Creating a British Bill of Rights is unnecessary as it will simply affirm the measures in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) but damage the country's moral authority internationally, peers warned.
The cross-party House of Lords EU Justice sub-committee said Michael Gove's plan to scrap and replace the Human Rights Act 1998 - introduced by Labour to bring the ECHR into British law - could deal a blow to the UK's standing in organisations like the EU and the Council of Europe.
Moreover, scrapping the Act would lead to an increasing reliance on the more strongly enforced EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in British courts, in what the committee deemed a "perverse consequence" of the Justice Secretary's plans.
READ MORE: Michael Gove predicts majority of Scots will vote to leave EU
Meanwhile, with the proposal lacking the support of the devolved nations, it could end up as an English Bill of Rights with uneven laws governing the nations of the UK.
A Tory manifesto pledge, the Bill of Rights was omitted from the Government's first legislative programme amid opposition from backbenchers and it is unclear whether it will feature in the forthcoming Queen's Speech on May 18.
Home Secretary Theresa May recently called for Britain to pull out of the ECHR but Mr Gove made it clear he wanted to remain in the convention while reforming the law at home.
The committee told the Government to "think again" before proceeding.
Its chairwoman, Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, said: "Our evidence from the Secretary of State for Justice was the first time the Government has explained why it wants to introduce a British Bill of Rights.
READ MORE: David Cameron: Brexit could lead to break-up of Britain
"The arguments seemed to amount to restoring national faith in human rights and to give human rights a greater UK identity.
"The proposals he outlined were not extensive, and we were not convinced that a Bill of Rights was necessary.
"Many witnesses thought that restricting the scope of the Human Rights Act would lead to an increase in reliance on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in UK courts, which has stronger enforcement mechanisms.
"This seemed to be a perverse consequence of a Bill of Rights intended to give human rights greater UK identity.
"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."
READ MORE: Prime Minister David Cameron: Brexit would hamper fight against Islamic State and put peace at risk
A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said: "This Government has a mandate to reform and modernise the UK human rights framework.
"Our Bill will protect fundamental human rights, but prevent their abuse and restore some common sense to the system. We will fully consult on our proposals."
Amnesty warned a British Bill of Rights would put the Northern Ireland peace settlement at risk.
Rachel Logan, Amnesty's legal programme director, said: "We wholeheartedly agree with the assessment of this cross-party group of Lords (that) a Bill of Rights would be unnecessary, ineffective and damaging to human rights internationally.
"In addition, it would endanger the crucial Northern Ireland peace agreement and be rejected by Scotland.
"The Government should bin these destructive plans once and for all."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel