Human rights plans still awaited after Queen's speech

The UK Government's plans for the future of the Human Rights Act are no clearer following the Queen's speech for the new session of Parliament, delivered this morning.

The only reference to the long-awaited proposals came towards the end of the speech, with a renewal of the declaration that "Proposals will be brought forward for a British Bill of Rights."

However the speech continued: "My ministers will uphold the sovereignty of Parliament and the primacy of the House of Commons."

Prime Minister David Cameron has committed the Government to repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 and to asserting the supremacy of UK law and the UK courts against the jurisprudence of the European Convention and European Court of Human Rights, without withdrawing from the Convention.

Conservative proposals were promised before the 2015 general election, and again over the first year of the incoming Government, but no further announcements are now expected until after the EU referendum on 23 June.

Bills announced in the speech which will apply to Scotland include a Digital Economy Bill, providing for a right to high speed broadband; a Modern Transport Bill, covering driverless cars, drones and spaceports; a Better Markets Bill to help utility customers switch providers; a Pensions Bill to make it easier to access pension savings; bills to enable the lifetine ISAs and the sugar tax, both announced in the March Budget; and a Criuminal Finances Bill, penalising companies that fail to prevent staff enabling tax evasion.

Following the Queen's speech the Law Society of Scotland called on the Government to use the proposed British Bill of Rights to enhance human rights protection in the UK, building on the 1998 Act.

Michael Clancy, the Society's director of law reform stated: “We believe that the Human Rights Act 1998 is a key component of our society and has been extremely effective in protecting our rights through the domestic courts in the UK. It provides an effective way for individuals to challenge the actions of the state and seek redress in a more accessible, timely and affordable way than was possible before incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law.

“However we think there is room for improvement of the Act, and the proposed Bill of Rights should build on and enhance the protections we currently have. For example it could include a provision of a better way to amend legislation which has been declared incompatible with ECHR by the courts. It could also offer more clarity than the Human Rights Act on how such rights would apply to private bodies exercising public functions or providing public services as well as individuals.”

He added: “It’s important to remember that as long as the UK remains a party to the ECHR, the ECHR rights will be binding on the UK, and individuals will be able to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg. If the ECHR is no longer directly incorporated into the UK’s domestic law, this would mean that individuals would have to go to the ECtHR. This was the situation prior to the enactment of the HRA in 1998 and in our view a return to this would be a backwards step.”