David Cameron warned he faces backbench rebellion over plans to scrap Human Rights Act

The proposals are due to be included in this week's Queen's Speech

Click to follow
Indy Politics

David Cameron will face ministerial resignations and a large backbench rebellion if he pushes ahead with plans to dilute Britain’s obligations under the Convention on Human Rights, senior Conservatives have warned.

The former International Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell, said he was “extremely sceptical” about proposals, due to be included in the Queen’s Speech this week, to restrict the power of the European Court to interpret British laws under the Convention.

“I have clear views about the importance of international justice, which we need to expand, and Britain pulling out of the European Court will send all the wrong signals on the British commitment to expanding human rights around the world,” Mr Mitchell said.

It comes as the SNP, which is now the third biggest party in Parliament, said it had begun sounding out lawyers on the Tory benches about uniting to defeat Mr Cameron’s plans.

The SNP home affairs spokeswoman, Joanna Cherry, said any move to repeal the Human Rights Act would be a “very retrograde step”.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats are also expected to oppose attempts to repeal the Act, and as Mr Cameron’s majority is just 12, any rebellion will leave him vulnerable to defeat even if he gets the support of the Democratic Unionist Party.

 

Meanwhile an unnamed Government minister told the Sunday Telegraph that he would probably resign if Tory plans to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with a new Bill of Rights resulted in Britain watering down its human rights obligations.

The new Justice Secretary, Michael Gove, has been charged with drafting a new Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act, to be included in Wednesday’s Queen’s Speech.

The Conservative former Attorney-General Dominic Grieve said: “A Bill of Rights that places us outside the European Convention on Human Rights would be reputationally disastrous for this country and would have very serious consequences for the survival of the Convention.”

Comments