Scrap Bill of Rights Bill, Parliament report urges
The UK Government’s Bill of Rights Bill would be so damaging to human rights protection that it should be scrapped rather than reconsidered, a parliamentary committee has reported.
In a report published today, the Joint Committee on Human Rights concludes that the proposals, which involve replacing the Human Rights Act, would create large scale uncertainty and seriously damage people’s ability to enforce their rights.
Championed by Justice Secretary Dominic Raab as intended to curb what he claims to be an excessive number of legal challenges that waste the time of the courts, the bill is condemned by the committee as likely to seriously weaken the ability of individuals to seek redress for human rights breaches. It would create new barriers that would make it harder for people to enforce their rights, inside and outside court, and undermine the universality of human rights by making it more difficult for certain groups to bring cases.
In addition, requiring the courts to focus on the original text of the European Convention of Human Rights as it was adopted in the 1950s, rather than how it has developed to reflect human rights in the modern world, and removing the courts’ ability to read legislation so it is compatible with human rights, would deprive individuals of key protections and risk “dangerous uncertainty” by abandoning decades of important case law.
Obligations affected would include conducting effective investigations into the loss of life (as in the Hillsborough inquests) or into serial sexual offenders (as in the John Worboys case). The impact on the resources of public authorities would also become a factor, which the committee says would be likely to have an adverse impact on vulnerable individuals.
The committee concludes that the likely result of the bill would be more people having to go to the European Court of Human Rights to enforce their rights, and more adverse judgments being made against the UK.
The Bill would also instruct public authorities and courts to ignore interim measures ordered by the Strasbourg court, which could place individuals at serious risk and violate the UK’s international legal obligations.
As regards overseas military operations, the committee raises a concern that the bill will enable the Government to evade liability for human rights infringements committed during future operations, as it enables the Secretary of State to take the decision to do so if he is satisfied it is compliant with the Convention. The report argues that any such change in the law should be taken by Parliament, following full scrutiny.
Government v Parliament
Although the Government argues that the bill would “rebalance” the constitution and protect the sovereignty of Parliament, the report states that little in the bill strengthens Parliament’s role, and repealing the current obligation on ministers to make a statement of compatibility for all legislation relating to Convention rights would remove ”an effective measure that embeds human rights in Government decision-making and the legislative process”, helping to enable effective scrutiny.
A clause that would require courts to “give great weight” to protecting freedom of speech is likely to upset the balance with other Convention rights; and another clause specifically designed to protect deportation legislation from challenge as incompatible with the right to private and family life is “particularly concerning” in extinguishing that right in most cases, and probably incompatible with the Convention.
Given the centrality of human rights to the devolution settlements and the Good Friday Agreement, the committee also believes reform should not be pursued without the consent of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Committee chair Joanna Cherry KC MP commented: “Human rights are universal. A Bill of Rights should reaffirm and reinforce the fundamental rights that protect everyone in the UK, but this bill does nothing of the sort. Instead, it removes and restricts certain human rights protections that the Government finds inconvenient and prescribes a restrictive approach to the interpretation and application of the European Convention on Human Rights in the courts of our domestic legal systems.”
She added: “We have called on the Government to reconsider the vast majority of the clauses of the bill. However, there is such little appetite for these reforms and the impact is likely to be so damaging to human rights protection in the UK, it may be more sensible to scrap the bill in its entirety.”