Dominic Raab’s Bill of Rights would weaken UK courts and should be scrapped, inquiry finds

Law would ‘restrict certain human rights protections that the government finds inconvenient’, committee chair says

Justice secretary Dominic Raab has backed the bill despite antipathy in his party (AP)

Dominic Raab’s Bill of Rights would weaken UK courts and cause more cases to be decided in Strasbourg, an official inquiry has found.

Parliament's joint committee on human rights (JCHR) said the planned law should be scrapped after “overwhelming” opposition and “inadequate justification” for changes that would weaken everyone’s ability to enforce their fundamental freedoms.

A scathing report concluded: “We do not think this is a Bill of Rights at all, and recommend that the title of the bill is changed accordingly.

“The government should not proceed with this bill: it weakens rights protections, it undermines the universality of rights, it shows disregard for our international legal obligations, it creates legal uncertainty and hinders effective enforcement, it will lead to an increased caseload in Strasbourg and will damage our international reputation as guardians of human rights.”

The proposed law, which would scrap and replace the Human Rights act, was presented to parliament last June but progress stalled following the meltdown of Boris Johnson’s government.

The Bill of Rights was reported to have been “shelved” under Liz Truss but appears to have been revived since Rishi Sunak’s arrival as prime minister, and the return of Mr Raab as justice secretary.

It looks set to continue its path through parliament, despite division within the Conservative Party and several current and former ministers’ antipathy towards what some have labelled a “vanity bill”.

Joanna Cherry KC, chair of the JCHR, said the law does not protect rights, but “removes and restricts certain human rights protections that the government finds inconvenient”.  

“We are also very concerned about the adverse impact on the constitutional arrangements of the devolved nations and the Good Friday Agreement,” she added.

“We have called on the government to reconsider the vast majority of the clauses of the bill. However, there is such little appetite for these reforms and the impact is likely to be so damaging to human rights protection in the UK it may be more sensible to scrap the bill in its entirety.” 

The JCHR said that its six-month inquiry found that the Bill of Rights Bill “not only lacks support, but has caused overwhelming and widespread concern”.

It said that an official consultation, call for evidence and a survey found a “limited number” of supporters who made up a “tiny minority” of overall respondents.

Cross-party MPs and peers concluded that there was “no case for this bill”, and no evidence that it would achieve the government’s stated aims such as protecting freedom of speech, strengthening parliamentary sovereignty and empowering British courts.

“The committee concludes that the likely result of the legislation is that more people would need to go to the European Court of Human Rights to enforce their rights and that more adverse judgments are likely to be made against the UK,” a statement said.

“We believe that some of its provisions are simply unnecessary, whilst others are positively damaging to the enforcement and protection of human rights in the UK.”

The report warned that the Bill of Rights would remove obligations that have secured justice in landmark cases including the Hillsborough disaster inquests and the black cab rapist John Worboys, warning that groups raising concerns included those fighting violence against women.

One clause could “enable the government to evade liability for human rights infringements committed during overseas military operations”, while another “extinguishes” the right to family life for people facing deportation. 

The committee found that it was difficult to see a part aiming to make British judges ignore interim measures by the European Court of Human Rights as anything other than a “reaction” to last-minute injunctions that halted an attempted deportation flight to Rwanda.

It warned: “The bill seems to be a vehicle for addressing a small number of specific issues, which, whilst important, we would not expect to see in a statute about fundamental rights.”

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “The Bill of Rights builds on the UK’s proud tradition of liberty by strengthening freedom of speech, reinjecting a healthy dose of common sense to the system and ending abuse of our laws.

“The Government was elected on a manifesto that committed to updating the Human Rights Act to ensure there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government - that is what we are doing.”