The Deputy Prime Minister ()
We strived to make sure we kept within the trammels of what had
been in the consultation document, but I heed your advice as
ever, Mr Speaker.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the
publication and introduction of a UK Bill of Rights as we take
the next steps to fulfil our manifesto commitment and deliver
human rights reform across the country.
We have a proud tradition of freedom under the rule of law in
this country, and I remind hon. Members on both sides of the
House that it dates back centuries to Magna Carta, not just to
1998. This Bill of Rights, published today, is the next chapter
in the evolution and strengthening of our human rights framework,
and it is available online and in the Vote Office.
I now turn to the key strands of our reforms. First, as I said
when we launched the consultation back in December, the UK
intends to remain a state party to the European convention on
human rights. It is a set of common-sense principles, and the
problems we have encountered stem from its elastic interpretation
and expansion, absent meaningful democratic oversight,
particularly as a result of the procedural framework set out in
the Human Rights Act.
The key objective of our reform is to reinforce quintessential UK
rights such as freedom of speech, the liberty that guards all the
others. We will also recognise the role of jury trials, mindful
of how they operate in different parts of the United Kingdom.
Jury trials are not prevalent on the continent, but they are very
much part of this country’s heritage and pedigree. These
liberties are part of our proud history, but they are also
critical to strengthening our place in the world as an open,
vibrant and rambunctious democracy.
We will also strengthen the separation of powers in this country,
affirming the supremacy of the Supreme Court and making it
explicit that UK courts are under no obligation to follow
Strasbourg case law and, indeed, are free to diverge from it. I
am proud of our world-beating judiciary, and what is the point of
a Supreme Court if it bows in subordination to a European court?
We have seen the goalposts on human rights shift over time
through expanded judicial interpretations, licensed by the Human
Rights Act, which has tended to magnify overweening rulings from
Strasbourg, although it is worth noting in fairness that there
has been more judicial restraint in Strasbourg on occasion in
recent times. Nevertheless, what ebbs may flow, and we will
ensure in our Bill of Rights that any expansion of human rights
law—as opposed to its interpretation—is subject to proper
democratic oversight by elected Members in this House. Our
reforms to sections 2 and 3 of the Human Rights Act in particular
will squarely address the flaws in the current framework.
We will be crystal clear that when it comes to the laws of the
land, and the legitimate, necessary and constructive dialogue we
have with Strasbourg, it is Parliament that has the last word.
Much has been said by the judiciary in Strasbourg about an age of
subsidiarity, with greater respect for the will of domestic
democratic institutions, particularly since the 2012 Brighton
declaration, which the UK spearheaded to promote reform. Our
approach is crafted with that in mind in order to facilitate that
dialogue between the UK and Strasbourg, and to avail ourselves of
the margin of appreciation within the bounds of the convention.
Equally, as a matter of basic democratic principle, we will
reaffirm and reinforce the democratic oversight and control
exercised by this House.
Our Bill of Rights sets out a range of important reforms,
including a permissions stage in the UK courts to assert greater
checks over frivolous claims at an earlier stage, reflecting the
Strasbourg Court itself, which has an admissibility stage. We
have included provision to ensure that the behaviour of anyone
claiming a breach of their human rights is taken into account
when our courts consider compensation; it is a principle of law
in this country that those who come into equity do so with clean
hands, and I think that should be reflected in human rights
claims.
We will expressly provide for greater weight to be given to
Parliament’s determination of the public interest, as set out in
primary legislation, when considering the interpretation of
rights in order to ensure that we are better equipped to protect
the public. That will reinforce our ability to, for example,
deport more foreign national offenders, particularly those
claiming ever more elastic interpretations of article 8 on the
right to family life to frustrate the deportation process.
Our Bill of Rights will ensure that we can deliver our reforms to
the parole system, so that when it comes to finely balanced
assessments of risk in decisions on the release of potentially
dangerous offenders, public protection is the overriding
priority. It will also prevent well-meaning but
counter-productive and onerous straitjacket regulatory burdens
from being placed on our public services as a result of rulings
determined by lawyers in court rather than regulation on such
sensitive matters being set by elected lawmakers in this House.
That is particularly important with respect to finely balanced
assessments of social policy, and matters with a financial
impact—the bread-and-butter issues that it is for this Parliament
to decide.
We have consulted and engaged widely across the whole United
Kingdom, and will continue to do so. This is a UK-wide reform,
but we want to work with all the devolved Administrations on
these essential reforms, so we will be seeking legislative
consent motions—noting, nevertheless, the status of the Human
Rights Act as a “protected enactment” under the devolution
settlements, meaning that reform, replacement or revision can
take place only from Westminster.
Our Bill of Rights will strengthen our proud tradition of
freedom, demarcate a clearer separation of powers, ensure greater
respect for our democratic institutions, better protect the
public, and restore a healthy dose of common sense to the justice
system, which is essential for commanding greater public
confidence. Ultimately, it will make us freer and help to keep
our streets safer. I commend this statement to the House.
12:43:00
(Lewisham West and Penge)
(Lab)
I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our
deepest condolences to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon
North (), who, following the death of
his father last week, cannot be here today.
This is a very dark day for victims of crime, for women, for
people in care—for everyone in this country who relies on the
state to protect them from harm. This is not a Bill of Rights; it
is a con. The Lord Chancellor knows this because he has been
working on it for more than a decade. We know from the Queen’s
Speech that the Bill will take away the duty of the state to
protect everyone from harm by removing the positive obligations
set out in the Human Rights Act. It will force victims of crime
seeking justice to schlep to Strasbourg, creating endless delays
and red tape.
Sir Peter Gross and the review panel do not think the Human
Rights Act undermines parliamentary sovereignty or that the UK
courts are undermined by the European Court, so why proceed with
this Bill? Because this Government look to pick a fight to cover
up their own failures, and then find someone else to blame. We
have seen a succession of Conservative Members blame the European
Court to deflect from their bungled and unworkable asylum policy.
Shamefully, some have even demanded that the UK withdraw
altogether from the European convention on human rights. For
members of the party of Churchill, who inspired the convention,
to want to do away with it altogether is quite something. I
gather that the Deputy Prime Minister does not want to withdraw
from the European convention, not least because he knows it would
fatally undermine the Good Friday agreement and peace in Northern
Ireland, so will he condemn members of his own party who have
made that dangerous and reckless demand?
Labour Members are proud of the gift that Churchill gave to the
world in the universal declaration and in the European convention
that followed, but we are prouder still that it was a Labour
Government who, in 1998, brought rights home from Strasbourg. The
Human Rights Act is held up around the world as an exemplar of
modern human rights legislation, which is why the European Court
very rarely overrules our judges, as the review panel recognised
in its report. It is a beacon of hope for people in countries
where basic human rights are trampled over by strongmen and
dictators. There is no better example than Ukraine, where the
rights of millions are being crushed under the jackboot of
Vladimir Putin. What stunning hypocrisy from this Government to
preach to others about the importance of defending rights abroad
while snatching away British people’s rights at home. This is a
Government gimmick by a party that seeks headlines for botched
policies and then blames others when they fail.
The answer to fixing the mess that this Conservative Government
have made of the immigration and asylum system is not to take
away British people’s rights given to them by the Human Rights
Act. That Act has allowed people to object when doctors put “do
not resuscitate” orders on their bed without their consent. It
has allowed people with learning disabilities imprisoned in
locked units to be reunited with their families. It has allowed
families affected by major disasters such as Manchester or
Hillsborough to seek justice when public bodies have let them
down. It has allowed elderly married couples in residential care
to object when care home managers try to separate them, and it
has allowed victims of rapists such as John Worboys to force the
police to investigate cases of rape.
This Bill of Rights con is not just an attack on victims of crime
whom the state has failed to protect; it is an attack on women.
Women have used the Human Rights Act to challenge the police when
they have either failed or refused to investigate rape and sexual
assault cases. We saw that in the case of John Worboys, who is
thought to have assaulted more than 150 women. It should come as
no surprise that this Bill has been brought forward by a
Conservative Government who have effectively decriminalised rape.
[Interruption.] Last week’s scorecard showed pitiful progress on
the record low—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. People who have been wanting to catch my eye will not do
it by shouting when somebody is speaking.
Last week’s scorecard showed pitiful progress on the record low
rate of convictions under this Government. The typical wait for
cases to complete in court has reached three years, and a fifth
have seen waits of four years—and that is if the case even gets
to court. The number of rape trials postponed at a day’s notice
in our Crown courts has risen fourfold. It is no wonder that rape
survivors are dropping out of their cases in droves. Will victims
even bother to report their case at all when they learn that the
Deputy Prime Minister’s Bill of Rights will stop them forcing our
under-resourced police to investigate? It says everything about a
Lord Chancellor and a Government who are soft on rape, soft on
rapists and hard on survivors, that they want to take away the
final backstop available to victims to get justice. Women will be
in no doubt that this is a Government who let off rapists and let
survivors down, and today is the proof.
The Bill will see enormous amounts of red tape for victims of
crime seeking justice. It is an attack on women and it undermines
peace in Northern Ireland. It is the hallmark of a party out of
ideas that can no longer govern.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say to the Front Benchers that there are times
given, so can we please stick to them? I do not want to stop
Ministers or shadow Ministers, but I will in future. You must
stick to the allocated time.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I join the hon. Lady in what she said about the hon. Member for
Croydon North (). I extend my sympathy and my
condolences to him.
I listened very carefully to what the shadow Justice Minister
said. I think I disagreed with everything she said, but then
again, she said very little about our Bill of Rights. When she
gets a chance to read it, I look forward to debating it with her
further. May I just correct a couple of the obviously flawed
things she said? She talked about whether or not we will leave
the European convention on human rights. When she gets a chance
to read the Bill of Rights, she will see that not only are we
staying a part of the ECHR, but that it is incorporated in the
Bill of Rights. I have to say that the comparison with what
Russia or Putin does shows, I am afraid, a lack of a moral
compass on the Labour Benches, not the Conservative Benches.
The hon. Lady then diverted into a monologue on a very serious
subject in relation to rape. Let us be absolutely crystal clear:
there is absolutely nothing in the Bill of Rights that will do
anything to weaken the protections of victims; far from it in
relation to the deportation of foreign national criminals, the
release of dangerous rapists, and what we do inside our prisons.
It will strengthen our protection of victims and public
protection. Again, for the record, on such a serious issue—I
agree with the hon. Lady on its importance—she might get her
facts straight. The volume of rape convictions has increased by
two thirds in the last year alone. I am working very closely with
the Home Secretary, the Attorney General and the Director of
Public Prosecutions, and we are absolutely determined and
restless to go even further and faster.
I suspect, however, that that was really a distraction from the
fundamental issue, which is the Bill of Rights and human rights
reform to get the right balance. The hon. Lady and the Labour
party are blind to the flaws in the Human Rights Act in the way
that its architects are not. said back in 2007 that he wanted
to rebalance the rights set out in the Act, adding explicitly
that responsibilities should play a role. They are all in here in
our Bill of Rights. He went on to say, in an interview in
December 2008, that
“There is a sense that it’s a villains’ charter”.
Mr Speaker, I have not used that language, but I will just say
how far the sense of critical self-evaluation on the Labour
Benches has gone when the hon. Lady cannot talk about anything
that could possibly be reformed.
The model we have taken is based on a textbook that I read back
in 1999, written by a very learned authority. He said, on the
relationship between the UK and Strasbourg—the hon. Lady
mentioned that, not with any specific points—that the role of the
Strasbourg Court is
“primarily concerned with supervision and its role is therefore
subsidiary to that of domestic authorities”.
Subsidiary, not superior. It has no role unless the domestic
system for protecting human rights breaks down altogether.
[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar () asks from a
sedentary position who the author is. It was the leader of the
Labour party, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and
St Pancras (), in his seminal textbook on
the subject. All I would gently say is that I think he made a
more convincing lawyer than he does a politician.
This week we have seen Labour shadow Ministers line up with
picketers against the public. Today, the shadow Justice Minister
has confirmed that the Labour party will stand in the way of our
common-sense reforms that will ensure a better balance of human
rights, so that we can stand up for victims—it is always against
that when it comes to sentencing or extra police
recruitment—deport more foreign national offenders and safely
incarcerate the most dangerous people in our prisons. Whenever
Labour Members are asked the big questions, they duck. Yet again,
the Labour party is showing it is simply not fit to govern.
(Wellingborough) (Con)
Thank you for your statement earlier, Mr Speaker. I think the
vast majority of Members of this House agree entirely.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his statement. The issue
is really very simple: this sovereign Parliament makes laws and
our courts interpret them. We should not have the judicial creep
of a European Court not interpreting laws, but making new laws. I
am willing to support the Bill, but if in practice it fails, will
the Secretary of State be willing to support my private Member’s
Bill, the British Bill of Rights and Withdrawal from the European
Convention on Human Rights Bill?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his tenacity in all these matters. I
always listen to him, and I will study his private Member’s Bill.
He makes two points. First, there is really no point in having a
Supreme Court if it is subordinate to Strasbourg in the
interpretation of law. He must be right about that, and our Bill
of Rights will expressly address it.
My hon. Friend’s other point is more subtle, but very powerful. I
remember our jointly participating in many debates on prisoners’
voting rights, a very clear example of the goalposts shifting.
When it comes to legislative functions, it ought to be a point of
common agreement across the parties that those matters must be
for hon. Members, who are accountable to our constituents, to
decide in this House.
Mr Speaker
I call the SNP spokesperson.
(Glasgow North East)
(SNP)
This Bill of Rights and the removal of the Human Rights Act are
the culmination of multiple pieces of legislation that have gone
through this place in the past year. They are all about one
thing: removing human rights from human beings. First, the
Government came for the refugees with the Nationality and Borders
Act 2022; they told them that their lives did not count.
Secondly, they came for those who need to question decisions made
about their lives by public bodies, including this Government;
the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 stopped them being
effectively able to do that. Then they went for the voters with
the Elections Act 2022, and what do you know? The voters they
were targeting were the ones least likely to vote
Conservative—the sensible ones, in other words.
The Government then went after the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller
communities with the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act
2022. They told them that their way of life was
unacceptable—well, it is not unacceptable to us. When the
Government did not get their way on public order with that Bill,
they repackaged it and brought it back in the Public Order Bill,
which will take away the rights of anybody to fight for the
rights of anybody else. Who would go to a protest when they could
be stopped and searched without any suspicion?
It is all about one thing: removing human rights from human
beings. This policy, the culmination of it all, is about removing
everybody’s human rights. Human rights are not about one group of
people, the group the Secretary of State likes to pick on; they
are about everybody living on these islands.
I will ask three quick questions and leave the rest to my
colleagues. First, why is there a lack of prelegislative
scrutiny? What are the Government so afraid of? Secondly, why is
the Secretary of State telling people that this policy will bring
rights home, when it will actually force people to go to
Strasbourg to get justice? Finally, the Scottish and Welsh
Governments have made it clear that they are completely against
the policy in its entirety. We have a tale of two countries:
Scotland is embedding human rights law in all its legislation,
while this Government are stripping it away completely. How would
the Secretary of State advise the people of Scotland who want to
retain human rights law in their legislation to vote in next
year’s independence referendum—yes or no?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady, but clearly I disagree. First, no country
has been more big-hearted when it comes to those fleeing
persecution, from Hong Kong British nationals overseas to the
17,000 who were evacuated out of Afghanistan and the 125,000-plus
visas in relation to Ukraine. The hon. Lady talks about standing
up for those people; when our Prime Minister addressed the
Ukraine Parliament, Union Jacks were flying and people were
singing “God Save the Queen” in towns and villages across the
country.
When it comes to protecting human rights, we should be
big-hearted, but we should also stop the trade in human misery
across the channel, which is a real threat to human rights. We
should also make sure that we stand up for victims—the hon. Lady
does not seem to care too much about that—in relation to the
deportation of foreign national offenders. That is something that
I think the people of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern
Ireland all agree on. Why would the hon. Lady not support
common-sense reforms and a rebalancing of the system to allow us
to stand up for victims, stand up for the public and remove
serious foreign criminals?
Sir (South Swindon) (Con)
I welcome this statement, which builds on the work that I and Sir
Peter Gross did with his important review. Sir Peter’s balanced
committee did not say that all was well with the Human Rights Act
1998. There were issues to be dealt with, and in accordance with
our manifesto commitment to update the Act, the Bill of Rights is
timely. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that, over and above
domestic action that we can take to reform and improve
legislation, there is a strong case for international work to be
done—on the same basis as the work we did in Brighton 10 years
ago—in order to deal with issues such as extraterritorial
jurisdiction? That is a common concern not just in this country,
but among our judges and many other member states of the Council
of Europe.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend for the
painstaking groundwork he did in the Ministry of Justice, and to
Sir Peter Gross and his panel. All that work substantially
influenced the shape of the reforms that we are able to announce
today; they would not have been possible without the hard work
that my right hon. and learned Friend put in. He is right to
point to the 2012 Brighton declaration, because the Strasbourg
Court under Róbert Spanó—its latest President, who is
Icelandic—has talked about shifting from an age of a living
instrument to an age of subsidiarity. People talk about our
relationship, and it is important that we stick to the
convention, but it is also important that the European Court
follows its own strictures.
My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned extraterritorial
jurisdiction. I will certainly follow up on his advice, as the
issue is also addressed in the Bill of Rights. Again, I thank him
for his contribution.
(Stretford and Urmston)
(Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister is right about the priority that must
be given to public protection, but may I urge him to proceed with
care in reforming parole arrangements? Ministers have already
taken measures that will give them a veto over the transfer of
prisoners serving indeterminate sentences to open conditions, and
he will know that there are real concerns that, as well as being
procedurally unfair, such measures may increase the risk to
public protection. Will he reassure the House that he will make
public protection a priority over political gimmickry?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for what she has said. I certainly agree
that public protection is our overriding concern. The proposals
for parole reform that we have published for consultation make it
clear that, in the context of convicted murderers, rapists,
terrorists and child killers, we want to ensure that there is a
ministerial check in finely balanced cases where there is genuine
risk to the public and to public confidence but it is hard to
predict. If we agree on the principle of putting public
protection first, I hope she will agree that that should command
cross-party support.
Dame (South Northamptonshire)
(Con)
I am frankly disgusted by what the shadow Minister had to say. To
suggest that right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative
Benches would be soft on rapists—she sits there shaking her head
now—is a shameful thing to say, and it undermines women’s
confidence in our judicial system across this country. Does my
right hon. Friend agree that, given the centuries of experience
in our UK judicial system, we can be incredibly confident that it
is able to represent the interests of everybody in this country?
Does he share my sadness that so many on the Opposition Benches
would throw away our sovereignty to anyone else who would have
it?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. She is right that
there never seems to be an opportunity to throw away the powers
and authority that we have in this House that the Opposition do
not grasp with total alacrity.
Rape is such a sensitive issue, and we have seen convictions
increase by two thirds. There is a whole range of other work,
including Operation Soteria, pre-recorded witness evidence under
section 28, and the disclosure reforms that my hon. Friend the
Member for Louth and Horncastle () is looking at. We ought
to be trying to build on the progress that we have made, not do
it down, because that is the stuff that undermines women’s
confidence in the justice system. We know there is a longer
road—[Interruption.] Hold on. We know that there is much more to
do, but that work is not going to get done with the hyperbolic
language used by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge
().
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Select Committee, .
(Edinburgh South West)
(SNP)
As acting Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I wish to
remind the Secretary of State that we have completed two
in-depth, unanimous cross-party reports, which concluded that the
Human Rights Act is working well and does not need to be repealed
or replaced. Indeed, that was the conclusion of the independent
review, which the Secretary of State commissioned and then
ignored.
When we visited Strasbourg last week, we were told that UK
Government Ministers have given repeated assurances that the UK
will remain in the ECHR, and I was pleased to hear the Secretary
of State reiterate that assurance this morning. However, the
Prime Minister did make some veiled threats in the opposite
direction last week. If we are to stay in the ECHR, it needs to
be done with integrity. We cannot pick and choose which
convention rights we want to observe or for whom we want to
observe them. Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the
United Kingdom’s disengagement from the ECHR—make no mistake, Mr
Speaker, that is what this Bill is about—risks giving
encouragement to populist Governments in eastern Europe who have
scant regard for human rights or, indeed, the rule of law?
The Deputy Prime Minister
No, I am afraid I do not agree with the hon. and learned Lady,
not least because I do not see how she can sustain the argument
that we are dislocating ourselves when not only are we remaining
a state party, but it is in the Bill of Rights as well.
I pay tribute to the work of the hon. and learned Lady’s
Committee. I appeared in front of the JCHR on 8 December. The
noble appeared on 2 February, and I
am attending again on 20 July. We will pay great respect to the
role of the Joint Committee, but, of course, we know that there
are likely to be objections and we will try to assuage those held
by her and her members as best we can.
(Stone) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be many who will
be extremely glad that he has now introduced his Bill of Rights?
It means, as he said just now, that our Parliament and our judges
will have the last word. We look forward to seeing the text of
the Bill, and we trust that it will ensure that the European
Court in Strasbourg will never again be able to frustrate the
United Kingdom’s right to deport illegal immigrants and, at the
same time, override our own judges.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the long-standing work that
he has done, on the constitutional dimension in particular. I can
give him the direct assurance—I have a copy of the Bill of Rights
here and it is also available in the House—that we address
squarely the issue that he raises. We want to make sure that
elected Members from both sides of the House have the last word
when it comes to resetting or expanding the laws of this land.
(Hammersmith) (Lab)
This morning, the distinguished legal commentator, Joshua
Rozenberg, summed up this Bill not as the biggest constitutional
tour de force in more than 300 years or the apex of the Justice
Secretary’s career, but as a ragbag of restrictions. It will
undoubtedly cause harm to many thousands of our citizens,
especially those who are the most vulnerable and have suffered
discrimination by an unchecked state. It will also cause harm to
this country’s hard-won reputation as a champion of international
law. As a constitutional document, is it not a damp squib and a
legal nonsense that sets up confusion and conflict between
domestic and European courts?
The Deputy Prime Minister
May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman, of whom I am quite fond
and with whom I have debated these issues many times, it cannot
be both ripping up human rights and a damp squib? May I suggest
that he reads what people have to say on this—including Jonathan
Fisher QC, who has written a very thoughtful piece about reform;
Lord Sumption, a former justice of the Supreme Court; and John
Larkin, a former Attorney General in Northern Ireland? He might
get a slightly more sober analysis.
(Newbury) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the letter that he wrote to the
Justice Committee this morning. In it, he said “The Bill will
prevent human rights from being used as a way to bring claims on
overseas military operations”, but does he recall that some of
the gravest crimes of the Iraq war were revealed only through
recourse to the Human Rights Act, enforced in our domestic
courts? I think particularly of the systematic torture of
detainees by British soldiers in Basra which was revealed in the
Baha Mousa case only because of the Human Rights Act, after the
Ministry of Defence had declined to investigate. Can he provide
reassurances to the House that the new Bill of Rights will not
operate to suppress such serious human rights abuses coming to
light in the future?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I understand my hon. Friend’s point. Of course, we need to have
proper accountability when anything goes wrong. The
professionalism of our armed forces is second to none, but
mistakes can happen and there needs to be accountability. The
reality is that we have the international law of armed conflict,
which is designed to do that. It has been unhelpful, and indeed
has created legal uncertainty, to layer an extra tier of human
rights obligations on top of that. It has created uncertainty as
to the state of the law, and huge uncertainty for our armed
forces. We will make sure that there is the accountability that
she seeks, but we will also deal with the extraterritorial
jurisdiction, which, frankly, has encouraged litigation and many
spurious claims, as well as the ones that she mentioned.
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
Paragraph 2 of the human rights chapter of the Good Friday
agreement provides that
“The British Government will complete incorporation into Northern
Ireland law of the European Convention on Human Rights…with
direct access to the courts, and remedies for breach of the
Convention”.
Can the Justice Secretary tell the House whether the Bill
constitutes a unilateral repudiation of that, or is that
something that he has negotiated with the Government of Ireland?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is wrong, although he is right to
reference the Belfast agreement. We remain a state party to the
convention. Not only that, but the ECHR remains incorporated into
UK law through the schedule. [Interruption.] He is chuntering
from a sedentary position; I genuinely enjoy debating these
issues, as we have on many occasions. If he reads the Bill, I
will be very happy to address any other questions he has.
(South Holland and The Deepings)
(Con)
The Secretary of State and Attorney General are to be commended
for taking seriously the task of taking back control of our
ancient legal entitlements from unelected, unaccountable foreign
judges, and of rooting them in the people’s Parliament here in
Westminster. In doing so, will he challenge the assumptions that
underpin the Human Rights Act, which are that rights are more
important than responsibilities and that injury to interest is
more important than duty? That is the fundamental issue. Will he
challenge and, at last, dock the long tail of Blairism?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for, as ever, the colourful and
eloquent way that he presents the issue. When it comes to
collective interest, social policy and finely balanced judgments
around public protection, I do think that adjudication in court
by lawyers, rather than a broader discussion and debate among
elected Members of Parliament accountable to their citizens, is a
mistake. We will protect the fundamental freedoms that make this
country great—they existed long before the Human Rights Act and
they will exist long after. He is right about the balance between
protecting individual liberty and freedom under the rule of law,
of which I am immensely proud, and making sure that elected
Members of this House can protect the public, take finely
balanced judgments on social policy, and take judgments that
affect the public purse.
(Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of our constituents have seen the benefits of human rights,
such as the bereaved unmarried widows who had to take the
Government to court to make sure that their children were not
ignored when it came to pensions, or the women in Northern
Ireland who are counting on us to support the statutory
instrument to make sure that they have the human right to choose
what happens to their own body and to have an abortion. They will
be reassured by the Deputy Prime Minister saying that we will
remain signatories to the European convention. Can he confirm to
his colleagues, who might want to think about the implications of
that, that because we will remain signatories and bound by the
convention, the European Court of Human Rights will remain the
ultimate judicial decision maker on human rights in this country?
He is not getting rid of Europe; he is just wasting our time.
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is right about the first point, but wrong about the
second. That is clear from the Bill of Rights.
(Haltemprice and Howden)
(Con)
My right hon. Friend started by talking about the 2012
declaration on subsidiarity. He will remember that that flowed
directly from action in this Chamber to push back against
prisoner votes, of which I think he was a major part. We have not
seen the detail of this Bill of Rights, but there are two
Conservative tests for it. First, the Conservatives do not
believe in an overmighty state, therefore the state has to be
curbed by an independent body. Secondly, our fundamental
freedoms, such as free speech, jury trial or, as my hon. Friend
the Member for Newbury () mentioned, freedom from
torture, are not the gift of the state but the birth right of our
citizens. As such, they all have to be protected by powers vested
in an independent judiciary. At the end of the day, the test will
be whether the Bill of Rights delivers better protection for
those things than the European process.
The Deputy Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is too generous: he was really the architect
of the campaign to defend this House’s prerogative to decide on
prisoner voting. Interestingly, he did that with , the architect of the Human
Rights Act, but my right hon. Friend is right to say that it was
this House that pushed back in 2012 and sought the Government to
ensure that the Strasbourg Court was reflecting and following its
mandate, which was at the heart of the Brighton declaration
process.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in his tests, and I hope
I can reassure him on this. When he gets a chance, as I know he
will, to study carefully the Bill of Rights, which is now
available, he will see that our fundamental freedoms are not
being trashed, but that they are being preserved and safeguarded.
He will see that judicial independence is being strengthened,
because the Supreme Court in this country ought to have the last
word, to cherish and nurture this country’s common law tradition,
which is ancient.
Finally, my right hon. Friend missed one point, but I hope he
agrees with me on this. In broader terms, beyond individual
rights, there is a whole realm of public policy—whether it
reflects collective interest, social policy, the public purse or
public protection—on which it must be this House and its elected
Members, who are responsible to our constituents, who have the
final word.
(Huddersfield)
(Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State share with me the level of support he
has for this legislation from the people who will make it
work—the lawyers, judges and other professionals? I am not a
lawyer, but because I have campaigned with the hon. Member for
Bromley and Chislehurst ( ) on miscarriages of justice, I
have mixed with a lot of lawyers; I have to say that I am worried
about the number of lawyers who do not understand the reason for
the Bill at this moment.
There have been three Queen’s Speeches with a promise for a royal
commission into the justice system, but that has never appeared;
it has not gone anywhere. The last thing I want the Secretary of
State to remember is that the justice system is in a mess. The
barristers are on strike, we cannot get criminal lawyers to
represent anyone and the fact is that the Department of Justice
has had the biggest cut in budget since 2010 of any Department.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I enjoy engaging with the hon. Gentleman, but he is simply wrong.
We have had the biggest increase for over a decade in the
spending review, so he is simply wrong on the facts, but I am
happy to write to him on that.
On lawyers, of course different lawyers will take different
views, but I do not think there are any greater authorities than
Lord Sumption, the former justice of the Supreme Court, or
Jonathan Fisher QC— [Interruption.] He is shaking his head, but
he has just asked me to point him in the direction of some
lawyers and I am giving him the most authoritative ones that have
recently written on this subject. Jonathan Fisher has written
about this today, and there is also John Larkin, the former
Attorney General for Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman
peruses those opinions and that recent commentary, he might get
the reassurance and clarity he needs.
(Wokingham) (Con)
This Parliament is the main guarantor of our rights and
liberties; it created them in battles over many centuries for the
benefit of us all. Would not this great role be strengthened if
our Supreme Court were indeed supreme and not answerable to
foreign courts that do not understand the mood of the British
people and what they expect of their legislators?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I know that when he
gets a chance to peruse the proposals, he will find those
principles and that spirit reflected in the Bill of Rights, and I
look forward to discussing these matters with him further.
(Eltham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has asserted that 70% of successful human
rights challenges are brought by foreign nationals who cite a
right to family life in the first instance when appealing
deportation orders. Can he give the House the source of that
assertion?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The consultation document gives hon. Members the precise source;
it was published back in December.
(Ashford) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on resisting the siren voices
in this House and outside telling him to withdraw from the
European convention on human rights altogether. His decision to
stay in it is in the best traditions of pragmatic, sensible, one
nation Conservatism. Will he also confirm that the permission
test he talked about to stop frivolous uses of human rights
legislation simply inserts into the British courts a right
already available to the Strasbourg Court under article 35 of the
convention?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is correct on all those points. This is a
principled and pragmatic reform. It retains membership of the
European convention. I have heard various arguments against that,
but looking at what we would gain from leaving the ECHR, because
of the UN convention against torture, which we are party to, and
various other conventions, it would not solve all the problems.
It is not the magic wand that some people suggest it is; I say
that with great respect. We have made sure that within the bounds
of the convention we can get the maximum leeway—the maximum
marginal appreciation—in the way that my right hon. Friend the
Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) suggested.
On the permissions test, it is extraordinary that people have
criticised doing something that the Strasbourg Court itself does.
Making sure that whether they are trivial or frivolous claims, we
have a filter early on to make sure that there is significant
disadvantage, would, I think, just feel to many of our
constituents like old-fashioned common sense.
(Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
(PC)
The UK Government’s scrapping of the Human Rights Act shows a
callous disregard not only for the essential universality of
human rights but for devolution in Wales too. The Human Rights
Act is woven directly into Wales’s constitutional settlement.
Changes to the Act will undermine our efforts to promote human
rights and equality. When—when, not if—Wales refuses legislative
consent to this erosion of human rights, will the Minister use
legalistic bully-boy tactics to trample on our democracy too?
The Deputy Prime Minister
No, of course not. The right hon. Lady talks about “callous
disregard”. Conservative Members, certainly, want to stand up for
victims of crime who do not understand why, based on the most
elastic interpretations, foreign national offenders who have
committed some of the most abhorrent crimes cannot be deported.
On parole, I think of the victims I have met recently. I do not
want to politicise this, but they expect us to stand up for them.
As regards protecting not just those within the prison regime but
the public from serious ideologues spreading their poison or
those who commit terrorist offences, we should stand up for the
public, not for the criminals.
(Clwyd West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend made it absolutely clear in his statement,
and has indeed reiterated in his answers since, that the
Government intend that the United Kingdom shall remain party to
the European convention on human rights, so it is hard to see the
reason for the confusion on the part of the hon. Member for
Lewisham West and Penge (). Does he agree that judges
of the United Kingdom Supreme Court are more than qualified to
determine issues arising under that convention and that the
intervention of a supranational court is not always necessary or
welcome?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The irony, with
regard to case law, is that there is nothing in the European
convention that requires the doctrine of precedent, which does
not apply in the continental system—let alone in the Strasbourg
Court—to somehow be transported, in relation to European case
law, to the UK. That is not required. I have been very clear,
when we have these debates and when we look at the text of the
convention, that I am very proud of the judiciary we have in this
country.
Speaking as Lord Chancellor and as a member of this Government,
of course there will be difficult decisions, and from time to
time Governments do not agree with them, but we have a judiciary
renowned the world over and they should have the last word when
it comes to interpreting the law of the land. It is extraordinary
that Labour, which changed the name of the Appellate Committee of
the House of Lords to the Supreme Court, would abrogate those
rights and that authority.
(Swansea West)
(Lab/Co-op)
We know that the Supreme Court has reversed seven of its
decisions in the past two years thanks to the bullying of the
Government—[Interruption.] Check the record. So if we remove the
protection of Strasbourg, do we not have a situation where things
that are regarded as human rights abuse and illegal in Europe
will become permissible in Britain? If it is okay to have rights
not applying in the UK, is it okay for other countries not to
apply certain rights, such as in eastern Europe and Russia—in
which case human rights become optional instead of universal, and
Winston Churchill would turn in his grave?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman betrays a fundamental lack of trust in the UK
judiciary that I do not share. He talks about a lot of false
premises that a cursory reading of the Bill of Rights will
clarify.
(Aylesbury) (Con)
As a former journalist, I firmly believe that freedom of speech
is an indispensable British value. Will my right hon. Friend
confirm that this essential right will be protected and
safeguarded by this very welcome Bill?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend who, as ever, nails a very important part
of why the Bill of Rights is a human rights enhancing innovation.
If he looks at section 4, he will see that not only do we prize
free speech but we are reinforcing its role in protecting
journalistic sources and balancing the rights to free speech and
privacy. We do not want to see continental-style privacy laws
creeping through the back door, and we have seen some evidence of
that of late. We want to make sure that the tradition of
openness, transparency and accountability is preserved, and the
Bill of Rights is explicit on this at various points.
Other countries may disagree. There is a pluralism on human
rights that is often lost in debate, but our tradition is to
preserve freedom of speech because it is the liberty that guards
all the other freedoms we cherish.
(North Down) (Alliance)
I do not think the Justice Secretary has fully thought through
the implications for mutual extradition arrangements across
Europe, including those under the trade and co-operation
agreement. It is important to stress that the Good Friday
agreement applies the full effect of the convention, not the
convention in name only. Does he understand that confidence in
the new policing and criminal justice arrangements in Northern
Ireland, including on legacy cases, is very heavily predicated on
full adherence to the European convention?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which is why I hope
I can squarely give him the reassurance that we are not only
remaining a state party to the convention but that it is properly
enshrined in the Bill of Rights. That ought to answer all the
consequential questions he raises.
(Ipswich) (Con)
From what I can see, this very focused intervention is about
making it easier to kick out rapists and people who have broken
the law and to stop people arriving here illegally. The elephant
in the room is border control, which the people of this country
have repeatedly voted for and is bitterly opposed by the
Opposition, whatever they say.
Does the Lord Chancellor agree that the Bill of Rights is so
important because it will enable us to control our borders and
deliver the Rwanda policy, and that it should be expedited? I do
not mind doing all-nighters, and I do not mind staying up until 2
am. I think most people in this country who want border control
would want this Bill of Rights because they can see how it links
to that.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I share my hon. Friend’s restlessness to proceed with all due
speed, because we have been talking about this for a long time. I
wrote about it in a book in 2009, and it was in our 2010
manifesto. The consultation process is important, and we had a
12-week consultation on the consultation document, which included
clauses. We are publishing it now, but there will be space for
further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the
Justice Committee and others, including Lords Committees. It is
important to garner cross-party support to ensure we have the
scrutiny that will make our reform more robust when it enters
into force.
(Edinburgh North and Leith)
(SNP)
The Justice Secretary wrote recently that all
“UK citizens should be able to enjoy the same essential
protections.”
I return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for
Glasgow North East (). Will all the human rights
that the Justice Secretary wishes to cover in his Bill apply to
all people in the UK or only to UK citizens? Should not human
rights apply to everyone?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I will give the hon. Lady an illustration. We have an
international obligation not to make people stateless, so I do
not think UK citizens are in precisely the same legal position as
a foreign national offender. I think most people think we should
have freedom under the rule of law and that we should be
consistent in applying the law, but that people who have been
welcomed to this country should come here through lawful routes
and that people who commit serious crimes in this country should
be removed. That is common sense, and I think the people of
Scotland will not understand how hon. Members who purport to
represent them can stand in the way of such a common-sense
measure.
(Gloucester) (Con)
I am reassured by the intentions behind this Bill of Rights, and
by two things above all: by the Justice Secretary’s absolute
commitment that we will remain party to the European convention
on human rights, and by what the former Supreme Court judge Lord
Sumption wrote at the weekend:
“modifying its operation here need not mean abrogating human
rights. We can have all or any of the rights in the convention
under ordinary domestic legislation”.
However, will my right hon. Friend help me to understand why he
is proposing not to apply interim measures on courts in the UK
and make them non-binding, because surely this would be a breach
of international law, and would it not be better instead to focus
on winning an appeal against any interim measure that the
Government do not agree with?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is always sensible and
judicious about these matters. On interim orders, he may recall
that rule 39—which is the basis—is a rule of procedure of the
Strasbourg Court, it is not part of the convention and the rules
of procedure are supposed to govern only the internal workings of
the Strasbourg Court. Indeed, that is not just my view—it was the
Strasbourg Court’s view until 2005. It is not right that a
judicial institution abrogates a power, whether at home or
abroad, that has to be given to it by the legislators of state
parties or Members of Parliament here. Therefore, we will be
clear about the impact on the UK courts and under UK law. The
Bill of Rights is right to address that squarely. It is a good
example of the creeping, shifting goalposts, which are contrary
to any democratic oversight, and that is important. Finally on
that point, I want to be careful not to impinge on matters
subject to legal proceedings, but, as a matter of principle, it
cannot be right that the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the
Supreme Court address these issues and see no realistic risk to
those being removed, but have that trumped by the Strasbourg
Court on a vague basis.
Mr Speaker
Order. Could the Deputy Prime Minister look this way now and
again? That would be helpful. If not, it is hard to hear him.
(West
Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Two things do not surprise me today : the continuing utter
disrespect shown to you, Mr Speaker, as Chair of this House, and
the utter dearth of historical knowledge on the Government Front
Bench and among their Back Benchers. I remind them that there is
no such thing as UK law. There is the law of England and Wales,
the law of Northern Ireland and the law of Scotland. On the point
the Deputy Prime Minister made, I wonder whether, in his next
discussion with the Justice Minister of Ukraine, which is a
signatory to the convention and a defender of the convention
against the Russian Federation, he will say which parts of the
convention he thinks Ukraine should leave.
The Deputy Prime Minister
May I give the hon. Member some reassurance? First, the Human
Rights Act is a protected enactment and a precise example of
UK-wide application. I have met the Justice Minister of Ukraine,
and I will tell the hon. Member what he said. He said “Thank you”
from the bottom of his heart for everything that this country has
done on sanctions, for our support for Ukraine’s military and for
the role that we are playing, alongside the Attorney General, in
supporting the International Criminal Court prosecution and
investigations on the ground in Ukraine to hold the commission of
war crimes in Ukraine and hold those responsible to account.
(Ruislip, Northwood and
Pinner) (Con)
My constituent Mr Lindop, who is trying to recover his kidnapped
children from Poland, will be one of many who will be pleased to
hear the Government’s continued determination to uphold these
international standards.
When I visited the European Court of Human Rights last week, I
heard from the UK judge, who was interviewed for his post by
Members of this House, that the UK continues to have the lowest
number of cases per capita referred to the Court and the lowest
number of cases per capita to go against it of any country that
is a member of the convention, and that our commitment to
upholding the rule of law provides enormous moral authority for
our international leadership role. With that in mind, will my
right hon. Friend confirm once again that, with this new Bill of
Rights, the UK will continue to uphold the highest possible
standards of human rights and continue to be an example to other
member states?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he expressed and
articulated his point. He is absolutely right. People talk about
the UK’s record and, of course, we have one of the highest levels
of compliance with the ECHR compared with many of our European
friends and partners. However, rarely but on occasion, there will
be moments of mission creep where the goalposts shift. Prisoner
voting was an example where we said, “Actually, that is not
something that Parliament would accept.” I was the Justice
Minister in 2015 who went to the Committee of Ministers and said,
“We believe in staying in the European convention, but we feel
that the ruling is wrong on principle. We are not going to give
prisoners the vote.” We will maintain our high standards of
compliance, but when it comes down to it, the final word must
stay with this House on critical issues of national importance.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today. At
present, for many Christians, the UK courts have dealt more
harshly with cases such as that of wearing a cross in work than
the rulings of Strasbourg. Can the Secretary of State confirm
that the right to have a religion and freedom to live our belief,
inasmuch as it is not harmful to others, will be protected in the
Bill of Rights, and our right to speak the name of Jesus and
respectfully preach the gospel will be upheld?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right. He alludes to the harm to others
principle and the great John Stuart Mill tradition of liberty in
this country, and that is precisely what has infused the Bill of
Rights. I think he will see the principles that he has
articulated reflected in the Bill of Rights, and I look forward
to continuing to discuss the details with him over the weeks and
months to follow.
(Stoke-on-Trent North)
(Con)
I was one of those who shared the frustrations of my constituents
in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke when we saw the
Rwanda flight grounded and the deportation of foreign national
offenders frustrated, which is why I was one of those who openly
said that we should withdraw from the European convention on
human rights. However, having engaged with my right hon. Friend,
and I am very grateful for his time, I am satisfied
wholeheartedly that this Bill of Rights and reform of the
interpretation of the European convention on human rights with
our UK Supreme Court is the appropriate way to go. I am happy to
cede, therefore, that on this argument I was wrong—something that
I know does not happen in this place very often. So can I get
reassurances from my right hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box for
the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke that this
Bill of Rights will help the deportation of foreign national
offenders and illegal economic migrants who come from safe
mainland Europe?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I think that was an almost unprecedented intervention, but
wholeheartedly welcome. My hon. Friend fights very tenaciously,
but he also engages very forensically. I can give him the
reassurances. I think the right thing to do is for us to discuss
the Bill of Rights, the particular provisions and how they will
apply, but certainly in relation to rule 39 interim orders, it is
squarely addressed in the Bill of Rights.
(Newcastle-under-Lyme)
(Con)
We all support human rights, but my right hon. Friend will agree
that human rights have been given a bad name in the past by cases
brought by people, often offenders, who have shown absolutely no
regard for the rights of others. Rights go along with
responsibilities, so could my right hon. Friend set out how the
Bill of Rights will make sure the courts address responsibilities
as well as rights?
The Deputy Prime Minister
One of the ways in which the courts can do that is to make
sure—for example, when it comes to compensation—that, where
someone has done harm or contributed to their own harm while
claiming breaches of human rights, that is something the judges
can take into account at the remedy stage. Of course, that is a
principle of law in this country already. We often say—I remember
studying law as a graduate—that there is a principle that those
who come to equity must come with clean hands. It must be right,
it must be consistent and I think for many people it is just
common sense that we apply that principle in the context of human
rights claims.
(Dover) (Con)
Over 11,000 people have made the dangerous cross-channel journey
this year alone, and it is undoubtedly the case that the decision
of the European Court of Human Rights that led to the grounding
of the Rwanda flight has raised considerable concerns in my
constituency of Dover and Deal that it will simply encourage the
people traffickers—people who have no respect for the rights of
others, including to human life, or the laws of our land. So can
my right hon. Friend expand on how this Bill of Rights will
ensure that there is not such overreach by the European Court of
Human Rights in future?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I think many people, but I suspect particularly my hon. Friend’s
constituents, will think the real threat to human rights is
allowing, and not cracking down on, this trade in human misery.
She asked about how we will reform the relationship with the
Strasbourg Court. First, it will be by freeing the UK courts to
diverge from Strasbourg case law, and being clear that they do
not need to take it into account. Secondly, it will be by making
sure, in the way I have already articulated, that there is the
equivalent of a democratic shield, as we relied on in relation to
prisoner voting, but reinforced and made clearer, so that when it
comes to the shifting goalposts, whether under judicial
interpretation at home or abroad, Parliament has the last word.
Finally, it will be in relation to rule 39 interim orders, and
she will find all those expressly and explicitly addressed in the
Bill of Rights.
(Devizes) (Con)
There has been much talk of Winston Churchill and the authorship
of the original convention by British Conservative judges. The
fact is that the text of the original convention is absolutely
fine, and it is the application and extension of the convention’s
original meaning by Strasbourg judges over the decades since that
is the problem. I therefore very much welcome the commitment to
raise the bar for article 8 judgments.
I also welcome the commitment to give UK judges the right to
diverge from Strasbourg case law. My concern, however, is that
some UK judges do not want to diverge from Strasbourg case law.
In fact, in some cases they want to go further; I think of , of blessed memory to Members
here. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that we will genuinely
be free of Strasbourg case law, and is it worth thinking about
strengthening the obligation on judges to disregard Strasbourg
cases that do not apply in our context?
The Deputy Prime Minister
First, if my hon. Friend reads clause 3 of the Bill of Rights, I
think he will find that all his concerns are addressed squarely
and fully; I urge him to have a look and come back to me.
My hon. Friend made another important point about people talking
as if the European convention was the exclusive authorship of
Churchill and the United Kingdom. That is a perverse and
neo-imperial reading of history that is totally at odds with the
way in which the European convention was negotiated, which was by
a mixture of European countries, including the UK—we were
centrally involved—and other countries with a civil law
background. The convention reflects a mix of those traditions. As
a result, it is unobjectionable, but the challenge has come in
relation to interpretation and application. My hon. Friend’s
points are valid, but the idea that the convention was a British
creation is almost neo-imperial myth making.
(Stoke-on-Trent South)
(Con)
People in Stoke-on-Trent are sick and tired of human rights laws
being abused by serious criminals and illegal migrants. Will my
right hon. Friend confirm to my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent
South that the British Bill of Rights will restore the authority
of this House and British courts?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend and his constituents precisely that
assurance. The Bill is not anti-human rights. We are
strengthening our tradition of freedom, including freedom of
speech. It is pro judges; we want our Supreme Court to have the
last word on the law of the land, when it is interpreted. It is
also pro democracy, and that is the bit missing from the other
side’s critique. We believe that, when the goalposts shift, it is
elected Members—accountable to his, my and everyone’s
constituents—who must have the last word on the law of the land.
(Blackpool South) (Con)
The residents of Blackpool were absolutely furious at the
European Court’s move to block the first removal flight to Rwanda
last week. They desperately want that policy to work and will
warmly welcome the measures outlined by the Deputy Prime Minister
today. What assurances can he give them that the reforms will
allow our relocations policy to be a success?
The Deputy Prime Minister
There is no silver bullet that can solve that issue and the small
boats issue. Even pulling out of the European convention will not
provide a silver bullet. However, I can reassure my hon. Friend—I
am happy to talk him through this—that, when it comes to
deportation of foreign national offenders or public interest in
removals more generally, there will be respect and greater
deference to primary legislation passed by this House. In
addition, our approach to rule 39 interim orders will mean that
we can give him and his constituents the assurances they need.
(Bury North) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. It is rather curious
that he is being criticised for acting on the democratic mandate
given to him by millions of our fellow citizens who voted on our
manifesto. Millions voted, in both the Brexit referendum and the
general election in 2019, for control of our borders and to
prevent illegal immigration. It is the job of courts to interpret
the will of Parliament, not to invent law themselves. Therefore,
the Bill of Rights will not only protect the fundamental rights
that we all enjoy; it will give the democratic voice of the
British people a role in the decision-making process.
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In a democracy, we command,
rule and govern by consent. We are at risk of losing public
confidence in our immigration controls if we cannot take the
common-sense measures that they expect. We are also at risk of
losing public confidence in human rights if we do not restore a
healthy dose of common sense.
