Human rights inquiry launch
15 June 2009
Jack Straw has given a speech at the launch of a human rights inquiry by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
[Check against delivery: this is the prepared text of the speech and may differ from the delivered version.]
The Right Honourable Jack Straw MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice:
Introduction
Good morning. It is a pleasure to be invited to the launch of the Human Rights Inquiry Report.
I’d like first to pay tribute to Dame Nuala O’Loan, Francesca Klug and their team for this seminal report – the first of the Equality and Human Rights Commission – into human rights in the UK. The report is both engaging and instructive, and it reflects an extraordinarily thorough inquiry and many months of hard work.
The central focus of the inquiry was, of course, the Human Rights Act and the impact it has had since it was passed into law eleven years ago.
Positive impact of Human Rights Act
I am proud to have been the minister responsible for this legislation. Indeed, the Human Rights Act is and will remain one of the most enduring achievements of this government.
The Act represented a landmark in the history of British liberty, by incorporating the fundamental rights of the European Convention into UK law. Never let it be forgotten that this Convention, though tagged ‘European’, is British through and through. It was drafted by UK jurists, and its concepts of rights can be traced back to the Magna Carta, the anniversary of which is today.
Its effect, in the words of the White Paper heralding the Bill, was to ‘bring rights home’. Prior to incorporation, accessing those rights via the Strasbourg court was a time-consuming and difficult process, and as such prohibitive for many. Now, Convention rights can be accessed in UK courts, heard by UK judges.
Despite the findings of the research survey accompanying the report that nearly half of us think that the only people who benefit from human rights laws are terrorists and criminals, the truth is that everyone benefits. These rights can be, and are, accessed by all sections of society; from the elderly couple split up by the local authority after 65 years of marriage, to the most lofty of newspaper magnates. As Lord Bingham argued so persuasively at LIBERTY’s 75th anniversary conference last Saturday, the Human Rights Act protects the rights and freedoms of everybody.
It is now much easier and quicker for individuals to seek legal redress, to have their rights upheld and to be given appropriate protection. And thanks to the skilful framing of the Act, it has achieved this without undermining the sovereignty of Parliament and its legislative authority. That is made crystal clear in section 4.
But the Act quite explicitly imposes duties and pressures on government and Parliament to respect the Convention and its jurisprudence. By section 19 any minister sponsoring a Bill has to certify, on the face of the Bill, whether in their opinion the contents of the Bill are compatible with the Convention.
And if a declaration of incompatibility is made by the courts [under section 4], while it is possible for government and Parliament to ignore it, in practice the moral and political pressure which flows from such a declaration requires them to react to it. There is nothing wrong with that – it is a good thing. And it is right that ministers’ decisions are invigilated by the courts.
The Human Rights Act has therefore decisively changed the culture of government and public authorities by placing a positive obligation on the State to treat people with dignity, equality and respect. As a Guardian editorial acknowledged:
‘… it is not just suspects but soldiers, victims and care recipients who are served by an act which is all about arming the individual against the authority … By forcing public bodies to factor rights into their thinking, it prevents even more abuses than it cures.’
Your report shows that where public authorities have consistently applied human rights principles to their work, they have reported better decision making, enhanced staff morale and improved services.
There is no doubt that over the past decade the Human Rights Act has made a genuine positive difference.
Promotion of the Act
From the point of its inception, the government has worked to make the principles enshrined in the Act a practical reality – for example, through an internationally acclaimed programme of training for judges and lawyers; the distribution of human rights guidance across Whitehall and the public sector; and the introduction of resources for teachers on the Act and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
But as Dame O’Loan has explained, there is still widespread misunderstanding amongst the public of what human rights are really about – thanks, in part, to myths and misreporting by the media.
The Act has also been a victim of circumstance. As I have said before, it has not had an easy childhood. With the atrocities of 9/11 occurring less than a year into its operation, the consequence (for some), was a hardening of hearts towards fundamental human rights. Nonetheless, as Ken MacDonald – former Director of Public Prosecutions – noted at last Saturday’s conference, the legislation has stood up to the pressures created by global terrorism even more effectively than the US Bill of Rights as applied by the Supreme Court.
I therefore particularly welcome the Report’s recommendation that the Commission should use every available opportunity to explain publicly the purpose, value and benefits of the Human Rights Act and I look forward to seeing the benefits of this over the coming months.
The Commission was created to occupy a unique position in the field of human rights: working closely with government while remaining independent and ready to offer criticism where necessary. My department is committed to working with you to reap all of the benefits of this relationship.
Bill of Rights and Responsibilities
The government has always seen the Human Rights Act as ‘a floor and not a ceiling’ as I said during the Second Reading of the Bill in 1998. We saw it as the starting point for the development of a wider culture of rights and responsibilities.
So the government is now consulting on whether there is a case for taking a further step in the development of rights, with a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. Such a Bill could reflect the full picture of rights we have in the United Kingdom, including those across the Welfare State which have developed in parallel with the European Convention but are not incorporated into it. It could reflect more contemporary priorities, like the well-being of children, victims’ rights, equality and sustainable development – matters which were not such priorities in the existential struggles of the Second World War and its immediate aftermath.
Any new Bill of Rights and Responsibilities would in no way undermine or detract from the fundamental rights and freedoms contained in the Human Rights Act. They will not be diminished or diluted. Human rights must continue to exist at the heart of our democracy. We have always seen the Act as a platform on which to build and not – as some would have it – an inconvenience to be dismantled.
The report under discussion this morning is substantial, setting a number of challenges for the Commission – including to raise public awareness and understanding of the Act, and to support public bodies in applying human rights principles to their work. The report also presents challenges for the government, which we will carefully consider as we move towards the next stage of the process.
Most important of all, those of us committed to the Act and its benefits need to get behind it unambiguously.
Sign up for news updates
Enter email: