Agenda item

Human Rights Act

It was moved by Councillor Martin Smith, seconded by Councillor Katie Condliffe, that this Council:-

(a)       is concerned by the new Government’s plans to scrap the Human Rights Act, replacing it with a ‘British Bill of Rights’, the details of which have not been set out;

(b)       notes that the Liberal Democrats, whilst in the previous Coalition Government, prevented this from occurring for the last 5 years;

(c)        recognises the importance of the Human Rights Act, which enshrines in British law the European Convention on Human Rights and obliges all public bodies within the UK to uphold and respect human rights;

(d)       notes that the European Convention on Human Rights was authored by British politicians in the wake of World War Two and is in line with traditional British values of tolerance, fairness and liberty;

(e)       recognises that the vast majority of people in Sheffield uphold these values and that Sheffield’s status as a City of Sanctuary, welcoming refugees from countries where human rights are not respected, is a reflection of this fact;

(f)        believes this move is particularly worrying in the face of the Rt. Hon. Theresa May MP’s plans to introduce ‘Banning Orders’ and the controversial draft communications bill, the so-called ‘Snoopers’ Charter’ which the Liberal Democrats also blocked in the last Government;

(g)       is deeply concerned by the Rt. Hon. David Cameron MP’s comment to the National Security Council that ‘For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.’;

(h)       notes that a balance needs to be struck between security and liberty, but believes these proposed measures are an unnecessary invasion of civil liberties and go too far in favour of those in power; and

(i)         therefore urges the Government to reconsider its plans to scrap the Human Rights Act and not to introduce other measures which undermine human rights.

Whereupon, it was moved by Councillor Jack Scott, seconded by Councillor Mazher Iqbal, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by:-

1.         the deletion of paragraph (b) and the addition of a new paragraph (b) as follows:-

(b)       believes that the Government’s decision to postpone a bill to legislate for this demonstrates that the Prime Minister's attack on human rights looks like its fallen over before it has even left the launch pad and that, as the proposals are unravelling in record time, it increasingly looks like the Conservatives are making it up as they go along;

2.        the deletion of paragraphs (f) and (h) and the relettering of all remaining paragraphs accordingly.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was carried.

It was then moved by Councillor John Booker, seconded by Councillor Jack Clarkson, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by:-

1.         the deletion of paragraph (a) and the addition of a new paragraph (a) as follows:-

(a)       believes this country has waited long enough and it is about time the country had a British Bill of Human Rights;

2.         the deletion of paragraphs (c) and (d) and the addition of new paragraphs (c) and (d) as follows:-

(c)        notes British law has worked well in this country for hundreds of years and does not need to be over-ruled by courts in other countries;

(d)       is proud of Great Britain's traditions of tolerance, fairness and liberty, values that have been championed around the world;

3.         the deletion of paragraph (f) and the addition of a new paragraph (f) as follows:-

(f)        further believes that Banning Orders have their place and, if used correctly, can be a useful tool in the fight against crime and the protection of the British public;

4.         the deletion of paragraphs (h) and (i) and the addition of new paragraphs (h) and (i) as follows:-

(h)       agrees that a balance needs to be struck between security and liberty, but believes that finding that balance is an ongoing and very difficult task; and

(i)         has faith in the British people to run their own affairs in their own way, and make decisions that are in the country’s interest but harmonic to other peoples and countries, and is saddened by the lack of confidence shown towards our own ability, and believes that a British Bill of Human Rights could be the pride of this country and the envy of the world.  

On being put to the vote, the amendment was negatived.

The original Motion, as amended, was then put to the vote as a Substantive Motion in the following form and carried:-

Resolved: that this Council:-

(a)       is concerned by the Conservative Government’s plans to scrap the Human Rights Act replacing it with a ‘British Bill of Rights’, the details of which have not been set out;

(b)       believes that the Government’s decision to postpone a bill to legislate for this demonstrates that the Prime Minister's attack on human rights looks like its fallen over before it has even left the launch pad and that, as the proposals are unravelling in record time, it increasingly looks like the Conservatives are making it up as they go along;

(c)        recognises the importance of the Human Rights Act, which enshrines in British law the European Convention on Human Rights and obliges all public bodies within the UK to uphold and respect human rights;

(d)       notes that The European Convention on Human Rights was authored by British politicians in the wake of World War Two and is in line with traditional British values of tolerance, fairness and liberty;

(e)       recognises that the vast majority of people in Sheffield uphold these values and that Sheffield’s status a City of Sanctuary, welcoming refugees from countries where human rights are not respected, is a reflection of this fact;

(f)        is deeply concerned by Rt. Honourable David Cameron’s comment to the National Security Council that ‘For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone’;

(g)       therefore urges the government to reconsider its plans to scrap the Human Rights Act and introduce other measures which undermine human rights.

(Notes: 1. Councillors Richard Shaw, Rob Frost, Joe Otten, Colin Ross, Martin Smith, Roger Davison, Sue Alston, Andrew Sangar, Cliff Woodcraft, Ian Auckland, Steve Ayris, Denise Reaney, David Baker, Katie Condliffe and Vickie Priestley voted for paragraphs (a) and (c) to (g) and abstained on Paragraph (b) of the Substantive Motion and asked for this to be recorded.

2. Councillors Aodan Marken, Brian Webster, Robert Murphy and Sarah Jane Smalley voted for paragraphs (a) and (c) to (g) and abstained on Paragraph (b) of the Substantive Motion and asked for this to be recorded.)