Human Rights Act 1998

The Human Rights Act 1998 received Royal Assent on 9th November 1998 and, for the most part, came into force on 2nd October 2000. Its aim of this Act is to "give further effect" in UK law to the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act, therefore, makes available in UK courts a remedy for breach of a Convention right, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

From its introduction the Human Rights Act 1998 has been somewhat controversial and there have been many high profile cases that, through media exposure, have given the Act a bad name. For many, the Human Rights Act has been seen to be legislation that helps only the villain to the detriment of hard working honest citizens.

Cases such as:-

Venables and Thompson v. News Group Newspapers – The James Bulger murder case tested whether the Article 8 (privacy) rights of Venables and Thomson, the convicted murderers of Bulger, applied when four newspapers sought to publish their new identities and whereabouts, using their Article 10 rights of freedom of expression. Dame Butler-Sloss granted permanent global injunctions not to publish the material because of the disastrous consequences such disclosure might have for the former convicts, not least the possibility of physical harm or death;

Afghan hijackers 2006 - In May 2006, a politically controversial decision regarding the treatment of 9 Afghan men who hijacked a plane to flee from the Taliban. It was ruled by an Immigration Tribunal, under the Human Rights Act, that the hijackers could remain in the United Kingdom; a subsequent court decision ruled that the government had abused its power in restricting the hijackers' right to work;

and most recently

Abid Naseer and Ahmad Faraz Khan - won the right to stay in Britain even though the court accepted they were planning an “imminent” attack in Manchester when they were arrested last year. The judge said he was “satisfied” that ringleader Naseer, in particular, “still poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom” but his hands were tied by the Human Rights Act because the two men might be tortured if they were sent home to Pakistan;

have done little to enhance the general opinion of The Human Rights Act.

However, in my opinion, it is the interpretation of the Human Rights Act that is the problem not the Act itself. In its purest form, the Human Rights Act is a worthy legislation that can provide a strengthen legal foundation for many. It is unfortunate that abuses of its aims have occurred but the law will always be tested to the extreme.

As our Coalition Government begins its working partnership, it will be interesting to see how they address the Human Rights Act. In the past, David Cameron and the Conservatives have stated that they want to see the Act scrapped and replaced with a Bill of Rights but Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats oppose this idea.

One thing is for sure, they need to work on improving the image of the existing Act and we need to see more positive stories of how the Act has been implemented.

Cuts in Education Funding

The affects of a recession are numerous and can take its toll in many forms often hitting the most vulnerable within society.

As the Labour Government struggle to take control of the recession and its long-term affect, harsh decisions have to be made but some are just unacceptable!

It is with dismay that I learned of the plans of Lord Mandelson’s department – the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. These plans will see budgets slashed for courses aimed at both people with learning difficulties and evening classes for the elderly. Instead funds will be directed towards re-training opportunities for people hit by the recession.

Now please don’t get me wrong, I fully support our need to re-train people where appropriate but not at the expense of others.

It was not a shock to see that these plans were published quietly and without fanfare as the affect they have will be extremely detrimental to those people seeking qualification-free courses which are most commonly people with learning difficulties and the elderly. The budget cut of £150m in reality will see the student numbers shrink from 583,000 this year to only 213,000 next.

Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, told the Guardian: "These plans will come as a bitter blow to the hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people who will see their courses disappear. It is incredibly cynical of the government to slip this news out in an obscure policy document and not be upfront about the impact that these cuts will have.

"While it is vital that we take a strategic approach to skills, it is absurd to stop funding courses which bring a range of benefits to individuals and wider society. Not only are they important in keeping people active but they can also work as an important stepping stone back into education for those who may have had a poor experience at school."

Lord Mandelson’s department have tried to divert criticism by saying that priority will be given to courses for people with learning difficulties but many within the disability rights arena see this as a continuation of previous longer term cuts in dedicated courses. I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree with them!

David Congdon, Head of Policy at the charity Mencap, said: "We have strong evidence that courses are already being cut. If they reduce the funding further, it will have a devastating impact. These courses are vital to people's quality of life and if they are cut we are doing them a great disservice."

It is imperative that learning opportunities are maintained and, indeed, increased for all disabled people particularly in view of the Labour Government’s aim to reduce the number of claimants of incapacity benefit. Many disabled people already find it a big enough challenge to find employment opportunities so to reduce any form of educational funding will only hinder that process.