HL Deb 11 May 1981 vol 420 cc330-1

2.51 p.m.

Lord Orr-Ewing

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 meet the request of the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights that they deposit by 5 p.m. on Monday 11th May their final observations concerning the three railwaymen sacked five years ago under the closed shop procedure and thus honour the Government's ministerial assurance in November 1980 that they would not ask for a tenth postponement.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have today filed with the European Court of Human Rights their observations on the further written observations of the applicants. There is and has been no question of the Government asking for a postponement and I must point out that if the applicants' counsel has not asked for additional time to submit further written observations, the proceedings would have been concluded as soon as those concerned had answered the questions which were put to them by the court at the end of the oral hearing. The Government, for their part, submitted their answers well within the time limit set by the court.

Lord Orr-Ewing

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that since this case started in February 1977 this is the first time successive Governments have met the dates required by the commission and/or the court? There were six delays under the Labour Government and a further three, much shorter, delays under the present Government. Will my noble friend therefore accept congratulations in that at last some justice has been done, though at some cost to the litigants?

Lord Lyell

My Lords, we are always pleased to receive congratulations from whatever quarter of the House, and we are grateful to my noble friend for his comments.

Lord Paget of Northampton

My Lords, would the Minister agree that while considerable service has been rendered by ad hoc submissions on particular issues to such a court as The Hague, a general submission by sovereign states to a court of this court is an absurdity and nuisance, that the sooner it is terminated the better and that this case well illustrates that?

Lord Lyell

No on both counts, my Lords.

Lord Spens

My Lords, is it true that the Government had some weeks of prior knowledge that the TUC were going to put in a last-minute submission in this case? Is it also true that the Government even gave some assistance to the TUC to make their submission? Is it further true that the Government did not have the courtesy to warn the three railway employees or their legal advisers that those last-minute submissions were going to be made?

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I do not think it is the Government's duty to come between the TUC and various other parties who wish to take their case to the European Court. The answer to the other two questions the noble Lord put to me is, no.

Lord Orr-Ewing

My Lords, while in his main Answer my noble friend said that the last delay was due to the applicants, may I ask whether or not it is a fact that at the very last hearing of the court, in front of the 21 judges, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, his solicitors and three advisers from the TUC turned up, for the very first time in the four and a quarter years that this case has lasted, and submitted 58 pages of evidence and an appendix amounting to 325 further pages, and therefore it was necessary for the applicants' legal advisers to consider those representations? Is my noble friend aware that they have now spent £65,000 fighting this case? Would he agree that this is a gross miscarriage of justice and that these matters should be speeded up so that people who feel they have been wronged may have those wrongs put right much more speedily and cheaply?

Lord Lyell

My Lords, much of what my noble friend said may be true, but it is certainly not the Government's fault, since the Government are in the position of replying to any submissions that have been requested, both by the court and the applicants.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, aware that unfortunately my noble friend Lord Wedderburn is not present on this occasion—no doubt due to other important duties he is performing—and therefore he cannot deal with this attack on his professional involvement in this matter? The interest of the court will be to ensure that both parties have a fair opportunity of presenting their cases, and I have little doubt that this eminent court will do just that.

Forward to