Why I agree with Ken Clarke (a bit)

The Tories, being the warm fuzzy liberals they are, have been calling for a Bill of Rights, a written constitution for the UK. Wonderful you may think, a libertarian policy coming from the Conservative party, who would have thought. However, the Tory policy essentially gives with one hand and takes with the other; while enshrining many rights in this 'constitution' the Tories have also stated they would repeal the human rights act, at least in parts. While the Conservatives claim otherwise, the way Cameron is treating the European parliament, ordering his MEPs to break from their moderate coalition in search of more Euro-sceptic partners, also hints Cameron may see a UK Bill of Rights as a way of going over the head of the current EU Convention on Human Rights. So apart from being a possible smokescreen behind which the Tories could attempt to repeal human rights legislation without appearing authoritarian and uncaring, why else would we need a Bill of Rights?

The main argument in favour of a Bill of Rights is that Britain has no written constitution, thus there is no limit to a government's power and also we the citizens of Britain do not have our rights enshrined in a written constitution. Tackling the latter part first, there is no need in my view for a written constitution to protect our human rights. We have our human rights clearly stated and protected by both the human rights act and the EU convention of Human Rights. Indeed article 3 of the first protocol of the EU convention does protect Britain's democracy; something that many claim is as yet not guaranteed: "The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature"

The other main line of argument is that the powers of government have to be controlled and that a bill of rights that Cameron suggests should need about 70% of the House of Commons to vote in favour of change would achieve this. It is perhaps true that recent anti-terror legislation has been too authoritarian yet is a bill of rights needed to change this? Already the EU Convention has given judges the ability to challenge government over its breeches in civil liberties. However, what is perhaps more worrying is the government’s attempt to bypass parliament, notably through the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, the dangers of which are best summed up here. I would argue that a Bill of Rights would not stop bills like this from being passed and indeed it may make such bills easier to stomach, after all the Bill of Rights would protects us right?

It is instances such as these that convinces me that we don't need a Bill of Rights, what we need is a stronger parliament. At the moment, parliament is nothing more than a rubber stamp to the government’s legislation. A stronger parliament, more independent of government would protect the civil liberties of this country far more than a Bill of Rights would, especially if the Bill of Rights replaced the current Human Right’s act. This would not be especially difficult to achieve either; electoral reform and proportional representation (STV+ if I had my way) would whittle away any majority, if any, a government had and so making it harder to pass controversial legislation. Increasing the powers of select committees would be another way of curtailing government power.

I doubt either Labour or the Conservatives would have the courage to propose something that would damage their political dominance, yet I do not see the Bill of Rights as an acceptable compromise. In this country, we have both an independent judiciary and an independent monarch to safeguard our civil liberties. Until we have an independent parliament these will have to do.