Thread by @WomaninHavana

As the Bill of Rights is due to be published, a piece I wrote when the latest #HRA review was announced.

“The championing of parliamentary control sits uncomfortably alongside this government’s consistent attempts to bypass scrutiny and accountability…” prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/a-hum…

A reminder that the govt effectively ignored the IHRAR, the previously commissioned independent review of the #HumanRightsAct, which made clear there was no proper basis for the narrative that judges are out of control, nor that groundless human rights claims are proliferating.

Govt didn’t much like those conclusions & commissioned a new consultation for a Bill of Rights last December.

Some 12,483 individual responses were received in response to the consultation which ended on 7 March. They have not been published by the MoJ. h/t @BIHRhumanrights.

Some 42 working days later, the govt set out its plans for the new Bill of Rights in the Queen’s Speech, on 10 May 2022.

Again, h/t @BIHRhumanrights, for sending the FOI & crunching the numbers.

So, was there any point to the Bill of Rights consultation? Or, even, the IHRAR?

The Parliamentary @HumanRightsCtte published a response to the consultation in April. It concluded govt’s proposals & their consequences ran counter to central principles of human rights law & a case had not been made for replacing #HRA as proposed. publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt5802/jtse…

Disclaimer - I was amongst many human rights specialists, amongst whom many colleagues of great expertise and experience, who were privileged to give evidence to the @HumanRightsCtte. No doubt some of them contributed in some way to those 12, 483 responses to the consultation.

Amongst many detailed conclusions in that @HumanRightsCtte report was this on devolution:“Given the importance of the HRA in the devolved nations, we are concerned that the Government proposals could have unintended consequences for the constitutional settlement in the UK.”

Hearing evidence during the Ukraine war, it noted:
“The UK is supporting the Ukrainians in their battle against the Russian invasion & the threat it poses to human rights. It would be a terrible irony for us to be weakening our own protections for human rights as we do so.”

Last week, Justice Minister James Cartlidge stated Govt was still considering the 12,000+ responses & it would publish a response to them & to the @HumanRightsCtte “in due course.”

In due course?

Maybe read the responses to the consultation before publishing a Bill of Rights?

The Minister also stated govt did not intend to submit the Bill of Rights for pre-legislative scrutiny.

No pre-legislative scrutiny, publication of a draft Bill before even reading the responses to the consultation, having effectively ignored the IHRAR?

questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questi…

At this point, alarm bells should be ringing.

Indeed, the alarm was sounded - loudly - by an impressive and sober coalition of cross-parliamentary, cross-House commitees- @HumanRightsCtte, @CommonsJustice, @HLConstitution @CommonsPACAC who wrote to Raab.
committees.parliament.uk/publications/2…

They wrote that the Bill of Rights proposals were of “supreme constitutional significance” with “potential to impact on the rights of individuals for many years to come.”

The clue is in the name: Bill of Rights. Usually up there amongst most important constitutional documents.

So those Parliamentary Committees really should not have needed to make the point that it was “vital that any proposals and legislative measures are subject to the fullest amount of public and parliamentary scrutiny to ensure their appropriateness, practicality, and longevity.”

They urged Govt to reconsider its decision not to put the proposed Bill of Rights forward for pre-legislative scrutiny.

Today 150 eminent organisations, amongst them @libertyhq @JUSTICEhq @amnesty @BIHRhumanrights, also have asked govt to reconsider.

theguardian.com/law/2022/jun/2…

In its consultation, the govt prays in aid that most liberal democracies protect rights through constitutional bill of rights documents.

A Bill of Rights should be an inclusive affair, reaching for cross-party & wide public support.

That is not how this govt is proceeding.

And so here we are.

Despite stating that the responses to govt’slatest consultation would be carefully considered, we know that can’t have happened and the Bill is being introduced.

It is very hard to see how and why this is so urgent - unless, of course, it’s not.

More tmw.

https://twitter.com/marthaspurrier/status/1539356670308106240

Finally, for tonight. I’m reminded of something I wrote in 2017:

“Rights don’t often seem as though they matter, until they do. By then, it might be too late.”

#BillofRights #HRA

theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

Someone has slipped @JoshuaRozenberg p1 of the Bill of Rights Bill.

An inclusive, cross-party Bill of Rights, this ain’t.

Britain appears set to be “world leading” in a Bill of Rights that removes rights instead of building on them.

(Many of) those 12,483 responses lie unread.

Here’s @JoshuaRozenberg’s preliminary analysis based on the MoJ announcement coming.

We shall see the detail, but it bodes ill.

And Govt’s direct reference to Rwanda suggests yet another confrontation over international law. This govt has form.

rozenberg.substack.com/p/bill-of-righ…

So here is the Bill of Rights Bill announcement (due to be published today).

Doesn’t sound like many of those 12,483 responses to the “consultation”, the IHRAR or @HumanRightsCtte report have made a jot of difference - to the narrative or the detail.

gov.uk/government/new…

The Bill of Rights Bill has now been published.

I won’t have a chance to look at this today. Plenty of others on #legaltwitter will have valuable commentary.

gov.uk/government/pub…