The future of the Human Rights Act, a reminder

22 September 2010 by

Lord McNally

Lord McNally, the minister of state for justice, has told the Liberal Democrat Party conference that the Justice Ministry is looking at the Human Rights Act, not to “see how we can diminish it”, but so it can be “better understood and appreciated.”

There will be, he said, “no retreat” over human rights. His comments have been reported as “likely to anger” backbench Tory MPs, who have “long criticised the HRA”.

In reality the reports may cause anger, but they will come as absolutely no surprise. Whilst it is true that the Conservatives pledged in their election manifesto to repeal the act, a lot has happened since then.

First, and most importantly, Ken Clarke was the surprise choice for  Justice Secretary. Shortly afterwards, he told the BBC that we are not committed to leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, we have committed ourselves to a British Human Rights Act.” Mr Clarke has never been shy to express his opposition to repeal of the HRA and replacement with a bill of rights. When David Cameron announced the plan in 2006, Clarke said the party leader would have difficulty finding any lawyers to agree with him. His Ministry of Justice has been subsequently called a “nest of liberals“.

Later in May came the coalition’s Programme for Government, in which it pledged to “investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights” that “incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights“. Moreover, it will ensure “that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law“, whilst protecting and extending British liberties. Finally, the government pledges to  “promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties“. Just as Lord McNally said.

As I suggested at the time, rather than seeking to repeal or diminish the HRA – and more particularly, the UK’s commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights – the coalition government appears to be investigating a Human Rights Act Plus. This would ensure the existing rights, whilst increasing “British liberties”, whatever they turn out to be – a right to fish and chips? The government will also be aware that there would be significant legal problems associated with reducing any of the protections guaranteed under the Convention.

And, in any event, even if the HRA were to be repealed, the UK’s two most senior judges have recently said that it would probably make no difference. The President of the Supreme Court has said that if Parliament chose to repeal the HRA, the courts may choose to enforce it anyway. He argued that the HRA may have attained in law the status of “constitutional statutes” which are effectively impossible to repeal. Lord Hope, his deputy, agrees that repealing the HRA would make “very little difference to the way such rights are enforced in our courts.”

So, however angry Lord McNally’s comments may make Tory backbenchers, it is unlikely they were surprised unless they had failed to read their own coalition programme. And, thankfully, the HRA appears to be safe for now.

Read more:

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: