%20(2).png)
Following the Queen’s Speech yesterday, we at Your Rights Matter thought it appropriate to bring our readers up to speed on the Government’s proposals to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and introduce a ‘British Bill of Rights’. You’d be forgiven for missing the reference made by Her Majesty, but what little she did say was dishearteningly supportive of the change, once again. “Proposals will be brought forward for a British Bill of Rights”. This statement was followed by some vague, but commonly heard, allusions to ‘upholding sovereignty of the Parliament’ and the ‘primacy of the Commons’. This should not have been surprising, due to the fact that she said something very similar in her last speech, but following a conclusion made by the EU Joint Parliamentary Committee that the proposals are essentially unnecessary it is once again time to consider the implications of such a change.
First, a brief timeline of the development of the proposals:
2014 – Conservatives produced a document entitled ‘Protecting Human Rights in the UK’ in which they promised to “restore common sense and put Britain first” (much the same as the vague rhetoric we are hearing currently with regards to the EU). This was where we first heard of plans to repeal the Human Rights Act and create a British Bill of Rights. What this latter document would actually include was, however, known to no-one. Perhaps (probably) not even the Conservative party themselves.
2015 – The Conservative party’s manifesto again reaffirmed these plans, promising that they will ‘make our Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK.’ (One need only look at the case of R v Hirst discussed by one of our editors Ryan Dowding elsewhere, to see that even where the UK is found to have violated the rights of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the decision to change their practices accordingly is very much left to the UK Government.)
2016 – EU Justice Committee reviewed the plans proposed by the Government, and concluded that there is a ‘forceful case for the Government to rethink’ its plans which have ‘seemingly limited aims’.
This leads us to ask, firstly, why the proposals have been criticised as such and, secondly, why the Queen and the Government are still so adamant to push through with these unpopular plans? The main reason put forward by the Committee as to why they deemed the plans unnecessary is that the new Bill of Rights will be fundamentally no different to the ECHR. For such a massive constitutional change, one would expect there to be some substantial difference between the two instruments. The Government has said they are ‘not planning to derogate absolutely’ from the Convention rights, so we can be forgiven for suggesting that this plan is merely a symbolic – and largely superfluous – move to appease the current move to seclude Britain from its neighbouring countries. It is no coincidence that such proposals have come at a time when the Brexit rhetoric is at its peak, and some UK citizens have appeared disillusioned by the partnerships with our neighbouring countries.
So, if the Bill of Rights will not constitute a derogation from the Convention, what will it achieve? It is difficult to navigate through the labyrinth of broad, sweeping statements about maintaining control of our country and regaining sovereignty to find the crux of the change.
It seems that the only legally substantial change that has been put forward is that ‘where rights are subject to potential qualification, we may emphasise the importance of one right over another.’ I find it difficult to see how this creates such a fundamental change as it purports. Most of the rights enshrined in the ECHR (excluding rights such as the right to life and freedom from torture which, it is hoped, most people would be happy being absolute and free from qualification) contain within them such ‘balancing acts’ in order to decide which should be held with more importance in each case. For example Article 8, which provides for the protection of private and family life, states that an interference of this right can be carried out in order to ‘protect the rights and freedoms of others’. It is therefore explicitly clear that here, a State may ‘emphasise the importance of one right over another’, which seems to be the only substantial aim of the Bill of Rights. Also, it is questionable whether we would actually want the Government to be able to choose which rights they deem to be more important than others – should there really be a hierarchy of our fundamental human rights?
One small issue that must be mentioned is that it appears that a British Bill of Rights, if implemented, will actually turn out to be an ‘English Bill of Rights’. It is said to be unlikely that the Scottish Parliament will give legislative consent to such a change, the Welsh government are fundamentally opposed to it, and the Northern Irish government will be unlikely to consent due to the fact that the ECHR was a pivotal instrument in the Good Friday Agreement. An English Bill of Rights doesn’t have quite the same ring to it and, with our closest neighbours opposing the move, it begs the question – who really wants this change? The Queen certainly seems committed, and with her breadth of experience at having her fundamental human rights challenged on a daily basis, who are we to disagree?
Above are reasons put forward as to why the proposed new legislation is unnecessary due to its lack of actual change. However, I urge you not to read this as a plea for the amendment to carry more implications with regard to our human rights protections. This is just one angle to be taken. See this comedic video for an insight into just how important the Convention is to us, and why the repeal of the Human Rights Act could be the worst decision this Government has ever made (yes, really, worse than all the others): Video Link
One final point – the EU and the ECHR are entirely different institutions. Please, please, please get to grips with this before using Abu-Qatada as a reason for your choice to leave the EU.