Talk

Flip

Politics

Two sides to every story

24 replies

Thistledew · 04/10/2011 10:57

Link to the original BBC article here

Under proposals announced by the home secretary, the government will be given greater powers to interfere with peoples? rights to a family life.

Theresa May will talk of the government?s plans to abuse their position of power to dictate how the legal process should apply the system of checks and balances that operate to modify the exercise of executive power.

The move is likely to go down well with Tory activists at the party?s annual conference in Manchester. Many have been calling for the Human Rights Act to be scrapped. It is likely to be less popular with the Conservatives Lib Dem coalition partners, who are strong supporters of the act, which incorporates the European Convention into British law. But aides have stressed that the policy has been cleared by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, as well as Justice Secretary Ken Clarke ? who have both become increasingly illiberal voices on criminal justice.

Public protection

Official figures show that the Home Office attempted to unlawfully interfere with the private and family life rights of more than 100 people who have been convicted of an offence, or are unable to show that they fall within any of the strict immigration categories. In each of these cases, the courts found that the Home Office had failed to strike a proportionate balance between the need to protect people living in the UK, and the right of the people involved to maintain their family relationships.

Prime Minister David Cameron told the BBC: "We believe that the courts are currently giving too much attention to that [the right to family life], rather than the protection of the United Kingdom.
"And you are able to change the immigration rules and ask them to look more carefully about the danger these individual pose. The right to family life is not an inalienable right in the European Convention, so we believe this change can work."

It is expected that MP?s will get a chance to vote on the change. Although the Human Rights Act is a piece of statutory legislation, which would require parliamentary approval to amend, it is proposed that these changes be brought in through the immigration rules. These rules are secondary legislation, which can be changed by the use of executive powers, so do not have to go thought the normal democratic process. Despite the fact that the immigration rules have far-reaching powers which can drastically impact upon the lives of thousands of foreign national people, and their family members and children (who may or may not be British Citizens), the government frequently uses secondary legislation to push through sweeping changes with no democratic mandate.

Home Office sources do not claim the rule will mean the government can deport everyone it wants to, but it will ?rebalance? the system in favour of making quick political gain at the expense of families and children.

Although everyone has a right under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to respect for their private and family life, officials point out, it is not an absolute right. They insist it is legitimate to interfere with the exercise of that right where it is in the public interest to do so, for public protection or to protect the British economy. Although this is already a balancing exercise the that the courts perform, after taking on board all the available evidence from probation and social work reports, the government is not happy that the courts often find that any residual risk of the person re-offending is outweighed by the damage that would be cause to the rights and quality of life of that person?s family.

Despite the fact that powers already exist in immigration legislation, the home secretary is examining how to make clear in the immigration rules that a foreign national can be deported when they have been convicted of a criminal offence, or removed from the UK if they are unable to meet the specific immigration rules, even where they have a family here who will also be affected by their removal. The powers can be used to remove children, who had no choice in where they were born, have lived here for several years, and who know nothing of the language or culture of the place where it is proposed to send them. These powers will be used to remove families, who, through no fault of their own, have become unable, whether temporarily or permanently, to support themselves financially.

The Conservatives are already on a collision course with the Lib Dems over plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights. A commission set up to examine the policy, which is enshrined in the coalition agreement, is due to report later this year.

Lib Dem opposition

Conservative MP Conor Burns told the BBC: "The deputy prime minister told his conference really clearly last week that he is having no truck with removing the Human Rights Act from the statute book. "So we have got a bit of an impasse here." He added: "I don't really understand the point of the report going to Nick Clegg if Nick Clegg has already made his mind up.

"So I think the prime minister now should ask the commission to report to him. All I'm saying is, very clearly, the coalition should implement the coalition agreement."

The prime minister and Mrs May both say they want to scrap the Human Rights Act but cannot push the proposals quickly through parliament without rigorous scrutiny and debate, as they would like to do, due to Liberal Democrat opposition.
Several high-profile cases have attracted criticism, including that of Iraqi Kurd Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, who killed 12-year-old Amy Houston in a hit-and-run in Blackburn in 2003.

He was jailed, and subject to the normal criminal punishments for the offence. He was not removed from the UK immediately on his release and he and his wife had two children following his release from prison.

Ibrahim's lawyers successfully argued that he posed no future risk to the public, and his removal from the UK would be a disproportionate interference with his and his children?s right to have a normal father-child relationship. The court found that it would not be reasonable to expect his wife and children to return to Iraq. Judges at the Court of Appeal refused an application to appeal against that decision in April this year, finding that the Tribunal had struck a fair balance between the interests of public protection and the rights of the family.

OP posts:

Report

Thistledew · 04/10/2011 12:15

Bump.

OP posts: