Suzy Dean (London, The Manifesto Club): Last Thursday, while visiting George Washington University, Jack Straw declared that the proposed Bill of Rights and Responsibilities would involve a mixture of symbolic and declaratory principles on cultural and social issues as well as justiciable rights.[1] Going beyond the traditional scope of a Bill of rights, such as the US bill which stops at outlining those rights that are political, the impending here is set to build on the Human Rights Act[2] by covering social, economic and environmental rights, along with responsibilities.
Rather than being seen as a codification which will clarify and expand upon people's existing rights, this new bill should be treated with caution. Many rights will be paralleled with a responsibility which must be adhered to for the individual to qualify for that right. As Gordon Brown has said, the Bill of Rights will explicitly recognise that with rights come responsibilities.[3] Hence it will restrict rather than extend many of the rights we enjoy at present.
The Bill of rights looks to be more a set of rules for our behaviour, to match a politics that spends its time deliberating over once-private issues such as our diet, whether we smoke and how we behave on public transport. In early January, the Guardian reported that smokers could be required to quit and obese people to lose weight in exchange for NHS treatment as part of Gordon Brown's pledge to deliver a Bill of rights. The report will be released in July and is expected to establish the "rights and responsibilities associated with an entitlement to NHS care."[4] The Bill of Rights in this instance avoids debate over whether the NHS should mean universal treatment or not and limits the right to treatment to those that are deemed to lead a ‘good' lifestyle.
The Bill of Rights has been branded a solution to a number of broader political problems. In 2006 for example, Cameron argued that a Bill of Rights would help to fight against crime. More broadly, following the allegations of sleaze and corruption that have dogged every government since the 1980s, the Bill of Rights has been seen as a method by which New Labour can improve citizen's trust in politicians. In this vein, the idea is that a Bill of rights will lead people to engage more in politics as they will ‘know where they stand,' improving dwindling party membership figures along with voter turnout. It has also been seen as a way to define a sense of Britishness. At the January launch of the report, ‘A British Bill of Rights -Informing the debate', Jack Straw said that he hoped the Bill would also define what binds us together.
The Bill of Rights is unlikely to resolve these complicated problems - but it is guaranteed to codify government expectations of behaviour. Last week, when Jack Straw discussed the Bill of rights he spent some time talking about civic duty, pointing out that "it is much easier to perform your civic duty when you have a clear sense of what is expected of you." We should be wary of any Bill of Rights that sets out to better manage people's behaviour rather than enshrine citizen's freedom from government ‘management'. Bringing in 'responsibilities' to a Bill of Rights is questionable in itself. Bills of rights have traditionally been about people wanting to curtail the power of government, rather than the government restricting and defining the power of people.
Enthusiasm for the Bill has failed to inspire the public. Unlike the US Bill of Rights, it has arisen not from the desires and needs of the people, but from the desires and needs of government. This is not so surprising; the new Bill serves to protect us from ourselves more than an overbearing government, as traditional Bills of rights have done.
The Bill of Rights will ultimately undermine the most important part of the constitution; debate in Parliament. It is already being treated as an opportunity for government to get people to accept their ‘responsibility', to do things that they have not been and perhaps could not be persuaded to do through debate. Instead, the Bill will only be contested in court by those with the time and finance to challenge it.
The forthcoming Bill of Rights is less likely to enhance citizens' rights as dilute them. Jack Straw has said that the proposed constitutional reforms would "establish a better balance between order and liberty, responsibility and freedom"[5]. This has less to do with attempts to combat a ‘rights culture' and more to do with a government looking to codify their implicit policy objective of behaviour management. As David Runciman pointed out in the London Review of Books, talk of constitutional change says more about the state of British politics than about the UK's underlying principles of constitutional government.[6]
The Manifesto Club will be hosting an event, Thought crime: From the lyrical terrorist to Beenie Man, next Tuesday at Corbet Place Bar. Please see the website for more details.
[1] The Times, February 14th 2008, ‘Missing links in plans for a new constitution is impact on voters'
[2] The Guardian, November 7th 2007, 'Tory English Votes Policy threatens union, says Straw'
[3] The Guardian, October 25th 2007, 'We need Bill of Rights as well as Human Rights Act'
[4] The Guardian, January 1st 2008, ‘Smokers could be required to quit in exchange for NHS rights'
[5] The Guardian, November 7th 2007, 'Tory English Votes Policy threatens union, says Straw'
[6] The London Review of Books, 7 February 2008, This Way to the Ruin
