The human right to claim benefits: Jobless could sue for better payments under controversial plan

Experts are considering whether Labour's Human Rights Act should include socio-economic rights

Job-seekers could take the Government to court if ministers failed to provide minimum standard of living

Human rights law will be extended to include the right to claim benefits and enjoy a comfortable standard of living courtesy of the taxpayer under plans unveiled last night.



A Government panel of experts is considering whether Labour’s Human Rights Act – which is already hugely controversial – should be extended to include so-called ‘socio-economic rights’.



This would allow the jobless to take the Government to court if ministers did not provide a minimum standard of living.



Earlier this week, a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggested a family of four needed an income of almost £37,000 to have a satisfactory lifestyle.



Farce: Human rights law will be extended to include the right to enjoy a comfortable standard of living courtesy of the taxpayer (picture posed by models)

The ‘Commission on a Bill of Rights’ was set up by David Cameron to end the rampant abuse of human rights laws.

Originally, the Prime Minister had pledged to scrap Labour’s Act and replace it with a UK Bill of Rights, which would stop the system being abused by criminals and those who refuse to work.



But, after being forced into a coalition with the Liberal Democrats he had to downgrade his pledge. Instead, he established the commission to decide the best way forward. Yesterday, despite deliberating for 15 months, the panel said it had not decided whether to recommend any change to the Act.



But it said that, if it did decide to opt for a Bill of Rights, it wanted to consider suggestions from the public and pro-human rights groups on whether to add on yet more ‘human rights’ which must be respected by Parliament and the courts.



Frustration: The Prime Minister set up the commission to end the rampant abuse of human rights laws

Under a section headed ‘Additional Rights?’, it suggests ‘a right to equality’; a ‘right to administrative justice’, which would build on the existing ‘right to a fair trial’; ‘rights for victims’; ‘children’s rights’; ‘socio-economic rights’; and ‘environmental rights’. The last two are likely to be the most contentious.



Under ‘socio-economic rights’, it says: ‘Such rights, which are found in a number of bills of rights in other countries, can include rights to adequate healthcare and housing, a right to education, a right to a minimum standard of living, and a range of other social security entitlements.’



On benefits, the panel suggest copying wording from the South African Constitution.



This promises a right to ‘social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependants, appropriate social assistance’.



On the environment, the panel suggests that everyone should have the right to live in a world that ‘is not harmful to their health or well-being’ where there is ‘secure ecologically sustainable development and the use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development’.



Critics fear this could lead to all building projects being automatically challenged under human rights law – creating a boon for lawyers but stifling economic growth.



MPs said they were hugely disappointed with the report, which also suggests the courts having the power to strike down laws made by



Parliament. Currently, judges can rule that a law is incompatible with the Human Rights Act, but must leave it to the politicians to decide what to do next.



Tory MP Dominic Raab said: ‘The Commission risks being hijacked by the human rights lobby. It is supposed to be looking at how to scale back the rights inflation and compensation culture that has undermined law enforcement, democratic accountability and personal responsibility.



Compensation culture: MP Dominic Rabb said the commission risked being hijacked by the human rights lobby

‘Instead, it has churned out proposals for even more human rights. That would give judges enormous power to set social policy without proper democratic accountability, and cost the taxpayer a fortune.’



Mr Cameron voiced his frustration in May at slow progress on his plans to scrap the Human Rights Act.



He blamed delays on the compromises made necessary by being in a coalition, but said he remained determined to press ahead with the change.



Sir Leigh Lewis – chairman of the panel, which will make its final recommendations later this year – said: ‘I am pleased that the Commission has published this second Consultation Paper. We want to hear from as many individuals and interested parties as possible.’

A spokesman for the Commission on a Bill of Rights said: 'We have not taken a decision on whether we need a UK Bill of Rights, or what it should contain.

'This consultation is merely seeking further public opinion on the issue and reflects the views we received following the discussion paper we published last year. It does not in any way pre-empt our views or recommendations, which we will provide to the Government for their consideration at the end of the year.'

