This second in the series of Red Wedge events focused on the coalition’s attitudes to human rights and to the human rights act itself and served to highlight just how easily Nick Clegg’s party appear to have cast so-called ‘principle’ aside, in return for a handful of ministerial posts and the opportunity to become nothing more than an old-style Liberal adjunct to Cameron’s regressive Tory party.
Last night’s discussion was co-hosted by the Society for Labour Lawyers and chaired by solicitor and Labour NEC member, Ellie Reeves. Ellie began by introducing the panel: Selman Ansari, a solicitor and membership secretary of the Society of Labour Lawyers; Cherie Booth QC, barrister and co-founder of Matrix Chambers; Rt Hon Lord Falconer QC, former lord chancellor and secretary of state for constitutional affairs and Rt Hon Jack Straw QC MP, shadow lord chancellor and former secretary of state for justice.
Selman’s opening address reminded all present of the importance of the human rights act (passed by Blair’s first administration in November 1998) and of the threat which it now faces from the current ConDem Coalition. The Tories promised in their manifesto to repeal the HRA and to replace it with a ‘British’ bill of rights. Despite the fact that Clegg’s party had, in theirs, promised without reserve to protect the HRA, the coalition has subsequently set up a commission to look into the HRA’s change or repeal. The only conclusion we can draw from this is that the HRA is in severe danger of being removed from our statute book. As Selman took pains to underline, we need to highlight this dramatic LibDem volte-face, not in the name of tribal loyalty or because it is expedient for us to make this point, but because it is the rights of the most vulnerable in our society that will suffer if we fail to protect the HRA.
Also worrying is the coalition’s apparent lack of clarity (read policy) as to what exactly a ‘British’ bill of rights will look like. The Tories’ manifesto insisted they would repeal the HRA, yet would keep Britain signed up to the European convention on human rights (which of course the HRA incorporates into UK law). The upshot of this would be that British litigants wishing to rely on the ECHR would, as previously, have to take their cases to Strasbourg to have their rights opined upon by non-British judges. Quite why anyone would want this outcome is unclear. Selman insisted that these are the questions we need to demand of the new government.
Selman was followed by Jack Straw, who contrasted the Labour party’s record on human rights (having led the way on virtually all key pieces of anti-discrimination legislation, be that in relation to, amongst other things, gender, race and sexual orientation) with that of the Tories (who, as Cherie Booth later clarified, introduced one single measure – disability discrimination). He went on to outline to outline the history of the ECHR (drafted, in large part, by UK lawyers after the second world war) and the development and significance of the HRA. Mr Straw described the intense pressures on British society created in the aftermath of 9/11 and 7/7, which brought with it them the need for his government find the appropriate balance between order and liberty and also, to some degree at least, allowed the media to portray the HRA in a negative light.
Charlie Falconer told Mr Straw he was understating Labour’s achievement in putting the HRA on our statute book. He said the HRA was “tsunami-like”: it fundamentally altered the relationship between parliament, the judiciary and the individual and, rightly, recognised that human rights are too important to be left to elected politicians. In contrast, the ConDem coalition has a myopic, Daily Mail-pleasing agenda: they seek to restrict human rights only to those who they like. The attorney general, Dominic Grieve QC, has insisted that the HRA ought to incorporate “interpretation clauses”, so as, we assume, to prevent the HRA applying to those who are in some way undeserving or unworthy of rights.
If the HRA is amended or repealed as the Tories have envisaged, human rights will be unenforceable before British courts and will apply to a limited category of ‘acceptable’ individuals. Such an ambition is both entirely non-sensical and nefarious in the extreme. That Nick Clegg’s party appear to have submitted themselves to this agenda, willingly casting aside their so-called commitment to human rights to provide a figleaf for the Tories’ Daily Mail-pleasing, is deplorable.
Cherie Booth QC spoke last. She praised the HRA as a success story and as one of the crowning achievements of Blair’s first administration. Its “unique genius” was its striking of a constitutional compromise which allowed for the judiciary to find legislation incompatible with the HRA, rather than giving judges the power to strike such laws down. The ensuing continuous dialogue between parliament and the judiciary is now an integral part of our parliamentary democracy and has been much feted in other jurisdictions. However, as well as taking pride in the HRA, it is equally important to recognise that human rights in Britain are not as popular or esteemed as they should be and that we, as a Labour party, are at least in part responsible for the mischaracterisation of the HRA. We ought to have done more, from a perception point of view, to remove human rights from the sphere of the legal profession and embed them firmly within the ownership of individuals. We must learn from this experience and must continue to fight for the HRA’s survival.
Following the panel speeches, Ellie opened the floor for questions. Members of the audience (which included Professor Francesca Klug OBE, former solicitor general Vera Baird QC and Stephen Hockman QC) demanded answers from the panel on a series of issues, the most notable of which was Labour’s record on civil liberties as a result of ‘counter-terrorism’ measures. Jack Straw sought to justify why he considered Labour’s anti-terror legislation was appropriate at the time but said that he believes it is right that 28-day detention is now being reviewed. Charlie Falconer also defended Labour’s record on human rights but described the anti-terrorism, crime and security act 2001 as “draconian”. It is, he said, an example of the importance and power of the HRA that, within months of this act being passed, judges were able to express their concern as to its compatibility with the HRA. Further questions followed (including in relation to the desirability of a written constitution, the adequacy of Labour’s criminal justice act 2003 and the practicality of the codification of economic and social rights) and were indicative of a very full and lively debate.
The most important conclusion to be drawn from this evening has to be this: We, as a Labour party, should be proud of the human rights act. Indeed, we could and should have vocalised this pride louder and sooner. This centrepiece of our constitutional reforms is now under threat – from the rightwing, Daily Mail-pleasing Conservatives who desire its repeal and, arguably more distressingly for progressives, from the LibDems, who have thrown their commitment to human rights aside, in the name of opportunism, expediency and a handful of ministerial posts. As a consequence, we need to stand up for the human rights act. Immediately and passionately. Because it sure doesn’t seem anyone else is going to.
Lucy Rigby is a Labour councillor in Islington and a solicitor specialising in competition law