LAST week the Prime Minister announced his intention to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and, if sufficient reform is not forthcoming, to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.

Repealing the Human Rights Act was already our policy at the last election. We have been unable to deliver it because we did not get a parliamentary majority. I am glad that the commitment is now re-stated for the next election. Withdrawing from the convention, however, is a new prospect.

Regular readers of this column will know that I am an enthusiast for such a withdrawal. Let me explain why.

The European Convention on Human Rights was signed in Rome in 1950, as part of the post-war efforts by the victorious Allies to ensure that the horrors of the 1940s could never be repeated. It was agreed in the shadow of Nazism, at a time when Stalin was still in power in the Soviet Union and when people were still being sent to the gulags without trial.

The convention sets out certain rights, which include the right not to be tortured, the right not to be enslaved and the right to a fair trial. These rights may not be infringed.

The convention also contains rights which can be limited depending on the circumstances, and the treaty sets out those circumstances as follows: “There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of these rights except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” In other words these rights are not absolute and may be constrained.

For example, the right to a family life cannot exempt you from a term of imprisonment for committing a crime. The convention is a sensible statement of the principles which should underpin any modern democratic nation. Over the last 20 years however, the Strasbourg court which enforces the convention has adopted an expansionist approach, giving itself power to make rulings well beyond the intended confines of the original intent of the convention.

There are plenty of examples: n Using the provisions against torture to outlaw life sentences for murderers.

- Giving prisoners the right to vote.

- Extending the right to a family life to insist that artificial insemination be available to prisoners.

- Preventing deportation of foreign trouble-makers including Islamist preachers of hate who threaten our security.

These rulings fly in the face of the constraints placed on convention rights set out in the founding treaty. Clearly, if we are not able to reform, we ought to get out.

The Human Rights Act 1988 makes the situation with respect to the convention even worse, because it imports all the recent absurdities into our own domestic law and our courts. It requires our courts to follow Strasbourg when interpreting our own law. This has spawned a host of ludicrous lawsuits which make justice look ridiculous.

The sooner we are rid of it the better.