Human rights

The Dutch government has just banned foreigners from the country’s ‘coffee-shops’ — aka, cannabis cafés. Given how often we’re told that you can’t ban EU members from doing anything, how did they manage it? Basically, it all comes down to residency. If you live there, then you can apply for what’s being called a ‘weed pass’. If you don’t live there, then no dice. But is it legal for the Dutch government to ban entry to EU citizens in this way? A group of 19 coffee-shop owners decided to go to court over the matter, worried about this potential loss of custom.

The combination of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights is, I predict, going to give David Cameron an increasing number of headaches in the coming months. As Fraser wrote yesterday, Michael Pinto-Duschinsky’s principled resignation from the coalition’s Commission on the British Bill of Rights has revealed that this body was never really serious about dealing with the problem. The exposure of this Commission as merely a holding device will add to the pressure on the Prime Minister to clarify what he actually intends to do about the problem.

The Commons will debate the UK’s controversial extradition treaty with the US and the European Arrest Warrant later today. The debate has been brought by Dominic Raab MP. He was on the Today programme this morning, explaining that he wanted to introduce a ‘forum clause’ to the UK-US treaty. Forum is a principle that could apply in cross-border cases like Gary McKinnon’s, which Raab has been championing. Raab wants to end the ‘sort of haggling between prosecutors behind closed doors’ that governs extraditions at present, and reform the process by placing it before open court in Britain. He argues that numerous other countries enjoy such an arrangement with the US, why shouldn’t its ‘stalwart’ British allies?

The furore surrounding the defence secretary is distracting attention from some stories that are threatening the coalition’s tranquillity. Benedict Brogan reports that the Health Bill is being amended out of existence by a cabal of Lib Dem peers, a campaigned that was mooted during the party conference season. The rebellion is apparently aggravating Number 10, which understood that Nick Clegg had secured his party's support for the diluted programme which emerged after the recent "listening exercise". Labour's numerical superiority in the House of Lords means that ministers will have to be at their most mellifluous to bring the errant Lib Dems back to the fold, because Tory backbenchers are clear that they will not stomach further revisions.

‘Cat-flap’ is the story that just won’t go away. A report in today’s Guardian claims that the whole story may have been lifted from a speech made by Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence Party. One colleague of May’s tells the paper that "Not only has Ms May been caught out making up stories about the Human Rights Act for cheap laughs, she has been plagiarising her clap lines from the UK Independence party." In the grand scheme of things, this is hardly the most serious charge. There’s just enough truth to the cat anecdote for May to have some ground to stand on and most Tories, understandably, want to see the Human Right Act scrapped.

The Ken Clarke and Theresa May cat-flap has sparked up again this morning, with the Justice Secretary accusing the Home Secretary of using "laughable child-like examples" to attack the Human Right Act. In some ways, it's hard to take a political row about a cat particularly seriously. But this back and forth between May and Clarke is actually exposing something very important: the Liberal Democrats are not the only brake on Tory radicalism. At the moment, lots of Tory ministers – up to and including the Prime Minister – like to imply that they'd be doing far more on Europe, immigration and the Human Rights Act if it wasn't for the Lib Dems.

              Today’s ‘cat-flap’ between Ken Clarke and Theresa May exposes one of the largest divides in the Conservative party today. May, along with most Tory MPs, wants to get rid of the human rights act, while Clarke and the attorney general Dominic Grieve want to keep it. May, to the surprise of her colleagues, used a pre-conference interview with the Sunday Telegraph to make clear her desire to get rid of the act. After this, there was always going to be a reaction from Clarke & Co. One ally of the Justice Secretary tells me that his comments today were spurred, in part, by an irritation that he hadn’t seen the text of the Home Secretary’s speech before she delivered it.

The main event at the Labour conference this morning has been a long debate on Britain's place in the world, featuring Douglas Alexander, Harriet Harman and Jim Murphy - shadow foreign secretary, shadow DfID secretary and shadow defence secretary respectively. The debate touched on liberal intervention, soft power and human rights; there was even a video message from Aung San Suu Kyi. But Murphy's extended homily on the military covenant was the centre piece of the discussion. Murphy revealed a plan to allow servicemen to join the Labour party for just £1 and he also pledged to defend the pensions of retired servicemen and their widows from cuts, saying that reducing payments was "simply wrong".

"Russian democracy has been buried under the ruins of New York's twin towers", famous KGB rebel Alexander Litvinenko wrote in 2002. The West, he warned, was making a grave mistake of going along with Putin's dictatorship in exchange for his cooperation in the global war on terror. He would never be an honest partner, and would try to make the Western leaders complicit in his own crimes - from political assassinations to the genocide of Chechens. As a KGB officer, Putin would see every friendly summit-meeting as a potential opportunity to recruit another agent of influence. David Cameron, whose summit-meeting with Putin coincided with the sombre jubilee of 9/11, would be well-advised to remember these warnings.

Traditionally the fact that the Liberal Democrats hold their conference first and still vote on party policy at it has been regarded as a disadvantage. But this year, I suspect that these two things will be in their favour. By going first, they will get to set the terms of debate for conference season. They’ll be able to spike their coalition partners’ guns on a whole variety of post-riots issues. They can make clear that they won’t accept any changes to the human rights act or any government push to encourage marriage. Even better, they can pass motions to this effect. They also will have first crack at setting out on what terms the 50p rate can be ended.