Debates between Drew Hendry and Brandon Lewis during the 2019 Parliament

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Drew Hendry and Brandon Lewis
Tuesday 18th October 2022

(1 year, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Drew Hendry Portrait Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
- Hansard - -

16. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on strengthening human rights in the UK.

Brandon Lewis Portrait The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Brandon Lewis)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Government stand by their manifesto commitment to update the Human Rights Act 1998. Obviously we want to look at the best way to do this and we are therefore looking again at the Bill of Rights to ensure that we deliver on the Government’s objectives as effectively as possible. And, as the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) has just outlined, we remain a committed party to the European convention on human rights.

Brandon Lewis Portrait Brandon Lewis
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

Yes. SLAPPs, as they are referred to, are an abuse of the legal system involving people using legal threats and litigation to silence journalists, campaigners and public bodies. The invasion of Ukraine has heightened concerns about oligarchs abusing these laws and seeking to shut down reporting on their corruption and economic crime. I have met the Justice Minister and Deputy Justice Minister from Ukraine to talk about these issues. I am still determined to introduce legislation to deal with SLAPPs and with freedom of speech more widely.

Drew Hendry Portrait Drew Hendry
- View Speech - Hansard - -

The Minister is crying out for alternatives and advice, but section 3 of the Human Rights Act requires Parliament to ensure the compatibility of UK legislation with the European convention on human rights

“so far as it is possible to do so”.

Why, then, are his Government so intent on removing these protections altogether, when the Act already grants them this obvious flexibility?