HL Deb 19 April 1994 vol 554 cc90-2

2.55 p.m.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, at the next meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in May, they will sign, and thereafter ratify, Protocol No. 11 to the European Convention on Human Rights (to reform the European Court of Human Rights), thereby ensuring a permanent right of access to the court for victims of violations of the convention by the United Kingdom.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)

My Lords, the United Kingdom will sign Protocol 11 at the ministerial meeting on 11 th May and will ratify it in due course.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that extremely welcome Answer. The Government's decision will greatly strengthen the urgent and much needed reform of the enforcement procedures under the European Convention on Human Rights for the benefit of everyone in this country and in the new and old democracies of the rest of Europe. May I ask the Minister whether, in ratifying, the Government will seek to equal the record that was set by the Attlee Government in 1951 of being the first contracting state to ratify this international instrument'? For good measure, will the Government complete the process of enforcing human rights through law by giving support to a measure to make the rights of the convention directly effective in our courts as well as on the international plane before the European Court?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I see no reason why the United Kingdom should not ratify before others. I shall ensure that the noble Lord's suggestion is carefully considered. On the question of incorporation, the view taken by successive governments is that the rights set out in the convention are generally secured in this country by the provisions of existing common and statute law, and that incorporation would undermine the sovereignty of Parliament by giving courts a direct role in determining the compatibility of domestic laws with the convention. I would be very concerned if that could, for instance, propel judges into the political arena, thus threatening their independence, but I shall look into it further.

Lord Finsberg

My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the pleasure that this announcement gave to those of us who were at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg last week when we heard that the United Kingdom Government were going to make the right permanent? Will my noble friend investigate a little more the view that the necessary merging of the Commission and the court will speed up matters? There are signs that the avalanche of cases may not prove to give the result that we would all like to see.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments about the pleasure given. It is a good move. I share his concern about the length of time that it takes from the lodging of an application to a decision by the court. I understand that it has been taking up to four-and-a-half years. I sincerely hope that the reforms set out in Protocol 11 will greatly reduce the time taken. We must monitor what happens.

Baroness Elles

My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the very great pleasure that this will give not only in the United Kingdom and the Council of Europe but throughout the world, since the United Kingdom has been one of the leading countries to talk about and press for human rights observations throughout the world? One of our great strengths has been that we ratified Article 25 of the convention, allowing for personal representation and individual redress of grievance to the Court of Human Rights. That, again, will strengthen the position of the United Kingdom not only in Europe but in international fora.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. The UK has played a major role in developing the terms under which the institutions of the European Convention on Human Rights is to be reformed. I believe that that bodes well for the future.

Lord Irvine of Lairg

My Lords, will the noble Baroness amplify her answer that the Government continue to oppose direct enforcement by our own citizens of the convention rights in their own courts? Why do the Government trust foreign judges but not our own judges to enforce the convention, with its impact upon our own domestic law?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, helpful as I should like to be to the noble Lord, I do not believe that I can add anything to the answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. We certainly believe in our own courts; we certainly believe that there is a proper role, through our own courts, for human rights. As I said, Parliament rather than the courts should determine individual rights in this country.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, will the right of access continue to be dependent on exhausting our own domestic procedures?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I understand that to be so.

Lord Richard

My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House how many other countries in the Council of Europe have failed to incorporate those terms into their own domestic law? If, as I understand the matter, there are very few, will the noble Baroness say what is so special about this country that others can do that and we cannot?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I understand that Iceland, Ireland and Norway have not yet incorporated the convention into their domestic law. I understand, too, that the Government have made considerable progress on this matter and I look to seeing further progress in the future.

Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone

My Lords, if the rule which compels domestic remedies to be exhausted first is to remain in place, which means that appeals may reach as far as the House of Lords, would that not stultify the hope which my noble friend indicated that matters would move more quickly in the future?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for elucidating that matter. He raises an important issue which I am interested in taking further.

Earl Russell

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her references to parliamentary sovereignty have caused some perplexity? Is it not correct that no Parliament can bind its successors? If Parliament should wish to incorporate the convention, it cannot undermine its sovereignty by doing so.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I cannot find fault with the noble Earl's logic.