UK Bill of Rights condemned

‘Freedom of speech and the views of elected lawmakers will be given greater weight in law’ under a Bill of Rights introduced to the Westminster Parliament yesterday. The Bill has been condemned by the Scottish Government, who say the proposals are ‘shocking and unnecessary’.

• Freedom of speech to be given greater weight in law
• New permission stage in court to prevent trivial legal claims wasting taxpayers’ money
• Allows future laws to make it harder for foreign criminals to frustrate deportation process

The Bill will ensure courts cannot interpret laws in ways that were never intended by Parliament and will empower people to express their views freely.

At the same time, it will help prevent trivial human rights claims from wasting judges’ time and taxpayer money. A permission stage in court will be introduced requiring people to show they have suffered a significant disadvantage before their claim can go ahead.

The Bill will also reinforce in law the principle that responsibilities to society are as important as personal rights. It will do this by ensuring courts consider a claimant’s relevant conduct, like a prisoner’s violent or criminal behaviour, when awarding damages.

The Bill will make clear that the UK Supreme Court is the ultimate judicial decision-maker on human rights issues and that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights does not always need to be followed by UK courts.

Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Dominic Raab said: “The Bill of Rights will strengthen our UK tradition of freedom whilst injecting a healthy dose of common sense into the system.

“These reforms will reinforce freedom of speech, enable us to deport more foreign offenders and better protect the public from dangerous criminals.”

The Bill of Rights will make it easier to deport foreign criminals by allowing future laws to restrict the circumstances in which their right to family life would trump public safety and the need to remove them.

It will mean that under future immigration laws, to evade removal a foreign criminal would have to prove that a child or dependent would come to overwhelming, unavoidable harm if they were deported.

As a result, any new laws will curb the abuse of the system that has seen those convicted of hurting their own partners and children evade removal by claiming it would breach their right to family life in the UK.

The Bill of Rights will also:

• Boost freedom of the press and freedom of expression by introducing a stronger test for courts to consider before they can order journalists to disclose their sources.
• Prevent courts from placing new costly obligations on public authorities to actively protect someone’s human rights and limit the circumstances in which current obligations apply, for example, police forces having to notify gang members of threats towards them from other gangs.
• Insulate the Government’s plans to increase the use of prison Separation Centres against legal challenge from extremist offenders claiming ‘a right to socialise’.
• Recognise that trial by jury is a fundamental component of fair trials in the UK.
• Prevent human rights from being used as a way to bring claims on overseas military operations once alternative options are provided by upcoming legislation.
• Confirm that interim measures from the European Court of Human Rights under Rule 39, such as the one issued last week which prevented the removal flight to Rwanda, are not binding on UK courts.

This will be achieved while retaining the UK’s fundamental commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights.

UK BILL OF RIGHTS CONDEMNED

Call for Scottish Parliament to be consulted

Proposals to repeal the Human Rights Act are a “shocking and unnecessary” attempt to remove safeguards afforded to every member of society, Equalities Minister Christina McKelvie has said.

Putting on record the Scottish Government’s unequivocal opposition to the UK Government’s Bill of Rights, published today, Ms McKelvie stressed that the Scottish Parliament would have to agree to any changes affecting the devolution settlement.

Ms 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 and liberty, freedom of expression and peaceful protest. It has prevented discrimination, inhumanity and the abuse of power.

“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 European Convention on Human Rights, 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.

“I would urge them to stop this act of vandalism which will have an impact on public bodies that must adhere to it. The UK Government must also remain fully committed to the European Convention on Human Rights and to membership of the Council of Europe.

“The Human Rights Act is built into the heart of the devolution settlement, and any legislation that breaches the Act has no force in law. Let me make clear that it would therefore be wholly unacceptable to make changes affecting Scotland without the explicit agreement of the Scottish Parliament.

“I am proud that the Scottish Government is treading a different path, showing human rights leadership by protecting and enhancing our rights and freedoms, with plans for future Scottish legislation to extend devolved human rights safeguards even further.”

In March the Scottish and Welsh Governments issued a joint statement on Human Rights Act reform.

Last year’s Independent Human Rights Act Review, set up by the UK Government, concluded that there was no case for radical changes to the Act.