EUROPEAN LAW REFORMS

Why does David Cameron want to reform the European Court of Human Rights?

The court’s decision last week that Abu Qatada, the radical cleric and al-qaeda supporter, could not be deported to Jordan to face trial in case his human rights were infringed has infuriated the Prime Minister. Strasbourg’s decision overturned a ruling by Britain’s Law Lords.

In a long-awaited speech in Strasbourg this week Mr Cameron will argue that the European Court of Human Rights should be much less intrusive, allowing national courts more leeway to take decisions.

The court is also a shambles. There are tens of thousands of cases backed up, many from Eastern Europe.

Mr Cameron will suggest measures that mean fewer cases have to be dealt with by Strasbourg.

The problem for the government is that many Conservative MPS, and many voters, are not interested in reforms that streamline the process. They see it in terms of basic sovereignty and are appalled that British justice can be overruled by a court based abroad.

How did Britain get itself into this mess?

There is a great deal for which the European Union deserves the blame, but in this case it is not the guilty party.

The current row over human rights legislation has its origins in the aftermath of the Second World War. Britain was one of the founding signatories of the European Convention of Human Rights, which was created by the newly formed European Council. The European Court of Human Rights was established to enforce the convention and give citizens a court they could trust.

The aim was to encourage the recognition of legal and human rights in countries emerging from a period of tyranny. Gradually, however, the court has grown in power.

Did the Human Rights Act make it worse?

Yes. In 1998 Labour introduced the Human Rights Act (HRA), which forced judges to make their judgments compatible with the rights accorded in the convention. It also allowed Britons to bring cases in courts here when they claimed those rights had been breached. The result has been a wave of cases in which the outcomes seem to defy common sense.

The killer of Philip Lawrence, the head teacher, could not be deported to Italy on his release from prison because his “family life” was here, and nine Afghan hijackers who forced a plane to land at Stansted were allowed to remain.

The Home Secretary wants to scrap the HRA and, in opposition to the Prime Minister, promised to replace it with a Bill of rights to assert the primacy of domestic law.

So why doesn’t David Cameron get on with it?

His coalition partner, Nick Clegg, will not let him scrap the HRA or ignore the European Court of Human Rights. Mr Clegg has an ally in Ken Clarke, the pro-european Justice Secretary.

In an effort to find a compromise, the Government appointed a commission to look at how a Bill of rights might be drafted. But its membership is split between those appointed by the Liberal Democrats, who essentially want to keep the current set-up, and members chosen by the Tories who advocate reform.

This gridlock means that No 10 has decided as a first step to focus on proposing reforms of the way the European Court of Human Rights operates, something even Mr Clarke can sign up to.

So they are kicking it into the long grass?

Hardline critics say yes. But ministers claim it is a difficult situation not of their making and say that they are trying to find practical ways to deal with it.

Their hope is that a new generation of British judges can be encouraged to take a more robust position in their rulings and worry less about offending Strasbourg. They also hope Mr Cameron’s proposed reforms will gather support from other countries.

A minister said: “The Prime Minister’s speech is the start of a diplomatic drive. It won’t be done in a few months but we are pushing strongly for reform.”

Will that satisfy the Tory party?

No. The Abu Qatada verdict feels like it could be the final straw, and the outrage of Tory MPS is matched by anger in No 10.

If Mr Cameron’s efforts at change get nowhere expect the pressure to grow on him to go into the next election promising not only to repeal the HRA but also British withdrawal from the unreformed convention. A great many voters would agree with such a policy. It could be a big vote winner for the Tories.