HL Deb 09 November 2000 vol 618 cc173-5WA
Lord Lester of Herne Hill

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Further to the Written Answer by Lord Bassam of Brighton on 23 October (WA 14), whether there is any basis in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights or in any other international or comparative jurisprudence to support the Government's concern that the European Court of Human Rights might interpret Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights in a way which did not allow objective and reasonably justified distinctions; and, if not, what is the basis for the Government's concern. [HL4430]

Lord Bassam of Brighton

The current case law of the European Court of Human Rights suggests that objective and reasonably justified distinctions do not constitute discrimination for the purposes of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. But the Court's interpretation of the Convention evolves and it is not bound by previous judgments. It was for this reason that we sought, though without success, for this principle to be included in the text of the Protocol itself.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Further to the Written Answer by Lord Bassam of Brighton on 23 October (WA 14), whether there is any basis in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights or in any other international or comparative jurisprudence to suggest that the European Court of Human Rights would not interpret Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights in a way which enabled contracting states to take positive and proportionate measures to overcome the effects of past discrimination and to promote the effective enjoyment of equality of treatment without discrimination; and, if not, what is the basis for the Government's concern. [HL4431]

Lord Bassam of Brighton

It may be that the European Court of Human Rights would hold that positive and proportionate action to overcome the effects of past discrimination did not constitute discrimination for the purposes of Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights. We consider, however, and have argued without success, that there should be some specific provision to this effect in the text of the Protocol itself.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Further to the Written Answer by Lord Bassam of Brighton on 23 October (WA 13), which human rights and which international agreement the Government have in mind in relation to their concern that the European Court of Human Rights might hold (under Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights) that such rights are protected against discrimination under Protocol 12. [HL4429]

Lord Bassam of Brighton

There are a number of provisions in international agreements—for instance, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—which it has not been thought appropriate to incorporate into the law of the United Kingdom because, for example, they are aspirational. There is nothing in the text of Protocol 12, or even in its preamble, to exclude these rights from the coverage of the Protocol.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bassam of Brighton on 25 October (WA 45), whether they signed the Political Declaration adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 13 October at the conclusion of the European Conference Against Racism; and, if so, what are their reasons for being willing to adopt this statement while being unwilling to sign and ratify Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights on behalf of the United Kingdom. [HL4461]

Lord Bassam of Brighton

The Government have signed the Political Declaration. They thus committed themselves to considering signature and ratification, as soon as possible and without reservations, of relevant universal and European human rights instruments for which such action had not yet been taken. The Government did not sign Protocol 12 when it was opened for signature in Rome on 4 November and have no present plans to do so, but they have not indefinitely ruled out signature and ratification. They will keep their position under consideration in the light of the interpretation of the Protocol by the European Court of Human Rights.