Dominic Raab will today realise a long-held ambition when he publishes legislation to bring in a British bill of rights.
The deputy prime minister says the move is about “injecting a healthy dose of common sense” into the legal system.
But critics say it will undermine human rights in the UK and make it harder for the vulnerable to access justice.
Here are the key points on what is being proposed and why they are controversial.
What is a British bill of rights?
In essence, it would replace the existing Human Rights Act and mean that British courts do not always need to follow rulings by the European Court of Human Rights.
That would mean that the Supreme Court in London would become the ultimate decision-maker on human rights issues in the UK.
The move comes just days after the first flight due to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda was grounded after a Strasbourg judge granted a series of injunctions requested by their legal teams.
In future, such rulings could be ignored if the Supreme Court decides that the flights are legal.
The Bill would also seek to restrict the circumstances in which foreign-born people convicted of crimes are able to argue their right to family life trumps public safety in a bid to prevent their removal from the UK.
It would also seek to protect government plans to increase the use of separation centres in prisons for extremists from legal challenges based on the right to socialise.
The Ministry of Justice has also said the bill would boost press freedom by introducing a stronger test for courts to consider before ordering journalists to disclose their sources.
Does this mean we are leaving the ECHR?
No. Probably.
Following the grounding of the first deportation flight to Rwanda last week, Boris Johnson hinted that the UK could withdraw from the Convention, despite helping to draw it up following the Second World War.
Several Tory MPs then called for the UK’s withdrawal, with Number 10 then doubling down on its threat.
However, Raab was clear on Sky News this morning when he said: “We are staying in the ECHR.”
So are we allowed to just ignore European Court of Human Rights rulings?
According to Raab, yes we can.
He held up the example of voting rights for prisoners, which the European court ordered but the UK government refused to introduce.
However, Raab told LBC this morning: “No one is talking about tearing about human rights in this country. We are staying in the European Convention, we are going to reinforce those quintessentially British rights like free speech.
“But I do think, when it comes to public protection, people want to see a dose of common sense and balance provided, that’s what our reforms will achieve.”
What are the government’s critics saying?
Shadow attorney general Emily Thornberry accused the government of “behaving like some sort of drunk” looking for a fight at the end of the night.
She told the BBC: “They’re just trying to think of anything that they can take on at the moment in order to distract us all from what’s really happening, which is their inability to govern – they’re trying to pick yet another fight.”
Beth Gardiner-Smith, chief executive of Safe Passage International, said the bill would “strip us all, including refugees, of our ability to challenge injustice and defend our human rights”.
Steve Crawshaw, director of policy and advocacy at Freedom from Torture, described the move as “yet another brazen attempt to concentrate power in the hands of the executive and weaken the public’s ability to hold the powerful to account”.