Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee
Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The point I made earlier was about today’s announcement in relation to Festival UK*2022 and the consortia that have been selected for its R&D phase. Further announcements about the festival will be made over the coming months. The noble Baroness is right; as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, we have made the announcement now so that we can begin to engage with people at every level to have the sort of creative outpouring that we want to see in the run-up to, and at the celebration of, this important milestone.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I believe that, as Lord Chancellor, I may have held the nominal title of Keeper of the Queen’s Conscience. Will thanks for the highly conscientious way in which Her Majesty has performed her duties form an important part of this very welcome platinum celebration?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Her Majesty’s conscience will have been in very safe keeping in my noble and learned friend’s hands in the decade that he served as one of her Lord Chancellors. He is absolutely right. This is a moment for a grateful nation to pay tribute to Her Majesty and to thank her not only for her years of service but for the great leadership that she shows as an individual in the qualities that she has brought and the shining example that she sets to everybody in public life.
Human Rights Act 1998 (Remedial) Order 2019
Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Mackay of Clashfern(4 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but we are quite tight on time and we are close to time already.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, this is an important application and I think it is right that I should refer to a very interesting paper by Professor Richard Ekins, who is professor of law and constitutional government at the University of Oxford. He argues that this order is ultra vires and unconstitutional. On the first point, he argues that the provisions of Section 10 of the Human Rights Act are of a type that should be construed strictly, and so construed do not allow amendment of the Human Rights Act. On the second point, his argument is that this order amending the Human Rights Act is an unusual and unexpected use of the Section 10 power, and accordingly it is inappropriate.
It will be seen that these two arguments are closely linked. While I see how the argument has been skilfully deployed, I think it construes the power of Section 10 too strictly, since the Human Rights Act is primary legislation and makes no exception of itself. Indeed, the power is contained in the Human Rights Act perhaps because that Act is so closely related to the convention that some incompatibility within it was foreseeable. This incompatibility is the source of the trouble that appeared here.
In my view the situation is such that Section 10 applies. I agree that the constitutional position of judges must be carefully taken into account, but it is fair to say that the Court of Human Rights really depended on the nature of the procedure, which had resulted in the then accused being sentenced for contempt of court to imprisonment. It was—I hope—a very exceptional case, but one which could arise in the circumstances, creating an incompatibility between the right to damages on the one hand and the failure to give the right of damages on the other, except in a case to which the section exempting the judicial honesty from such a result may apply. It was thought, correctly I think, that the amendment proposed here kept in place that judicial immunity while at the same time compensating the accused person—the applicant—for what was construed as a procedural error.
It is quite a tricky position. When the original application was put in, I am told that the then Lord Chancellor considered the matter with the judiciary and concluded that it was right to apply for the order. I support that judgment now and would support the grant of the order in the circumstances.
Erasmus-plus Programme
Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
I thank the noble Baroness for her words of welcome. She is absolutely right to point out that it is important for universities, students and others to have some certainty about the immediate future. One difficulty is that this is subject to our negotiations with the European Union, which are running throughout this year. It is also the case that the EU itself is looking at the new Erasmus programme in light of its own budget, the multiannual financial framework, which could also be delayed until December. I am very glad that, under the terms of the withdrawal agreement, our participation in the current programme is fully funded, including any projects that are launched under it and which go beyond the end of this year.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
Having regard to the effect of Covid-19 on our young people, is not the opportunity offered by the Erasmus programme to them essential for the years to come?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
My noble and learned friend is absolutely right. As we have been unable to travel, the importance of exchange and being able to meet people from around the world is underlined. Indeed, the current pandemic shows the importance of education not stopping at any borders. We should be proud that another UK university has this week launched trials with humans of a vaccine which could benefit not just British subjects but people around the world.