LEGISLATION proposing a new British Bill of Rights is “shocking and unnecessary”, Scotland’s equalities minister has said.
UK Justice Secretary Dominic Raab said the new Bill would “restore a healthy dose of common sense” to the justice system after its publication on Wednesday.
The legislation is set to work as a successor to the Human Rights Act and asserts that the Supreme Court is the ultimate decision maker on human rights issues in the UK.
It also notes how the country does not have to follow case law from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
READ MORE: William Aitken: Scot in Barcelona protests innocence after prison sentence delivered
It was the Strasbourg Court which recently intervened to prevent asylum seekers being sent on a one-way flight to Rwanda.
Minister for Equalities and Older People Christina McKelvie said: “This shocking and unnecessary legislation seeks to put UK ministers above some of the most fundamental checks and balances that underpin our democracy.
“The fact remains that we do not need a new Bill of Rights. The Human Rights Act is one of the most important laws passed by the UK Parliament.
“For more than 20 years it has delivered fairness and justice – protecting our rights to privacy, liberty, freedom of expression and peaceful protest.”
Raab looked to assure MPs that the new legislation would not result in the UK having to leave the ECHR which underpins both human rights and peace in Northern Ireland.
McKelvie added: “The UK Government’s Rwanda policy has been challenged in the European Court of Human Rights.
“This legislation appears to be part of its response – an attempt to remove safeguards protecting every member of our society.
“As a founding signatory of the ECHR, the UK Government should be championing international human rights standards and the rule of law.
“Instead its ministers appear intent on damaging the UK’s global reputation.”
Devolved administrations are asked to consent on Westminster legislation that will have an impact on devolved areas, but the votes of legislative consent motions are not binding, meaning the UK Government is not required to heed the will of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland’s governments.
The Bill proposes to swap out the Human Rights Act in the Scotland Act – the legislation which created the Scottish Parliament – and replace it with the Bill of Rights.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel