Liz Truss government shelves Bill of Rights – but vows to carry out human rights overhaul

Ex-justice secretary Dominic Raab’s bill described as ‘a mess’ by Truss camp

Liz Truss government is expected to shelve current plans for a Bill of Rights aimed at giving the UK power to ignore rulings from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

The prime minister’s new cabinet are thought to have agreed on Wednesday to halt the legislation put forward by axed justice secretary Dominic Raab, a backer of Ms Truss’s rival Rishi Sunak.

A government source confirmed the bill was “unlikely to progress in its current form”, with ministers now reviewing “the most effective means to deliver the objectives of bill”.

But vowing to push on with the planned overhaul in human rights, the source said that “the principles and objectives more generally [are] not shelved”.

Ms Truss is understood to have concerns about Mr Raab’s bill was too vulnerable to amendments. “The bill is a mess and it’s not going to come back in anything like its current form,” The Sun, quoted an anonymous source as saying.

No 10 declined to guarantee that the bill would still be introduced during the current parliament as part of Ms Truss’s legislative priorities.

Mr Raab’s bill was intended to make sure that Britain’s Supreme Court had legal supremacy over ECHR decisions. It was also set to impose new restrictions on how human rights claims could be made against the UK government.

The ex-justice secretary – replaced by Truss ally Brandon Lewis on Tuesday – had claimed that the bill would reinforce parliament’s role as the ultimate decision maker, as well as boosting freedom of speech protections.

The ECHR sparked outrage among many Tory MPs in June with injunctions to prevent asylum seekers being deported to Rwanda – allowing UK judges to block the government’s much-criticised plans.

Ms Truss told Tory MPs during the leadership contest that she was “prepared” to pull the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights if reforms aimed at reducing the influence of judges in Strasbourg were not successful.

She told a July hustings event organised by Tory right-wingers outraged over the Rwanda flight saga that if became necessary to withdraw, “I would be prepared to do that”.

The bill had been aimed at giving British courts greater powers to ignore rulings by the European court. However, withdrawing as a signatory to the convention would be a radical step – putting the UK in same company as Russia.

Robert Buckland – the former justice secretary who was reappointed Welsh secretary in the reshuffle – had shared his concerns about the bill over the summer leadership battle.

The senior Tory figure told The Telegraph that there was a risk that the bill would politicise the British courts.

Mr Buckland’s former special adviser Rajiv Shah said on Thursday that there is “nothing that we can do on the domestic level to change the fact that we are bound by Strasbourg”, adding that “the only way to do” so is only way to do so is to quit the European Convention of Human Rights.

He tweeted: “Ultimately, this bill would have been a political nightmare for the government. It would have overpromised and underdelivered.”

Campaign group Liberty said the apparent move to ditch that bill was “a relief” – saying it would have been “the biggest blow to human rights in the UK in a generation”.

Martha Spurrier, Liberty’s director, warned Ms Truss and her new justice secretary that it was “vital” that they “take this opportunity to strengthen our rights, not weakens them further by bringing these dangerous plans back in another guise”.

Pressed if some form of human rights legislation will be passed during the current parliament, the new PM’s official spokesman said: “That would be one for the Leader of the House in terms of parliamentary timetable.”

Earlier this month the Scottish government said the Bill of Rights as outlined by Mr Raab would be “harmful and unwelcome”, warning that it could weaken existing human rights protections.

Campaigners and experts also told The Independent that Mr Raab’s bill would have exempted the government itself from having to comply with planned free speech protections.