We have a great history of protecting human rights. A history that goes back even further than the creation of the United Kingdom.
Which is why I do not think we should equate the inalienable concept of human rights with a piece of legislation brought in under new Labour in 1998.
From Magna Carta in 1215, to the Bill of Right in 1689, and Parliament ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights in 1951, we have not shied away from our responsibilities as a country.
But the existing so-called Human Rights Act goes way beyond the UK’s Convention responsibilities.
The Convention does ensure states secure the rights and freedoms in the document for its citizens, but does not mandate any specific legal mechanism for this.
It does not require the direct incorporation given effect by the so-called Human Rights Act, which was introduced by the previous government. In addition, it does not require the competences of the Strasbourg Court to be directly binding on domestic courts.
As an example, the German Constitutional Court ruled that, if there was a conflict between the ECHR and German Basic Law, then German Basic Law was superior.
Labour’s so-called Human Rights Act does not give the United Kingdom such protection.
It is not the Convention that is the problem. It is the European Court’s interpretations.
Last year, the Court in Strasbourg decided that murderers cannot be sentenced to prison for life. They said that that this violates an article which is designed to prohibit ‘torture’ and ‘inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. According to the European Court, this means banning whole life sentences for even the most hideous of crimes.
Is this really what the creators of the Convention like Sir Winston Churchill had in mind? I think not!
I support three major reforms. Firstly, the European Court of Human Rights should not be able to over-rule the UK Supreme Court. Secondly, the European Court must no longer able to order a change in British laws, and it should become an advisory body only.
Thirdly, there needs to be a real balance between rights, and responsibilities, in our laws.
I have long-called for a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, and I am pleased that the Prime Minister has said that this will be introduced as a key reform of the next Conservative majority government.
We can replace the so-called Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities; and we know that we can protect our own national interest while ensuring freedoms are ensured.