HC Deb 16 December 1996 vol 287 cc613-4
32. Sir Anthony Grant

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals for reform of procedures were made by the Lord Chancellor during his recent visit to the European Court of Human Rights. [7630]

Mr. Streeter

The Lord Chancellor had a wide-ranging and fruitful discussion with members of the court and the Commission, and advocated, once again, British proposals to improve the procedure of the European Court of Human Rights; to provide a high standard among judges appointed to the court; and to ensure that proper weight is given to the national character, traditions, religious beliefs and moral values of the countries that are signatories to the convention.

Sir Anthony Grant

Does my hon. Friend agree that that court, which is nothing to do with the European Union, has a pretty dismal record on pronouncements on subjects that affect this country, which it does not really understand? Will the better quality of judges, which must be welcomed, ensure that we do not have a repetition of the deplorable judgment in the so-called death on the rock case? Is not the recent blasphemy case, in which the court used the doctrine of marginal appreciation, a sign that common sense is, at last, breaking through?

Mr. Streeter

My hon. Friend makes some important points about the European Court of Human Rights. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the European Union, a point that is not widely understood in the country. In fact, the court flows from a convention on human rights that was largely drafted by British people after the second world war. It is increasingly important as more and more countries sign up to the Council of Europe—for example, Russia and Croatia are signing up to the convention.

My hon. Friend makes the important point that, in the past, decisions have been made that caused grave offence in this country. It is to be hoped that our proposals in respect of the improvement of the quality of judges, and other procedural improvements—especially taking into account the national culture of each of the signatory countries—will significantly improve the court's performance.

Mr. Rooker

Does the Minister accept that it is not right to pick and choose decisions made by a court? I invite the Minister to look at history: it was that court, with the connivance of the Tory party, that effectively destroyed the pre-entry and post-entry closed shop in this country.

Mr. Streeter

I am delighted to hear that. The court has obviously performed a much more valuable function that I had ever dared to imagine. Of course it is wrong to pick and choose which decisions to adopt in this country. What I have said is that, because of proposals that we have made, the performance of the European Court of Human Rights in future is likely to be better and more acceptable to the British people than it has been in the past.

Mr. Bill Walker

Does my hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom's legal system and the way in which we protect people who are discriminated against in various ways are emulated by other countries throughout the world and that we need no court in Europe telling us how to legislate?

Mr. Streeter

My hon. Friend makes the important point that British justice is well known and our standards on human rights are much admired throughout the world, but it is important that we remain involved in the convention, so as to enable other countries that are developing the sort of society that we enjoy to establish high standards of human rights within their borders, hopefully with British help.