Good afternoon. The first item of business is a Justice Committee debate on motion S4M-11695, in the name of Christine Grahame, on Scotland’s national action plan for human rights. I call Christine Grahame to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Justice Committee—10 minutes, please.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have just put Mr Eadie’s gas at a peep by telling him that I am actually opening a debate. Of course, I am opening the debate on behalf of the Justice Committee, so my speech will be measured, which is perhaps not my usual tenor.
I am pleased that the Justice Committee, with human rights in its remit, agreed to engage with Scotland’s national action plan for human rights, or SNAP, to give it its snappy title—the committee clerk put that bit in. I note that the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights is sitting in front of me, and I do not know whether human rights will continue to be part of the Justice Committee’s remit, but never mind.
I was glad when the committee appointed John Finnie as rapporteur to the SNAP process and I am delighted that we have secured this debate on SNAP’s first annual report. John Finnie will sum up later on behalf of the committee.
I emphasise that human rights are not something separate or academic, or something to concern us only in countries where we consider, rightly or wrongly, that human rights are abused; human rights are the founding principles of the right to dignity, for example, and they should permeate all areas of Scottish life but especially our public services. That is why the membership of the SNAP leadership panel is as it is. For example, it includes the former convener of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations; the chief executive of the Care Inspectorate; John Scott, Queen’s counsel and vice-convener of Justice Scotland’s executive committee; the chair of the Scottish Refugee Council; the chair of Engender; the deputy chief constable of Police Scotland; the deputy general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress; and the director of integration and development at the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. People from across the range of public services are part of the leadership panel.
The SNAP process was based on evidence gathered over a three-year period and was launched on 10 December 2013, which was international human rights day. The SNAP process sets out a framework of shared responsibilities and steps to address gaps in good practice. It has been described as a road map—again, that is not a term that I would use as I find metaphorical road maps and landscapes, cluttered or otherwise, clichés that go a step too far. However, it is a “road map” for the realisation of all internationally recognised human rights.
The SNAP vision is of a Scotland in which everyone is able to live with human dignity. I am sure that we all share that vision. In responding to the current political and economic context in Scotland, the SNAP process pursues three outcomes, supported by nine priorities. The outcomes are a better culture; better lives; and a better world. SNAP promotes a human rights-based approach emphasising participation, accountability, non-discrimination, empowerment and legality—or PANEL, which is yet another acronym. However, the approach has several proven benefits: upholding the rights of everyone; supporting person-centred services; helping good decision making; improving institutional culture and relationships; and ensuring legal compliance and promoting best practice.
Helping good decision making, for example, means, as the report says, putting people at the heart of decisions where the impact of a decision on people’s rights is properly assessed before it is made, so that policies like the bedroom tax—manifestly unfair, with a disproportionate impact on vulnerable and disabled people—would not, as the report says,
“get off the starting blocks.”
Those are progressive but challenging outcomes. To achieve them, the SNAP process is overseen by a leadership panel, which is chaired by Professor Alan Miller. The panel is made up of 26 leaders from different sectors across the spectrum of public life in Scotland, including the legal profession. Professor Miller told the Justice Committee that over 40 organisations play a role in implementing SNAP. The panel receives regular reports from a number of action groups, which also have representation from different sectors.
Now to the annual report. I have it in my hands, and an excellent production it is. Alison McInnes was quite right to say that it is a well-presented report that people can actually read. It does not put people to sleep. It is properly presented and easily understandable, so I congratulate whoever is responsible. They know how to make a report informative and understandable as well as attractive.
The report reflects on successes in year 1, such as the Glasgow Commonwealth games becoming the first games to have a human rights policy and the commitment that SNAP has achieved from partners to embed human rights in the integration of health and social care across Scotland. We all know of cases in which people, perhaps particularly elderly or vulnerable people, are not given the dignity that they deserve in some of our social care and health services.
The report describes challenges that are likely to be faced by SNAP in year 2, such as challenges in increasing people’s understanding of their human rights and participation in decisions that affect them, increasing organisations’ ability to put those rights into practice and increasing accountability through human rights-based laws, governance and monitoring. Professor Miller told the Justice Committee that that will include implementing the Scottish Human Rights Commission’s action plan on justice for victims of historic abuse of children in care and reviewing Police Scotland’s first couple of years from a human rights perspective, so challenges lie ahead.
As the Justice Committee, we have engaged with the SNAP process by appointing John Finnie, whom I have already mentioned, as rapporteur. Mr Finnie receives an update from Professor Miller twice a year and reports back to the committee. As members can see, we are also sponsoring this debate.
The Justice Committee and the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing have also sought to promote human rights principles in our day-to-day work. For example, in considering the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill, we had to balance protection of witnesses—in particular, vulnerable witnesses and often the alleged victim—with the rights of the accused to a presumption of innocence and to be convicted on evidence beyond reasonable doubt, with the onus on the Crown to establish that guilt. How far, for example, should a vulnerable witness be protected from robust questioning? The sub-committee also scrutinised Police Scotland on inappropriate use of stop and search, because there are issues of infringement of civil liberties, and that led to change.
More recently, last Tuesday, the Justice Committee took evidence on the Scottish Government’s changes to the arrangements for inspection, monitoring and visiting of prisons. We heard evidence about, for example, compliance with the optional protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment—OPCAT—and we will pursue the issues with the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights when we hear from him on 16 December. I put him on notice.
Whether it is about protecting access to legal aid, a fair hearing or a right to freedom of movement or expression, balanced as ever against individual responsibilities in a democratic country, our human rights and those of our neighbours and communities permeate every corner of our lives. We often take them for granted until they are threatened, eroded or even withdrawn. We should always be on red alert about protecting those rights.
If and when anyone asks when the Parliament considers human rights issues or, more particularly, when the Justice Committee considers them, I will reply that the answer is all the time, because access to justice, whether civil or criminal, is at the core of a civilised justice process.
However, as a committee, we are also a critical friend of the SNAP process and we perform a scrutiny role. That is why our rapporteur is not a member of the leadership panel. We note the achievements of year 1, but we also note that there is more work to be done, as the report acknowledges. We will continue to scrutinise the leadership panel and hold it to account for delivery of the SNAP objectives through the work of our rapporteur, evidence sessions and debates such as this one. Through our rapporteur, we also champion human rights in the Parliament and continually think of ways in which rights can be promoted and protected in the work of this institution.
I look forward to listening to members’ speeches in this reflective, positive and non-confrontational debate about SNAP. I note the distance that has been travelled so far and the successes that there have been, but I also note that there is still some distance to go.
I congratulate the leadership panel on a successful first year and I trust that it will ensure that good progress is made in meeting the objectives of SNAP by 2018. I repeat that I commend the leadership panel on an excellent first annual report. As I said, it is clear, accessible and user friendly, and the committee acknowledges the hard work that has been put in to make it so.
I have pleasure in moving,
That the Parliament notes the publication on 19 November 2014 of the first Scotland’s National Action Plan for Human Rights (SNAP) annual report, SNAP: Scotland’s National Action Plan for Human Rights - Year One Report.
14:39
Christine Grahame is becoming very expert at making consensual speeches in the chamber, and I am sure that everyone welcomes that.
I warmly welcome this opportunity to debate human rights in my new role as Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights. Members will be aware that, as part of that, I have taken on portfolio responsibility for ensuring that the Scottish Government plays its part in the creation of a modern, inclusive Scotland that protects, respects and realises the human rights of all our citizens. That ambition is central to the Scottish Government’s efforts to tackle inequality and achieve social justice, which I will talk about later.
The 10th of December next week marks one year since the launch of Scotland’s first national action plan for human rights—or SNAP, for short. Around this time last year, Nicola Sturgeon described SNAP as
“an important milestone in our journey to create a Scotland which acts as a beacon of progress internationally.”
A year later, I echo those sentiments. SNAP has provided a framework for and coherence to our collective ambition to build a better country, and it has created a collaborative partnership between Government, public bodies, business, the third sector and rights holders that seeks to drive forward the promotion and protection of human rights across Scotland for the benefit of all. SNAP demonstrates that human rights are more than mere legal instruments; they are the fundamental freedoms and rights to which everyone is entitled, and they are built on universal—indeed, profoundly Scottish—values such as dignity, equality, freedom, autonomy and respect.
I pay tribute to the Scottish Human Rights Commission’s work over this period. It has played a key role in driving forward progress, and I look forward to meeting Professor Alan Miller in my new role to discuss how we can build on the strong working relationship between Government and that particular national human rights institute.
I commend the first annual report of progress that has been made to date, which recognises that Scotland is alive with discussion and dialogue about our country’s future. Those discussions have gone beyond the traditional parameters of party politics and have brought to the fore the importance of social justice, equality and fairness in our society. Deepening and strengthening people’s participation in the running of our country will be a priority for me as part of our democratic renewal agenda, and I note the strong synergies between that ambition and the international human rights framework as an internationally agreed road map of values and principles.
Since 2007, we have made substantial progress on rights. Devolution has enabled us to adopt Scottish solutions to Scottish problems to protect our health service, to mitigate the United Kingdom Government’s welfare reforms and to design a justice system fit for the 21st century. This afternoon, the Parliament will be debating violence against women, which is a fundamental breach of human rights and something that we are all working hard to eradicate from our society.
However, gaps remain to be filled. Too many people in this country are living in poverty; there are persistent failures by public bodies to respond to individuals with a sufficiently human rights-based approach; stigma and discrimination continue to be an everyday experience for too many of our minorities; and fundamental inequalities within our society require to be tackled urgently. This Government has argued for the maximum possible devolution of powers so that we can begin to tackle Scotland’s real challenges.
There is also more to do to ensure that the people of Scotland both understand their rights and feel empowered to claim them. That is why I am pleased to announce today that the Government will work with the commission and others to support the development of an awareness-raising campaign that will be designed to help achieve a greater understanding amongst the population of why rights matter, empower people to claim their rights and ensure that we achieve our objectives.
In SNAP’s first year, let us recognise the progress that it is beginning to make by bringing together organisations to identify best practice, exchange experience and identify solutions that tackle the big human rights challenges in our society; by creating opportunities for people whose rights are affected to shape the way in which things are done; by interrogating and challenging existing ways of doing things; by seeking to embed a common understanding of human rights in all that we collectively do; and by learning from and participating in the global drive to extend human rights to the whole of humanity.
Far too many people in today’s world do not enjoy the basic human rights, let alone the additional ones that we take for granted in our country. We have a major part to play, in Scotland and internationally, in making human rights a reality for all our citizens.
14:46
Last month, the Parliament voted by a large majority to reaffirm its support for the Human Rights Act 1998 and the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into the devolution statute. Today, we celebrate the first annual report of the Scottish national action plan on human rights, we look forward to the work that SNAP intends to progress and we highlight the benefits of a human rights approach to policy development and the provision of services.
The requirement to abide by the ECHR when legislating and the UK ratification of seven of the 10 core international human rights instruments do not mean that human rights are embedded in our culture. Far from it. As the cabinet secretary said, we face many gaps in human rights in Scotland. There is systematic poverty and social exclusion, economic and health inequality, and discrimination on the basis of gender, ethnicity, disability, mental health and socioeconomic background. The rights of clients and patients in hospitals, care homes and the care system in general are too often not adequately protected. Later today we will debate violence against women. Domestic and sexual abuse are examples of not only abuses of human rights but a failure to embed human rights in our culture.
There is much to do and much progress to be made. However much we legislate and attempt to lead by example, Governments and Parliaments cannot make that progress alone. For example, equal representation of men and women in the Parliament and the Cabinet is a worthy aim, and a female First Minister is an excellent role model, but unless all that is accompanied by a change in culture, it will not result in equal opportunity for girls and women. It will not prevent almost one in five women in Scotland from suffering sexual assault and a similar number from suffering domestic abuse. It will not reverse the underemployment of qualified women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
We need only look to America to see how leading by example, important though that is, is not enough. There, a black president is in his second term of office, but African Americans still suffer disproportionate disadvantage, and very recently we saw the lack of value that the country’s law enforcement and legal system places on African American lives.
SNAP is unusual and welcome, in that it is not Government led. It involves more than 40 organisations and, as we heard, its delivery will be overseen by a leadership panel made up of 27 representatives from a wide range of public sector and third sector organisations. One of the five human rights action groups that have been set up under SNAP aims—unsurprisingly—to embed human rights in our culture. If people are to understand human rights, we need better information to be provided and human rights education to be introduced in schools. I was interested to hear what the cabinet secretary announced in that regard.
Far too often, the media denigrate human rights and suggest that a human rights approach is some sort of offenders’ or terrorists’ charter. However, human rights are fundamentally about equality, defending the rights of all of us and addressing the inequalities and injustices that too many of our citizens suffer. Human rights can illuminate our approach to a range of equalities issues—gender, sexuality, disability, race, poverty and sectarianism, to mention a few. A human rights approach to health and social care should inform how young people who leave care are supported, shape the support that carers require and recognise the right of all people to independent living and dignity. The better lives action group is considering developing a network of local champions, who will work to create a bottom-up approach to person-centred policy development.
As the report notes,
“There is limited understanding of human rights as a lens through which to view the problems of poverty and inadequate living standards in Scotland.”
Those issues will be the focus of an innovation forum next week, which will include people who have personal experience of poverty as well as representatives of civic society, the public sector and the Government. That is important.
The connection between justice and human rights may be more widely recognised; nevertheless, many people in Scotland still experience limited access to justice. SNAP therefore aims to improve access to justice for children, people on low incomes, disabled people and the survivors of sexual and domestic violence and abuse. That includes the survivors of historic sexual abuse, and I ask the cabinet secretary to reconsider the requests for an inquiry into historic sexual abuse.
Police Scotland has a commitment to embed human rights in its structures and cultures, but issues such as stop and search and the—thankfully now reversed—decision to routinely deploy armed police suggest that there is still some way to go in embedding a culture of human rights in our law enforcement.
Importantly, SNAP also recognises our international obligations. It requires a greater understanding of and engagement with the obligations that are imposed on us by United Nations treaties that the United Kingdom has ratified.
Labour welcomes the first annual report, and we look forward to progress and actions that truly embed human rights into all that we do, including all the legislation that we pass and all the policy that we develop.
14:51
Scotland’s national action plan is a very well-crafted and structured report, and it is one that belongs to dozens of organisations. I pay tribute to the numerous individuals and organisations that have contributed to it in its first year. The plan is particularly impressive not just for its successes over the past 12 months but for its inclusive and collaborative approach. There is therefore a tangible sense of ownership as various stakeholders take responsibility for devising and delivering activities in their areas of expertise under the guidance of the leadership panel.
This is no report devised from the top down that, after completion, will merely gather dust on a shelf. It is a live, vibrant plan that, from inception to completion and on to implementation, has at its very core the co-operation, inclusion and collaboration of more than 40 organisations throughout Scotland. The drawing together of Scottish Government departments, third sector organisations and companies is no mean feat, nor is the bringing together of stakeholders to participate in the process of constructive accountability and independent monitoring.
Crucially, the plan focuses on outcomes rather than processes or recommendations for recommendations’ sake. Significantly, all the 14 or so European Union action plans except Scotland’s are Government led. Therefore, Scotland’s national action plan has deservedly attracted international recognition even in its infancy, and it will no doubt continue to do so as it gathers steam in its second year.
This is a Justice Committee-led debate, and the plan has an important part to play in helping the committee to carry out its monitoring and scrutiny of vital issues, which—although this is not an exhaustive list—include the following. Access to justice is a fundamental human right that needs to be recognised in the budget and sufficiently resourced to protect the rights of communities and individuals. Corroboration is a central tenet of Scots law that is designed to safeguard against miscarriages of justice, but it is now under threat. Stop and search is a tool that must be used sensibly and proportionately. The arming of the police is a policy that, in its implementation, must be open, transparent, accountable and proportionate while, at the same time, ensuring the public’s protection. The action group on justice and safety’s focus on training and accountability in policing is therefore extremely welcome, while its other priorities will help to inform the Justice Committee’s work going forward.
However, the plan goes beyond the structures and culture of policing by identifying ways to improve access to justice for children and the survivors of violence and abuse. Sadly, the issue is very much live, given the allegations of historic abuse that have been made in Scotland, for example by former pupils at the Roman Catholic Fort Augustus school on Loch Ness and former residents of the Nazareth house in Aberdeen and Larchgrove boys home in Glasgow. Rotherham has dominated the public consciousness since it emerged earlier this year that 1,400 children were sexually exploited there between 1997 and 2013.
During his evidence to the Justice Committee, Professor Miller said:
“an apology law ... is very much part of the draft action plan”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 18 February 2014; c 4220.]
concerning victims of historic child abuse. I sincerely hope therefore that my proposed apologies (Scotland) bill, which is currently with Scottish Parliament drafters, will make some progress in that regard, in the context of civil litigation.
I look forward to year 2 of the Scottish national action plan and confirm that the Scottish Conservatives are pleased to support the motion.
We will now have a short open debate.
14:56
I refer to my entry in the register of interests, which states that I am a member of the Faculty of Advocates and Amnesty International.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this short debate. Human rights are an integral part of this Parliament and long may they remain so. Whatever the intentions of the Conservative Party, I believe that there is a very limited appetite in Scotland to replace the European convention with any type of British bill of rights. Indeed the UK bill of rights commission made that clear in the findings of its final report, dated December 2012.
Human rights do not exist in a vacuum; they are there to protect individual citizens. Although in convention terms political and civic rights rather than economic and social rights are foremost, there is no doubt that the jurisprudence of the European court, in interpreting the convention as a living instrument, has responded to the changing needs of society over the past 60 years.
We should not just think of rights in terms of fair trials, freedom of expression and the right to resist arbitrary arrest—important though those things are—but recognise their wider role. For example, we should accept the relevance of article 3—the provision prohibiting torture and inhuman and degrading treatment—to conditions in care homes, as indeed the SHRC does.
Scotland has a proud record in protecting and promoting human rights. Both the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission—in respect of reserved matters—and the SHRC have a role to play. As Christine Grahame indicated, the Scottish national action plan for human rights is a recognition that this Parliament takes human rights seriously.
A year ago we debated the launch of SNAP—the first such action plan in the UK. It is a road map—whether that term is clichéd, as the convener suggested, or not—for the realisation of all internationally recognised human rights, although it is perhaps better described as a Scottish approach.
SNAP has identified three outcomes: better culture, better lives and a better world. On better culture, Amnesty International says in its helpful briefing:
“The design and delivery of SNAP has been engaging, participative and innovative. A wide range of organisations and individuals have been involved from the very beginning of the process. The very act of bringing together a diverse group in this way is already starting to have an impact on how civic Scotland views human rights.”
Amnesty International goes on to state that the fact that so many organisations and individuals have devoted time and resources to SNAP demonstrates a great deal of commitment in civic Scotland to human rights, which I hope that this Parliament reflects.
Better lives is clearly a very wide area but in health and social care, embarking as it is on an important journey of integration, there can surely be no better time to demonstrate the importance of a human rights framework. I welcome the creation of the SNAP health and social care action group, which is one of five such action groups set up to date.
There would seem to be a far greater acceptance of the need for a person-centred approach to care. As a corollary to that, attempts to build a career structure in the care sector would seem to me to substantially improve the likelihood of successful outcomes for patients and reinforce respect for them.
There are, of course, real issues for disabled people and others who are not being recognised. Inclusion Scotland points out in its briefing that the current programme of welfare reform is having a devastating and disproportionate impact on disabled people. It suggests that the prime motivation behind the replacement of disability living allowance has been not to empower disabled people with the same freedom, choice, dignity and control as other citizens, but to cut the welfare budget.
The justice and safety group will develop a human rights-based strategy on violence against women and will no doubt look carefully at human trafficking.
The Scottish Human Rights Commission has a crucial role in relation to the better world outcome. The SHRC has, of course, warned that Conservative proposals to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 jeopardise the rights of the people of Scotland and has stressed the importance of opposition from the Scottish Government and Parliament to that proposal. However, as the SHRC has also pointed out, this is an important year for the UK and, indeed, Scotland in international human rights terms, as the UK will examine its civil and political rights.
SNAP has made a good start. Let us wish it well for the coming year.
15:00
It does not seem long since I last spoke in the chamber about human rights. However, the issue is important and deserves its second outing in a month, especially as we now have a new Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights who might be less keen on excluding Scotland and withholding funding from the UK Supreme Court. I am still not sure why the previous Cabinet Secretary for Justice thought that it was a good idea to bar Scottish people from using that channel to protect their human rights. Who knows where that would have led?
Of course, the previous Cabinet Secretary for Justice was not the only one to propose tinkering with our human rights. The Tories have launched an offensive on human rights, which is rooted in their distrust of all things European, such as the European Court of Human Rights, which they accuse of mission creep.
The Tories also blame Labour for extending human rights. I am happy to help shoulder such blame but, as I referred to Labour’s proud record in the previous debate, we can take it as read and I will spare members the details this time. Suffice it to say that I fully support our continued membership of the ECHR. Although the Scotland Act 1998 prevents the repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 in Scotland, I oppose any attempt to undermine it in the UK and, indeed, any attempt to undermine human rights anywhere.
The focus of the debate is the Scottish national action plan for human rights, which is also known by its snappier title, SNAP. It will be one year old on 10 December, which is human rights day. Indeed, it is something of a season for human rights, with the 16 days of action against violence against women that is the subject of the next debate and, only two days ago, the international day for the abolition of slavery. Human trafficking is propagating modern slavery in Scotland. We need legislation to tackle that and I look forward to the Government’s proposed bill, which was promised as a response to Jenny Marra’s member’s bill proposal.
The Scottish Human Rights Commission and SNAP’s leadership panel are to be congratulated on the development of the plan and the progress that they have made with it, as are the other organisations that have been involved with its forums and action groups.
There is no shortage of challenges in human rights and equalities. For example, as the Scottish Human Rights Commission highlighted in its briefing:
“There is a recognised need for existing resources to be directed towards delivering the commitments made in SNAP”.
The challenges are far reaching. That is reflected by the five action groups that are tackling the SNAP commitments to build a better human rights culture, to improve social, economic, health and justice outcomes and to fulfil our international obligations. I hope that the Scottish Government will take on board the ideas that they have contributed and the issues that they have highlighted and that those will lead to further guidance, policy or legislation as appropriate.
The question of SNAP’s future status remains. I would welcome clarification from the Scottish Government of how it plans to consolidate the work of SNAP and ensure its continuation.
15:04
SNAP has made an impact and good progress in its first year. It is good to have an opportunity to debate it today ahead of international human rights day on 10 December.
Members have already spoken about SNAP’s practical value in raising awareness of, understanding of and respect for human rights throughout the Government, public service and communities. The annual report notes that there is still a lack of understanding among decision makers and front-line workers about the value of human rights, so I welcome the cabinet secretary’s announcement of an awareness-raising campaign on why rights matter and how to claim those rights. That is vital because, as the Scottish Human Rights Commission stresses,
“good intentions do not always translate into good practice.”
There is no better example of that than stop and search, which, as the year 1 report suggests, has proven to be an early test for SNAP. Last week, I chaired a meeting of the cross-party group on children and young people that focused on the impact of that tactic. Representatives of the Scottish Human Rights Commission and Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People told Police Scotland in no uncertain terms that the use of voluntary stop and search was indefensible from a human rights perspective. Every encounter that involves a purposeless, unwarranted search of the public is a distinct intrusion that is incompatible with article 8 of the convention. On any level, let alone the current industrial scale on which it is practised, it is intolerable.
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not have much time.
I am still astonished that this Government permits the police to conduct hundreds of thousands of these violations each year. It is even more baffling, because they do not need to. The police possess a range of legitimate statutory search powers, which are rightly based on intelligence and suspicion of wrongdoing. Even the Scottish Police Authority concluded that there is no robust evidence that voluntary stop and search prevents crime. I intend to press the new Cabinet Secretary for Justice to reflect on that and to back my efforts to ensure that all searches are regulated, accountable and rooted in law.
Given that all three of the organisations that I mentioned play a leading role in developing and enacting SNAP, the difference in views between the SHRC, the children’s commissioner and the police was telling, and it reminds us just how much more work needs to be done and how many conversations need to be had and procedures changed before we can hope to realise our ambition of having a mature democracy that truly respects and protects the rights of all.
That is why effectively measuring progress and identifying tangible targets are key to understanding year-on-year advances. I welcome the fact that the monitoring progress group has been established to do just that, and I was interested to read that its focus in 2015 will be to involve those
“whose rights are directly affected by SNAP.”
That is admirable, but those whose rights are most frequently infringed are often disenfranchised, vulnerable or unrepresented. We are talking about vulnerable elderly people who are subjected to medical restraint through prescribed drugs; children who are exposed to so-called justifiable assault, despite the calls of the United Nations to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement; the 202 young people who last year received treatment for mental health problems in non-specialist wards; those who have to wait for more than six months to access essential child and adolescent mental health services treatment, as occurred in half of national health service boards; and people such as Fiona, who is subject to a guardianship order. She recently told me that she is incredibly frustrated that she is not supported in taking the decisions that she is capable of taking. Instead, all rights to control her life have been removed.
It will not always be easy to identify such people, let alone make contact with them and have the opportunity to listen to them, but doing so is critical to understanding and enhancing the impact of SNAP. It will help to build public support for human rights by demonstrating that they are not remote or obstructive legal concepts, and it will help to ensure that SNAP makes a difference to the lives of people across Scotland.
We come to the closing speeches.
15:08
I am pleased to close this short debate for the Scottish Conservatives.
In the chamber at this time last year, members expressed their cross-party support for Scotland’s national action plan for human rights. One year on, it is clear that the consensus remains. I am pleased not only that that is the case, but that the plan has made its mark and significant progress since its inauguration on international human rights day last year.
Britain has a proud tradition of human rights and they remain a central part of what this country does to promote good practice around the world. In his remarks to the Justice Committee in February this year, Professor Alan Miller highlighted that SNAP—although it was then in its infancy—had already attracted considerable international interest, as well as support from the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva. That is testament to the work of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, the plan’s leadership panel and all its stakeholders.
However, it would be doing a great disservice to the debate if we were not to highlight the difficulties that human rights legislation can find itself in as far as the public perception of human rights is concerned. Two YouGov polls carried out within the past four years found that more than 70 per cent of the public believed that human rights legislation was being manipulated to favour criminals and that its scope was being too widely applied in a manner that was never intended. Here, the inclusive approach that Scotland’s national action plan takes and the addressing of wide-ranging issues, from health to justice issues, all of which matter to people in Scotland, will, I believe, go a considerable way towards redressing that balance.
Furthermore, there is a need to ensure that all the relevant information is made available when an issue is being scrutinised. For example, when acute concerns were raised over the use of stop and search, that led to an inquiry, undertaken by the Scottish Police Authority. It published its findings in May this year. Amnesty International, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Scottish Human Rights Commission were initially on the list of witnesses but ultimately were not invited by the SPA to give evidence. However, advocates of the policy, including Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Federation and the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, all provided substantial input. It is clear that what happened was certainly not in the spirit of the collaborative approach of Scotland’s national action plan.
On a more positive note, Police Scotland has committed to contributing towards the implementation of the plan, which should help to further embed human rights within the structures and culture of policing. As we move to year 2 of the plan, I am sure that the committee will look forward to monitoring not only Police Scotland’s progress in implementing the plan, but the implementation by all the other justice-related bodies.
15:12
I welcome the cabinet secretary to his new duties and responsibilities and look forward to seeing an energetic response to the issues around human rights.
It is often fashionable to record that human rights are one of Scotland’s traditional values—I know that the cabinet secretary said that in good faith. Although at the highest level, we would reflect that in all that we seek to do, in reality we would not need SNAP or committees to oversee these matters if we had reached the level of development of our society such that human rights are taken as a matter of course and are no longer thought about. The fact that so many examples have been given during the debate—in a non-contentious fashion, I hope—indicates that there is much work to be done, and that work needs to be led by the Parliament and the groups involved.
I thank the Justice Committee, the authors of the plan and the 40 organisations involved in developing the plan. The work that they do in our name and on our behalf is absolutely vital if each of us is to be allowed to play our full part in what a modern Scotland is to be in the future.
Human rights are easily identified when each of us considers the rights and entitlements that we see as inalienable for ourselves. The cultural and other challenges come to be faced and are clear when we visualise what limits we would seek to put on other people’s rights—those of the disabled, children, prisoners in our custody, migrants, asylum seekers, victims of crime and people who suffered historical abuse as children and still await a public inquiry. I remind the cabinet secretary—or I tell him this if he is unaware of it—that the former Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning promised a commitment from the Government before the December break on whether there will be an inquiry into those matters. Survivors are waiting for that with bated breath.
For each of those categories, the idea of human rights can cause the hackles to rise in some part of our community. We need to face that challenge and use evidence to ensure that people realise that, in reality, it is poverty and the weaknesses in our approach to gender and ethnic background that play a major role in determining the opportunities that people can access in delivering on their own future.
Mr Neil said that there are gaps to be filled. I encourage him to fill them, and I will give him every support in his efforts to do so. I recommend that he reanalyse our national approach to freedom of information and the granting of information to citizens and those who represent them. Each and every one of us faces difficulties when we make applications for information, and the way in which data protection legislation is administered is felt across the country.
We should seek a response that delivers not on the words of the legislation but on its spirit, with openness to evidence and facts, so that citizens can trust the authorities to make rational decisions on the basis of all the information that is available to them. When we arrive at that state of being, we will know that each and every one of us can access all that Scottish society can bring to us and that we can be a stable and forward-looking society.
We support the motion.
15:16
As the issue of survivors of historic child abuse has been mentioned a couple of times, I confirm that Angela Constance, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, will update the chamber on that before the Christmas recess. I am sure that a specific time will be set aside for that through the Parliamentary Bureau.
The debate has been a good one, albeit very short. It has been broadly consensual, although there have been one or two barbs, but that is always the case and it is the sign of a healthy debate. I slightly disagree with Graeme Pearson’s point that there will, hopefully, come a day when we do not need commissions, watchdogs and all the rest of it. I think that human rights is one of those areas in which, no matter who is in power and how much is written into legislation, we all need to be continually on our watch, individually and collectively, to ensure that there is no erosion of human rights and that there is continuing enhancement.
The point that I poorly made was that I would like a state of grace in which human beings, as a matter of nature, acknowledge one another’s human rights, without the need for Governments of any colour to intervene.
I think that we would all agree with that. I am reminded of the tremendous philosopher Albert Camus, whose theory about rebellion was that, no matter what shade of Government is in power, even if one agrees with it, the best source of progress to ensure that citizens’ rights are protected is always to have one or two rebels to challenge the Government and Parliament. I actually think that Christine Grahame may be related to Albert Camus.
I am ready.
The issue extends into a wide range of policy areas. As an MSP for a constituency that has many pockets of deprivation, I see many aspects of the operation of housing policy, for example, that frankly do not provide the human rights of tenants or of potential tenants in some situations. That is another example of the many areas in which we all have to be on our guard and take whatever action is necessary at whatever level is necessary to ensure that the human rights of our citizens are promoted and protected.
There is a distinction between our overall attitude and the consensual basis in Scotland and the approach of at least some UK politicians. In David Cameron’s speech to the Conservative Party conference earlier this year, he committed his party to scrapping the Human Rights Act 1998 and replacing it with a so-called British bill of rights and responsibilities. I place on record again the Scottish Government’s strong opposition to the idea of a British bill of rights to replace the Human Rights Act 1998, because we believe that that would be a cover to scale back current protections. Last month, the Parliament united around the principle of refusing consent for that.
We are also part of the Council of Europe, which, of course, predates the European Union by a considerable time—at least 10 years. Some 47 countries across Europe have committed themselves to democracy, human rights and the rule of law through the Council of Europe. As the cabinet secretary with responsibility for human rights, I will stand shoulder to shoulder with the Scottish Human Rights Commission and others to ensure that the Human Rights Act 1998 remains on the statute book in our country and that we continue to be part of the convention system that upholds our fundamental rights on a daily basis. When I am in London next month, I intend to seek meetings with human rights organisations so that I can make that position clear, as well as establishing closer co-operation on cross-border issues in relation to human rights with some notable organisations at the forefront of the human rights agenda.
We are not unique in the values that we hold and the commitments that we display. We are no more precious than anyone else. As I have implied, these are features of many of our closest European neighbours, who take a similar, if not identical, approach to human rights and the role of human rights legislation throughout Europe in protecting the rights of our citizens.
However, we have something that can probably be called a Scottish approach. It is not necessarily better than everyone else’s, but it fits with our approach to serving our communities in that it focuses on achieving outcomes and delivering real improvements. Our approach is grounded in an assets-based response to the challenges facing individuals and communities and seeks solutions through co-production. Those are all part of a human rights view of the world, which puts real people at the centre of everything that we do and works to empower, include and enable. That perspective is one of the fundamental strengths of SNAP. It is a co-produced response to the challenge of delivering on human rights for everyone in Scotland, not a top-down approach to human rights from Government or Parliament.
Ultimately, it is for nations, through their institutions and public services, to ensure that human rights are protected, respected and realised for our citizens. SNAP will play a central part in turning the values and principles of the legislation into a practical reality for the people of Scotland. We are committed to playing our part in that journey, and I look forward to returning to the chamber annually to discuss the progress that we are making in pursuit of SNAP’s ultimate vision of a Scotland where everyone lives with fundamental human dignity. When we next return to this matter, I hope that we will have made progress on a range of the issues that have been discussed this afternoon.
I call John Finnie to respond to the debate on behalf of the committee.
15:22
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am a member of Amnesty International.
As the Justice Committee’s rapporteur on the SNAP process, I welcome the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of the committee. Like our convener and the other members, I am pleased that the committee is engaged in the SNAP process and I am delighted that we have secured this inaugural debate, which comes a few days before international human rights day.
I, too, am glad that the SNAP process is up and running. I congratulate Professor Miller and the SNAP leadership panel on a productive first year. I commend the panel on a first-class annual report and I echo many members’ comments about its user-friendly nature. Perhaps that is a point on which other public bodies could act.
It was particularly encouraging to hear from Professor Miller last week that the human rights approach that is taken in Scotland is perceived internationally as being one of the most collaborative in Europe. Having spoken to Professor Miller today at another meeting, I know that he has just returned from the Ukraine. It is great that Scotland’s position on human rights is viewed positively on the international stage.
Securing this debate has been a positive development and I have enjoyed listening to the speeches.
The convener spoke about the comprehensive résumé of SNAP and outlined the role that the Justice Committee plays in that regard. Of particular significance was the phrase, “all the time”, because we consider human rights as regards all aspects of our undertaking.
I welcome the cabinet secretary to his new portfolio. I commend his use of the words, “protected, respected and realised”. That is terribly important, and he certainly outlined values that everyone in the chamber would sign up to, not least those of democratic renewal and the gaps that are to be filled. Like others, I welcome the announcement. Raising awareness is terribly important.
Elaine Murray talked about the Human Rights Act 1998 and the recent vote that we had. She said that human rights are not embedded in our law and listed some of the challenges that that gives rise to. She also talked about the need for cultural change—particularly with a gender perspective—around a number of women’s issues. That was important.
Margaret Mitchell referred to the action plan as being inclusive and collaborative in approach, which is entirely right. She went on to talk about the effect that that has on ownership of the plan, describing it as a live and vibrant plan. She laid out some of the criminal justice challenges that come with human rights. I commend the apologies legislation to which Margaret Mitchell alluded and welcome Conservative Party support for the motion.
Roderick Campbell talked about the need to protect the individual citizen and the wider role of human rights in that, particularly with reference to care homes. The suggestion of a career structure for workers in that important industry is an important one. Roderick Campbell also talked about the commitment of civic Scotland to human rights and the approach that we have seen there.
If I understood him correctly, John Pentland commendably said that he would oppose any attempt to undermine human rights, and I hope that we would all subscribe to that. He talked about the connection between violence against women and slavery and, like him, I hope for the bill that has come out of Jenny Marra’s hard work in that field.
Alison McInnes talked about why rights matter and awareness. She mentioned the issue that has exercised a number of committees: stop and search and the voluntary versus statutory nature of that. That particular example highlights the competing element of the rights-based approach. She also talked about the measuring process and the rights of the disenfranchised, citing mental health patients. That is a recurring theme.
Is the member aware that the Public Petitions Committee, which I have the honour of convening, has recently heard a petition that argues that the lack of legal aid for defamation cases breaches human rights? Does the member agree?
Access to justice is a fundamental human right and there are challenges around the financing of such legal aid along with competing demands. Certainly if access to justice is not achieved it is a right denied.
Graeme Pearson talked about freedom of information and the fact that the citizen needs to trust the authorities. That is very important.
The action plan is a bold and holistic vision covering a number of policy areas that are being looked at. Health and social care was mentioned along with the rights in there that are used to justify the safety of individuals. The work that is being done to ensure justice for the victims of historic child abuse is particularly welcome, as is the development of a comprehensive human rights strategy on violence against women, and I think that we will hear more about that later this afternoon.
The action that SNAP is taking to embed human rights in the structures and culture of policing is obviously of considerable interest to the Justice Committee and the sub-committee on policing. We will watch developments there with interest, particularly as we consider the issues of stop and search and armed police. We certainly welcome SNAP’s focus on those key areas.
The Justice Committee has sought to consider human rights in our everyday work. We have asked difficult questions of decision makers on issues such as police complaints and investigations, prison monitoring and visiting arrangements, women offenders, modern slavery and, of course, stop and search. As we consider the Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Bill, human rights considerations will be at the forefront of our minds, as they will be when we consider the human trafficking legislation and the legislation on fatal accident inquiries.
As rapporteur, I will continue to meet Professor Alan Miller to discuss the progress of SNAP. The committee will continue to engage constructively on those issues. As the convener said, we will be a critical friend of the process and will support the leadership panel in delivering SNAP while holding it and its partners to account to ensure that its objectives are delivered.
The second Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dag Hammarskjöld, said:
“‘Freedom from fear’ could be said to sum up the whole philosophy of human rights.”
As a Parliament we want to help to build a Scotland of confident and fearless citizens who are able to reach their potential free from fear, free from barriers and free from discrimination. With the European convention on human rights incorporated into Scots law under the Scotland Act 1998, this Parliament has human rights embedded in its DNA.
I very much enjoyed today’s debate. I welcome the SNAP annual report and the fact that there have already been tangible results. I welcome the fact that SNAP is gaining international renown and I welcome its ambition for a sustainable human rights culture in all areas of our lives.
I hope that we as a Parliament, we as a Justice Committee and we as individual members and citizens can help to turn that ambition into reality by 2018.
I support Christine Grahame’s motion.
Previous
Food Train (Meal Makers Project)