CIVIL rights defenders have urged Justice Secretary Liz Truss not to scrap the Human Rights Act (HRA) after she revealed the government was “committed” to the controversial plan.
It had been speculated in recent weeks that Prime Minister Theresa May could walk away from plans to replace the Act with a British Bill of Rights.
The pledge was part of the Tory manifesto written under the leadership of May’s precursor David Cameron, which drew criticism from human rights organisations.
In a keynote speech last year, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said the Scottish Parliament could block any moves to amend the HRA, claiming the freedoms it protects were “embedded into the devolution settlement” and it was “inconceivable” that MSPs would consent to the change.
But yesterday Truss told the BBC the plan was still on, stating: “We are committed to that. It is a manifesto pledge.”
Despite being a key part of its 2015 General Election manifesto, the Tory government has yet to reveal any detail about the proposed British Bill of Rights.
However, it is understood that it will not offer the universal protection provided by the HRA, applying instead to British citizens alone.
This means it could leave residents who have not gone through official citizenship processes, including foreign visitors and refugees, without coverage.
The current legislation enshrines freedom of thought, prohibits torture and forced labour, ensures the respect for privacy and family life and outlaws discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, sexuality, age and other factors.
Since Truss was sworn in as the first ever female Lord Chancellor in July, reports have highlighted a surge in hate crimes based on perceived race and ethnicity.
In July, figures from the National Police Chief’s Council showed more than 600 hate crimes had been reported to forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland since the EU referendum, up 20 per cent on the same period in 2015.
Although Police Scotland said it had not experienced this hike, racist stickers were found in Glasgow and members of the city’s Sikh community told The National it felt like “open season” on them after the June 23 vote.
Meanwhile, the Equality and Human Rights Commission found “entrenched” unfairness towards minorities in England and Wales, with non-white groups four times more likely to live in overcrowded housing and twice as likely to be poor in Scotland.
And British Transport Police, which covers the UK rail network, said the number of racially charged incidents recorded at stations hit 120 between June 24 and July 7, up almost 80 per cent on the previous year.
Yesterday Bella Sankey, director of policy at civil rights campaign group Liberty, said: “Surely it can’t have escaped the Lord Chancellor’s attention that our country has seen a spike in hate and division in recent months.
“Just days ago, the Equality and Human Rights Commission laid bare the scale of and challenge of racial inequality in Britain – and only today transport police have reported a leap in racist abuse and attacks.
“In the current climate, our new Justice Secretary should focus on providing unifying leadership – not pouring her energy, and yet more public money, into scrapping human rights and equality protections that are needed now more than ever.”
Last night the Ministry of Justice said: “We will set out our proposals for a Bill of Rights in due course. We will consult fully on our proposals.”
Meanwhile, the Scottish Government said the protections outlined in the HRA were “essential to any civilised society”, adding: “We have argued strongly against the repeal of the Act, in Scotland and across the whole of the UK, and will continue our opposition.”
Following the publication of a report by the House of Lords EU Justice Committee criticising the HRA plan earlier this year, committee chair Baroness Kennedy said: “We heard evidence that the devolved administrations have serious concerns about the plans to repeal the Human Rights Act.
“If the devolved Parliaments withheld their consent to a British Bill of Rights it might very well end up as an English Bill of Rights: not something we think the government would want to see.
“The more evidence we heard on this issue the more convinced we became that the government should think again about its proposals for a British Bill of Rights. The time is now right for it to do so.”
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 here