HC Deb 20 October 1993 vol 230 cc364-70

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]

8.57 pm
Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North)

It is a sad commentary on this place that our democracy and our constitution are rarely debated in the Chamber. The rights of our citizens should be the issue most keenly discussed and most urgently debated, yet it finds no room on our parliamentary agenda, which is given to us by the Executive who control the House. In many ways that is why Parliament has become increasingly irrelevant to finding the answers to our economic and social problems. Above all, it is the reason why reform of the House of Commons is so central to rebuilding democracy in our country.

Nowhere is that inadequacy more laughably illustrated than in the fact that an hon. Member must win a place in the weekly raffle for an Adjournment debate at odds of over 100:1 before using that precious opportunity to raise the issue of human rights. That such a matter is debated only due to a stroke of luck rather than as a deliberate duty of the House may explain why the House and its inmates are held in such low esteem and treated with such deserved contempt by the Government and people of this country.

Contrary to parliamentary mythology, people are interested in democracy. It is not only the chattering classes that talk about the failure of our political process. Everyone discusses the poll tax, pit closures, the state of our schools and hospitals and asks, "Why?". The simple truth is that command politics have not delivered. We need to try something different. Pluralism and a variety of independent and legitimate institutions and defensible human rights are a key part of that agenda.

It is essential that human rights are dealt with seriously and I have particular pleasure in initiating this debate on the day that Amnesty International launches a new worldwide campaign in protest at continuing political killings and disappearances. I am delighted to use this opportunity to extend my thanks and those of all who are concerned about human rights to the work of Amnesty International. In the United Kingdom Parliament ringing tribute should also be put on record to Liberty, formerly the National Council for Civil Liberties, and to Charter 88, both of which have kept the candle of human rights alight in the recent darkest years of centralism.

I was pleased to receive from those two organisations this morning a 6 ft high copy of the Human Rights (No. 3) Bill which I presented in the Chamber yesterday. That Bill, when enacted by the next Labour Government, will incorporate into British law the fundamental human rights that are guaranteed by the European convention on human rights. Those rights are currently guaranteed to citizens of every EC country apart from our own. Incorporation would give our citizens equal protection and equal remedies to those available in virtually all other European democracies. The argument of Charter 88, Liberty, Amnesty International and of those in my party, other parties and of no party is that if we have rights, they should be written down for all to see. If the Government can write down our rights as consumers—I welcome that—why cannot they write down our rights as citizens?

The 1993 Labour party conference endorsed as the policy of our party the most radical package of democratic reforms ever proposed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition summed it up when he said:

We are proposing nothing less than a new constitution of citizenship for a new century. A new and modern conception of citizenship, which recognises the importance of the community acting together to advance individual freedom. A revitalised democracy which protects the fundamental rights of each and every citizen, regardless of race, colour, gender or creed. A system of government that is open, accountable and close to the people it is elected to serve. He went on to say:

We in the Labour party—unlike any other party—see the vital link between rights in the workplace and rights at the ballot box. We need both, if we are to create a society of free and self-confident citizens. Labour's starting point for defining rights in the United Kingdom must begin with incorporating the European convention on human rights. At the moment, any person in the United Kingdom can take out a human rights case, but in Europe, not in our own country. Incorporation would allow the rights of British citizens to be directly protected in our British courts—rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the right of privacy and many others.

The convention has a good claim to be one of the world's most successful instruments of human rights enforcement. The problems of the European Court of Human Rights—too many cases and lengthy processes—are the problems of success. I am pleased that the need to update the procedures of the court has been recognised, finally, by the Government.

The agreement reached in Vienna on 9 October—draft protocol No. 11—between the Heads of State and Governments of the member states of the Council of Europe has arisen specifically from the escalating demands and from the further cases expected following the admission to full membership of countries in central and eastern Europe. The European convention on human rights will soon need to service 800 million individuals. International barrister Andrew Drzemczewski has argued:

those in much less privileged parts of Europe—whether they be in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo or in the Caucasus—may have a glimmer of hope that they too have recourse against barbarities which we (mistakenly) considered to be confined to the annals of history". The problem with existing arrangements in Strasbourg is that, on average, the Commission filtering process takes three years while the court process takes two years. Anthony Lester QC, now Lord Lester of Herne Hill—in my opinion the founding father of the British Bill of Rights movement—warned that cases may take a minimum of 10 years to be heard, and possibly as many as 15 years, unless the system is radically reformed and adequately funded. On average, it takes the court five years to reach a decision, and that does not even take into consideration the domestic proceedings that precede a petition to Strasbourg. The old dictum of justice delayed is justice denied could never have found a more appropriate setting than the European Court as it is currently composed.

It is ironic, however, that proposals to reform the system have been made in secret and without proper consultation with non-governmental organisations. None the less, the proposals are welcome. I hope that the Minister will take the chance to explain whether he has any proposals to open up and make less secretive the process of discussion and negotiation on the reform of the court and the extension of human rights.

The agreement reached at Vienna proposes a number of long-overdue reforms—reforms that have been pressed on the Government by Labour Members. The proposals include the elimination of the unnecessary Commission stage and ensuring that all human rights cases are sent directly to the court. In addition, in the vast majority of cases the new court will sit in a streamlined chamber of seven judges, who for the first time will meet on a full-time basis. Unfounded cases will be sifted out of the system at an early stage by unanimous decision of the court composed of three judges.

The Vienna agreement ensures that all allegations of the violation of the rights of individuals will go before the court rather than the Committee of Ministers. We welcome all those proposals and urge the Government to ratify them next May.

I have a specific concern about one particular area and I should like the Minister to address it. At the moment, a Government must specifically make a declaration to allow the right of petition for their citizens. We believe that the right of petition should automatically accrue to all individuals on accession to the covenant by their Government rather than having to rely on the political good will of a Government. I understand, however, that the Conservatives and France and Turkey do not support the proposal for an automatic right of petition for individuals. Will the Minister therefore clarify the Government's position and confirm whether his Government support an entrenched right or petition in the covenant?

Why must this Conservative Government be dragged kicking and screaming every inch of the way on citizens' rights? Even when they are found to be in breach of European Court decisions they grudgingly implement the minimum level of compliance, which often results in further expensive and protracted litigation.

We welcome the recommendations for reform that were made at Vienna—they are but a first tentative step in the right direction. The creation of meaningful democracy in Europe and the United Kingdom will take more than reform of the procedures of the European Court of Human Rights, important though that is. Rights must be used as a framework for a judicial system here at home. If an individual can seek redress under our domestic court system, we shall dramatically reduce the impediments to securing justice, notably the time taken, the travel that is necessary and the expense. That would make justice accessible to all.

A pressing need now exists to overhaul and modernise the structure of our democracy to break the stranglehold of the Executive and to end the winner-takes-all approach to politics. The political system in Britain is failing to protect individual rights, just as it is failing socially and economically. Free, confident and assertive individuals need open, democratic and accountable institutions to grow and flourish. We must create a new culture of rights that will give substance to the inalienable right of citizenship, ending for ever the debilitating culture of hierarchy, deference and class which so holds back our country today.

The Labour party is committed to a major package of constitutional reforms: a Bill of Rights, reform of the royal prerogative, an elected second Chamber, independence for local government, a modernised judiciary, a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh assembly and the introduction of proportional representation to elect the European Parliament and the second Chamber. As a package, those measures are essential components in the safeguarding of individual rights and in the building of our democracy.

Sadly, the Government have a shameful record as the prime violators of the European convention on human rights. Since 1979, 29 landmark cases have been brought against the United Kingdom, more than against any other country in the European Community. The judgments did not involve marginal or trivial cases; they have invariably involved fundamental issues such as the ending of unfair press curbs in the United Kingdom, the ending of unjust restrictions on prisoners' access to lawyers, the ending of unacceptable restrictions on the husbands and wives of immigrants, the creating of effective judicial protection for mental patients and for prisoners serving life sentences and requirements for new controls on telephone tapping. The Government's record should concern all of us here, whether or not we are members of the Government.

I make a pledge as Labour's spokesman on the constitution: incorporating into British law of the citizen's rights found in the European convention will take place speedily under the next Labour Government and that will be only a beginning. We shall then examine, by means of an all-party commission, a home-grown British Bill of Rights to give effect to the equally important international covenant on civil and political rights.

For the past 14 years, we have watched the Govermnent ride rough-shod over our rights. It is time the balance was redressed. Our constitutional system, with no checks and no balances, cannot now pass the test of a modern democracy. We need to establish the fundamental pillar of all democracies—a separation of powers. We need to consider once again the balance between the powers of the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary. The Labour party's policy to give our citizens written rights, embodied in the Bill that I presented to the House yesterday, is the first small step on that long road.

9.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) for selecting this subject for debate and I welcome it for two reasons. First, the subject that he has chosen—the reform of procedures under the European convention on human rights—is clearly important to the United Kingdom and all its citizens. It is not a subject to which the House has paid much attention in recent years and the debate therefore provides us with a rare opportunity to discuss it. The hon. Gentleman and I can probably agree about that.

Secondly, I welcome the debate because it allows me to set the record straight. The United Kingdom's position on reform of ECHR procedures has, I am afraid, been consistently misrepresented in the press and other media. The hon. Gentleman referred to the growing burden placed on the Commission and the Court, which has been plain for all to see. There are two main reasons for it.

The first is the increasing number of member states of the Council of Europe which are willing to accept the right of individual petition under the convention. Indeed, within the past five years, it has been accepted by all member states. The second reason is the growing awareness of the convention, and the possibility of recourse under its provisions, among the people of Europe.

For some years, the United Kingdom has actively sought to improve the administration of the ECHR institutions to enable it to deal with its increasing workload, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and to reduce delays. We have, therefore, taken steps to promote changes that might offer some fairly swift and substantial relief. For example, it was the United Kingdom which played a key role in seeking and securing from the Council of Europe an increase in resources for the Commission's secretariat to enable it to keep pace better with the demands placed on it. The United Kingdom has sought to persuade its partners in the Council of Europe that improvements might be achieved by introducing changes to the working practices of the Commission and the Court.

That was not a means of deflecting attention from more fundamental reforms. We agreed that those needed to be tackled, especially in the light of the accession of new member states to the Council of Europe, but we hoped that our colleagues would be prepared to consider more immediate measures, given the time that would inevitably be needed to implement any new protocol reforming the ECHR institutions. We were disappointed that our arguments on that point failed to convince. Nevertheless, we accept that the question of structural change to the ECHR institutions needs to be tackled urgently and we have fully participated in that work.

The declaration that concluded the Council of Europe's summit in Vienna on 9 October confirmed the intention of the Heads of Government to establish a new court of human rights to consider all applications made by individuals under article 25 of the convention. That declaration had the full support of the United Kingdom. There is still a good deal of negotiation to be undertaken on the detailed operation of the new court.

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned that the United Kingdom opposed a single court structure. It is true that we initially favoured a reformed two-tier mechanism because we felt that it would be better able to deliver the standards of jurisprudence and efficiency required of such an international body. But our main aim has been to ensure that, whatever the structure, it includes the elements necessary to achieve those objectives.

In negotiations the United Kingdom has made it clear that any reform of the ECHR procedures should incorporate three important features. The first is an adequate system for filtering cases. Under the present arrangements the Commission and its secretariat have established effective procedures for disposing of cases that are outside the scope of the convention, or otherwise clearly inadmissible, before serious consideration is given as to merits. It will be important for a single body to establish some comparable system if it is not to impose unnecessary and unacceptable burdens on its judges.

The second of our objectives has been to ensure the maintenance of satisfactory friendly settlement procedures. The opportunity for the parties to an action to reach a settlement among themselves is a long-standing and important feature of judicial proceedings of that kind. If such a settlement can be achieved, it will have the advantage of reducing the work of the court. Under the present system the commission has played a valuable role in facilitating friendly settlement, which I know is appreciated by other member states. The arrangement works well. In a single court the parties may be more inhibited about exposing their positions to a body that will also be responsible for making the final judgment. That is not to say that friendly settlement will be rendered impossible, but care will be needed as to how it should be handled.

The third of our objectives has been to secure, within a reformed court, the opportunity for a second hearing of a case. We consider it wholly right that where a decision breaks new ground, or is otherwise of significance, there should be an opportunity for the matter to be tested afresh. We do not think that that is an unreasonable objective; after all, most judicial systems allow some form of appeal. Indeed, the European Court of Justice incorporated such a mechanism a few years ago.

We also believe that the opportunity for cases to be reviewed will provide an important means of maintaining standards of jurisprudence within the reformed court. That is not because we consider that the judges in a new court will be any less competent or diligent than those under the present system, but the pressures on judges operating within a single body will inevitably be greater and an appeals procedure will provide a valuable means of maintaining both the quality and the consistency of the judgments reached.

I have noted the suggestion in the press that an appeals procedure is to be incorporated into the reformed court at the insistence of the United Kingdom. Although it is true that, as I have said, we consider that an important objective, I should make it clear that we are by no means alone in that view. The majority of countries now favour some form of appeals mechanism. Indeed, its inclusion in the revised model for a single court has enabled the proposal to attract general support amongst member states.

Although a draft protocol to reform the ECHR procedures has been prepared, a good deal of detailed work still needs to be done. The European convention on human rights and its machinery have stood the test of time for more than 40 years. The proposals for reform now being discussed in Strasbourg will constitute the most radical change to the operation of the convention in its lifetime.

Mr. Allen

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Wardle

Yes, but swiftly. I know that the hon. Gentleman will understand.

Mr. Allen

I thank the Minister for his usual courtesy and generosity in giving way. He is making a good case for letting the judges in Europe continue the task of judging human rights cases, which they have undertaken for many years. Like us, the Minister clearly trusts those judges in Europe to come to the right decisions. Does he agree that there is a strong argument that the trust that he places in judges in Europe to decide on rights cases might equally well reside in judges in Britain were we to repatriate the European convention on human rights in British law?

Mr. Wardle

The hon. Gentleman raised that issue earlier—it had not eluded me and I hope that I shall have time to address it. That was one reason why I was proceeding at such a gallop—the hon. Gentleman is used to that from our previous debates in Committee and on the Floor of the House.

While we understand the desire for the reform to which I referred earlier to be speedily concluded, it is more important that we should get the systems right. The United Kingdom will continue to play its full part in ensuring that proposals for reforming the ECHR institutions are workable and sensible, and will secure real improvement in the handling of applications made under the convention.

The Government do not accept the hon. Gentleman's arguments for incorporating the European convention on human rights into domestic law. As I made clear in my response to his debate on 27 May in the House, we believe that the incorporation of the convention would undermine the constitutional principle whereby Parliament has the supreme responsibility for enacting and changing our laws. Most laws are specific, but the convention is broadly drawn. Its incorporation would have the undesirable consequence of bringing the judiciary into the political arena, which could threaten their reputation for impartiality.

The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that citizens of this country are disadvantaged by our non-incorporation of the ECHR is, I believe, mistaken. The general principles set out in the convention are contained in the common and statute law of this country. The incorporation of the convention by a number of other member states has not prevented their citizens from submitting large numbers of applications to the Commission, even though they may have had access to domestic constitutional courts.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the right of individual petition under article 25 of the convention. The proposal has been made in Strasbourg that the right of individual petition under article 25 should be permanent. That is not in our view an integral element of the proposals for reform; indeed, it has only recently been introduced into the debate.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the convention allows for member states to accept the right of individual petition on either a finite or an indefinite basis. The United Kingdom, along with most other member states, has done so for a limited period—currently five years—and has renewed the right on each occasion. While some may feel that accepting the right of individual petition on a permanent basis demonstrates the commitment of a member state to the ECHR, of much more importance is the extent to which the principles of the convention and the decisions of the court are observed in practice.

We shall obviously wish to discuss that matter further with our colleagues in the Council of Europe. But we see no pressing need for a change of the sort proposed. Indeed, given that we are about to embark on a radical overhaul of the ECHR machinery, consideration of the proposal might best be left until member states have acquired some experience of the new court and its jurisprudence.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Nine o'clock