← Back to Westminster Hall Debates
Human Rights Legislation Reform — [Yvonne Fovargue in the Chair]
24 October 2022
Lead MP
Scott Benton
Responding Minister
Gareth Johnson
Tags
ImmigrationAsylum & RefugeesTaxation
Word Count: 12228
Other Contributors: 9
At a Glance
Scott Benton raised concerns about human rights legislation reform — [yvonne fovargue in the chair] in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.
Key Requests to Government:
Benton requests that the Government update the Human Rights Act to bring clarity to human rights standards without scrapping fundamental human rights. He seeks a proper balance between protecting individual rights, national security, and effective government while ensuring that serious foreign national offenders can be deported and the asylum system is not abused.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
More than 230,000 people have signed the petition for human rights legislation reform. Scott Benton is concerned that the current 'rights culture' is contrary to common sense and has provided a platform for criminals to escape punishment or delay natural justice. He cites specific cases where individuals with criminal records have used article 8 on the right to respect for private and family life to avoid deportation, leading to abuse of the asylum system.
Andrew Slaughter
Lab
Hammersmith and Chiswick
He argued against reforming the Human Rights Act, suggesting that it is working well and questioning the motives behind its proposed changes. He criticized the government for ignoring the Gross report's recommendations in favour of a book by a former Minister. Andrew Slaughter questioned the necessity of a comprehensive review, arguing that twenty years is not long enough for significant changes to human rights legislation. He pointed out that Magna Carta has lasted for about 800 years without repeal or replacement.
Andy Slaughter
Lab
Ealing Abbey
I am concerned about the government's stance on human rights and urge them to provide a clear explanation for their approach.
Bob Neill
Con
Bexleyille
Neill supports the Human Rights Act and believes reform should be evidence-based, referencing Sir Peter Gross's report. He argues that the Bill of Rights goes beyond the manifesto commitment and undermines convention rights for UK citizens. Neill highlights the declining number of adverse judgments against the UK from 19 in 2011 to 4 in 2020 and suggests focusing on more pressing issues.
Ellie Reeves
Lab
Lewisham West and East Dulwich
Reeves emphasised the strength of public support for the Human Rights Act, with nearly 250,000 petition signatures. She argued that the Act is integral to justice for victims, peace in Northern Ireland, and maintaining the Union. The Minister was urged to confirm the Bill would not return and scrap plans to replace the Human Rights Act. Reeves highlighted cases where the Act provided redress for victims of state failures, including military rape victims and women facing violence.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Jim Shannon supported retaining the Human Rights Act as it is, noting that over 230,000 people have signed a petition against its reform. He emphasised the importance of considering human rights when making trade deals and highlighted global issues such as the war in Ukraine, protests in Iran, and treatment in Hong Kong.
Joanna Cherry
SNP
Edinburgh South West
Asked the hon. Member whether they see any role for the protection of minority rights under the Human Rights Act and the ECHR. As Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Joanna Cherry stated that the committee's evidence shows the Human Rights Act is functioning effectively and enabled human rights to be enforced without need for recourse to the European Court of Human Rights. She expressed concern over the Government's lack of engagement with experts, Parliament, and the public before embarking on reforms proposed in the Bill of Rights Bill. The consultation exercise received over 12,000 responses, most in favour of maintaining the status quo or minor changes. Joanna stressed that the international perception of the Human Rights Act as a gold standard for human rights protections must be maintained.
Jon Cruddas
Lab
Dagenham
Welcomes the petition against Human Rights Act reforms but argues that despite Prime Minister Liz Truss withdrawing her plans, the issue remains relevant due to its presence in successive Conservative manifestos. Criticises the Brexit Freedoms Bill as a radical piece of legislation entailing dismantling domestic law and undermining judicial independence. Expresses concern over the international context, suggesting the UK is moving away from global democratic oversight and human rights obligations.
Margaret Ferrier
SNP
Rutherglen and Hamilton West
Asked whether the hon. Member sees any role for the protection of minority rights under the Human Rights Act and the ECHR, and questioned if there is enough evidence to suggest that trivial human rights claims are a widespread issue. Ferrier raises concerns about the disregard for devolution if the UK Government pushes ahead with human rights legislation reform, highlighting that the Scottish Government opposes such changes and would invite Holyrood to oppose them as well.
Steven Bonnar
SNP
Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill
Bonnar criticises the Government's proposed reform to the Human Rights Act as an 'unashamed attempted power grab', arguing it undermines public accountability and judicial independence. He highlights that 326 people from his constituency signed the e-petition against the reforms. Steven Bonnar thanked the Minister and asked why his Government was the only one allowed to deliver on manifesto pledges, specifically mentioning Scotland's pledge for an independence referendum as a human rights issue.
Government Response
Gareth Johnson
Government Response
The Minister thanked contributors for their positive debate, acknowledged the UK's strong human rights record, and detailed the Government's review of the Human Rights Act with intentions to update it while remaining compliant with international obligations. He highlighted the UK's low number of applications per million inhabitants to the European Court of Human Rights, emphasizing that updating the Act is not about repeal but improvement. The Minister stated that any reform will comply fully with the European convention on human rights and other international commitments. He noted the Government's work on a Bill of Rights considering wider issues such as balancing individual rights and public interest, and ensuring public authorities can carry out their duties confidently. The process remains paused for policy review but updates on progress are anticipated.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About Westminster Hall Debates
Westminster Hall debates are a chance for MPs to raise important issues affecting their constituents and get a response from a government minister. Unlike Prime Minister's Questions, these debates are more in-depth and collaborative. The MP who secured the debate speaks first, other MPs can contribute, and a minister responds with the government's position.