This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/7959471.stm

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Rights Bill 'sets common values' Rights bill is branded 'hot air'
(1 day later)
Justice Secretary Jack Straw has said the government's planned Bill of Rights will define the UK's "common values". The government's proposed Bill of Rights has been criticised by civil liberties campaigners as "hot air".
He suggested that entitlements to free healthcare and education could be added to rights such as trial by jury and free speech. Justice Secretary Jack Straw believes a written statement of "common values" will boost social cohesion in Britain.
Launching a new consultation paper, he told MPs that people's responsibilities also had to be defined "explicitly". But it is not clear if the measures set out in a green paper will be enforceable in the courts.
These included parents' duty to look after their children and not claiming benefits when able to work. Unlock Democracy, which campaigns for a written constitution, warned it could become a "list of nice things" which the government would "simply ignore".
He said it was not certain whether these responsibilities would be legally enforced. The proposed Bill of Rights and Responsibilities does not include the right to a jury trial or limits on detention without charge.
'Live within limits' 'Selfish'
The green paper lists responsibilities including obeying the law, reporting crimes and co-operating with the police, paying taxes, voting and doing jury service. In its green paper, the government argues "the belief in their fundamental nature is already so deeply entrenched, culturally and politically, and there is no fundamental threat to them".
It also urges people to treat NHS workers and other public sector staff with respect, safeguard the wellbeing of children in their care and to live "within our environmental limits". It says it does not want to override safeguards contained in the Human Rights Act - such as free speech and fair trials - or open up "new areas of litigation".
Mr Straw also said the government thought that "more should be done to bring out the responsibilities which accompany rights". But it says the "selfish and sometimes aggressive assertion of rights" can damage social cohesion and stability, leading to the creation of a "'me' society rather than a 'we' society".
"We also believe that there could be merit in bringing together rights such as free health care, victims' rights and equality, which are currently scattered across the UK's legal and political landscape." We believe it is important that people know their rights and their responsibilities - that common knowledge helps bind us together as a nation Jack Straw, Justice Secretary
For the Conservatives, shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve dismissed the proposals as "pap". The government argues there is a need for British citizens' existing rights to be collected in one place along with the social responsibilities expected of them in return.
"Although not necessarily suitable for expression as a series of new legally enforceable duties, it may be desirable to express succinctly, in one place, the key responsibilities we all owe as members of UK society, ensuring a clearer understanding of them in a new, accessible constitutional document and reinforcing the imperative to observe them," the green paper says.
"Key responsibilities" included in a Bill of Rights might include not claiming benefits when able to work, obeying the law, reporting crimes, co-operating with the police, paying taxes, voting and doing jury service.
They could also include parents' duty to look after children, treating public sector workers with respect and living "within our environmental limits".
'Binds us'
Launching a "wide-ranging consultation" on the proposals, Mr Straw said: "We believe it is important that people know their rights and their responsibilities. That common knowledge helps bind us together as a nation."
But campaigners say that without including safeguards to fundamental liberties - and by explicitly linking rights to responsibilities - the new bill will be seen as government "nannying".
Peter Facey, director of Unlock Democracy, said: "Our rights and freedoms should not be treated either as rewards handed out by the government for good behaviour, or as privileges that can be withheld like a child's pocket money."
Isn't it the case that these new rights would mean more money for lawyers, less for patients - the last thing the taxpayer will welcome in a recession? Dominic Grieve, Conservatives
Instead a Bill of Rights should be a "genuine guarantor" of rights such as jury trial and not being held without charge to "protect" citizens from the state, he argued.
And it should be "entrenched" in law so that it could not be reversed by future governments who do not like its provisions.
"There is no point in having a Bill of Rights that is a paper shield, which says nice things but which the government can simply ignore," said Mr Facey.
But he welcomed the green paper as the "first stage" of a necessary debate.
Ceri Goddard, acting director of the British Institute of Human Rights, also welcomed the green paper, but added: "Instead of setting forth ambitious and imaginative proposals to safeguard a comprehensive set of rights for everyone in these challenging times, what the government is proposing is at best half measures and at worst hot air."
Shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve, for the Conservatives, dismissed the proposals as "pap".
'Muddled'
They had been repeatedly delayed and, as they would not be enacted before the next general election, were "for the birds", he added.They had been repeatedly delayed and, as they would not be enacted before the next general election, were "for the birds", he added.
Mr Grieve said: "Isn't it the case that these new rights would mean more money for lawyers, less for patients - the last thing the taxpayer will welcome in a recession?"Mr Grieve said: "Isn't it the case that these new rights would mean more money for lawyers, less for patients - the last thing the taxpayer will welcome in a recession?"
Mr Straw said there would be no repeal of the 1998 Human Rights Act, which has been criticised by the Tories. The Conservatives have said they would repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights to prevent what they say is the erosion of traditional liberties such as jury trial and strict limits on detention.
The idea of a Bill of Rights is at the heart of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's plans to reform Britain's constitution. Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne attacked the government's proposals as "muddled" and also criticised a recent speech by his Conservative opposite number Chris Grayling, who said he wanted to deal with the "wrongs" of society and not just the rights of criminals.
Writing for the Guardian's Comment is Free site, Mr Huhne said: "Human rights (such as the right to a fair trial) are not and cannot be conditional, because by definition they are the minimum we should enjoy as human beings.
"So the idea that they might be made contingent on responsibilities mixes up the concept of human rights with citizens' rights".
The Lib Dems want a Bill of Rights that would "strengthen and entrench" rights guaranteed by the Human Rights Act.
Does Britain need a Bill of Rights? If so, what should be in it? Add your comments using the form below.
Britain absolutely needs a Bill of Rights, but it must not at any cost be created by Labour as their constant breaking of human rights through their support of torture (Miliband's supression of Guantanamo treatment documents), their illegal databases (DNA database + the other 12 or so), their creation of thought crimes (making abitrarily defined images illegal), their legislation of what consenting adults can do (anti-BDSM laws), their detention without trial (28day+ terror suspect detention limits), their creation of the biggest surveillance society in the world and their pressuring of police to arrest political opponents (Damian Green) are evidence enough that any Bill of Rights created by Labour would be designed to have the opposite effect to that which any Bill of Rights should actually have.
The fact they are already suggesting "Key responsibilities" in a Bill of Rights is already proof that any Bill of Rights created by Labour is designed to oppress, and not ensure freedom of people.
Labour, please, just stop treating us like idiots and call it what it is - "Bill of Demands of the Labour Government to be carried out by citizens" rather than "Bill of Rights".Ian, Leeds
The BBC may edit your comments and not all emails will be published. Your comments may be published on any BBC media worldwide. Terms & Conditions