European Convention on Human Rights: 75th Anniversary

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Lord Lilley

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I join others in warmly commending the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate and for his excellent speech, which has set off a very valuable debate. The noble Lord is a true liberal, whatever his current location. It is unusual for a Member of the House of Lords to have the honour to chair the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but it is a tribute to him and an honour for this House that he does so. I should record my interest, which is in the register, as a vice-president to my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, of the organisation Justice.

We have heard voices today calling for the UK to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, or at least to seek to change it or the Human Rights Act. Do we really want our country to be bracketed with outlaws such as Russia, Belarus and Hungary in ignoring and rubbishing human rights? That would be a regressive and deplorable step.

I agree with the comment by Amnesty—and I do not always—that the conduct of the current Russian Government should be a reminder to us all of our good fortune to live in a country with respect for the rule of law and which, in the main, complies with the rulings of independent courts. The UK leaving the convention would be exactly what Putin wants.

The convention, and the court system that it is attached to, forms a core part of the framework of the long-standing international alliance of states gathered together in the Council of Europe, dedicated to the pursuit of the common goals of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. I commend noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Brinton, who take part in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which I have never had the honour to do.

I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley—I am grateful he is still in his place, as I know he has other commitments—that Commonwealth countries are not in the ECHR system because they are not, except for Malta, Cyprus and the UK, located in Europe.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for replying to that point. The point is that they do not rely on an international agreement to provide very good human rights to their citizens. Why should we be different?

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I think answering that might set up another mini-debate, and I am not going to be tempted to go down that road.

For a major power such as us, a founding member of this European system, to leave the convention—and thus the Council of Europe, a point made by several noble Lords—would sow division and confusion among liberal states just when we need solidarity. It would demonstrate that the protection of individual rights against the excesses of state power is an unimportant and futile endeavour.

Indeed, our membership, along with that of all the other liberal democracies in Europe, of the council and its convention is part of the system of regional security that is so vital now. It creates the preconditions for peace through the promotion of democracy, the rule of law and human rights, and helps inoculate people and Governments against the pernicious propaganda coming out of Moscow and elsewhere.

The ECHR is not some remote, foreign product to be resisted as an imposition. That point was made by one noble Lord—I apologise, but I have forgotten who. We should celebrate the fact that the UK has played a pivotal role in not only creating but shaping the ECHR. I noted that several of the lawyers involved, such as the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, seem to come from Merseyside. That must be a fertile source of human rights inspiration. Our judges continue to contribute to the future of the convention system and the wider protection of human rights. I hope that the Government will highlight the UK’s role and work to combat negative rhetoric, misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

The UK’s commitment to the ECHR, and more widely to the rule of law, boosts not only our international reputation but our attractiveness as a place to do business, by emphasising that individual and business rights are protected. Our commitment to the international rule of law underpins our global economic competitiveness and attractiveness as a destination for investment, which the Government are rightly emphasising. It is also part of the Government’s growth mission.

I was intrigued to read an article in the Times this week by the noble Lord, Lord Hague of Richmond. He is not in his place but, as this article was published, I feel able to comment on it without being discourteous. The article’s headline began, “I'm no fan but”, and such a “but” always puts one on notice. His declaration that

“Trump’s effect may be positive … prompting a startling realignment of ideas”


was a jolt, because I must confess that I can see nothing positive coming from President Trump. One of the positive nudges that the noble Lord felt was a result of President Trump was that the ECHR should be rewritten. He did not say how. If he meant that it would be rewritten only in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to, that might be sensible. We are all open to any useful reforms.

The noble Lord, Lord Hague, then confused me by stressing that these actions of Trump are

“a reminder that an effective democratic state is part of a moral order in which its policies should be anchored; that its reach and respect in the world rely on being able to distinguish right from wrong; that the abuse of great power brings resistance and rejection”.

I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord in those remarks. My contention would be that, far from rewriting the ECHR as a reaction to President Trump, we should treasure it all the more as guarding against the kind of developments that, sadly, we are seeing in the United States.

The Human Rights Act brought rights home, as has been said. It was one of the products of the talks on political and constitutional reform 30 years ago between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, known as the Cook-Maclennan talks—after Robin Cook and Robert Maclennan. I am very proud of that and other products. I was delighted to hear the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, stress the value of the Human Rights Act.

We have heard that applications to Strasbourg have been on a general downward trend over the last 10 years. The Human Rights Act has contributed to that, as a lot of those cases have not gone to Strasbourg but have been settled domestically. In 2024, there were only three cases against the UK heard by the court, and only one found a violation. The victor was the Daily Mail, in a freedom of expression case. There were no interim measures or injunctions issued against the UK last year. This is a testament to the strength of our national system of human rights protections. One of the reasons for this harmonious state of affairs is that a productive dialogue has taken place between the Strasbourg and UK courts to deal with any tensions or disagreements. This was confirmed in the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale.

For some people, no bill of rights, whether the European Convention or any other, will be acceptable in the UK system of a political constitution and parliamentary sovereignty. These arguments are always presented as concerns about democracy and democratic accountability. However, they almost always end in arguments for centralising power in the Executive. A lot of human rights challenges are to call the Executive to account. References to the court going too far as a reason to leave the convention system more generally are almost always based in choosing to emphasise the occasional controversial case where the speaker disagrees of the outcome.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I emphasise that any upset to our relationship with the ECHR would affect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which is a crucial instrument. Under that agreement, the UK Government committed to the incorporation of the convention into Northern Irish law. Proposals to legislate for the continued application of the convention into Northern Irish law while withdrawing the UK as a whole from the convention are fundamentally flawed, and there is no practical way of legislating for partial implementation.

In addition, the UK is obliged under the Windsor Framework, following our withdrawal from the EU, to observe a non-diminution of rights as set out in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. There are also, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, commitments in the trade and co-operation agreement to our continued adhesion to the ECHR. Any damage to our human rights observance could imperil the renewal of our data adequacy agreement, crucial to both business and law enforcement co-operation with the EU. For all these reasons, we should not imperil our positive engagement with the European convention and court but instead celebrate our great achievement and good fortune in creating it and sustaining it for 75 years.

Brexit

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Lord Lilley

Monday 25th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I intend to be relatively brief. I hope I will be, not just because it is getting late, or because I have nothing new to say—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, teased me for saying that in our last debate—but because a lot has changed. It would take me a very long time to get out of my system what I really feel about the incompetent and partisan way that this Government have behaved in the last three years—with their red lines, their appeal only to leave voters, and their prioritising of unity within the Tory party, which does not seem to have been a great success. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, who said that all of this has brought us to a state of national humiliation. We are in big trouble, as the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, said.

One reason that I do not want to go on at too much length is because I agree with so many who spoke earlier in this debate, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Kerr, Lord Lord Hannay, Lord Kerslake and Lord Ricketts, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I was struck particularly by the mention of patriotism and of the colleagues of the father of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. It reminded me of the 97 year-old veteran who was at the march on Saturday. If I recall correctly, one of his tasks in the war was digging people out of the bomb-hit city of Coventry, but his conclusion from his wartime experience and the medals that he was awarded was to say “never again”. We must have the European Union to build peace, security and prosperity.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, that fear of splitting the Conservative Party has been the guiding force over the last three years. Obviously, not being in the Tory party, I can only empathise, rather than share the pain that must be felt by relatively reasonable people within that party. The complete loss of Cabinet collective responsibility has been the most dismaying. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, rightly highlighted the existence of a party within a party—the ERG. Obviously, if we had a decent electoral system, those people would have to stand under their own banner and not that of the Conservative Party.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, highlighted, Saturday was a great day. It was good-humoured and well behaved; there was not a single incident that required the attention of the police, just like in October. Those commentators who said the mood was slightly different from that in October were probably right. It was very serious and determined, as well as enjoyable.

I was interested to hear Mark Field MP, who is a Minister, say that he could envisage supporting the revocation of Article 50. Perhaps that has to do with the high level of support in his constituency for the petition. Cleverer people than I have analysed those figures for all the constituencies; no doubt, there will be some very thoughtful MPs looking at those figures. In many cases, the number of those who signed the petition is greater than the majority that MPs enjoy.

The Prime Minister is showing contempt for both people and Parliament. She keeps invoking the will of the people but refuses to check whether, nearly three years on, with 1 million people marching, 5.5 million people petitioning to revoke Article 50, and polls showing a majority support for remain, their views have evolved. She allows herself so many bites at the cherry but she will not allow voters a single reassessment, which is quite arrogant. She also said she will take no notice of indicative votes, which continues her high-handed attitude towards the House of Commons. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and as my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham both stressed that the 2016 referendum result is not a mandate for what is happening now on Brexit. No one could possibly have wanted to arrive in this situation. It should not be a problem to ask voters whether this still represents their views. Surely the people’s vote has to be between whatever deal MPs agree and remain. To those who say that no deal would need to be on the ballot paper, I ask this: what is no deal? What does it consist of? How do you describe it? I really do not think that that is a runner.

If Brexiters are so sure that leave would still win—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, that if it did, that would be the end of it, perhaps for a generation—they should have no problem holding another referendum. What are they afraid of? We need a long enough extension of Article 50—for four or five months, say—to allow a people’s vote.

I believe that a lot of leave voters were protesting against the system in 2016, and most of that protest had nothing whatever to do with the EU. I do not deny that immigration was a factor, although three years on it has become less of a factor. But I say to the noble Lord, Lord Green, that any consideration of continuing free movement must be looked at in the round, along with the fact that British citizens are being denied free movement and the opportunities they expected to have, particularly young people and those who wanted to retire to, for example, France or Spain. It is a two-way street and we need to look at it entirely in the round, as well as reflecting the huge contribution that EU citizens make to this country, not just economically but socially and culturally.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, that we need to focus on post Brexit, but we might define that term differently. I mean that, even if it is only clinging on to nurse for fear of something worse, we should remain in the EU; I think he means we should exit and then deal with all the other problems. There are so many crucial needs in this country. One of the tragedies of the past three years is how all our energy, capacity and thinking have been taken up by Brexit. I feel that myself. When I left the European Parliament, I was really hoping to do things other than EU affairs—I do have other interests, as it happens—but this has been a straitjacket from which it has been difficult to escape. But of course we will have less money to pursue those other things, whether it is social care, decent housing, better skills training or youth services. Talk to anybody in the area of knife crime and you will learn that it is not just the police but the lack of money for schools and youth services which is totally undermining the ability to deal with that terrible problem. By post Brexit, therefore, I mean once the country has liberated itself from this disastrous exercise.

I apologise that I have not been as brief as I thought I would be. I am grateful that the Prime Minister confirmed that the extension knocks out the 29 March date. She may be right that there would be legal confusion about the UK’s ability to implement EU law, but we would still be in the EU because of the European Council decision on the extension. Can the Minister confirm that in fact the repeal of the European Communities Act under Section 1 of the EU withdrawal Act has not been brought into force yet, the same as the repeal of the European Parliamentary Elections Act? An SI is needed for that, and that SI has not gone through, and so the European Communities Act is still in force.

I am also pleased that the Prime Minister’s announcement today, on 25 March, marks the anniversary of the treaty of Rome. There seems to be something significant about this coincidence. Can the Minister clarify the categorisation of the European Council decision as “international law”? Surely it is EU law, unless I have missed something.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has not in fact ruled out no deal. I am afraid that that is an illustration of her tendency to be not entirely straight and somewhat manipulative. On one side, she said that no deal had been ruled out but on the other that it had not. She said, “Let me be clear”, then was nothing of the sort. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, needs to clarify whether she really meant that no deal could be chosen only by an affirmative process.

The noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Cormack, reminded us that no deal would have a catastrophic effect. One thinks particularly of people with serious medical conditions such as epilepsy or cancer or who are having dialysis, who are terrified. You see this all the time on social media. Some of them are unable to get their supplies now. What will happen is frightening. It is unbelievable that any Government would impose this fear and anxiety on their citizens.

[Lord Lilley]

Did the noble Baroness not hear me read out the assurance from the Department of Health that there would be no interruption of supplies? Why is she indulging in this disgraceful scaremongering of vulnerable people?

[Baroness Ludford]

I follow people who report their own experience of going to the pharmacist and finding already that they cannot get their supplies. I am sorry, but whatever assurances the Government give, I am personally at the point where I believe the individual patients rather than the Government.

We need a longer extension to be able to hold a people’s vote. If we have to participate in European elections, that is fine with these Benches. I would not be entirely surprised if some legal political fix will eventually be found because everyone is ignoring the opinion from the European Parliament legal service that says that we must hold European Parliament elections but if we do not it will not invalidate the legality of the new European Parliament. That seems a straw in the wind that might point to a different solution. I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

Brexit: Economic Forecast

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Lord Lilley

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, is it not a myth that there is a conflict between democratic control of our laws and prosperity? In fact, democracy and prosperity go hand in hand, because in a democracy, if the Government do not deliver prosperity, the people can chuck them out. But the EU is not like that. Its principal economic policy, the euro, has been a disaster which has deprived millions of young people throughout southern Europe of jobs, but nobody in the European Commission has lost their job. Should we not be free to have our own laws, not constrained within a straitjacket of uniform laws across the European continent?

[Lord Callanan]

As always, my noble friend makes a powerful point. One of the results of the referendum that I am particularly proud of is taking back control to this country. It delivers control of our immigration policy, our fishing policy and our agricultural policy. Once again, the destiny of this country is in the hands of its elected representatives, which is a good thing.