HL Deb 26 October 1995 vol 566 cc1187-9

3.10 p.m.

Lord Archer of Sandwell asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they have taken any action in consequence of the suggestions and recommendations of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in response to their fourth periodic report pursuant to Article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch)

My Lords, the Government have noted the observations of the Human Rights Committee following its oral examination of the United Kingdom delegation on our fourth periodic report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We do not plan any specific changes in our arrangements for the protection of human rights in the United Kingdom in light of the committee's views.

Lord Archer of Sandwell

My Lords, does that Answer mean that the Government have no proposals for action other than telling the committee that it is wrong in every respect? In particular, do they see the need for any action on the right to silence; the provision of legal representation for asylum seekers; drawing the attention of private prison contractors to the standard minimum rules; and assessing the continuing need in Northern Ireland for the Prevention of Terrorism Act? Do the Government not consider it possible that they may be wrong or do they take the view that it is the committee which is out of step with them?

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, the Government explained very carefully their position on all those issues during the oral hearing. The Government regret that the committee does not appear to have taken into account our long-standing cultural traditions and other particular circumstances which determine the way in which human rights are protected in this country nor the fact that the protection provided in the United Kingdom in relation to human rights is among the best in the world.

Baroness Elles

My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the committee's report back to the United Kingdom warmly welcomed and encouraged the initiation of the peace process in Northern Ireland and acknowledged the efforts of the state party to combat racial and ethnic discrimination? In a recent case reported in The Times, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice gave a very clear explanation of the right of silence which in no way violates the human rights of a defendant.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I agree with all that my noble friend says. It is absolutely true that the Government do not accept that the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as regards inferences drawn from silence, or the comparable legislation in Northern Ireland, in any way contravene the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Indeed, there is no change to the basic presumption of innocence; it is still for the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The security forces in Northern Ireland are required to operate within the law at all times. Nothing that we do is in breach of our international obligations.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

My Lords, will the Minister agree that the Human Rights Committee is an eminent body which included at the relevant time the new British judge at the International Court of Justice, Judge Rosalyn Higgins, and that its view ought to be taken very seriously indeed, and that in particular, the strong concern expressed about the failure to have a British Bill of Rights or to give domestic effect to the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the covenant is a continuing breach of the international covenant? Is that not a matter which should be debated by Parliament on a free vote?

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, in the Government's view the incorporation of the covenant, the European Convention on Human Rights or, indeed, a Bill of Rights is not necessary or desirable. I fear that they would not provide significantly greater protection for the individual than is already provided in this country. Each would transfer the responsibility for determining such matters from our elected and democratically accountable Parliament to the courts, eroding the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us how many persons, if any, are still subject to exclusion orders which prevent freedom of movement within the United Kingdom?

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I cannot give that very specific information hut I can say that we are not in breach of our international obligations in this matter.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the recommendations referred to in this Question are those which also include the suggestion that we should review our military discipline, ban corporal punishment in public schools, and tackle any remaining problems of a racial nature in this country? If so, while no noble Lord would wish to be complacent in the matter of human rights, would it be worth the Government suggesting to the United Nations that it should direct its energies to matters of serious human rights abuse on this planet? Is it not the case that this country has one of the finest records in this regard?

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, my noble friend does indeed point to some of the criticisms which the committee made of the United Kingdom, all of which were answered in great detail. Those answers are a matter of public information. I repeat to my noble friend that we have one of the finest records in the world, and I hope that that remains so.