European Court of Human Rights

Debate between Lord Bellamy and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Wednesday 25th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

And thanks to you too, Lord Speaker. We are filled with deep sadness at losing a treasured friend and colleague—but Murray would have been the first to say, “Get on with it, George!”, so I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, in the same spirit, I shall answer straightaway. The United Kingdom has a long-standing tradition of ensuring that rights and liberties are protected domestically and are fulfilling our international human rights obligations. The Government remain committed to a human rights framework that is up to date, fit for purpose and works for the British people.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

I am grateful to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who has been very helpful on this issue in the past. Only four cases have gone from the UK to the court of human rights, whereas it is vital for other countries that are not so good at giving their citizens proper human rights. As the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, knows, we have now nominated John Howell MP, the leader of the delegation from the United Kingdom to the parliamentary assembly, to be the next European commissioner for human rights. Does not it undermine all that when Suella Braverman and Kemi Badenoch keep on talking about withdrawing from the convention on human rights, apparently in some sort of bid for leadership?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I have stated the Government’s position, which is that we are members of the convention, and that is also reflected in the Good Friday agreement and the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU. There is no change in that position, and the statements to which the noble Lord refers do not reflect the position of the Government.

Jurors: Mental Health Impact

Debate between Lord Bellamy and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I entirely share the sentiment expressed by the noble Lord.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, makes me think: if Boris Johnson is brought to trial, would it be possible to volunteer for the jury?

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

Mental Capacity Act 2005: Small Payments Scheme

Debate between Lord Bellamy and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Thursday 2nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the Government will do all they can to raise public awareness. If, for example, the DVLA can inform me regularly that my driving licence needs to be renewed when I get to 70, surely we can have some similar process when a child reaches the age of 18.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I commend the Minister for actually answering the questions put to him, rather than reading from a brief before him. Is there any way he could pass that skill on to his colleagues?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, my colleagues are already skilful enough.

Domestic Abuse: Defence for Victims who Commit an Offence

Debate between Lord Bellamy and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

As far as I know, the Government work as closely as they can with all organisations, including the one that the noble Lord mentions.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

I only stood up because no one else seemed to have done—which is my forte. To be serious, my noble friend Lady Kennedy asked an important question about the speed with which the Government are considering this. The Minister gave the usual Civil Service reply: that everything is being considered. Will he now try to answer properly her question?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot give a timetable, and I respectfully disagree with the description of a Civil Service reply: this is the Minister’s reply. In this case the Minister, who happens to be me, is very conscious of the real issues here. When the report from Clare Wade KC is available, we will see a discussion of these issues and a certain recommendation.

European Court of Human Rights

Debate between Lord Bellamy and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Monday 5th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the work of the European Court of Human Rights.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, successive Governments have long expressed concerns about the effectiveness of the Court of Human Rights and its ability to manage a significant case load, but we welcome the important and ongoing efforts made since the entry into force of protocol 14 to the convention in 2010 and the further reforms which followed the Interlaken declaration and the UK-led Brighton conference. These have helped to ensure that the court focuses on the highest priority cases before it.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

I can understand why the Minister is in a bit of limbo at the moment, given what is happening beyond this Chamber, but I remind him that on three occasions at that Dispatch Box he said not only that will we remain a member of the European Court of Human Rights but that we will continue to play a leading role, yet outside this Chamber, when he was making those statements, Liz Truss and Suella Braverman, who are going to have quite an influence over the next few months, said they wanted to withdraw. So what is the Government’s position now in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights? Will the noble and learned Lord have courage, particularly following the excellent report of the Law Society today, and reaffirm our position that we will remain in the European Convention on Human Rights?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

The Government’s position is unchanged.

Human Rights Act 1998

Debate between Lord Bellamy and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Thursday 14th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank and pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for bringing this very important debate to this House, and indeed to all your Lordships who have spoken so eloquently this afternoon.

First, I note that there seems to be a remarkable degree, perhaps to one’s surprise, of common ground. The Government entirely agree that the domestication of the Human Rights Act was an extremely good thing. We have heard today many good examples of the positive impact of the domestic Human Rights Act. I want to make it clear that we do not want to throw those out of the window, as has been suggested. We are not “abolishing a jurisdiction”; we are not “withdrawing”; we are not “ripping up”. We are remaining in the convention; the convention rights continue to apply; public authorities continue to be bound. Once that premise is accepted, we can perhaps get on to the more pertinent debate, which is exactly how we balance the various competing considerations that arise in the application of the Act. I say again: the Act itself and the principle are fully accepted. I associate myself with the tributes paid earlier to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, who introduced the Bill, to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who was closely associated with the development of human rights in this country, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who was also extremely prominent, to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and to a large number of other people here and elsewhere who have contributed, rightly, to the development of a human rights culture.

I am happy to accept the invitation from the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, to pay tribute to the work of the British Institute of Human Rights. Much of what is good about the Human Rights Act comes from its everyday application, in which training and guidance by the BIHR and many other organisations have been vital. That training will continue to be applicable to the Bill of Rights, as we want to ensure that the positive enjoyment of human rights in this country continues unabated.

Having, as it were—I hope—cleared away that ground, perhaps I may next refer to the pertinent question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, as to exactly what the timing of the Bill now is. As your Lordships are aware, the parliamentary timetable has in recent days become somewhat squeezed. As I understand it, the Second Reading in another place is now planned for September, so that detailed consideration of the Bill in this House is unlikely before the autumn. It is true that, by then, a new Prime Minister will be in post—we do not yet know who—but, as of today, I am unaware of any relevant change in the Government’s plan to bring the Bill forward as I have just outlined.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

Has the Minister given further consideration to the proposal by a number of committees in both Houses that there should be pre-legislative scrutiny?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

Not as far as I am aware, is the direct answer to the noble Lord’s question. The original Bill of Rights was not subject to pre-legislative scrutiny as far as I know. However, I would myself like to use the extra time we now have in a process of outreach to your Lordships’ House and to other interested organisations—I saw Sir Peter Gross yesterday; I have plans to visit each of the devolved legislatures shortly—to explore and understand all these points and see how far we can narrow the differences between us. I respectfully suggest that there are issues that we need to grapple with here and we need to grapple with them sensibly. This Bill clearly arouses very strong feelings and quite a lot of anxieties, but I hope that we can resolve a lot of them and quite a lot of other problems in the course of sensible and reasoned debate.

At one end of the spectrum, there seems to be an almost entrenched view that the 1998 Act is more than perfect and that the slightest change will bring the whole edifice crashing down, or at least give rise to unacceptable risks. At the other end of the spectrum, which has been mentioned several times, there is the point of view that we should withdraw from the convention altogether. The latter is not the Government’s position, and whatever may be said by someone in their capacity as candidate for the leadership of a political party is not relevant for today’s purposes. The position of the Government is quite clear: to stay in the convention and to reconfirm the rights that flow therefrom that are clearly set out in the Bill. From the Government’s point of view—