The Human Rights Act 1998 ensures that people can enforce their rights which are set out in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It also compels public bodies (including the Government, the police and local authorities) to respect these rights.
The 2019 Conservative Manifesto noted plans to update the Human Rights Act. However, there are plans to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a 'British Bill of Rights'.
The Independent Human Rights Act Review (IHRAR) was announced in December 2020. It considered how the Human Rights Act works in practice and whether any change is needed. A call for evidence closed in March 2021.
The vast majority of submissions received by IHRAR spoke strongly in support of the HRA. They pointed to its impact in improving public administration for individuals, through developing a human rights culture.(Page 16, para 46).
“Evidence we heard has led us to conclude that there is no case for changing the Human Rights Act.”
Despite the supportive evidence received, the UK Government is pushing forward with its plan to replace the Human Rights Act with what civil society is calling the 'Rights Removal Bill'.
Together has created a briefing which sets out what changes it will have. We have also joined other civil society organisations to express our concerns on how this will leave more people vulnerable to human rights violations.
Together as been lucky enough to be joined by Siti Zaleha Binti Mohd Ali, an LLM in Human Rights candidate at the University of Edinburgh. Over the course of her placement, Siti researched the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on children's lives as well as some of the challenges children face when trying to access their rights. This involved interviewing many of our members of Together. From the challenges identified, Siti drew learning to inform implementation of the UNCRC (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill.
Expand the tabs to read some real life case studies of how the Human Rights Act protects ordinary people going about their everyday lives.
A local authority had a policy that it would only provide school transport for children with disabilities who lived more than 3 miles from their school. A girl with disabilities lived 2.8 miles from her school and was told that she wasn't eligible for school transport. The girl's disability meant she could not travel independently.
The girl's mother approached the school and explained that this approach was contrary to her daughter's rights under the Human Rights Act. She said the blanket rule meant it wasn't possible to consider her daughter's specific circumstances and this resulted in a disproportionate interference with her right to respect for private life.
As a result the head teacher took the issue to the local authority and the decision was reversed. The girl was then provided with transport to and from school each day.
Siobhan McLoughlin, an unmarried mother, relied on the Human Rights Act to challenge discriminatory rules for bereavement benefits. Initially, she was told that she was not eligible for the payment as she had never been married to her partner of 23 years with whom she'd had four children.
The UK Supreme Court found that this rule was discriminatory and breached the rights of both the mother and her children under the Human Rights Act.
The case puts pressure on the UK Government to change the law.
A mother with mental health problems was struggling after the death of her husband. She was placed in supported care and her children were fostered. At first, the children were able to see their mother three times a week, but gradually these visits were reduced as the local children's services team said it did not have enough staff to supervise the visits. The children and their mother were very distressed by this.
An advocate for the family argued that the situation was contrary to the the children's right to family life and was contrary to their best interests. This resulted in the children's services team restoring the three visits each week.