HUMAN rights will not be infringed by emergency legislation being rushed through Holyrood, a minister insisted today.
Lawyers have argued the legislation to impose a one-year time limit for launching human rights challenges against the Scottish Government needs to be modified.
But Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill told MSPs: "Let's be clear – the Bill is not abou
t removing anybody's right to seek redress for breaches of human rights.
"The grounds on which individuals will be able to bring forward claims will be completely unchanged."
And he declared: "Any suggestion that the Bill would somehow deprive anyone of their fundamental rights is completely unfounded."
The Convention Rights Proceedings Bill is intended to block a legal loophole which has already led to big payouts to prisoners who claim their human rights were breached by the practice of "slopping out" in cells.
The prison service has already set aside £67 million to pay for slopping out claims, of which £11 million has already been paid out.
The emergency legislation being rushed through Holyrood today follows a 2007 House of Lords ruling that human rights challenges launched against Scottish ministers under the Scotland Act are not subject to a one-year time limit that would otherwise apply.
But the Law Society of Scotland has complained of a lack of consultation, and has urged Holyrood to make the time limit apply from the point at which a person becomes aware of a human rights breach – not the date of the breach itself.
Mr MacAskill told MSPs the Bill would enable a line to be drawn under the prison service potential liability of £67 million, and provide protection against "indefinite" exposure to future claims for alleged human rights breaches.
The Bill would establish a one-year time limit for bringing proceedings against Scottish ministers, but courts would have discretion to allow a longer time limit in cases where this was "equitable".
The change, to take effect from November 2, would bring the Scotland Act into line with the Human Rights Act.
He criticised the Law Society proposals as "incompetent", as the legislation was tightly drawn, and also as unnecessary.
The Law Society proposals were also inconsistent with the time limit in the Human Rights Act.
"We should therefore be wary about any amendment that, in seeking to cure one inconsistency, ends up creating another," said the minister.
Labour's Richard Baker backed the Bill, saying there had been "great concern" among the public at payouts to prisoners.
"There is also the anger that people who have been put in custody because of serious offences can, as a result of their time in jail, receive some £2,000 in compensation payments where they can show their rights have been breached," said Mr Baker.
The Lords ruling had greatly extended the potential for claims and Mr Baker said: "It is right to seek to close that loophole today."
He backed the minister's answer to the Law Society's criticism, and said he was pleased that the UK and Scottish ministers had co-operated to block the loophole.
Mr Baker went on to question how the potential savings of £50 million would be spent.
"Of course there are pressures on public sector spending, but the demands in the justice system are nevertheless important and significant."
Tory justice spokesman Bill Aitken said the Bill would limit human rights claims from prisoners.
He told MSPs: "The benefit of this particular legislation is that it will remove an issue which has been a bit of a running sore for quite some time, with considerable public resentment at the fact that people who are seen as being undeserving are benefiting at the expense of the Scottish taxpayer."
But Green MSP Patrick Harvie told the Tory: "An individual whose human rights have been violated and has received compensation has not in global terms benefited.
"That is something which should not have happened to them, not simply something which should not have happened to the public purse.
Mr Aitken stressed he did not approve of slopping out.
"I have never suggested prisoners should have to live in unsanitary or Dickensian conditions," the Conservative said.
"But nevertheless it does seem to me that there is a quite simple way to avoid doing that – namely to not commit crime."
And he said if MSPs did not pass the emergency legislation today they would be in line for "serious public criticism".
Liberal Democrat Robert Brown gave his support to the Bill.
"It's very clearly in the public interest that slopping out claims are restricted as narrowly as possible," he said.
"It's also in the public interest that up to £50 million of public funds be released from meeting such claims to more beneficial public purposes."
However he raised questions about the impact of the new legislation, demanding to know who and what it would apply to.
Mr Brown pressed the point, and said: "We have got to be clear exactly who and what it applies to so we can see the implications of the Bill."
He also asked: "Are the Bill's provisions tight enough on the one hand to deal with what we want to do on slopping out cases, whilst on the other hand not too narrowly restricting what might arise in other sorts of cases."
Mr Brown added: "Liberal Democrats do support the Bill but I think it's appropriate the Government do respond and respond in some detail on these technical points so we know we are doing the right thing."
