DOCSLIB.ORG

The Implications of Brexit for Fundamental Rights Protection in the UK

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Implications of Brexit for Fundamental Rights Protection in the UK LSE Commission on the Future of Britain in Europe | 1 European X xxxx Institute The implications of Brexit for fundamental rights protection in the UK Report of the hearing held on 25th February 2016 LSE Commission on the Future of Britain in Europe Rapporteurs: Jo Murkens Sarah Trotter 2 | The implications of Brexit for fundamental rights protection in the UK Foreword This is the report of the sixth session of the LSE Commission on the Future of Britain in Europe, which took place on Thursday 25 February, from 16.30-19.00h. The hearing drew together a number of politicians, academics, practitioners and activists to discuss the question of the implications of Brexit for fundamental rights protection in the UK. Dominic Grieve QC and Marina Wheeler QC presented opening remarks on the British Bill of Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights respectively, and a very rich discussion ensued. Participants presented perspectives on and analyses of the state and fate of fundamental rights protection in the UK, spanning the matters of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, British relations with the Strasbourg Court and the British Bill of Rights. The report seeks to convey the breadth and depth of the very balanced debate that took place at this session. I would like to express my gratitude to the participants for their expert contributions as presented during the session itself and by way of additional papers. Many thanks are also due to Marion Osborne and David Spence for their excellent support and assistance in the organisation of the hearing. Any remaining errors in this report are my sole responsibility. Dr Jo Murkens Department of Law, LSE. LSE Commission on the Future of Britain in Europe | 3 Contents 1. Introduction .......................................... 4 2. Summary ............................................. 5 3. The role and nature of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights .................................... 6 4. The European Convention on Human Rights and British relations with the Strasbourg Court ...................... 8 5. The question of the British Bill of Rights .................. 10 6. UK narratives and the choice of reference points ........... 13 7. Conclusion .......................................... 15 Participants list .......................................... 16 4 | The implications of Brexit for fundamental rights protection in the UK 1. Introduction The subject of the sixth hearing of the LSE Commission on the Future of Britain in Europe related to the implications of a possible Brexit for fundamental rights protection in the UK. Currently, fundamental rights in the UK are protected by three interlinked regimes: EU law and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; the European Convention on Human Rights, whose effectiveness is enhanced by the Human Rights Act 1998; and domestic rights protection. The hearing drew together politicians, academics, practitioners and activists to discuss the state and fate of fundamental rights under these regimes in the light of the broader ongoing debate as to the UK’s continuing membership of the European Union. The panel discussion of the question ‘What would Brexit mean for the protection of fundamental rights in the UK?’ was sub-divided into four key topics: the role and nature of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Section 1); the European Convention on Human Rights and British relations with the Strasbourg Court (Section 2); the question of the British Bill of Rights (Section 3); and the UK narratives and choice of reference points (Section 4). LSE Commission on the Future of Britain in Europe | 5 2. Summary The conclusions reached during this • The ongoing discussion over hearing were as follows: the British Bill of Rights and the impending referendum on continued • The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU membership both stem from an has become a prominent instrument. In attitude that favours the repatriation the event of Brexit, the Charter would of laws and rights. Participants were cease to apply, but it is likely to carry divided in their views on the nature and residual effects in domestic law. implications of this attitude but it was • The prisoner voting issue, which agreed that the central question here is has acquired political salience and that of the location of reference points. commanded media attention, has • Whilst Brexit would reduce the level of put a strain both on British relations fundamental rights protection in the with the European Court of Human UK, the implications of a possible Brexit Rights and on the reputation of the in this sphere would also be largely UK as an upholder and promoter of dependent on a number of variables, fundamental rights. This, in turn, namely as to what would happen to carries implications for the protection the EUCFR in relation to domestic law, of fundamental rights in Europe and at what would happen in relation to the international level more generally, the ECHR and to British relations with because the UK holds significant the Strasbourg Court more generally, influence in this sphere. and what would happen to the British • There is an important debate to be had Bill of Rights and the commitment of about the British Bill of Rights in this the Conservative government to the context, and about whether it would realisation of this. entail a reduced level of fundamental rights protection in the UK. As it stands, the indications indeed are that it would amount to an ‘ECHR-minus’. • It is arguable that a British Bill of Rights would give rise to a sense of ownership. However, no coherent set of ‘British values’ exists that could inform a Bill of Rights. This would need to be addressed before such a Bill would work in practice. 6 | The implications of Brexit for fundamental rights protection in the UK 3. The role and nature of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights instrument of holding EU institutions (EUCFR) was formally incorporated into to account also, along with the general EU law by the Lisbon Treaty, and it applies principles of EU law. Second, the Charter to the EU institutions and to the Member lacks democratic legitimacy in the UK. States when they are implementing, Although it was aimed at reaffirming derogating from, or acting in the scope rights, it has arguably gone further and of EU law. It sets out a detailed catalogue created new rights. The UK never intended of rights, including not only civil and it to operate as a set of standards against political rights, but also economic and which domestic legislation could be social rights. In practice, however, these struck down. It follows, finally, that the two ‘generations’ of rights are not Charter “is a recipe for incoherence”. accorded equal effect within the vision It makes no sense as a parallel body of of rights set out by the EUCFR, for the rights alongside the ECHR, and, moreover, Charter distinguishes ‘rights’ (which are erodes national sovereignty because of fully effective) and ‘principles’ (which are the impact of Charter cases on domestic not). And, as Catherine Barnard pointed law by virtue of the EU law supremacy out, economic and social rights are doctrine. The “proper role” of the Charter, mostly ‘principles’. Wheeler argued, is that of “a guiding set of principles for the institutions, not There was a general consensus among something that creates justiciable rights”. participants that the Charter has become a prominent instrument. Relatedly, the These concerns were shared and developed contribution of this instrument to the by others on the panel. Lee Rotherham areas of data protection, workers’ rights noted that these are also pertinent and women’s rights was noted. But beyond issues when it comes to the ECHR, which this basic position as to the prominent also poses particular challenges for role of the EUCFR, there was notably less accountability and democracy. Michael agreement. Two points of disagreement Pinto-Duschinsky meanwhile picked up the surfaced in particular: one as to the point about the nature and power of the necessity of the Charter and the other as rights set out in the Charter itself, arguing to what would happen to it in relation to that this instrument (and the Court of domestic law in the event of Brexit. Justice of the EU with it) is both more broad and more powerful than the ECHR, Marina Wheeler opened the debate on and that, moreover, it gives rise to an the necessity of the Charter, arguing that overly-complicated three-limbed system of “the Charter is a human rights instrument fundamental rights protection. It would be too far”. Her thesis was based upon simpler, he suggested, to have – via Brexit three propositions. First, the Charter is – the ECHR regime and domestic rights unnecessary. The European Convention protection alone. on Human Rights (ECHR) already controls state conduct, and would be an adequate LSE Commission on the Future of Britain in Europe | 7 For others, however, it is precisely the participants, including Dominic Grieve breadth of the Charter and the range of and Marina Wheeler, took the position rights it includes that constitutes its greatest that upon Brexit, the Charter would strength. Geoffrey Robertson spoke of cease to apply, Catherine Barnard argued the value, in particular, of the right to that in practice the position would be dignity in Article 1, which has been used more complicated. This would be so, she in litigation before the Court of Justice.1 suggested, because there would likely be The Charter differs from the ECHR in this “residual effects” of EU human rights law. respect, because dignity is not set out as an Barnard suggested that there are three express right in itself in the ECHR, featuring possibilities for dealing with existing only in the jurisprudence of the European domestic legislation already implementing Court of Human Rights as an underlying EU law: to leave domestic law as it is, with principle and value of the Convention parliamentary intervention on a case-by- more generally.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FAQ: Brexit and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
    FAQ: Brexit and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Part One: What is the Charter? June 2018 Contents Q: What is the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights? A: At the Cologne European Council in June 1999, the European Council adopted a decision on the drawing up of a Charter of The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. That decision stated: Fundamental Rights brings together in a single “There appears to be a need, at the present stage of the Union’s document the fundamental development, to establish a Charter of fundamental rights in rights protected in the order to make their overriding importance and relevance more EU. It was proclaimed in visible to the Union’s citizens”. 2000 and became legally binding in 2009. Although The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter) brings together in a there is overlap between single document the fundamental rights protected in the EU. The Charter the EU Charter and the sets out rights and freedoms under six titles: Dignity, Freedoms, Equality, European Convention on Solidarity, Citizens’ Rights, and Justice. The accompanying Explanatory Human Rights / the UK Notes are “a valuable tool of interpretation intended to clarify the Human Rights Act, there are important procedural provisions of the Charter” and they set out the sources of the provisions and substantive differences. in the Charter. However, legal experts have commented that, “The Charter is often described as a strand-tying document … However, the This FAQ discusses: characterisation of the Charter thus, as a tidying or strand-tying exercise only, tends to underplay its importance” (C Gallagher, A Patrick and K • The background to O’Byrne 2018 at para 2.12).
    [Show full text]
  • Twenty Years of the Human Rights Act: Extracts from the Evidence Contents
    Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP Twenty years of the Human Rights Act: Extracts from the evidence Contents 1 ECtHR Judgments against the UK: the effects of the HRA 2 2 Relationship of UK Courts and ECtHR 4 3 Using the ECHR in the UK courts 5 4 Judgments on rights 7 5 Wider policy changes brought about through individual legal cases 8 6 The Human Rights Act and Parliament 9 7 The Human Rights Act and Legislation 11 Parliamentary scrutiny of legislation 12 The process when UK courts consider legislation is not compliant with the Convention 12 8 Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 14 Change secured without using court proceedings 15 Training in Human Rights 16 9 Further issues raised in evidence 18 Incorporation of other human rights treaties? 18 The definition of public authority 18 Access to justice 19 Freedom of Religion and Belief 20 Wider Understanding of Rights 21 2 Twenty years of the Human Rights Act: Extracts from the evidence 1 ECtHR Judgments against the UK: the effects of the HRA Box 1: Lord Irvine of Lairg, House of Lords Second Reading Debate, 3 Nov 1997 “Our legal system has been unable to protect people in the 50 cases in which the European Court has found a violation of the convention by the United Kingdom. That is more than any other country except Italy. The trend has been upwards. Over half the violations have been found since 1990.”1 Source: HL Deb, 3 Nov 1997, col 1228 Box 2: Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law […] In 2017 only 0.2%, 2 out of all 1,068 judgments given by the Strasbourg Court found a violation by the UK, and in 2016 this figure was 0.7%, 7 out of all 993 judgments.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights Act 1998
    Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Human Rights Act 1998. (See end of Document for details) Human Rights Act 1998 1998 CHAPTER 42 An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights; to make provision with respect to holders of certain judicial offices who become judges of the European Court of Human Rights; and for connected purposes. [9th November 1998] Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— Extent Information E1 For the extent of this Act outside the U.K., see s. 22(6)(7) Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1 Act: certain functions of the Secretary of State transferred to the Lord Chancellor (26.11.2001) by S.I. 2001/3500, arts. 3, 4, Sch. 1 para. 5 C2 Act (except ss. 5, 10, 18, 19 and Sch. 4): functions of the Lord Chancellor transferred to the Secretary of State, and all property, rights and liabilities to which the Lord Chancellor is entitled or subject to in connection with any such function transferred to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (19.8.2003) by S.I. 2003/1887, art. 4, Sch. 1 C3 Act modified (30.1.2020) by Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020 (c. 2), ss. 2(8), 9(3) C4 Act modified (31.12.2020) by European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (c.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Human Rights in the United Kingdom
    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 28, Issue 2 2004 Article 7 The Development of Human Rights in the United Kingdom Lord Gordon Slynn∗ ∗ Copyright c 2004 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj The Development of Human Rights in the United Kingdom Lord Gordon Slynn Abstract There are two myths about the United Kingdom. The first is that we do not have a constitution and did not have any human rights law until very recently. The second myth, very much tied to the first, is that human rights is a new topic. I find that most law students seem to think that they alone have thought about fundamental human rights and that the rest of the world knows nothing about it. As with most myths, however, none of these is absolutely true. THE DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM* Lord Gordon Slynn** There are two myths about the United Kingdom. The first is that we do not have a constitution and did not have any human rights law until very recently. The second myth, very much tied to the first, is that human rights is a new topic.1 I find that most law students seem to think that they alone have thought about fundamental human rights and that the rest of the world knows nothing about it. As with most myths, however, none of these is absolutely true. Let us address the second myth first. The origin of human rights law extends back to the beginning of Western civilization, to the Greeks and the Romans.
    [Show full text]
  • Rights After Brexit: What Will Change?
    RIGHTS AFTER BREXIT: WHAT WILL CHANGE? Author: Kathryn Sturgeon, Research and Events Assistant, Brexit Civil Society Alliance 11 March 2020 31 January 2020 has passed and Great Britain & NI is no longer a part of the EU. So far not a lot has changed: our MEPs are no longer sitting in the European Parliament, and Westminster wrangling has changed its focus from whether the Withdrawal Agreement would pass parliament to negotiating the future relationship. Here we address the question on the lips of many members of the public: what does this actually mean for me right now and what does it mean once the transition period has ended? The Transition Period During this period there are three categories of citizens whose rights we shall be considering: GB citizens in GB, EU citizens in GB, and GB citizens in the EU. Residence, Employment and Benefits Until 30 June 2021 all EU/UK citizens continue to have the same rights as the nationals of the state in which they are residing in relation to travel, housing, employment and social security1. To keep these rights from 1 January 2021 it is important that any EU citizen who intends to continue living in the UK applies to the EU Settlement Scheme by 30 June 20212, and any British citizens living in an EU members state applies for their equivalent scheme. Frontier Workers living in the UK are able to apply to the EU Settlement Scheme and will be able to continue to work in the EU during the transitional period. Those who commute into the UK from the EU are able to continue working for the time being but should look out for a registration programme which will allow them to continue from 1 January 202013.
    [Show full text]
  • Statutory Instruments Revised May 2008
    Factsheet L7 House of Commons Information Office Legislative Series Statutory Instruments Revised May 2008 Contents Introduction 2 Statutory Instruments 2 What is a Statutory Instrument? 2 Drafting 2 Preamble 2 This Factsheet has been archived so the Explanatory Notes 2 content and web links may be out of Explanatory Memoranda 3 date. Please visit our About Parliament Parliamentary procedure on SIs 3 pages for current information. Frequently used terms 3 Negative Procedure 4 Affirmative Procedure 5 Rejection of Statutory Instruments 5 Joint Committee on Statutory Statutory Instruments (SIs) are a form of Instruments 6 legislation which allow the provisions of an The Lords Committee on the Merits Act of Parliament to be subsequently of Statutory Instruments. 6 brought into force or altered without Debates on SIs in the House of Parliament having to pass a new Act. They Commons 7 are also referred to as secondary, delegated Delegated Legislation Committees 7 or subordinate legislation. This Factsheet Other types of delegated legislation 8 Regulatory Reform Orders 8 discusses the background to SIs, the Debates on Regulatory Reform procedural rules they must follow, and their Orders 9 parliamentary scrutiny. It also looks at the Remedial Orders 10 other types of delegated legislation. Commencement orders 10 Orders in Council 11 Orders of Council 11 Local SIs 11 Finding out about SIs 11 Publication and Bibliographic Control 12 Appendix A 13 Statistics on delegated legislation and deregulation orders 13 Appendix B 15 Comprehensive summary table of what can and cannot be presented or laid during recesses. 15 Further Reading 16 MayContact 2008 information 16 FSFeed No.backL7 Ed form 3.9 17 ISSN 0144-4689 © Parliamentary Copyright (House of Commons) 2008 May be reproduced for purposes of private study or research without permission.
    [Show full text]
  • Albert Venn Dicey and the Principles of the Rule of Law: Is Justice Blind? a Comparative Analysis of the United States and Great Britain
    Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review Volume 22 Number 3 Article 2 6-1-2000 Albert Venn Dicey and the Principles of the Rule of Law: Is Justice Blind? A Comparative Analysis of the United States and Great Britain Michael L. Principe Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ilr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael L. Principe, Albert Venn Dicey and the Principles of the Rule of Law: Is Justice Blind? A Comparative Analysis of the United States and Great Britain, 22 Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 357 (2000). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ilr/vol22/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ESSAY Albert Venn Dicey and the Principles of the Rule of Law: Is Justice Blind? A Comparative Analysis of the United States and Great Britain MICHAEL L. PRINCIPE* I. INTRODUCTION Although law is a practical discipline, its cornerstone is the study of jurisprudence, or "the science of law."1 Jurisprudence, particularly the segment of jurisprudence entitled legal theory, defines, describes, and illuminates all individuals as social, political, and legal beings. This is true for proponents of Natural Law,2 Legal Positivism, 3 Dialectical Materialism, 4 Formal * J.D., University of Washington School of Law (1983); Ph.D., Political Science, University of California at Santa Barbara (1992); Visiting Scholar, St.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Thepdf
    Volume 59, Issue 5 Page 1395 Stanford Law Review KEEPING CONTROL OF TERRORISTS WITHOUT LOSING CONTROL OF CONSTITUTIONALISM Clive Walker © 2007 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, from the Stanford Law Review at 59 STAN. L. REV. 1395 (2007). For information visit http://lawreview.stanford.edu. KEEPING CONTROL OF TERRORISTS WITHOUT LOSING CONTROL OF CONSTITUTIONALISM Clive Walker* INTRODUCTION: THE DYNAMICS OF COUNTER-TERRORISM POLICIES AND LAWS................................................................................................ 1395 I. CONTROL ORDERS ..................................................................................... 1403 A. Background to the Enactment of Control Orders............................... 1403 B. The Replacement System..................................................................... 1408 1. Control orders—outline................................................................ 1408 2. Control orders—contents and issuance........................................ 1411 3. Non-derogating control orders..................................................... 1416 4. Derogating control orders............................................................ 1424 5. Criminal prosecution.................................................................... 1429 6. Ancillary issues............................................................................. 1433 7. Review by Parliament and the Executive...................................... 1443 C. Judicial Review..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights After Brexit: Workshop Report
    UCL PUBLIC POLICY UCL INSIGHTS: RESEARCH BRIEFING Human Rights after Brexit: Workshop report A key initiative in the Conservative • the HRA and its relationship with Party’s 2015 manifesto was to repeal the Parliamentary sovereignty and judicial Human Rights Act 1998. Part of the power rationale for these plans was that it • the British Bill of Rights as an would help to ‘break the formal link opportunity for losing and/or gaining between the UK and Strasbourg’, and rights. allow UK courts to adjudicate human rights claims under a British Bill of Overview of panel discussions Rights without reference to Strasbourg case law.1 Following the political fallout Panel I – The Big Picture: Brexit, the ECHR and Devolution from Brexit, whether or not these plans This discussion focused on: how human rights in Britain would go ahead was initially unclear. may be affected by Brexit; the future of the UK’s However, the new Secretary of State for position as a signatory to the European Convention on Justice has since clarified that Human Rights (ECHR); and issues of human rights and devolution. Government remains committed to this The EU referendum was described as being part of 2 part of their manifesto. a recent trend in the UK towards retrenchment of international law, a point initially raised by Angela Patrick On 25 July 2016, a workshop was held at (JUSTICE). This trend was described as stemming from an increasing distrust in international law, which has had UCL to discuss these plans, and their implications not only for public perceptions of the EU but implications in light of the UK’s new also in relation to the European Court of Human Rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Boris Johnson to Become Britain's Next PM
    Boris Johnson to become Britain’s next PM News Boris Johnson Tuesday will be Britain’s next Prime Minister, succeeding Theresa May. More in News ● Johnson’s victory places a hardcore Brexit supporter in charge of the government for the first time since the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU in the shock 2016 referendum. ● The timing of Johnson’s victory is also significant as it comes during one of the most complex and tumultuous junctures in post-World War Two British history. ● The victory is a triumph for the 55-year-old Johnson, an ambitious but erratic politician whose political career has veered between periods in high office and spells on the sidelines. ● Johnson’s victory has two implications: It pushes the United Kingdom towards a Brexit showdown with the European Union (EU) and Towards a constitutional crisis at home, as British lawmakers have vowed to bring down any government that tries to leave the bloc without a divorce deal. India connection ● Johnson’s recently estranged spouse Marina Wheeler, whom he married in 1993, has Indian ancestry, and Johnson has visited India on numerous occasions over the years. Wheeler is the niece of author Khushwant Singh, and the granddaughter of Sir Sobha Singh, one of the major contractors who built Lutyens’s Delhi. On trade ties with India ● On the backdrop of the strenuous Brexit negotiations, the UK is now looking out for new trade deals with its global partners. ● Currently, India-UK trade is worth over $19.7 billion, a number that Johnson appears to be keen at raising.
    [Show full text]
  • The Government's Independent Review of the Human Rights
    House of Commons House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights The Government’s Independent Review of the Human Rights Act Third Report of Session 2021–22 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 23 June 2021 Ordered by the House of Lords to be printed 23 June 2021 HC 89 HL Paper 31 Published on 8 July 2021 by authority of the House of Commons and House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights The Joint Committee on Human Rights is appointed by the House of Lords and the House of Commons to consider matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases); proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders. The Joint Committee has a maximum of six Members appointed by each House, of whom the quorum for any formal proceedings is two from each House. Current membership House of Commons Harriet Harman QC MP (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham) (Chair) Karen Buck MP (Labour, Westminster North) Joanna Cherry QC MP (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh South West) Angela Richardson MP (Conservative, Guildford) Dean Russell MP (Conservative, Watford) David Simmonds MP (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) House of Lords Lord Brabazon of Tara (Conservative) Lord Dubs (Labour) Lord Henley (Conservative) Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat) Baroness Massey of Darwen (Labour) Lord Singh of Wimbledon (Crossbench) Powers The Committee has the power to require the submission of written evidence and documents, to examine witnesses, to meet at any time (except when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved), to adjourn from place to place, to appoint specialist advisers, and to make Reports to both Houses.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Committee on Human Rights
    Joint Committee on Human Rights Inquiry on 20 years of the Human Rights Act September 2018 Introduction The Law Society of Scotland is the professional body for over 11,000 Scottish solicitors. With our overarching objective of leading legal excellence, we strive to excel and to be a world-class professional body, understanding and serving the needs of our members and the public. We set and uphold standards to ensure the provision of excellent legal services and ensure the public can have confidence in Scotland’s solicitor profession. We have a statutory duty to work in the public interest, a duty which we are strongly committed to achieving through our work to promote a strong, varied and effective solicitor profession working in the interests of the public and protecting and promoting the rule of law. We seek to influence the creation of a fairer and more just society through our active engagement with the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments, Parliaments, wider stakeholders and our membership. The Society’s Constitutional Law Sub-committee welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Inquiry by the Joint Committee on Human Rights: Inquiry on 20 years of the Human Rights Act. The Joint Committee has the following comments to put forward for consideration. General Comments 1. Has the HRA succeeded in its aims as they were set out in 1997/8? We believe that the Human Rights Act 1998 (the HRA) is a key component of our society and an effective tool for the protection of our rights through the domestic courts in the UK.
    [Show full text]