The Bill of Rights Bill was a proposed Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom that sought to replace the Human Rights Act 1998. It was introduced to the House of Commons by Dominic Raab, the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Secretary of State for Justice, on 22 June 2022.
On 7 September 2022, the passage of the Bill through Parliament was halted by the newly appointed Prime Minister, Liz Truss. On 27 June 2023, the Justice Secretary Alex Chalk confirmed to the Commons that the government would not be proceeding with the Bill.
Background Prior to the 2010 general election, David Cameron proposed replacing the Human Rights Act with a new "British Bill of Rights". After forming a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, these plans were shelved and reinstated only after the Conservative party won an overall majority in the 2015 general election. Former Prime Minister David Cameron then vowed to put right what he termed the "complete mess" of Britain's human rights laws, on the 800th anniversary of the passage of Magna Carta. Tensions arose between those on the political right in the UK, and the European Court of Human Rights, over issues such as prisoner voting.
Proposed British Bill of Rights The Proposed British Bill of Rights was a proposal of the Second Cameron ministry, included in their 2015 election manifesto, to replace the Human Rights Act 1998 with a new piece of primary legislation. After resistance from within the governing Conservative party, leader David Cameron delayed introducing the legislation.
2020 In 2020, the UK Government set up an independent review of the Human Rights Act which specifically sought evidence on the operation of the Act, with particular attention to the relationship between domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), as well as the relationship between government, parliament and the judiciary. The independent review reported their findings in December 2021.
In the Queen's Speech in May 2022, the Government committed to introducing the new Bill of Rights, arguing that the legislation would seek to "end the abuse of the human rights framework and restore some common sense to our justice system.”
On 15 June 2022, the week before the Bill was introduced to Parliament, the Strasbourg Court issued an interim order stopping a flight due to transport asylum seekers from the UK as part of the Rwanda asylum plan. It was reported that the decision of the Strasbourg Court was a factor in determining the introduction of the Bill.
In the UK Government announcement for the Bill, Dominic Raab argued that the proposed law would "strengthen our UK tradition of freedom whilst injecting a healthy dose of common sense into the system" and it would also "reinforce freedom of speech, enable us to deport more foreign offenders and better protect the public from dangerous criminals".
On the day the Bill was introduced, the first page of the Bill was leaked to legal journalist Joshua Rozenberg.
Independent Review of the Human Rights Act Prior to introducing the Bill of Rights, the Lord Chancellor established an Independent Review of the Human Rights Act, chaired by Sir Peter Gross.
After hearing evidence, the independent review concluded that “there is no case for changing the Human Rights Act.”
The review did recommend the government implement a course of action to improve understanding and bolster the effectiveness of the HRA 1998. In summary, the review recommended: To implement a programme of education around the role and operation of the Human Rights Act. To place common law rights and precedent at the front and centre of human rights law. Increase transparency about the use of section 3 interpretations by the courts. Alter the law to enable suspended quashing orders. Ensure that Henry VIII clause cannot be used to alter the Act itself.
Passage through Parliament The Bill was halted on 7 September 2022 before its second reading; at the time there was no plan to return it to Parliament. After the reinstatement of Dominic Raab as Lord Chancellor as part of Rishi Sunak’s first cabinet, it was suggested the Bill would return to Parliament. Alex Chalk in his role as Lord Chancellor confirmed as of 27 June 2023 that the Bill would not proceed any further.
The Government had not published the details of the changes until the Bill was introduced into Parliament by the Lord Chancellor, Dominic Raab. During his introductory statement, the Lord Chancellor was censured by the Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, for having inappropriately provided information to the press before making his statement in Parliament. The Speaker commented: 'yet again the media have been the first to know. I'm glad that the minister is making the statement, but he should have done that before speaking to the media.
The Johnson Government did not undertake any public or Parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill before its presentation. This can be compared to the introduction of the Human Rights Act, which was preceded by a consultation paper, public and specialist scrutiny, and gained Labour and Liberal Democrat support before introduction to the House. The Joint Committee on Human Rights chair wrote a letter to Dominic Raab,https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/22880/documents/167940/default/ criticising the Government's failure to engage properly with the Independent Review, the Joint Committee's own work and the consultation responses to the Government's own consultation; according to the letter from the Joint Committee the Government had not made out the case for replacing the Human Rights Act.
The Conservative Manifesto of 2019 set out an intention to 'update' the Human Rights Act 1998, but the Bill proposed significant reform to the operation of fundamental rights in the UK and would have repealed the Human Rights Act itself.
On 25 January 2023, the Joint Committee on Human Rights released a legislative scrutiny report on the Bill of Rights which concluded there was no case for the Bill. The Committee found ‘the Bill of Rights Bill not only lacks support, but has caused overwhelming and widespread concern … we do not think this is a Bill of Rights at all, and recommend that the title of the Bill is changed accordingly. In any case, the Government should not proceed with this Bill: it weakens rights protections, it undermines the universality of rights, it shows disregard for our international legal obligations.’
On 27 June 2023, the Justice Secretary Alex Chalk confirmed to MPs that the government would not be proceeding with the Bill.
Criticism of Parliamentary handling The Government faced criticism from leading lawyers and academics about side-lining parliamentary and public scrutiny, in the process of creating and introducing the Bill.
Merris Amos, Professor of Human Rights Law at Queen Mary, University of London commented that 'For other democracies, the process to change such an important feature of the constitution would likely take years, and would involve constitutional conventions, public consultation, a referendum or special parliamentary majorities. With the government’s current majority, the Human Rights Act could be repealed in less than a year.' The Government did undertake a public consultation on Human Rights Act Reform in 2021 though Professor Amos criticises the clarity of the consultation: 'Even for experts, the 118-page consultation is difficult to understand and full of conclusions not based in evidence.'
Daniella Lock, Postdoctoral Fellow at the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights in the Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, criticised the absence of parliamentary scrutiny measures before the Bill was introduced. She argues: 'the fact that the Government has chosen not to enable any pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill of Rights Bill is undermining of Parliament for two key reasons. First, it is a scrutiny procedure often afforded to much less radical legislation...Second, pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill had been explicitly requested by a number of Parliamentary committees.'
On 27 May 2022, the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR), the Justice Committee, the Lords Constitution Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee sent a joint letter to the Government requesting pre-legislative scrutiny. Liberty also issued a letter jointly signed by 150 civil society groups seeking pre-legislative scrutiny. Lock further criticises the 'significant discordance' between the Government's presentation of the Bill and its actual content, accusing the Government of 'taking Parliament for a fool.'
Provisions The Bill seeks to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) and replace it with a new regime contained in the Bill. The United Kingdom remains a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and so is bound to meet the requirements of the Convention in international law. Internationally, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) remains the premier court for Convention decisions. Strasbourg decisions will remain binding over the U.K. in international law. The original text of the draft law, introduced in 2022, stated that, once enacted, this bill could have been cited as the "Bill of Rights 2022". This would have made it one of the very few Acts of the British Parliament which do not contain the word "Act" in its short title.
Clause 2 - Convention rights Clause 2 of the Bill retains the same set of Convention rights which are currently provided for by the HRA. However, some of the subsequent clauses in the Bill would allow for narrower readings of these rights and greater departure from the case law of the ECHR. So, while the same rights would operate in the UK as under the current regime, there may be a practical difference in how they are applied.
Clause 3 - Interpretation of Convention rights Clause 3 provides that the Supreme Court is the 'ultimate judicial authority on questions arising under domestic law in connection with the Convention rights'. It also replaces section 2 HRA 1998 - which requires domestic courts to take account of Strasbourg case law. Instead clause 3 provides that courts must have particular regard to the text of the ECHR and may have regard to the preparatory work of the ECHR (the travaux preparatoires). Courts may also have regard to the development under the common law of any right similar to the Convention right.
The Bill requires the courts to act in accordance with clauses 4-8 of the Bill.
Clause 4 - Free speech Clause 4 (Freedom of Speech) requires that the courts must 'give great weight' to freedom of speech. The Bill makes explicit that free speech is the same as ECHR Article 10 (Freedom of Expression). However the scope of Article 10 of the ECHR is wider than just free speech- it protects freedom of expression and not only the use of speech, writing and images. Clause 4 also includes multiple exceptions to the proposed special protection for free speech: it would not apply to cases involving criminal matters, breach of confidence, immigration or citizenship, or national security.
Clause 5 - Positive obligations Clause 5 prohibits the court from interpreting Convention rights in a way which places a new positive obligation (an obligation to act) on a public body. This applies from any time after the commencement of the Bill as law. Clause 5 also requires courts to give great weight to certain public interests when considering requiring public authorities to respect an existing positive obligation.
Clauses 6, 8 and 20 - Deportation and custody