Should the HRA be replaced with a BBR?

Question 1

[PRO BBR] ECHR/HRA outdated

Answer 1

an BBR would update rights for a changing society, could be more intersectional, go beyond civil and political rights to cover healthcare, housing

Question 2

[ANTI BBR] rights already protected

Answer 2

HRA gives good protection by incorporating ECHR into UK law, Constit Reform Act 2005 created Supreme Court to be more independent e.g. HM Treasury v Ahmed 2010, AlRavi v Security Service 2011

Question 3

[PRO BBR] higher law

Answer 3

higher law would force govt to respect rights more, judges have more power to strike out laws against rights, would ensure govt more accountable e.g. current prisoners’ votes shows judges are weak, govt/MPs have too much say

Question 4

[ANTI BBR]

Answer 4

BBR proposal may be party-political conservative, right-leaning, lacks enough widespread support, unlike Italian constit ratified by huge assembly of diverse parties and views

Question 5

[ANTI BBR] devolved assemblies

Answer 5

devolved assemblies like the ECHR/HRA set up, being linked to wider European rights principles, ECHR part of devolution settlements making it hard to change, could lead to devolved power not feeling respected by Westminster, drive separatist feeling

Question 6

[PRO BBR] public could contribute

Answer 6

public could have a say on what to include, what they see is important, more ownership of rights, contribute to connection to rights and pride in country, political stability, increase confidence in govt bc govt more accountable, possibly wider political participation

Question 7

[ANTI BBR] public contribution dangerous

Answer 7

relying on citizen consultation is ideologically attractive but may devalue some rights of minorities and migrants who wouldn’t be able to contribute, danger of tyranny of the majority

Question 8

[ANTI BBR] cost benefit

Answer 8

benefits won’t exceed the cost, we’re in recession and will takes lots of money and time to set up BBR, especially as we already have HRA to protect rights

Question 9

[ANTI BBR] judges

Answer 9

danger that judges will end up too powerful like US Supreme Court, Dobbs overturning Roe v Wade, undermines parliamentary sovereignty

Question 10

[PRO BBR] judges unrepresentative

Answer 10

judges are unelected and demographically not like most of UK, HRA gives lots of freedom to interpret e.g. DNA case privileged privacy rights over public protection, prisoners votes, privacy rights over freedom of speech, too much power, BBR could strengthen and clarify rights so less room for interpretation

Question 11

[ANTI BBR] judges less powerful

Answer 11

it would prevent judges from interpreting rights that safeguard people e.g. migrant protections watered down by Raab’s proposals, means less obligation on public authorities to prioritise rights, judges wouldn’t be able to order positive protections / impose duties on govt

Question 12

[ANTI BBR] loss of flexibility

Answer 12

HRA good due to flexible guidelines, BBR loses flexibility and makes it hard to amend/adapt laws e.g. US 2nd amendment guns can’t be heavily regulated or banned (2/3 needed)

Question 13

[PRO BBR] loss of flexibility

Answer 13

BBR being hard to amend actually good, govt can’t impose their view on others

Question 14

[ANTI BBR] heritage

Answer 14

HRA/ECHR written by British lawyers post-war, embarrassing to leave especially since Russia last country to leave, UK would lose legitimacy speaking out on rights