All 2 Debates between Jeremy Wright and Callum McCaig

European Convention on Human Rights: UK Membership

Debate between Jeremy Wright and Callum McCaig
Tuesday 26th April 2016

(8 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.

Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Jeremy Wright Portrait The Attorney General
- Hansard - -

My hon. Friend is right to say that the UN declaration is a separate document; it is not affected by any decisions we might make about the European convention. She is also right to mention how things may develop. Those who support the status quo cannot have it both ways: if they think that it is perfectly reasonable for the Court in Strasbourg to extend the scope of the convention in the way that it has, they should also recognise that we should keep up with the times in other ways, too.

Callum McCaig Portrait Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The UK’s withdrawal from the ECHR would present the most unwelcome of incentives to those who disagree with the international order surrounding human rights. What message does the Attorney General think that sends to the world’s despots and tyrants about respect for human rights?

Jeremy Wright Portrait The Attorney General
- Hansard - -

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but he is wrong to suggest that despots and tyrants around the world do not fully understand the British Government’s view of the protection of human rights. That is something on which I do not think we could have been any clearer: not only have we spoken about it, but we have acted domestically and internationally to support and protect human rights.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jeremy Wright and Callum McCaig
Thursday 25th February 2016

(8 years, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Wright Portrait The Attorney General
- Hansard - -

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that legal aid is not part of my responsibilities, but I will say that in my experience—and, I am sure, in his—those who act in our courts on behalf of defendants and on behalf of the Crown do the very best they can to present the evidence clearly and give people the best possible experience of the trial process, and I have no doubt that they will continue to do so. He makes an important point that when it comes to the cross-examination of young or vulnerable witnesses, both advocates and the judiciary have a role in ensuring that it is conducted in the right way. I hope and expect that they will continue to play their part in doing so.

Callum McCaig Portrait Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

2. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the potential effect of a British Bill of Rights on Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---
Jeremy Wright Portrait The Attorney General (Jeremy Wright)
- Hansard - -

The Government are considering the devolution implications of the Bill of Rights carefully. That will of course include engaging fully with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Callum McCaig Portrait Callum McCaig
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It emerged during an evidence session to the House of Lords Constitution Committee that the UK Supreme Court may be given a new role as a UK constitutional court. Given that the UK Supreme Court is the final court of appeal for Scottish civil cases and has a role in the devolution aspects of Scottish criminal cases, will the Attorney General commit to consulting with the Scottish Government before any such proposals are included in a consultation?

Jeremy Wright Portrait The Attorney General
- Hansard - -

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Lord Chancellor’s evidence to that Committee, which I have read, he is not quite right; the Lord Chancellor was talking about the prospects for considering how the Supreme Court might fulfil a different role, and he was referring to the German example of how that is done. The hon. Gentleman will also know that no proposals have yet been brought forward; he will see them when they are. As I, the Lord Chancellor and others have said, we will ensure that there is proper consultation on any proposals.