Britain must quit Europe’s human rights court – May
THERESA May last night plunged Tory plans to scrap the Human Rights Act into chaos by demanding that Britain should quit the European Court of Human Rights. The Home Secretary opened up a major split with No 10 by saying that if the UK wanted to boot out more terrorists and foreign criminals, it must quit the Strasbourg court altogether.
By contrast, Downing Street is backing a compromise option giving British judges a greater say over deportation cases and other rulings, while remaining a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The legislation has been completed and is sitting on David Cameron’s desk. His plan was to publish it shortly after the referendum to heal divisions which have opened up in the Tory party over the EU. However senior ministers say it is hard to see how he can proceed with a British Bill of Rights to replace the HRA when it stops so far short of the Home Secretary’s public demands.
Mrs May is the minister the legislation is supposed to help, following years in which the Government’s efforts to kick out foreign criminals and Islamist fanatics have been thwarted by Euro judges. Either she will have to back down, MPs said – or legislation which has been more than a decade in the making will be sent back to the drawing board. In the meantime, the abuse of human rights laws will continue.
In a speech yesterday – ostensibly on Britain’s EU membership – the Home Secretary declared only leaving the European court would suffice.
She told a London audience: ‘The ECHR can bind the hands of Parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights.
‘So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this: If we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its court.’
Eurosceptics accused Mrs May of trying to distract attention from the fact she is campaigning to remain in the EU – despite having major reservations. And Brexit campaigners said Britain could not ditch the ECHR – which is operated by the separate Council of Europe – without breaching EU treaty obligations.
One minister said Mrs May’s intervention was extraordinary.
‘This is not Government policy,’ he said. ‘It’s all about her positioning for the leadership.’
Another said: ‘The question for No 10 is are they now planning to sack Theresa May? This has got nothing to do with EU membership. The PM has not suspended collective responsibility on anything else.’
There has been a long-run- ning saga over Mr Cameron’s decade- old pledge to scrap Labour’s Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights.
After years of wrangling, the PM and Justice Secretary Michael Gove finally settled on a compromise.
Britain will remain signed up to the European court but will no longer have to slavishly abide by its rulings. British judges will be told they will not have to follow the court’s ruling where they disagree.
Tory whips believe that the more radical option of quitting the ECHR altogether will not get through Parliament. It is opposed by a string of senior Tories, including David Davis and ex- attorney general Dominic Grieve, who say it would set a bad example to the rest of the world.
Downing Street last night conceded there were ‘differences’ between Mr Cameron and Mrs May over whether Britain should leave the ECHR but said people ‘ shouldn’t overdo them’.
Asked whether Mrs May was speaking on behalf of the Government, the PM’s official spokesman would say only that she was ‘setting out her views as Home Secretary’.
The spokesman refused to say whether Mr Cameron backed leaving the ECHR, saying: ‘He has made clear he wants to see reform of the ECHR. He rules absolutely nothing out if we do not achieve that.’
Ex- shadow home secretary Mr Davis said Mrs May was wrong to focus on leaving the ECHR while ignoring the powers of the separate European Court of Justice – an EU institution. He added: ‘It is incomprehensible how the Home Secretary can suggest that abandoning the Convention while at the same time remaining subject to the Charter is in the UK’s interests.’
‘Positioning for the leadership’