This article is from the source 'independent' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
A Conservative government would not put up with European meddling on human rights rulings, says Justice Secretary
Human Rights Act: Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve rubbishes 'unworkable' Tory plans to scrap ECHR
(about 1 hour later)
A Tory government would deliver an ultimatum to European judges that Britain must be allowed to flout their human rights rulings - or it would quit the system.
The former Attorney General has laid waste to the Conservatives’ plan to scrap the Human Rights Act, calling their proposals “unworkable”.
Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said the “mission creep” by the Strasbourg courts had become intolerable and it would have to accept becoming an “advisory” body.
Dominic Grieve, who worked as a barrister before becoming a Tory MP, said the European convention enshrined in British law was “producing decisions of great importance in improving human rights which are inevitably ignored” by the new plans.
Mr Grayling fleshed out the Conservative position after David Cameron told the party's conference that he would no longer put up with meddling on issues such as whether prisoners should be able to vote.
In a shift to the right seen as an attempt to woo Ukip voters, the Prime Minister has spoken strongly in favour of a British “bill of rights”, claiming the country does not “require instruction from judges in Strasbourg”.
Under the proposals, the Human Rights Act introduced by Labour in 1998 to enshrine the European Convention on Human Rights in domestic law would be scrapped.
The Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, has drawn up proposals including principles originally drawn up by British lawyers after the Second World War ,to give ultimate power to the Supreme Court.
Instead there would be a Bill of Rights, which would include the principles from the convention - originally drawn up by British lawyers after the Second World War.
“We can no longer tolerate this mission creep,” he said. “What we have effectively got is a legal blank cheque, where the [European] court can go where it chooses to go.”
But it would also make clear that UK judges were not obliged to take European Court of Human Rights' rulings into account when coming to decisions.
But Mr Grieve said the paper produced contains a “number of howlers”, describing it as a “failure of ambition”.
The legislation would declare that the British Supreme Court was the “ultimate arbiter” on whether rights were being respected.
Chris Grayling,the Justice Secretary, is backing a British 'bill of rights' “I also think they are unworkable and will damage the UK’s international reputation,” he told the Guardian.
Mr Grayling said the legislation would also state that human rights laws could not be used in “trivial” cases, and remove barriers to deporting people who posed a threat to national security.
“The suggestion that they can be negotiated with the Council of Europe so that the UK has its own space where it can [take what it wants] while everyone else complies is almost laughable.”
“We can no longer tolerate this mission creep,” he said. “What we have effectively got is a legal blank cheque, where the court can go where it chooses to go.
Although Mr Grieve agreed with Conservative leaders that some judgements, including to give prisoners the vote, were wrong, he said the latest document “lacked any maturity”.
”We will put in place a provision that will say that the rulings of Strasbourg will not have legal effect in the UK without the consent of parliament.
He was sacked from the post he held for four years in July after angering right-wing Tories by repeatedly warning of the danger of withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
“Effectively what we are doing is turning Strasbourg into an advisory body.”
In his speech pledging to scrap it, Mr Cameron citied examples including court battles to deport suspected terrorists and concerning the Afghanistan War to make his case.
The Cabinet minister said a draft bill would be published before Christmas, ready for introduction early in the next parliament.
The ECHR delayed the deportation of radical Muslim cleric Abu Qatada, angering the Government He added: “With a Conservative government after the next election, this country will have a new British Bill of Rights to be passed in our Parliament, rooted in our values.”
“You then have a period of time - up to 18 months for a major Bill to go through parliament - in that time we will basically have a perfectly constructive discussion with our partners, in the Council of Europe and with those who run the courts.
Labour has spoken out against the plans, as well as human rights organisations including Liberty and Amnesty UK, which called them “nasty, spiteful and shameful”.
“We will say we're going to do things differently. This is what our new arrangements are going to look like. We will continue to adhere to the basic principles of human rights in the original convention.
Tim Hancock, campaigns director of Amnesty UK, added: “This is electioneering on the backs of Europe's most vulnerable.
“We hope you can accept this. If you don't accept it or you can't accept it then we will withdraw from the (convention).”
“Under these plans human rights would be reserved for only those people the Government decides should get them. This is a blueprint for human rights you would expect from a country like Belarus.
Mr Grayling said if it came to it, the UK would stay within international law by withdrawing from the convention “in parallel with the introduction of the new Bill”.
“We should all be worried when politicians try to set themselves above the law.”
He dismissed concerns - shared by some Tories including former attorney general Dominic Grieve - that leaving the convention would be highly damaging to the UK's reputation.
Adam Wagner, a human rights barrister, said the plans are in "clear breach" of the UK's international legal obligations that it largely created.
Mr Grayling said: “If the best in the class is saying this doesn't work then I'm not sure the problem is with us.
"Limiting the application of human rights law to 'serious' cases and making them subject to 'civic responsibilities' is really a way to restrict rights to people the Government likes," he added.
“It is not us that have changed the way the convention works. What we signed up to in the 1940s is just as relevant now as it was then.
"Rights will be rebalanced to fit with the ideological leanings of one section of the Tory party."
“But it has moved into a whole range of areas that are not fine.”
Additional reporting by PA
He said he “did not buy” the idea that Britain would put itself in line with Belarus if it left the convention.
He added: “We are and we will continue to be world leaders in the way we manage human rights and the way we deal with human rights.”
Shami Chakrabarti, director of campaign group Liberty, said: “So finally the cards are on the table - and what a hand has been played. As legally illiterate as politically provocative, this plan would gamble with our fragile Union and put us in breach of international law. This so-called British Bill of Rights would diminish everyone's freedoms and make Government even less accountable in the future.”
Shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan said there were “so many contradictions, inaccuracies and myths” in the proposal, it could only have been “cobbled together on the back of an envelope”.
The Labour MP went on: “Once again, David Cameron is pandering to Ukip instead of standing up for the rights and best interests of the people of Britain.
”The truth is that our courts have been free to interpret rulings by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) for 50 years - the Human Rights Act did nothing to change that fact.
“The European Court of Human Rights does need reform, which is why Labour has called for Strasbourg to do more to improve the quality of its judges and apply 'the margin of appreciation', giving member states the wriggle room to interpret decisions appropriately.
“But leaving the ECHR, which the Tories appear to be proposing, would be a disaster for this country - putting Britain in the same bracket as Belarus, Europe's last remaining dictatorship.”
Sean Humber, head of the human rights team at law firm Leigh Day, said it was “intellectually dishonest” to imply that scrapping the Human Rights Act would reduce the UK's human rights obligations as it would still be signed up to, and obliged to comply with, the European Convention on Human Rights.
He went on: “However, and entirely cynically, by abolishing the Act and replacing it with some watered-down inferior imitation, the Conservatives would make it much harder for victims to enforce their human rights as they would then need to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
“What is so wrong with wanting to live in a country where you have internationally recognised basic and fundamental rights by virtue of your existence as a human being that can be upheld by an independent judiciary and which an over-zealous state cannot take away? Is this not a concept that Conservatives hold dear?”
Tim Hancock, campaigns director of Amnesty UK, said: “These proposals are nasty, spiteful and shameful. This is electioneering on the backs of Europe's most vulnerable.
”Under these plans human rights would be reserved for only those people the Government decides should get them. This is a blueprint for human rights you would expect from a country like Belarus.
“We should all be worried when politicians try to set themselves above the law.
“It's a complete disgrace to see the government blackmail the Council of Europe.”
