Human Rights Legislation Reform

Jon Cruddas Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

I welcome the petition and I congratulate those who organised and signed it. It requests that the proposed reform of the Human Rights Act be withdrawn. However, that demand appears to have been somewhat overtaken by events, so the first question to ask is whether the petitioners’ objectives remain valid. As we know, politics moves pretty quickly, and the proposed reforms have been withdrawn. The Prime Minister ditched the plans for a new Bill of Rights on 7 September. The papers were briefed that Ministers were deeply concerned about the drafting of the Bill. It was pulled just five days before its Second Reading, soon after the Justice Secretary had himself been sacked.

At the time—precisely six weeks and five days ago—the Prime Minister told the Cabinet that her Government would reassess ways to deliver this agenda. Note that she said that she disagreed not with the objectives of the withdrawn legislation, but rather with the method of their implementation. Fast forward to last week: six weeks and two days after the Prime Minister took office, the Conservative party reassessed her ability to deliver her own agenda and unceremoniously ditched her. That leaves human rights reform up in the air.

So is the petition still valid? I think it most certainly is, because the proposed Bill was in the last Conservative manifesto, and as far as I can work out it has been in successive Conservative manifestos since 2010. Indeed, despite withdrawing the draft legislation, the present Prime Minister supported such a Bill when she was Justice Secretary. I assume that the new leader—the Prime Minister unveiled this week, and the next Leader of the Opposition—will in turn pledge to establish the legal supremacy of the UK Supreme Court so that UK courts can disregard rulings from the ECHR. Therefore, despite the Prime Minister ditching the Bill, the issues contained in the petition remain highly relevant and valid.

We can confidently assume that, despite the Conservative party and the Government disintegrating before us, the party is still intent on reforming the Human Rights Act—perhaps one of the few things that unites its different factions. Therefore, the petition’s objective that the Government must not

“make any changes to the Human Rights Act, especially ones that dilute people’s human rights in any circumstances, make the Government less accountable, or reduce people’s ability to make human rights claims”

remains highly relevant. Despite the fact that the Bill has been axed, those issues will not go away, and they therefore deserve to be debated.

We do not really acknowledge the true significance of the proposed human rights reforms. Let me give hon. Members a brief example. The contents of the last Queen’s Speech, on 10 May—it seems like ages ago—were widely described as a damp squib, reflecting a Government who had run out of ideas:

“a party without a project”,

to quote a Guardian editorial. I thought at the time that such an interpretation was slightly wrong. Simply seeing the Queen’s Speech as an incoherent, aimless collection of 38 Bills, symptomatic of an inert, drifting Government, misread what was going on. Such a misreading is important, because it suggests that there was little to see here, and therefore little obligation to contest it and provide an alternative.

Probably the most radical element of the Queen’s Speech, which will be debated tomorrow, is the Brexit freedoms Bill—an extraordinary piece of legislation entailing the wholesale dismantling of domestic law through the constitutionally outrageous use of sunset and Henry VIII clauses. I thought at the time that the Bill of Rights was almost a constitutional companion piece to that piece of legislation. Axing the Human Rights Act would dramatically reset our strategic international position and the rights and freedoms afforded to British citizens. Acknowledging the radical character of those initiatives in the last Queen’s Speech poses many challenges and opportunities for my party, in terms of what we stand for and what we would do.

[Margaret Ferrier]

The Scottish Government have been clear that they oppose this legislation and would invite Holyrood to oppose it too. That means that if the UK Government pushed ahead, they would be showing a disregard for devolution. Does the hon. Gentleman share the concerns of those living across the UK that their rights are potentially being stripped away without consent?

[Jon Cruddas]

I will come to that when I mention different approaches to economic and social rights, which should be the cornerstone of an alternative approach to a new Bill of Rights in the UK. That goes with the grain of what is happening in Scotland, in contrast to the objectives of the present Government in Westminster. To put it charitably, the Government are a total shambles, and even compared to early September, the possibility of a Labour Government is more likely. It would be useful to find out what Labour’s approach is to reform of the HRA, for instance, whether it would seek to defend the present Act or offer its own alternative Bill of Rights.

The Conservative reform of human rights, which will reappear, cannot be discussed without acknowledging the international context in which it occurs. When set against an international backdrop of war and escalating authoritarianism, the proposed human rights reform suggests a country withdrawing from our international obligations and democratic oversight, both abroad and at home. That is not an accident. The Government have stated a wish to comply with the human rights convention, but they would also seek to mandate our judges to disregard some of its most basic principles and protections. Those include the so-called positive obligations on public bodies to investigate crime and wrongdoing. These are precisely the methods that produced remedies for the victims of the black cab rapist, John Worboys, alongside a range of other cases providing justice for victims—most famously through the Hillsborough inquiry—and a series of cases of justice for soldiers, including the case at Deepcut.

The reform would likely see more cases going to Strasbourg, not less, and would once again expand the power of the Executive, which would be more free to rule by regulation and restrict the interpretive power of the courts. When Europe and the world are crying out for international leadership and solidarity, our Government appear to be running in the opposite direction. We might assume that it is was only the likes of Russia, Poland and Hungary that cynically remained in treaties, such as the human rights convention, while corroding them from within. What I find truly extraordinary is to think that in 2023, the 75th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights—partly crafted by British lawyers—the Government planned to axe the Human Rights Act, the direct descendant of that convention, which sought to unite countries after fascism, authoritarianism and genocide.

Winston Churchill would arguably be turning in his grave. In his opening speech to the Congress of Europe in May 1948, Churchill said that the new Europe must be

“a positive force, deriving its strength from our sense of common spiritual values. It is a dynamic expression of democratic faith based upon moral conceptions and inspired by a sense of mission. In the centre of our movement stands the idea of a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law.”

That statement, 75 years on, has a contemporary feel to it, as authoritarianism and fascism are once again on the march, threatening the foundations of liberal democracy.

While I am glad to see that the legislation has been withdrawn, it comes with one downside. The Government’s withdrawn attempt to deny rights to the British people, wrapped up in the almost Orwellian language of a new Bill of Rights, did offer opportunities for opponents to build a coalition around an alternative, rather than simply defend the status quo. It would be a radical new Bill of Rights that builds on the Human Rights Act rather than dismantles it, and one that might echo themes from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s vision of a second Bill of Rights in 1944, which informed the universal declaration of human rights.

Such an alternative Bill of Rights might include the right to work, to free education, to access to public health, to housing, to security for all and to freedom from fear. If Labour rethinks its whole approach to modern citizenship, I like to think that could be part of a radical levelling-up agenda. It would be a new democratic and economic covenant between the state and its citizens, one that is aligned with Administrations in Scotland and Wales, which are also seeking to build such an agenda. It would not only honour the Good Friday agreement’s commitment to the human rights convention, but would be in keeping with the long-term quest for a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland. That offers a different type of radicalism to that of the Queen’s Speech, and the ditched attempts to attack our human rights, alongside the desire to consolidate power within the Executive and strip away access to justice.

In conclusion, my basic point is a simple one: the last Queen’s Speech was no damp squib. Reform of the Human Rights Act is a big deal that should be challenged. Thinking that there is little to see here concedes too much ground, and reinforces the political groupthink that underplays the radical character of this Government and their potential to isolate us, diminish our international standings, consolidate long-term economic weaknesses and enduring patterns of inequality, and hand over even greater powers to the Executive. There is plenty to see here. It deserves a radical alternative. The Human Rights Act, as it currently exists, protects all of us; we lose it at our peril. It is essential that we are allowed to challenge public authorities when they get it wrong. The Human Rights Act has changed many lives for the better. It must be protected and built on, and not subject to reforms that reduce its scope and limit what people can rely on it for. This debate will endure. That is why the petition before us retains its significance and should be warmly welcomed.

[Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)]

I do not wish to impose a time limit at the moment, but I will call the SNP spokesperson at around 7 pm.