Human Rights

We did, but they could not be invoked fully and finally and adjudicated until one had exhausted the domestic remedies and gone to Strasbourg. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said that one problem with the new system is that lots of courts interpret the Human Rights Act, whereas before, only one court finally interpreted the human rights convention. That is true, but we in this country desperately need to have a human rights culture imbued in us all the time. One reason why young people in this country do not understand their rights and responsibilities is that, unlike in France or the United States, they do not have a written constitution. They are not brought up to understand the relationship between the state and the individual. That is why we Liberal Democrats and our predecessor Liberal party have for many years wanted not only a Bill of Rights but a written constitution, so that the rights and the responsibilities of the individual can be established and learned by children at their mother’s knee as they go to school, just as they are in the United States. Youngsters in the United States understand the rights and responsibilities of the citizen. They understand the importance of the constitution and the value of a supreme court independent of the Executive and the legislature. That is a great advantage, and we should seek it. I hope that the Minister heard the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) that the Government look much more favourably at the Council of Europe’s plea to be properly resourced, so that it can deal much more quickly with cases that go to Strasbourg at the end of the process. However, there is one other thing that we in Parliament could do to improve the credibility of human rights in this country. When the Government are thinking of legislating, rather than a Minister certifying on the face of the draft Bill that it is human rights-compliant, it should be submitted to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which I pay tribute for the very good service that it does to both Houses. The Committee should certify that it is human rights-compliant on behalf of both Houses and of all parties represented in this Parliament. I would far rather trust a representative group of people not in government to tell me that proposed legislation is complaint with human rights, than a Minister who has an interest in getting legislation through. Sometimes people say that the convention does not allow us to protect our national security and, indeed, that argument was made by the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell). How wrong he is. All but a handful of the 15 rights set out in the convention may be qualified in times of threats to national security. There are very few absolute rights, as nations may derogate at such times. There is an absolute right not to be subjected to torture and thank God for that. But other rights, such as the right to respect for private and family life in article 8, are qualified as follows:"““There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.””" The convention was intelligently drafted to allow us to row back from absolute rights in the interests of national security. I commend the convention to the hon. Gentleman and if he reads it carefully, he will see that I am right. Some of the protections that he seeks are guaranteed in writing already. He is on record as saying that he did not want people to be deported to a country where they would be executed. That is why some rights are absolute and unqualified. I am proud that we have this strong convention. I hope that the Government are resolute and stand firm on this issue, and do not wobble again. I also hope that the Conservative party, as it works out its thinking on this, will be clear that if we are to have a domestic Bill of Rights, it should start with the European convention and the 15 rights in it. If we build on that and seek a consensus, we could end up with a document that would be as valuable in the 21st century as the Magna Carta has been in past centuries.