Draft Human Rights Act 1998 (Remedial) Order 2026
Sarah Bool Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. As the Minister has set out, the regulations are being laid to implement the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in SW v. United Kingdom, application number 87/18, to allow for damages in respect of a judicial act done in good faith where the judicial act is incompatible with article 8 of the European convention on human rights on the right to respect for a private and family life.
We are here today because, under section 4 of the Human Rights Act, when a provision of legislation is found to be incompatible with the ECHR a Minister may, under section 10, make an order to make such amendments to the legislation as the Minister considers necessary to remove the incompatibility. Remedial orders are therefore powerful legislative instruments used to amend primary legislation.
I wonder about the decision taken to make this change using a remedial order rather than primary legislation, given the time that has passed. The family court laid down its judgments in 2014 and the Court of Appeal in 2016, and the European Court made its ruling in 2021. The Government have argued the rationale is that they
“consider there is little prospect of finding suitable primary legislation to make an amendment in the near future”—
which is perhaps more revealing of the quality and suitability of much of the Government’s legislation during this Parliament. It is important to remember that the limitation in the Human Rights Act on the availability of damages in proceedings in respect of a judicial act done in good faith is there to preserve the principle of judicial immunity, a principle that is a key aspect of judicial independence—a cornerstone of a democracy. Any amendments to it therefore have to be carried out with the greatest care and consideration.
The debate today demonstrates the challenges that are faced by the two sovereign powers of the EU and the UK. It is becoming increasing clear that the ECHR repeatedly ties Ministers’ hands, blocking the democratic decisions of this place and frustrating the will of our constituents. The prime example: over 83,000 people have crossed the channel under Labour. I am afraid that the Government may have to recognise that as long as we stay shackled to the ECHR, foreign criminals can use the courts to block deportation, meaning that we will never be able to deter illegal channel crossings—[Interruption.] Do not worry, Sir Desmond, I am moving on.
I highly recommend to any member of the Committee the report by Lord Wolfson, the shadow Attorney General, on our position on the ECHR. As he says himself,
“the ECHR places significant legal constraints on the Government’s ability”
to address issues such as immigration. Leaving would allow us to
“legislate freely on any of the issues raised in this paper, without being tied to the expansive interpretation of human rights that has been developed by the European Court of Human Rights”
For as long as the European Court of Human Rights regards the ECHR as
“a ‘living instrument’ such that its decisions, and in consequence those of domestic courts, are not constrained by the actual wording of the ECHR itself”
we will have problems.
As a society, we can either continue to pass statutory instruments and orders piecemeal, as we are today, as the EU’s jurisprudence expands, or we can take decisive actions based on our own laws and the strength of this place.
Sarah Sackman
How regrettable that the Opposition could not waste an opportunity to engage in the point scoring rather than problem solving that is their ordre du jour. How sad, too, that their memories are so short—David Maxwell Fyfe, the distinguished Conservative jurist, was one of the architects of the European convention, which was such an important part of the post-war settlement and is now a vital pillar of documents such as the Good Friday agreement, which is so important to peace within these isles. It is so sad to see the Opposition seek to ally this country with the likes of Belarus, which is not a democracy in which I would care to live.
Sarah Bool
I invite the Minister to acknowledge that the interpretation the ECHR has expanded far beyond what was intended when it was first created in that post-war period.
Sarah Sackman
The ECHR contains some pretty basic principles: the right to privacy and the right to fair proceedings and a fair hearing. The Human Rights Act, one of the achievements of the previous Labour Government, brought rights home so that British people could enforce those universal inalienable rights in our domestic courts. How far the Conservative party has drifted. Here we are, seeking to make a forensic but much-needed remedial order, yet instead we hear bombast about ripping up the ECHR, together with the Good Friday agreement, to end up much like Belarus, one of the few countries outside the ECHR.
Anyway, here we are. Those are the political dividing lines and I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Bool Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister knows that there has been a decrease in probation officers in the past year, yet at the same time the Government have released thousands of dangerous criminals on to our streets. The Government’s answer is electronic tagging, but the National Audit Office has highlighted problems. First, staff have to review tag alerts. Only 10% to 50% of alerts result in breach notifications, and where outcomes are even recorded, nearly half result in no further action. Can she guarantee that in the next year, every tagging breach will come with consequences?
Mr Speaker
Order. This is a question about cells. [Interruption.] Well, you kind of threw something in, and I do not think it was quite relevant, to be honest. Just because you think so, does not mean that I accept it. We really have to stick to the question. Personally, I would have thought this would have been better in topicals.
I call the shadow Minister.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Rapid deployment cells are one option, but the question remains of why the Government are not making use of fully certified cells. HMP Millsike has an operational capacity of up to 1,500, but it has only 1,100 prisoners, due to staffing issues. Can the Minister guarantee that she will replace the 1,600 prison officers lost under Labour by next year?
Catherine McKinnell
About 80% of Millsike’s capacity is in use. Occupancy will continue to increase as and when that is appropriate and safe, and as and when we have the correct culture and processes established on the site. Clearly, this issue is pressing. We are working as hard as we can. We brought forward £110 million in investment to bring onsite any available space that is not currently in use. We will continue to do so, while making up for the staffing shortages that were left by the previous Government.
Victims and Courts Bill
Sarah Bool ExcerptsTuesday 20th May 2025
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Victims and Courts Act 2026 View all Victims and Courts Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I pay tribute to that powerful contribution from the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley). Our thoughts and prayers are with Liv’s family in the Gallery.
I truly welcome the provision of better information for victims of crime. It is essential that victims are at the heart of justice. As Baroness Newlove has said in regard to domestic abuse:
“Victims and survivors of domestic abuse must be able to trust in our criminal justice system—that it will provide a robust, trauma-informed response that prioritises their safety while holding perpetrators to account.”
We must ensure that victims feel not only that they will get justice, but that they can trust the system. We need to restore trust and confidence in our system.
I am glad to see that the Bill will bring more victims into the scope of the victim contact scheme. They must be given more information about an offender’s upcoming release and the discharge of licence conditions, and should be notified of key events, such as an offender’s transfer to an open prison. One of my constituents raised with me the case of a domestic abuse survivor who, along with her unborn child, survived an attempted murder by her ex-partner. Although he received an 18-year sentence in 2016, in March this year he was eligible for open prison placement four years early, and that was incredibly distressing. As they often say, perpetrators of domestic abuse know everything about their victims. They know where they live, where they work and where their children go to school. It is terrifying for victims to find that perpetrators are potentially being released early; they cannot prepare for that. I want parole boards involved in the decision to give an open prison placement to a domestic abuse offender, so that we can ensure that victims’ voices are heard.
It was said earlier that timely access to justice is key, but confidence is, too, and we must be careful about the language we use. We must ensure that all victims trust our legal system, and I fear that some discussions do more harm than good.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Bool Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
I am sorry to hear about that tragic case in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Encouraging or assisting suicide is an offence under the Suicide Act 1961, and sending communications that encourage or assist serious self-harm is an offence under the Online Safety Act 2023, but we are going to tighten up the law to address the situation that my hon. Friend has described. Of course, this is about not just the law, but the enforcement of the law as well.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Sarah Sackman
As the Lord Chancellor has said, our priority is delivering swifter justice for victims and bearing down on the Crown court backlog. That is why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to consider all options, which have to include reclassification of offences and the intermediate court. We have to have a whole-system reform, but I fear that if we were to exclude those options, we would not be gripping the problem.