 Shadow Vice Chancellor, yna'n gyfnod, dyfodd David Feldman, yng Nghymru a'r Ffacultadol Llywodraeth, ac yn ymdyn ni'n gwleidio am yw'r blynedd. Rwy'n mynd i'w ddylai'r cyflwyngau o'r cyfrifio a'r ffordd. O'r ffyrdd o'r wyf yn ymgyrch. Oni'n hynny'r ffordd o'r ffyrdd o'r ffordd. Mae'n ffordd o gyfrifio, ac yn gweithio i chi, y Llector Theatr cymaint a gweithio. Mae yw ddweud 4, 2 ar y bach, 2 ar y ddechrau, yn y cyfnod o'r llwyth ar y caelwch. A ydych chi'n ddweud, yw'r llwyth o'r gweithio ar y gweith, mae'n ddweud yw'r ddweud o'r llwyth ar y gweith, mae'n ddweud ar y gweith. Mae'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Now down to business. It is a great pleasure to welcome you all to the 2007 Mackenzie Stewart lecture which is to be given this year by a leading Member of the Government, the yw'r mwyaf cyfnodd, Jack Straw MP. Mae'n gweithio i'ch gael i'r ffawr, Mr Straw, am yw'r gweithwyr, Alice Perkins. Roi'n fawr, roi'r fawr. Mae'n ddweud o'r ffawr, mae'n ddweud o'r ffaith yng Nghymru, o'r Lord MacKenzie Stewart, oedd yn fawr oedd yn ei ddweud o'r lefnid. Mae'r ddweudwyr Llywod MacKenzie Stewart yn ei ddweud o'r gweithio. Fwy mae'r ddweud gwyllfa, ddweud o'r Lord MacKenzie Stewart, yn ddweud o'r lefnid, y cerddau i'r sefydlu hefyd. Mae'r ddweud o'r Llywod MacKenzie Stewart yn ei ddweud o'r lefnid. Fy yw'r cyfnodd, ond y gwrthoedd Dr Matthew Santner. E'r awdurdod yng Nghymru yn bwysig i gweithio amniad. Yr Ysgrifennol MacKenzie-Stewet eich ysgwrdd ym Mhelydd i'r siwr ar gyfer Arlin Ndashwood i'r ystafell ac i'r fawr y ffeirio'r y Llywodraeth Lord MacKenzie Stuart, yng Nghymru sy'n ddysgwyd o'r ffacoltyn yw Sidney Sussex College. Mae'n rhaid i'r unrhyw ystod yn ystod y Llywodraeth yma, ydych chi'n ddigwyd y LLB, o'r ddysgwyd yma, o'r ddysgwyd yma, i'r ddysgwyd yma, a'r ddysgwyd yma, i'r ddysgwyd yma, fe chael y LLB yn ystod y Llywodraeth yma, yw LLB ffacoltyn yma. Felly, mae'r ddysgwyd yma, LLB yn ystod y LLB, a phobliech i'r LLB. A phobliech i'r LLB sy'n mynd i'r hoffi, o'r ddysgwyd yma, byddwyd yr aethu eu pethau, y llwyddoedd, y ffordd, y ddechrau a'r yminifredig ac yn ystod, a y llwyddoedd yn y blynedd ar y llwyddoedd y ddechrau. Y rhaid o'r honi'r dda i'r rhaid o'r Pethau Ffodol yn bach mwy, sy'n 1979, ac mae'n cydweithio'r llwyddoedd y Llywodraeth i gyffredig, y cyfnodd cyfnodd cyfnodd cyfnodd cyfnodd cyffredinol a phobl o'r ddechrau yn y Paid Llywodraeth. Fe'r hyn yn ychydig a gweld yn y Llywodraeth ac mae'r arferd o'r bar ar gyfer y Llywodraeth rydyf yn cyfnodd ac mae'r cyfnodd cyfnodd cyffredinol. Felly mae'r gwahau yn y bwysig. Yn y dweud y gwirio'r hwn, mae'r hyn yn cyffredinol wedi'u gweithio'r dynol ac mae'r ymddechrau'r llwyn ynghylchol from 1969 to 1971, so he's also for many of the people in this room, one of you. He then pursued his political interest as a Member of Islington Barw Council, and was also from 77 to 79 a journalist working for the Geronard television World in Action programme. A'r amser ar y cyfnod, yn ymgyrchol, wasiwch chi'n cyfnod o'r Parlymynyddiaeth i gyfnodol, a chyfodd y 1997 genna'r cyfnod, ddweud yn cyd-rydd y cyfnodol. Gweithio'r gynhyrch, honno'r reisgol ar y gyrraedd o'r pethau mewn gwirionedd maen nhw'n gwirionedd o'r gael digwydd. Gweithio'r gweithio'r gyrraedd o'r gweithio'r gyrraedd o'r gwaith o'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gaeligol, that became the act of 1998 through the House of Commons and overseeing its implementation in the period up to 2000. He also was a leading light in developing proposals for the European arrest warrant and the border question of mutual recognition of decisions by criminal courts and prosecuting authorities in Europe, ar gyfer y mynd i dweud am yr own Professor John Spencer, yn y cerd yw'r cyfnodau yn y gymdeithasol, a'r cyfnod cyfnod sefydlu'n ymwyaf. A, sy'n gweithio arlinegar, Byrstyr Straw wedi gwneud y Cymru, a'r cyfrifod rydw i'r cyfrifod yn dweud y cyfrifod yma, sy'n ddod i fynd i'r cyfrifod yw'r cyfrifod yn y llwyddiadau i'r cyfrifod ymwyl yn y Rhaid. Byrstyr yw'r cyfrifod yn 2006 fe'n gweithio'r anodd y cyffredinol yw hwnnw. Felly, mae'r hir o'r profesi Albus Dumbledore yw'r cyffredinol. Rwy'n mynd i'r ysgrifennu'n amlwgol i'r llunio'r amlwgol, fe fyddai'r ysgrifennu i'r llunio'r amlwgol i'r amlwgol. Efallai, yr Ymddir Prifysil i'r ysgrifennu i'r Llyfrgell Cymru, fe'n 2006-07, iawn i gael gyfnodd ar gyfer cyfnodd y Llywodraeth yn ymweld. Yn ymgyrch gyrdd yma, yn ôl i'r gweld Gordodd Brown yn ddefnyddio'r cymdein gyda'r Llywodraedd Llywodraeth yn ymweithio. A fyddwch i'r llawr Llywodraeth ymweldig yn ymlaen, am y brifysgol Llywodraeth yn ymwybod. Mae'r cyfrifysgol yn gweithio'r cyfrifysgol O bobl y cwestiynau 10 oes, oherwydd y cyflwyno cyllid y Ysgrifiad Ysgrifiad ym Mhwylwg Ysgrifiad, maeth yr unigrhawn i'n dweud o'r Llyfr Chymru, ond o'r llwyddo, y Llyfr MacKenzie Stuart. Ysgrifiad y Llyfr Ysgrifiad ym Mhwylwg Ysgrifiad, yw'n gweithio i'r llwyddo, o'r llwyddo i'r llwyddo i'r llwyddo yn 21 ysgrifennu. Ysgrifiad ym ysgrifennu, mae'n ddigwydd i'ch gwaith ei bod yn rhaid i'n gilydd. If you're wondering about my G4 when my previous convictions as president of the National Unions Students were referred to. It was because last night I heard an episode on the radio of the latest book by Robert Harris, which is a thinly disguised novel about a prime minister who bears striking resemblance to a prime minister I knew very well who left office on the 28th of June of this year and the particular passage is one where this Prime Minister is called Adam is explaining how when he was at university took no interest whatsoever in student politics and he regarded student politicians as a number of nerdy anorax I quote and I smiled and wondered whether he continued to think that of those of us who had been involved all the way through his career. The other thing I was going to say was that when I did a similar lecture a few months ago in Oxford in the middle of this lecture, not the same lecture let me tell you, not the same one, in the middle of this lecture a barbershop quartet stood up and started actually a very good harmony to heckle me. This was because of Iraq although the lecture was not really whatever to do with Iraq. Anyway it later transpired that they had been paid by the BBC out of license payers money because and there was a film crew there which is often there is and this was to test how I'd react heckling. As I had no idea that they'd been paid I obviously spotted that they were heckling me and I thought the best thing to do was to conduct them until they'd finished or exhorted themselves and because of that of course this test never I'm told saw the light of day but anyway if there is a barbershop quartet here please make yourself known we can get over and done with with the singing at the beginning and I'll get on with my lecture. Now if you read certain newspapers you might be forgiven for thinking that human rights were an alien imposition foisted on us by the other. It's a misconception which has regrettably taken some root. So a central theme of my lecture this evening is to explode this myth and to demonstrate how far from being some European imposition Britain has been at the forefront of the political and legal development of human rights across Europe and across the world. I regret very much that I was never fortunate enough to meet Lord Mackenzie Stewart in person but I hope that my lecture does do some justice to his memory whom we are here to honour this evening. We've heard already that as the first United Kingdom judge and later president to sit in the European Court of Justice Lord Mackenzie Stewart's reputation goes before him as a preeminent figure not just in United Kingdom but in European law. His career is not only testament to the profound influence which British jurists have had on the furthering of democracy in Europe but he personified all the very best qualities of the British judiciary and it's my pleasure as well this evening to met Lady Mackenzie Stewart and I'm very honoured Lady Mackenzie Stewart that you are here and have been joined by your daughter Judy and by your granddaughter Daisy and by her husband Matthew and I've learnt I've got that right didn't I and I've learnt I won't go into all the rest that I've learnt about the Mackenzie Stewart family but I could do. Let me also as was indicated in the brief biographical notes to which you were suffered and declare some interest I was a lawyer a criminal barrister I practiced briefly in the 1970s before becoming a politician and as we've heard as home secretary I was the minister who took the human rights bill through parliament and saw it brought her into force into force on the 2nd of October 2000 which let me say we chose with some deliberation because it was the anniversary of Gandhi's birth I mentioned this because throughout our history lawyers politicians and judges have not necessarily seen eye to eye especially on issues like that under discussion this evening indeed a predecessor of mine as Lord Chancellor Lord Jowett himself a lawyer a politician and a judge embodied this tension as a lawyer he disliked some of the imprecise drafting of the european convention of human rights as a judge he was concerned about the application of what he called such a half-baked scheme but as a politician he decided that it was clearly in the national interest to agree to it behind this example is a point of substance history of rights has been typified by the search for a balance of principle and practicality what they represent and how they can effectively be applied under the law human rights are our birthright as human beings they're not the gift of government but part of our common humanity however too they have to be seen in the context of the time what was adopted and proclaimed at the united nations on the 10th of december 1948 in the universal declaration of human rights well none of itself intended to create legal rights that declaration was aspirational offering a normative counterpoint to the evils which had so recently gone before it was an expression of a global desire and drive to establish common standards applicable to all humankind the european convention of human rights was born from this taking the non-inforcible universal declaration as its base but developing the principles which underpinned it through the protection of framework of the law and with the means ultimately to enforce that law through the european court what i want to do in this lecture is look at how our sense of rights and obligations since then has altered over the last half century and suggest that the formulation of human rights from the 50s are the formulations of human rights from the 50s are robust and timeless but they need further to be adapted to take account of major changes in the united kingdom europe and the rest of the world particularly over the past two decades first i want to look briefly at the genesis of that modern notion of international human rights articulated in the face an immediate aftermath of an existential threat to the values and civilization of europe second i'm going to argue that today britain faces a new set of challenges both internationally and at home which require us to look again at our mechanism of rights and finally i want to discuss our plans to publish a green paper concerning a british bill of rights and responsibilities which will build on the enormous progress in the development of rights but so that our system meets the needs and expectations of this century as well as of the last with the wounds of the second world war far from heel the european convention was agreed to protect the citizens of europe from ever again experiencing the horrors of totalitarianism we were among the first to sign it in november 1950 and the first to ratify it in 1951 and it seems i think curious that given the significance and sentiment behind the circumstances of the genesis of what became the european convention that in some circles today human rights are seen as i said in my opening paragraph as an unwelcome european creation as if in any event europe was culturally and philosophically separate from us but far from being grafted on by some continental i suppose napoleonic europe britain in fact was at the forefront of the development of the convention of our ideas of human rights in a context which had ramifications for the whole world the notion of internationally recognized freedoms had been enunciated during the last war in 1941 by Churchill and Roosevelt in the atlantic charter and men like Churchill and Roosevelt were alive to the fact that just winning a war was not going to win a piece because they had been through uh not just the horrors of the first world war but the deep instability and depression which followed that war and the circumstances the failure to secure a piece which and and the failure of international institutions in those intervening two decades which in turn laid the foundations for the second war and so after the war and building on the atlantic charter britain was instrumental in developing a system of rights designed primarily to limit the ability of governments to restrict the individual liberties of their citizens and this differed from and developed the conception of liberty as described say by dicey which was based around the philosophy that individuals were free to do that which was not forbidden without clarity as to where that freedom might end on the 20th of july 1950 the then foreign office minister kennith younger stated that the european convention in which these rights by then were to be enshrined quotes consains a definition of the rights and limitations there too which follow almost word for word the actual texts proposed by the united kingdom representatives we led the negotiations we led the drafting we led the way in europe and it's worth worth pointing out that in late 40s and 1950s it was very much an all party exercise jarrett was a labour lord chancellor kennith younger a labour foreign minister the negotiations were led by a man who'd been and the attorney general before that and who later went on to be conservative lord chancellor as viscount kilmio david maxwell five the convention rights have a long british pedigree rooted in the magna cata in the 1689 bill of rights and it habeas corpus and can be read as a manifestation of the values that already deeply embodied within our common law now it's difficult for any of us today from the comfort of 60 years hence to understand completely the abject horrors of nazism not to comprehend fully the egregious human rights abuses which for more than 40 years after the war were kept hidden behind the iron curtain and if it's hard for my generation still more so i suggest for later ones to come to terms with the fact that humankind was capable of such organized evil or to appreciate the sense of utter powerlessness which so many not just felt but had to experience in the face of such organized evil this is particularly true from a british perspective when for centuries we have been spared the all deal of totalitarianism occupation or revolution and our history for at least three and a half centuries has been the story of the growth of an enabling and not a repressive state however elsewhere in europe and not just going back some centuries but in recent decades we have seen more seismic developments with first the collapse of fascism in spain and portugal in the 1970s the banishment of the military junta in Greece the fall of the berlin wall in 1989 the demise of the saviour union in 1991 the Balkans throughout throughout the 1990s for many across europe who'd been denied until recently the liberties which we in the united kingdom have for so long taken for granted and a result of those changes as a result actually of the leadership which both nato and the european union were able to provide europe is now a very different place europe has become wealthier stronger safer more secure there's a common recognition that prosperity and security derives from sharing common purpose and lord stein put it well when he said observance of human rights is instrumentally valuable it tends to promote the conditions in which democratic existence can flourish for the benefit of people generally the european convention has now been incorporated in the laws of 47 states across europe east and west by one means or another a shared human rights culture is something that can help bind us together and provide a common set of values around which europe can unite now in spite of advances in europe the old threat to humankind from authoritarian regimes and functioning states still remains in other parts of the world there are still too many examples we see them today in bermer where such states deny basic rights to their own citizens and pose a threat in turn to their immediate neighbours and their region now on top of these as it were old threats are new threats which derive not from the organized political despotism of a nazi germany an imperial japan or a Stalinist russia but from terrorists operating internationally typically based in failed failing or rogue states in the parlance of democracy these non-state actors operate outside of the moral and legal parameters that define how democratic states operate and by which every other state is judged and may even have its own behaviour moderated these groups exist without regard for life the rule of law or human rights they're bound neither by law nor ethics the cornerstones of how any democratic society has to respond and the threat from this al-qaida inspired terrorism is wholly asymmetrical our diplomatic military security law enforcement and legal judicial systems were never designed to counter it it's made it hard to protect our citizens yes states across the globe have had to deal with terrorism on a significant scale throughout our history but what characterizes the current threat is a number of things it's truly international scope foreign nationals operating for second country funded from a third attacking a fourth its aims its methods and the technologies used the scale of its murderous ambition and despite the considerable efforts and achievements of the intelligence security and law enforcement agencies it is the unpredictability of such international terrorism which creates a sense of fear and instability very different in character and scale from that experience for example in this country over three decades from the provisional IRA or in Spain from the Basque separate terrorist group ETA governments have to act to protect life and laws must change to meet the imperatives of national security this is not the lecture to discuss the fullness of our counterterrorism response but suffice it to say that statute book has a must play an integral part to that but our counterterrorism legislation has to strike a balance between the tensions of public safety on the one hand and the liberty of the individual on the other within the framework of what is proportionate and legitimate a central point of my thesis this evening is that far from undermining how we strike that balance in the new situation a human rights framework used intelligently can help us resolve the tensions this is exactly what Winston Churchill intended and British officials achieved when they drafted the European Convention me give you a familiar example of this tension in operation the issue of the deportation of foreign nationals particularly where they are criminal suspects or terrorist suspects following the decision of the european court of human rights in chahal and the united kingdom which was a 1996 decision which predates therefore incorporation and human rights act it has not been possible to deport certain individuals including those who might be guilty of serious criminal or terrorism offenses to countries where there is quotes a real risk of torture or death the tabloid press and the opposition often cite this and as an illustration of how regard for human rights puts the liberty of the individuals in this case i have to say particularly undesirable individuals about the safety and interest of the wider community now there is indeed a very live issue as to whether the appropriate test is a real risk or for example substantial grounds whether in a particular instance concerning these suspects of this particular nationality the risk they would in practice face where they deported to their home country is a high or a minimal one there are to be found genuine and honourably held differences of opinion about what would happen if and when a particular suspect were deported to his or her home country it's one reason why i when i was foreign secretary and the government now more generally has been instrumental in securing memorandum of understanding with such countries better to guarantee and to monitor the safety of deportees but i do not believe and indeed i cannot believe that anyone is seriously proposing that we should ignore the risk of harm even where this is this risk is incontrovertibly high and well evidenced and so will we to ignore that risk we were what it's being suggested that we should outsource the prospect of murder or torture the principle against this was firmly established in our common law and in our system of values long before either the european convention or its incorporation into our domestic law it was the world's first bill of rights in 1689 in in england and wales and a year before to a degree in scotland which outlawed cruel and unusual punishment and it was this prohibition which was absorbed into modern human rights treaties and to those who think we should somehow ignore the risk even if it's a high and well evidenced one let us consider for a moment the counterfactual just consider the outcry if a british government willfully and knowingly did deport someone however terrible their own deeds to gross ill treatment or death in a foreign country what home secretary what prime minister would sign away the life of another to return to a high risk of torture or judicial murder what sort of society would be living in if such a decision was deemed to be acceptable what law could wash the blood from the hands of those who then made that decision the harm to our international standing is that situation would be irreparable the damage to our values fatal and if we are to enjoy the benefits of a liberal democracy for to continue to live in a prosperous fair and free society we have to recognize that we have to adhere to the letter and the spirit of human rights the price we pay for our freedom is not to debase our values at the same time we have and we will do our utmost to secure the safety of the british people and we all have to be prepared to limit individual liberties to the extent but only the extent that is necessary we have human rights and an independent judiciary to establish and to marshal the lawful boundaries of our response we do not need to resile from the european convention nor from the human rights act they already provide us with a framework in which to address security as well as liberty indeed the human rights convention places a duty on the state to protect the life of everyone in its jurisdiction where we have problems as we do over jahal with the interpretation of the convention by the strazburg court the proper course for us is to argue robustly before that court we're doing just that in relation to jahal and we have not been alone because we've done so in concert with italy the ithuania portugal and slavakia now 21st century right do need to address these change in circumstances not in the principle which underpins them but in the manner of their application and i beg your indulgence momentarily for the mirrors nod if i may towards politics i hope i don't contaminate anybody here in doing so because i think by just indulging folk here with a political example it demonstrates better the basis for our approach while i welcome that rights and responsibilities are again receiving promised prominence in the political discourse i fear that there are those in the main opposition party who are wholly wrong in their interpretation of the effects of the human rights act their stated position is that the human rights act should be scrapped and replaced by a british bill of rights and responsibilities which would enable us to take the necessary action against those who commit acts of terrorism and they continue if we were to have our own bill of rights the european convention would be reinterpreted accordingly and the marginal appreciation would allow us to take more action against those who threaten our country now this argument leaves two rather substantial questions unanswered first what is this necessary action against the terrorists to which they refer is it to secure a carte blanche to deport people to face a real risk of torture or death this is a fundamental question if it's not what point is being made second whatever is meant by this necessary action the opposition party now say in terms that they won't resile from the european convention itself while free cheers for that but if so how on earth did they propose wholly to circumvent article three would appear that their suggestion is they do this by some device in respect of the marginal appreciation but they have fundamentally misunderstood that notion and the idea that we would be afforded some much wider flexibility if we had a bill of rights which ran counter to the european convention any bill of rights could not have a reduced set of rights or more heavily qualified rights than currently set out in the united in the european convention without placing the united kingdom in bleach breach of its international obligations now studies show that article three is applied similarly not just in strazburg but also in the domestic courts for example the united kingdom germany spain and france to name but a few european countries any argument that the repeal of the human rights act will mean that the consequences of article three then disappear is as disingenuous as it is flawed unless which is not now being proposed what is also being proposed is that we should denounce the european convention we should leave the european union and we should leave the council of europe the margin of appreciations often mentioned whenever there's discussion about the european convention it's become a fabled doctrine which no matter what the decision in question is is seemingly trotting out when opponents of the human rights act want to make a point that that act unfairly binds us and delivers perverse results in fact their statements show simply that they've misunderstood what the margin actually is the main opposition party tell you that this the act human rights that means you don't get the full benefit of the margin appreciation they say that other countries notably with their own domestics bill of rights are left alone by the strazburg court mr david Cameron has stated that a British bill of rights would have a status similar to that of the German basic law and is so doing help restore British parliamentary supremacy as against law made elsewhere by the way he's never spoken to German parliamentarians who have not to enjoy the sovereignty of the Bundestag but have to accept the jurisdiction of the supreme court the constitutional court in Karlsru. Now the opposition point towards the basic law and seem to say look the decisions in German courts are rarely interfered with by the strazburg court they're left alone to get on with it and so they conclude that it is nations like Germany which most benefit from the margin of appreciation this is a mistaken conclusion because it misses a rather simple point as I understand it and it's this the standard of protection given to individuals by the German basic law is greater and less flexible than that given by the european convention as such decisions made by the german court are therefore rarely overturned by the european court because they do not fall below the minimum floor of rights which the european convention is seeking to establish and the lack of of interference arises therefore not because of any margin of appreciation which is greater than we're able to enjoy but because the german court takes a more stringent approach to protecting individuals including those who are very undesirable in the first place than do we so I don't think if they reflect on this that the main opposition party would find this necessarily consistent with what they say they are trying to achieve the united kingdom courts on the other hand apply a different proportional test with regard to situations where rights are in conflict this allows the courts to make a more balanced judgment as opposed to a narrowly to confine decision and far from failing to benefit from any margin of appreciation the united kingdom reaps much greater flexibility because our courts tend to take a broader more balanced approach in much the same way as the european court does the human rights act allows british judges to weigh up and to consider the rights and interests not only of the individual but also those of the wider community so repealing the human rights act and simply replacing it with a separate bill of rights would I believe have the effect of restricting the flexibility and the application of balance within the united kingdom courts and the current structure of the human rights act does mean that our courts have to grapple with the very same questions as the strasberg court which enables our courts in turn to exercise as they have done an important influence on european court jurisdiction in this way we're taking full advantage of the margin of appreciation in a way which respects british judicial making decision making and allows for balance to move towards a german basic law model will i'm convinced result in a more restrictive application of rights and a loss of any meaningful margin the opposite of that which the opposition claim and further repealing the human rights act would only result in delay for british people seeking justice because rather than being able to access a remedy in a british court heard by british judges british people would have to look forward to joining the back of a very long queue of those waiting for justice in strasberg which is one of many reasons why a consensus developed in the 1990s let me say in all parties at the time as to why we should incorporate most of the articles of the convention into british law i'll come on to develop discuss the government's position on developing human rights policy shortly but suffice it to say we consider it a very significant platform on which to build one of the important things about the human rights act is that is the protection of prominence it gives to the very values we are defending and in seeking to protect the public it's vital that we don't compromise there or our ideals but whilst the human rights act represents a very significant milestone the government does not see it as a final resting place in terms of rights policies the context in which the act operates has changed enormously even in the short times that legislation was passed to quote bring rights home it is from the vantage of point of 2007 rather than that of 1997 that we must plot the next step for human rights so what is the contemporary environment i've talked already about the impact of 9 11 and the end of totalitarianism in europe but in many ways it's deeper and in the longer term more profound social and economic developments which make the case for a british bill of rights and responsibilities in the united kingdom building upon the human rights act and the convention earlier this year i gave that lecture in oxford and in between the barbershop quartet i spoke about democracy and identity in which i talked about how british society was changed beyond all recognition in my lifetime and how the increasing heterogeneity of our population is if anything accelerating this development is not unique to britain of course thanks to extraordinary advantage advances in communications dramatic cost reductions in transport the the explosion of international trade individuals now cross borders and mix with people from different cultures and nationalities on a hitherto unknown scale the impact of these changes on the united kingdom is striking today 4.3 million people eight percent of our population double in a decade are from families who've come to these shores mainly from south asia the caribbean and africa but increasingly from other parts of the world as as well won't be too long before some cities and towns in england have 50 percent of people from their of their population from such backgrounds one quarter of the population of great london today was born abroad one in five here in cambridge in many ways this rapid process of increasing heterogeneity has been and continues to be remarkably smooth the vast majority of people who've settled in the united kingdom from abroad have integrated well into mainstream society they've made homes got jobs had families and now playing a full role in society and have been generally well received to borrow a phrase from seymor martin lipset quotes the melting pot is melting as never before however the data also shows a contradictory picture increasing integration for most people in most areas but increasing segregation for some in others and data published in the state of the english cities report in may of 2006 highlighted this divergent it shows segregation falling in quite a number of towns and cities but increasing in eight so increasing heterogeneity is not without its problems too and there's been another major shift in society which is also relevant to this debate the structure of british society which has developed during a century and more of industrialisation has been rapidly transformed as a result of changes brought about by economic globalisation this profound period of socioeconomic change has helped to shift public attitudes it's encouraged the rise of a much less deferential more consumerist public and in this more atomized society people appear more inclined to think of themselves and of one another as customers rather than as citizens the state has at times encouraged this perception in the way that it's referred to and treated the public sometimes literally referring to those who make use of public services as customers or clients rather than as citizens in some respects these are positive developments people are more independent more empowered but in other respects these developments pose problems too especially when viewed in the context of liberal democracy as dr meg russell of the university of college london constitutional unit has said it's difficult to find anything more antithetical to the culture of politics than the contemporary culture of consumerism whilst politics is about balancing diverse needs to benefit the public interest consumerism is about meeting the immediate desires of the individual whilst politics requires us to compromise and to collaborate as citizens consumerism emphasizes unrestrained individual freedom of choice whilst politics recognizes that there are always resource constraints modern consumerism increasingly encourages us to believe that we can have it all and now now the problems of this at time solipsistic approach when applied to human rights is that it distorts the way in which people look at those rights to an extent rights have become commoditized get more items to be claimed this is demonstrated in how some people seek to exercise their rights in a selfish way without regards to others which injures the philosophical basis of inalienable fundamental human rights alongside that some people resent the rights which are afforded to fellow humankind we see this in the media uproar around human rights being a terrorist charter or therefore the benefit of minorities alone i'm going to be working very closely with lord goldsmith the former attorney general in in his review of citizenship to look at how a british bill of rights and responsibilities can help better to combat this issue by helping to foster a stronger sense of citizenship and i suggest that it can do so by establishing and articulating the balance between the rights to which we are all entitled and the obligations which we all owe to each other this is not a new concept goes back to tom pain and well beyond pain declared that a declaration of rights is by reciprocity a declaration of duties also whatever is my right as a man is also the right of another and it becomes my duty to guarantee as well as to possess so a bill of rights and responsibilities imposes obligations on government but also makes clear that the citizen has neutral obligations to the other citizen the extent of this horizontal relationship is something we'll explore and we can look more recently than tom pain to for example the that of south africa as to how this could work in practice there justice kato reagan judge of their constitutional court describes the operation of this idea of horizontality what is clear she says is that when a court develops the common law for example libel law libel law the court must consider the obligations imposed by the bill of rights in the case of libel this involves several rights freedom of expression on the one hand and the right to dignity and privacy on the other the court has to consider these rights in developing rules of common law liability she says and crucially she goes on our constitution does not carry a notion that one forfeits one's rights entirely if one does not observe one's obligations and i suggest that we need to look at the lessons from south africa as from other jurisdictions as to how they've applied a bill of rights in their own national context and how this might apply in the united kingdom as we seek to develop our bill of rights and responsibilities once again we see the balance of principle and practicality in operation few people would have a problem with the principle that we have a responsibility to each other and to the community as citizens but the debate will center around how far those responsibilities should be articulated and how they would operate now over many years there has been some debate about the idea of developing a list of rights and obligations which go with being a member of our society and i suggest that such a bill could give people a clearer idea what we can expect from states from the state and from each other and a framework for giving a practical effect to our common values however if specifically british rights were to be added to those we already enjoy by virtue of the european convention we'd need to ensure that it would be a benefit to the country as a whole and not restrict the ability of the democratic elected government to decide upon the way in which resources were to be deployed in the national interest for example some have argued for the incorporation into our domestic law of economic and social rights as they are for example in south africa but this would involve a significant shift from parliament to the judiciary in making decisions that we currently hold to be the preserve of elected representatives including decisions concerning public spending and taxation and this is as so much else i grantale with the words of lord bingham in his recent and important lecture on the rule of law when he said that the importance of predictability in law must preclude and i quote excessive innovation and adventurism by the judges and he went on to say that he agreed with sentiments expressed by judge hayden at the high court of australia who'd suggested that judicial activism taken to extremes could spell the death of the rule of law pray vice chancellor in an enabling state in a democratic society it's far more than the law which binds us together but the law has a powerful role to play and the introduction of the human rights act was a landmark in the development of our sense of rights and in binding our society notably however that act has not become become an iconic statement of liberty as equivalent provisions have in the united states or has the south african bill of rights perhaps this is because our idea of rights our statement of rights has been the production of evolution not of revolution we've not had a struggle for self-determination or nationhood nor have we been torn apart by social strife or had to fight bitterly for equality as in south africa do we value in britain these rights less as a result but i don't think so i do think an innate understanding of rights is part of our national psyche it's the amniotic fluid in which we have grown so too is an understanding of the obligations which we have to each other but i think we need now to make them better understood and if a bill of rights and responsibilities which clarifies this relationship is to me more however than a legal document becomes a charter of expressing our values as a society it's vital that it is as it were owned by the british people and not just by jurists that's why we're initiating a full and wide ranging debate with our green paper one part of a substantial programme of constitutional renewal announced by the prime minister in july and as the prime minister said in a speech this morning we will found the next stage of constitutional development firmly on the story of british liberty at the heart of british citizenship is the idea of a society based on laws which are made in a way which reflect the rights of citizens regardless of ethnicity gender class or religion alongside this sits the right to participate in some way in the making of laws the idea that all citizens equal before the law and entitled justice and the protection of law the right to free expression of opinion the right to live without fear of oppression or discrimination as the governance of britain green paper which we published in july stated these guiding principles and ideals represent the starting point from which further debate may take place over the coming months i'm going to publish a green paper on a bill of rights and responsibilities which will frame the debate about how we might codify these rights in a way as i've suggested which articulates more clearly the relationship between citizens society the community and the state and i look forward to many contributions on that not least the faculty of law here in cambridge thank you very much indeed thank you very much mr straw for that spending lecture which was both illuminating and challenging and i particularly liked the way you finished by throwing out a direct challenge as well as an invitation to all of us um our speaker has kindly agreed to take questions and we have eight or nine minutes four questions so if anyone would like to ask a question please feel free to do so as you've accused your political colleagues or the political opponents of making in respect of the argument appreciation on the out of the case of the european event i'll take up a couple more that one okay other question yes you've talked of uh bill of rights and responsibility you've explicitly added this right and responsibilities um what's wrong with a responsibility and obligation simply to obey the law and what's wrong with the liberty to do whatever we please beyond that yes yes it's right in your speech you spoke specifically that you would not um export the country where there was a real wisdom there yet um if we were to be reported by the european commission and the international and the americans in the liquid union your government had no problem with um allowing the american government to export uh their business through our country to do just that what law would wash that right from your question would you like to to take those first then if there's time enough to keep you going for a few minutes okay very good questions um general here gets to the heart of the issue here which is um if we owe each other responsibilities does that erode your human rights uh no and and but we have to secure a balance here because and this comes back to my point about the fact we are citizens and not consumers rights cannot it cannot just be a one-way street um let me say the sense of the set of relationships is a complex one i i'm not suggesting uh that in our in a free and democratic society the citizen knows the state responsibility directly in return for rights at which the state ought to record the citizen we don't live in a totalitarian state um what i do suggest is that citizens owe each other responsibilities and mutual obligations first of all and that articulating that is really important to meet the point of the gentleman in the blue shirt over there which is yes of course there is a fundamental responsibility thou go beyond that to obey the law um but developing that sense of responsibility particularly when people are at the point of breaking the law and therefore interfering with other rights is something i think we have to do and i also i also add add this that we've got obligations to each other we have obligations to the community as a whole which is another point at which the the consumer model completely breaks down and through the community the community elects representatives who in turn in a sense come to personify the state in a democratic society so it's a complex set of relationships and and my concern in where we are today rather than where we were 10 years ago is to ensure that there is a better understanding of rights and obligations it was implicit in everything that was done after the war and many of you presumably have studied or are studying jurisprudence whether great body literature about the relationship between rights and responsibilities privileges duties and so on but i say it's to build up this better and more comprehensive picture of how we live in society and the role of the law that i want to achieve coming back to the gentleman over there i think i'm more or less answered it but we when has to go i think beyond just a simple responsibility to obey the law we've also got our understand that even where people break the law one of the marks of a democratic society is they have rights to don't lose their rights they lose some rights when they break the law for sure including their if they break the law sufficiently their immediate freedom because they can be incarcerated as a result but they don't for it for example no matter how terrible the crimers uh crimers lose their rights to a fair trial and and and these issues of due process are fundamental to any society but citizens too have ought to have greater rights than those who are simply within the country even though people within the country however whatever bad they've done and wherever they've come from do have some fundamental rights which we have to preserve at all costs so it's a complicated situation that's what what i'm aiming to do is what the priorities is aiming to do is to get across both this complexity the sort of texture of the of rights and responsibilities in a way perhaps we haven't done so up to now on the issue of the gentleman who asked at the back about human rights to muslims well i mean i'm not a muslim but i represent a very large number of members of the muslim faith in my constituency and i have to say that many people of the muslim faith in my constituency say to me what is true is that people are better able both to celebrate their faith and to act as citizens in this country than they are in many other countries around the world including they name a number of countries which are dominated by people of the muslim faith now your perception from your head shaking is a different one sir and i'd like to know more more about that so so drew drop me and i note and i'm seriously and i was because i was fascinated when someone's own experience is completely counter to not not mine because i'm not a non-member of the muslim faith but that of my constituents and what i say is the case and we have sought greatly to strengthen the the rights of people of other faiths recently through the passage through parliament of the legislation making a criminal offence to incite hatred on religious grounds the last point came from this gentleman in blue why are you wearing some of you wearing blue it's a law society of okay that's fine i mean i know i know okay thank you very much anyway um we didn't really make this clear and there read the intelligence and security committee report there there is not a shred of evidence that we ever allowed the united states our facilities or were complicit with them in any way in terms of extraordinary recognition rendition through to the united kingdom through united kingdom airspace i was foreign secretary the whole time that this question was a live issue i've given my undertakings about that i know what happened i know what did not happen and there's not a shred of evidence and there isn't any evidence because the allegations that we somehow participated in extraordinary rendition or other unlawful acts is untrue it is now half past six um and so i think the time has come fine well there's an invitation yes can you speak up can you speak up a bit so can't the last one to the uh my question at the back uh quoting uh shammy jackrabarty i mean i i didn't hear shammy speaks that uh shammy jackrabarty worked for me when in the home office and she was a very good lawyer and had i said many happy hours of having discussions with her about aspects of new laws where developing i've got a high respect for i just think that she was hyperbolic when she uh spoke that way um i i mean she had a that there was a very difficult period for us i don't say we got everything right but we did our best following the 11th of september and the 7th of july extremely difficult period but i don't recognize the her description of use of adjectives nor i don't believe the democratic government should be called a regime however i will take this up with her and hope that and send her a copy of the lecture the um at the back over here you ask it it's quite important i mean a very important question and the and it also rises in respect of uh what we've done uh concerning the uh the the charter of rights in the in the draft treaty um i mean our concern is and i'm we took yes we are we're we're seeking to close those i'm not to close those rights i think we whatever else one says about uh the last 10 years including shammy jackrabarty i think most people would accept we've actually done pretty well when it comes to the development of economic and social rights in law and in practice it's really a debate as i indicated towards the end of my speech about whether you you access those rights and develop those rights by political action or whether you you you establish some general principles which would have to be pretty general and then argue those principles through the courts and and obviously then have have the courts being able to to command resources because they have this inevitable part of the development of social and economic rights um and making other decisions now are there some other common law jurisdictions um operate in a different way uh the indian supreme court famously um has filled a vacuum um which which or famously filled a vacuum certainly in terms of decision making uh in respect of pollution in new deli uh and decided after years and years of debate and argument as to how they could stop being poisoned by the emissions from two-stroke engines just to ban them uh and to uh insist that gas uh was used pressurised gas was used instead now that appears to have been acceptable within the indian context and it's a common law country and one we should whose example we should we should take great interest in i don't happen to think however that it would be acceptable here and i think what what people here better expect is that those kind of decisions are made by democratic bodies whether they're parliament or near for london Scottish parliament wash assembly or local authority whatever level so that's the art the debate but i'm not but we're not immune to let me say because i've set out where we're coming from we're not immune to argument on this and it may be you end up with some declaration of rights which provides a framework which is not justiciable but to be continued on to honest mr dyson i didn't tally understand the point that you were making because um i mean i think uh that you are suggesting that compensation act 2006 uh was simply restating the existing law and therefore i suppose what you were saying was that would uh any development of a british bill of rights and responsibilities be a state of the already existing obvious is that fair way putting it okay well i mean yeah look of course when you go to court you're claiming your rights uh it's very odd to go to court to seek a declaration uh that you've been responsible uh for something although it's a nice idea and make good develop work even more work for lawyers which i'm in favour of um but the the but it's not i mean of course and you know the way we our system works everybody's very familiar with one side claims their rights the other side claims their rights and the job of the court is to balance these but it's it's to pick up the point that that was being made by the senior judge in south africa that i quoted i mean what what what the courts are there for which they're really doing what we hope to see developed not just restated is being able within the context of the european convention better to balance people's rights and responsibilities and is and alongside that to answer the gentleman over there as well as the gentleman here to build up this sense amongst our citizens about how rights are not just a free good uh that they are balanced by responsibilities and mutual obligations thank you very much it's my job to say a few very brief words thanks and before i thank our speaker i would just briefly like to say a word of general thanks to those within the law faculty who've helped organise this evening it's a great event to have a senior minister with us and we have to make great preparations accordingly and i would just like to thank our chairman i'd like to thank my colleagues in cells kathryn barnard and oki o doodoo and i'd like particularly to thank the support staff kathryn bedford in cells who's worked very hard and kustie allen and david wills and not least john seymour our custodian but mainly i'd like to briefly thank our speaker i think that was an excellent and memorable speech i'm delighted that we were reminded about the british origins of key parts of the european convention and that it dates back ultimately to magna cata i had a very moving meeting with lord denning when i interviewed him when he was 92 and a half he said somebody said to me afterwards when you're that age you mention the halves don't you and and uh at the end he said john having acquired the politician's knack of calling everybody by their first names what do you teach your students in cambridge when i said i'm a bit of contract a bit of criminal law do you teach them about magna cata he said and i said i i don't know all you should teach them about magna cata he said he said here's my copy he said let's read some bits of it together and we did and i have always taught my students about it ever since and i'm delighted that the minister reminded us of that origin of our human rights culture tonight secondly he reminded us quite rightly of the dark age that we went through in europe that led up to the creation of the european convention on human rights happily i was born after the war there are some of us here who were old enough to remember it just one um and they will be able to know much better than i do the um the point that was made there but i went to the holocaust museum in jerusalem once and i think one of the most frightening things i saw was a photograph of somebody with a shaved head being led through the streets in germany with a label around his neck saying ich werde nicht mehr der polizei beschweren i'm not going to complain to the police again that's what it's like to live in a country without human rights and without the rule of law and thirdly we carry away tonight what i think is the most valuable notion of the need to remember the balance of obligations among us in society and the dangers that we have if human rights become commodity commoditized a neologism which i shall treasure for future use because i think it's worth it um Lord Chancellor your predecessor but one Derry Irvin um great man great friend of this faculty i think um initially together with you was responsible for us having the human rights act your immediate predecessor Lord Faulkner defended it with this excellent document in 2006 when he was asked by the prime minister to look into the human rights act and essentially to see whether it needs to be repealed and he pointed out all the media distortions and misrepresentations of it and said we don't need to repeal it and you tonight have put the boot most satisfyingly in on those who think we ought to get rid of the human rights act and you stand as a reaffirmor of it and it sounds as if we're ahead for a further development from you to do with some kind of Bill of Rights you challenged the law faculty to engage with you in discussion count on us will be with you we will help you debate thank you so much for your most stimulating speech tonight