§ Mr. McNamaraTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what instructions his Department gave to Her Majesty's Ambassador to the Council of Europe to inform the British Parliamentary Delegation to the Council of Europe of the advantages of a particular candidate for the post of British candidate for the Court of Human Rights; [40578]
(2) if he will make a statement on the procedures followed by his Department in choosing the British candidate for the Court of Human Rights indicating (a) the criteria determining the selection of candidates, (b) the means by which the shortlist was made, (c) the number of candidates interviewed before the final selection was made and (d) those officials, departments and ministers involved in the selection; [40584]
344W(3) for what reasons Her Majesty's Government prioritise their candidates in order of preference for the position of British judge in the Court of Human Rights; [40579]
(4) for what reasons his Department did not accept the recommendations of the Kirkhill Sub-Committee of the Committee of Legal Affairs of the Council of Europe on the most suitable British candidate for the Court of Human Rights; [40583]
(5) from which (a) countries and (b) individuals his Department received requests for advice on whom to vote for among the British candidates for the post of judge for the Court of Human Rights; [40585]
(6) if he will list those members of the Council of Europe who prioritised their order of preferences for candidate judges for the Court of Human Rights; [40582]
(7) whether, following the recommendation of the Kirkhill Sub-Committee of the Legal Affairs Committee of the Council of Europe on the Sub-Committee's preferred candidate, his Department made any approaches to the Chairman or other members of the Committee or the Secretariat as to the Sub-Committee's recommendation; [40586]
(8) which ministers and officials were responsible for (a) choosing the British candidates for the Court of Human Rights and (b) determining the order of preferences of the candidates; [40611]
(9) what response officials in his Department gave to inquiries from (a) foreign nationals and (b) others seeking advice on whom to vote for in the election for the British judge in the Court of Human Rights. [40580]
§ Mr. Tony LloydThis Department, in collaboration with the Lord Chancellor's Department (LCD) and the Home Office, drafted a set of objective criteria for the selection of candidates for the European Court of Human Rights. These criteria incorporated the requirements for election as a judge set out in Protocol 11 to the European Convention on Human Rights, and included in addition the criteria applied by the LCD for the selection of circuit judges. The criteria were used for the selection of candidates by the assessment and interview panel established for the selection process. They were also made available to candidates.
The assessment and interview panel consisted of two judicial members (Lord Justice Simon Brown and the Lord President Lord Rodger of Earlsferry), two legally qualified Government officials (Sir Thomas Legg, then Permanent Secretary at the LCD, and Sir Franklin Berman, FCO Legal Adviser) and a lay member (Ms Joanna Foster, Director of the BT Forum and former Chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission).
Following advertisement of the position in the national and legal press, the panel met to consider which of the candidates to invite to interview. Of the 33 candidates identified, the panel interviewed five. The panel proposed three candidates to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in a specific order of preference, while making it clear that each of the three was a highly creditable candidate. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor sought and received formal agreement to these candidates from me. This correspondence was copied for information to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the 345W Attorney-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my noble Friends the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General. The selection procedure for the three UK candidate judges was a model process which, as far as we are aware, went beyond procedures in other Council of Europe countries for transparency and thoroughness.
We decided to submit the names of the three candidates in the order of preference recommended by the panel because it believed that the rigorous national selection process had identified a clear order of suitability in respect of the three candidates. We believed it was right to reflect the results of this process in submitting the candidate list to Strasbourg. There are no rules, procedures or understandings in Strasbourg to prevent this, and 29 of the 39 states parties to the Convention submitted candidate lists, explicitly or implicitly, in order of preference.
We considered it important to discuss these matters with the UK Parliamentary Delegation to the Council of Europe. I met the leader of the UK Parliamentary Delegation in December to discuss the list before it was sent to Strasbourg.
We were not required to take a position on the recommendations of the Council of Europe Sub-Committee chaired by my noble Friend Lord Kirkhill, which made recommendations on the appointment of judges to the Parliamentary Assembly. Officials did however make unambiguously clear to the Council of Europe Secretariat and others outside the Parliamentary Assembly that the Government, considering the comprehensive national selection process they had undertaken, believed that the order in which the list of candidates had originally been submitted to the Committee of Ministers' Deputies in Strasbourg best represented the relative suitability of the three candidates for the post, particularly with regard to their potential contribution to the new Court.
Officials had no contact with any individual seeking advice on how to vote in the election of the British judge. Following Protocol 11, we took the view that the election was strictly for the Parliamentary Assembly and, accordingly, neither spoke to nor lobbied any member of the Assembly about the election. Nor did the Government lobby the Chairman or members of the Sub-Committee.
British Government officials were in touch with a number of officials in other member states of the Council of Europe, and officials in the Council of Europe Secretariat, as they are on a regular basis. UK officials also had contact with members of non-governmental organisations in the UK.
Officials made it clear that we continued to support the candidates in the order it had been proposed, for the reasons set out in this response, but that the final selection process was entirely a matter for the Parliamentary Assembly. The UK Permanent Representative in Strasbourg took this line with members of the UK Parliamentary Delegation when the issue was raised during a meeting in Strasbourg on 20 April.
From the large number of votes received by our first candidate, Nicolas Bratza QC, who since 1993 has been the British member of the European Commission of Human Rights, it is clear that our opinion was widely shared in the Assembly. We welcome his appointment and 346W wish him and his colleagues well in establishing procedures for the new Protocol 11 Court, which will be the central instrument in guaranteeing human rights in Europe.
I will write separately to my hon. Friend with the details of the states parties that submitted their candidate lists in order of preference. A copy of the letter will be deposited in the Library of the House.