| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Jacques Arnold: My hon. Friend said that human rights standards are imposed in a number of European Union commercial arrangements, which is precisely my point. The convention, with its system of interfering courts, has become an anachronism. We should take steps to bring about reform. Even the founding father said that there was no problem with the human rights record of this country or with the powers and determination of the House to uphold the rights of British citizens.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is time to review the terms of the European Court of Human Rights. I shall return to that aspect later.
The United Kingdom is fully familiar with the rights guaranteed in the convention, which include freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right to a fair trial. The first protocol also safeguards the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and requires that the philosophical and religious convictions of parents must be respected in the choice of their children's education.
As a founder member of the convention, the UK signed up to two optional articles covering the right of individual petition and compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court in 1966. In the time that has elapsed since,a number of cases have been held against us. However, the relatively high number of applications from the UK and the relatively low number of complaints upheld is a healthy sign of the level of awareness of human rights issues in the UK and of the Government's record in fulfilling their international obligations--not things of which we should be remotely ashamed.
The vast majority of cases brought under the convention are rejected in early stages and never see the light of day. Of those that did reach the European Court, it found against the Government in 40 cases. Countries such as France, Austria, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland and Switzerland have much higher figures than the UK, considered either by head of population or by the length of time that we have accepted the right of individual petition compared with those countries' much shorter time scales.
Up to May last year, France and Italy--which recognised the right of individual petition only in 1981 and 1973 respectively--incurred in the case of France30 violations before the European Court and 51 before the Committee of Ministers, and in the case of Italy 83 and 347. The number of decisions awaiting remedial action is 40 for France and 330 for Italy.
Our successes often receive no publicity, as is so often the case. The phrase, "The Government win again," is apparently not one to which it is easy to make our media pay attention. There have been many useful decisions. In the context of Northern Ireland, it was extremely helpful to have it confirmed by an independent tribunal that special emergency powers are in line with convention standards. That happened in the case of Margaret Murray, which involved holding a suspect for interrogation. The same happened in other cases, such as that of Kelly, which involved the shooting of a joyrider, and Brannigan, when the question arose of the validity of the UK's derogation from the convention. The court upheld the fairness of our system of planning appeals in the Bryan case, and the immunity from libel action of Department of Trade and Industry inspectors in the Al Fayed case. Most recently, the Commission has rejected several complaints from pit
bull terrier owners about the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Where there are areas of contention, it is useful for the Government to have a non-UK arbiter acknowledging that this country is acting fully within the convention and reassuring world opinion.
Of course, I accept that there has been disquiet over some judgments, and that disquiet is fully shared by the Government. My hon. Friend mentioned several cases, so I shall not repeat the details. It is worth pointing out that we were particularly unhappy with last September's Gibraltar judgment on McCann, and we made that abundantly clear on several occasions in the House. It is worth bearing it in mind that the judgment was taken by only a narrow margin, and that the court found against the Government on one point only--the control and organisation of the operation. The court rejected the more significant claims that our law had breached the convention, that the inquest procedures were inadequate, that the killing of the three terrorists was premeditated, and that the action of the soldiers was in violation of the convention. In all those critical areas, the court found for us.
We should also remember that the court rejected the applicants' claim for compensation on the ground that the persons who were killed were terrorists intending to plant a bomb. The Government were left with the duty to pay costs, which we did in accordance with our practice of obeying international law. I repeat that we were not happy with that judgment. We were also profoundly unhappy with some other judgments, to which my hon. Friend referred.
My hon. Friend did not raise the question of parliamentary scrutiny in this debate, but he frequently does so. I am aware that some hon. Members have questioned why--given that the convention affects the British people so directly--Parliament was not consulted before the Government decided to renew the two optional articles in January. If we had done so, that would have been contrary to previous practice. We have never at any time since 1966 put the question of renewing the articles to the House--although we kept the House fully informed, as we have on this occasion.
Mr. Jacques Arnold:
May I intervene on that point?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor:
I have only three minutes left.I shall give way to my hon. Friend if there is time when I conclude my remarks.
The disquiet that we all share about some of the judgments of the Strasbourg court prompted the Government last year to review most carefully our continued adherence to the convention. There is a fundamental distinction between our dissatisfaction with certain judgments and our attitude to the European convention on human rights. The convention has our full support. We played a crucial role in drafting it, we continue to support it, and we believe that it remains an extremely important tool for ensuring that human rights are observed by the wide international community. However, we want changes--and I shall briefly outline them.
We want to ensure that judgments are not made against our national interests, while maintaining the defence of individual liberties within our society, and we want changes that ensure that the Strasbourg institutions take all relevant factors into account. To that end, we have in mind improvements in Strasbourg's fact-finding
procedures. We should like to sharpen the focus on the principal and relevant issues before the court. As a first step, we are proposing that the court considers introducing a new procedure under which it would make known its main areas of concern early enough for them to be addressed at hearings. If we had known the critical issue in the Gibraltar inquiry, we could have rebutted some of the facts on which the court based its judgment. That change would be a significant step forward in preventing the repetition of such an outcome.
We also want to ensure the quality of judges on the new permanent court that will be set up under protocol 11, probably in a couple of years' time. Good selection procedures for judges are important, and we want to start discussions soon in the Council of Europe, to see whether we can ensure that the court's judges are of the highest international calibre.
We shall argue for maintenance of the common standards of the European convention on human rights. At the same time, we shall seek wider and more consistent recognition of the need to respect different circumstances, traditions and laws and the ways in which standards are implemented in different countries. That, of course, will be extremely significant should the question of homosexuality in the armed forces arise. It is important that the standards of our approach to our military forces and the needs of the country are fully taken into account by the court when it reaches its conclusion. It is essential that these changes are in place before that occurs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
Order. Time is up.
Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney):
I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister and the House the St. Tydfil's court sheltered accommodation scheme in Merthyr Tydfil, in my constituency.
More than 40 pensioners resident in the scheme are currently denied the benefit of a concessionary television licence by the television licensing centre at Bristol. I argue that, first, the television licensing centre should reverse its decision and, secondly, that my constituency case reveals--as, indeed, do others--the anomalous and arbitrary nature of the regulations governing the concessionary scheme.
Since becoming involved in this constituency issue,I have been surprised at the shared experiences of a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House.I heard, for example, from my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), both of whom showed me papers from protracted battles with the television licensing centre at Bristol. Happily, the centre changed its mind and they won their cases.
More recently, my attention was drawn to a case in the constituency of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who, in the true tradition of the honourable nature of the House, helped me. I do not raise this matter in a party context. The information that the hon. Gentleman so kindly furnished me with has helped me to prepare my case, and I thank him sincerely for his patience and assistance.
I shall explain to the Minister the nature of St. Tydfil's court. It is a residential block of flats, with 10 floors, built in the 1940s. Progressively, it has become the home of pensioners. Realising that, Merthyr borough council sensitively and sensibly decided in 1990-91 to convert most of the block into proper sheltered accommodation and to provide a full-time warden resident in the block. Understandably, and following the example of all other sheltered accommodation schemes in the borough, the council and the tenants concerned had expected to qualify for the television licence concession. Indeed, the local authority advertised the concession when it issued tenancy agreements. It therefore came as a great surprise to the borough council, and caused considerable resentment among the tenants in the sheltered scheme, when the television licensing centre refused to grant the concessionary licences.
When the issue arose, I read the conditions--indeed,I re-read them in preparing for the debate--laid down in the regulations that govern the concessionary scheme. To qualify, sheltered accommodation should fulfil several conditions. First, it should be provided, or run, by the local authority or a housing association. The St. Tydfil's sheltered accommodation scheme is run and provided by Merthyr borough council. Secondly, it must be specially provided by way of erection or conversion for occupation only by retirement pensioners or disabled people. As I have explained, the borough council converted most of the block of flats into a proper sheltered accommodation scheme, so it qualifies under the second condition. Thirdly, the scheme must be served by a full-time or resident warden. At first, the BBC licence fee unit sought to deny the concession to my constituents on the ground of the absence of a warden,
but a full-time warden has been, and still is, resident in the block. St. Tydfil's court therefore qualifies under the third condition.
Fourthly, there must be a communal facility within the boundary intended to meet the needs of residents. There are such facilities at St. Tydfil's court. Those four conditions are fully met by the sheltered accommodation scheme at St. Tydfil's court. The pensioners ofSt. Tydfil's court are being denied the concessionary licence on a fifth ground, the condition which states that the accommodation
Since residents and the local authority raised this case with me, I have discovered that the words and phrases in the fifth condition have caused considerable confusion, created a number of anomalies and, in my opinion, led to arbitrary refusal to grant concessionary licences to pensioners who should qualify. The words have caused much confusion about who should qualify. It seems that the sole reason why residents at St. Tydfil's court are being denied the concessionary television licence is that, before the conversion of the block of flats, a number of residents purchased their flats under the right-to-buy scheme.
I should say straight away that the residents who bought their flats accept that they do not qualify under the present arrangements. They signed a petition and support representations made by their neighbours. They have shown traditional Merthyr neighbourly comradeship in supporting their neighbours' case. Indeed, the local campaign on behalf of the pensioners is remarkable because of the people who are involved, especially the redoubtable Mr. McNaughton. He has bombarded Ministers, the Prime Minister, officials at the television licensing centre in Bristol, and everybody within reach, to make the case on behalf of the residents and pensioners. That is all the more special because Mr. McNaughton is a registered blind person.
The Minister will understand the resentment that is felt that officials at the television licensing centre in Bristol have repeatedly refused our pleas. I am sad to report that they have also repeatedly refused to visit the complex. That failure to heed our pleas and to visit is resented all the more because it is clear that the fifth condition is open to interpretation and reinterpretation. I suspect that the Minister will know of cases, of which I am not aware, where there have been battles between pensioner groups, the television licensing centre and his Department.
I have already mentioned cases in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall and for Mansfield, which, after protracted discussion, were successful. The most recent case that has been brought to my attention is one in the constituency of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. He has kindly sent me the letter from the television licensing centre in Bristol, which eventually conceded the case that he made. In this case, it seems to be a mixed development. We are told, for example, that
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has succeeded in persuading the television centre that that case qualifies.
In the case of St Tydfil's court, the warden does not have to cross a car park; she is resident in the block. Pensioners who qualify are easily identifiable, because they pay into the scheme. It is a curious interpretation of "common and exclusive boundary" that rules out a concessionary scheme at St Tydfil's court for the simple reason that, before its conversion, a number of residents--rightly and understandably--purchased their properties under the right-to-buy scheme.
I plead with the television centre to reverse its decision and concede this case, as it has had to concede other cases. If it refuses to do so, however, we must concentrate on the fact that the regulations themselves deny pensioners in sheltered accommodation a concession that I think, in its heart of hearts, Parliament probably intended to allow them. I do not believe that the original intention was to exclude those in sheltered accommodation atSt Tydfil's court.
1.30 pm
"must form part of a group of at least four dwellings within a common and exclusive boundary".
"numbers 1 to 17 and 27 to 47 (odds) Homefield Close can be regarded as being within a common and exclusive boundary . . . From the site plan provided, it would appear that the warden can move freely between the two elements of the scheme via the car park which separates the scheme."
6 Mar 1996 : Column 318
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |