Ken Clarke hails deal to overhaul European Court of Human Rights

 

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke: "Get rid of all the trivial cases. Get rid of all the years of delay"

Related Stories

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said an agreement reached at a conference in Brighton will make "a big difference" to the European Court of Human Rights.

The 47 member countries have been discussing UK plans to curb its powers.

Court president Sir Nicolas Bratza said the Brighton declaration would "not change the way we do our jobs".

But Mr Clarke said it would reduce the "appalling backlog" of cases and "scandalous delays" that currently dog the court.

The UK has criticised some judgements, including giving prisoners the vote and blocking the deportation of Abu Qatada.

At the end of last year, judges in Strasbourg faced a backlog of nearly 152,000 cases, of which an estimated 90,000 will end up being categorised as "inadmissible".

Opening the Brighton meeting, Mr Clarke said "huge progress" had been made in tackling the number of inadmissible cases, but the court was still receiving more admissible cases than it could handle in "a timely manner" - some 3,000 a year, compared with a manageable workload of 2,000.

He said some of those "stuck waiting in that queue" would be serious cases that "should not wait years before they are determined".

'Uncomfortable'

Sir Nicolas has suggested that reform was already under way and the backlog was being tackled.

Start Quote

Sometimes minority interests have to be secured against the view of the majority”

End Quote Sir Nicolas Bratza President of the European Court of Human Rights

But at a press conference following the agreement of the declaration, Mr Clarke said he did not take "so leisured" a view as the court president.

"I won't accuse him of complacency, but I'm a little less relaxed than Sir Nicolas about the progress that's been made before the Brighton Declaration, which I think will make a big difference," he said.

Sir Nicolas said he was "uncomfortable" with governments trying to "dictate" the court's operations.

"In order to fulfil its role the European court must not only be independent, it must also be seen to be independent," he added.

He said it was "not surprising that governments and indeed public opinion in different countries find some of the court's judgements difficult to accept".

"[But] it is... in the nature of the protection of fundamental rights and the rule of law that sometimes minority interests have to be secured against the view of the majority."

'Very trivial cases'

Mr Clarke said he understood Sir Nicolas's "defensiveness", but member states had a duty to make sure the court operated efficiently.

Start Quote

Whatever cosmetic concessions are made will really not mean very much”

End Quote Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky Former member of commission on UK Bill of Rights

"Tackling the logistics of the court which are leading to delays... is not in my opinion threatening the independence of the court in the slightest."

The justice secretary went on: "We're making sure that we require the court to act more promptly on the sort of cases that this court should be dealing with.

"Stop being so slow in getting rid of some of the triviality, stop hearing some of the very trivial cases where there's no substantial damage... and just to give prompt decisions on those fewer cases which require a decision."

The UK had sought agreement on the principle of "subsidiarity" - to limit the court's ability to overrule cases already determined by national courts.

The other main principle demanded was to allow a "margin of appreciation" - giving national governments greater leeway in applying the judgements of the court.

Mr Clarke said earlier there could not be "an absolute rule" giving pre-eminence to national courts or parliaments, but it would not "very often happen" that a domestic decision would be overruled.

The UK government estimates this could happen within a couple of years.

'Underlying issue'

Thorbjorn Jagland, the secretary general of the Council of Europe, told the BBC earlier that individual member states - "where the convention has not been implemented fully" - were responsible for the court's problems.

Speaking alongside Mr Clarke later he said the declaration would make it easier for the court to "put aside" unsuitable applications.

But Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, who recently resigned from his position on the commission considering a UK Bill of Rights, said that although some "generally useful words and goodwill" might come out of the conference, it would not resolve "the underlying issue, which is, where does the buck stop?"

"The document says quite clearly that that final authority rests with Strasbourg, so whatever cosmetic concessions are made will really not mean very much."

Critics of the UK's desire to reduce the court's workload say it risks damaging access to justice in some member countries, including Russia and Ukraine.

 

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    -4

    Comment number 395.

    The simplest 'reform' would be to ignore the court when it prevents us ensuring our security needs and national interest. The ultimate responsibility of government is to protect our frontiers and ensure law & order. A simple fact lost in the great wave of so called liberal sentiment that has engulfed us over the past 60 years. To me responsibilities are as important as rights.

  • rate this
    +13

    Comment number 193.

    Yes, reform of the European Court of Human Rights is a good idea, but:
    - As for the Abu Qatada case, issues involving possible torture and death are about as serious as it gets, aren't they?
    - Who decides whether a case is trivial?
    - Who decides "where there's a serious argument they have manifestly erred"?
    Someone has to make the assessment: the ECoHR just needs to do it efficiently.

  • rate this
    -14

    Comment number 185.

    The issue about the ECHR is that it has exceeded its purpose. It was set up to prevent extremism populist govt and protect against torture. It decided to re-interpret the treaty as a living document and has now become a tool to impose soft left socialist thinking as "rights".

    I agreed with ECHR on the Quatada case that was within original remit but not about prisoner votes

  • rate this
    +17

    Comment number 60.

    Human rights used to mean things like the right to protest about a government without being killed or tortured. Now it has deteriorated into an excuse for any kind of permissiveness. Anyone who has a desire for something that current law prohibits can claim their human rights are being abused, like the recent incest case in Germany. Yes the Court needs changing to put a stop to its liberal tyranny

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 56.

    There seems to be too much politics in the Courts. Ultimately the Court is there to consider the legal process but it should not override democratic decisions as the Courts do not have a democratic mandate. The Courts must ensure fairness, but the system is being abused as a mechanism to delay an outcome. The costs of seeking a fair trial deny many people justice.

 

Comments 5 of 6

 

More Politics stories

RSS

Politics Live

  1.  
    Ross Hawkins Political correspondent, BBC News

    tweets: If parties invited to debates insist they happen & broadcasters stand by plan to press on whoever turns up, this will be an almighty scrap

     
  2.  
    07:39: Blair Labour donation
    Blair

    The Times is reporting this morning that former prime minister Tony Blair has donated £106,000 to Labour candidates around the UK. The money, from Mr Blair's private fortune, will be divided between 106 of Labour's target seats, the newspaper says.

     
  3.  
    07:32: Your say

    A selection of comments from Politics Live readers on the TV debates

    Rather than what broadcasters or what political parties want regarding debates, what about what the electorate wants?

    The debates at the last election and the Scottish referendum debates were widely watched and helped reconnect the public with the political process. They took leaders out of their ivory towers and made them more accountable to the people they are supposed to lead.

    Cameron refusing to take part in debates shows his contempt for this process and a fear of public scrutiny. I really think the Tories have made a major error of judgement here, the electorate will not be gentle.

    Ged Roddam

    The prime minister has stated he only wants one debate. It is not the broadcasters who should pressurise otherwise. They need to respect his position on this, as do the other parties who are name calling.

    Broadcasters would not be pressurising the CEO of a large company on how to run their business...

    Sara Brewer

    Do you agree? Email is politics@bbc.co.uk with your views.

     
  4.  
    @rosschawkins Ross Hawkins, BBC political correspondent

    tweets: Lib Dem view on debates is they'll do them even if not happy about format. Will broadcasters - as they've suggested - go ahead without PM?

     
  5.  
    @PickardJE Jim Pickard, Financial Times

    tweets: Alastair Campbell is outraged by Cameron wriggling from TV debates. Reminded he blocked Blair from doing so in 1997 he tells #today: "True."

     
  6.  
    07:22: One man debate? BBC Radio 4 Today

    Asked if Ed Miliband should offer to take part in a debate alone, Alastair Campbell says it's a "tactical judgement", but Mr Miliband should "probably" press ahead without David Cameron. It's the interest of both the Labour Party and the country as a whole that an Ed Miliband v David Cameron takes place, Mr Campbell adds.

     
  7.  
    @Kevin_Maguire Kevin Maguire, Daily Mirror associate editor

    tweets: TV election debates are important in principle. If we adopt a written constitution, put them in alongside secret ballots and spending caps

     
  8.  
    07:15: Campbell on TV debates BBC Radio 4 Today

    Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's former director of communications, says David Cameron's decision to only take part in one TV debate is "democratically wrong and morally cowardly". He says Mr Cameron should be honest about why he doesn't want to take part - "he just doesn't want to do them", Mr Campbell says.

     
  9.  
    07:11: One-on-one debate? Ross Hawkins Political correspondent, BBC News

    Is it possible for a "one-on-one" debate to go ahead with just one person? Labour thinks so, our political correspondent reports. The party will insist the plan is credible and could lead to Ed Miliband taking part in a debate with a presenter.

    "If that were to happen, David Cameron would be pursued by a man in a chicken costume throughout the campaign, I'm certain of that", our correspondent adds.

     
  10.  
    07:06: Telegraph on debates The Daily Telegraph

    The Telegraph has penned an editorial which says the televised discussions are good for democracy. The paper argues the debates would "inject some much-needed spontaneity and excitement into the stage-managed, safety-first election campaigning". The piece says broadcasters now need to work together to make sure "some sort of debate" does take place.

     
  11.  
    Norman Smith BBC Assistant Political Editor

    tweets: Labour say Ed Miliband will still take part in Ch4//Sky head to head debate without the PM

     
  12.  
    @NickyMorgan01 Nicky Morgan, minister for women

    tweets: Looking forward to today's #CWIB2015. Bringing together ambitious business women for masterclasses and mentoring. #womensday

     
  13.  
    06:55: 'Move Parliament to Manchester' The Guardian

    Earlier this week, we reported Commons Speaker John Bercow saying the Houses of Parliament may have to be "abandoned" within 20 years without extensive repair work. There have been a number of suggestions on possible alternatives. Today, Simon Jenkins writes in the Guardian that Parliament should be moved to Manchester, arguing it would be good for democracy.

     
  14.  
    06:51: Broadcasters 'pressing ahead' Norman Smith BBC Assistant Political Editor

    "Talking to some of those involved last night, my impression at the moment, is the broadcasters are intent on toughing this one out... They do not think that one 90-minute debate involving eight parties in the next fortnight or so is acceptable. They do not think it is acceptable one party should have the power to veto what goes ahead. As things stand they are intent on pressing ahead with the debates as currently scheduled."

     
  15.  
    06:42: Cameron's debate plans Norman Smith BBC Assistant Political Editor

    Our correspondent has been analysing last night's big debate news.

    The effect is to swing a huge wrecking ball in the direction of the broadcasters' plans for these TV debates, he says. It may demolish all hopes for a debate to be held, or may leave one "paltry" 90-minute debate later this month.

    The clear view of Downing Street is that this is the fault of broadcasters, who they accuse of coming forward with proposals without consultation, to a timetable that was never going to be acceptable, and of failing to get the parties to get together for meaningful negotiations, our correspondent says.

     
  16.  
    06:39: TV debate reaction
    HuffPo

    There is plenty of reaction around to Downing Street's one-debate proposal. Including this, which leaves little doubt as to where the Huffington Post stands on the issue.

     
  17.  
    06:30: Scotland Ashcroft poll

    In other political news you may have missed from last night, a poll suggested the SNP could win Gordon Brown's seat - Kircaldy and Cowdenbeath - at the election in May. The poll by Lord Ashcroft also suggested Charles Kennedy, the former Liberal Democrat leader, could also lose his seat to the nationalists. It's the latest polling which suggests the SNP could make significant gains on 7 May.

     
  18.  
    06:25: The papers
    Daily Telegraph front page - 05/03/15

    Downing Street's announcement that the prime minister will only take part in one TV debate ahead of the election features in several papers, with The Daily Telegraph describing it as an "ultimatum" to broadcasters. The BBC's Alex Kleiderman has the full round-up of the nationals here.

     
  19.  
    06:20: Child benefit changes? BBC Newsnight BBC Two, 22:30

    The BBC has learned the Conservatives are considering limiting child benefit to three children. As Newsnight reported last night, the Treasury has "softened" to the idea, which could save an estimated £300m a year.

     
  20.  
    06:15: Debate bombshell
    Leaders

    In case you missed it, there was a significant development last night on the TV leaders debates, after Downing Street wrote to broadcasters to make a "final offer" of only one debate with seven, possibly eight, leaders. Other parties criticised the PM, accusing him of "acting like a chicken" and the broadcasters have said they will respond to the proposal in due course. Expect more reaction on this story this morning.

     
  21.  
    06:10: Good morning

    Hello and welcome to a fresh Thursday's political coverage. Nick Eardley and Matthew Davis will bring you all the action, reaction and analysis in text and you'll be able to watch and listen to all the main BBC political programmes, from Today and Breakfast through to Newsnight and Today in Parliament. Don't forget you can get in touch by emailing politics@bbc.co.uk or via social media @bbcpolitics. Here's how Wednesday unfolded.

     

Features

Try our new site and tell us what you think. Learn more
Take me there

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.