PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament

1463 Oral Answers
26 MARCH 2013
Oral Answers
1464
with other countries which led to the Brighton declaration.
We believe that the principles of subsidiarity should be
re-emphasised, that the selection of judges should
be improved and that the backlog of the Court needs to
be addressed. Those are important reform packages. We
were successful in getting agreement on them last year,
and we intend now to see that they are implemented.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): Does the
Attorney-General agree that it is simply not possible or
right to start picking and choosing which decisions of
the European Court of Human Rights we agree or disagree
with? We are signed up to that charter, which guarantees
the human rights of people all over Europe, including in
this country. Surely that is something of which we
should be proud rather than trying to undermine it all
the time, as many of his Back Benchers consistently do.
The Attorney-General: The convention is an international
legal obligation that we take extremely seriously and I
have no doubt that our adherence to it is extremely
helpful in raising standards of human rights elsewhere
and in countries that have much poorer track records.
The advantages to be derived from such an international
legal obligation applied across countries need to be
weighed in the balance when people are critical of how
it is sometimes interpreted.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD): Will the Attorney-
General ensure that all Ministers and members of his
own party are at all times honest and accurate about
both the Human Rights Act and the European convention
on human rights?
The Attorney-General: I am quite sure that all my
right hon. and hon. Friends always strive for accuracy
in this department. It has to be said that I sometimes
open my newspaper and am quite surprised to read
some of the material published on the subject, so if
anyone relies on such newspaper articles, it may be that
they are likely to be misled.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab): Will the Attorney-
General confirm very simply that the European convention
on human rights was founded by the Council of Europe
and is nothing to do with the European Union, and that
it is legitimate to be against the European Union while
being supportive of the European convention on human
rights?
The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely
right.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): Is it true that
some of the judges on the Court that enforces the
European convention have no legal training whatsoever?
The Attorney-General: I would be hesitant to make such
a comment. It is true that the judges are sometimes
appointed from academic backgrounds, but it is worth
bearing in mind that our national judiciary, apart from
the fact that they have sometimes sat part time as
judges, are not formally trained for judicial office even
domestically. One must be a little wary of making such
a sweeping statement, but there is no doubt, as I said,
that the quality of the judiciary needs to be improved.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar)
(SNP): Given that one of the early backers of the
European convention on human rights was Winston
Churchill, does that not add an historical tone as to why
it would be irresponsible to remove oneself from the
convention?
The Attorney-General: I certainly agree with the hon.
Gentleman that Winston Churchill was a great proponent
of the convention’s coming into force. It was supported
on both sides of the House. There were some hesitations
at the time, but it was undoubtedly seen as a marked
step change in improving human rights on the European
continent.
Human Trafficking
2. Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): What assessment
he has made of the effectiveness of prosecutions for
human trafficking and related offences; and if he will
make a statement. [149746]
The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald): As a member of
the interdepartmental ministerial group on human
trafficking, I keep the effectiveness of prosecutions for
that very serious form of crime under review. Wherever
possible, the Crown Prosecution Service brings prosecutions
for human trafficking or other related offences.
Fiona Mactaggart: Has the Solicitor-General asked
for advice on the letter signed by a dozen charities on
28 April, which predicts that when the EU trafficking
directive comes into force on 6 April the UK will be in
breach of the following: the protection of victims during
criminal procedures, access to compensation and legal
assistance, and the provision of a guardian for trafficked
children during legal proceedings? What is he going to
do about that?
The Solicitor-General: As the hon. Lady will know—I
hope she will forgive me—we do not, as Law Officers,
explain when and where we have given advice. Her point
is very important, however. Victims of human trafficking
need to be identified and it is important that they
should not be prosecuted or treated disrespectfully once
that is known. That is one of the points being discussed
in the interdepartmental ministerial group and she is
right to highlight it.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): My hon.
Friend referred to the interdepartmental ministerial
group. Is not one of the problems that there are lots of
different Acts of Parliament? Would there be any merit
in pulling all the different Acts together in a consolidation
Act on modern day slavery?
The Solicitor-General: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend
for his work in this area. It is possible to consider
putting a number of laws into a consolidating statute,
but the problem is that we tend as a House of Commons
to say, “We have these laws. Do we want to spend time
consolidating them when we might have other matters
to deal with?” Taking such an action was recommended
in the recent report from the Centre for Social Justice,
however. I have discussed it with the authors and the
interdepartmental ministerial group will consider it.