Orders of the Day — Human Rights Bill [Lords]

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 4:28 pm on 16 February 1998.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Dr Brian Mawhinney Dr Brian Mawhinney Shadow Secretary of State 4:28, 16 February 1998

No is the answer. The change to which the hon. Gentleman refers was by a Bill before the House. That is precisely my argument, and I am deeply grateful to him for reinforcing it.

This is not modernising the constitution. This is not modernising Britain. This is tearing up our fundamental separation of powers. The Government plan to give effect to change by way of a declaration of incompatibility and, as the Lord Chancellor delicately put it: the declaration is very likely to prompt the Government and Parliament to respond. That is the point.

The present Government have taken disingenuity to a new level. "Of course it has nothing to do with us," they say. "We are not in favour of undermining the sovereignty of Parliament," they say. "We would not dream of introducing a privacy law by the back door," they say. But they pass the legislation to undermine the sovereignty of Parliament and give judges new rights.

The Lord Chancellor said in another place, We have taken the view that if legislation has been declared incompatible, a prompt parliamentary remedy should be available."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582, c. 1231.] This afternoon the Home Secretary confirmed that.

The Government want to change the legislation by introducing an unamendable order. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham was right to pressure the Home Secretary earlier. The Government want to introduce an unamendable order, perhaps in a matter of weeks, on the say-so of judges who, drawing on their judicial experience and their socio-political views, decide that some bit of British law is incompatible with a convention article.