Human Rights Act Axing Shapes A Key Battle Between Nicola Sturgeon And David Cameron
Sturgeon Lets Cameron Know What She Thinks Of Scrapping Human Rights Act
PA
|
The Scottish Government will oppose any attempt by the UK Government to scrap the Human Rights Act north of the border, Nicola Sturgeon has said.
The First Minister criticised the Conservatives' plan to replace the legislation with a British Bill of Rights after new Scottish Secretary David Mundell insisted the move would apply to Scotland.
Speaking on a visit to Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, Sturgeon said: "I oppose the repeal of the Human Rights Act, I think it's an appalling thing to be doing.
"Human rights are there to protect all of us, for example it was the Human Rights Act that enabled people to go to court to object against the bedroom tax.
Open Image Modal
Nicola Sturgeon said it would be "appalling" for the Human Rights Act to be scrapped
"The idea that we take away human rights, I think, is just an awful suggestion, so the Scottish Government will oppose that and work hard to make sure that in Scotland people still get vital human-rights protection."
Earlier, Mundell, Scotland's only Conservative MP, told BBC Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland programme: "New legislation replaces existing legislation and therefore the new act will apply in Scotland.
"I think people in Scotland share the concerns that have been voiced across the United Kingdom - that we've got the balance wrong between rights and responsibilities.
"So, what the purpose of the act that we'll be bringing forward is, is to not only enshrine rights but also enshrine responsibilities."
The First Minister also dismissed Mundell's assertion that the Smith Commission proposals for more powers for the Scottish Parliament were the "right package", describing them instead as merely a "starting point".
Mundell told the programme: "The Government believes that the Smith Commission package is the right package for Scotland, the right package to give the Scottish Parliament the powers that it needs to be an effective and powerful devolved parliament within the context of a United Kingdom."
He said he expected "vigorous and robust" debate on the proposals when they come before Parliament and any amendments are put forward.
"When you put down amendments in Parliament you don't always get those amendments passed, but what you do get is you get listened to for the points and issues that you raise," he said.
Sturgeon responded: "I look forward to meeting, hopefully very soon, with the Prime Minister to discuss how we build upon the Smith Commission proposals.
"There's now a growing acceptance that these proposals, while a good starting point, don't go far enough and we now need to look at how we build on them so the Scottish Parliament is empowered with control over employment law, business taxes, welfare - the powers we need to grow our economy, create jobs and lift people out of poverty."
10 Worrying Things About The Tories' Human Rights Proposals
The proposals says that the ECHR banned whole-life tariffs for prisoners, but they didn't(01 of10)
Open Image Modal
Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, called it a "howler" based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Strasbourg ruling, and that UK sentencing laws had been found to be "totally compatible". Adam Wagner, human rights barrister from 1 Crown Office Row, called it a "major factual error". (credit:Fiona Hanson/PA Archive)
It's very unlikely the UK could be granted special status to have the Strasbourg court as a mere 'advisory' body(02 of10)
Open Image Modal
In practice, these proposals pretty much mean leaving the European Convention of Human Rights, lawyers say, leaving us in the company of Belarus and Kazakhstan. Russia, Azerbaijahn and Ukraine are just some of the countries that would have more watertight human rights protection than the UK. (credit:Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
If we want special treatment from the ECHR, then won't other countries want it too?(03 of10)
Open Image Modal
Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg points out that "if Westminster has a veto on Strasbourg’s decisions, the parliaments of Russia, Ukraine and other countries will want one too, making compliance with court rulings voluntary would undermine the entire convention system." (credit:ASSOCIATED PRESS)
The proposals "limit the use of human rights laws to the most serious cases...ensuring UK courts strike out trivial cases."(04 of10)
One of the proposals actually means we are more tightly legally bound to the Strasbourg court than we are already(05 of10)
Open Image Modal
The document says "every judgement that UK law is incompatible with the Convention will be treated as advisory and we will introduce a new Parliamentary procedure to formally consider the judgement. It will only be binding in UK law if Parliament agrees that it should be enacted as such." Carl Gardner points out in his Head of Legal blog that "this proposal puts more human rights obligations on Parliament than it has under the Human Rights Act. There is currently no legal duty on Parliament to consider any Strasbourg judgment. The Conservatives plan would oblige it to for the very first time." (credit:Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
Grayling has forgotten to mention how this would work under the Good Friday agreement with Northern Ireland or with Scottish devolution(06 of10)
Open Image Modal
It is a requirement under the Good Friday agreement that ultimately people in NI can take cases to the ECHR. Chris Grayling has just written a paper which makes no reference to this issue or how it can be solved, except saying 'We will work with the devolved administrations and legislatures as necessary to make sure there is an effective new settlement across the UK'. Westminster could change the law for both countries, but there's been no consultation and no reference to it in this paper, and it's likely Scotland would seek to devolve it. If Scotland or NI want to stay linked to the ECHR, then we could end up with a "patchwork" of different human rights laws across the United Kingdom. (credit:Dorling Kindersley via Getty Images)
British judges are now likely to find more UK legislation is incompatible with human rights, not fewer(07 of10)
Open Image Modal
The new proposals say the Tories will "prevent our laws from being effectively re-written through ‘interpretation’ of Strasborg case law." "I don’t think this has been thought through," Gardner writes on Head of Legal. "If judges think old housing legislation discriminates against a gay tenant, they can rule that it is no longer to be read as permitting the discrimination. "But if that option is barred, they will in case like that have no option but to declare the legislation incompatible with human rights in principle. The result, surely, will be more headlines about judges condemning Parliament for breaching human rights, not fewer." (credit:Lewis Whyld/PA Archive)
The proposals mean we don't have to worry as much about sending people off to be tortured(08 of10)
Open Image Modal
The “real risk” test used to determine whether someone is at risk of torture on deportation will be "revised..in line with our commitment to prevent torture and in keeping with the approach taken by other developed nations”. "If there is evidence that an individual faces a real risk of torture on return, should the UK seriously be seeking shortcuts?" asks Angela Patrick is the Director of Human Rights Policy at JUSTICE. (credit:Cristian Baitg via Getty Images)
It would take an enormous amount of time, effort and consultation to end up with basically the same thing we have already(09 of10)
Open Image Modal
No one thinks we should scrap laws against, say, slavery, or free speech, or the right to protest. So the new "Bill of Rights" would be 99% a carbon copy of what we already have, only enforced by British judges, several legal commentators have pointed out. Unless we scrap human rights altogether. (credit:Peter Macdiarmid via Getty Images)
The proposal doesn't even spell "judgment" in the correct legal way(10 of10)
Open Image Modal
Gardner points out that this means the proposal probably wasn't drafted by lawyers, at least in parts.
A good point from @carlgardner - the (non-legal) spelling of "judgement" for "judgment" is a tell - Tory document not drafted by a lawyer.