Gove must consider Britons' economic human rights

The government's proposals to repeal the Human Rights Act and introduce a British Bill of Rights present us with a unique opportunity to go further than our European cousins and finally take steps to codify our economic human rights.

Nobody would deny that access to shelter, food, and water are fundamental human needs. Amnesty International declares that 'nobody should be denied their rights to adequate housing, food, [and] water.' Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adds economic rights to the list. Why, then, are these not afforded the same legal status as human rights? Would the inclusion of these basic human needs in a British Bill of Rights not be an effective way of eradicating poverty in the UK?

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests the
UK government's inaction
on effective poverty reduction stems from the ingrained public distinction between the 'deserving and undeserving poor', a mindset that links rights and responsibilities, and suggests the disadvantaged must first fulfil set criteria before being granted aid. The codification of our economic human rights might be the first step to alter this perception.

When the General Assembly of the United Nations proclaimed the Universal Declaration on Human Rights
in 1948, it included article 25: 'the right to an adequate standard of living…including food, clothing, [and] housing'. However, the current protection afforded under the European Convention concerns itself largely with political freedoms.

The US government has long rejected the notion of economic human rights, arguing that economic freedom is ensured simply by protecting civil and political rights.

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reflects an international agreement that poverty is an offence to human rights. The UK government, however, has historically declined to incorporate the covenant into national legislation, believing that economic rights are 'aspirational policy objectives only' and
do not lend themselves to a justiciable process. This represents the common opposition to economic
human rights, namely that their intangibility would make them 'unsuitable for consideration in the courts' and their realisations indeterminable.

I refute this argument absolutely, pointing directly
to the Human Rights Act itself, which the courts have satisfactorily interpreted in general terms. In the case of SSHD v Limbuela, Tesema and Adam [2004], the Court of Appeal interpreted article 3, 'freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment', to mean asylum seekers deprived
of benefits and unable to
find support elsewhere
would ultimately become impoverished and should
be provided for by the state.

Michael Gove wants to
'bring rights home' with the British Bill of Rights. Might I suggest, therefore, that he considers the rights of the hundreds of thousands of homeless Britons; those forced to make a choice between heating or eating every winter; and the people flooding British courts to exercise their rights without a solicitor because they have been denied legal aid. If change is inevitable, then let us make a change for the better and ensure that Great Britain, birthplace of Magna Carta, remains the world leader in promoting human rights and democracy. SJ

David Kirwan is senior partner at Kirwans