Ministers 'Could Get Powers To Overrule European Court Of Human Rights'

A commission set up by the government to examine ECHR reforms has floated the idea of allowing ministers to strike out court rulings.












Judges of the European Court of Human Rights in 2010 hearing a case relating to the Russian oil firm Yukos.

The European Court of Human Rights could have its powers downgraded by handing ministers across the continent the right to strike down rulings under plans being examined by the British government.

A commission set up by the government to examine reforms to the Strasbourg-based ECHR has floated the idea of handing ministers and parliamentarians on the Council of Europe the right to override rulings of the court.

The suggestion by the commission on a Bill of Rights, in a letter to Nick Clegg and Kenneth Clarke, was published as ministers made clear that the court needed to undergo wide-ranging reforms. Clarke, who is the most pro-European Tory member of the cabinet, told MPs on Wednesday there were "important decisions" to be made about the workings of the court.

Sir Leigh Lewis, the chair of the Commission on a Bill of Rights, showed the depth of thinking about the future of the court when he said that the 2010 Interlaken Declaration on the future of the ECHR raised the possibility that other institutions of the Council of Europe could qualify the European Convention on Human Rights. The 47-strong Council of Europe, which is separate from the EU, is the continent's human rights watchdog. Its European Court of Human Rights enforces the European Convention on Human Rights.

In his letter, Lewis wrote of the proposed change: "This could allow the effect of a court decision to be overridden if such was the will of the parliamentary assembly or committee of ministers, or perhaps of both acting collectively. A variant of this approach might be a power in the committee of ministers to determine that a court judgment should not be enforced if it considered that that course of action was desirable and justifiable in the light of a clear expression of opinion by the relevant member state's most senior democratic institution. Another variant could be a requirement in respect of proposed ground-breaking findings of violations for the court first to consult the other Council of Europe institutions and for the court to take a collective expression of opinion into account."

But Lewis, who said that one member of his commission had insisted that a proposal on guaranteeing the democratic legitimacy of the court must be included in the interim advice to ministers, warned that his proposal had not been yet fully considered. He also said there were critics.

"Those opposed to this concept argue that any possibility of override is fundamentally inconsistent with the rule of law inherent in the convention system and with the concept of the convention as a charter of fundamental rights and freedoms. They ask how, if a right or freedom is fundamental, it can be right to allow any legislature, however democratic, to override it.

"They point, for example, to the fact that there are examples in history of discriminatory laws being passed by democratically elected assemblies. They note that the ECHR as a judicial body is an essential protection against majorities voting to discriminate against minorities."

London Council Ordered To Disclose Details Of Empty Properties

A judge has ordered a council to make public a list of empty homes after a squatting campaigner challenged its refusal to reveal the list under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act.









Camden Council argued that disclosing the list could lead to organised crime in and around the properties.

However, the judge said any concerns were outweighed by the public interest in returning empty properties to use.

Camden has 28 days to comply with the FOI request.

The ruling was a victory for Yiannis Voyias of the Advisory Service for Squatters.

Mr Voyias argued that making the list public would "rejuvenate the empty homes debate" and put pressure on the government to tackle empty property.

He said academic researchers, homelessness charities - and even English Heritage - would benefit from disclosure of the number and location of unoccupied homes.

Camden's lawyers argued the disclosure of the list would compromise "the prevention or detection of crime".
'Not illegal'

Local police, who are backing the council's stance, said there was a link between squatting and crimes, including vandalism, running crack houses and threatening behaviour.

Camden also pointed out that, after a list of long-term empty homes in Lambeth was made public, the number of squatted properties in that borough almost doubled.

Under the ruling Camden will have to release information on all empty council owned properties and on private properties owned by a non-individuals that it knows to be unoccupied.

Judge Fiona Henderson accepted that disclosure of the list was likely to have "a negative impact on the prevention of crime".

But she said there was a lack of evidence that squatters were the source of more anti-social behaviour than rent-paying tenants.

She also emphasised the fact that squatting "is not illegal".

In a statement, Camden said it was considering its legal options.

MPs Lash Out After Council Tries To Scrap The Chequebook

MPs are looking to curb the influence of the Payments Council following the recent dispute over the replacement of cheques.












A Treasury select committee report out today called for the "unfettered power" of the banking industry body to be cut back and safeguards to be put in place to ensure banks could not abandon cheques by "stealth".

Andrew Tyrie, chairman of the committee, branded the organisation lacking in "effective public accountability" and called for greater consumer representation.

"Cheques have been saved, for the moment, but we need to remain vigilant. The incentives for the industry to get rid of cheques has not gone away. Neither have we," he said.

"That is why we are making far–reaching recommendations about the future of the Payments Council as well as to secure the future of cheques."

The Payments Council had planned to replace cheques by 2018, however it had to backtrack on the plans following a surge of public pressure amidst fears of the effect on the elderly and vulnerable for whom cheques are a preferred method of payment.

Under the recommendations of the Treasury committee the Payments Council could be brought formally within the system of financial regulation.

They could also be required to obtain a commitment from banks to give them advance sight of any material related to the future availability of cheques.

Banks themselves could be obligated to write to customers stating that cheques will continue to be in use for the foreseeable future in an attempt to allay customers' fears.

Mr Tyrie said: "Banks have given many customers the impression that the abolition of cheques was a foregone conclusion. This type of behaviour is unacceptable and cannot be allowed to continue."

The committee has also suggested that banks consider the reintroduction of the cheque guarantee card.

Michelle Mitchell, Age UK's charity director, welcomed the potential return of the cheque guarantee card and called it an opportunity for banks and building societies to "live up to their word" and prove the future of cheques is safe.

She added: "Whatever happens, the banking industry must be clear about what it is going to do to ensure that cheques remain a widely accepted, safe and accessible option for those who rely on them.

"Cheques and other payment systems are essential services upon which the public relies – just like the provision of water and electricity.

"Their future must not be left solely to the banking industry and its representative bodies to determine."

Chris Leslie, Labour's shadow Treasury minister, welcomed the "very sensible" report from the committee.

He continued: "If the government don’t act I will be seeking amendments to the forthcoming Financial Services Regulation Bill to make sure that the needs of consumers - for instance, retaining the convenience of the cheque - are strengthened."

The Travellers Of Dale Farm Face Judgment Day

There is anger and resentment on both sides as the bailiffs prepare to make their move at Europe’s largest gipsy site.

Down a narrow lane and beyond the pile of old tyres and barbed-wire-wrapped scaffolding that marks the entrance to Dale Farm, a knot of men in T-shirts are standing shaking their heads and gesticulating.

Close by, a dozen or so women, hair raked back in ponytails, toddlers at their brightly painted toes, are clustered around a silver Mondeo. All are listening intently to a local radio station that is also blaring out of almost every caravan, car and chalet on each pot-holed track of this ramshackle site, the largest traveller site in Europe, near the village of Crays Hill in Essex.

“I’m very angry,” one woman shouts, face screwed up and emotions unchecked. “Why is that lady on the radio putting out all that c--p about us? I have three children. Where am I going to go?”

The immediate source of provocation is Radio Essex, which is running a phone-in on the 10-year battle between Basildon council and the travellers who have been living here illegally since 2001.

Understandably, the travellers don’t take too kindly to the locals ringing in to say they should “go back to Ireland”, and calling them, “a bunch of people who are trying to avoid paying tax and ignoring the rules of the land’’. But the real tension is caused by the knowledge that, for many of those who have made their homes here, time is running out. Tomorrow, a 28-day notice issued by Basildon council requiring them to vacate the site will expire. Judges at the High Court will hear a plea for a last-minute injunction against eviction. If this fails – it follows a tortuous process involving a tumult of appeals and judicial reviews, pronouncements from Amnesty International and the UN, and a BBC documentary (entitled, inevitably, My Big Fat Gypsy Eviction) – the bailiffs will finally be free to move in to restore this land to green belt.

What will happen when they do?

The answer is keenly anticipated by all those who have ever had an unwanted, and illegal, gipsy or traveller camp on their doorstep, as well as anyone who lives near a temptingly empty field. Travellers have a track record of invading and colonising such spots – often over public holidays when council offices are closed – and of bringing in mechanical diggers and laying concrete bases for their mobile homes in a matter of hours and then exploiting the impossible slowness of bureaucratic procedures to stay.

The facts are these. There has been an authorised traveller site, with permission for 34 pitches, here since the mid-Nineties. Ten years ago, a six-acre plot – Dale Farm – next to this site was bought by two English gipsies who subdivided it into plots and sold them on to other travellers. Today Dale Farm resembles a small derelict estate, with tarmac and gravel tracks, brick walls, railings topped with barbed wire, caravans, chalets and gateposts sporting elaborate finials. Around 240 people live here but Dale Farm does not have, and has never had, planning permission for any of its 51 pitches.

The travellers claim that, although the land is green belt, it was never a prized beauty spot. “It wasn’t all babbling brooks and big oak trees when we moved here,” says Bridget McCarthy. “It was a broken down scrapyard.” (The council confirms that a corner of the land had been used, without permission, as a scrapyard since the Sixties).

“How long did it take us to clear it?” continues Bridget. “Three weeks,” shouts someone else in the group jostling around me.

It’s certainly true that the camp is tucked away, out of sight of most of its neighbours. Of those who live on Oak Road, which backs on to it, only one has made vocal complaints. Three other families I speak to shrug and say that they don’t notice it’s there, but two others shake their heads and refuse to comment. Their reticence may have something to do with the fact that the one local who has made a very public fuss has received death threats. “If we go, he goes,” some travellers told film-maker Richard Parry.

But that’s not to say the presence of Dale Farm hasn’t made an impact. The local primary, Crays Hill, is now almost exclusively a travellers’ school; 107 of the 110 registered pupils are from the travelling community. They don’t always turn up for class – the Ofsted report cites “significantly below average attendance levels” – and tend to lag behind their peers academically. Local parents have felt pressured into bussing their children out of the area to other schools.

The proximity of Dale Farm has also wiped tens of thousands of pounds off property prices. On a nearby street, where houses are worth £500,000 to £600,000, one resident estimates that the value of his house has dropped by “around £100,000’’.

He says: ''My wife and I would have moved by now otherwise, but we can’t, unless we take a hit and move into somewhere smaller.” Another neighbour said: “The council reclassified all our council tax bands because of it; mine went down from a G to an F.” But property prices and the eyesore on their doorstep isn’t what really antagonises the locals. What most upsets them is a deep sense of injustice.

“It’s people who flout the law of the land when it should apply equally to everyone,” says Terry, who lives nearby with his wife Pam. His words echo those of David Cameron who spoke of, “the sense of unfairness that one law applies to everybody else and, on too many occasions, another law applies to travellers.” Others tell me that they feel that letting those on Dale Farm get away with it, will, “open the floodgates to who knows what’’.

Overturning what has happened here is proving expensive: the council have had to set aside £8 million to clear the site, but there is a strong feeling this is necessary to ensure that the law is upheld both now and in the future.

Basildon council is keen to stress that, “This is a planning row.” That’s not quite how they see things over on Dale Farm. One woman tells me she has been so stressed that she smashed all her windows.

What, of your own home? “Yes, every single one of them,” says Margaret Flynn, a 29-year-old mother of three who lives in an immaculate caravan. She predicts that any clearance will bring a death: “Every time talk of an eviction starts, someone dies.”

Candy Sheridan, a member of the Gipsy Council and a Liberal Democrat councillor in north Norfolk where she now lives, is a more reasoned voice. “This is political,” she insists, “Councillors always say no to us [when we ask for planning permission], it doesn’t matter what it is, or what party they’re from. They always vote against us because they want to be re-elected.”

Candy was born on a site in Bristol and says she has lived “up and down the M4 and all over England’’. Her parents were Irish travellers who came to London in 1958. ''The difference between them and me is that I went to school. And back then they made us do speech therapy, so I have no trace of my Irish accent,” she smiles wryly, and adds that it means she makes more headway on the phone when trying to sort out a planning application or a viewing of some land on someone else’s behalf.

She feels travellers are misunderstood. “It’s not a level playing field for us,” she says. She talks about the strong sense of community that is under threat at Dale Farm. Travellers look after each other, she says. Levels of adult literacy are low, so a few must read and write for the rest. Inter-marriage means the camp is, in every sense, a huge extended family – there are a lot of McCarthys and Sheridans – so children, the elderly and the sick are well cared for. This might explain why there is so much nervousness about being split up and sent to live in “bricks-and-mortar” council flats. Ironically, there are some elements of Mr Cameron’s Big Society to be seen in action here.

The trouble is that there isn’t the same consideration for the rights and wishes of those who aren’t travellers. A wily few of the travelling community have become adept at exploiting legislation that’s intended to protect those who’ve been hard done by, and where they lead the others follow. What will happen next week? There is fighting talk from some travellers who are threatening to fill ditches with petrol.

On Friday evening I took a call from a man who said he was phoning on behalf of Candy Sheridan. He told me the travellers had examined the emergency contingency plans put in place by surrounding counties to deal with any possible fallout from the Dale Farm clearance and that Suffolk seemed to have one of the best deals.

“If everyone at Dale Farm got in their caravans and drove towards Suffolk,” he told me, “I think they would find a field waiting for them.” Suffolk, you have been warned.

Sharon Shoesmith Wins Appeal Against Sacking Over Baby P Tragedy

Former Haringey council children's services boss Sharon Shoesmith has won an appeal against her controversial sacking in the wake of the Baby P tragedy after a judge upheld her claim that she had been unlawfully removed from her post.













The high court ruled that Ed Balls – children's secretary at the time of her dismissal – had failed to give Shoesmith the opportunity to defend herself from criticisms in a specially commissioned Ofsted report.

Balls used the report to support his dismissal of her at a live TV press conference in December 2008. In its ruling the court said: "She was denied the elementary fairness which the law requires."

The court also upheld her appeal against Haringey council, which formally sacked Shoesmith a week after Balls removed her. The ruling said the council's procedures were "tainted by unfairness".

Shoesmith said after the hearing: "I'm over the moon. Absolutely thrilled. I am very relieved to have won my appeal and for recognition I was treated unfairly and unlawfully." But she added that the sorrow of the child's death would "stay with me for the rest of my life".

An attempt by Shoesmith to quash an Ofsted report into the case was rejected, however. The ruling said Ofsted had complied with the requirements of the statute and of the common law.

Shoesmith was challenging a judicial review ruling made last year that cleared the regulator Ofsted, Balls and Haringey of acting unlawfully. Her lawyers had argued there was "procedural unfairness" in her removal from the £133,000-a-year post.

She had claimed that the manner in which she was dismissed was a breach of natural justice and the result of media pressure. She was seeking compensation for two years of lost salary, reinstatement of her pension rights, and a negotiated settlement from Haringey.

The court put off a ruling on compensation for Shoesmith, saying that the issue should be referred back to the high court for "further consideration".

It is understood the current children's secretary, Michael Gove, intends to launch an appeal against the court's ruling.

Shoesmith was sacked in December 2008 after the childcare regulator's report, ordered by Balls after the Baby P case, exposed failings in her department. The 17-month-old boy, since named as Peter Connelly, was on Haringey's child protection register when he died violently at the hands of his mother, Tracey Connelly, her lover Steven Barker, and Barker's brother Jason Owen, in August 2007.

James Maurici, representing Shoesmith, told the appeal court in March that "buck passing" between Ofsted, Balls, and Haringey had led to her being denied natural justice and a fair hearing.

He said Shoesmith had been a highly thought-of public servant with a successful 35-year career, but that she now faced ruin. She had held a number of senior education posts within local authorities and risen through the ranks before taking her post with Haringey in 2005. A year later she was singled out in an Ofsted report for providing "strong and dynamic leadership".

But in 2008, a "media storm" broke over Baby P's death and she became the victim of a witchhunt and political pressure which led to a flagrant breach of the rules of natural justice, Maurici said. He added: "On 1 December 2008, while trapped in her flat by the media, she had the extreme misfortune to see on TV Ed Balls at a live press conference announce he was directing that Haringey remove her from her post 'with immediate effect'." Balls told the press she was "not fit for office", and acted before Shoesmith had seen, or been given a chance to respond to, the report.

Maurici said, although high court judge Mr Justice Foskett had found her sacking lawful in a judicial review ruling in March 2010, he had said he did not think that "any fair-minded person could think that this was a satisfactory state of affairs."

The appeal judges were told of the "catastrophic" personal impact on Shoesmith following Baby P's death. Maurici said she had been unable to find any work since December 2008, experienced suicidal thoughts, and was still regularly hounded and vilified by the tabloid press.

James Eadie QC, appearing for the government, defended Balls's actions to the appeal court, saying urgent action had to be taken following Ofsted's "ghastly findings", which uncovered "dangerous" failings in Shoesmith's department that threatened local and national confidence in effective child protection.

Ofsted chief inspector Christine Gilbert welcomed the ruling, saying: "I am pleased that Ofsted has comprehensively won this case and that the original judicial review judgement in our favour has been upheld in every aspect on appeal.

"Ofsted carried out a robust inspection and came to a sound conclusion based on evidence. On any view, our inspection report was extremely critical and there has been no challenge to the finding that services for children in Haringey were inadequate. The fairness of our process and rigour of our inspection has now been confirmed through the scrutiny of not just one, but two court hearings.

"The most important thing, of course, is that Haringey's children's services are now much improved as a result and that children are better protected."

In a statement responding to the ruling, Balls declared "faced with the same circumstances I would make the same decisions again".

He added: "Ministers need to be able to exercise their legal duties and make judgments in the public interest based on independent analysis and advice. That is what I did - and I am concerned that this judgment will make it harder for ministers to do so in future. That is why it is constitutionally very important that the secretary of state has decided to appeal this judgment."