The exchange here between @labourlewis and @ThangamMP is a good illustration of the interplay between human rights law and policy. (NB I am giving a very rough and ready account to the law here: others such as @nearlylegal have written in much more detail about it).
There is - very much - an ECHR right in play here: Article 1, Protocol 1 (A1P1). The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions: property.
Many on the left have traditionally been suspicious of it - for obvious reasons. Indeed, Richard Tuck used it to support an argument that EU membership would have precluded setting up the NHS. (Though he was wrong to think the issue came from the EU.) But it’s there.
And it represents an interest that you don’t have to be a Nozick-style libertarian to recognise is important: some security in what we own (however qualified that interest needs to be) and rely on for our shelter, enjoyment, and in some cases, income.
(Confiscation of property belonging to disfavoured groups does, after all, have an unhappy C20 history.)
A policy of saying to landlords that they can no longer insist on rent that has been contractually agreed engages A1P1. The case law is clear that rent *control* engages it: rent *suspension* does so even more so (a fortiori, as lawyers say).
The issue is whether it could be justified under the permitted broad policy justifications for interfering with the right (justifications that eg permit nationalisation with compensation or compulsory purchase to build a railway).
Now, there is some room for debate about that. But where I come down is that a “blanket” policy (eg all rents are suspended) is almost certain not to be permitted.
That’s because its policy justification (support for vulnerable and hard pressed renters - a good justification) doesn’t prop up the full extent of such a measure (some renters - eg Cabinet Ministers renting a flat in London but with a home in the shires) just don’t need it.
And not all landlords are rich capitalists - some depend on rents for a pension which does not put them in the “1%”. And of course they have expenses in letting out property (maintenance) which need to be covered.
That all points to a more nuanced policy - helping the vulnerable and hard pressed but taking account of the pressures on landlords (and their individual circumstances) - and thinking in a careful way about the distributional impact and who should bear the burden.
That might justify some element of rent suspension - but that would need to be justified and tailored.
It’s important though to note that this is a classic example of the way in which human rights considerations impact on policy. Human rights considerations are not (often) an absolute bar to policy. Rather, they affect the design and implementation of the policy.
They act as a discipline, forcing policy-makers to think about individual circumstances, to make sure that the policy does actually meet its objectives, to avoid (where possible) blanket prescriptions that cause real injustice in some cases, and to demand a robust evidence base.
Seen in that way, there is no real tension between human rights concerns - some of which @ThangamMP alluded to - and good (or “very Labour”) policy. Rather, they lead to *better* - or genuinely “very Labour” - policy.
