The human rights saboteurs: Clarke and Clegg 'defying the will of Parliament' says expert as he quits body set up to rein in Strasbourg

• MPs want to look at introducing a 'democratic override' which would allow Parliament to reject harmful verdicts from Strasbourg

By James Slack for the Daily Mail

Published: 20:11 EST, 11 March 2012 | Updated: 05:59 EST, 12 March 2012

Nick Clegg and Ken Clarke have instructed government advisers to 'ignore' the will of Parliament to reform human rights law, it was claimed yesterday.

The explosive allegation was made by Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky as he resigned in protest from the UK Commission on a Bill of Rights.

David Cameron established the commission in the hope of finding a way to stop human rights rulings damaging Britain's national interests after the Commons voted overwhelmingly against a ruling by the unelected European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg that prisoners should be allowed to vote.

Nick Clegg and Ken Clarke have instructed government advisers to 'ignore' the will of Parliament to reform human rights law, Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky claimed

MPs want the commission to consider introducing a 'democratic override' – which would allow Parliament to reject harmful verdicts from Strasbourg.

But Dr Pinto-Duschinsky said he had been secretly told by Tory Justice Secretary Mr Clarke and Lib Dem leader Mr Clegg to ignore 'agitation from Parliament'. The hugely-respected political scientist claims the panel – which is stuffed with liberals hand-picked by Mr Clegg – has effectively been told to reach the conclusion that no change is needed to human rights law.

Resignation: Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky has attacked both Nick Clegg and Ken Clarke

Yesterday, it also emerged that the commission is objecting to giving Parliament a greater say on the grounds that 'many of the most objectionable laws in Nazi Germany were passed, at least in the early years, by a democratically elected assembly'. Members believe that allowing MPs to override human rights is the tyranny of the majority.

Dr Pinto-Duschinsky was considered by many Tory MPs as their best hope for securing meaningful reform. But he decided to quit after a row with Sir Leigh Lewis, the chairman, whom he accuses of giving undue weight to human rights lobbies.

Claiming that 'the Lib Dem tail is wagging the Conservative dog', Dr Pinto-Duschinsky also attacked Mr Clarke, who has repeatedly clashed with his own party over human rights and is a strong supporter of the Strasbourg court.

He said Mr Clarke was 'sidelining not only parliament but also the Prime Minister, and I consider that disloyal'.

He told the BBC's Sunday Politics programme: 'The commission answers to Ken Clarke – he and Nick Clegg set it up and selected the chairman. His civil servants run the commission and staffing, his hands are everywhere. The commissioners were called in last December by Ken Clarke and Nick Clegg and told we should ignore what was called “agitation� from Parliament.

'Now I consider that a ten to one vote, an overwhelming vote (on prisoner voting) by our House of Commons, can't be dismissed as agitation. And I said so.'

Explaining his decision to quit, Dr Pinto-Duschinsky said: 'I could have settled for a quiet life, but it goes against my deepest convictions to sacrifice our parliamentary sovereignty, which is at stake, and I'm afraid I'll have to pay the price.' Incredibly, he said, the issue of parliamentary sovereignty had been discussed only once since the commission was established in February last year.

He also claimed he had been leant on by the Ministry of Justice not to issue a statement arguing for parliamentary powers to override Strasbourg. He said he was told 'the Lib Dems won't agree'.

Respected political scientist Dr Pinto-Duschinsky has now resigned from the UK Commission on a Bill of Rights in protest at what he says is the government's stance on human rights law

A series of leaked e-mails yesterday laid bare the tensions within the commission, which is supposed to be examining the case for a British Bill of Rights to replace Labour's Human Rights Act.

The messages, seen by the Mail, show the commission arguing forcefully that Parliament should not be allowed to 'override' controversial judgments.

One says: 'If a right or freedom is fundamental, how can it be right to allow any legislature, however democratic, to override it? It should be remembered that many of the most objectionable laws passed in Nazi Germany were passed, at least in the early years, by a democratically elected assembly.'

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: 'We are aware that there have been some internal difficulties within the commission.'

I escaped the Nazis - so spare me these sneers about tyranny

COMMENTARY by Dr MICHAEL PINTO-DUSCHINSKY

My background gives me a unique insight into the reality of human rights. I was born into a Jewish family in Budapest in 1943 and I am lucky to be one of the youngest survivors of the Holocaust.

As an infant in Hungary under Nazi occupation, my life was saved when a deal was done with Hitler’s monstrous henchmen in the SS, Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Eichmann. The lives of 20 Jewish families were spared in return for ransom money.

I was among those spared, while 20,000 others were put on trains for gas chambers of Auschwitz.
It was an experience that led me to fight for human rights all my life, as reflected, for example, during my work during the Vietnam War in the 1960s when I liaised with the International Red Cross to prevent humanitarian abuses.

I know what the abuse of human rights really means. It is certainly not the kind of nonsense we hear so much about today – parents smacking children, the eviction of travellers from illegal encampments or the deportation of foreign criminals in breach of their supposed ‘right to a family life’.

Yet these are the conflicts that have occupied debate over human rights law in recent years, with the British Parliament endlessly accused of defying the European Court of Human Rights.

Human rights: Mr Cameron set up an eight-strong commission which was asked to examine the implementation of a British Bill of Rights

The conflict was seen at its most stark over the question of voting rights for prisoners, something which has been demanded by Strasbourg but overwhelmingly rejected by the House of Commons. It was in February last year after a Commons vote on the matter that David Cameron set up an eight-strong commission which was asked to examine the implementation of a British Bill of Rights, which would reconcile human rights legislation with British law. 

As a political scientist with a long record in studying the development of democratic institutions, I was asked to be part of this commission, whose chairman is the former civil servant Sir Leigh Lewis.

Initially, I had high hopes, believing we could achieve a synthesis between human rights and the democratic will of Parliament. But it has become obvious that some of the predominant members on the commission were not remotely interested in such an outcome. All they wanted to do was uphold the status quo and ensure that the influence of Parliament continued to be ignored.

Effectively, the commission has been hijacked by the Liberal Democrats and the grandees of the human rights culture. The views of the Prime Minister and his senior Tory colleagues count for almost nothing.

The truth is that the body has taken little trouble to be in touch with the impulses of the British people and it has rejected my proposals for 50 public meetings to be held to discuss the issue. Instead, it will hold just one public meeting in England.

It even refused to include a question about the role of the Strasbourg court in our questionnaire. It also wouldn’t ask the public about the Prime Minister’s statement that decisions should be made in Parliament rather than in the courts. That is why my position has become intolerable and I have taken the most difficult decision in my life: to resign from the commission.

I had tried strenuously to ensure that the commission gave heed to the views of Parliament, but I have found myself sidelined, bullied, marginalised and ignored.

The whole affair has made a farce not only of democracy but also of genuine human rights. It seems that those leading members of the fashionable human rights culture are not really interested in tackling real humanitarian abuses or instances of true political oppression.

Instead, they revel in demonstrating the superiority of the British and European judiciary over our elected representatives.

Rights rulings: Decisions handed down by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg have been criticised

I find utterly intolerable this perversion of human rights – which treats the issue as nothing more than an arena for political power games. In my work on the commission, I was determined to see that Parliament had the ability to override decisions by the European Court of Human Rights – such as prisoners’ votes or rulings stopping the deportation of foreign criminals.

But to my despair, the commission was managed in a manner that ensured the rigid orthodoxy of submission to Strasbourg prevailed – despite my views and those of other Conservative appointees.

When I tried to raise the question of Parliamentary sovereignty with Sir Leigh, he not only refused but even took me into a basement room of the House of Lords to warn me that I would be considered a maverick without influence if I persisted in my demand.

In the same vein, when the commission, four months after its establishment, put out a paper for public consultation on a British Bill of Rights, it deliberately left out any reference to David Cameron’s statement on the need to uphold Parliamentary sovereignty on key political decisions such as prisoners’ voting rights.

This was typical. The opinions of the Prime Minister were treated with contempt while those of his Europhile Cabinet junior colleagues, especially Ken Clarke and Nick Clegg, carried much more weight.

In fact, in December, members were summoned to a meeting with Ken Clarke and told to defer any discussion about Parliament overriding Strasbourg and ignore any ‘agitation’ from the Commons on the issue.

This meeting was a dramatic illustration of the low priority given to the basis of our democracy – the House of Commons.

Similarly, the commission regularly heard evidence from human rights groups, which of course have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, yet proceeded to ignore MPs and peers who wanted to curb the power of the human rights court.

This is why I’ve had enough. I can no longer put up with the sneering, contemptuous attitude of the human rights brigade towards the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty.

The will of the people is not a form of tyranny or ‘mob rule’, as they condescendingly seem to believe, but is a bulwark of freedom, as is clearly demonstrated by the long, progressive narrative of British history.

Our nation was enjoying real human rights long before the Strasbourg court was convened. And, crucially, those rights will only be weakened if an unelected, unaccountable elite holds sway over democratic institutions.