This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/may/09/british-bill-of-rights-could-unravel-constitution-say-mps
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| British bill of rights could 'unravel' constitution, say MPs | British bill of rights could 'unravel' constitution, say MPs |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| The government’s proposed bill of rights will hamper the fight against crime, undermine the UK’s international moral authority and could start “unravelling” the constitution, a cross-party parliamentary committee is warning. | |
| A critical report by the House of Lords’ European Union justice sub-committee urges ministers to rethink plans to scrap the Human Rights Act and highlights fears expressed by the Irish government that the policy could damage the Northern Ireland peace process. | A critical report by the House of Lords’ European Union justice sub-committee urges ministers to rethink plans to scrap the Human Rights Act and highlights fears expressed by the Irish government that the policy could damage the Northern Ireland peace process. |
| Publication of the draft legislation, which is intended to replace the Human Rights Act, has been repeatedly delayed despite the bill of rights being a Conservative party manifesto pledge. It is now expected after the EU referendum. | Publication of the draft legislation, which is intended to replace the Human Rights Act, has been repeatedly delayed despite the bill of rights being a Conservative party manifesto pledge. It is now expected after the EU referendum. |
| While the justice secretary, Michael Gove, has implied the bill may not be as radical as originally envisaged, others fear that a vote to remain within the EU on 23 June could force Downing Street to appease disappointed Brexiters with a more substantial attack on the European court of human rights in Strasbourg. Last month the home secretary, Theresa May, a supporter of remaining in the EU, called for the UK to abandon the European convention of human rights. | While the justice secretary, Michael Gove, has implied the bill may not be as radical as originally envisaged, others fear that a vote to remain within the EU on 23 June could force Downing Street to appease disappointed Brexiters with a more substantial attack on the European court of human rights in Strasbourg. Last month the home secretary, Theresa May, a supporter of remaining in the EU, called for the UK to abandon the European convention of human rights. |
| “Were the UK to depart from the standards of human rights currently recognised within the EU,” the report states, “the system of mutual recognition which underpins EU justice and home affairs cooperation would be hampered by legal arguments over its application to the UK. | “Were the UK to depart from the standards of human rights currently recognised within the EU,” the report states, “the system of mutual recognition which underpins EU justice and home affairs cooperation would be hampered by legal arguments over its application to the UK. |
| During the course of the inquiry, the committee was shown a letter sent by the Irish justice minister, Frances Fitzgerald, to Gove asking him to give “the fullest consideration” to the provisions of the Good Friday agreement which requires the European human rights convention to be incorporated into Northern Irish law. | During the course of the inquiry, the committee was shown a letter sent by the Irish justice minister, Frances Fitzgerald, to Gove asking him to give “the fullest consideration” to the provisions of the Good Friday agreement which requires the European human rights convention to be incorporated into Northern Irish law. |
| Her letter added: “ … external supervision by the European court of human rights [in Strasbourg] has been an essential part of the peace process and anything that undermines this, or is perceived to undermine this, could have serious consequences for the operation of the Good Friday agreement.” | Her letter added: “ … external supervision by the European court of human rights [in Strasbourg] has been an essential part of the peace process and anything that undermines this, or is perceived to undermine this, could have serious consequences for the operation of the Good Friday agreement.” |
| Two former attorney-generals – Labour’s Lord Goldmsith and the Conservative Dominic Grieve – told the committee that a reduced commitment to the ECHR would undermine the UK’s standing within the Council of Europe and around the world. “It could also put the effective operation of the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires all contracting states to respect its obligations, in jeopardy,” the peers concluded. | Two former attorney-generals – Labour’s Lord Goldmsith and the Conservative Dominic Grieve – told the committee that a reduced commitment to the ECHR would undermine the UK’s standing within the Council of Europe and around the world. “It could also put the effective operation of the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires all contracting states to respect its obligations, in jeopardy,” the peers concluded. |
| If the UK did pull out of the Strasbourg court, the report noted, it would probably result in many more cases being taken on the basis of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg. | If the UK did pull out of the Strasbourg court, the report noted, it would probably result in many more cases being taken on the basis of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg. |
| The committee has four Labour members, three Conservatives, three cross-benchers and two Liberal Democrats. Labour peer Baroness Kennedy, who chairs the committee, said that government claims that the armed forces should be exempt from human rights challenges were misguided. | The committee has four Labour members, three Conservatives, three cross-benchers and two Liberal Democrats. Labour peer Baroness Kennedy, who chairs the committee, said that government claims that the armed forces should be exempt from human rights challenges were misguided. |
| “It’s not about clash of arms [on the battlefield],” she said. It was about ensuring good behaviour in peace-keeping roles. | “It’s not about clash of arms [on the battlefield],” she said. It was about ensuring good behaviour in peace-keeping roles. |
| She added: “Many witnesses thought that restricting the scope of the Human Rights Act would lead to an increase in reliance on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in UK courts, which has stronger enforcement mechanisms. This seemed to be a perverse consequence of a bill of rights intended to give human rights greater UK identity. | She added: “Many witnesses thought that restricting the scope of the Human Rights Act would lead to an increase in reliance on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in UK courts, which has stronger enforcement mechanisms. This seemed to be a perverse consequence of a bill of rights intended to give human rights greater UK identity. |
| “We heard evidence that the devolved administrations have serious concerns about the plans to repeal the Human Rights Act. If the devolved parliaments withheld their consent to a British bill of rights it might very well end up as an English bill of rights, not something we think the government would want to see. | “We heard evidence that the devolved administrations have serious concerns about the plans to repeal the Human Rights Act. If the devolved parliaments withheld their consent to a British bill of rights it might very well end up as an English bill of rights, not something we think the government would want to see. |
| “The more evidence we heard on this issue the more convinced we became that the government should think again about its proposals for a British bill of rights. The time is now right for it to do so.” | “The more evidence we heard on this issue the more convinced we became that the government should think again about its proposals for a British bill of rights. The time is now right for it to do so.” |