SIR - Your report of the remarks of the president of the European Court of Human Rights and Afua Hirsch's pertinent column (June 28th: 'UK plan for bill of rights a poor idea, warns head of European court' and 'Council of Europe is obscure but powerful') both emphasise the importance of safeguarding the UK's system for human rights implementation.
It has often been said, but bears repeating, that the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) was drafted by British lawyers and inspired by traditional British liberties. The UK will be taking over the chairmanship of the Convention's parent body the Council of Europe - not to be confused with the EU - just after the ECHR's 50th anniversary. Apart from anything else, it would send a catastrophically bad signal to human rights abusers everywhere if the UK were to choose this anniversary and chairmanship year to repeal its own Human Rights Act.
I am however confident that this will not happen under the new government, which has pledged to turn a (necessary) new leaf in protection of fundamental rights from being trampled by the state or corporations. The HRA enables our domestic courts to decide cases without plaintiffs being put to the expense and delay of going off to Strasbourg. With the huge backlog in the Strasbourg court, removing the 'rights at home' facility would in fact mean removing rights from the reach of individuals.
Our new Secretary of State for Justice Ken Clarke recently endorsed, in the EU Council of justice ministers, a mandate for the EU itself to become party to the Convention. He (and hopefully soon all his party colleagues) recognises that this gives individuals and businesses protection against abuse of powers, in this case by the Brussels authorities.
I am hopeful that the days of 'human rights' coupled with 'Europe' having a bad name in governing circles are coming to an end.
Yours sincerely,
Sarah Ludford
(This letter was sent to The Guardian on 28 June 2010 but was not published.)
Follow the party's activity on...