To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to sign and ratify Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights to promote the equality of all persons in the United Kingdom through a general prohibition of discrimination.
My Lords, the Government currently have no plans to ratify Protocol 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Protocol 12 is a very broadly drafted, free-standing right that creates unpredictability in how it will be given effect by the court, and it is not clear that ratifying it would increase protection from discrimination in the UK. The Equality Act 2010 provides a robust and clear framework within domestic law for combating discrimination.
My Lords, that is a disappointing response. I am not surprised by it, sadly, but I will persevere and try to convince the Government otherwise, along with my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, who cannot be in his place today, and Professor Paul Johnson of the University of Leeds. I wish to ask a question of the Minister in the wider context. Given the attacks on fundamental human rights that we are witnessing in the United States of America, Gaza, Ukraine, parts of Europe and elsewhere, is now not the time for the United Kingdom to join the 37 other European states of the Council of Europe and reaffirm these international principles, which underpin and in fact define every civilised society?
The way that I will answer my noble friend is by saying that we continue to keep the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Protocol 12 under review, but we remain unconvinced of the benefits of ratification. The United Kingdom is not an outlier in this regard. The protocol was open for signature nearly 25 years ago, yet fewer than half the member states of the Council of Europe have ratified it. Nevertheless, I take the noble Lord’s opening point that we need to keep these matters under review. There are indeed widespread attacks on democracy and our way of life across the world, and that reinforces the Government’s view about keeping these matters under review.
My Lords, if the Government are not yet prepared to sign up to Protocol 12, will they give a commitment to address the rights and protections afforded by the Equality Act—all the rights and protections—ensuring that all the protected characteristics are equally enforced and protected, especially in light of the confusing and confused narratives around the recent Supreme Court judgment?
I say to my noble friend that I think the Supreme Court judgment made the situation clearer, not less clear. The nine protected characteristics within the Equality Act are all important in themselves. It is within the Equality Act that gender reassignment is recognised. People who are trans and who have gender recognition certificates have protected characteristics, and it is for the courts to work out in due course how those will manifest themselves.
My Lords, we live in increasingly uncertain and divided times in so many parts of the world. Here in the UK, many people worry that populism, division and discrimination are on the rise. Signing up to Protocol 12 would make a big difference to all who fear discrimination and a reduction of our rights. Why, if the Government believe we are all equal—and I believe that they do—would the Minister not give to all our citizens the reassurance they need by signing up to Protocol 12?
The noble Baroness will have heard the Answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. I agree that we are living in divided times. The position of the Government is that we do not think signing up to Protocol 12 would change that. We think that existing laws, including the Equality Act and the Supreme Court judgment, are adequate. However, as I have said to both my noble friends who asked the previous questions, we will continue to keep this under review, because I agree with the noble Baroness’s opening point that we are living in divided times and need to be sensitive to that.
My Lords, the Minister referred to the Equality Act and protected characteristics. Could he give any indication of whether the intention of the Government is to extend the number of categories of protected characteristics? I have in mind care leavers as an example. There is a substantial amount of pressure that they should be included as one of the protected characteristics.
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I am not aware of any government initiative to extend the number of protected characteristics. If I am mistaken on that, I will write to the noble Lord.
Can the Minister explain why the Government have not joined with other contracting states in their attempt to promote discussion about reform of the European convention, particularly in relation to immigration matters?
I thank the noble Lord for that question. The first point is that the Government were not asked whether they wanted to be a signatory to that letter, which was for all members of the EU—it was they who signed the letter. Nevertheless, we are monitoring the situation very closely. We are sympathetic to some of the sentiments expressed in the letter, so we will continue to monitor that situation.
I am a Methodist minister, and I see so many people absolutely despairing. “What are we going to do?” “What will be the consequence of what is happening in the world at the present time?” Signing this will be one step: one indication that we know where we want to go. That is what the declaration is. So I urge the Government to do this. It is not just a fancy thing; it is so meaningful and so required in the world today. We could be one of the leading nations in that move to the future.
I recognise the noble Lord’s strength of feeling, but I have to repeat what I said in answer to an earlier question: only 20 of the contracting states within the Council of Europe—that is 20 out of 46—have signed up to this over the last 20 years. So I am afraid I do not accept his premise. However, as I have said to other noble Lords, I do accept the concern he raised initially, and we will continue to keep the matter under review.
In answer to the Question, the Minister said that the Government consider the provisions under Protocol 12 to be too wide or too broad. Can the Minister give the House some examples of where they consider those provisions to be too broad?