I serve on the Joint Human Rights Committee (JHRC), to which I was appointed at beginning of the current parliamentary session. ‘Joint’ because the membership is composed from both the Lords and Commons. Unlike Commons Select Committees, to which members are elected by their fellows, the JHRC is appointed. Presumably the Opposition Chief Whip asked me to do it in order to make a nuisance of myself, or to bring some common sense to it, depending on your point of view.
The principal purpose of the Committee is to scrutinise policy and bills in order to ensure that they are compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998. Given that I voted against the Human Rights Act, and I believe we ought to repeal it, I come to the business of the Committee with a significantly different perspective than some of its more enthusiastic members.
On Wednesday we had Jake Richards MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, before us, his brief includes international issues.
I was keen to get a feel for whether there was a sense of urgency with respect to the proposals to address asylum, recently announced by the Home Secretary (who was herself, the Secretary of State for Justice until quite recently). It was she who told the Commons that, whilst we won’t send anyone back to be tortured, nevertheless the interpretation of Article 3 (the European Human Rights Convention protection against degrading treatment and torture) has “expanded into the realm of the ridiculous”. She is, of course, quite right.
Changing things, however, presents a difficulty. The European Convention on Human Rights works on the basis of unanimous agreement between all 46 member states.
I asked the Minister “who is the enemy”, and who did he think his allies would be. I pressed him on how long it would take and how long did he think he had.
What I got in response was an affirmation that the Government had an “ambition to look at it” and a vague reference to “like-minded democratic governments” that, whilst they shared the “highest regard for the independence of the Court”, nevertheless wanted “a mature dialogue on a live issue that we are approaching and discussing”.
Well, with that sort of laser-like focus, I think we can conclude that this is an agenda that is going nowhere.
The last time a change in the Convention was negotiated, it took 9 years.
Perhaps, readers will now understand why Kemi Badenoch has concluded that we just have to leave.
Sir Desmond Swayne TD
