Human Rights Act 1998 (Repeal and Substitution) Bill

Debate between Rebecca Harris and Charlie Elphicke

Friday 1st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s timely and telling intervention. This case has undermined confidence in human rights, but it has also undermined people’s confidence in Parliament and its ability to legislate, to be sovereign and to stand up for Britain.

In another case, an Albanian man returned to the UK illegally after being told to leave. Following his conviction for robbery in this country, he could not be deported— despite being convicted of yet another crime since his return—on the grounds of the family life he had established in the UK. A Sudanese man was convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl in the UK. He could not be deported because of the risk that he would be subjected to maltreatment in the Sudan. Most people would have very little sympathy with a paedophile rapist and would think that this man should not be in the UK. Despite being found by a deportation tribunal to pose a threat to UK national security, an Algerian man could not be deported to Algeria because of the risk that he might commit suicide while in custody there. All those cases have caused widespread public concern, which is why a key plank of the Bill is that the Human Rights Act should be repealed.

Let us look at the opinion polls. A few moments ago, my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) pointed out the level of public concern. For nearly a decade, opinion polls have consistently shown that the British people reject the UK’s current human rights settlement.

In 2008, a research project was undertaken by the Ministry of Justice—and let us be honest, that Ministry is not exactly sceptical of human rights as an institution and under the previous Government it was not exactly sceptical of European human rights provisions either. Notwithstanding that, having analysed results collected between 2004 and 2006, it found that 57% of respondents agreed that

“too many people take advantage of the Human Rights Act”,

while just 14% disagreed. Forty per cent. believed that the Act

“has caused more problems than it has solved”,

while 24% disagreed with that. Despite the existence of the Act, 56% agreed that

“this country lacks a shared sense of rights and responsibilities”.

So a central plank of my Bill is that we should talk not only about rights, but about responsibilities. Given that that was a Government-sponsored report on the policy of the then Government, it strikes me as a less than ringing endorsement of the human rights settlement that the country has today.

In May 2010, a YouGov opinion poll found that 53% supported the introduction of a British Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act, while 24% wanted to keep the Act. I believe that, in presenting the Bill, I am acting in line with the wishes of the majority of the country.

In February 2011, another YouGov poll found that 63% thought that the British Parliament and the Supreme Court, rather than a foreign court, should have the final say on human rights matters, while 25% thought that it right that we should be subject to the Strasbourg court when it comes to appeals. Fifty-seven per cent. believed that

“Britain’s membership of the ECHR has been abused by lawyers making spurious cases on behalf of criminals and on balance a bad thing”,

while only 19% believed that

“Britain’s membership has been a valuable protection against the government ignoring the human rights of British people and on balance a good thing”.

[Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good point in citing evidence from opinion polls, but do we not all know on an anecdotal basis that the European Court of Human Rights, and human rights in general, have, tragically, become a watchword for abuses of the system? Indeed, they have effectively become a joke, and that is very damaging to the whole concept of human rights.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I could not agree more, and that is precisely why I am presenting the Bill.

The February 2011 YouGov poll also found that 55% thought that Britain should leave the ECHR altogether, and that we should have our own Bill of Rights instead, with the British Supreme Court as the final court of appeal. Just 24% thought that we should remain part of the ECHR.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

Yes, I would. It is important that every British citizen should be able to hold a belief. I may be a Christian, but I think we need to respect Muslims following the Islamic faith, as well as people following the Jewish and Catholic faiths, and Protestant Christianity. All those faiths are important. This freedom should not be unlimited; I have been careful to say in the relevant provision that freedom of religion does not extend to inciting physical harm or undermining national security. We cannot have a situation where freedom of religion could be used to promote terror, as has happened too often. That important limitation is in place, but it is important that we have religious freedom.

[Rebecca Harris]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the British public saw no mischief being created in British culture prior to our entering into the convention and that it is only since our entry that they have seen a slew of wealthy barristers getting much wealthier by doing a lot of things that seem to subvert our traditional culture? There was no apparent reason to introduce this convention in the first place, and that is a great cause of concern and confusion for the public.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in what she says. I have been roundly criticised on social media by people who, oddly, seem to be lawyers in this area. I wonder whether part of the reason for their criticism is that they feel that I might be threatening their livelihoods. They are milking the system and the legal aid budget for every penny and pound they can get out of it in order to put forward their too-often spurious human rights claims. As a former lawyer, I have little sympathy for lawyers who seek to milk the taxpayer to fatten their wallets. That is important, and I have made it clear in my responses to people that they have a conflict of interest in terms of human rights issues and their own livelihood.

The sixth pillar is that the right to vote should not apply to convicted prisoners, a matter on which this House has expressed concern. The seventh is that legislation passed by Parliament should be changed only if Parliament so decides. Courts believing that legislation breaches human rights should declare their opinion, yet Parliament should make the final decision on whether laws ought to be changed.

The eighth pillar is that public authorities should not be penalised for applying legislation that is approved by Parliament, because that has happened too often, creating uncertainty and making their lives extremely difficult. They think they are doing what they have been told to do by Parliament and suddenly end up with a human rights claim and a member of the Bar pursuing a compensation claim, not only on his or her client’s behalf but on his or her own behalf, to get money out of the taxpayer. The ninth is that UK law should not be automatically interpreted in line with the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. In deciding human rights cases, UK courts should take into account centuries of common law rulings from the UK and elsewhere in the common law world.

Finally, the UK social contract is not just about rights. It is about responsibilities and the contract should include responsibilities as well as rights.

Daylight Saving Bill

Debate between Rebecca Harris and Charlie Elphicke

Friday 3rd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Harris]

Fuel poverty is another problem that we did not have at the time of the winter-only experiment of ’68 to ’71. That is another incredibly important reason why we need the Government to look again at the benefits and details of extending daylight hours. We could achieve the savings to which the hon. Lady refers at no cost.

Extensive research by the Cambridge university department for engineering and National Grid does not dispute that we could cut our electricity consumption by at least 0.5%, which is equivalent to a wind farm of 200 very expensively produced wind turbines. I accept that that is a fraction of the CO₂ reduction to which we are committed, but it is none the less significant, and it can be done without the purchase of a single smart meter or a single square foot of insulation.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I believe that a study by the university of Cambridge says that the change would lead to a saving of 500,000 tonnes of CO₂ each year, which would obviously help the environment.

[Rebecca Harris]

The modelling from Dr Garnsey’s team at Cambridge suggests that we could cut our carbon emissions by the equivalent of taking nearly 200,000 cars off our roads each year. That is why serious environmental pressure groups such as 10:10 are so heavily behind the Bill.

I believe that the proposal could do a great deal of good for our whole country, which is what I came to this Chamber to do. I appreciate that many simply have an aversion to darker winter mornings—I confess that I am not wild about them—and that may well turn out to be the crux of the issue. However, I might have a different perspective on darker winter mornings if I were assured that a darker start to the beginning of the working day in winter allowed, for example, millions of older people to have a better quality of life. If the benefits were found by a Government review to be as stated by the Bill’s backers—the change could mean that my son and other people’s children were safer on the roads and enjoyed more outdoor play; that people were healthier and there would be more in employment; that more revenue came into the Exchequer; that CO₂ emissions would be cut with no extra subsidy from the taxpayer; and that I would have an extra hour of daylight later on to enjoy as I see fit, although obviously only during recess—I might even feel quite positive about dark winter mornings.

My Bill asks not for anything impractical or costly, but merely for the Government to look at the evidence and make a decision that is based on the facts rather than what is politically expedient. I accept that I may be a naive new Member of Parliament—in fact, after taking on this private Member’s Bill, I am convinced of that—but I believe we should always strive to make decisions based on evidence not suspicion, fact not prejudice, and data not conjecture.

This is a decades-old debate, but the arguments are now so compelling that it would be foolish to dismiss the case for change without first conducting a review of the evidence. I do not deny that there is a place for emotion in politics and some may find that emotion is important in the context of the Bill, but Parliament has a responsibility, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, to dictate the time by which our modern lives are regulated. We have a duty to every single one of the 60 million residents of the United Kingdom to ensure that when we set the time for them, we make the right choice. We must ask ourselves whether the proposal is the best, or least worst, option for people living their lives in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. My Bill simply asks that the question be put to the Government, so that we can get a clear answer on which to base our future decisions. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.