§ Lord Lester of Herne Hillasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the statements of the Lord Chancellor on the Human Rights Bill on 24 November 1997 (HL Deb, cols. 830-34): (1) whether they consider that the adoption into UK law of the Strasbourg "victim" test in place of the British "sufficient interest" test of standing to bring proceedings against a public authority claiming that the authority has acted (or proposes to act) in breach of the convention rights is intended to mean that different tests of standing will apply according to whether a judicial review application is based upon (a) common law principles alone; or (b) common law principles embodying convention rights; or (c) European Union law embodying convention rights; or (d) convention rights alone; or (e) a combination of any of those grounds; (2) and, if so, what their reasons are for considering that this will be in the interests of the due administration of justice; (3) and, if not, what is their understanding of the position resulting from the operation of clause 7(3) of the Human Rights Bill as it stands.
33WA
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn)As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said on 24 November, we acknowledge that a consequence of the approach taken by the Human Rights Bill is that a narrower test will apply in relation to applications for judicial review on convention grounds than will continue to apply in relation for judicial review on other grounds. Our reasons for adopting the Strasbourg victim test are set out in my reply to a Question from the noble Lord on 9 December 1997.