European Convention on Human Rights

Question

11:09:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to propose amendments to the European Convention on Human Rights.

My Lords, this Government are fully committed to the protection of human rights, domestically and internationally, and remain unequivocally committed to the international human rights framework. As the Lord Chancellor set out in a speech to the Council of Europe, we encourage a constructive dialogue between contracting parties to the European Convention on Human Rights on how the convention can respond to developments in our societies.

I am grateful to my noble friend. Will he confirm that a Labour Government will never withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights? Will he say that, instead, we will discuss with our partners how it can evolve, through new protocols, new rights and new interpretations—not to weaken rights but to update and strengthen them?

I agree with the sentiments behind my noble friend’s question. The ECHR has achieved 75 years of success, but we cannot shy away from developments in our societies. The ECHR and our relationship with it need to change. We are committed to engaging constructively with our friends within the ECHR.

Does the Minister accept that the Government’s proposal, spelled out in its immigration White Paper, to legislate to tell the courts how to interpret the European Convention on Human Rights as it affects immigrants destroys the whole rationale for the ECHR? That rationale is based on the belief that only judges—unaffected by political considerations and unaccountable to Parliament or the electorate—can determine the true meaning in detail of the vague, abstract rights listed in the convention. Once Parliament takes back control of spelling out our rights in statute—as it should, as it did for 700 years and as the Government now propose it will in future—the original case for adhering to the ECHR will evaporate.

As the noble Lord rightly points out, there has been an immigration White Paper. In it, we have said that we will look to deliver a new framework to consider Article 8—the right to family life—and will bring forward legislation to clarify Article 8 rules so that fewer cases are treated as exceptional. This is a modification that we have committed to taking forth within our own domestic legislation. However, the more general point that the noble Lord makes is fundamentally misguided. We have hugely benefited from the ECHR in the 75 years of its existence. It needs to evolve. Of course, there are issues, which we acknowledge, but one point that many European and domestic judges have made to me is that the margin of appreciation, the latitude that individual states have within the existing rules, is wider than many of the states acknowledge themselves.

My Lords, in our view, trying to change the ECHR, which would require unanimity, would be as futile as it would be undesirable. However, on the Government’s immigration White Paper, particularly the Article 8 right to respect for private and family life, the margin of appreciation does, as the Minister mentioned, enable states to differ in how they implement the convention. Will the Minister confirm that UK legislation will seek to curtail reliance on exceptional circumstances only for legitimate and recognised convention aims such as national security, crime prevention, economic and social interests or protecting democracy?

Yes, I can give the confirmation that the noble Lord seeks. He sets out the case, as I think I did in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, but the reality is that this is just one aspect—it is the relationship with the ECHR that we are talking about—but there need to be a number of ways of tackling irregular immigration, which is a profound and difficult issue. We are doing that in parallel, as well as addressing the Article 8 issue.

My Lords, it is helpful that the Minister acknowledges that the convention needs to evolve and that there are issues with it. However, given the truth of what was just said about the difficulty and slowness of achieving unanimity in any negotiation, and if the Minister accepts that there is a significant problem, should not the Government reserve the right to withdraw if a negotiation cannot achieve what is needed for the country?

I just do not think we are in that position at present. We can amend our own legislation regarding Article 8. There is the margin of appreciation which noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to. As I said earlier, there is more discretion within that than is widely acknowledged or used—within not just the UK but Europe as a whole.

My Lords, there have been gross distortions in the right-wing press in this country with respect to the right-to-family-life decisions. Nevertheless, some of those decisions have been astonishing. Is the remedy therefore not in our own tribunal’s interpretation, which perhaps needs some form of clarification, rather than in the difficult process of amending the convention?

My noble friend makes a good point and is right. I think that we are repeating the same question in different ways, if I may say so. We have committed to addressing Article 8 rules within our own domestic legislation and there is the issue about the margin of appreciation, which I have referred to in answer to earlier questions.

My Lords, the Minister has acknowledged today that the convention on human rights needs to evolve. Nine EU member states recently called for reform of the European Court of Human Rights—not the convention—and the court’s approach to the application of the convention. Will the Minister confirm that the United Kingdom will join those states in calling for such reform of the court’s operations? If not, why not?

I can quote from my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor’s speech in Strasbourg in June, where she acknowledged the letter—which was of course signed by EU members; the UK Government were not invited to sign that. Nevertheless, my right honourable friend said that there should indeed be an “open conversation about the future of the Convention” and that the UK wants to play its full part in that.

My Lords, are His Majesty’s Government at all concerned about the diversion of interpretation of ECHR rights between the courts in Northern Ireland the rest of the United Kingdom—particularly in relation to Article 2 rights concerning veterans?

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has laid a draft proposal for a draft remedial order to set out his intention to introduce primary legislation when parliamentary time allows. The Government are engaging with victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland and all interested parties to fulfil the commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, we will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton.

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that because the ECHR is committed to upholding the right to free and fair elections, those who advocate leaving the convention should understand that it would send a strong negative signal about the UK’s commitment to strengthening democracy and would undermine the work of election monitoring by international bodies such as the Council of Europe and the OSCE?

I thank my noble friend Lady Winterton for that question. As she said, she has been an election monitor with the OSCE. I have been an election monitor with the Council of Europe and the OSCE. Both bodies do extremely valuable work, and it would be wrong to undermine that work in any way.