| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
SOLICITOR-GENERAL
The Solicitor-General was asked--
European Convention on Human Rights
21. Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): If he will make a statement on United Kingdom compliance with the European convention on human rights in relation to legislation. [117752]
The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The United Kingdom ratified the European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in 1951, and is bound in international law to respect and observe convention rights.
Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides for a statement of compatibility from Ministers introducing legislation into Parliament. That is already in force. It requires that when legislation is introduced in either House for a Second Reading, the Minister responsible for the legislation must make a written statement that he or she considers the Bill to be compatible with convention rights, or is unable to make the statement but wishes Parliament to proceed with the Bill anyway. It is primarily for the Minister who is responsible for a Bill to ensure that the provisions are compatible. On reaching a view on these matters, the Minister would act on the advice of his or her officials and legal advisers, and sometimes the Law Officers become involved.
Mr. Mackinlay: Is it not time that we revisited section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998? It is inadequate, and will lead to embarrassment for the United Kingdom and to work for the Law Officers, who will have to defend our statute book in the European Court and other courts. Did my hon. and learned Friend notice this week that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was unable to give a human rights compliance notice in relation to the Local Government Bill? On the advice of the Lord Chancellor, he is unable to explain why he is not able to give that notice. It is nonsense. Private Members' Bills and private Bills are passing through the House, and with them there is apparently no need for human rights compliance certification. Again, that is nonsense. When these measures reach the statute book, the Law Officers will sometimes have to defend the indefensible. We should recognise that we are being sloppy and that these issues should be taken up with expedition.
The Solicitor-General: We are taking the Act seriously, and the statements. We started with public Bills. However, I take my hon. Friend's argument. He raises a serious point about private Bills, for example. The concerns that he has expressed on previous occasions have been taken on board. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering them seriously. As for the Local Government Bill, Ministers will have to give an explanation to the House and in Committee in due course. They will have to explain why some measures within it are not compliant, and why most are.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): Have the Government estimated the number of cases that will arise under the European convention when the new provisions come into force, the additional burden on the court system and the additional costs?
The Solicitor-General: An announcement was made yesterday, and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was given some figures. We have admitted from the outset that costs are involved in training and litigation. Initially, we expect that human rights problems will be raised in ordinary cases, and they will be dealt with in the ordinary way. We have anticipated additional costs, and there is no doubt that they will arise. We say that there are advantages in promoting a human rights culture. To take up the slogan that was used on one occasion by a leader of the Conservative party, "Rejoice, rejoice."
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough): To follow up the point about creating a human rights culture, does my hon. and
learned Friend believe that we are succeeding in doing that, or does he share my concern that discussion about the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 has focused on minor aspects of it that will cause complications rather than on the fact that we are giving legal rights to our citizens?
The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is right. Many misconceptions have been sown about this matter, and there has been much concentration on litigation, which is the issue that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) raised. We are trying to change the whole culture, initially in the public services, so that they will deal with matters in the right way, but more generally in the community.
Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon): As the House knows, the European convention on human rights already impacts on our law. I refer the Solicitor-General to the Starrs case, which has given rise to a significant rethink in the Lord Chancellor's Department, as was shown in a written answer given yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy). Although that case deals with judicial appointments, is the Solicitor-General satisfied that it does not impact in any way on appointments in his Department or on any person for whom he is accountable to the House?
The Solicitor-General: That particular case involved judicial appointments and quasi-judicial appointments. As yesterday's statement indicated, certain changes have been made. It is vital that we underline the independence of the judiciary, and that has been done. For example, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), the shadow Attorney-General, has by virtue of that statement become a recorder. He is no longer an assistant recorder, because assistant recorders have only short-term appointments.
Judicial independence is important, and it is also important that tribunals are seen to be independent. That brings me back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). Although individual cases and structures are important, it is more the culture of rights and responsibilities--I emphasise the word "responsibilities"--that we are attempting to promote by our legislation.
Mr. David Kidney (Stafford): There is much speculation about the readiness of our legal system to cope with the implementation of convention rights in domestic law later this year. What assurance can my hon. and learned Friend give to the House about the state of readiness of Law Officers themselves and of those parts of the legal system, such as the Crown Prosecution Service, for which they are responsible?
The Solicitor-General: I hope that I am absolutely and completely ready. As the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) suggested, the convention has been in force and been part of our law since 1951. It is nothing new. We constantly have to give advice on human rights matters. All that has happened is that the Human Rights Act has domesticated those rights, so that remedies can be sought in domestic courts.
My hon. Friend referred to the Crown Prosecution Service, and a great deal of training has taken place. By October, when the Act comes into effect, all crown prosecutors will be thoroughly trained. It is interesting that, in the training process, a great deal of co-operation between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police has occurred; police and prosecutors have worked together. [Interruption.] I know that the introduction of the Act is a source of mirth for Conservative Members, but it is a serious and important measure that will promote rights and responsibilities in this country.
Europe
22. Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): What areas of United Kingdom law have been affected by (a) accession to EU treaties by the United Kingdom and (b) decisions of the European Court in the last three years. [117753]
The Solicitor-General: Each year the United Kingdom becomes bound by obligations under international agreements affecting almost every area of policy. These range from the environment to air traffic to patents.
The hon. Gentleman refers to the European Court. As he knows there are two. The European Court of Justice delivers judgments in all areas where there is a European Community law dimension. Again, the range is wide, covering competition law, employment law, environmental protection and state aids. As a member of the European Community, we are bound by the judgments of the court.
In addition, there is the European Court of Human Rights, which I have just mentioned. It affects all areas of United Kingdom law in which convention rights exist.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not true that, whenever the British Government agree to treaty changes handing over responsibility for whole chunks of policy--for example, the social policy aspect of the Amsterdam treaty--the democratic accountability of this Parliament is diminished and the independence of our judiciary is fettered? Would it not be better if such matters were dealt with by national Governments, whenever possible, instead of by unelected European institutions?
The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman's original question contained more misconceptions per square inch than I have seen for a while; the supplementary contained even more.
We are members of the European Community. The hon. Gentleman's Government were in office for 18 years; they signed treaties that resulted in the European Commission acquiring certain powers. I realise that certain hon. Members sitting near the hon. Gentleman are members of the cafe society--Conservatives Against a Federal Europe--
The Solicitor-General: I am reassured by that. However, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is a member of that society, and its members believe in getting out of Europe. I hope that the hon. Member for
Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) will explain to his constituents how many jobs would be lost as a result of that policy.
Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test): Does my hon. and learned Friend consider that the European Court of Justice has any value to the United Kingdom, and if so, what is that value?
The Solicitor-General: The ECJ enforces the treaty. That is important because it introduces the rule of law throughout Europe. Too often during the previous century, the rule of law has not been effective in some parts of Europe.
We value the work of the ECJ. For example, yesterday, I was before the court, arguing a case involving the cigarette advertising directive. If we are successful in that case, we shall quickly be able to introduce effective regulations to ban cigarette advertising. The resultant benefit to human health will be considerable.
There are problems with the European Court. For example, there are delays. However, the court has developed a plan for improvements in its procedures; we support such reforms.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): Does the Minister not realise that severe dangers are posed to our sovereignty by the moves in Brussels and Strasbourg to replace English law by the code Napoleon? Will he tell us whether the Government are prepared to stand against the plans for corpus juris? Does he acknowledge the huge concern caused by the fact that so much of vital interest to our citizens bypasses the UK and the House, and is being addressed with no democratic accountability at all?
The Solicitor-General: I know that the hon. Gentleman is also a member of the cafe society--so that is where he is coming from--but he is scaremongering. On the corpus juris proposals, all that has happened is that an interim report has been produced--there is not even a final report. The important point about the report was that it addressed the serious problem of fraud in the community--against which measures must be taken. We have said that the best way to approach the problem would be for member states to act co-operatively. There is no
scope for a public prosecutor; we have made it plain that we reject that idea. We have also made it clear that there is no scope for a European criminal code. As for the reference to the code Napoleon, that is cloud cuckoo land.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |