Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Human Rights Act 1998: Discussions with Scottish Government

Tuesday 14 July 2020 · 2 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 2 Partly answered 0 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Minister had recent discussions with Scottish Government on updating the Human Rights Act 1998
  • Scotland will be consulted to ensure its distinct legal system is considered
  • Consultation with devolved Administrations on the terms of reference is planned

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Stuart McDonald SNP East Kilbride
Scotland Foreign Affairs
Context

Discussions between the UK Government and Scottish Government on updating the Human Rights Act.

Question

What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on proposals to update the Human Rights Act 1998?

Answer from Alex Chalk (Minister of State for Justice)

Yes, Scotland has a distinguished and distinct legal system and will be consulted. Whatever amendments may come to the Human Rights Act, the United Kingdom remains committed to membership of the European convention on human rights.

Answered
Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q2 Angela Crawley SNP Wansbeck
Democracy & Elections
Context

Exploring the relationship between the Human Rights Act review and the proposed constitution, democracy and rights commission.

Question

Can the Minister outline the relationship between the independent review of the Human Rights Act and the proposed constitution, democracy and rights commission? Does he also plan to consult devolved Administrations on the terms of reference?

Answer from Alex Chalk (Minister of State for Justice)

There is a manifesto commitment to update the Human Rights Act. The implications for Scotland's distinct legal jurisdiction must be taken into account and will be considered.

Answered
Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)