4. What assessment has the Counsel General made of the impact of the Human Rights Act on Welsh legislation? OAQ(5)0010(CG)

Members will know my advice is legally privileged. However, Members will know that the Human Rights Act is embedded in the Government of Wales Act 2006 and consequently impacts on legislation made by the Assembly and Welsh Ministers.

Thank you. The UK Government has indicated that it plans to abolish the Human Rights Act, and, Counsel General, you’ll be aware of Amnesty International’s campaign against this. Far from what its detractors will you have believe, the Act protects ordinary people’s freedom, safety and dignity, and helps people hold authority to account when things go wrong. Indeed, the Act was instrumental in aiding families of Hillsborough victims in finally finding the truth. Will you, Counsel General, outline the implications of the abolition of the Human Rights Act for us in Wales?

Thank you for the question, and, as has previously been set out by the First Minister in his evidence to the House of Lords EU Select Committee, the Welsh Government is fundamentally opposed to the repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998, and, similarly, to any withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights. The Human Rights Act affects the Welsh Ministers and the Assembly in two very direct ways. Firstly, they are public authorities for the purpose of the Human Rights Act 1998, which means that they cannot act in a way that is incompatible with convention rights. And, secondly, the Welsh Ministers are under a statutory duty by virtue of the Government of Wales Act 2006 not to act or to legislate incompatibly with the convention rights, so that any Assembly Bill provision is outside the Assembly’s competence if it is incompatible with convention rights. It is almost certain that imposing compliance with a British Bill of Rights on the Assembly will require the Assembly’s consent by a legislative consent motion.

Can I refer specifically to the Amnesty International campaign, which is a campaign I very much endorse, because the Human Rights Act has been something that has been grossly misrepresented by certain political organisations and parties? For me, it is a jewel in our constitution, in our legislative framework. It is very interesting, some of the points that have arisen in the Amnesty International campaign, and I was very disappointed to see that the posters were subsequently banned by Network Rail. But, just referring to the comments that were made, for example, by Becky Shah, whose mother died at Hillsborough, she said that:

‘Without the Human Rights Act we would never, ever have had the second inquest. Without the Human Rights Act we would never, ever have got the verdicts of unlawfully killed against all the parties that were culpable. It was an absolutely imperative piece of legislation.’

Again, the parents of John Robinson, who died in 2006 from a ruptured spleen, where, again, the issue of second inquest arose, where the family said that it was

‘fundamental to everyone, in all walks of life. It opens access to justice for the man in the street. From the outset, all we wanted to know was the truth, and we were denied that by an inadequate first inquest. Using the Human Rights Act helped us achieve our goal.

For me, my personal view and the view of the Welsh Government is one of opposition to it. The idea of supplanting the excellent Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights with a Bill of Rights, in my view, could do nothing other than probably lower the standards of human rights, and what would that say about the standing of the United Kingdom in the world—at the time, with everything that is happening, to be saying that our objective now is to lower the standard of human rights?