Freedoms and Civil Liberties

Debate between Baroness Neville-Jones and Lord Lester of Herne Hill

Thursday 8th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I think we are straying from the Question. I think everyone would accept that we have an extremely tight financial situation. It is not possible to continue with all departmental budgets at their previous levels, which were not funded, in any case, by the previous Government. It is for the police to decide where the operational effect will take place. We are, however, absolutely committed to effective policing.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, reverting to my noble friend Lord Waddington’s Question, does the Minister agree that the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, under the convention, strike a perfectly fair balance in deciding, as the court did last week, that gay couples are entitled to the full protection of family life respect? The decision of our own Supreme Court in the United Kingdom yesterday was that gay asylum seekers also need protection on the grounds of their sexuality. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that if we want to protect civil rights and civil liberties, the best protection of the minimum standards lies in the European convention, the Human Rights Act and the devolution statutes?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the noble Lord refers to yesterday’s ruling from the Supreme Court. I think that vindicates the position of the coalition Government. We do not intend to remove people from this country and send them home expecting them to hide their sexuality to avoid persecution. We will certainly be looking to protect people’s rights in that respect. I entirely accept that the European convention is part of the framework of human rights in this country, but it is also interpreted by British legislation.

Linda Carty

Debate between Baroness Neville-Jones and Lord Lester of Herne Hill

Thursday 8th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, my noble friend is right to say that part of the problem in this case was that we were not notified by the Texas authorities, as should have been the case. That is one reason why our ability to help Miss Carty has come rather late in the day. As for the approach to the International Court of Justice, I am aware of that precedent. Our current advice is that it is not necessarily particularly helpful, but I certainly do not rule out pursuing that route if we have grounds to believe that it will help.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

Is the Minister also aware that President George W Bush tried to give effect to the Mexican and German cases, where the ICJ gave the rulings, but was unable to do so because of the recalcitrance of the state authorities? Does that not illustrate the great problem that this Government now have in deciding on the methodology?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I agree.

Terrorism Act 2000

Debate between Baroness Neville-Jones and Lord Lester of Herne Hill

Thursday 8th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House endorses that. I think that 7/7 was an example of the extraordinary importance of the community coming together. A noble Lord said earlier that there had been a considerable reduction in the use of Section 44 powers initiated and undertaken by the police. I think that that is in recognition of exactly the point that the noble Lord made; that is, it is important to be seen to be using the powers fairly and proportionately, and it creates resentment if those two characteristics are not present.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, I was not going to say anything, until I heard the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, speak. Like my noble friend Lord Goodhart, I speak, I suppose, for the Liberal Democrat side of the coalition. Is the Minister aware that those of us in that part of the coalition greatly value the way in which the new Home Secretary and the Minister in this House respond to difficult judgments such as that of the European Court of Human Rights? The contrast, I am sorry to say, with former Home Secretaries and others from the opposition party when they were in power is very real. Again and again, I heard Labour Home Secretaries denounce either the courts of this country or the European Court of Human Rights when they lost cases. I am sure that the Minister is aware of that. What is so remarkable about the new Administration is that, although these cases involve difficult balances between national security and personal freedom, the new Home Secretary has not cavilled or quarrelled with the judgments but has accepted them as part of the rule of law. Does the Minister agree with me that it is the function of the judiciary, in partnership with the Executive and Parliament, to interpret and apply the law, and that the suggestion that our Supreme Court or the European Court of Human Rights are somehow less in touch with reality than Ministers is a heresy which I had hoped would no longer be expressed by the party opposite?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I shall pass on to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary the compliments of the noble Lord. I think that we would all agree that this constitution functions well when its three parts, the Executive, the courts and Parliament, see eye to eye.