The Joint Committee on Human Rights Questions the Justice Secretary

Justice Secretary Dominic Raab finally appeared in front of the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) on Wednesday 14^th December, 5 months later than originally scheduled. Chair Joanna Cherry questioned Raab on his legislative agenda and the future for his Bill of Rights Bill (the Bill), more commonly referred to as the “Rights Removal Bill”.  The Bill is set to face further delays according to recent reports – read on to find out what Raab had to say.

Much old ground was raked over by the Committee, but there were several key points of note; Raab gives up the pretense of placing importance on public consultation, talks of the relationship of the Bill and new immigration legislation, refuses to commit to staying in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), completely misrepresents what positive obligations actually are and how they protect us all, undermines the universality of rights and disregards the concerns of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Overall, Raab’s answers to the JCHR have done nothing but assure us that The Rights Removal Bill continues to be an unashamed power-grab, designed to place this Government far from anything resembling accountability.

• Firstly, Raab stated the Bill will assist in the approach to interim orders. He doesn’t explain how but for clarity this is the part of the European Convention on Human Rights which allows the European Court to issue states with orders to take (or not take) certain steps while a legal case is ongoing. This is the clause which meant the UK Government’s Rwanda flight was stopped. It’s therefore clear why this Government isn’t happy about interim measures but it’s not clear how the Bill in any way changes this. What we think Raab is inferring, that the Bill would stop Rwanda flights being grounded by the European Court,  is simply not the case. No domestic law can change international law, and the Bill simply restates what is already in place, rather than any significant change that would help. You can read more about interim measures on our blog.
  
  
• Secondly, Raab states the Bill will repeal Section 3 of our Human Rights Act. This is the part of the Human Rights Act that allows other laws to be interpreted in a rights-respecting way. He asserts that Section 3 is stopping immigration legislation being used in the most appropriate way – he continues to not be able to present any solid, recent evidence of this. In fact, the Independent Review of the Human Rights Act concluded the issue around section 3 is not the law but the damaging perceptions about it, “…there is no substantive case that UK Courts have misused section 3 or 4 ... There is a telling gulf between the extent of the mischief suggested by some and the reality of the application of sections 3 and 4.” (IHRAR, Chapter 5, paragraph 182). You can read more about this in our briefing on Section 3.
  
  
• Raab reminded us that the Bill will “curb creative interpretations” and innovation from the judiciary and will instead reaffirm the primacy of Parliament. In reality, the raft of Hostile Environment legislation already introduced by successive Governments mean that private and family life (Article 8) protections for migrants and refugees have been severely reduced. We know that the Bill will further reduce not only the rights of vulnerable migrants, but everybody. You can read more about the Bill’s impact on Article 8 here. You can read more about Clause 7 which says that the “greatest weight” must be given to the intent of Parliament here. 

Raab completely misrepresents the importance of positive obligations in protecting everybody, regardless of background or alleged criminal activity. We know that positive obligations are the foundation of safeguarding, about stepping in to save lives and prevent serious harm to often the most vulnerable and marginalised people. Every time a woman fleeing domestic violence is offered secure accommodation by the state, every time a child is protected from harm by a social worker or a teacher, every time a nurse challenges a DNAR order placed on a disabled person’s file without consultation – this is positive obligations at work. Raab conveniently avoids mentioning any of this and instead talks about positive obligation solely through the lens of the police’s operational priorities.

When Ribiero-Addy asks, “Are the laws not there to ensure that all of these bodies act in the way they are meant to and that the courts enforce that action?” And Chair Cherry elaborates explaining that in the case of John Worboys, without the HRA positive obligation to investigate the role of the police, common law would have simply meant how the police acted was up to them. This cannot be what Raab is suggesting, Cherry checks, “so what you’re saying is that the Bill will discourage litigation against the police? Thanks for clarifying I have a note of that”

The Bill is once again exposed as a power-grab, designed to reduce the accountability of this Government. You can read more about positive obligations, how they work and what the Bill’s changes will mean in our briefing here.