25th January 2023
In his informative post today on Dominic Raab and his “Bill of Rights”, Joshua Rozenberg quotes today’s important report by a parliamentary committee:
“What’s more, says the all-party committee, it’s not a bill of rights at all. If the government decides to press on with it, the bill’s title should be changed to something more meaningful — such as the European Convention on Human Rights (Domestic Application) Bill.”
And indeed the committee even states this as a conclusion:
The committee make a good point – and this is a missed trick by the justice secretary Dominic Raab.
Had Raab gone for a bill with such a boring title it may even now been an Act.
But he went for perhaps the most portentous title for legislation he could think of – other than Magna Carta II – and so looks like he will have no legislation passed at all.
Raab wanted to evoke and allude to the Bill of Rights of 1688-89 when all he was doing was fiddling around at the margins of how the European Convention on Human Rights was given effect in English law.
Had he been content with a more drab descriptive title, he may now have a legislative achievement to chalk up against his name.
*
There is nothing wrong with dull titles for legislation.
For example, one of the most important statutes in property and contract law has the sterling, stirring title of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.
What matters is the substance of a statute, not what can be said in a press release with its title.
A less pompously named statute tidying up some of the acknowledged problems with the Human Rights Act may have actually been welcome.
*
But.
The problem is not just with Raab.
The Human Rights Act itself has a needlessly provocative title.
Had it been called the European Convention on Human Rights (Domestic Application and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1998, then there would probably be far less political and media opposition, even if the substance was the same.
Part of the reason why the 1998 Act is still contested in some political and media quarters is because of its name.
So let us worry less about the the titles of legislation and more about the substance.
And perhaps “political” titles for legislations should be banned.
The prohibition could even be contained in a Banning Daft Legislation Titles Act.
****
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
Dangerous dogs act
I thought that Raab was only given the Bill to keep him busy and out of Boris’s way. This may end up another example of the Tories enacting something they do not want [David Cameron wanted to keep power and thought a Brexit vote work] to the detriment of the public.
To misquote an esteemed legal lawyer: “Civil liberties law should be boring.”
A good place to start when thinking about new laws should be the question: “what is the unmet need?”
If there is no public need, is there a need for legislation at all?
Is there (genuine question) any independent review mechanism for current legislation? In the same way that public policies and their implementation get reviewed.
Is the legislation still ‘fit for purpose’?
If the answer is “yes”. Don’t modify it.
I would love to see a King’s Speech which says: “After carefully reviewing all current legislation, it has been concluded that there is no need for any new legislation in the next session of Parliament. Only urgent legislation to meet any as yet unforeseen circumstances will be tabled.”
There is of course the opposite of drab act names, such as in the United States. In the fallout of the George Santos affair, Democrats in New York have brought forward the Stop Another Non Truthful Office Seeker Act or SANTOS Act that will punish political candidates for lying. That name says exactly what the act is for, and is fun at the same time. Maybe a route to consider!
There’s also the rumour that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act was named after Edward G. Robinson’s mobster character in Little Caesar.
Also the USA PATRIOT act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act) as a result of the attack on the twin towers. This served to muddle money laundering with terrorism and, along with Thatcher and Reagan’s bonfire of regulation, was a significant driver of the 2007/8 financial crash.
The first opened the door to fraud and the second created some of the confusion which masked it.
It would have been Magna Carta VI, surely?
1215, 1216, 1217, 1225, 1297, …. 2022.
MC is a pedant’s charter in some ways. 😉
The HRA was passed at a time of great political strength for the government with a party fully behind the legislation.
If anything putting ECHR in a dull, factual title would have been much more provocative to the Eurosceptics.
Raab’s BoR is struggling through Parliament at a time of great political weakness and against opposition from many Government MPs.
This misnamed Bill (it’s a Bill limiting our rights) would be struggling whatever Raab called it.
Giving the Bill a duller title might have improved its chances, however having ECHR as part of that dull title would surely inflame the very MPs the Bill is intended to please.
Dull, factual titles are certainly a good way to camouflage controversial Bills when a government has the strength and political will to pass them.
I don’t think that’s good for democracy.
This reminds me a little of when I did my university dissertation. I was told that, if my study was radical in topic and scope, I should choose a bland font and a traditional typeface, because it would automatically make people assume it was not radical. If it was in fact traditional, I should choose the opposite – to make people think it was fresh and new.
Thank you Mr Green.
Maybe he should have called it the “Really Awful Absurd Bill”.
“Magna Carta II” Genuine lol.
You make a good point since there is much in the “name” (Short Title) of an Act. Of course, it is the substance that matters and one hopes that legislators pay attention to that. The extent to which Parliament is effective at scrutiny of Bills is debatable but in the case of “Human Rights Limitation Bill” the Lords committee has done good work which, I guess, Raab will just ignore.
Your refer to acknowledged problems with the Human Rights Act. Are you willing to expand on that? Just what are those problems? Didn’t an independent panel set up by Raab say there was almost nothing requiring attention?
In Quebec, Bills and then Acts are numbered. While they officially have titles, they are virtually never used by the general public, who have to express their disconent/content in subtler ways. The 1977 Charter of the French Language / La charte de la langue française is universally known by its number, 101. The anglos who disapprove still, nearly half a century after its passing, call it Bill 101; the francophones who approve call it Loi 101. All, I am convinced, entirely unconsciously.
Surely the Banning Daft Legislation Titles Act breaches your own rule, David?
That’s the joke, Ian.
😉
The question is not whether Raab should have chosen a duller short title for the Bill, but why Raab has any choice in the matter.
Until not so long ago, Parliamentary Counsel had the final say on a Bill’s title. That discretion clearly was edged out a while back: I’d suggest the Localism Act 2011 was somewhere near the top of a slippery slope, and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is well down it.
It’s only a matter of time before we really do have a [Joe Blogg’s] Law, which commemorates (and purports to remedy after the event) some egregious injustice done to said Joe Bloggs.
The other way of looking at it. The “exciting” name has ensured that we, the electorate, have engaged with the politics rather than allowed it to go through on the nod.
The use of bill titles that engage the electorate is to be applauded and should in use more frequently, if only to smoke out those that would seek to make illiberal law.
I agree but, irrespective of the name, “Europe’s most senior human rights judge told the justice secretary Dominic Raab this month that the United Kingdom continues to have the best human rights record in Europe,” Joshua Rozenberg – https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#trash/FMfcgzGrcPDsqJfDRqZqdtkSzwwpZLSM – and the Act squares well with UK law and is in fact no nuisance at all!
Conversely, there are Acts that may not have been passed if they had been given a more accurate title. For example. the short title of the Leasehold Reform Bill would have been more accurate if it had been the Freehold Confiscation Bill.
Ireland shares the British tradition of preferring neutral, descriptive titles for acts of parliament.
The (almost identical) Irish equivalent of the Human Rights Act, is called the “European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003”.