Committee Corridor: Does the Human Rights Act need to be reformed?

• Listen to the latest podcast episode
• Find out more about the inquiry
• Joint Committee on Human Rights

Baroness Ludford and David Simmonds were members of the cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights when it published its report into Human Rights Act reform, which inspired the focus of this episode of the podcast.

The first guest is Professor Francesca Klug who was one of the architects of the Human Rights Act, helping the then Government to develop the model that would incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. She explains that before 1998, the UK was “one of very few democracies without any modern Bill of Rights or international human rights treaty incorporated into our law”. The UK was already bound by the European Convention, Professor Klug explains, but could not bring cases in UK courts and had to go to Strasbourg. The Human Rights Act changed this.

In fact the Human Rights Act led to a greater focus on human rights in the work of Parliament as, Professor Klug explained: “Before the Human Rights Act, there was actually no select committee on domestic human rights at all. And precisely because the Human Rights Act maintains parliamentary sovereignty and was intended to encourage a kind of dialogue between the executive legislature and judiciary, an all-party joint select committee, drawn from both houses was considered vital to ensure meaningful parliamentary engagement and debate, including oversight of Government implementation of human rights.”

Professor Klug highlights the real world impact the Human Rights Act has had on how rights are protected, including supporting victims of crime and improving how individuals and families can challenge the standard of care they receive in care settings. She adds, “recent successes promoting fairness have included allowing nearly 2,000 unmarried cohabiting parents to claim bereavement benefits to help them bring up their dependent children on their own, bringing them in line with widows and widowers who have had this right for many, many years.”

In response to the Government’s proposals in the Bill of Rights Bill, Professor Klug warning that “rather than bring rights home, it sends rights back to Strasbourg”. She also discusses the dangers of appearing to disregard the UK’s obligations under international law, warning of a “knock-on effect on other countries following suit, including when the fate of UK citizens is at stake.”

Next up are Baroness Sarah Ludford and David Simmonds MP who explain what they learned during the Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry.

On the issue of whether the Human Rights Act blocked the Government from pursuing its policy objectives, David Simmonds said “there have been cases brought before the courts in the past, which have raised a good deal of public concern, where elements of the Human Rights Act have been used to prevent the Government or public bodies from carrying out their duties in a way that a member of the public might consider to be reasonable”. However, he added “courts have by and large acted reasonably, and where there have been those concerns raised as a result of individual cases, then adjustments have been made”.

Sarah Ludford warned against the Government’s proposed reforms in the Bill of Rights Bill, “if they think that it's going to simplify in any way the enforcement of human rights in the UK, they are very much mistaken”. She added, “it's not only going to make it more difficult… But it would make it more complicated, more difficult, both for the courts and of course, for individuals. It puts a series of obstacles in the way of individuals enforcing their human rights.”

Further Information

• About Parliament: Select committees
• Visiting Parliament: Watch committees