Human rights

Number 10 has not given an official denial that David Cameron has ruled out pulling out of the European Convention on human rights, with the Prime Minister’s official spokeswoman today saying that the manifesto was ‘absolutely’ the best guide to the Prime Minister’s position on human rights reform. This is what the manifesto says on human rights: We will reform human rights law and our legal system We have stopped prisoners from having the vote, and have deported suspected terrorists such as Abu Qatada, despite all the problems created by Labour’s human rights laws. The next Conservative Government will scrap the Human Rights Act, and introduce a British Bill of Rights.

I spotted the Liberal Democrat leadership candidate Tim Farron in a pub on Whitehall, enjoying half a pint of lager and nachos with fellow party activists after marching in defence of the Human Rights Act. He kindly agreed to speak to The Spectator and you can watch above what we discussed. As part of his leadership campaign, Farron, who remains the bookies' favourite, has suggested the party must focus on particular campaigns and causes instead of acting like a traditional small political party.

David Cameron has decided to stall on human rights reform for now, partly because the Tories couldn’t quite work out how to get the reforms they wanted, and partly because the Prime Minister knew that he had a rebellion in his own party on his hands, opposition from almost all other parties bar the DUP, who Sam Coates explains in the Times have said they are unlikely to give their backing to the bill in the early part of the parliament. Opponents of big changes to human rights legislation within the Tory party are not surprised by the delay. They also don’t think that it is likely to pass at any stage in this Parliament, unless it is dramatically slimmed down to the point that it makes very little difference.

Repealing the Human Rights Act is one of the most difficult tasks the government faces. On this week’s View from 22 podcast, the Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan and barrister Greg Callus discuss how and why Michael Gove intends to break Britain’s link with the European Court of Human Rights. Is it a purely symbolic gesture to repeal the HRA or should ordinary people care about this? Is the legal community generally supportive or against the move? And how does Gove’s personality help this battle? James Forsyth and Isabel Hardman also discuss the perils of a small majority government and how the Tory rebels intend to make life difficult for David Cameron.

In today’s Guardian, Matthew D’Ancona warns that David Cameron may face a successful rebellion from the 'Runnymede Tories' if he tries to repeal the Human Rights Act, led by David Davis. Not only would that be a major blow to his authority, it would make remaining in the EU a less attractive option in the forthcoming referendum. Human Rights experts insist that the two issues are wholly separate, although that’s open to debate. But there’s no doubt they’re politically linked.

Michael Gove has been keeping a relatively low profile since being made Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor last weekend. I understand that he is keen to master the brief, and particularly the complexities around the creation of a British Bill of Rights, before he starts hitting the TV studios. But an address he gave to staff at the Ministry of Justice on Wednesday gives some clues as to the direction he is heading in. Interestingly Gove didn’t simply declare that the Tories would be scrapping the Human Rights Act. Instead, he said, ‘We’ll be seeking to ensure that human rights are enhanced and preserved by modernising and reforming the framework of rights in this country’.

That some Tory MPs wouldn’t like the idea of Michael Gove scrapping the Human Rights Act has been known for some time, but there is something else worth keeping an eye out for in the next few weeks as the Tories draw up their proposals. Some Conservatives, like Dominic Grieve, have long been opposed to this sort of reform. But many others are waiting to see the detail before they react - and are still minded to rebel on the legislation. Depending on what Gove and his team produce, they could find themselves with a group of rebels considerably larger than the majority of 12 the government has, who will enjoy the support of Labour and the SNP (oh, and the Lib Dems, but they won’t be necessary, really, will they?) in blocking the legislation.

This week Tony Blair donated £106,000 to the Labour Party, with £1,000 going to each Labour candidate fighting for a target seat. Ed Miliband has since faced flak for accepting the 'blood money' funds, due to unease over the source of the cash given Blair’s dealings with dictatorships such as Kazakhstan. Not that any of this is worrying Blair. Mr S hears that the former Labour leader has been busy sunning himself in Myanmar, where human rights are regarded as among the worst in the world. Blair, who has an estimated worth of nearly £100 million, was spied fine dining in the country's capital Naypyitaw. When a journalist inquired as to what he was doing there, they were told that he was in Burma for 'private meetings'.

Like many journalists, I’m a bit of a know-it-all — when information is touted as ‘new’, especially in government reports, it sometimes brings out in me the opposite of sincere curiosity so essential to my trade. Thus when my French publisher asked me to write a preface to Senator Dianne Feinstein’s report on the CIA’s torture programme, and come to Paris to promote a translated edition, I was reluctant. Hadn’t I already read everything about this? As much as I detest the CIA and love Paris, a book tour to discuss waterboarding and forced rectal feeding struck me as less than appealing. Nevertheless, civic duty spurred me and a lawyer colleague to write the preface.