Government thinking on the Bill of Rights
Guy Aitchison (London, OK): There's an interesting article by Unity on the Bill of Rights debate over at Liberal Conspiracy. He argues that since all three main parties are now promising a Bill of Rights they should be clear about what it is they are proposing in their next manifestoes so voters aren't forced to sign a "blank cheque." I think this is an important point though I would add that the parties should also be clear about the process they are proposing to arrive at such a Bill. I responded to Unity's article in the comments with a few thoughts on the Government's current thinking based on my time at the Compass conference last week. I wasn't going to blog this since it's similar to other stuff I've written about the Governance agenda recently, but seeing as people are now talking about it here's a tidied up version of the comment I left which may be helpful to people:
At the Compass conference last week I attended an Unlock Democracy seminar on
a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities at which Michael Wills, Minister for Constitutional Renewal,
was speaking (along with Francesca Klug and Trevor Phillips). I asked the
minister whether including "responsibilities" in the Bill wasn't
really about "disciplining" the population (It was only half tongue in cheek
when I suggested a model here might be the USSR Constitution,
Articles 60 through 69 of which defined the Soviet citizen's duty to work and observe
labor discipline; to protect socialist property and oppose corruption and to be
"uncompromising against anti-social behaviour"). He assured me that
it wasn't about this at all and that rights would not be "contingent" on the
performance of duties. He implied it was partly a tactical move to keep the Right
on board by emphasising that the enjoyment of rights does not absolve one of
social responsibilities.
When I asked for a concrete example of a responsibility that might feature,
he couldn't give one. He did, however, make clear that the Bill would be, in
the current parlance, "HRA-plus" - that is, it will probably contain additional
rights to those found in the Human Rights Act 1998. He also said it would not threaten "parliamentary
sovereignty." This suggests to me it will be a normal parliamentary bill
like the HRA; not entrenched and safeguarded by "weak form" judicial review
(unlike the US, judges won't be empowered to invalidate law).
On socio-economic rights, I think what the Government has in mind are
non-justiciable "aspirations" or "objectives", rather like the constitutions
of Ireland and India (South Africa
is, I believe, the only country with justiciable socio-economic rights), but I
don't believe this will be a meaningless exercise. Don't underestimate the power
of symbolism.
I also asked Wills who was going to be drawing up the Bill of Rights. He
said that it would be done following ad
hoc consultations across the country on different aspects of the Bill. These
(he hopes) will not be pathetic talking shops akin to the "citizens'
juries" rolled out by Brown last year (although I doubt their
deliberations will have any binding force).The plan is that the "British
Statement of Values", which will be drawn up by a citizens' summit, will
form the preamble to the Bill of Rights and inform these debates and
consultations. "Britishness" is an important part of Brown's rationale for the
whole project.
The Tories want a Bill of Rights too, but this time to replace the HRA. If I
was to put money on it, however, I'd say this pledge would be quietly dropped
under a Tory government for reasons
given by Cameron's old tutor, Vernon Bogdanor. The Tories have also made the
rather intriguing suggestion that a BofR could be entrenched by amending the
Parliament Act, giving the House of Lords the role of constitutional watchdog
(or rather keeping the Lords in this role but giving the old dog some teeth).
