All 1 Debates between Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard

Tue 5th Dec 2023

Belarus

Debate between Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
Tuesday 5th December 2023

(5 months, 1 week ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Portrait Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

I thank the honourable Lady for her question—sorry, the noble Baroness; I will get there eventually. I have not asked the Foreign Office for a specific analysis of the weakness of the sanctions, travel bans and asset freezes that we put in place, but I am very happy to do so and see whether there are ways in which the system is not working. We must sense-check all these things. The International Accountability Platform for Belarus sounds like a terrible set of initials, but it is about making sure that we support all the NGOs and others in looking at all the human rights abuses in Belarus so that they are properly charted and written down and may be able to form the criminal case against people working in that regime in future. It is important to do that. I certainly take away the point made by the noble Baroness.

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Portrait Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Foreign Secretary will be aware that President Lukashenko and President Putin are the only members of an exclusive club of leaders whose countries do not recognise the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. Does he share the view of the former Home Secretary that we should join that club?

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Portrait Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

I can point the noble Lord to speeches I made as far back as 2005 saying that we must always put our national interest first, whether in the need to deport dangerous terrorists or to have an immigration policy that works for our country. I believe that is consistent with remaining in the ECHR. However, as I found when Prime Minister, there are occasions when the ECHR makes judgments as it did on prisoner votes. It said that it was essential that we legislated instantly to give prisoners the vote; I said that I did not think that was the case and that it should be settled by the Houses of Parliament. The ECHR backed down. That sort of flexibility may well be necessary in future.