HL Deb 03 July 1981 vol 422 cc407-8

11.17 a.m.

The Earl of Longford

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

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government in what respects the European Commission on Human Rights has found the United Kingdom to have violated the European Convention on Human Rights; and when action will be taken to stop such violations.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, under the convention, the European Commission on Human Rights does not take a decision. Such decisions are a matter for the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe or the European Court of Human Rights. In those cases where the United Kingdom has been declared to have been in breach of the convention, appropriate measures have been taken which are designed to prevent similar breaches.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, while being grateful to the noble Lord, even for that extraordinarily evasive Answer, may I ask whether he can give us some indication of what measures have been taken, because those who are interested in these matters have not been able to discover any?

Lord Trefgarne

Yes, my Lords, certainly. There have been four decisions by the Court concerning breaches by the United Kingdom. There was the Golder case relating to prison rules, where the rules have since been modified; there was the Tyrer case which related to birching in the Isle of Man, and the Isle of Man court has been made aware that the European Court had held birching to be a violation; there was the Sunday Times thalidomide case, following which legislation is currently before Parliament; and there was the Irish State case, relating to tortures or ill-treatment, where administrative action to prevent a recurrence has been put in hand.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, was not the Minister's Answer rather disingenuous, in that the Commission may not arrive at decisions, but it does express opinions? Did not the Commission express the opinion, in the case of Golder and others, that restrictions on prisoners' correspondence were not justified under Article 8(2) of the convention, and that, in particular, prisoners ought to be allowed to correspond freely with their legal advisers? Since the report of the Commission appeared nine months ago, what steps have the Government taken to facilitate correspondence between prisoners and their advisers? And does not the noble Lord consider it a particularly grievous violation of the convention, that they should continue to interfere with correspondence between prisoners and their advisers, when the Home Office and its agents are a party to the litigation?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, as I said in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, following the Golder case, which related to correspondence between a prisoner and his legal advisers, the prison rules have been changed.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, is it the case that the Home Office is preventing prisoners from taking proceedings in court and taking the initial steps to achieve that?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the Question that I was asked related to the European Commission, and I answered in connection with the case of Mr. Golder, that the prison rules have been modified. I think that the point put to me by the noble and learned Lord goes rather wide of that.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, if I may say so it is a relevant question. What is the position following the Silver case, if the noble Lord has immediate information about that?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the Silver case is currently still before the court and therefore I cannot comment on it.