*/
The recent arrest of Damian Green and Jack Straw’s widely reported human rights “frustration” highlight urgent issues, writes Stephen Hockman QC, who sets out his own agenda for change
In recent weeks, financial policy has held the centre stage of politics. So much so that in the Queen’s Speech, delivered to Parliament on 3 December 2008 and the shortest in New Labour history, the anticipated constitutional renewal programme was demoted to “when parliamentary time allows”. Events have overtaken Jack Straw MP, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, whose oral House of Commons statement on 25 March 2008 outlined the Government’s ambitious programme to secure what he called “a new constitutional settlement”, aimed not least at strengthening the role of Parliament in our democracy, and which “[goes] to the heart of how power in a modern democracy should be exercised”.
It is worth recalling the changes which have been introduced since 1997, which include:
Under the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill, there will be further changes affecting such matters as the reform of prerogative powers and of the role of the Attorney General. The Queen’s Speech suggests that this Bill will continue to be progressed in the next Parliament.
What more remains to be done? In my view the agenda for the future should include at least the following principal items:
It is arguable that the Human Rights Act 1998 is Labour’s greatest political achievement. No British government could restrict the applicability of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): to do so would place it in breach of international obligations, and would be incompatible with our membership of the European Union. And if the ECHR is to continue to apply, the Act is the best mechanism for achieving this, since by a neat British compromise it enables a court to declare that legislation is incompatible with the ECHR, whilst at the same time making it necessary for Parliament to decide on the form and timing of any amended legislation. Despite this, in an interview with the Daily Mail (8 December 2008) Straw, who brought in the Act ten years ago when Home Secretary, is reported as “‘frustrated’ by some of the judgments which have encouraged voters to conclude that the act is a ‘villains’ charter’”, although he defends the law as an “‘Aunt Sally’...often blamed unfairly for problems which are in fact caused by other laws and judgments”. Straw indicates his support for a “declaration of responsibilities and rights which grow together, the kind of rights we are owed and the rights which we owe, in a single document” but concedes that it might not materialise.
As we mark the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the seriously debatable issues on human rights are whether:
On the latter point, it is worth remembering that many of the rights protected by the ECHR are already expressly “qualified” by the need to take into account the wider interests of the community at large. The Government’s answer to these questions is awaited. It is to be hoped that the Opposition will join in the debate on such issues and resist any temptation to pretend that the essential features of the Act can or should be reformed.
There is one further and broader issue: the need, increasingly widely accepted, for a codification of our constitutional arrangements, which would enable the public at large to know and understand how they are truly governed. Despite the much-vaunted flexibility of our historic system, the pace of reform in areas such as human rights or modernisation of the upper chamber has been painfully slow. The truth is that a system which remains uncodified is a system which will remain essentially undemocratic, in the sense that it will be susceptible to incremental change when those in positions of influence so approve, and not otherwise. Here indeed is a theme for the Queen’s Speech in 2009.
Stephen Hockman KC is joint Head of Chambers at 6 Pump Court. He has specialised in all forms of regulatory law for approximately the last 30 years. He was Chair of the Bar for 2006 and a former Deputy High Court Judge. He is Master of the Bench at Middle Temple.
In recent weeks, financial policy has held the centre stage of politics. So much so that in the Queen’s Speech, delivered to Parliament on 3 December 2008 and the shortest in New Labour history, the anticipated constitutional renewal programme was demoted to “when parliamentary time allows”. Events have overtaken Jack Straw MP, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, whose oral House of Commons statement on 25 March 2008 outlined the Government’s ambitious programme to secure what he called “a new constitutional settlement”, aimed not least at strengthening the role of Parliament in our democracy, and which “[goes] to the heart of how power in a modern democracy should be exercised”.
It is worth recalling the changes which have been introduced since 1997, which include:
Under the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill, there will be further changes affecting such matters as the reform of prerogative powers and of the role of the Attorney General. The Queen’s Speech suggests that this Bill will continue to be progressed in the next Parliament.
What more remains to be done? In my view the agenda for the future should include at least the following principal items:
It is arguable that the Human Rights Act 1998 is Labour’s greatest political achievement. No British government could restrict the applicability of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): to do so would place it in breach of international obligations, and would be incompatible with our membership of the European Union. And if the ECHR is to continue to apply, the Act is the best mechanism for achieving this, since by a neat British compromise it enables a court to declare that legislation is incompatible with the ECHR, whilst at the same time making it necessary for Parliament to decide on the form and timing of any amended legislation. Despite this, in an interview with the Daily Mail (8 December 2008) Straw, who brought in the Act ten years ago when Home Secretary, is reported as “‘frustrated’ by some of the judgments which have encouraged voters to conclude that the act is a ‘villains’ charter’”, although he defends the law as an “‘Aunt Sally’...often blamed unfairly for problems which are in fact caused by other laws and judgments”. Straw indicates his support for a “declaration of responsibilities and rights which grow together, the kind of rights we are owed and the rights which we owe, in a single document” but concedes that it might not materialise.
As we mark the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the seriously debatable issues on human rights are whether:
On the latter point, it is worth remembering that many of the rights protected by the ECHR are already expressly “qualified” by the need to take into account the wider interests of the community at large. The Government’s answer to these questions is awaited. It is to be hoped that the Opposition will join in the debate on such issues and resist any temptation to pretend that the essential features of the Act can or should be reformed.
There is one further and broader issue: the need, increasingly widely accepted, for a codification of our constitutional arrangements, which would enable the public at large to know and understand how they are truly governed. Despite the much-vaunted flexibility of our historic system, the pace of reform in areas such as human rights or modernisation of the upper chamber has been painfully slow. The truth is that a system which remains uncodified is a system which will remain essentially undemocratic, in the sense that it will be susceptible to incremental change when those in positions of influence so approve, and not otherwise. Here indeed is a theme for the Queen’s Speech in 2009.
The recent arrest of Damian Green and Jack Straw’s widely reported human rights “frustration” highlight urgent issues, writes Stephen Hockman QC, who sets out his own agenda for change
The beginning of the legal year offers the opportunity for a renewed commitment to justice and the rule of law both at home and abroad
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management sets out the key steps to your dream property
A centre of excellence for youth justice, the Youth Justice Legal Centre provides specialist training, an advice line and a membership programme
By Kem Kemal of Henry Dannell
By Ashley Friday of AlphaBiolabs
Providing bespoke mortgage and protection solutions for barristers
Joanna Hardy-Susskind speaks to those walking away from the criminal Bar
Imposing a professional obligation to act in a way that advances equality, diversity and inclusion is the wrong way to achieve this ambition, says Nick Vineall KC
From a traumatic formative education to exceptional criminal silk – Laurie-Anne Power KC talks about her path to the Bar, pursuit of equality and speaking out against discrimination (not just during Black History Month)
Yasmin Ilhan explains the Law Commission’s proposals for a quicker, easier and more effective contempt of court regime
James Onalaja concludes his two-part opinion series
