Don’t believe everything you read: there is a case for socio-economic rights – Professor Aoife Nolan

17 July 2012 by

Last week, a number of media commentators, politicians and others sought to subvert the second consultation of the Bill of Rights Commission.  This consultation invites views on a number of key issues that form part of the Commission’s mandate. In the Daily Mail’s correspondent’s view, the Commission has committed an appalling transgression by asking potential respondents whether the UK Bill of Rights should include additional rights, referring amongst other things to socio-economic rights. This is echoed by the Sun which argues that the Commission has ‘suggested’ (which it clearly has not) that ‘all Brits be given handouts as a birth right’, and the Daily Express which suggests “Spongers can Sue to Claim Benefits”.

Socio-economic rights are rights that relate to human survival and development.  Like the majority of European and other countries, the UK has volunteered to be bound by a range of such rights as a result of ratifying a number of international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ratified by the UK in 1976); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (ratified in 1992) and the European Social Charter (ratified by the UK in 1962). While these treaties haven’t been made part of our domestic law in the way the European Convention on Human Rights has been as a result of the Human Rights Act, they impose a range of human rights obligations on the UK. The government reports back periodically to the UN expert committees that monitor the implementation of these treaties.

The treaties are deeply concerned with human rights related to poverty and ensuring that human dignity is preserved through ensuring that everyone enjoys an ‘adequate’ (note – not ‘comfortable’) standard of living. Indeed, the fact that the UK signed up to these treaties and considers itself bound by them is a strong indication of their popular support across society.

Like the South African constitution, these treaties set out a right to social security. Again like the relevant part of the South African Constitution, these treaty provisions do not establish an absolute, directly enforceable right to be provided with social security (including benefits). Rather, they  make it clear that the extent to which the state is required to give effect to the right to social security and the right to an adequate standard of living is limited by the resources available to the state; such rights do not have to be provided to everyone immediately and on demand.

At the international level, states are obliged to provide (e.g., directly deliver) the right to social security when individuals or a group are ‘unable, on grounds reasonably considered to be beyond their control, to realise [satisfy] that right themselves, within the existing social security system with the means at their disposal’. Fraudulent claimants and those who are correctly assessed as able to work but refuse to do so are clearly not unable to satisfy their own right to social security with the means at their disposal.

Recent media coverage also ignores the fact that the consultation document asks whether, if socio-economic rights are to be included in a UK Bill of Rights, such rights should be enforceable. There is a range of ways in which, if it was deemed desirable, this could happen without ensuring that the courts overstep their role in our constitutional framework.  For instance, at the moment we already allow tribunals to deal with a range of issues arising in relation to housing, benefits and education – socio-economic rights that are fundamental to the operation of UK society as it stands.

A failure to include socio-economic rights in a UK Bill of Rights appears ever less consistent with developments at the devolved level.  The Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011 requires that Welsh Ministers and the First Minister have due regard to the Convention on the Rights of the Child when making new laws or policies or reviewing existing ones and, from May 2014, in the exercise of all their functions.  As of last year, a similar measure has been under consideration in Scotland. Given that the Convention contains a range of socio-economic rights, we are set to see, at a sub-national level at least, more explicit recognition and application of socio-economic rights in a range of governmental functions.

Nor is this a bad thing – as a society we are, and should be, concerned with ensuring that everyone enjoys an adequate standard of living.  This includes ensuring that those who need help from the state receive it. Far from being undesirable, such a situation is consistent with the notion a decent society. With a few notable exceptions, people in the UK don’t generally regard it as acceptable for people to starve or live on park benches and feel that the state should prevent this.

The Daily Mail expresses frustration that ‘despite deliberating for 15 months, the panel said it had not decided to recommend any change to the Act’.  This is hardly surprising given the variety of perspectives of panel members and society (as reflected in the range of views received by the Commission in response to its previous consultation).   It is presumably also reflective of the fact that the majority of respondents (as the Daily Mail bemoans) were in favour of keeping the Human Rights Act as it is.

Disagreement is a healthy sign in any democracy such as the UK where a plurality of views on key legal and political issues, including human rights, exists. Indeed, it is an indication that rights are taken seriously – as they should be. On that basis, it is vital that debate about what should be included in a UK Bill of Rights (or not) is premised on balanced and accurate analyses of the questions (not recommendations) posed in the consultation document and the potential implications of different options in terms of the rights to be included and the form of their inclusion. Articles such as those in last week’s Daily Mail, Sun and Daily Express fail to achieve this and do the public a disservice.

Professor Aoife Nolan, Professor of International Human Rights Law, Nottingham University Law School, Trustee of Justfair: Justice & Fairness through Human Rights

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more:


  1. Evelyne says:

    Thanks for this informative comment. There continue to be too many misunderstandings about socio-economic rights. Hopefully, many readers will send letters to the editors of the Daily Mail, Sun and Daily Express, explaining why socio-economic rights do not imply that the government has to give a free house with sea views to spongers… Rather, as you point out (and to mention just two examples), it is quite uncontroversial that children in the UK should have a right to education or that those who suffer an illness should be able to get the medical care and social security needed to live in dignity.

  2. Good piece; it cheered me up immensely.

Comments are closed.

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 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 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: