Human rights
I'm beginning to have certain sympathy with my Dad who used to moan about the country being run by lawyers.
The question as to whether would actually make any difference is one that already has the lawyers locking their horns.
The case for - I'm told - is that the grants countries with their own written constitutions or bills of rights (eg Germany) what's called "a margin of appreciation" - a bit of leeway, to the likes of you and me. In addition, Britain could, like France, seek certain "reservations" on the convention allowing considerations of national security to outweigh human rights considerations.
The case against is that, ultimately, the court in Strasbourg would decide and so a new Bill would make no difference.
Rest assured that however expert lawyers may be, there is no single correct answer - giving fresh potency to that old cliché that when it comes to the law "you pays yer money and you make your choice".
I'm 
Comments
Hi Nick, I'm 18 years old! I now have the right to vote but I do not know who to vote for! And how am I expected to know who to vote for! At the moment, politics are doing my head in! I have very strong views and I'm not going to start on them otherwise I'll be here for hours!
There is no definite answer to this problem as you say Nick but I am today finding it difficult to take Dave seriously after that interview on friday on jonathan ross- why the hell do politicians put themselves forward for these interviews- especially with jonathan ross who would ask vulgar questions to anybody- just imagine the smile on his face when he found out dave cameron was going on his show- if dave is not slever enough to realise that it would be utterly stupid to go on this show, he isn't clever enough to solve the human rights issue!!!
We already have a Bill of Rights of 1689 ( full title An Act of Parliament Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown ). This Act cannot be rescinded and in fact has been used in some fairly recent court cases.
It is interesting to note that at least one of the tenets of this Bill appears to make fines and other financial penalties, without a prior court case, illegal
Why do we need another Bill of Rights ?
The very nature of the Convention on Human Rights (and, equally, a Bill of Rights) implies that you can distil our rights and freedoms down into a few paragraphs of text.
Rather than a Bill of Rights, why not scrap the Human Rights Act and consider introducing a Bill of Restrictions. This Bill could set out a number of fundamental restrictions on areas in which Parliament could not legislate (e.g. no law could be passed that would infringe a right to free association) subject to certain limited caveats. In this way, you start from the premise that we, as British citizens, have every right known to man but we have, however, given Parliament the power to restrict these rights, subject to certain exceptions.
Nick, I'm surprised you never mention the most intriguing section of the Human Rights Act - that is the last section that guarantees judge's pensions. Why is it there? who put the section in? and what political effect will it have on the Act being rewritten? Judges must feel they are being squeezed by the 91Èȱ¬ Office and now by the new Bill of Rights.
Nick,
Just had a look at the final section in the Human Rights Act. It basically says judges will have pension contribitions paid for by the Government. Why did the Government include this section? Were the judges "paid off" because they were going to object to problems the Act. Are all the failures of the Act down to a backroom deal between policians and judges?
Why, whenever someone suggest a change to the terms imposed on us by europe, is there an outcry from the "You can't do that brigade".
If you suggest that we become trading partners not political...."you can't do that"
There is always a suggested doom scenario by these whimps who do not believe that we can stand on our own as a nation.
Are these the same people who predicted that it would be a disaster if we stayed out of the euro? (Who remembers the ERM?)
Go on David go for it, find a way to make it stick, and I hope that this is just for starters!
I would agree with your dad when he moaned the country was run by lawyers.
The main problem I would have with David Cameron`s idea of a new Bill of Rights to replace ECHR, would be just how many exclusions or exemptions there would be for professions, government departments or the like.
While many seem to regard ECHR legislation as being all conquering, it is very far from that indeed.
In Scotland, for instance, the legal profession itself sought and obtained exemptions over it`s adherence to ECHR until October 2001 ... but even now, lawyers themselves, and their own regulatory body in Scotland - the Law Society of Scotland, certainly do not treat clients or members of the public with any respect at all for article 6 of ECHR (the right to a fair hearing), when it comes to adressing regulatory issues.
It`s all very well the Conservatives coming up with these ideas - but who will get the exemptions at the end of the day ? Corporations, Professions, and the like .. who find their lives currently made more difficult by ECHR ?
There is a serious issue of trust these days with politicans - what we don`t need is a `loans, political support, honours, or cash for exemptions scandal` hitting us if Cameron`s idea ever makes it to the statute books ...
I don`t think this has been a very well thought out idea from the Conservatives.
Nick
It is not true that the ECHR grants a margin of appreciation only to those countries with a Bill or Rights or a Basic Law. The UK has been given the margin of appreciation in many cases already - just look at Hatton v UK or Rayner and Powell v UK for example. The Court always recognises that the High Contracting parties - as the member states are called - have a margin of appreciation. The question is whether that margin is wide or narrow. It is said to be wide in three circumstances: (1) when there is no European standard practice on the matters concerns eg registation of male to female transexuals as females - where different countries have different practices (2) where the matter is a question of a qualified right involving a balance between an individual's economic and social rights and the public good eg matters relating to property rights, housing, airport noise, social security and (3) where there is a qualified right involving national security.
It is said to be narrow in the following cases (1) where there is a European standard eg recognition of the equal rights of homosexuals (2) where private and intimate rights are concerned eg family life, free speech, fair trials and arrest and detention.
There is no margin of appreciation where ansolute rights are concerned - eg torture and capital punishment.
There is a great deal of merit a Bill of Rights to entrech those rights which are not recognised as rights in the ECHR - jury trials for example.
The issues that Blair and Cameron are concerned with - deportation of people who are likely to face torture were decided not in Europe but by British Judges interpreting the Convention in a British way - French judges for examples reach a different conclusion on the same facts. That is because British Judges WERE applying British standards to the Convention! How can a Bill of Rights change that if it is to be interpreted by British Judges?
This whole debate is in fact nothing but an attack on the independence of the judiciary. In America is it is worth remembering the Supreme Court can strike out legislation approved by the Congress on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Are we going to have that in the UK under Cameron?
Comment 3 says the Bill of Rights 1689 cannot be rescinded - does anyone know what the authority for that is?
As I understand it, there is some controversy over whether there is a separate class of 'constitutional legislation' (such as the Bill of Rights, Act Of Union and European Communities Act). If such a class exists, there is an argument to say that it is entrenched to some extent. However, to say that Parliament cannot rescind any particular piece of legislation seems to be an extreme intrusion on Parliamentary Sovereignty. (Although, if memory serves correctly, the Act of Union says that the Act can never be repealed).
Surely, no Parliament is bound by the actions of any previous Parliament? Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
..i heard "lets have a British bill of rights not a "foriegn" one "...now, HOW xenaphobic does that sound?....and the examples we get that this would address...the Afghan hi-jackers...should we have deported these deperate people to what soon became a War zone!,post 9/11....?
It also seems to feed into the proposed withdrawal from the EPP , and what is still the yawning chasm in the Tory party over EUROPE...
Chris Morrell
For those concerned about the provision as to judicial pensions in the HRA, this was included (at least in part) for precisely the same reason as earlier statutes of a 'constitutional' nature included the rule that judicial salaries are the first expense the government must meet. Simply, the idea is that if the government (who ultimately pay the judiciary) have too much control over judicial salaries, that risks rendering rights ineffective as the judiciary will bow to the government. Inclusion of pension payments is a reflection of the changing nature of finances in the modern world (the judicial pension being an extremely valuable asset).
With regardto Mr. Norcross, the 1689 legislation can be 'rescinded' (presumably repealed), at least as a matter of law, although there may be political reluctance so do to. The regular Army Acts which authorise the existence of a British Army do precisely that, as do those statutes which permit fines without any judicial process.
Just to let Harold Norcross, above, know - The Bill of Rights of 1689 CAN be repealed, as can any of our legislation considered constitutional such as the Acts of Settlement.
Just to let Harold Norcross, above, know - The Bill of Rights of 1689 CAN be repealed, as can any of our legislation considered constitutional such as the Acts of Settlement. They are not entrenched in the way that the US or French Bill of Rights/constitutions.
Britain once had soemthing great, the sovereignty of parliament. The Human Rights Act, arguably has demolished this, that made english law great. English law is flexible in the fact that it doesnt have a written constitution, which makes it unique, the Human Rights Act shoul be abolished entirely, and left how it was.
I'm afraid David Cameron's Bill of Rights is all gong but no dinner.
The 91Èȱ¬ has referred to the Conservative plan for a 'US style' Bill of Rights. In fact, the Tory Party is proposing nothing of the sort.
The United States Bill of Rights is a form of basic, entrenched law. It can only be repealed or altered by a special procedure, different from that used to promulgate 'ordinary' legislation. No law in contravention of it can be considered valid by a US court.
Dave's Bill of Rights 'lite' would not be capable of striking down Acts of Parliament. In fact, the Conservatives have said that it could itself be altered or struck off the statute book just as easily as a piece of primary legislation like the Dangerous Dogs Act!
This is not even to mention the ridiculous idea that British people have a different set of human rights from other Europeans. Human rights aren't 'French' or 'Iraqi' or 'British'; they are universal- that is the point! (Besides, it may be of interest to David Cameron to learn that the ECHR was actually drafted by British lawyers in 1950...)
The Bill of Rights will only be worth the paper it is written on if it is incorporated into a written constitution for the United Kingdom. This is the only way in which citizens would be able to effectively enforce their rights in this country. David Cameron has already said that he is not willing to do this. What we are left with therefore is a thoroughly pointless piece of gimmickery.
I note that some people have asked why Schedule 4 (Judicial pensions) has been included.
from a brief read of the act it seems that schedule 4 was included because Section 18 which deals with the appointment of British Judges to sit on the European Court of Human Rights dealt with what happens to their British post, but did not say what happens to the judges pension when they are transfered to Strasbourg.
Isn't the point that David Cameron knows that ultimately Strasbourg has the final say so that he can say "we tried but Europe keeps holding us back". It appeases the Eurosceptics and gives good spin for any future debate on Britain's role in Europe. "Tough on Europe. Tough on the causes of Europe" I guess.
"The case against is that, ultimately, the Court in Strasbourg would decide and so a new Bill would make no difference."
Surely the case against is that this is blatent, cynical piece of populist opportunism, and is yet another step along the road of giving up liberties for security. It has already been acknowledged that a different interpretation of the Human Rights Act would not have prevented the 7/7 bombings.
What does need to happen is a reform of the policing system, to make it less innefficient. But that is a much harder problem to solve, and so Cameron is taking the easy option of boo-hissing the HRA. Notice how he announced it in an interview with The Sun? He's not even trying to hide the populism.
Re. comment 15, I'm glad Parliament isn't sovereign any more. MPs have become automatons voting slavishly with their whips. I'd rather have a bunch of intelligent judges in charge than a PM who fancies himself as an autocrat and a party that rarely has the courage to rebel against his diktats.
Nick, you're wrong to say that "the case against is that, ultimately, the court in Strasbourg would decide and so a new Bill would make no difference."
The Human Rights Act although it allows the Convention to be used as law in domestic courts does not make the European Court of Human Rights superior to British courts. Its rulings are advisory and not binding. The lower courts still have to follower higher up British rulings and interpretations even though those rulings contradict what the ECHR has said.
The British government and courts have also been able to completely ignore ECHR rulings for compensation in a breach of rights- the IRA shootings in Gibraltar for example.
The European Court of Justice is superior, but that's a completely different thing.
The largest problem with Human Rights it seems is that every thinks that they know what they do but are wrong on a lot of it (including yourself it seems).
While I'm banging on about all this I should also say that the Convention is all about proportionality so provided a restriction on rights is proportional to what you're trying to achieve then it *should* be ok.
Nowhere have I found a news organisation actually explaining the HRA, the rights it involves and what it does. All the public get are half-truths and mistakes.
What I found refreshing about David Cameron's proposition was that he referred to it not just as a Bill of Rights, but a Bill of Rights AND Responsibilities. It is generally accepted that the latter counterbalances the former, but too much emphasis is usually given to the Rights; after all rights are sexier than responsibilities, aren't they?
If a new British approach were to start from the premise of the reponsibilities of the citizens of a liberal democracy, I think the rights would ultimately fall more logically into place and it would become far easier to deal fairly with situations where one citizen had caused harm to another. Britain might even find itself leading the world once more.
It was interesting that two legal Labour Lords, who are members of the government - Falconer and Goldsmith - rapidly railed against David Cameron's proposals: just how much due judicial deliberation did they receive, I wonder? On the other hand (Labour) Baroness Helena Kennedy welcomed them as being worthy of consideration. Now there's a sensible lady!
Item 10. Anthony wrote on 26 June 2006. Anyone know what the authority for the statement that the Bill of Rights cannot be rescinded or changed.
Look at htp://cn.wickipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights. Under 'Important bills of rights he will find, on a par with the Magna Carta, (try altering this !) Bill or Rights 1689 (England) and Claim of Rights (Scotland). This particular Bill was a contract between the Monarch and the people not between Parliament and the people.
What politician would have the temerity to deprive people of their rights conferred on them by the Monarch ? Any politician attempting it should be hung, drawn abd quartered !
In the receding shadow of dark days of war and tyranny, a new kind of
Britain was forged from the hopes and dreams of its long-suffering
people in the late 1940s. Across the channel, our near neighbours, beaten low by years of fascist subjugation, sprang into new, clearly focused, political life. All of Europe knew what was really important. They had barely finished digging all the graves when, five years after the nightmare ended, they wrote down and agreed it. They called it the European Convention on Human Rights.
Three decades after our grandfathers and great-grandfathers were
promised a "land fit for heroes", here was a document that defined the
rights that should exist for every person in such a land. It had already
defined good practice in European justice for 48 years before parliament made it the ordinary business of every court and tribunal in the UK.
Anyone who imagines that the intervening 56 years have enhanced our understanding of the issues to the extent that we can improve upon that document is a fool.
It is a ridiculous and ill thought-out assertion to say that we could simply repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with this nebulous 'Bill Of Rights'. As signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights, we have to respect and observe the convention rights and this includes taking notice of Strasbourg jurisprudence and incorporating it into our own common law.
It is argued by some that the HRA gave more power to the courts so surely in this respect we should concentrate on the judiciary and not on reactionary legislation?
I must agree that those who say the law at times seems to favour the rights of individuals over the majority interest are warranted in my opinion. But it is important to remember that the HRA has only been in place just over 5 years, so we need to allow it to root and evolve within our law for a long time before declaring it a failure.
How a Bill Of Rights would differ in its content and workability remains to be seen. Either Cameron would ensure that it complies with the ECHR, in which case there would be no practical difference to the HRA, or otherwise it would ostensibly conflict with Strasbourg and that would cause us loads of problems.
For those who know little about our constitution - it would be impossible to have one similar to the US Bill of Rights due to the fact that in Britain it is not possible to entrench statutes (ie have them unremovable by Parliament). So how such a bill would protect fundamental rights differing in a constitutional sense is yet to be seen.
To most who know a little about English law, this smacks of nonsense. Find another throwaway populist policy to flout Cameron.
Cameron`s/Tories Bill of Rights.
This is just another nail in the coffin of our human rights here in Britain.We have had so many nails nailed into our coffin by the tories/new labour over the last 27yrs there is now more metal then wood.