Stuart Weir (Cambridge, Democratic Audit): Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General as was, has been putting himself about lately. In between pulling in £1 million a year from Debevoise & Plimpton, he has been telling Parliament and the media that he would have resigned over Tony Blair's plan to extend the period for which terrorism suspects could be held in custody without charge for up to 90 days. Given his record over the legality, or otherwise, of Britain's part in the invasion of Iraq, there have been smidgeons of doubt over his claim that he would have stood up to be counted. I am not sure that this is entirely fair; at the very least, it could be said that every worm has a turning point.
On one matter, anyway, he has proved himself entirely consistent. He is against giving people economic and social rights. As the UK representive on the EU convention under Giscard d'Estaing on the EU constititution and charter of fundamental rights, he argued strongly against any such document having power to add to national law or existing Community law. In other words, he wanted to preserve the government's "flexible" labour market and to curb the right to strike in the UK. He has been making the case against economic and social rights in his interviews, arguing that they are a matter for democratic decision, not for the judiciary and the law.
Well, I agree that socio-economic rights belong in the democratic sphere. Defenders of the status-quo, like Goldsmith (and Brown), present the issue very crudely as a straight choice between Parliament (democratic) and the judiciary (non-democratic). The people whom Parliament is meant to represent are thus rendered invisible. In my view, having socio-economic legal rights are important in that they empower citizens to pursue a case for social justice and a decent way of life by giving them principles for argument and action and potentially a legal lever on power via the courts. True, the dreaded judges only come in, if at all, when there is deadlock; and they would be obliged to decide within clearly defined and limited parameters. Nonetheless, as the British Institute for Human Rights has found, in practice, the existence of legally defined human rights under the Human Rights Act gives citizens a bargaining position, one that can help them when they are being denied fair and impartial public services, without the need to go to court.
If Parliament was a genuinely representative institution, independent of government, then a case could be made for leaving things as they are. But it is not - it is the servant of government, while government itself seeks reelection by appealing to only with a fraction of the public, and a well-off fraction at that.
The news this weekend that Gordon Brown and his lickspittle (I have always wanted to use this word) Chancellor are blocking a rescue plan for the 125,00 workers who lost their pension rights when their employers went bust or wound up pension schemes makes the point clearly. These workers are dependent on the good will of the state or their own organising power. They have no lever of power which they can grasp themselves to make their perfectly fair claim. If they had economic and social rights to which they could appeal, they would be in a much stronger position to make government listen and respond. As it is they are powerless and will have to rely on Peter Hain. A good guy, no doubt, but would he resign if Brown and Darling refuse to budge?
