to the Declaration that he proposed but also to means whereby an attempt could be made to reconcile the differing practices among the European signatories. Does the noble and learned Lord see any other way of doing this apart from a Declaration? And, in particular, how are we going to deal with the question of detention without trial, especially in this country, relating to persons who are not accused of any offence but who are held pending their removal by the Home Secretary under our immigration laws?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the noble Lord's question related to the European Convention, and I have answered. So far as I know, there are no differences of interpretation; and if there are any, it would be for the Commission and the courts.