LABOUR last night warned that David Cameron's plans to scrap the European Human Rights Act and replace it with a British version could leave Scottish courts in chaos.
The Tories are to investigate whether they can introduce a Bill of Rights which would supersede the European act currently written into Scots law.
They say the move would enshrine the sovereignty of the courts in England and in Scotland.
But
Labour claimed it would simply mean that, instead of human rights cases being heard in Scotland, they would transfer back to Strasbourg, causing delays and confusion for the public.
British citizens would still have the right to have their cases heard in Strasbourg, even if the Conservatives barred the Human Rights Act from the courts in Britain.
Mr Cameron's proposals have already come under fire from Tory MPs, including Ken Clarke who, three years ago, described the plans to sidestep the European Court of Human Rights as "xenophobic and legal nonsense".
Nonetheless, the Conservative leader will press ahead with a commission to study whether a British Bill of Rights can replace the European act. The commission includes Scots lawyer Paul McBride, who told the Scottish Tory conference last week that the act was helping criminals, not victims.
Under the Tory plans, rights enshrined in the European act, such as the prohibition of torture, will not be removed.
But courts in England and Scotland will be allowed to make their own decisions without being second-guessed by Strasbourg.
The Human Rights Act has run into controversy for regularly changing the rulings of British courts. Deportations have been prevented under the rules over the right to family life, while the UK government was recently barred from retaining the DNA of innocent people on a central database, under the right to privacy.
Edinburgh Labour MP Mark Lazarowicz said: "The convention gives us broad, important principles: the right to life; freedom from torture or degrading treatment; a right to privacy and the freedom of conscience, assembly and expression; and the right to freedom from discrimination.
"What David Cameron proposes would provide no extra rights for citizens, would threaten existing rights and create complexity and confusion in the courts.
"The convention could still be relied on by Scottish citizens, but the rights would be harder to enforce and could well involve lengthy proceedings in Strasbourg. That is to nobody's advantage."
Constitutional experts have described Cameron's plan as "confused", saying that if a British Bill of Rights was weaker than the European one the government would keep on falling foul of Strasbourg.
In 2006, Ken Clarke said Mr Cameron's proposal did not make sense.
"I thought it was, to put it kindly, a muddle," he said.
The full article contains 457 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
