Straw should not apologise too quickly for New Labour’s civil liberties policies

27 October 2010 by

Jack Straw, the former New Labour Justice Secretary, has marked the 10th anniversary of the passing into law of the Human Rights Act with an article in the Guardian.

There are two points of interest from the article. The first is that, by my reading at least, the article runs close to an apology for the previous government’s much-criticised anti-terrorism policies. Straw, who amongst other front line roles was Home Secretary from 1997 to 2001 and Justice Secretary from 2007 to 2010, says “It is hard to exaggerate the pressures that those with responsibility encounter when a population, or part of it, is scared.” This meant that the government were under pressure and “sometimes the same people who might have been seeking greater controls on the intelligence services will want to know why we didn’t have more intelligence”.

The new government has made much of its predecessor’s record on civil liberties. Within days of coming to power, it promiseda full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion“. The view that New Labour was bad for civil liberties, which is becoming something of an orthodoxy, is clearly hurting figures such as Straw who were central in introducing the offending policies.

But Straw need not apologise too quickly, for three reasons. First, he is right that the political environment, at least in the first half of the last decade, was defined by the threat of terrorism. This was not mere scaremongering: it became real on 7/7/05 to terrible effect, something we are now being reminded of by the 7/7 inquest. In that febrile atmosphere it is unsurprising, and perhaps understandable, that security policies eroded civil liberties. Some may also have gone too far, as Straw intimates, but individual rights must always be balanced against national security and the public interest, as is made explicitly clear in the wording of the qualified European Convention rights.

Secondly, the fact remains that the New Labour government introduced a series of laws which greatly increased civil liberties protection in the UK: the Human Rights Act 1998, the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Until the new government has made equivalent strides it cannot in good faith write off the achievements of its predecessors. It is fortunate that the three interlinked pieces of legislation were enacted before 9/11, as without these protections the civil liberties landscape may have looked much worse during the age of terrorism. As it turned out, the courts had been given a sharp set of tools to use against offending policies, and they are becoming increasingly emboldened to use them.

Thirdly, the new government’s record on civil liberties is as yet unclear. As I have written before, the age of terrorism has all but ended, for now at least, and as such many of the security policies which the coalition have rolled back with great fanfare are redundant anyway, so they amount to easy wins rather than hard choices. The truer test will be its approach to unpopular civil liberties issues, such as allowing prisoners to vote, a longstanding imperative from the European Court of Human Rights which has yet to be implemented. Moreover, some of the policies, such as the retention of DNA evidence and police stop and search powers, have been changed not by choice but because of criticism from the European Court of Human Rights, the decisions of which the UK government is legally obliged to follow.

And it is not yet clear what the new government will do in relation to some of the most controversial anti-terrorism powers: apparently control orders may survive the current counter-terrorism review, and regarding the use of secret evidence – which is causing the government regular problems in the civil courts – the Prime Minister has announced that it will publish a green paper on how such evidence is to be treated in the full range of judicial proceedings, whilst addressing the “concerns of allies”. This sounds ominous for open justice. So watch this space.

It is arguable that the pressures of terrorism, which are Straw says are “hard to exaggerate”, have an equivalent for today’s government: namely, the economic collapse. The financial turmoil of 2007 and 2008 may in the future be seen as just as era-defining as the terrorism of 2001. And the current government’s response to its own crisis will arguably be just as important for civil liberties. Just as anti-terrorism policies eroded rights to privacy and fair trial, the public sector cuts will affect rights to family life and the peaceful enjoyment of property, amongst others. It may be that in 10 years time, George Osborne will respond to criticisms of his own government on human rights in much the same way as Straw, trying to explain the effect of “pressure” to reform.

A second point of interest is that Straw goes on to suggest reasons why a human rights culture has not become “embedded” in the UK. In other words, the longstanding puzzle of why the HRA is apparently unpopular. Notwithstanding that the act’s unpopularity may be more myth than reality, Straw blames media bias and the “absence of understanding among the wider public that with rights go responsibilities”. He argues for a “statement of responsibilities”, which is also the current government’s preferred plan.

I am doubtful that such a statement is necessary or in practice will make any difference to how the courts approach the enforcement of European Convention rights. Under the convention, the government is at liberty to calibrate its policies – for example, who gets a council house – according to whatever criteria it chooses, as long as the criteria are a proportionate means of pursuing a legitimate aim. It could (and does) decide that if a person has not been a positive contributor to society, their social benefits will be reduced. This is not a problem under current human rights law. What is a problem, and would remain so regardless of any statement of responsibilities, is if government policy sought to derogate from rights which although unpopular, are absolute (that is, they cannot be breached under any circumstances), such as the prohibition on torture. No list of responsibilities will make it lawful to breach this right under any circumstances. So those who argue terrorist suspects should be sent back to Pakistan to be ill-treated because they are bad people will have to remain unsatisfied by the act.

So, Straw should not be too quick to respond to criticism of human rights law or the record of his government. In any event, there is still much to play for in respect of the new one and this should now be the strong focus of the opposition.

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

Read more


  1. Alex says:

    The second half of this post on the new government is fine and I agree with it. However, I cannot agree with your defence of the last government.

    “First, he is right that the political environment, at least in the first half of the last decade, was defined by the threat of terrorism. This was not mere scaremongering: it became real on 7/7/05 to terrible effect, something we are now being reminded of by the 7/7 inquest. In that febrile atmosphere it is unsurprising, and perhaps understandable, that security policies eroded civil liberties.”

    It is not understandable. Plenty of other people managed to stand up for civil liberties when Labour came to take them away – I don’t see why we should find what they did understandable, when others managed to respond to the terrorist threat without overreacting.

    Also, many of these policies we are discussing were pushed through with very little consultation in Parliament.

    Plus, Labour had two very large majorities. Politically, they were under very little pressure.

    “but individual rights must always be balanced against national security and the public interest”

    Those critical Labour agree with this though. What is then said is that Labour didn’t balance these values correctly at all. I don’t see how indefinite detention without trial (until 2004), 28, 42 and 90 days (proposed) without charge, stop and search powers, control orders, the SIAC star chamber, collaborating in torture with the United States, ignoring the laws of war, storing innocent people’s DNA, retaining electronic data, the use of Prerogative powers once again against the Chagos Islanders, ID cards, Biometric passports, most of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, ContactPoint, the Vetting and Barring scheme, ASBOs, criminalising “extreme” pornography, most of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 . . . and so on, I don’t see how there was any sign of a liberal mind balancing values with any of these things.

    “Secondly, the fact remains that the New Labour government introduced a series of laws which greatly increased civil liberties protection in the UK: the Human Rights Act 1998, the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.”

    Look, these were good things, there’s no doubt about that. But it is offensive of Straw to complain of media bias on HRA, when he and his government failed to stand up to said media. And as you point out, Straw wants “rights” balanced with “responsibilities” – which is not how someone keen on human rights would think. This is a sop to the media.

    Also, the Data Protection Act has been undermined by RIPA and, I think, the Communications Act. And yes, the FOIA was a good thing, but we still have the Official Secrets Act as before – I don’t see how we can look at any government as “transparent” while that’s in place. Plus,there was the small matter of Labour trying to exempt MPs from the FOIA because of the approaching expenses scandal.

  2. Ron Broxted says:

    Is Britain legally obliged to follow Strasbourg? Yet another deadline has passed in the follow up case to implement Marper and the FCO are dragging their heels, admitting that the U.K is in the wrong but saying that “just satisfaction” must amount to an apology, with no fiscal compensation.

  3. T Davsion says:

    What about the Proceeds of Crime Act? Where a suspect is Guilty untill the suspect can proove themselves innocent.

    The suspect is normally deprived of everything they own, and their friends and family and neighbours deprived of every thing they own using a search and seizure warrent before charge and before trial.

    Restriant orders that prevent a suspect paying for legal advise or assitance before charge and before trial.

    Makes the Terrorist Act look mild.

    I agreee with the article only on this point – the new government have not repealed this draconian and unjust law.

  4. Paul Crofts says:

    It is precisely when peole are most scared about something (e.g. acts of terrorism or other forms of “crisis”) that human rights are most at risk and governments need to protect them. Labour pandered to populist pressure at the expense of protecting fundamental human rights. For this I will not forgive them.

  5. Chris Black says:

    I completely agree that Labour implemented some laudable pieces of legislation such as those you’ve mentioned. However it sticks in the throat somewhat that Jack Straw is championing the Human Rights Act when it wasn’t so long ago that he was criticising it in an interview with the Daily Mail.

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.




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.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights 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 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries 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 sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: