§ 33. Mr. KhabraTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to implement the incorporation of the European convention on human rights. [20192]
§ Mr. Mike O'BrienThe Human Rights Bill [Lords] is currently being considered in another place. Before it can be implemented (if enacted), we shall need to ensure that courts and tribunals receive adequate training to enable them to deal confidently with Convention points in the cases that come before them.
§ Sir Brian MawhinneyTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate which clauses in the Human Rights Bill [Lords] require the court to produce a decision on the morality of the conduct in any case in addition to its compliance with the bare letter of the law. [21926]
§ Mr. Mike O'BrienWhether morality becomes involved may be a moot point, depending on the definition of morality. It is arguable that morality has a role in non-convention judgments in our courts.
Clause 2 of the Bill requires courts to take Convention jurisprudence into account when determining a question which has arisen in connection with a Convention right. 547W Clause 3 requires legislation to be interpreted as far as possible in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights. Clause 6 makes it unlawful for a court, as a public authority, to act in a way which is incompatible with the Convention rights. Taken together, these provisions will require the courts to consider whether, for example, conduct which interferes with a Convention right is necessary in a democratic society for one of the reasons specified in the relevant Article of the Convention.
§ Sir Brian MawhinneyTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans to issue guidance to assist the courts in reaching judgments on the morality of conduct in any case when interpreting the Human Rights Bill [Lords] should it become law. [21925]
§ Mr. Mike O'BrienJudicial training in the provisions of the Bill, relating among other things to the interpretation of Convention jurisprudence, is a matter for the Judicial Studies Board.
§ Sir Brian MawhinneyTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the bodies which the Government deem to be public authorities in the Human Rights Bill [Lords]. [21927]
§ Mr. Mike O'BrienClause 6 of the Human Rights Bill makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with the convention rights. It provides that a public authority includes a court or tribunal, and any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor explained during Committee stage in another place why we had adopted this approach rather than having a list of public authorities.
§ Sir Brian MawhinneyTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what considerations he bases his policy that the absence of written guarantees of freedom acts as a serious threat to liberty. [21924]
§ Mr. Mike O'BrienWe believe that the absence of written guarantees of freedom is a more serious threat to liberty than their presence. The freedom of an individual to do anything which is not prohibited by law provides inadequate protection against the misuse of power by the State. It has failed to protect a number of people in cases in which the European Court of Human Rights has found a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights by the United Kingdom.
Our policy is to make it possible for laws and practices in the United Kingdom to be tested in our own courts for compatibility with the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights. We have set out the considerations which have led us to this view in the White Paper "Rights Brought Home" (Cm 3782).