Human Rights
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-05556, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on promoting and protecting human rights in Scotland, Europe and the wider world.
15:53
I will open the debate by talking about values, the principles that lie at the heart of this Parliament, Scotland’s deep-rooted attachment to concepts of fairness, justice and equality and the ideals that unite us all across the chamber without regard to party allegiance or political difference. Those values are reflected in the Scotland Act 1998, which embedded human rights in the practice and purpose of Parliament and Government, and they are part of a shared commitment to improvement, to doing better and to making a difference to the everyday lives of real people.
This debate celebrates both our efforts in Scotland to make rights real for ordinary people and the existence of an overarching international framework of human rights law that helps to safeguard the vulnerable and the oppressed throughout the world. It also recognises the need for us to re-commit ourselves to making a difference to the lived lives of people in Scotland and, through the role that Scotland can play internationally now and in future, to helping to ensure that rights are protected, respected and promoted.
Why are human rights important? As Eleanor Roosevelt—the driving force behind the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights—famously said:
“Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home - so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm, or office where he works ... Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere.”
The minister mentioned the workplace. During the past few months, we have seen exposed the human rights abuse of workers who have been blacklisted, which is a scandal that might still be occurring in Scotland. Will the minister support the Parliament conducting an inquiry into that issue?
I think that there are inquiries into that issue taking place right now and I know that the member has a great deal of interest in that. However, I am trying to take the debate on to an overarching level and discussion of wider values. [Interruption.] I am not entirely clear why the Labour front bench seems to think that that is so funny, but I will attempt to keep the tone of the debate elevated.
Human rights are not just principles on a page, nor are they a charter for criminals, as has often been said. They are a concept and a reality that are of fundamental importance to us all.
Every day, the Government works to progressively realise the fundamental rights of the people of Scotland. Reforms to policing, the criminal justice system and the health and social care sectors have human rights at their heart. Legislation on the rights of children and young people, and of victims and witnesses will be introduced this year.
I will take a moment to address the Labour Party’s proposed amendment to the motion. Members will be aware that we take human trafficking very seriously. Our aim is to make Scotland a hostile place for traffickers. We are demonstrating leadership on that issue and progressing actions that were agreed at the high-level summit that was chaired by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in October last year. We have already made it clear that we will introduce a specific human trafficking statutory aggravation to ensure that, when trafficking forms the background to an offence, the court can take that into account.
Secondly, the summit agreed that there was a need to review the wider legislative framework for trafficking and identify any potential improvements to be made or gaps to be filled. That work is progressing with key partners, who met this morning. The group will report back in the middle of this year so, in a sense, we are already doing what Labour wants us to do and we have no problem accepting the amendment.
It is within the wider perspective that we should be looking to address the wide-ranging challenges that are inherent in giving full effect to the rights of all. The Scottish Government is certainly of the view that everyone in Scotland should be able to access their rights. Indeed, if there is a theme that distinguishes this Government, it is a belief that individuals, communities and nations have a fundamental right to make decisions for themselves, to take responsibility, to exercise capacity, and to direct their own affairs. When Scotland votes in 2014, there will be, I hope, opportunities to take what we have already achieved to a new level, with new powers and a heightened sense of ambition.
As the First Minister noted in London recently, the time is ripe for a debate on how Scotland guarantees and implements rights, and how we ensure that constitutional guarantees place the person at the centre of the system rather than at the bottom or at the margins. That includes the economic, social and cultural rights that are already reflected in the constitutions of many other democratic, modern nations. With that in mind, I warmly welcome the initiative by Scotland’s national human rights institution, the Scottish Human Rights Commission, to facilitate the development of Scotland’s first national action plan on human rights. The United Nations describes that approach as an international example of best practice in ensuring that the human rights within a jurisdiction are assured and not assumed. Other progressive jurisdictions such as Sweden and New Zealand have such plans and I welcome the fact that Scotland is joining them.
The Scottish Government is certainly committed to playing its part in the development of a plan with realistic actions and measurable outcomes. The direction of travel is promising; we are delivering a step change in public service delivery and an increasingly focused approach to tackling inequality.
I hope to see a plan that goes with the grain of those developments and feel it particularly important to rebut any suggestion that this will somehow be a plan for the Scottish Government alone to deliver on; instead, I see it as an exercise in co-production, co-operation and empowerment. Its ultimate success will be founded on a principle of shared ownership across this chamber, the wider public sector and the whole of Scottish society. It will be Scotland’s plan.
This year, 2013, is an important year for human rights in Scotland. The debate can arouse strong passions and polarise opinions and I find it a bit worrying that parts of the United Kingdom Government are demanding the scaling back and, in some cases, wholesale removal of the domestic framework of human rights in the UK. The discourse of some in London is coloured by what seems to me a certain parochialism and a perception of human rights as an inconvenient barrier. The Westminster debate is sadly out of touch with real people’s needs. In Scotland, however, human rights are a positive thing. They are part of the very fabric of our society, which not only celebrates community and belonging but looks outwards to what the international community can teach us and how we might better ourselves as a nation.
In bringing this debate to the Parliament, we wish to achieve—
Will the minister give way?
Yes, of course.
I get the impression that the minister is coming to the end of her remarks, but she has not yet said much about the international situation. Can she say something about the role that the First Minister has taken in promoting human rights internationally—for example, when he visits places such as Qatar that have somewhat dubious human rights records?
With the greatest of respect, I think that that question would be better asked by someone not in a party whose Government is busily doing in other parts of the world things that anyone might suggest are transgressions of human rights. The Minister for External Affairs and International Development is, as the member might have noticed, sitting beside me in the chamber for the very reason that we will address the issue that he has raised. I have addressed myself to the SHRC national plan for human rights because it is the trigger for this debate and what I want everyone in the chamber to consider. Equally, however, we want a conversation about international human rights, and my colleague Humza Yousaf will address that issue directly.
That said, members should take care not to express themselves with a degree of hypocrisy on this matter. With the very greatest of respect, I have not noticed any activity on the part of Westminster Governments of either the Conservative or Labour Party that any of us might consider to be appropriate, not least the promulgation of what was frankly little more than an illegal war. I will listen to what members in the chamber have to say, but if we are talking about international human rights we should talk about all human rights, including those of the people who have been violated over many years by Westminster Governments of both parties.
I am kind of sorry that we had to get into this issue—
Will the minister give way?
No. I am now in the last 20 seconds of the 10 minutes that I have been allocated and, in that time, I want to talk about the situation in Scotland in 2013. I invite members to support the motion and want them to reaffirm the Scottish Parliament’s commitment to the vision of an inclusive Scotland and a more equitable world in which human rights and fundamental freedoms are truly central to the lives of all.
I move,
That the Parliament reaffirms the importance in a modern, democratic Scotland of the values proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; acknowledges and asserts the inalienable rights enumerated in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and enshrined in international treaty; dedicates itself once more to the vision of an inclusive Scotland that respects, protects and realises the human rights of all; commends the work of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, Scotland’s independent national human rights institution; looks forward to the development of Scotland’s first national action plan for human rights over the course of 2013, and embraces the opportunities presented by Scotland’s engagement in the wider world to promote respect for the universal and indivisible rights of all of humanity.
16:04
I was sincerely hoping that the minister would set a serious tone for what is a serious debate and talk about the reality of human rights in the lives of people in Scotland. Nevertheless, I thank the Government for bringing the important issue of human rights to the chamber.
The Labour Party has a strong record of promoting human rights. Clement Attlee’s Government was one of the first signatories to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and it ratified the European convention on human rights in 1951. As one of its first actions in 1997, the Labour Government incorporated the European convention into UK law. Every act of this Parliament is required to be compliant with the convention or it is nullified.
Since the coming into effect of the Human Rights Act 1998, citizens the length and breadth of this country and throughout the United Kingdom have enjoyed the protection of the convention. Of course, the Human Rights Act 1998 is still in its formative years, with its effect taking shape in our courts every day, but it has already resulted in some of the biggest changes to our law in recent times. For instance, the Cadder case established the right to legal representation for people who are held for questioning in Scotland.
Labour believes that the important task is to get on with that job of making human rights a reality in all our lives by ensuring that they are daily afforded to people. Each and every day, we need to protect the rights of those who are affected by welfare reform. We need to protect the rights of vulnerable children in this country. We need to weave human rights into the fabric of our communities through the laws that we pass and the policies that we advance in the chamber now. We can do that using the immense powers that we have.
Our amendment—I thank the Government for indicating that it will support it—seeks to advance that cause specifically in relation to human trafficking, which is a human rights abuse that is happening in our towns and cities today. Human trafficking happens under our noses but is, unfortunately, largely undetected. Here in the Parliament we have the power to take concerted action against that trafficking. The victims of trafficking in Scotland cannot wait for a written constitution that would enshrine their rights, nor do they need to do so. The Government in power in Scotland, sitting over there to my right, already has the power that it needs to make a big impact on that human rights abuse today—now.
If I were to stop any Scot on the street outside the Parliament building and ask whether there are people who have been sold into this country, who are living in our towns against their will, to work in the sex industry or in forced labour, most likely I would not be believed. It is hard to accept that such an issue is alive in our communities. People would be further shocked if I were to tell them that there are young people incarcerated in our prisons tonight, having been convicted of drug offences, who we believe were trafficked into this country to work on drug farms. Young people are being incarcerated in Scotland who have been convicted of crimes as a result of coercion and deception by others. Such human rights abuses are taking place in Scotland under our very noses, and those youngsters are sitting in our prisons tonight.
Does the member intend to make any mention of the role that the United Kingdom Border Agency plays in the issue, or will she simply ignore that aspect?
As my co-convener of the cross-party group on human trafficking will know, we are dealing with a multifaceted problem, to which the UKBA is part of the solution. However, my point is that this Parliament has a lot of powers that we can properly use to tackle and prevent the issue of trafficking. For that reason, I am glad that the Government will accept our amendment, but I want to talk a bit more about the powers that we already have to tackle human rights abuses in our communities. The minister will surely agree that she would want to use all the powers at her fingertips to do as much as she can to prevent those human rights abuses.
Can the member name a single solitary person who she knows has escaped due process with regard to trafficking? Can she name one?
I am not sure about the question that the member is asking, but let me attempt to understand it. We believe that many people who are trafficking people into this country today go undetected because the police and other front-line services are not properly trained and do not have the tools to recognise those people. To date in Scotland, there have been two successful prosecutions and five convictions for trafficking offences, but we believe that the problem is much more widespread. Due process needs to be visited on many people who are trafficking people into this country. I hope that I have answered the member’s question.
The priorities are ours to decide, and we know the flaws in our current approach to trafficking: it lacks will and direction and, as a consequence of our laws and policies, it has developed in a piecemeal fashion and victims are slipping through the net. Our law is currently split between two acts—one UK act and one act in Scotland—that give different definitions for the same crime. There is no statutory obligation to provide comprehensive mental health treatment and education services to victims, and we lack training for national health service staff, paramedics and police officers, who could do much to identify victims and give them the support that they need.
The Labour Party supports incorporating the Palermo protocol into our law. The minister has accepted our amendment, but I wonder whether she will go a little further and in closing speak about the possibility of incorporating the international gold standard, which is the Palermo protocol on trafficking.
I realise that I am running short of time, Presiding Officer.
You are.
I believe that the Parliament has the power—through control of housing, education, health and legal affairs—to put measures in place. Experts such as Helena Kennedy have set out recommendations that are within the power of the Parliament to follow. The Government could make a big move towards ending human rights abuses in Scotland by supporting our amendment, as it has done, and by committing to the Palermo protocol to prevent trafficking and human rights abuses in Scotland.
I move amendment S4M-05556.2, to insert at end:
“, and believes that tackling human trafficking should be an essential part of the national action plan for human rights, including a clear commitment to review the current law to ensure that the crime of human trafficking is defined as clearly and comprehensively as possible.”
16:11
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important topic, particularly on Scotland’s responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens and promote a similar approach abroad. There is certainly a strong element of consensus on the topic across the chamber and, despite the minister’s natural reservations, I believe that it extends across the United Kingdom. All major political parties are signed up to the importance of human rights. However, there is scope for debate on the best way in which to enforce and interpret those rights, and I will return to that point later.
It is equally important that the framework of human rights must enjoy the support and confidence of the public. That positive perception is essential and a negative perception is deeply damaging. What the public might support in theory, which is good, does not necessarily translate into support in practice, which is bad, so I will develop the theme.
I agree with the general tenor of the motion, which my party will support, and I welcome the opportunity for the Parliament to reaffirm its commitment to human rights. I also support Jenny Marra’s amendment. However, when reading the motion, I reflected on the use of the term “inalienable”. Every member of the Parliament is signed up to human rights as a set of fundamental rights that every person can expect to enjoy. Nevertheless, all rights are subject to interpretation and, crucially, they all interact with one another.
It is legitimate to explore that aspect, so I pose the question—I do so genuinely—of how we reconcile the absolute rights of, say, a victim, with the absolute rights of an assailant. Those are opposing rights. One person’s rights to a fair trial and to liberty are balanced by the other’s rights to security of person and freedom from ill-treatment. In that case, granting absolute or inalienable rights to the two individuals seems to me to be potentially irreconcilable. The use of the term “inalienable”—perhaps the minister could have picked an easier word to pronounce for the motion—therefore ignores the fact that fundamental rights can sometimes be in conflict and does not recognise that with rights come responsibilities.
Will the member give way?
I am very tight for time. I am sorry, but I want to develop my point. I hope that the member will forgive me.
Interestingly, the European convention on human rights recognises that potential conflict and very few of its articles are absolute rights—they are actually qualified by consideration of the greater good.
It is no secret that the general public’s opinion of human rights is not as positive as it could or should be and certainly as we would want it to be. A YouGov poll that was published last year found that 72 per cent of the public thought that
“human rights have become a charter for criminals and the undeserving”.
A similar poll that was published the year before found that 75 per cent of respondents believed that the Human Rights Act 1998 was
“used too widely to create rights it was never intended to protect”.
We should not ignore that or just brush it aside, because it is in the interests of those of us who champion fundamental human rights to bring the public on side and to improve that perception. As I said earlier, that negative perception by the public is deeply damaging.
It is right that the UK Government is considering reform of the human rights regime. For the benefit of the minister, I will say that it is absolutely not the case that the UK Government wants to repeal the human rights act—it is looking at replacing it with a new bill of rights, and, 15 years on from the human rights act, it is appropriate to consider whether reform could strengthen the human rights regime. Perhaps we need to look at whether there is a requirement for a shift in emphasis to achieve a balance—to get rid of that irreconcilable element as regards the rights of those who do wrong compared with the rights of the victims.
It is a paradox that lawbreakers can demand as a right a voice in lawmaking when they showed scant regard for upholding the law in the first place. That illustrates a dilemma and it illustrates one of the reasons why, sadly, the public apparently has a poor impression of the human rights framework. By considering reform, we have the opportunity to strengthen that framework and to win over the public, both of which are good for human rights in Scotland.
As I close, I hope that I can adopt a more consensual note. I know that everyone in this chamber remains absolutely committed to the importance of human rights in Scotland, in the United Kingdom and worldwide. A modern, democratic Scotland, as part of the United Kingdom, has a responsibility to promote good practice abroad. Closer to home, I note with interest the work of the Scottish Human Rights Commission on developing Scotland’s first national action plan for human rights this year.
I understand that action plans have already been drafted in around 30 countries across the world and I am sure that the national action plan in Scotland will represent a significant step towards informing and educating people about human rights as well as identifying any gaps in good practice. I certainly wish the drafters of that action plan every success.
My party will support the motion.
16:17
I warmly welcome the Scottish Government’s positive and progressive work towards Scotland’s national action plan for human rights. The action plan is a key recommendation from the UN and is championed by the Scottish Human Rights Commission.
Human rights are commonly understood as
“inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.”
Human rights are thus conceived as universal, being applicable everywhere, and egalitarian, the same for everyone. Those rights may exist as natural rights or as legal rights in both national and international law.
The doctrine of human rights—in international practice, within international law, in global and regional institutions, in the policies of states and in the activities of non-governmental organisations—has been a cornerstone of public policy around the world.
“Promoting and respecting” human rights are important aspects to a rights-based nation and a rights-based constitution. I hope that my friend and colleague the minister will agree with me that the onus is on the Government also to fulfil, and on the Parliament to oversee and ensure the fulfilment of, a human rights-based society.
The requirement is for states to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights that are contained in the treaties that they have ratified. That raises the question of what needs to be fulfilled and how we could achieve it.
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is one aspect for consideration. Those rights include, in article 11.1,
“an adequate standard of living ... and ... the continuous improvement of living conditions”.
Article 12.1 includes the right of everyone to
“the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”
and article 15.1 includes
“the right of everyone ... to take part in cultural life”.
Article 6.1 includes
“the right to work”
and free choice of employment, and
“the right ... to social security”
is covered in article 9.
It is possible that the Scottish Government and the Parliament could be called upon to inform people of all their human rights under international law, including their economic, social and cultural rights; formally and publicly recognise poverty as a violation of human rights; step up the campaign to eradicate the current stigma surrounding being poor, particularly around being on benefits, by setting it within a rights-based framework and the proper language; and commit to a human rights-based framework of policy development and impact monitoring that recognises the full range of human rights that the Scottish population is legally entitled to—including under international law—which includes the economic, social and cultural rights that I have just mentioned.
I ask the Scottish Government to consider poverty as a violation of human rights, taking into account our health record and, in some cases, our increasing poverty. The battle with welfare reform and austerity, which is being paid for by the poor, the sick and the vulnerable, is a woeful insight into what the future could hold for us all. Universal and egalitarian free prescriptions, free education and free healthcare go some way towards tackling that poverty.
I also ask the Scottish Government to highlight the deliberate refusal of UK Governments of all colours to incorporate the covenant into domestic law as they were and are committed to do. That comes on the back of William Hague’s fresh start in Europe paper, which rips us out of the EU social chapter even though that has at its heart rights that protect pensions and equal pay, the working time directive and gender and disability protection in the workplace. According to the Department for Work and Pensions’ own figures, households with the lowest incomes will be the most affected and will have the highest average change. Some 83 per cent of those households are in the bottom three deciles. They are the ones that are affected. I believe that the poorest will pay for austerity. That is not acceptable and it is a violation of human rights.
I believe that Scotland can be a beacon in the family of nations. I believe that Scotland has a universal and egalitarian outlook, as explained in the description of human rights.
You must conclude.
I believe that, with a rights-based constitution, starting with an action plan and working with our partners such as the Scottish Human Rights Commission and others across Scottish society and academia, we can and will build a progressive and a fairer nation.
16:21
I begin by welcoming the Government’s motion on human rights and saying how pleased I am by the minister’s stated intention to support Scottish Labour’s amendment.
For three years, the Scottish Human Rights Commission researched and discussed “Getting it Right? Human Rights in Scotland”. As a result of its investigations, the commission concluded that, despite progress and a relatively strong framework for human rights, Scotland needs a more systematic approach to human rights to ensure that what Scots experience is both positive and consistent.
Since 2008, the commission has been working with organisations in different sectors to help to raise the level of understanding of human rights. The commission’s five strategic priorities for 2012 to 2016 are:
“Empowering people to realise their rights through promoting greater awareness and respect for human rights.
Supporting the implementation of human rights in practice.
Improving human rights protection in Scotland through influencing law and policy.
Progressing the realisation of human rights of people in Scotland and beyond through further developing our international role.
Ensuring the Commission is effective, efficient, professional and accountable.”
Human rights should and do reach every person and institution in Scotland. However, in a short speech it is necessary to focus on a few issues only. For today, my issues will be victims, the right to work and prisoners.
It is important that the services and support network that are available to victims focus on more than merely obtaining money for victims. For victims to receive funds at a difficult time is obviously important, but they face other significant challenges as well. Help and support are required and their rights need to be respected. That is why I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government is due to introduce a victims bill shortly.
In the 2011 Scottish Labour manifesto, the party committed to applying the human rights agenda to practical effect. To that end, we called for the establishment of a charter of victims rights, the establishment of a victims commissioner to champion the enablement of that charter, the widening of the scope of the victim notification scheme, work with the Scottish sentencing council to simplify the current complicated system of discounts and increase the chance of victims and others understanding sentencing and what it means and, finally, the establishment of a victims fund.
In the area of the right to work, there has been considerable criticism from charities and the Scottish Human Rights Commission about the manner in which welfare reform is being undertaken by the UK Government. The consensus is that the approach is resulting in a retrogression in the realisation of human rights, particularly among vulnerable and marginalised people in Scotland. The commission believes that a human rights-based approach should inform the analysis and the responses to the economic crisis, offering an objective base for fair decision making.
Please begin to conclude.
It is important that we recognise that people also have a right to work, and that that right gives them a sense of well-being and an ability to play their part.
You must finish.
I commend the Government’s motion and will vote in support of it and of the amendment.
16:25
It gives me great pleasure to contribute to this debate and to follow the thoughtful speeches of Graeme Pearson and Christina McKelvie.
The minister spoke about values and about an international framework of human rights law. The international community has proclaimed that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Perhaps the international community needs to be reminded of the importance of those values today.
Just a few days ago, the world witnessed the brutal massacre of 65 innocent civilians in Aleppo in Syria. That incident represents just the latest in a long line of human rights abuses in that country. It moved the UN peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to declare that the Syrian conflict has now reached “unprecedented levels of horror”, which include a range of unthinkable abuses ranging from kidnappings and rapes to torture and executions.
According to the United Nations, the on-going slaughter in Syria has already taken 60,000 lives, with hundreds of thousands of people seeking refuge in neighbouring countries such as Lebanon. At the end of last year, BBC journalist Fergal Keane reported first hand from the camps in Lebanon. He said:
“You can see people living in pretty rudimentary conditions in here ... no proper sanitation, no light … and for these children, no education … The other striking thing, when you talk to children here and you look into their faces here, is the experience of war they have carried with them ... Story after story I hear from the children of seeing parents attacked, of air raids, of the experience of being shelled … most people who came out of Syria fled with only what they could carry”.
Those people are now dependent on the charity of the UN. When Fergal Keane asked a mother of five how she felt about being in her new home, he received the reply that death would be better than this isolation.
The raw, unparalleled and absolutely unjustified pain that is being inflicted on our fellow human beings warrants the strongest possible condemnation from the international community. The United Kingdom Government has played a constructive role in highlighting the human rights abuses in Syria, in seeking a diplomatic solution and in providing humanitarian assistance through support for the world food programme, the UN refugee agency and relief agencies that are involved in the provision of medical services and supplies.
However, the UK’s claim to be a champion of human rights is undermined by the inhumane and unfair treatment of asylum seekers in this country—people who are themselves fleeing persecution. Research that was commissioned in 2012 by the Scottish Refugee Council, the British Red Cross and the Refugee Survival Trust revealed that
“Asylum support rates are below most poverty measures but, with no income, destitute asylum seekers fall below even the UN global poverty target of $1.25 a day.”
Moreover, as confirmed by the Refugee Council, almost all asylum seekers are not allowed to work and are dependent on limited state support. They are unable to access mainstream benefits or homelessness services unless and until they are granted the right to stay in the UK. According to the Refugee Council, asylum-seeking women who are destitute are vulnerable to violence in this country.
Often, asylum applications are refused on what seems to be a rather arbitrary basis. Data from the UK Home Office shows that most asylum claims are initially refused but that a high number of refusals are then overturned on appeal—in 2011, 68 per cent were refused and 28 per cent of those were overturned. As the Home Office itself says, that calls into question
“the quality of initial decisions.”
Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
“Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”.
However, the question that we are entitled to ask is, why is the UK unable to fully honour that pledge?
You must finish now.
As Scotland finds its own voice in the world, we have an opportunity to become a force for justice and fairness and to show our solidarity with people at home and abroad.
16:29
When the historians of tomorrow—those yet unborn—meet on the Mount Olympus heights of our great universities to assess devolution, where will the chapter open? What will be the points in time that really made a difference for ordinary Scots? Could it be Donald Dewar’s electrifying but poetic speech at the opening of Parliament, the fight to take children out of poverty, the establishment of free personal care or the smoking ban?
I believe that the cross-party support for international development, not least in Malawi, will also be up there in lights. The work on human rights at home and abroad has been outstanding. The creation of the Scottish Human Rights Commission by this very Parliament in 2006 is an example of devolution at its best: outward looking, internationalist and fighting the corner for the powerless, the poor and the dispossessed.
Veteran human rights journalist John Pilger said:
“We are beckoned to see the world through a one-way mirror, as if we are threatened and innocent and the rest of humanity is threatening, or wretched, or expendable. Our memory is struggling to rescue the truth that human rights were not handed down as privileges from a parliament, or a boardroom, or an institution, but that peace is only possible with justice and with information that gives us the power to act justly.”
Will the member give way?
I am very sorry—I am really short of time.
The Scottish Human Rights Commission has been a success story. In 2010, it received A status and was recognised as fully compliant with the UN principles on the status of national institutions, which brings with it international recognition and speaking rights at the Human Rights Council and other UN bodies.
In the same year, the commission and Parliament hosted a national human rights conference, with an address by Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and ex-UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
In 2011, Scotland was elected chair of the European group of national human rights institutions. We undoubtedly have a strong team of commissioners and staff. I place on record the recognition by Parliament of Professor Alan Miller, chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, who is in the gallery this afternoon. He is a well-respected figure in the international human rights world and his reputation projects influence on the world stage.
The Scottish Human Rights Commission’s recent report, “Getting it Right? Human Rights in Scotland”, provides a textbook answer on the question of what human rights is. It is adequate housing, fair pay, fighting fuel poverty, standing up for the victims of crime, and disability action.
Aung San Suu Kyi said:
“Within a system which denies the existence of basic human rights, fear tends to be the order of the day. Fear of imprisonment ... fear of losing friends ... property or means of livelihood ... fear of isolation, fear of failure.”
We all know that human rights institutions are not perfect. As a joint report from the House of Lords and the House of Commons in 2010 made clear, the European Court of Human Rights is in crisis, with a backlog of more than 120,000 cases. Those failures are, in part, a result of the failure of national Governments to implement court judgments. We need more pressure on Governments to implement convention rights at national level.
We have made good progress but still have some way to go. In our justice system, there have been positive developments in children’s hearings and improved services for victims. However, as we have heard, there are gaps. There is an increase in hate crimes, a low prosecution rate in human trafficking and variable conditions in detention centres.
Adopting the UN national action plan for human rights, which is evidence based, will help us to develop ways to address those gaps. Those areas can be developed and strengths and weaknesses can be analysed. I look forward to the outcome of the participation stage this year. Let us aim for Scotland to pick up the challenge as a leading nation in human rights and an exemplar of best practice, not just in Scotland but in Europe and beyond.
16:33
I very much welcome this timely debate and the work that the Scottish Human Rights Commission is undertaking in this policy area. It definitely shows the way for many others around the globe.
I respect Jenny Marra’s engagement in the subject of trafficking, which is well established and entirely proper, but I would have preferred to see a broader-based amendment. There are a large number of issues and trafficking is important, but by no means the only one.
In a short contribution, it is proper to focus on a narrow facet of what is inevitably a wide subject. Once again, I will talk about climate justice; it is a geographically wide topic, but relatively narrow in policy terms. It is an area in which the rich impose an inescapable cost on the poor.
In 2009, the United Nations Human Rights Council recognised that
“human rights obligations and commitments have the potential to inform and strengthen international and national policy making in the area of climate change”.
I very much welcome the progress and engagement that our Government has made so far: the establishment of the climate justice fund, which reaches out to many other countries; the memorandum of understanding with the Inter-American Development Bank; carbon capture work with the Republic of South Africa; Commonwealth saltire professional fellowships; and so on. A great deal is going on.
I also very much welcome President Obama’s appointment of John Kerry as part of his new Administration, which is a very encouraging sign of potential for movement in one of the world’s wealthiest nations. I had the privilege to hear John speak at a UN conference and if he is able to deliver in government what he referred to in that speech, real progress will be made.
I regularly track the Mary Robinson Foundation—Climate Justice, which has laid out a number of headings, and I immediately want to pick up on gender equality and impact. It is in that area that the impacts appear to be happening fastest and the effects have the most direct potential to kill adults and, more especially, children. As temperatures rise across the globe, aridity follows and crop failures are an inevitable consequence. In many of the poorest countries in the world, women are at the front line. They are the primary farmers, who now have less food and have to walk further for fuel and water. They absolutely live on the margin. Women in poorer countries pay the price for our higher standard of living.
We will see migration, and the inevitable consequence is that much of that migration will be into countries that are only a little less poor. We cannot morally live with a policy and practice of spreading the poverty around more widely. We have to help countries mitigate the effects of climate change. The Government is doing something on that; I hope that all Governments, including our own, will do more.
Please start to conclude.
We need to be committed as citizens and as Governments to turn down the world’s thermostat. I want us to equip others to act on mitigation.
I acknowledge Labour’s long-term record of engagement on human rights, which is worthy of praise. However, the real challenge is to address the constitutional issue, so that we can do much more.
16:37
Developing a national action plan for human rights is a welcome way of ensuring that the human rights that we assume that we have are, in practice, assured. As the SHRC explains, we have a fairly strong legal and institutional framework for human rights, but there are gaps in the realisation of those rights. The most important thing to strive for in developing the action plan is to ensure that it has relevance to people in the real world. Our human rights are not abstract; they are the basis for ensuring that, at every step in our lives, we are afforded the best possible opportunity, treatment and freedoms.
In the very short time that I have, I would like to talk briefly on two domestic applications of human rights on which we can and must do more. The first is the right to education. Education is vital to help people achieve their potential, but, for all the progress that we have made, too many youngsters still miss out. We must do more to ensure that disruptive and challenging children are not excluded from school. Why? Because we know what often happens to those who are excluded from and disenchanted with school: they end up entangled in the justice system.
I recently visited Polmont Young Offenders Institution and I have met a number of young offenders who take part in community justice schemes in the north-east. Sadly, the personal stories that I came across were all too familiar. Although the problem is not unique to Scotland, we have not done enough to find a workable solution. Children who are excluded from education at a young age—perhaps with behavioural or attention issues—often end up in court and in prison. Being in the justice system means that they miss out still more on the education that could make the difference to the path that they are taking. We must do everything in our power to ensure that no one misses out on the education that is rightfully theirs.
Secondly, I want to touch on the delivery of services to vulnerable and older people. In this instance, it is a question not of what care services are available—for the large part, they are efficient and fairly comprehensive—but of the quality of those services and, crucially, the manner in which they are delivered. Unfortunately, pressures can mean that care provision is driven solely by financial considerations.
Many members will be aware of the tragic case in Aberdeen of Ken Maitland, who had 106 different carers in a single year before his death last year. Clearly, that was unacceptable, but we can take practical and positive action to prevent such a situation from happening again.
Fundamentally, care provision, particularly for older and vulnerable people, must be focused on the individual. Being treated with respect and dignity is surely a fundamental right for anyone receiving care. We owe it to them to do more to ensure that that is a reality. The most marginalised and vulnerable in our society—some of the people whom I have mentioned in my examples—must be protected.
The Liberal Democrats have a strong and consistent record on human rights—the issue is at the very heart of our party. We have a strong record in government: in Scotland, Robert Brown was the minister who guided through Parliament the bill that established the Scottish Human Rights Commission; at Westminster, one of our first acts in government was to end child detention at Dungavel.
We are pleased to support the Government motion and the Labour amendment. We commend the excellent work of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, and we look forward to the development of the national action plan. The motion is right to be outward looking. Human rights are the concern of the whole world, and it is right that Scotland does what it can to support those rights on the wider stage.
However, I end on a note of caution. We cannot get complacent at home. Legislation is becoming more careless in its human rights implications, as we saw with legal aid and sectarianism. I encourage the Government to take time to reflect on its approach and ensure, first and foremost, that Scotland’s laws and actions set an example in being open, fair and free.
16:42
When we talk about human rights at an international level, people tend to understand very quickly and look to places such as Syria and recognise that the people there do not have human rights. However, when we talk about human rights at a domestic level, all too often that relates to bad publicity. Annabel Goldie alluded to the erroneous statements that are sometimes made about who benefits from human rights in this country.
The Human Rights Act 1998 has had a positive impact on the lives of many people across the UK. It has been used, for example, to ensure that the dietary requirements of patients in hospitals and care homes are met; to prevent or remedy abuse or neglect of the elderly, learning disabled or otherwise vulnerable; to prevent disproportionate targeting of black or ethnic minority people by police and other authorities; and to ensure that children with special educational needs are not prevented from receiving an education.
I am particularly interested in how the Scottish Human Rights Commission investigates those areas and comes up with recommendations. I commend its independent evaluation, care about rights, which has done much to inform those in the care sector about how people should be dealt with with dignity. However, we should not be complacent. We must monitor the situation because there are always things that can be improved. For example, I am working on a case concerning the right of a constituent—an incapacitated adult, whose care resulted in physical disability—to have the perceived shortcomings in his care properly investigated.
I am hugely concerned about the impact of Westminster’s welfare reforms. I have no time to go into all that, but I suggest that members read the Official Report of this morning’s Welfare Reform Committee. How people are being treated makes for harrowing reading.
I want to ask about the rights of someone who has lived in a social rented property for decades and who has spent years turning their house into a home only to be turfed out because of the imposition of the bedroom tax come April, with no consideration being given to why there is a spare room or, indeed, to the trauma and expense of their having to move house. That is further stigmatisation of the social rented sector. Is that not in itself an attack on the human right of dignity?
It is a bit rich of Lib Dems to talk about legislation in this place when they and their coalition partners are imposing heinous legislation on people in Scotland. A witness said at this morning’s meeting that he did not believe that people in Scotland wanted to behave in that way. I certainly do not want to behave in that way and I hope that no one in this Parliament does.
The motion in the name of Roseanna Cunningham is on promoting and protecting human rights in Scotland, Europe and the wider world. That is a recognition of the brotherhood of man, which is why we must tackle trafficking in this country and detention at Dungavel. We might have stopped the practice of keeping children in Dungavel for any length of time, but children are just being punted down the road to detention centres south of the border. That is not looking after human rights.
I want a national human rights action plan that is meaningful. I do not want it to be eroded by people in Westminster who think that we in Scotland want to be cruel to people who live in this country and to deny them their basic human rights and dignity. I am not about that and I do not want any member in the Parliament to be about that. I ask all members to think on, about how we can have meaningful human rights in our national plan.
16:46
It was good to hear the minister reaffirm the values that are proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I hope that the whole Parliament will reaffirm those values at the end of business today.
The motion talks about an “inclusive Scotland”. I want to hear about the challenges in that regard. Neil Findlay talked about the right to work, in the context of blacklisted workers, which is clearly a challenge. Workers’ rights are also challenged in relation to safe workplaces, given cuts to health and safety and threats to the European working time directive.
The biggest challenge comes from the austerity programme and cuts in public spending. Human rights bodies have asked the UK Government and devolved Administrations to
“consider more effective processes for assessing the impact of legal, policy and practice steps on equality and human rights.”
It was therefore less than helpful of David Cameron to refer to equality impact assessments as “nonsense”. Politics is about priorities and competing demands, but whatever our differences, hard-fought-for human rights cannot be a casualty.
Our first national action plan for human rights will be Scotland’s plan, not the Scottish Government’s plan, and it is important that there is ownership in the chamber and beyond. The motion talks about embracing
“the opportunities presented by Scotland’s engagement in the wider world to promote respect for the universal and indivisible rights of all of humanity.”
I ask the Scottish Government to bear that in mind as it deals with regimes around the globe, not least China, Israel and the Maldives, where we have heard of late about shocking human rights abuses.
Does my colleague agree that it would be no bad thing to remind people that there is a history of attention to human rights, with reference to the Scottish weavers and the people who fought for good contracts in the isles and so on? Attention to human rights in Scotland is not new.
I agree with my colleague. For that reason, we must sustain rights and not allow their erosion.
The plan will resonate, regardless of Scotland’s constitutional future. I am disappointed that Patrick Harvie’s amendment was not selected for debate, because it would have given us an opportunity to talk about a number of areas, not least what would be in a constitution in the context of important issues to do with civil rights.
Members mentioned relevance, which is key. The action plan must be relevant to people. The Scottish Human Rights Commission said that Scotland has made “notable progress” but “can do better”.
The Parliament must pass legislation that is ECHR compliant, and as we heard, legislation is shaped by the courts. Many members are concerned that human rights remains with the justice portfolio. That is not a criticism of the individuals who are involved. Rather, there is a view that the issue transcends all portfolios and should be part of every committee’s remit.
I am delighted that the amendment that I lodged, which called for the inclusion of a reference to human rights in the oath that new police officers take, enjoyed support from members of parties across the Parliament. It is important that we seek practical applications of our approach to human rights.
The Equal Opportunities Committee is conducting an inquiry into Gypsy Travellers, who seem to be the last group in Scotland whose rights are routinely disregarded by the public sector. We have heard shocking evidence and the issue needs to be addressed.
There needs to be better promotion of human rights in the areas that matter to people—their homes, neighbourhoods, workplaces and schools. Above all, the action plan must be relevant. We have heard that such an approach to human rights has had success elsewhere. I wish the Scottish Human Rights Commission all the best with its work and ask for the fullest participation.
16:50
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and highlight our country’s role in the world in defending human rights.
In Scotland, we have a proud tradition and history of protecting and promoting human rights, not only for our citizens but internationally. The principle of human rights is taken for granted in Scotland, which is why we have an obligation to ensure that our human rights are not infringed upon while doing our utmost to take the message across the world.
Scotland is an inclusive country and takes pride in its diversity. That is the Scotland that we envisage and for which we strive on all points along the political spectrum. I am pleased that the Scottish Government and Parliament are building upon that with the development of a national action plan over the coming year. We may not be pioneers in creating such a plan, but we have the benefit of learning from the countries that have already developed their own plans and I hope that we can offer something distinctive to meet the challenges that we face in Scotland.
As a current member of the United Kingdom, Scotland is a signed-up member of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. When we become independent—as surely we will—that will still be the case, but Scotland will play an even greater role.
There are occasions when people complain about the impact of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on individual rights. Although those criticisms can sometimes be valid, we must look at the bigger picture. The overriding duty of the declaration at a multinational level is to defend the most vulnerable and marginalised in society and to protect the individual whom those in authority might persecute simply to silence them.
I share the Scottish Human Rights Commission’s concerns about the United Kingdom Government’s response to the global economic crisis—in particular, the welfare reforms that it is introducing—and believe that the concept of human rights should be at the core of the decision-making process. The most vulnerable in our society will be affected the most, and I fully endorse the actions of the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the many other organisations that have raised the issue with the UK Government. For the sake of those in need, I hope that the UK Government takes those concerns on board.
The Scottish Government and Parliament have done a great deal to promote human rights on an international level—from working with other Governments to combat human trafficking, to highlighting the importance of climate change, which is increasingly becoming a human rights issue.
It is imperative that, in the run-up to the referendum, those who are in favour of independence and those who are against it express their visions of how Scotland can best help to promote human rights, whether as an independent country or otherwise. An independent Scotland has much to offer on the international stage and will be able to build on the actions that the Scottish Government has taken.
I commend the Scottish Government’s approach and the Parliament’s long-running approach to human rights. I fully support the motion.
16:54
As all things Danish seem to be the political flavour of the week, I note that Søren Kierkegaard wrote:
“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.”
Rights are lessons that are understood from our past and through which we can better live our future. I once heard John Hume of the Social Democratic and Labour Party say:
“If you want to see the foundation stones of the EU, then look at the war memorials in every town in Europe.”
The politics of today might distort that European vision, but its fundamental purpose remains to develop a continent that is so bound by social and economic ties that it can never again drag itself into the abyss of total war.
Post-war leaders—not least, Churchill—learned another lesson, which was that the internal legitimacy of the states of Europe, as well as the relationships between them, matters. That is why the Council of Europe was created; it was to make human rights legally enforceable through adoption of the ECHR in 1950. The European Union was created to ensure peace between nations, and the ECHR was adopted to guarantee that those nations were, and would remain, democratic.
Rights fundamentally underpin our modern civilisation and do not simply reflect society as it is, but shape what it will become. That is not always comfortable or convenient, but then neither is democracy. In the same way as we may baulk sometimes at the outcome of democracy, we may baulk sometimes at the consequences of human rights. For example, I dislike the idea of prisoners having the vote, and many resent the freedoms that rights extend to some, but surely we never wish to see again the tyranny that the abrogation of human rights inevitably heralds.
We are complacent about our rights at our peril. That includes those who would replace them with codified constitutions and written bills of rights. The universality of rights—their international reach—provides us with protection by dint of our common humanity rather than our common nationality and raises them to the highest importance.
In the Parliament, we have deliberately and knowingly fettered our sovereign power with human rights obligations with which we must comply or see our legislative labours struck down. The First Minister made exactly that point in his recent speech on constitutions. However, the logic of the point leads us to the ECHR as the best internationally based platform for Scotland—independent or not—rather than to a national, not international, constitutional bill of rights.
Annabel Goldie was right to say that most universal rights are qualified. They have proved themselves to be adaptable to changing times—far more so than the US constitution’s second amendment, on militias, which blocks gun control in the US to this day. I know that the Scottish Government likes to reference Jefferson and Lincoln, but surely the message of the current movie on Lincoln is about not how easy but how hard the Bill of Rights made it to abolish slavery.
We must proactively seek to apply our human rights to the issues of our day. That is why we need a commission and why Labour’s amendment on human trafficking is right to draw attention to that concern.
I must ask you to conclude.
I believe in the state as a place where we can organise for the common good, but the interests of the majority must not ride roughshod over the interests of the minority or the individual. Our rights must be jealously guarded and constantly implemented. That should be the task of the commission, the purpose of the action plan as it develops and the obligation of Parliament every day.
16:58
I accept that we can always do more, but we should welcome the many positive things that we have heard today about the progress that Scotland has made across the board in relation to human rights. I welcome the comments that David Stewart and others have made.
It is worth noting that the Scottish Human Rights Commission has pointed out that
“a number of laws of the Scottish Parliament”
have been
“cited as good practice in human rights and in their subject field.”
However, it is fair to say that, although we have effective structures in place and various actions have been undertaken, including the development of the national action plan, we need to work on our outcomes. The commission says that the influence
“decreases the closer to real life we look.”
As all students of human rights know, the traditional focus in the UK has been on looking at human rights in terms of political and civic rights. Economic, social and cultural rights have played second fiddle—the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has recognised that point. Despite what Iain Gray said, if we are to have a charter of human rights or some kind of constitutional rights in an independent Scotland, or legislation that encompasses human rights, I think that there is plenty of scope for Scotland to lead the way; I take a different view to Mr Gray. It will be interesting to see whether any British bill of rights that the current UK Government introduces takes up the challenge in respect of economic, social and cultural rights. I guess that it probably will not.
In the limited time that is available, I would like to say a little about human rights in the context of caring for the elderly—in particular, those with conditions such as dementia. Article 3 of the ECHR states that no one should be subjected to “inhuman or degrading treatment”. Article 8 makes provision to protect private and family life. When people begin to lose control of their cognitive faculties and become more dependent on their carers, whoever they may be, there is always a danger that their vulnerability might not be adequately addressed.
In its report, “Getting it Right?”, the Scottish Human Rights Commission details its views on Scotland’s treatment of the elderly in terms of dignity and care. The report notes the increasing recognition of the importance of unpaid carers, which was demonstrated recently by the event called the carers parliament. It also identifies some areas for improvement; for example, it cites research from 2007 that showed that only half of a sample of dementia patients in hospital had a recorded life history in their medical notes, which the SHRC has described as an important part of social care.
Care of the vulnerable and, in particular, the elderly is one area where we can say with cautious optimism that we are making progress in human rights terms. Although the charter of rights for people with dementia and their carers, which was produced in the previous session of Parliament, has no statutory footing, it certainly highlights the need to promote and protect the human rights of those with dementia, and reaffirms society’s responsibility in ending discrimination. That is the human rights agenda in practice.
Other members have referred to the impact of welfare reform; it seems to me that the proposed bedroom tax and its impact on, for example, divorced fathers raises potential article 8 issues, at the very least.
In its briefing, the Glasgow Disability Alliance raises an important issue on the right to independent living, and the First Minister has referred recently to the rights of the homeless. In addition, I am pleased that the new oath for policemen contains a commitment to human rights. Those are all steps in the right direction.
We must recognise that, under existing international obligations, states have an obligation to achieve progressively the full realisation of social, economic and cultural rights. Politicians and Governments everywhere, take note: human rights are not set in stone. The ECHR is a living instrument, and one to which all Governments must respond.
I believe that the development of a national action plan is a positive and important step forward and an effective way of ensuring that the human rights of all vulnerable people are embedded in everything that we do. I support the motion and the amendment.
17:03
I very much welcome the work that has been done on human rights by successive Administrations domestically and globally, through the work of our colleagues on the SHRC, the Scottish Government and public bodies throughout Scotland. We need a human rights action plan that positively asserts the value of a human rights culture, as opposed to the slightly resentful attitude that we hear, all too often, from certain quarters at Westminster.
I welcome the Labour Party’s amendment, which raises important issues that deserve to be taken seriously across the chamber. I am glad that the Government will accept it, but it is a shame that the minister seemed to have so little time for the member who moved it, in whose speech I could find nothing to disagree with; I could find nothing to disagree with, either, in Neil Findlay’s comments on the employment rights issues that he raised.
John Finnie referred to my amendment, which was not selected for debate. As ever—for anyone who is interested—it is available near the back of the Business Bulletin. It sought to raise some other aspects. It is not my usual style to lodge an amendment praising the First Minister, but that is what I did in relation to his recent comments on the prospect of constitutional rights. I believe that that is an important idea that we should take seriously. It is echoed in “Scotland’s Future: from the Referendum to Independence and a Written Constitution”, which was published today.
I would not want to encourage Patrick Harvie to agree with the First Minister regularly, but does he agree that a written constitution is the perfect antidote to the unwritten parliamentary sovereignty of Westminster?
I reassure Jim Eadie on his first point and I partly agree with his second, but I do not have time, at the moment, to go into it in detail.
The document that has been published today does, indeed, set out a proposal to embed a wide range of rights in a constitution for Scotland. It is important to remember that there is a wide range of such instruments—not just the universal declaration of human rights. Members will have heard about the covenants on economic, social and cultural rights and the covenant on civil and political rights, and my amendment referred to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. That is not an exhaustive list, by any means.
Today, of all days, when our colleagues in the Westminster Parliament are hearing some excellent 21st century speeches and some abysmal 19th century speeches on same-sex marriage, it is important to reflect on the UN declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity, which seeks globally—Scotland could contribute to this argument globally—to protect
“individuals from homophobic and transphobic violence”;
to
“Prevent torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment”
of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people; to decriminalise homosexuality; to prohibit
“discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity”;
and to respect
“freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly for all LGBT people.”
What an opportunity Scotland could have to contribute to that debate, not only domestically but globally.
Today’s document is not an attempt to exclude or extract Scotland from the international framework that Iain Gray was so right to talk about. It is quite the reverse; it is an attempt to embed in Scotland those rights and to ensure that the many people out there who I believe are open minded about independence but not yet convinced can be reassured to know that they will be voting for an independent Scotland that will embed those rights and prohibit future Parliaments and Governments from abrogating or denying those rights. This is an opportunity that all members should take seriously. I look forward to voting for the amendment and the motion tonight.
That brings us to the closing speeches. Murdo Fraser has four minutes.
17:07
It has been an interesting and diverse debate. We have had some thoughtful contributions and I was very taken by what Iain Gray had to say, although I do not necessarily agree with all of it.
I am sure that everybody here and pretty much everybody in the population agrees in principle on the importance of upholding human rights, both at home and abroad. There is very little in the ECHR with which people will disagree. Basic rights to life, freedom from torture and ill-treatment, freedom from slavery, the right to a fair trial, the right to private and family life, and freedom of religion, expression, assembly and association are all key rights to which we believe everyone should be entitled.
We should also accept that there will be areas of disagreement. As Annabel Goldie said fairly, there will on occasion be conflicts of rights between individuals—for example, where a crime has been committed and there is a conflict of rights between aggressor and victim. We need to be careful how we interpret human rights. Many people think that the courts have gone too far in interpretation of those rights—for example, by paying compensation to prisoners for slopping out or, indeed, giving them the right to vote. As Annabel Goldie pointed out, a recent YouGov poll showed that 75 per cent of the population thinks that the Human Rights Act 1998 had gone too far and was being used too widely to create rights that it was never intended to protect.
However, I wish to spend most of my speech looking at the international situation, because I believe that we have a duty to promote human rights internationally, using our influence and power as a trading nation. It is worth examining the record of the UK Government and, indeed, of the Scottish Government in this field and looking at a couple of examples.
The first example is China. In it we have a very important trading partner, but one in which freedom of speech, of the press, of movement, of religion, of sexuality and of politics are all strictly forbidden. Executions and torture are regularly used by authorities there against those who question the state, and between 5,000 and 8,000 people are executed every year. As members might expect, the UK Government has been very vocal on the issue of Chinese human rights. In 2010, on his first state visit to China, David Cameron made clear his concern about Chinese human rights and established the human rights dialogue between the two Governments, which started in January 2011. That approach won respect from the Chinese.
The First Minister made a state visit to China in 2009, describing it as
“the greatest country on earth.”
He has since made two visits and I can find no record of him on any occasion speaking out about human rights issues in China. Famously, the Scottish Government played down the Dalai Lama’s recent visit to Scotland. The First Minister cold-shouldered him after supposedly coming under pressure from the Chinese authorities. Who mentioned hypocrisy?
The second example is Qatar—a country in which migrant workers are oppressed and homosexuality is illegal and punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. Human Rights Watch says that the football world cup that is to be played in Qatar in 2022 will be
“a crucible of exploitation and misery”
for poorly paid and migrant workers. The Amir of Qatar is an active supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, and it is widely believed that he also funds dissidents in Mali. When the location of the 2022 world cup was announced, the Prime Minister made it clear that football is for everyone and that no one should be excluded based on their race, religion or sexuality. However, when the First Minister visited Qatar, he was full of praise for the country and the “remarkable similarities” between our nations. Again, there was no mention of oppression or human rights. Who mentioned hypocrisy?
I am afraid that you must begin to conclude.
There is nothing wrong with promoting international trade, and it will be distasteful for us to deal with some of the countries that we deal with, which gives us the added responsibility of speaking out when we see that. The First Minister’s track record on these issues so far has been dismal, so I hope that the Minister for External Affairs and International Development’s remarks will indicate a change of direction.
17:11
This has been an interesting and worthwhile debate to which there have been some interesting contributions from around the chamber. It is, of course, fitting that we should debate the topic today, immediately before Parliament is asked to recommend Professor Alan Miller for reappointment as chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission. I am sure that we all welcome that reappointment and congratulate Professor Miller on it. I might be jumping the gun a little but I am sure that colleagues will not mind that too much. As my colleague David Stewart did earlier, I thank Professor Miller and his colleagues for their contribution to the issue.
Today’s wide-ranging debate has been informed by the many briefings that members have received from organisations that are active in the promotion and protection of human rights. It has been helpful to hear about the issues that they wish to prioritise and the concerns that they have articulated. We might not have been able to cover all those issues, but reading about them will remind us to reflect on the points that those organisations have made.
As my colleague Jenny Marra said in her opening speech, Scottish Labour decided to prioritise the issue of human trafficking in our amendment. I will say a little more about that later because we take that issue very seriously indeed. We are pleased that we seem to enjoy the support of our colleagues across the chamber in that today.
As colleagues have said, the ECHR is of course enshrined in this Parliament’s legislation. Those who were involved in establishing the Parliament did not feel that we had to be independent to strive for the highest standards. Unlike the First Minister’s vision, which Ms Cunningham portrayed today, many of us are ambitious for Scotland to play its part regardless of the constitutional settlement. I enjoyed Ms Cunningham’s opening speech—she chose a relevant quotation that exemplifies that human rights is not just a matter for Governments, although, of course, what Governments do matters because of the example that they set.
As I said, we have heard some interesting contributions from around the chamber. I will reflect on one or two of them. My colleague Graeme Pearson was absolutely right to highlight the fact that victims need to be supported through the struggles that they will undoubtedly face. He was also right to highlight the right to work and the attack on human rights that is being perpetrated in the name of welfare reform.
Stewart Stevenson was correct to mention climate justice. He alluded to the fact that the poor are the worst affected and suffer because of our actions, selfishness and greed. All members should welcome the action taken by Scottish Governments of whatever complexion in using international development policies to promote climate justice and environmental mitigation measures.
I was very interested in Alison McInnes’s speech, particularly her comments about the exclusion of young people from school. We have all seen young people who, because they cannot go to school, are on the streets. I highlight a school in my constituency, John Paul academy, which has reduced its previously very high exclusion rate to practically zero. Nothing has changed, except that there is the will, the leadership and the recognition that young people need support. Some need support more than others, and where it is needed it is given. I encourage Ms McInnes to visit that school if she finds herself in Glasgow some day.
John Finnie was absolutely right to highlight the plight of Gypsy Travellers. Although the chamber and our various committees have been examining the issue for a long time now, we have not been able to tackle it in a way that recognises and respect people’s rights. I hope that the work of our Equal Opportunities Committee colleagues will ensure that that happens.
I cannot disagree with a word of my colleague Iain Gray’s excellent contribution to the debate. He helped us to focus on the fact that a written constitution comes with its own difficulties and suggested that instead of adopting that model in a rush we give further consideration to what we want. Of course, we also have to think about our international obligations in that regard and our international place in the world.
I wonder whether the member would be willing to go just a little further. The Parliament is legally prohibited from passing legislation that conflicts with the Human Rights Act 1998. If we are getting into a debate about the kind of Parliament that it is to grow into, can we not all agree that we want the Parliament and indeed Governments to remain constrained in that way and that a constitutional debate is one way of achieving that?
I think that, as with everything to do with the constitution, we have to wait and hear what the people decide. I want to do that—I want to engage in that debate.
As I said, Scottish Labour wants to highlight the issue of human trafficking in today’s debate. After all, with the Commonwealth games only a year away, it is extremely important that we get this right. We think that greater clarity in the law and the adoption of the Palermo definition would help to foster better detection and prosecution and greater protection of victims’ rights. Only last week, the Committee of the Regions unanimously agreed an opinion on the European Union strategy towards the eradication of trafficking—
I am afraid that you must close now.
One of the strategy’s key elements was a recognition of the key role played by local authorities—be they police authorities, local councils or health services—in detecting such things at a local level and responding to victims’ needs. That is certainly something that we in this chamber want.
I thank the Government for supporting our amendment.
17:18
Earlier the minister Roseanna Cunningham quoted Eleanor Roosevelt; I will open my closing speech by quoting someone closer to home—Robert Burns, who once wrote:
“Man’s inhumanity to Man
Makes countless thousands mourn!”
In 2013, man’s inhumanity can be witnessed every day all over the world.
However, before I concentrate on the various international aspects that members highlighted, I want to commend members on the tone of the debate. We had some fantastic speeches from across the chamber, some of which have already been mentioned. Although I disagreed somewhat with Iain Gray’s analysis, I thought that his speech was fantastic, and I thought that David Stewart, Gil Paterson, Christina McKelvie, Linda Fabiani, Alison McInnes, Patrick Harvie, John Finnie and Annabel Goldie, too, made fantastic contributions.
On the international front, we are confronted every day with human rights abuses across the world. As Jim Eadie and John Finnie so eloquently pointed out, tragic events are happening in Palestine, Syria and even Egypt as the new Arab spring democracies face fundamental challenges in coming to grips with democracy. However, they make us realise that Scotland’s strong and enduring commitment to human rights cannot be taken for granted and places a responsibility on us as a nation to ensure that other countries develop and maintain a similar commitment.
I am pleased that we will accept the Labour amendment to the motion. Jenny Marra has quite rightly been vociferous—I might even say tenacious—on the issue of human trafficking, as Christina McKelvie and others from across the chamber have been. I look forward to the middle of the year when we will receive the report back and recommendations from the summit, to which one of my colleagues will no doubt respond on behalf of the Government.
There is worldwide recognition of Scotland’s commitment to democracy, the rule of law and fundamental human rights. Scotland uses its international engagement as an opportunity to help to increase respect for, and understanding of, human rights worldwide. We do that not through arrogant lecturing or condescension but through mature, even-tempered discourse with our international partners on how we can support their progress towards becoming states that respect and progressively realise human rights.
On that issue, Murdo Fraser asked me to address a couple of points. In our discussions with China, the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs has personally mentioned Tibet to Chinese ministers. That is a sensitive issue, but it was handled sensitively. After discussions with Amnesty International and the Scottish Human Rights Commission, the First Minister has raised issues that are creeping up the global agenda, such as climate justice. In the recently drafted China plan—I do not know whether Murdo Fraser has a copy of it—one of the four guiding principles is respect for human rights and the rule of law. We are unashamed in our promotion of human rights where and when we can.
Murdo Fraser also said that Qatar, which the First Minister has visited, supports the Muslim Brotherhood and denies women’s rights and so on. I do not disagree that those are important issues, but does the member not know that the UK Government has signed an agreement with Qatar to make this a year of culture between the UK and Qatar? If his point is that we should not engage with unsavoury characters, has he no shame about the fact that a UK Prime Minister is selling arms to some of the world’s worst human rights abusers?
As the minister will know from my speech, that self-same UK Government has spoken out clearly against human rights abuses in Qatar. I searched in vain for any comments from the First Minister on human rights during his visit to Qatar. Can the minister correct the record by telling me what the First Minister said about human rights in Qatar? Where can I find that reference?
It seems that it is okay to lecture Qatar about human rights and then provide it with guns afterwards. That is a logic that I cannot understand.
Developing those relationships cannot help but further increase understanding of shared world values. On a practical level, that allows others to utilise our practical experience—whether that be effective policing, good civic governance, low-carbon economic development or better healthcare—to improve the lives of people overseas.
We are equally happy to open ourselves to international scrutiny, which I think we must do. In May, as part of the UK, Scotland was assessed positively by the UN on our realisation of international human rights standards. Indeed, the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which as we heard is accredited by the UN as an “A” status national human rights institution, spoke at that meeting. The commission, which was created by this Parliament, is hugely respected at an international level—a respect that was shown and shared by many members in the debate today.
Coincidentally, I note that members will vote later today on Professor Alan Miller’s renomination as chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission. I am not sure which way Professor Miller wants that vote to go, but we shall see the result soon enough.
The Scottish Human Rights Commission’s international stature certainly puts paid to the notion that Scotland is too small to make a difference. On the contrary, it is our duty to be good global citizens by joining the debates on such issues. David Stewart’s speech in particular made that point incredibly well.
At the international level, key actors seem increasingly to be drawing a distinction between the progressive, mature debate that is happening here in Scotland and the reaction that we often witness whenever human rights are discussed down south. As Annabel Goldie rightly pointed out, we need to do something to win the public over. Perhaps that will feed into the discourse on our action plan.
We want to have a different conversation here. Scotland has a good story to tell, whether that be about our history through the weavers—to which Margo MacDonald referred—or about modern-day times. We have much to learn from others, but we have much to teach as well. We will continue to urge states all over the world fully to realise international human rights law and to open themselves up to international scrutiny in the same way.
Just as we have sought to sought to engage in a positive fashion on international human rights issues, so the Scottish Government continues to try to make a direct practical difference on the ground to the lives of those in the most materially deprived communities in the world.
As members will know, we support projects in eight countries, including Malawi and other countries in sub-Saharan Africa as well as countries in south Asia. Those projects make a real difference to the lives of some of the world’s most vulnerable people. For generations, Scots have reached out across the world to build economic, educational and cultural links with countries such as Malawi.
Today, human rights are increasingly focused on environmental issues, as climate change remains at the top of the international agenda. The Scottish Government has actively championed the cause of climate change, as Stewart Stevenson mentioned in a good speech. The issue would not be so high up in the Government’s programme if it was not for his efforts. As well as inventing the computer, the internet and everything else in the world, he can rightly lay claim to bringing the agenda to Scotland and the Scottish Parliament. It is early days, but we hope that that work will bear fruit and will contribute to improving some of the poorest communities internationally.
In Scotland and overseas, the Scottish people do things differently, not because we are elitist or exclusionist, but because we are trying to embed some of the international human rights obligations that are on us. We do that not merely because we can, but because we want to. We are a modern and responsible nation that is preparing to join the global community of nations as an equal member. The Scottish Government is committed to creating a Scotland that realises human rights and to ensuring that Scotland can play its part in creating a world where the human rights of all are protected, respected and realised. I hope that the chamber can unite around that vision, and I urge members to support the motion.