Scottish Commission for Human Rights Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4920, in the name of Robert Brown, that the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Commission for Human Rights Bill be passed. I advise members that we are behind the clock and I am not sure that I will be able to call any member in the open debate; however, I will do my best.
Human rights are at the heart of any civilised society, but the European convention on human rights is, rightly, written into the very fabric of the legislation that established the Scottish Parliament. As we come to the end of the legislative process, I ask members to reflect not just on the nuts-and-bolts issues of management, budget, office and accountability that have been rightly prominent in the debate—perhaps too prominent—but on the purpose of the Scottish human rights commission.
The Scottish human rights commission is about embedding high standards of human rights and public ethics into the policy and practice of public authorities—councils, quangos, bodies that deliver public services and government. Human rights considerations have already changed many things that we took for granted in our courts system and our general democracy, including temporary sheriffs; public appointment procedures; the need for the prosecution to explain and justify some of its decisions; the treatment of mental health detainees; the position of victims; and many others. Sometimes, those changes have been made following review by Government; sometimes, they have been made following the representations of committees; and, sometimes, they have been made as a result of legal action.
I will make two central points. First, changes that are forced by legal or other action are almost always more expensive than changes that are planned in advance. Secondly, as MSPs we can pass perfect laws, but 95 per cent of the challenge is in their implementation on the ground through the practice and standards that are achieved by local government and others in carrying through the legislative intent. Many of the points that were made in the previous debate echoed that. We know, from the recent Amnesty International Scotland report, as well as from a host of other reports by the National Audit Office and others, that there is a widespread lack of focus by Scottish public authorities on human rights that still require to be recognised and complied with in practice. That is the challenge that we face, and it is why the bill has been produced.
The Executive started to consider establishing a human rights commission for Scotland in 2000. When the Parliament first held a debate on human rights, in that year, the Conservatives and the Scottish National Party joined in calls for the establishment of such a body—a body that was pretty much in the format that is currently being presented to Parliament. If members do not believe that, they should read the Official Report of that debate, as I have done since Roseanna Cunningham's earlier intervention.
Does the minister not accept that there have been a number of material changes in the architecture and the supervision of governance in Scotland in the years since that debate and that perhaps, on occasions, political parties might be better respected if they changed their minds when the world around them changed?
I am pleased to accept that recognition of the fact that the SNP has changed its mind on the matter. That was not something that we got from Roseanna Cunningham earlier. The point is that there has been a change of view by some people on the matter.
It is also odd how Margaret Mitchell has been keen to airbrush out of her version of history the strong statements that were made at that time by David McLetchie, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and others.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No. I have already taken an intervention, and I think that we know what the member would say.
I have been disappointed by the apparent lack of emphasis that the major Opposition party, the Scottish National Party—which, curiously, describes itself as a modern social democratic party—puts on promoting human rights.
Will the minister take an intervention?
The minister is not going to give way.
Since 2000, we have held two public consultations. The responses to those consultations showed widespread support for the proposal to establish a commission. That support was reiterated during the bill's progress. Our proposals are widely supported across the spectrum of civic society in Scotland.
I see Fergus Ewing saying something. Does he want to intervene?
Will the minister take an intervention from me?
No. I know what Margaret Mitchell will say. [Interruption.]
Order.
I thank the Justice 1 Committee for its hard work in thoroughly considering the bill and everyone else who has contributed by giving evidence or by other means.
During the process, we have listened to what has been said and made significant changes to our proposals, particularly to the architecture and environment within which the commission will operate. The Justice 1 Committee's scrutiny was rigorous—occasionally even torrid—but that committee did its job with diligence and the bill has benefited immeasurably from its work, as bills have often done.
The changes to our proposals include the requirement for the Scottish commission for human rights to publish and consult on a strategic plan; the establishment of a commission instead of a single commissioner; the duty to consider sharing offices and services with other bodies, such as the forthcoming Great Britain commission for equality and human rights; and the explicit requirement for the commission's budget to be approved by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Those arrangements go much further than the arrangements for existing parliamentary commissioners and ombudsmen. It was proper to make those changes, and the process has, by debate, tested arrangements that will be extended to the earlier bodies in due course.
Accepting Mary Mulligan's amendment 97 means that the corporate body will be given the flexibility to make advance arrangements in relation to the commission's office—that includes the possibility of co-locating it with the Great Britain commission—and to take the necessary time to develop appropriate and cost-effective administrative arrangements to support the commission's functions.
Those issues are important. However, in considering them, we must not lose sight of what the SCHR will be for and what it will be expected to do. Individuals can get the full benefits of human rights only if they know what those rights are. Similarly, public authorities must know what those human rights are so that they can respect them and not allow misunderstandings about them to get in the way of delivering effective services. Experience has shown that making services human rights compliant brings wider benefits as a result of improved quality. To put things in another way, the issue is raising public satisfaction with public services, saving resources by doing things in a better and unchallengeable way that respects individual citizens, and establishing more soundly the rights of people who are often left behind and whose human rights are not well protected. The amendment at stage 2 to the commission's general duty to focus on the human rights of those whose rights are not otherwise sufficiently promoted was important.
The commission's work programme is for it to develop, but it might include supporting vulnerable older people, young people in care homes, migrant workers, people in deprived or rural communities or people with limited financial rights or powers. That is what the SCHR will be about. By working to achieve a society in which everyone's human rights are respected and in which public bodies are the leaders in good practice, the SCHR will help us to achieve the modern, confident and inclusive Scotland that we all want.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Commission for Human Rights Bill be passed.
Des McNulty's amendment to the Executive's motion was not selected for debate—members can read it in the Business Bulletin. That amendment sought to restrict the amount of money for the Scottish commission for human rights in relation to functional costs. I do not want to worry about whether we should be debating that amendment, but I hope that if the bill is passed at 6 o'clock, we will find a way of controlling the balance of the commission's expenditure.
Following all the work that has been done and the considerable period in which the proposal has been considered, we are left with a fundamental dichotomy that I cannot solve. The bill is about the promotion of human rights within public institutions, but Scottish National Party members want a bill that protects the individual human rights of the citizens of Scotland. That is a very different thing. Human rights can be compromised by, for example, commercial companies. On other occasions, human rights can actually be promoted and supported by commercial companies. For example, one of our major banks flouts the law that requires people who open bank accounts to have an address. The bank opens accounts for the sellers of The Big Issue, who are, by definition, homeless. My point is that human rights issues go far beyond simply the public bodies, and the effects can be positive or negative.
Individuals should be at the heart of our concerns in relation to human rights, but this bill simply does not focus on individuals. Public institutions already have duties in relation to human rights. The case has been made that they are not properly exercising those duties, and we have heard a number of Government speakers criticising the performance of public bodies—be they local authorities, parts of the health service, or whatever.
We are in a curious position. We are seeking to create a bill whose purpose is to compensate for the human rights deficiencies of public bodies; however, the overall human rights performance of those public bodies is probably better than that of private bodies and companies, and that of public companies and individuals. We should instead be focusing on the human rights of individuals. If we had put the people of Scotland at the heart of the bill, SNP members would have been able to support the bill at 6 o'clock. However, as it stands, the bill is not worth salvaging. It will simply create a post for someone who will book advertising space and go into public authorities of one sort or another around Scotland to try to persuade them to up their game.
Does the member acknowledge that, out there in civic Scotland, people across the entire human rights field support the creation of the commission? Even though they share some of Mr Stevenson's concerns about the bill's limitations, they see that it has value.
In so far as they have contacted me—quite a number have done so—my constituents have entirely different concerns from those who are employed in the business and who have campaigned for the commission. I say that as someone who has been a member of Amnesty International. Through inadvertence, I do not happen to be a member at the moment, but that is not because I do not support the work that Amnesty International does. I do support it, and other human rights bodies have had my support as well.
There is a fundamental difficulty about putting on the statute book a bill that does not deliver what is on the title of the tin. We have to go back and think again. I and my colleagues do not expect to support the bill at 6 o'clock.
I begin by thanking the clerks for their patience and perseverance in coping with all the proposed alterations to this difficult bill. The fact that the Justice 1 Committee rejected the general principles of the bill at stage 1 indicates the concerns over the bill's provisions. The bill has taken over a year to go through the parliamentary process, from the Justice 1 Committee to its stage 3 hurdle today.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
I cannot pretend to be other than hugely disappointed that the function that the bill will confer on a commission will not be given to the Scottish public services ombudsman. In failing to do that, we have lost an opportunity to complement the SPSO's current role, which is to investigate maladministration within public authorities and to merge that role with an awareness-raising and promotional role. I firmly believe that giving the new function to the SPSO would have been a much more effective way of ensuring that the function was carried out, as the SPSO, by virtue of her current role in dealing with complaints, is already well aware of where there is a need to promote and raise awareness of human rights in public authorities and bodies. In addition, value for money would have been achieved and the savings that would have been made from the commission's proposed £1 million budget could have been ploughed into the voluntary sector to allow organisations with expertise and experience in promoting and fighting for the human rights of the various vulnerable people whom they represent to take up individual cases, which the commission will have no power to do.
The Executive has tinkered at the edges by making suggestions that it estimates will reduce the costs of establishing the commission—suggestions about advertising for new members, pensions, social security provision, allowances and salaries—but the fact remains that the £1 million could have been far better used to promote and protect human rights.
I will touch on two amendments that were agreed to at stage 2. The first is the amendment that removed the requirement to give notice before inspecting a detention centre. That was clearly sensible. Conversely, the other amendment, to which the minister referred, created a provision that would in effect prioritise the promotion of some human rights. Any promotion should take place case by case and on its merits, as it is to be hoped that the human rights of every group in society are equally important. Instead, the amendment sends the unacceptable message that all human rights are equal, but that some are more equal than others. How depressing it is that the bill suggests that shades of "Animal Farm" are alive and kicking in Scotland's devolved Government. Not surprisingly, we will not support the bill.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate, as I am and have been from the beginning supportive of the bill, which establishes the Scottish commission for human rights. Like Margaret Mitchell, I thank the Justice 1 Committee's clerks for supporting us through the bill process at the same time as doing all the other work that the committee has taken on.
The new commission for equality and human rights was established under UK legislation that was deliberately drafted to leave a gap in the promotion of human rights in relation to devolved matters. The SCHR will fill that gap, to reflect our different legal framework in Scotland.
The commission's function will be to promote awareness and understanding of and respect for human rights. The SCHR will be a promotional office, but individual complaints might prompt it to conduct an inquiry into an issue. The courts will remain the place where any decision is made on whether human rights have been breached.
We in Scotland are lucky enough to enjoy much more than the basic level of human rights, but a body such as the commission is still needed here. In our consideration of the detail of the bill, we should not forget that. We need a commission to assist public authorities to comply with their obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998; to promote a human rights culture so that people know their rights and responsibilities; to monitor compliance with current law and practice; and to help voluntary organisations and public authorities to assist their clients to assert their rights more effectively.
The recent report "Delivering Human Rights in Scotland: A report on Scottish Public Authorities" by Amnesty International Scotland pointed out the need for such assistance. Jim Wallace quoted that report and the deputy minister mentioned it. I mention the report again because it contains some positive points. It provides examples of good practice, including that of Angus Council, Renfrewshire Council, South Lanarkshire Council and Tayside police. Tayside police have a detailed policy document that outlines the four principles of legality, necessity, proportionality and transparency in police procedures. A Scottish commission will encourage all bodies to follow such good practice.
I restate my support for the review of all the commissions and commissioners in Scotland that was established recently. The bill recognises that no overlaps should occur—we have discussed that today—but we need to re-examine the remits, locations and finances of all the bodies. I look forward to its being done quickly.
While we have been pausing to consider the bill, a great deal of work has been going on to establish the Great Britain commission for equality and human rights. It is important that we remember the bigger picture. This week it was informative to hear the views of Welsh Assembly members who met the Equal Opportunities Committee. They are looking forward to the establishment of the CEHR and are pushing for the Welsh commissioner to be appointed as soon as possible. We should put our energies into ensuring that the Scottish commissioner is among the first tranche of appointments that are made through the public appointment process. The Scottish human rights commission must be set up at the same time, so that we can have a comprehensive service that covers both devolved and reserved issues.
I look forward to the debate in Scotland being refocused to consider broader issues of human rights. I support the bill.
I regret the fact that, despite the extended time for consideration of the bill, there is no time for open debate. We must conclude by 18:00, so we move straight to closing speeches.
I, too, express my thanks to the clerks for the great job that they have done on this difficult bill. I am extremely supportive of the bill, as are all my Liberal Democrat colleagues. It fulfils a commitment that we gave in the 2003 election campaign—that is why it was in the partnership agreement.
I will set the record straight for Margaret Mitchell. The Justice 1 Committee did not reject the general principles of the bill. At the end of the committee's stage 1 report, three options reflect the views of different members of the committee. I favoured option 3, which was that we supported the general principles of the bill.
The bill has not had the easiest passage through stages 1 and 2. I pay tribute to the minister, who guided the bill through the process. He was willing at all times to discuss any aspects of the bill with committee members—formally or informally, and collectively or individually. That offer was on the table throughout the passage of the bill.
Human rights are the basis of social justice. When they are breached we all suffer, but the poor and the powerless suffer most. Human rights should be the drivers for public services that we all want to develop and improve, such as the protection of children, empowering adults with incapacities, raising standards in care services and much more. The aim must be to ensure that the right balance is struck between the rights of individuals and the interests of society. That is why we need the bill.
The bill will establish a Scottish commission for human rights, which will be responsible for all the basic human rights that I have just mentioned. I believe that it is vital that we have here in Scotland a person who is appointed specifically to address the human rights of Scots in Scotland. The suggestion that the role could have been taken by the Scottish public services ombudsman was a serious attempt to downgrade the importance of this very important office.
I very much welcome Mary Mulligan's excellent amendments. We all agreed that the commission's office should be located with the new body that the Westminster Government plans to set up. That will deliver considerable operational and cost benefits. The UK body will be located in Glasgow, and it is sensible that the Scottish commission should also be located there. That will give the added advantage that the general public and organisations will have to go to only one place to raise a human rights issue, whether or not that issue is devolved; they will be directed to the right office, with no inconvenience. I understand that the Scottish Executive has maintained close contact with UK officials on the issue, and the proposal is a very sensible way forward.
The commission's general duty will be
"to promote awareness and understanding of, and respect for, human rights"
in relation to devolved matters. It will be able to conduct inquiries and to intervene in civil court proceedings. It will also have the ability to request information in support of inquiries and the right of entry to places of detention. As Margaret Mitchell said, a sensible amendment at stage 2 clarified that point.
The new commission will address the increased need for advice and help in the area of human rights. I see the role as a reactive one and as one that will develop. I agree with Patrick Harvie, in particular, that as time passes the commission's responsibilities will increase and it will get more teeth. I hope that that is the case and I will welcome it when it happens. I have much pleasure in supporting the bill.
This has not been a good day for Liberal ministers. This morning, we saw the hapless George Lyon being hung out to dry by his Labour master and filleted by Mr Swinney and Mr Brownlee. This afternoon, Mr Brown must feel that the support that he has received from Labour members has been, to say the least, tepid. In fact, to call it lukewarm would be a gross exaggeration.
Having listened to the contributions of Labour members such as Pauline McNeill and Des McNulty, I do not think that I am exaggerating when I say that if they had been left to their own devices, this bill would not have been passed—and, indeed, nor should it be passed. Quite frankly, it is unnecessary. In a Parliament and with an Executive that have been party to setting up more tsars than there were in the Romanov dynasty, this commissioner is surely a tsar too far.
There cannot be any members in the chamber who are not deeply concerned about either collective or individual human rights. Although I have fallen out with the Minister for Justice over the years, even I do not think that she is into torturing people, either personally or by proxy. I do not know, though; that is probably not what her husband would tell me.
The human rights situation in Scotland might not be perfect, but the current systems can deal comfortably with human rights cases. After all, what is the purpose of parliamentary committees and individual MSPs if not to do everything possible to provide assistance on human rights? Surely not one of us would refuse to come to the assistance of individuals or bodies who we felt had had their human rights seriously prejudiced.
Does Mr Aitken seriously dismiss the research that shows that two thirds of public bodies in Scotland admit either that they do not understand their responsibilities under human rights law or that they have not yet taken any steps to meet them? If he accepts that finding, does he not also accept that there is a place for a body with a specific human rights focus to promote understanding of such matters?
No. There is no place for this body, because, as members have pointed out time and again, its functions could either be carried out within this parliamentary structure or, as Margaret Mitchell suggested, be absorbed by the Scottish public services ombudsman. That is a fact of life.
Scotland has a very good human rights record. The only people outside the Parliament who are in favour of this legislation are the human rights lobby and those who are acting out of self-interest. Another £1 million that could be used better elsewhere is going down the drain.
It is really not good enough for Mr Pringle to suggest in an intervention on Margaret Mitchell that the Justice 1 Committee did not discard the bill. It simply could not reach agreement on it; indeed, it was split three ways on the matter, with no majority view on any of the proposals. Certainly, the view that Mr Pringle has expressed again today was decidedly in the minority—which is hardly a shining endorsement of the procedures.
Once again, the Liberal tail is wagging the Labour dog. This legislation should not go on the statute book.
We should pass legislation in this Parliament only if there is an unanswerable case for doing so and if it reflects a real need to tackle a significant problem in our society. Much has been made of reports that numerous local authorities and public bodies are not honouring their human rights obligations. However, every piece of legislation that the Parliament enacts must be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. If public bodies and statutory authorities are not fulfilling their statutory duties, I, as an MSP, want to know why those who are responsible for supervising them are not cracking the whip. Why is the Scottish Executive giving money to public authorities that are not fulfilling their statutory duty? Why is that not part of the carpeting of the chief executives of those organisations or the chief executives of local authorities? The problem is that nobody in this country gets carpeted for failure to deliver on their statutory duties. Everybody just covers up for the failure to deliver on various areas of policy.
One of my biggest concerns about the bill is that there is not an area of activity in which the role could not be performed by the Government or by public authorities delivering on their functions; any remaining outstanding questions could be addressed by reconfiguring the congested architecture of governance that we in this Parliament have created.
The lines of argument that the deputy minister has used at committee and in the chamber to try to persuade the Parliament to support the bill have been appalling in two respects. First, he has derided the fact that my party has a different perspective today about the need for a human rights commission from what we had in 2000. However, we take a different approach because the architecture of government in Scotland has changed in the intervening six years. There are more commissions and ombudsmen than there were back in 2000 when we made the comments that Mr Wallace read out earlier. If we did not reflect on that and change our position and attitude because the situation has changed, but instead steamrollered on regardless, what would the public think of what we are doing in this place?
The decision is being taken today not because the Government won the argument. The Government did not win in the face of Des McNulty's arguments, Pauline McNeill's arguments or some of the other arguments that have been made. The bill will go through because of the commitment that was given three years ago by the two parties in the partnership agreement; nobody—I concede that there are some exceptions on the back benches—is prepared to reflect on the fact that the world has changed in the intervening period and that something different needs to be done.
We are continuing on these tramlines because we set off on them and we will deliver the human rights commission regardless of whether Scotland needs it. A million pounds is going down the pan. [Interruption.] I cannot hear what the Deputy First Minister is shouting from a sedentary position, but if he wants to intervene I would be happy to hear from him. I see that he has gone back to signing his letters.
I turn to the second point on which the deputy minister has failed to make a convincing argument. When he was challenged about what the commission would do, he cited the example of a human rights concern in the state hospital in Carstairs and argued that it was a case that the human rights commission could resolve. He inadvertently forgot to tell the Parliament that the issue has been resolved before the human rights commissioner has been established. That raises a serious question about whether such a commission is required now that this devolved Scotland has 16 parliamentary committees, a parliamentary chamber and so many ombudsmen that I cannot even remember how many there are. All those bodies can scrutinise the policy areas and tackle the problems that exist in our society.
The arguments that the Government has made today have been very poor. I pay tribute to the members of the partnership Administration parties who have had the courage to challenge some of its arguments with well-thought-out and considered amendments. I hope that Parliament will agree as one to review the architecture of the ombudsman structure in Scotland. We have created a congested environment and we must resolve the issue sooner rather than later.
When I look back to 2000—at that stage I was a back bencher listening to the debate that took place—I do not think that I could have imagined that I would be standing here today without there being some consensus across the chamber. There certainly seemed to be a degree of consensus at that stage, among the SNP and the Tories as well as among Labour and the Liberal Democrats, in favour of the general principles of a human rights commission.
We have heard arguments about governance, architecture and structure. However, I cannot get my head round Mr Swinney's saying that times have to change and that we must move on and consider costs when, at the same time, the SNP has not been honest with the electorate about the true costs of independence. The SNP will have to face that issue.
There has been a great deal of discussion on the bill and members of my party have raised relevant and important points in the Finance Committee and the Justice 1 Committee and during today's proceedings. I thank them for their contributions. Because of the scrutiny that has been given to the bill, we have listened and made changes, as we said during the debate, to ensure that we get the best possible value for the public purse. Indeed, we are open to considering how best to improve accountability in the future.
I come from a background of making practical arguments for improvements to human rights. I have argued for the right to a decent house, the right to a minimum wage, the right to an education for our children, the right to health care, and the right of older people to have warm homes. In particular, in my work for what I would describe as a human rights organisation, I argued for the right of young people in care to be properly looked after. Something that stuck with me from all my years at Who Cares? Scotland was the comment of a young person, who said, "There is no point in having rights if you don't know you have them and you don't know who to go to if you feel they aren't being properly recognised." That comment goes to the heart of the need to promote human rights in Scotland. We need to be constantly vigilant to ensure that every public body ensures that everyone's rights are protected.
First, the minister talked about the need for an individual to have somewhere to turn to. The bill will not allow individuals to turn to the proposed new commission. How does she respond to that? Secondly, she referred to the right to a warm home. That is an issue for the commercial fuel supply companies that cause problems, which is outside the scope of the bill. The minister has condemned the bill in her own speech.
I have in no way condemned the bill. I was describing my support for the Executive's work in a range of areas to deliver social justice for ordinary people in Scotland. Social justice should be the focus of the Scottish commission for human rights. The member said that individuals would have nowhere to turn for assistance, but the commission will be able to flag up issues, provide guidance and information and direct people to the correct place to receive help, whether that is the court or another organisation.
We tightened up the bill to ensure that there will be no unnecessary duplication and we made it clear that the commission's work will not replace the work that should go on in the Parliament.
I talked about the people who suffer the most disadvantage. The bill is not an academic exercise. It is not just to do with an intellectual aspiration to promote human rights; it must make a difference to ordinary citizens in ordinary houses in ordinary streets in Scotland. Those citizens need to know that human rights matter and that we care enough about their rights to take action to promote and protect them.
The bill places an onerous responsibility on the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, as we heard during this afternoon's proceedings. That is right and proper. The SPCB will have to take decisions about the commission's location and the scrutiny of the commission's budget and it will have to ensure that the commission acts in accordance with the will of the Parliament. We heard the will of the Parliament clearly today and I would be surprised if a future parliamentary corporation or commissioner did not follow it.
I thank everyone who participated in the debate. I know that some people are fundamentally opposed to the bill and have found the issue difficult and challenging. We have faced a challenging process as we tried to achieve the best possible governance and do what is necessary. I hope that I can leave members with the thought that the commission has to make a difference to ordinary people. It is our responsibility to ensure that the will of the Parliament is carried out. I ask members to support the bill.