I think I’ve sussed why Charles Clarke thinks he can get away with it
In this case, it being the introduction of a national ID card and register, and why he thinks it’s “compatible” with human rights legislation.
A lot of this seems to boil down to the fact that the Home Secretary is unwilling to let go of the whole authority thing, i.e. who is allowed to enforce this. He won’t let it be the courts or other legal framework, but wants to keep it within the auspices of the post of Home Secretary. So, a little reading of the Human Rights Act 1998 reveals this gem:
6. - (1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.
Then there’s this, very handy, “get-out” clause that Clarke et al are taking full advantage of: (my emphasis)
(3) In this section “public authority” includes-
(a) a court or tribunal, and
(b) any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature,
but does not include either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament.
So, by using the position of HomeSec as the having the final say, rather than the courts as many commentators think it should be, he can effectively ignore section 6.
Nice.