| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the fundamental rights agency will be based on Article 308, with which I think the noble Lord is familiar. It is a kind of catch-all provision that is being used sparingly—in this case, I believe, appropriately—to establish an agency the purpose of which will be to support institutions, not least the Commission, perhaps by looking at legislation rather as governments here look at their legislation to see whether it is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. As the Prime Minister said, the charter remains what I would describe as the backdrop to what we do; it does not have legal force.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that even the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on the law of averages, is bound sometime to come to a correct conclusion, even if it is for totally wrong reasons? Does she agree that there is no European human rights agency, merely a proposal for one? Does she also agree that such a proposal is somewhat ill founded, as such an agency is unnecessary, because the work that it would cover would conflict with the work that is already being done over a wider number of nation states by the mechanisms of the Council of Europe? Will she therefore use all her energies in the council to ensure that the proposal is resisted?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, during the UK presidency of the European Union I spent many a happy hour with the LIBE committee in the European Parliament, which has responsibility for this. The role of the Council of Europe was addressed seriously there, as indeed it has been addressed in my discussions with the House of Lords Select Committee and with colleagues from other European states. I was in the Netherlands last week discussing this very issue. My
23 Mar 2006 : Column 349
noble friend is right: there is a serious issue to be worked through about the relationship between the work of the Council of Europe and the fundamental rights agency.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, as the Minister is aware, the proposal for a fundamental rights agency has for the past five months been under intense scrutiny by Sub-Committee E of the European Union Select Committee, under the very able chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. Indeed, the Minister has given useful evidence to it. Is Her Majesty's Government aware that the committee plans to publish its report within the next two weeks? Will the Minister confirm that the Government will, as usual, give it careful and, we hope, sympathetic consideration? In accordance with the House's scrutiny reserve resolution, will the Government not take a final position on the proposal until they have fully studied the report and commented on it?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I spent a happy two and a half hours before the committee, which was extremely useful because, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, says, the committee has huge expertise. I hope that the committee found it as useful as I did. I can confirm that we will consider carefully what the committee has said. It is our understanding that the Austrian presidency wishes to bring this to a conclusion in the final Council in June. It will be dealt with by the main Council, not by Justice and Home Affairs, because of the way in which the agency has been put forward. We will indeed have high regard for what the committee says.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, will the Minister agree that even the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, occasionally, and generously, strikes a note of consensus? He is absolutely right in some of his concerns. It is correct that the new commission is yet to be set up. However, the Charter of Fundamental Rights sort of hangs in the ether—not embodied in any treaty, because there is no treaty—and yet it has been made clear that the European Court of Justice will take account of the propositions in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Can the Minister explain what the real status is and whether the ECJ is right in taking that stance? If not, should we not say so?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the description that I used was "backdrop"; perhaps another description would be "a reference document". As the noble Lord will be aware, the UK Government approached the discussions on the European constitution by referencing all the charter issues back to national legislation. Indeed, my understanding is that, when the European Court of Justice looks at the questions it addresses, it will look at the charter in that context. There is nothing unusual in that. We are very firm in what we have said in the context of it being a reference document.
23 Mar 2006 : Column 350
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we have no difficulty with the European Union looking at fundamental rights issues across an EU of 25—shortly to be 27? It is rather anomalous that the European Union imposes conditions about human rights, prisons, judges, and so on, on applicant members, but that those conditions start to weaken once they become members. So there is an appropriate role for such an agency. The question is very much about how it is set up, if it is to be set up, how it relates to the existing Council of Europe agency, and the problems of duplication in human rights courts and agencies that are beginning to emerge with the increasing overlap between the Council of Europe and the European Union.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord: there are real issues about duplication and scope. Noble Lords will be aware that, certainly in the six months that I spent dealing with this, there was no sense of unanimity across the Council or the Parliament—so of course it would be the Council's decision—on either of those questions. I say again that there are real concerns about the relationship with the Council of Europe. There is a recognition that the charter has a role to play, but it is not a legal role. We have to be clear that if the fundamental rights agency comes into being, it must have an absolutely clear remit that does not overlap.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the Minister—
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry; we are now into the seventeenth minute.
Police: Female Officers
11.21 am
Lord Kimball asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many female officers resign from the police force each year.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, 590 women officers—1.7 per cent—voluntarily resigned in 2005; 589—2 per cent—did so in 2003–04; and 501—2 per cent—did so in 2002–03. The Government are keen to ensure that the police service is able to attract and retain trained, experienced women. A steering group chaired by Hazel Blears has been set up to oversee this work, and new procedures have been put in place to examine the points at which women leave the service, and the reasons behind their leaving.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Without being slightly churlish, however, I feel that it lacks a certain sympathy. All the speculation about amalgamation is unsettling for lady officers. They play a vital part in the work of the force,
23 Mar 2006 : Column 351
and it is time that the question of amalgamation was laid to rest so that they can get on with the business of arresting criminals.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we understand that any change of any institution is unsettling for officers, no more so for women than for men. We have real progress in female advancement through the service. We hope that, if the reorganisation goes well, there will be even greater opportunities for a more equitable balance between male and female officers.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister has told us that Hazel Blears will look carefully at this, is she able to tell us why the drop-out rate for black and ethnic minority women officers at probationary stage is so high? If she is unable to tell us now, will she undertake to write to me?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly undertake to write to the noble Baroness, but the drop-out rate between nought and two years for women is lower than that for men. As we go through the service, there are issues involving the two to 10-year bracket, such as when women have children and matters of that sort. The flexibility of the service seems to have a negative impact, but I assure the noble Baroness that we are doing everything possible to address those issues. I will write to her about her specific query.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |