To what extent does the UK need an entrenched bill of rights Flashcards
INTRO and LOA
no
Para 1 theme
range of rights protection
para 2 theme
entrenchment
para 3 theme
sovereignty and gov
para 1 range of rights protection
Rights have been effectively protected by the HRA. An example of the HRA working effectively is the Poundland Case (2013), in which Cat Reilly won her claim that it was unlawful to force her to work for free at Poundland as a condition of her claiming jobseeker’s allowance.
para 1 however
- the Act is severely restricted. As Amos states, the Human Rights Act ‘only gives further effect to a very limited and outdated range of human rights contained in the ECHR’
Ultimately, the HRA only gives supplementary effect to Protocols 1 and 6 of the ECHR, both of which contain predominantly civil and political rights as opposed to the economic, social and cultural rights that are deemed important within our society today
para 1 rebuttal
In practice, the HRA has worked well in protecting rights, as it allows citizens to take things up in court and ensure their rights are protected.
para 2 entrenchment
- It has allowed rights to evolve due to not being entrenched. In the US, the entrenched bill of rights has maintained controversial rights like the right to bear arms, which has allowed for a large amount of mass shootings
The fact that it can change over time and adapt has also meant that the HRA has remained unaffected by Brexit and the leaving of the EU
para 2 however
- HRA not entrenched, so government can modify that way it operates e.g. creation of Control order in 2005. Simply through a parliamentary majority, Tony Blair nearly introduced a 90 day detention without trial period, although it was reduced to 24
If it were entrenched, rights would be more easily protected but also assured in the law, meaning parliament could not overrule them.
para 2 rebuttal
The fact is that, as seen in the US, entrenchment does not necessarily ensure that rights are protected, and although they mean they’re ensured, they cant change overtime and become outdated.
para 3 sovereignty
- Having the Human rights Act has meant that sovereignty remains with Parliament meaning they are able to effectively protect rights.
If there were an entrenched Bill of Rights, judges would become more powerful and influential, meaning they end up making law- and they are unelected and socially unrepresentative Furthermore, this could also lead to them becoming politicised and losing their independence, as they are more involved in the policy process. This is certainly undesirable.
para 3 however
- It would make the government more subject to the law, as rights will be ‘higher’ than other laws. This will make the government more responsible and accountable.
Furthermore, government has been somewhat ineffective at protecting rights. This is a lack of representation. 10% of the House of Commons comes from an ethnic minority, compared to 14.4% society. 35% of the House of Commons are women, compared to 50.59%. This means people don’t feel like they are being best represented, as the House of Commons is mostly white men.
para 3 rebuttal
The fact is that it is more desirable that government protects rights than the Supreme Court, due to their elected nature.
