Jack Straw gives Mackenzie Stuart Lecture
From Democracywiki
Central Lobby
 Our View We very much welcome Jack Straw's commitment to further developing the human rights culture in the UK. Charter 88 has always called for a Bill of Rights, the prime purpose of which would be to lay out what the state may and may not, do in our name. We also welcome the recognition that for people to have any ownership over the Bill of Rights citizens will have to be involved in drawing it up. However the devil is in the detail. The Government has not yet revealed how this process will be organised but as we have argued it is essential that participatory processes are open, transparent and independent of governmnet. If the government tries to keep control of this process it will simply be dismissed as a gimmick and reinforce public cynicism. |
Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor gave the 2007 Mackenzie Stuart Lectureat Cambridge University's Faculty of Law.
He focused on Human Rights legislation and in particular the debate on the need for a British Bill of Rights.
On the idea that the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act are European values inflicted on the UK he said
- "We led the negotiations, we led the drafting, we led the way in Europe. The Convention rights have a long British pedigree, rooted in the Magna Carta, the 1689 Bill of Rights and habeas corpus and can be read as a manifestation of the values that were already deeply embodied in our common law."
On the Conservative Party proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act he said
- "Repealing the Human Rights Act and simply replacing it with a separate Bill of Rights would, I believe, have the effect of restricting the flexibility and the application of balance within the UK courts. The current structure of the Human Rights Act means that our courts have to grapple with the very same questions as the Strasbourg Court, which enables our courts to exercise an important influence on ECtHR jurisprudence. In this way, we are taking full advantage of the margin of appreciation afforded by the Strasbourg court, in a way which respects British judicial decision making and allows for balance. To move towards a German Basic Law model would, I am convinced, result in a more restrictive application of rights and a loss of any meaningful margin of appreciation. The very opposite effect of that which the Opposition claim.
- Furthermore, repealing the HRA would only result in delay for British people seeking justice. Rather than seeking remedy in a British court, and heard by a British judge, the British people would have to look forward to joining the back of a very long queue of those waiting for justice in Strasbourg."
On the case for a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities he said
- "A Bill of Rights and responsibilities imposes obligations on government: but it also makes clear that the citizen has mutual obligations. The extent of this 'horizontal' relationship, is something we will explore, and we can look more recently than Tom Paine to the example of South Africa as to how this could work in practice."
- "Over many years there has been debate about the idea of developing a list of the rights and obligations that go with being a member of our society. A Bill of Rights and Responsibilities could give people a clearer idea of what we can expect from the state and from each other, and a framework for giving practical effect to our common values."
- "However, if specifically British rights were to be added to those we already enjoy by virtue of the European Convention, we would need to ensure that it would be of benefit to the country as a whole and not restrict the ability of the democratically elected government to decide upon the way in which resources are to be employed in the national interest. For example, some have argued for the incorporation of economic and social rights into British law as they have in South African law. But this would involve a significant shift from Parliament to the judiciary in making decisions that we currently hold to be the preserve of elected representatives including decisions around public spending, and implicitly, levels of taxation."
On how the Bill of Rights should be drawn up he said
- "If a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities that clarifies this relationship is to be more than a legal document and become a charter expressing our values as a society it is vital that it is owned by the British people and not just the lawyers."
