No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Ideology, Power Orientation and Policy Drag: Explaining the Elite Politics of Britain's Bill of Rights Debate
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2013
Abstract
This article argues that three factors have framed elite political debate and outcomes on a Bill of Rights in Britain – the degree of commitment to an ideology of social liberalism, the executive/non-executive power orientation of key actors and the phenomenon of policy drag. These factors explain not only the overall historical contours of political debate but also (1) Labour's ‘aversive’ conversion to the Bill of Rights agenda and passage of the Human Rights Act (1998); and (2) the Conservatives’ more positive recent attitude to the Bill of Rights agenda.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s) 2009.
References
2 Tate, C. and Vallinder, T., The Global Expansion of Judicial Power, New York and London, New York University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
3 Ignatieff, M., The Rights Revolution, Toronto, House of Anansi Press, 2000.Google Scholar
4 Tant, A., British Government: The Triumph of Elitism, Aldershot, Dartmouth, 1993, p. 23.Google Scholar
5 A. Lester, Democracy and Individual Rights, Fabian Tract 39, London, Fabian Society, 1968; J. Macdonald, Bill of Rights, London, Liberal Research Department, 1969; Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone (Q. Hogg MP), New Charter: Some Proposals for Constitutional Reform, London, Conservative Political Centre, 1969.Google Scholar
6 I. Dale (ed.), British Political Party Manifestos, 1900–1997, London, Routledge/Politico's Publishing, 2000.Google Scholar
7 Liberal Democrats, Protecting Civil Liberties, Liberal Democrat Policy Briefing 11, available online at: http://www.libdems.org.uk/media/documents/policies/11CivilLiberties.pdf.Google Scholar
8 This association has also been given emphasis in the wider comparative literature. See F. Morton and R. Knopff, The Charter Revolution and the Court Party, Peterborough, OT, Broadview Press, 2000; and R. Bork, Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges, Toronto, Vintage Canada, 2002. A different strand of this literature, of which Ran Hirschl is the most prominent exponent, argues that economic neoliberals have been the key social interest behind Bill of Rights genesis. See R. Hirschl, Towards Juristocracy, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2004. Empirical evidence of such involvement, however, is largely lacking not only in the UK but also elsewhere in the Westminster world ( Erdos, David, ‘Aversive Constitutionalism in the Westminster World: The Genesis of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act’, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 5: 3 (2007), p. 343–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 In 1987, Harman and Grant were among only 26 Labour MPs who were willing to back the call for a Bill of Rights made by the Constitutional Reform Centre (an important precursor organization to Charter 88). See File 1/24, Constitutional Reform Centre Archives, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
10 The Times, ‘Lord Gardiner – Obituary’, 9 January 1990; The Times, ‘Lord Jenkins of Hillhead – Obituary’, 6 January 2003.Google Scholar
11 Evans, P., ‘Harman Case Changes Contempt Law’, The Times, 14 June 1986;Google Scholar
12 See House of Commons, Debates, 23 April 1969, col. 474–84.Google Scholar
13 Barnes, J., ‘Lord Lambton – Obituary’, Daily Telegraph, 2 January 2007.Google Scholar
14 See Oakley, R., ‘An Heir to the Prince of Wets – David Hunt’, The Times, 15March 1990 Google Scholar, on David Hunt; and T. Barnes, ‘TRG Finds Favour with Students’, available online at http://toryreformgroup.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/trg-finds-favour-withstudents/ on Grieve's involvement in the Tory Reform Group.
15 Morton and Knopff, The Charter Revolution, p. 29; Bork, Coercing Virtue, pp. 8–9.Google Scholar
16 K. Joseph, Freedom under the Law, London, Conservative Political Centre, 1975, pp. 10–12.Google Scholar
17 Labour Party, A New Agenda for Democracy, London, Labour Party, 1993, pp. 31–2.Google Scholar
18 M. Howe, ‘The Decline of Liberty’, in O. Letwin, J. Marenbon and M. Howe, Conservative Debates: Liberty under the Law, London, Politeia, 2002, p. 27.Google Scholar
19 K. Ewing, and C. Gearty, Democracy or a Bill of Rights?, London, Society of Labour Lawyers, 1991.Google Scholar
20 See e.g. Hirschl, Towards Juristocracy.Google Scholar
21 R. Inglehart, Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Societies, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
22 A. Peach, A. Rogers, J. Chance and P. Daley, ‘Immigration and Ethnicity’, in A. Halsey (with J. Webb) (ed.), Twentieth Century British Social Trends, 2nd edn, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000, pp. 128–75.Google Scholar
23 Inglehart, Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Societies, pp. 275 and 287.Google Scholar
24 Minkin, L., The Contentious Alliance: Trade Unions and the Labour Party, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 1992, pp. 214–16.Google Scholar
25 P. Mandleson and R. Liddle, The Blair Revolution, London, Faber & Faber, 1996, p. 196. Nevertheless, some modernizers in relation to economic policy, notably Roy Hattersley (Labour deputy leader 1984–92), remained vocal and active opponents of legal innovations such as a Bill of Rights. See Minkin, The Contentious Alliance, p. 477.Google Scholar
26 Alter, K. J., Establishing the Supremacy of European Law: The Making of an International Rule of Law in Europe, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
27 Great Britain, Parliament, House of Lords Select Committee on a Bill of Rights, Minutes of Evidence Taken before Select Committee, London, HMSO, 1977–8, p. 69.Google Scholar
28 Michael Zander, A Bill of Rights?, London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1997, p. 39.Google Scholar
29 Francesca Klug, ‘Forward’, in Anthony Lester, James Cornford and Ronald Dworkin, A British Bill of Rights, London, Institute of Public Policy Research, 1996, p. vi.Google Scholar
30 Bingham, T. H., ‘The European Convention on Human Rights: Time to Incorporate’, Law Quarterly Review, 109, pp. 390–400.Google Scholar
31 Lester, Anthony, ‘The Mouse that Roared: The Human Rights Bill 1995’, Public Law (Summer 1995), pp. 198–202 Google Scholar, p. 198.
32 Hirschl, Towards Juristocracy; K. Ewing, ‘The Bill of Rights Debate: Democracy or Juristocracy in Britain’, in K. Ewing, C. Gearty and B. Hepple, Human Rights and Labour Law: Essays for Paul O'Higgins, London, Mansell, 1994, pp. 147–87.Google Scholar
33 More specific to Britain, such actors may be more influenced by a political tradition arguably characterized by a normative belief in strong leadership by the executive and hostility to the growth of alternative power centres. See Marsh, D. and Hall, M., ‘The British Political Tradition: Explaining the Fate of New Labour's Constitutional Reform Agenda’, British Politics, 2 (2007), pp. 215–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34 Ginsburg, T., Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35 Ibid.Google Scholar
36 Etzioni, A., ‘Social Norms: Internalization, Persuasion, and History’, Law and Society Review, 34: 1 (2000), pp. 157–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37 Hailsham, New Charter; and House of Lords, Debates, 26 November 1970, col. 256.Google Scholar
38 R. Blackburn, (ed.), Towards a Constitutional Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom, London, Pinter, 1999, p. 900.Google Scholar
39 It is true that Hailsham himself continued to support a Bill of Rights throughout a good deal of the 1980s (see The Times, ‘Hailsham Backs New Rights Bill’, 4 February 1986). However, by 1992, even he had changed his mind again (Lord Hailsham, On the Constitution, London, HarperCollins, 1992, p. 105).Google Scholar
40 See e.g. R. v. Lambert (2001) UKHL 37, (2002) 2AC 545 (‘reading down’ a provision reversing the burden of proof in relation to defence under the 1975 Misuse of Drugs Act so as to require only the defence to produce some evidence that aided its case (a so-called ‘evidential burden’) upon which the burden of proof would return to the prosecution); and R. v. Offen (2001) 1 WLR 253 ('reading down’ mandatory life sentences in 1997 Crime (Sentences) Act so as to ensure that such sentences were only imposed when the offender was judged to constitute a significant risk to the public).Google Scholar
41 See e.g. Westminster City Council v. Haw (2002) All ER (D) 59 (refusing to grant an injunction for obstruction of the highway against anti-war protestor Brian Haw on the basis of the HRA).Google Scholar
42 See R (Q, D, J, M, F and B) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2003) EWHC 195 (Admin) (requiring state support be given to all genuinely destitute asylum seekers despite provision in the 2002 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act excluding provision of support for asylum seekers whose claims for asylum the home secretary has judged not to have been made as soon as reasonably practicable).Google Scholar
43 See e.g. A v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004) UKHL 56 (voiding the UK's derogation from Article 5 (right to liberty) in the ECHR and holding that requiring suspected international terrorists either to leave the country or to be detained was both an absolute violation of right to liberty and impermissibly discriminatory in its effects).Google Scholar
44 See n. 42 above.Google Scholar
45 Quoted in Verkaik, R., ‘Asylum System Flawed, Rules High Court’, Independent, 20February 2003.Google Scholar
46 Hall, M., ‘Stop This Nonsense, Blair Orders’, Express, 15May 2006.Google Scholar
47 Thus, whilst the government's constitutional White Paper of 2007 mooted the possibility of a British Bill of Rights it stressed that ‘if specifically British rights were to be added [to the Human Rights Act]…we would need to be certain that their addition would…not restrict the ability of the democratically elected Government to decide upon the way resources are to be deployed in the national interest’ (Department for Constitutional Affairs, The Governance of Britain, London, HMSO, 2007, p. 61).Google Scholar
48 Cited in Evans, M., Constitution-Making and the Labour Party, Basingstoke and New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2003, p. 32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49 Bogdanor, V., ‘Constitutional Reform’, in A. Seldon (ed.), The Blair Effect: The Blair Government 1997–2001, London, Little, Brown, 2001, pp. 139–58, p. 155.Google Scholar
50 Marsh and Hall, ‘The British Political Tradition’, p. 233. See also S. Fielding, The Labour Party: Continuity and Change in the Making of ‘New’ Labour, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2003, pp. 38–56.Google Scholar
51 Lester et al., A British Bill of Rights.Google Scholar
52 Lester, interview, 18 May 2005. According to Charter 88 documents, Irvine became converted to the idea of a Bill of Rights while working on the Labour Party's Policy Review in the late 1980s (‘Charter 88 and Labour’, Box 69, Charter 88 Archives, University of Essex). According to S. Weir, co-founder of Charter 88, Smith was also committed to a Bill of Rights prior to the 1990s (Weir, interview, 27 June 2005).Google Scholar
53 K. Ewing and C. Gearty, Freedom Under Thatcher: Civil Liberties in Modern Britain, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1990, pp. 143–69.Google Scholar
54 Due to party policy the MP had not taken his seat. The ban explicitly excluded reporting dealing with Parliament and elections. See P. Thornton, Decade of Decline: Civil Liberties in the Thatcher Years, London, Liberty, 1989, p. 12.Google Scholar
55 1988 Local Government Act § 28.Google Scholar
56 P. Hirst, After Thatcher, London, Collins, 1989, p. 45.Google Scholar
57 Ibid.Google Scholar
58 Institute of Public Policy Research, The Constitution of the United Kingdom, London, Institute of Public Policy Research, 1991.Google Scholar
59 F. Klug, A Peoples's Charter: Liberty's Bill of Rights: A Consultation Document, London, National Council for Civil Liberties, 1991.Google Scholar
60 Straw, J., ‘A Charter of Rights That Has Shown Itself Wrong’, The Times, 23October 1989; Labour Party, Meet the Challenge, Make the Change: A New Agenda for Britain: Final Report of Labour's Policy Review for the 1990s, London, Labour Party, 1989, p. 55.Google Scholar
61 Oakley, R., ‘Kinnock Promises to Put Britain in First Division’, The Times, 2October 1991.Google Scholar
62 House of Lords, Debates, 11 March 1992, col. 1337.Google Scholar
63 Labour Party, A New Agenda for Democracy, p. 29.Google Scholar
64 Ibid., p. 31.Google Scholar
65 In particular, the pre-election consultation document published by Shadow Home Secretary Jack Straw MP and Paul Boeteng MP reopened the whole question of to what extent ECHR rights should be fully incorporated into UK law and made only the briefest and most non-committal reference to the future drafting of an autochthonous instrument (Labour Party, Bringing Rights Home, London, Labour Party, 1996, p. 14). Labour's 1997 general election manifesto committed the party to ‘incorporating’ the ECHR but made no mention of any second-stage Bill of Rights process at all (Blackburn, Towards a Constitutional Bill of Rights, p. 960).Google Scholar
66 In addition, a reduction in ideological support for the Bill of Rights within the leadership following the rise of ‘New Labour’ cannot be entirely discounted. In particular, it should be noted that many figures within New Labour were committed to an approach that appeared to place significantly more emphasis on individual ‘responsibilities’ rather than ‘rights’, arguably in a way that sat in tension with commitments to a Bill of Rights and social liberalism more generally. See, for example, the conspicuous addition of responsibility references in the Labour Party's 1996 consultation document on ECHR incorporation (Blackburn, Towards a Constitutional Bill of Rights, p. 960).Google Scholar
67 In this regard, note should be made of the very candid remarks made by then Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine during the HRA's legislative passage (House of Lords, Debates, 29 January 1998, col. 418f).Google Scholar
68 Klug, F., ‘Enshrine These Rights: With No Consultation, the Public Didn't Buy into the Human Rights Act. We Can Correct That Now’, Guardian, 27June 2005.Google Scholar
69 For an argument that a similar ‘aversive’ dynamic underpinned Bill of Rights genesis in another Westminster-type case – that of New Zealand – see Erdos, ‘Aversive Constitutionalism in the Westminster World’. Some parallels may also be noted with the Wilson government's acceptance of the right of individual petition to the European Court of Human Rights in 1966. This policy change was also pushed by social liberal cabinet ministers, notably Lord Chancellor Gardiner and, moreover, it seems far from coincidental that it was implemented by a political party with recent experience of a long period in the political wilderness. Nevertheless, as Lord Lester notes, the momentous nature of this change was not well understood at the time and it was not even discussed either in cabinet as a whole or Parliament. See Lester, A., ‘U.K. Acceptance of the Strasbourg Jurisdiction: What Really Went on in Whitehall in 1965’, Public Law, (1998), pp. 237–353.Google Scholar In contrast to these two examples, the Attlee government's reluctant ratification of the European Convention in 1951, coupled with strong opposition to, and opt-out from, the proposed system of individual petition falls firmly within the rather different category of foreign policy expediency. See
70 House of Commons, Debates, 1998, vol. 306, col. 781.Google Scholar
71 See Wooding, D., ‘Let's Shut Our Door to Terror Says Smith’, The Sun, 11October 2001.Google Scholar
72 Walker, K., ‘Human Rights Act is Just Wrecking Britain’, Express, 18March 2005.Google Scholar
73 Cameron, D., ‘Balancing Freedom and Security – A Modern British Bill of Rights’, in David Cameron, Social Responsibility, Northampton, Belmont Press, 2007, pp. 153–62.Google Scholar
74 Ibid., p. 156.Google Scholar
75 Ibid., p. 158.Google Scholar
76 Ibid., p. 158.Google Scholar
77 Ibid., p. 159.Google Scholar
78 Ibid., p. 160.Google Scholar
79 Ibid., p. 161.Google Scholar
80 Hinsliff, G., ‘Blair Savages Critics Over Threat to Civil Liberties’, Observer, 23April 2006.Google Scholar
81 Wilson, G., ‘Quota Plan for More Women Tory MPs’, Daily Telegraph, 21August 2006.Google Scholar
82 Russell, B., ‘Tories Would Repeal “Illiberal” ID Cards Law, Says Davis’, Independent, 30June 2005.Google Scholar
83 McSmith, A., ‘All Young Offenders Need is Tough Love, Says Cameron’, Independent, 3November 2006.Google Scholar
84 D. Grieve, interview, London, 7 March 2007.Google Scholar