Civil and Political Rights: UN Protocol (Hansard, 29 March 1988)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur)
My Lords, we have no plans to do so. We have accepted the optional articles of the European convention on human rights which recognise both the right of individual petition and the compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. We do not believe that becoming a party to the optional protocol would enhance the protection of individual rights in this country.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, as the United Kingdom has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, should we not also ratify the optional protocol, which enables the human rights committee of the United Nations to examine claims from private individuals, from wherever they may be made, that they are the victim of violation of the rights set out in the covenant? Is it not the case that several states which are party to the European convention are also party to the optional protocol? As a general principle, therefore, should not all instruments of international law be ratified by member states of the United Nations?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I certainly understand the force of that argument. However, we believe that our acceptance of the optional articles of the European convention provides better protection than the optional protocol. Indeed, the machinery of the European convention is binding upon those who sign it, whereas the optional protocol would not be. It is of course true that other countries have made the link and ratified the optional protocol, but I cannot speak for them.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, is it not the case that the provisions of the optional protocol go beyond the convention and thus safeguard more rights? If that is so, it is difficult to understand why the Government hesitate. What have they to lose? Is there not a great deal to be gained by taking this one step further, when at least 10 of our friends and allies have decided to sign the convention? I ask what is the real reason for the Government's hesitation on the matter.

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, the various themes, which are incorporated in the European convention and the international covenant are broadly very similar indeed. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that we are prepared to consider proposals which strengthen the obligations on states contained in international human rights instruments. We will of course keep the position on the optional protocol under review. However, I must say again that we believe that our acceptance of the European convention provides better protection than the optional protocol.

§ Lord Kirkhill
My Lords, the other member nations that have signed the optional protocol will accordingly have a view of the British Government's position on the matter. What has the Minister to say to that proposition?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I am afraid I do not have the necessary information to enable me to answer the noble Lord's question directly. However, that may be a question which would be better addressed to the nations concerned.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, surely it is extraordinary that this country, having ratified the covenant, is now apparently refusing to take steps to make it a reality and thus enable individuals to complain to the human rights committee, which is doing extremely valuable work. Why are we dragging our heels once again in this field?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, for the reasons that I have already explained to the noble and learned Lord, I do not believe that by going down the path which he suggests that we should in fact enhance what he and others would like to see so firmly enshrined.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to give us details of some of the countries that have already signed the protocol?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, 38 states have now ratified the optional protocol, including, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. I also believe that Austria and the Federal Republic of Germany are preparing to do so.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords, is there not something to be said for having one acknowledged set of human rights and one tribunal before which such cases can come and not two concurrent and potentially divergent sets, with two concurrent and potentially divergent tribunals, leading to forum shopping?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I think that my noble and learned friend is right; the situation could lead to confusion rather than assisting those concerned.