Even Labour admits Starmer let human rights lawyers cripple the Government as 'risk-averse' guidance created by ally Lord Hermer is scrapped

See more Daily Mail on Google - save us as a Preferred Source Published: 05:06 EDT, 8 September 2026 | Updated: 05:17 EDT, 8 September 2026 Andy Burnham's new attorney general has ripped up crippling guidance for ministers and the civil service that was blamed for severely hindering their ability to act in the UK's best interests.Ellie Reeves has binned changes made by her predecessor Lord Hermer, who was handed what critics said was an 'effective veto' over government policy under Sir Keir Starmer.Hermer, a close friend and former human rights lawyer colleague of Sir Keir, was criticised last year for issuing a missive to government lawyers stressing the importance of following international law.The document included what has been branded a 'snitch clause', urging civil servants to report any concerns that ministerial actions might be illegal and could face challenge in the courts.Ms Reeves, also a former barrister, has now told departments they should go ahead with plans even if they could see the government face legal action.New advice issued by her department is to say: 'Wherever there is at least a tenable legal argument, you should make clear that the decision is one that can properly and constitutionally be taken by the minister.' Ellie Reeves has binned changes made by her predecessor Lord Hermer, who was handed what critics said was an 'effective veto' over government policy under Sir Keir Starmer Hermer, a close friend and former human rights lawyer colleague of Sir Keir, was criticised for issuing guidance stressing the importance of following international lawA letter to ministers by Ms Reeves, Chancellor John Healey and de facto deputy PM Louise Haigh says they should feel 'empowered to accept higher levels of risk' backed by the government's large majority. Ms Reeves told The Times: 'This is about getting things done. This is something that we want to do as a government. It may have a higher legal risk, and we're not changing how risk is classified.'Where there's a tenable legal argument it's important that government lawyers make it clear that it is a decision they can lawfully take even though there might be a higher level of legal risk.'This I hope will empower both government lawyers and ministers. Where something is legally risky I want them to think creatively what mitigations can be put in place. It's about how you frame it and how you empower ministers to make those decisions.'Critics had complained that Lord Hermer put too much emphasis on the letter of international law. He was accused of 'blocking' Britain from helping to defend Israel against Iran strikes and was said to have played a major role in 'surrendering' the Chagos Islands, the UK's last territory in the Indian Ocean, to adhere to a non-binding ruling by the International Court of Justice. He was also forced to apologise for comparing calls to quit the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) with the early days of Nazi Germany. In total he was said to have added 23 references to international law to the guidance last year.It also instructed legal staff to assume that every decision taken by government could face a challenge. Previously the advice suggested challenges were unlikely.At the time a No10 source told the Mail: 'It seems there is no problem which can't be made worse by a human rights barrister whose name ends in ''mer''.But facing the Justice Committee in January 2025 he defended the changes, telling MPs: 'I came in and took the view that the version I was presented with needed to be updated for a number of reasons. 'First, in the early days, I wanted to give a very clear message to all those advising Government and all those who receive advice of the importance and the centrality of law, and the importance of the rule of law, to what government does. 'I took that as an opportunity. I also had a concern about the version that was in force at the time, which was that, rather than trying to ensure that legal standards were maintained, it risked diluting legal standards.'