Coalition cracks start to show over human rights

Published on Wednesday 19 May 2010 23:34

FAULTLINES were opening up in the new coalition government last night, as right-wing Tory MPs vented their anger over a decision to drop a Conservative commitment to replace the Human Rights Act.

• Nick Clegg makes his point as he spells out the government's plans for constitutional reform yesterday. But the decision to retain the Human Rights Act has angered some Tories. Picture: PA

When Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg delivered his speech yesterday promising what he described as "the biggest package of political change since the great Reform Act of 1832", it was clear the Tory manifesto pledge to scrap the Human Rights Act was history.

The issue had been pushed to the top of the political agenda following a decision by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission on Tuesday to block the deportation to Pakistan of two men at the centre of a alleged terrorism plot – Abid Naseer and Ahmed Faraz Khan – because it would breach their human rights.

Yesterday, Mr Clegg defended the commission's decision, arguing the problem was that the previous government had not done enough to get an agreement in place with the Pakistani government guaranteeing the rights of deportees.

He said it was a "source of great regret" that there was no formal agreement between Pakistan and the UK, which would have enabled the men to have been returned.

However, the Deputy Prime Minister stressed that any UK Bill of Rights introduced by the Lib-Con coalition would preserve the principles of the European Convention.

"It will incorporate and build on the European Convention on Human Rights and the way that those rights are enshrined in British legislation," he said.

His comments were echoed by his chief adviser, Norman Lamb, who indicated the Lib Dems would look critically at any proposals brought forward by the Tories.

"We are prepared to look at the case that the Conservatives put forward in the General Election, but we mustn't reduce the safeguards to the citizen," he said.

"The convention is there to protect the citizen against the overbearing power of the state."

But Bill Cash, an outspoken, right-wing Conservative known to have deep misgivings about the coalition deal, said he was "dismayed" by the latest developments.

The issue has become a totem for right-wing Tories who feel they are being marginalised and that the Tory/Lib Dem government is "not very democratic".

They had already been furious that Lib Dems had received what they felt was a disproportionate number of government jobs, while more right-wing Tories hardly featured at all.

There was also anger over the proposal to introduce a new rule meaning 55 per cent of MPs will need to vote for parliament to be dissolved before the end of its proposed five-year term.

A further row has broken out over Mr Cameron's decision to force the 1922 Committee, traditionally a bastion of Tory back-bench rights, to have ministers as members so, some believe, he can control it.

According to party sources, there was simmering discontent over the question of the Human Rights Act at a dinner held in the Commons last night by the right-wing Cornerstone Group, which is increasingly becoming the focus of anti-coalition Tory MPs.

A source close to the group said: "This is a totem issue for many Conservative MPs in the party.

"Many of them and other candidates put this promise to replace the Human Rights Act on their manifestos.

"They did not stand on a Lib Dem manifesto and they feel that they are being ignored".

But a Scottish lawyer who was drafted in by Mr Cameron to help draw up a Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act said right-wing Tories should just accept that the party failed to win the election.

Paul McBride, QC, who, it is understood, lost out on a government job because of the coalition deal with the Lib Dems, said: "The fact is that if we (the Conservatives] had won the election, then we could have done this, but in a coalition you have to compromise.

"The Lib Dems would never agree to scrapping the Human Rights Act, and we just have to accept that."

He added that the Bill of Rights working group had not been in agreement over how to proceed, with some members, such as Lord Fraser, a former Solicitor General for Scotland, opposing changes.

There is also speculation in the Commons that Mr Cameron is "happy to have an excuse" to drop the more right-wing parts of the Tory manifesto, including the promise to scrap the Human Rights Act.

Some believe he was never committed to the policy in the first place and is much closer to the Lib Dem position.

Some senior party members have never hidden their disdain for the policy, including the new Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

In June 2006, he said: "If you repeal the present Human Rights Act, all that happens is British courts stop applying it, it goes back to the court of Strasbourg to be applied – I couldn't quite see the point in that. And this new Bill of Rights, nobody has a clue what they want to put in it, and, you know, do we need a parallel system – what happens if the two seem to conflict? So I thought it was, to put it kindly, a muddle, and I think we're back to the drawing board on that. I hope we are."

February 2000: Hijackers

Nine terrorists from Afghanistan who flew a plane to Stansted could not be deported by successive home secretaries because Law Lords ruled that they could be persecuted, tortured or executed.

May 2002: Home Secretary's power

The home secretary's powers for setting minimum jail sentences for serious prisoners was over-ruled. This followed the Law Lords' ruling in 1997 that it was unlawful for the minister to set minimum sentences for under-18s in relation to the Bulger case.

June 2001: Slopping out

Scottish prisoners were awarded compensation for having to slop out. The landmark ruling involved Robert Napier at Barlinnie Prison, Glasgow, when he was awarded 2,450. Judges said that slopping out was "degrading and inhumane".

August 2005: Rapist release

Anthony Rice was released on licence while serving a life sentence for sex offences. Within days he murdered Naomi Bryant, 48, at her home in Winchester. An inquiry found that the decision to release was partly based on an interpretation of the Human Rights Act which suggested he would have his freedom unfairly curtailed.

October 2005: Prisoners' right to vote

Judges ruled that it was wrong to deny prisoners the right to vote. They said that the prisoners serving longer than six months had a right to claim residency in a constituency and vote there. It led to claims by prisoners for compensation after 2007 Holyrood election.

June 2007: Soldiers abroad

A ruling meant that prisoners held by British armed forces serving abroad could be subject to the Human Rights Act. Judges said that if foreign citizens were being held prisoner by British services then they could not be denied the same rights as prisoners in the UK.