Coalition agreement calls for Human Rights Act Plus, but will it last?

21 May 2010 by

The full Coalition agreement is now available, and has made things a little clearer on the new government’s plans for the Human Rights Act. But will the promised review of the 1998 Act be anything more than a time-wasting exercise born of irresolvable disagreements between the partners on fundamental rights, and will the changes last?

“The Coalition: our programme for government” is available to download here. The civil liberties section is largely the same as in the draft agreement published last week, but with an added section on the recently announced Commission to

investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law, and protects and extends British liberties. We will seek to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties.

We posted earlier in the week on three possible outcomes arising from the Commission; first, full repeal of the 1998 Act, second, repeal and replacement with a Bill of Rights or, third, create in effect a “Human Rights Act Plus”, which would bolster the 1998 Act whilst maintaining the UK obligations under the European Convention. As predicted, it appears that the third option has been selected, but under the Bill of Rights banner.

It is impossible to speculate at present how this will work in practice, but much will depend on the personalities of those on the Commission. Ultimately the outcome may be, in the spirit of the times, a compromise positioned between the Conservative party’s well publicised distrust of the Act (in particular its apparent protection of terrorists) and the Liberal Democrats’ pledge to build upon it. It remains to be seen whether this political friction can generate any useful change.

Towards a written constitution?

We live in interesting constitutional times. The Coalition Government has inspired countless questions on Britain’s so-called “unwritten constitution”, and has now pledged to undertake significant reforms of that ever elusive non-document. The Conservatives have moved from promising to repeal the Human Rights Act to pledging not only to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into a future document, but also to “protect and extend British Liberties“.

Of course, there are many paths which the commission could follow, and it will face a difficult legal task in altering the way in which the Convention is incorporated into UK law – no doubt under significant political pressure to restrict unpopular rights – whilst still remaining within the fairly narrow margin of appreciation which is permitted under European treaty obligations.

If the Commission is anything more than a political fudge or time-wasting exercise, a key issue it will have to address is sustainability. A right granted by statute can only be said to be “fundamental” if the statute within which it is enshrined is very difficult or even impossible to repeal. In the United States, rights enshrined by the Constitution are practically impossible to withdraw from, although different times have called for varying interpretations of the language, for example on abortion. In the UK, this is not the case, and as a result it is open to each new Government to reassess the “fundamental” commitments of the last.

One could argue that this reversibility is an essential building block of Parliamentary sovereignty; an elected Government must be able to review any law, regardless of how strongly its predecessors felt about it.

However, as Lord Phillips, the head of the UK Supreme Court, argued last month in a fascinating lecture on statutory interpretation, the courts may be moving towards a position where a limited number of acts of parliament – including the Human Rights Act – are seen to have attained in law the status of “constitutional statutes”. This only applies to a handful of laws, but means that judges can apply those laws in ways which are unambiguously contrary to the will of Parliament. An example would be if, in future, a Government sought to limit a fundamental right guaranteed by the ECHR, such as the right against inhuman and degrading treatment. The courts might then chose to act against the will of Parliament by enforcing that right regardless.

Constitutional crisis or golden opportunity?

Lord Phillips did not go as far as saying that this is how the courts should behave towards the Human Rights Act, merely that in future they might. For him to do so might have precipitated a constitutional crisis, and Prime Minister David Cameron for one has expressed a distaste for what he considers the increasing power of unelected judges. This was one of the reasons he stated for wishing to repeal the Human Rights Act in the first place.

In light of Lord Phillips’ comments, the introduction of a Bill of Rights (or a Human Rights Act Plus) now may present an opportunity to impose the rights guaranteed by the ECHR more forcefully and enduringly on the British legal system, in a way which would make it at least more difficult (perhaps ‘impossible’ is too lofty an aim) to alter or repeal in the future.

This could guarantee a lasting legacy for the Coalition Government, whilst reducing the chance of an increasingly unruly judiciary flexing its interpretative muscle against the will of Parliament; for, the will of Parliament would be secondary to the Bill of Rights. This may end up giving more power to judges in any event, but at least this would be happening in the open rather than by stealth, and democratic checks and balances could be devised.

The British constitution may be elusive, but it is certainly in flux at present, and as such the Commission may present an ideal opportunity to fix within it the basic principles which in any event the UK is bound by under European law. The other alternative is a further Commission every decade, and fundamental rights which amount to anything but.

Read more:

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: