Human Rights
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-08544, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on human rights.
14:38
Today marks the launch of “Scotland’s National Action Plan for Human Rights: 2013-2017”—Scotland’s first national action plan for human rights—and I am delighted to be here to debate it on international human rights day.
In talking about human rights, I could not let the debate pass without paying my own tribute to Nelson Mandela. With the passing of the first democratically elected President of South Africa, the world has lost a towering statesman and the outstanding political leader of his generation. His integrity, humanity and compassion were an inspiration to countless millions around the globe, and his influence transcended ideology, race and creed. He was an outstanding champion of universal human rights everywhere.
The creation of a modern inclusive Scotland that protects, respects and realises the universal human rights of all our citizens is a core ambition of this Government, which is why the Scottish Human Rights Commission’s efforts over the past 18 months to develop a national action plan for human rights have enjoyed our support and our active engagement.
Human rights are more than mere legal instruments; they are the fundamental freedoms and rights to which everyone is entitled. They are built on the universal values of dignity, equality, freedom, autonomy and respect that were first set down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 65 years ago, and which are now grounded in international law. It is fair to say that those fundamental principles resonate closely with Scotland’s own deeply held values of fairness, social justice and communitarian spirit.
Of course, the protection of human rights in Scotland and beyond depends on a clear legal framework. The European convention on human rights acts as a guide to the common European ideal in that regard. It has been with us for some time. Members may be aware that September marked the 60th anniversary of its coming into force across Europe—a Europe that was coming out of a horrendous war and which needed to establish and look forward to a far better future. There is also a broader framework of international human rights law, which consists of various covenants and treaties to which Scotland is obliged to give positive effect.
Domestically, human rights are embedded within the Scotland Act 1998, while the Human Rights Act 1998 places further obligations upon all public bodies to respect human rights in the exercise of their functions. A strong legal framework is already in place. We start from the premise that human rights are a force for good and provide the foundation of a modern democratic society.
Ultimately, it is for nations to ensure that they secure human rights for their citizens through their institutions and public services. The devolved settlement ensures that the Scottish Government and Parliament are constitutionally bound to uphold human rights. That system is progressively in line with the European main stream. Of course, an independent Scotland could do more: human rights would be secured within a codified constitution and we could ensure that Scotland became a beacon of progressive opinion, in keeping with the importance that we have long attached to human dignity, equality and fairness, and the pursuit of social justice.
I ask the minister for clarification on that point. Would an independent Scotland take the Human Rights Act 1998 and embed it in the Scottish constitution or would it be looking at a different set of rights?
We would be looking at exactly the kinds of rights that most countries in Europe and the wider world regard as human rights. I do not want to disappoint Jenny Marra by suggesting that we are going to come up with a completely different set of human rights. We will work with, and build on, what we already have.
The First Minister has spoken of the potential to go even further than the ECHR does and to consider how we might embed economic, social and cultural rights within a constitution for Scotland. Those matters could be considered by a constitutional convention that would be set up after independence to prepare the permanent written constitution.
Such a move would accord with the Scottish Government’s existing approach—our abolition of tuition fees and legislation on homelessness are just two examples in which we have demonstrated our commitment—but it would also accord with the broader social democratic consensus in Scotland and our collective commitment to the common weal.
Those are interesting subjects for wider debate—a debate that would probably continue on into the development of any constitution.
Members will all be familiar with Eleanor Roosevelt’s oft-quoted remarks that 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 … Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere.”
It is key that we ensure that those fundamental legal principles translate into real life experiences, which accords with the Government’s approach.
Across the Scottish Government’s various responsibilities, we are working to realise the rights of the people of Scotland. I will give a few examples. We have introduced legislation to ensure that our criminal justice system has human rights at its heart. We are working to embed human rights in the integration of healthcare and social care. Our commitment to equality and non-discrimination is supported by the provision of over £20 million to realise the rights of communities. We are committed to progressing implementation of the “United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child”, which includes the introduction of dedicated children’s rights legislation for the first time. We are also taking action to mitigate the worst impacts of the United Kingdom Government’s welfare reforms.
There has been a step change in Scotland’s Government’s approach to international engagement. The placing of human rights at the heart of our international framework, the championing of climate justice at home and abroad, our international development programme to support the aspirations of the developing world and a greater focus on engagement with the UN human rights system all demonstrate our commitment to acting as a modern responsible nation, and to supporting the realisation of human rights across the world and in the developing world.
Part of that role involves promoting Scotland’s values internationally. The First Minister delivered a significant speech in China recently highlighting the launch of the national action plan and outlining the importance of participation in the UN human rights system—a speech that Amnesty International described as “an important first step”.
In 2014, there will be a further opportunity to showcase our values, with the advent of the Commonwealth games and the eyes of the world being on Scotland. I am certain that the world will be left in no doubt about the values of Scotland and the Commonwealth games, or about our collective commitment to humanity, equality and destiny.
It will come as no surprise that I believe that with independence we would gain the levers to give further effect to our international human rights obligations domestically, and that we would play a more active role as a responsible nation on the world stage. Scotland’s first national action plan for human rights recognises that Scotland is at a particular stage in her journey and that there is more to be done, whether it be through building a rights-based culture, tackling the continued injustices in Scottish society or playing our part as a responsible actor globally.
The aspiration to create a country where everyone lives with human dignity is one that we can all support. Although we may have interesting debates about particular aspects of it, what we are all trying to achieve is a unified end.
Would the minister care to commend Mary Robinson—who is a former President of a small country: Ireland—for her significant contribution to human rights in respect of climate justice? That contribution shows what small countries can do.
I am sure that Stewart Stevenson would expect me to endorse that, as I have met Mary Robinson and know the huge impact that she had internationally—not just on climate justice but on a wide range of issues. It shows that small countries are not constrained, nor always restrained, in what they are able to do, even in this huge global endeavour of pushing forwards human rights. Scotland’s politics and history suggest that we could have that same commitment and push forward internationally in ways in which we are constrained at the moment because of the constitutional set-up. I know that members have differing views about that, but I would like to unleash our views on human rights on the world because I believe that we have as much to offer as Ireland did under President Mary Robinson.
The Scottish Government is fully committed to continued engagement with the first national action plan for human rights. I commend the Scottish Human Rights Commission for the work that it has put in—work that has been done not just in partnership with the Government but across a wide range of partnerships. A huge number of groups and organisations have been involved in developing the action plan and in giving us a blueprint for our work in the future. Whatever happens in 2014, the action plan will become an important part of Scotland’s future and will help us to build a Scotland and a wider world where everyone can live with human dignity.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the publication of Scotland’s first National Action Plan for Human Rights; recognises it as a historic milestone in Scotland’s progress toward a vision, shared across the whole of Scottish society, of ensuring that everyone in the country can live with fundamental human dignity through the realisation of the universal and inalienable human rights proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognised in international law; commends the Scottish Human Rights Commission and all those from across the public, private and voluntary sectors, and from Scottish civil society at large who have contributed to the inclusive and cooperative process of developing this first National Action Plan for Human Rights, and looks forward to future opportunities over the lifetime of the plan to hear reports of the actions taken, and the progress achieved, in better realising the human rights of all in Scotland through realising the vision and achieving the outcomes mapped out in the plan.
14:48
It is particularly appropriate that we gather in the chamber today on international human rights day, and on a day that is marked by such a momentous occasion as the passing of Nelson Mandela and the events that are taking place in Soweto as we speak. I hope that today gives us some inspiration for action.
The Labour amendment proposes action on human rights that is not constrained by the current constitutional settlement. It pleads with the Government for action on a very important human rights abuse in our communities—female genital mutilation. However, what we are proposing is completely within the powers of this Parliament, this Government and this constitutional settlement. I hope that the minister will seriously consider our amendment.
I welcome the action plan for human rights, not least for its honesty about our often limited success in embedding human rights in the policies and laws that we pass in this chamber. There must always be that balance. From the Cadder judgment and the emergency legislation that followed, to the cuts to legal aid that left article 6 questions unanswered, to the fact that we find one victim of human trafficking every four days in our communities in Scotland, it is clear that sometimes we act adequately, but also that we sometimes fall short of what is expected of us. Our amendment asks the Government to take action in one of those areas. There are 3,000 women and girls living in Scotland today who are at risk of, or who have undergone, some of the most barbaric acts of torture and child abuse imaginable—in this country, against our current law.
I thank Jenny Marra for taking an intervention. I know of her interest in the subject. When I was a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee we inquired into the matter of female genital mutilation and we went out and visited groups of women. Jenny Marra said that 3,000 women in Scotland are either in danger of going through or have gone through that horrific treatment. When members of the committee, including members of the Labour Party, went out to visit those groups of women, we did not find 3,000 women. I would be interested to hear where Jenny Marra got the numbers from.
I got the numbers from the Minister for Public Health, Michael Matheson, who said just a few weeks ago in the chamber that 3,000 women are at risk in Scotland, but the numbers could be higher as a result of the 2011 census, which has just been published.
These women and girls have had their clitoris cut out of their vagina. They have had their labia sliced off with a knife or a razor and have been sewn up like rag dolls, only to have been unsewn again for sex or childbirth. These women and little girls suffer from chronic psychological and physical pain and can be left infertile. On occasion, they simply bleed to death.
Female genital mutilation is a crime in Scotland. It has been banned since the 1980s and further measures were put in place when this Parliament passed an act in 2005 making it illegal in Scots law for a Scottish resident to be taken to a third country to have it done. Despite three decades of criminal law against this torture and despite there being so many women at risk, there has been not one conviction and not one prosecution—not even one police report has ever been filed on female genital mutilation in Scotland.
Last month, persistent work by a dedicated Scottish journalist reported that Scotland is seen as a soft touch for genital mutilation. Agencies are saying that girls are being brought to Scotland from England and Europe, because it is a safe place for this torture to be carried out—it will be neither detected nor prosecuted in this country.
It is mutilation and it is torture. We should challenge the patriarchal myth that it is female circumcision—it is not. Circumcision is a medical procedure with clear health benefits. There are no such advantages to genital mutilation.
Earlier this year I asked the Minister for Public Health how many women and girls are at risk of genital mutilation in Scotland. He responded by telling me that the number who are at risk is likely to be “significantly higher” than 3,000 with new population figures from the 2011 census. I hope that that answers Sandra White’s question. We simply do not know how much higher the figure is. The Scottish Government has not tried to scope the extent of this human rights abuse in Scotland, much less to challenge it. Why? It is because it involves little girls, their genitals, race and where they come from. It involves challenging a culture in which many women who have undergone FGM themselves still believe that it is an acceptable practice. As we stand here today on international human rights day and recommit to advancing the rights of every person in Scotland, I do not believe that our health professionals, our social services, our police and our charity workers can begin to undermine the practice of FGM while respecting those sensitivities.
I think that everybody will agree with what Jenny Marra said about the crime that she has described. However, forced marriages are still happening in Scotland. All kinds of things are happening. The motion really incorporates all of that, rather than singling something out. Jenny Marra might have brought her own debate on this one subject—and endorsed the generalisation of the minister’s motion.
Presiding Officer, can I have a little more time to address that?
I will tell you when you should stop.
Thank you.
We have lodged our amendment because I do not believe that FGM is specifically mentioned in the human rights strategy and, given recent press reports and concerns, it is something that needs to be looked at urgently, so I wanted to draw it to the minister’s attention today. We already have the law on it, but we could easily put together an action plan to delve into our communities and prevent it.
Legislation is not enough: we have legislation and it is not working. The crime goes on because it is neither detected nor prosecuted. Are the right questions being asked in the situations where FGM can be detected, such as pregnancy screenings? I understand that they are not, and the public health minister was unable to assure me that they were when I asked him that in the chamber.
Nicola Sturgeon said this morning that human rights would be better in an independent Scotland. I am asking the Scottish National Party to make human rights more meaningful for the 3,000 women who are at risk of FGM today in our communities. Law is one thing, but action in our communities is what is needed to prevent FGM; that is what we are asking for. I hope that other parties will support the amendment that is in my name.
I move amendment S4M-08544.1, to insert at end:
“; notes the risk of female genital mutilation in Scotland; further notes that there have been no prosecutions for female genital mutilation despite the fact that 3,000 women in Scotland are at risk; further notes the Scottish Government’s information that the number at risk is likely to be ‘significantly higher’ in light of new data in the 2011 census, and asks the Scottish Government to bring forward a strategy in the next six months to prevent female genital mutilation and enforce the existing legislation”.
14:56
I welcome the publication of the national action plan for human rights. There is certainly a strong element of consensus on the topic across the chamber and—despite what some might say—across the United Kingdom too. All major political parties are signed up to the importance of human rights. However, there may be disagreement as to the best way to enforce and interpret those rights.
It is no secret that the general public’s opinion of human rights is not as positive as it could or, indeed, should 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 that 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.”
That is not something that we should ignore or brush aside. It is in the interests of all those who champion fundamental human rights to bring the public on side and improve the image of human rights.
The perception that human rights is a charter for criminals is supported in some respects by the concentration on criminal justice issues that we often see here. Whether that perception is accurate or not, it persists in society and does not do the concept of human rights any good. It is one that we need to address here in Scotland and across the whole UK.
The UK has a proud record and tradition of human rights, which ensures that they are reflected in our cultural norms and institutions. We must remember that the ECHR was written in part by Conservatives from Britain in the 1950s as a response to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. It included the fundamental principles of a democratic nation at a time when very few existed. However, as we have seen in many recent judgments, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has extended its remit by going into areas that have little to do with real human rights issues.
Human rights have become twisted by political correctness, with the catchphrase “I know my rights”. The European Court of Human Rights has been subject to lengthy delays and pries more and more into matters that should be routine issues for national courts and parliaments.
About 15 years ago, the Northern Constabulary issued a book to young people about knowing your rights when dealing with the police. Is it not a positive thing for people to know their rights?
It is, of course, positive that that sort of thing happens, but we must remember that we have to take the public along with us. If we concentrate merely on telling people what their rights are without encouraging them to take responsibility for the circumstances in which they find themselves, human rights themselves are marginalised.
The action plan focuses on outcomes rather than the structures and processes that are in place to protect human rights. That new and interesting approach is welcome. For too long, discussion on human rights has centred on processes rather than outcomes.
However, we should not misrepresent the action plan. It includes consideration of services and calls for a human rights-based approach to delivery of services. That does not mean that everyone has an unlimited right to whatever public service they desire. For example, the UN human rights convention includes a right to paid holidays. It is hard to believe that the right to a paid holiday is an absolute and inalienable moral right, just as it is difficult to see that the right to respite care is a moral right. That does not mean that those rights and aspirations are not worthy or important, but we must recognise that they exist because of political pressure rather than because of some moral absolute.
As for housing and welfare, all parties agree that there is a need to increase the availability of affordable housing and to improve the quality of ageing social housing stock. Everyone has a right to be adequately housed, but that does not mean that everyone has the right to any type of housing that they wish. We live in a world of finite resources, so we must reconcile the rights of a family who are housed in overcrowded accommodation with the rights of an individual who lives in social housing that he or she is underoccupying. In that case, a human rights-based approach must surely favour the family who live in temporary or vastly overcrowded circumstances.
Equally, a human rights-based approach does not preclude welfare reform. Our welfare system will and must continue to protect the most vulnerable people in our society, and to offer a safety net of adequate housing and financial support.
As we move towards the introduction of universal credit, some landlords in Scotland—councils and housing associations—are opposing direct payment of housing benefit to claimants or tenants. However, one or two landlords are beginning to realise the importance of giving individuals responsibility for their own decision making and financial wellbeing. I welcome the fact that that is beginning to change.
Conclude, please, Mr Johnstone.
As we come to the end of the opening speeches, I look forward to an in-depth discussion about the action plan, and to summing up at the end of the debate.
15:03
It is right to have the debate on this, the 65th anniversary of the signing of “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. As the minister said, it is apposite to have it following the motion of condolence for Nelson Mandela. There is probably no finer embodiment of a person who values our fundamental human rights than him.
Human rights are often viewed in a silo and as a somewhat legalistic matter. As Alex Johnstone said, human rights are often viewed negatively—I am not sure whether his speech is likely to improve that perception, but perhaps we will leave that for another day. People often feel that human rights have little relevance to their lives, but that is not the case—they are important to us all.
The minister quoted Eleanor Roosevelt, who was fundamental to bringing into being “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. I will expand the quotation that was used. The minister started with:
“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.”
Eleanor Roosevelt went on to say:
“Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighbourhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination.”
In that context, the national action plan is very welcome.
We should probably also reflect on the fact that it is the first such action plan to be developed in the United Kingdom. Given that Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that our legislation is compatible with the ECHR, we must have a plan that sets out how we might achieve that. We must also set out in detail how we can get across to people the fact that human rights are relevant to them.
I have not been able to read the plan in detail, although I will do so, but it is clear from its methodology and what is planned that it is about trying to create a participative process that brings human rights alive for people. It has been welcomed outside Parliament. Amnesty International tells us that it was asked to participate in the development of the plan, that it welcomes its publication and that it looks forward to working with others to implement the outcomes that it believes
“have the potential to deliver real and meaningful improvements to the lives of those who live and work in Scotland.”
I should declare an interest as a member of Amnesty International and in the fact that my wife works for the organisation and wrote the excellent briefing from which I have just quoted. The Scottish Human Rights Commission, the chair of which also chaired the team that pulled the plan together, talks about implementation of the plan being
“a process of culture change: unlocking the transformative potential of human rights in all areas of our lives.”
We might expect those organisations to welcome the plan, but we also received a number of briefings from other organisations. The Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland talks about how human rights are important in the area that it works in. Inclusion Scotland talks about how human rights are important for it and how disabled people self-define independent living as the
“rights to practical assistance and support to participate in society and live an ordinary life.”
I was surprised to get a briefing from Community Land Scotland, which talks about the relevance of human rights to land ownership. The fact that those organisations are involved in thinking about how the national action plan can interact with their areas of interest demonstrates that the plan is not going to exist in the silo that I spoke of earlier.
I very much welcome the fact that the plan has been published today and look forward to its being put into practice in better embedding a human rights culture in Scotland. I hope that it is a subject to which we can return to debate in the chamber in the future.
15:07
It is particularly important that we are debating Scotland’s first human rights action plan on international human rights day and the day on which we remember Nelson Mandela—although I am sure that we will always remember him. He said:
“As long as women are bound by poverty and as long as they are looked down upon, human rights will lack substance.”
He was addressing the pervasive gender inequality and oppression that is one of the two most widespread human rights abuses throughout the world. The other abuse that he referred to is poverty, and in other contexts he would have emphasised the poverty of men as well as the poverty of women.
Kofi Annan, the former secretary-general of the United Nations, narrowed it down further when he said that violence against women and girls is
“perhaps the most pervasive violation of human rights across the globe”.
I had intended to talk about that in the debate but, a few minutes before the debate, I discovered that we are belatedly going to have a debate on violence against women next week, so I will make just two summary points on that.
First, four significant points are made in the action plan about violence against women. It states that additional measures to tackle human trafficking are required and that legal protection is disparate, so we need to consider several issues around that. The plan says that domestic abuse courts
“should be replicated, with appropriate support”;
that is an important recommendation. It also reflects on concerns about access to legal aid for those seeking remedies for domestic abuse. That is an important part of the action plan.
Secondly, I briefly back up what Jenny Marra said. She has been a passionate and empathetic campaigner on the issue of female genital mutilation, as on other issues, and she was quite right to highlight the omission of that issue from the plan. It emphasises a more general point about human rights. There has been no greater supporter of multiculturalism than me when multiculturalism has been under attack from many people in the UK, but we should remember that human rights always trump multiculturalism. Even if female genital mutilation or some other human rights abuse is accepted in some cultures, that does not make it right. We must always remember that human rights come first.
I mentioned poverty. Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that
“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family”,
although it should say “himself or herself”. Interestingly, the ECHR does not include a specific right to a minimum standard of living, which might be—actually, I am sure that it is—a weakness of that convention. I am glad that the action plan has interesting actions and recommendations on that issue, including on a human rights action group on standard of living, which will involve the Scottish Trades Union Congress and others. That is an important development. There are lots of other interesting suggestions, such as that on a human rights-based approach to taxation. I look forward to the conclusions on that.
I have one minute to go in my speech, and I have a lot to cover. Health and social care has come up in the context of the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Bill. It is good to see a human rights approach being recommended on that, particularly the idea of independent living being a basic human right for disabled people. There is an interesting reference to health inequalities being seen through the human rights lens, which is another fruitful angle.
I have 30 seconds left. The tricky area is that of human rights and justice issues. Of course we need more emphasis on victims, and we will come back to that issue on Thursday, but the accused has rights, too. I welcome the fact that reforms had to be introduced as a result of the Cadder case. Alex Johnstone mentioned the most difficult area, which is the human rights of people in prison. They rightly have certain rights taken away, but they also have certain rights that should be preserved. We need more debate and discussion on that, but it is not an argument for abolishing the Human Rights Act 1998. It is important—this is my final sentence—that fundamental human rights are embedded in law, but we must act on them, and I hope that the action plan will help us to do that.
15:11
I join colleagues in celebrating international human rights day and in welcoming the publication of Scotland’s national action plan on human rights. I pay tribute to all those who contributed to the new plan.
We know that there is a fairly strong legal and institutional framework that is dedicated to enshrining and protecting our human rights, but the action plan is significant, because it seeks to build on those foundations by making human rights more relevant and meaningful to people through a series of tangible evidence-based steps and by bringing human rights into daily domestic life. The plan reminds us that human rights define the way in which we are treated and determine our opportunities and the extent to which we are free. It helps to cut through the dangerous perception that human rights are abstract or immaterial, that they are an obstruction to justice or that they should not necessarily be universal.
In identifying the areas in which human rights can be better protected and how that can be achieved, the plan poses challenges and opportunities. In the brief time that I have, I will focus on a number of those. The document challenges the Scottish Government to improve conditions of detention and highlights problems with overcrowding, access to mental health services and vocational and educational opportunities. It also presses on the need to implement the recommendations of the commission on women offenders. Those are all issues that I have spoken about in the chamber and which must be considered a priority.
Elsewhere, the plan presents an opportunity to improve the quality of care for vulnerable and older people so that they are not only treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve, but empowered to remain autonomous—as far as possible—and supported to realise their rights through personalised provision.
The plan challenges us to promote a
“consistent understanding and respect for human rights”
in mental health care and treatment. Indeed, it highlights the need to reconsider existing approaches to
“restraint, seclusion, involuntary treatment, and informal detention.”
Again, I whole-heartedly welcome that proposition.
I acknowledge the work of one of my constituents, W Hunter Watson, who has worked tirelessly to highlight the plight of mental health patients in Scotland. Earlier today, he petitioned the Parliament on the need to reform the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 to protect patients’ human rights. In particular, the focus is on the need to end the totally objectionable enforcement of electroconvulsive therapy on patients who resist or object to that treatment.
The plan notes that we have a responsibility to create a better world through respecting, protecting and fulfilling human rights internationally. It recognises that Scotland’s obligations
“do not stop at its borders”
and that such considerations must be at the heart of the Government’s international framework and bilateral engagements. Our values cannot be traded away.
The action plan is not a wish list; rather, it should provide stimulus to further embed human rights in the way that we do things, from the first legislative proposals to the delivery of services and the subsequent monitoring processes.
Before concluding, Presiding Officer, I agree with Jean Urquhart that Jenny’s amendment would have been better dealt with in a debate of its own, but I nevertheless support her amendment.
Parliament must act as a champion for the action plan and I hope that it will have regular opportunities to consider its progress. That will be essential.
Earlier today, the Parliament celebrated and reflected on the life of Nelson Mandela. It therefore seems entirely apt to finish by recalling that he once said:
“To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.”
I remind members to use full names when they are referring to colleagues.
15:15
First, I congratulate the Scottish Human Rights Commission on the publication of its national action plan. It is significant that it had Scottish Government support and active participation; that sends a clear signal. The plan represents four years of hard labour for the SHRC and it has been fruitful. The purpose of the plan is:
“To focus and coordinate action by public, private, voluntary bodies and individuals to achieve human dignity for all through the realisation of internationally recognised human rights.”
For me, it is important that people understand and can affirm human rights, and a requirement for that understanding is education. As I said in my intervention, I see no threat in people understanding their human rights fully. In the longer term, problems will arise if people do not know their rights. If the national action plan is properly implemented, people should be pushing at an open door with authority to ensure that their rights are being respected.
We cannot say often enough that those rights are dignity, equality, freedom, autonomy and respect. Indeed, the PANEL—participation, accountability, non-discrimination, empowerment and legality—acronym has participation as a key element and there are opportunities with things such as consultative budgets and, as members have alluded to, the opportunity to participate in the compilation of our constitution, which has adopted a rights-based approach.
Accountability is the next element, and the Parliament has been criticised for not having a human rights committee and not appearing to address human rights issues overtly when we know that they are being addressed. Perhaps we need to be a bit more explicit about that.
Non-discrimination is the third PANEL element. We all have interests in particular areas. Ms Marra is genuinely interested in and concerned about the issue of female genital mutilation, and who would not be? Others, like myself, are interested in Gypsy Travellers, Roma, and blacklisting, all of which are important aspects that we have to pick up on.
Empowerment is very important, and we need to be alert to the role that advocacy plays in that, and how often it is the first thing that local authorities cut in these pressing times.
The national action plan will be relevant regardless of the outcome of the referendum, although I note that the report says that progress has been made since devolution, and it identifies the next steps. The minister rightly points out that we have a strong legal framework.
Perhaps surprisingly, Alex Johnstone referred to the deserving and undeserving as viewed in rights. He referred to one poll and I will refer to another. A recent Trades Union Congress poll brought out the many misconceptions about welfare and benefits spending. It found that
“On average people think that 41 per cent of the entire welfare budget goes on benefits to unemployed people, while the true figure is 3 per cent.”
That clearly has some resonance in the debate that we are having today.
It is interesting that the UK Government’s position should be brought up in this debate. I would have thought that Mr Johnstone would keep quiet about that because, just as Mr Cameron talks about slaying the health and safety monster, he takes a very similar approach to human rights, and there is no place for that. We will have an opportunity to address that in the coming months.
Health and social care has been touched on, and I think that independent living is a clear issue, as is the fact that the ever-present dignity and acknowledgement of the individual should be key to any care package.
The minister is right to talk about the Government’s commitment to abolishing homelessness, and that is very positive, but it has to be delivered in practice. However, the challenges remain for people such as prisoners who are released without a home to go to and who have difficulty in accessing medical treatment because general practitioners will not treat certain individuals who have addiction issues.
The action plan has a vision of a Scotland in which everyone is able to live with human dignity, and I do not believe that anyone will dissent from that.
15:19
It should be made clear that in what has been an interesting if short debate we will not have time to raise a number of points. Nevertheless, as John Finnie pointed out, too many of us are willing to talk about human rights as a series of absolutes while failing to understand the complexities of how individuals’ rights interact with each other. It is, for example, legitimate to ask how we reconcile the absolute rights of a victim with those of an assailant, and the fact is that we need to work very hard on human rights to ensure that we achieve some equality and justice.
However, the usual prejudiced view that the Conservative Party does not support human rights has been aired in this debate. In fact, that could not be further from the truth. I am pleased to tell the chamber that in the new year the Conservatives will publish a document setting out exactly how they will replace the Human Rights Act 1998, which was introduced by Labour, and later in the year the party will publish a draft bill containing the legal detail of exactly how those changes will take effect. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the Conservatives want to scrap the 1998 act; instead, my party—correctly, in my view—is looking at reforming legislation to focus human rights on those who deserve and require protection. Indeed, members who have spoken in the debate have dealt at some length with the areas in which protection is required.
Jenny Marra has thrown some elements of the Parliament into confusion with her amendment, which, although out of place in the broader context, addresses a key subject that, I believe, the Equal Opportunities Committee will examine again as part of its current work programme. Ms Marra herself mentioned a recent journalistic inquiry that brought to light a risk that attitudes towards female genital mutilation in Scotland might be causing the crime to become more common here. However, as members have pointed out, a similar priority could be given to a whole list of other areas including human trafficking, domestic abuse and the series of mental health issues that Alison McInnes highlighted in her speech.
I as a Conservative and my Conservative group in the Parliament give our full commitment to furthering the aims and objectives of human rights legislation as implemented in Scotland. Where we might differ from the Government is in our belief that such advances can be taken forward under the UK as a strong and robust political unit and I see no advantage to their being taken forward in an independent Scotland on its own.
At decision time, we will support the Government in the publication of the document and the broad principles that lie behind it. To be honest, I do not know whether we will be able to vote for Jenny Marra’s amendment but I certainly hope that the Parliament and its committees will be able to take forward the issue and reach some conclusion on it and that we can debate it in greater detail at some later point.
15:23
I am pleased to close for Scottish Labour in this short but important debate on Scotland’s national action plan for human rights and concur with members’ comments about the appropriateness of its following the tributes to Nelson Mandela, who did so much to fight for human rights and, later on in his life, the rights of children.
I welcome the opportunity that is provided by the debate to promote human rights in a positive way. Alex Johnstone referred to the public perception of human rights; unfortunately, some right-wing politicians and certain sections of the UK media that support them have promulgated the view that human rights are all about the rights of bad people. Some have actually said that our obligation should be abandoned; indeed, I thought that Theresa May herself had suggested as much.
It is also unfortunate that media attention on human rights focused this weekend on those of a convicted criminal—in this case, a murderer’s claim to conjugal rights—and his successful application for legal aid instead of, on this day in particular, reflecting on why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. That arose because of the horrendous abuse on the grounds of religion, race, nationality and sexual orientation that had taken place in Nazi Germany—a country not unlike Britain; a western country, like us, but one in which human rights were abandoned—and the recognition that it was necessary to provide globally recognised definitions of the rights to which all human beings are entitled.
The development of Scotland’s national action plan is in line with the United Nations’ recommendation that national action plans should be developed and adopted by each country. The recommendations were made as part of the Vienna declaration and programme of action some 20 years ago. Although it is good that Scotland is the first country in the United Kingdom to have developed a national action plan, we are all a little bit behind the game in taking 20 years to do that. However, I congratulate the SHRC for facilitating the process of development of the plan. It was developed through the participation of a range of organisations, which identified three outcomes: understanding and empowerment of individuals to claim their rights; tackling injustice and improving lives; and delivering on our international obligations.
I was disappointed with the minister’s contribution in her opening speech, because she seemed to use it to talk about the constitutional arrangements within the United Kingdom. As John Finnie said, the relevance of the national action plan is not about whether people vote yes next year. In fact, I felt that the minister’s speech was self-congratulatory in tone in talking about the wonderful legislation that we have passed in this Parliament. It was recognised by those who developed SNAP that the plan was not all about legislation. We pass good legislation in the Scottish Parliament, but when it comes to translating that into embedding human rights in the provision of public services and individuals’ understanding their rights, that is where we do not do so well. Just talking about what a wonderful job the Government is doing was not taking the opportunity of the debate to discuss what is actually in the plan.
The amendment makes a practical suggestion regarding how we can protect today the rights of a group of women in Scotland, but Malcolm Chisholm referred to a load of other actions that need to be taken regarding the rights of women and girls. I am sure that some of those actions will be discussed next week.
The implementation of SNAP is a process of cultural change, making respect for human dignity central to public services and applying a person-centred approach. That approach in service delivery is not new, because there are already developments in health and social care services, such as personalisation, which seek to involve clients in the design of the services that they receive and to allow them to choose and have control of the delivery of the services. However, this is an opportunity to think about the extension of the principle into other areas of public services.
As I said, the public perception seems to be that human rights is about protecting criminals. However, it is obvious that victims also have human rights, and a person-centred approach has implications for our justice system. We will discuss some of that in the context of the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill later this week. However, a person-centred human rights approach has implications for not just the court system but the system of policing in Scotland. Some of those will need to be reflected on as we go forward.
Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland made the point in its briefing that the human rights approach has important implications for the delivery of health and social care. People with disabilities and long-term conditions should be treated as human beings rather than just as people who suffer from a condition that requires health and social care interventions; and the outcomes that they desire for themselves must be taken into account when services are designed. Alison McInnes made an important point about the rights of mental health patients.
Jamie Hepburn referred to Community Land Scotland. I was quite interested in its observation that a human rights-based approach has implications for land reform and the community right to buy, in protecting not just the human rights of the landowner but the rights of communities to have access to land and to create a sustainable future for themselves.
I will touch very briefly on human rights for workers. My colleague Neil Findlay would have liked to take part in the debate to talk about blacklisting. There was not time for that, but blacklisting is a human rights abuse in that workers have been denied employment because of their political views or trade union activity, or because they have raised health and safety concerns.
We need to take ownership of the progress of SNAP and we need to stand up to those voices that portray human rights as a negative issue. We also need to be proactive in discussing the situation of the rights of convicted criminals. We must have a mature and sensible debate about that rather than just react to things that the media brings to us.
Overall, I welcome the publication of SNAP, which has vital implications for not just how we legislate but, crucially, how public services are designed. Most important of all, perhaps, is that for the approach to be successful it will require cultural change.
Before I call Roseanna Cunningham to respond to the debate, I advise members that this afternoon’s debates are on a follow-on basis. I remind members who wish to participate in the next debate that they should be in the chamber for the opening speeches. Minister, you have eight minutes.
15:30
It is amazing how wide a variety of views can be encompassed even in a short debate such as this. Practically all the speeches have been constructive in addressing the issue, even if they do not all come from exactly the same starting point.
I will shortly meet the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights, Nils Muižnieks—I hope that that is the correct pronunciation—who is visiting the Parliament today. Indeed, he might be in the public gallery somewhere. I recall meeting him in Strasbourg last year, and I was struck by his deep commitment to human rights and by his positive impression of Scotland’s approach in this area.
Earlier today, I spoke about the Scottish Government’s strong commitment to human rights. I am sorry that Jenny Marra found that objectionable in some way. I spoke about what we are doing to make rights a reality for all and about our future aspirations in this field. I will conclude today’s debate by linking that further to Scotland’s first national action plan for human rights.
I join other members who have spoken today in commending the Scottish Human Rights Commission for its achievements. The SHRC is Scotland’s A-rated national human rights institution. It is statutorily independent of Government and Parliament. The commission has a key role in promoting and protecting the human rights of everyone in Scotland. I do not know whether everyone here is aware of how widely well regarded the SHRC is across the whole of Europe. It is considered to be an extraordinarily important institution, and it is held in great regard across Europe. We need to commend the commission for its work in getting to that position.
Will the minister commit to voting tonight for a strategy on female genital mutilation?
I will come to the Labour amendment later in my speech.
The Government has enjoyed a productive, constructive relationship with the commission on a wide range of issues. The commission’s approach has been very much in evidence in the development of the plan. The SHRC team is small but perfectly formed, and their intelligence and commitment are impressive.
It is worth noting that a national action plan for human rights has been developed not simply because the Scottish Human Rights Commission, or indeed the Scottish Government, thought that it was a good idea. Twenty years ago at the world conference on human rights in Vienna, the international community adopted a declaration on human rights that reaffirmed many core principles. One of the recommendations was for each state to
“consider the desirability of drawing up a national action plan identifying steps whereby that State would improve the promotion and protection of human rights.”
Since then, a number of states have done so—Sweden, Finland and New Zealand are three fine examples. I am delighted that Scotland is following suit, and I very much hope that our approach will act as a model of best practice for others to follow. Scotland is joining a group of progressive nations across the world in seeking not to assume, but to assure, human rights.
In building a coalition of partners who share its vision of a Scotland where everyone lives with fundamental human dignity, the Scottish Human Rights Commission has been successful in facilitating a genuine co-production effort. I emphasise that, although the plan is very much the SHRC’s creation—and it should take the credit for that—the commission has been open and inclusive in involving a range of partners from all quarters in shaping the plan. It is far from being a traditional action plan; it is much more a programme of action constructed around a shared vision, with a closely aligned set of outcomes. The sharing of that vision goes beyond government; it goes right across society.
The plan has been explicitly linked to the Scottish Government’s national outcomes framework, which has attracted international attention and praise. It aspires to create an environment in which people better understand rights and organisations are able to apply them. That is linked to the Scottish Government’s ambition to ensure that our public services are high quality and responsive to need.
Improving lives through tackling injustice and exclusion in our society accords strongly with the priority that the Scottish Government has placed on tackling the significant inequalities in Scotland—and there are indeed significant inequalities in Scotland. The more that Scotland gives effect to our international obligations, the more we can take pride in a strong, fair and inclusive national identity.
I turn briefly to the Labour amendment. Work to tackle female genital mutilation, which is a form of violence against women, will be included in Scotland’s national strategy to tackle violence against women. That strategy is being developed in collaboration with public and voluntary sector partners and will be the first of its kind in Scotland. It will be published in the summer of 2014 following a consultation in the new year. I expect that all members in the chamber will wish to contribute to that consultation and take part in the discussions around it.
However, I wish that the Labour Party had allowed the motion simply to proceed on the basis of its congratulating the Scottish Human Rights Commission and what it says about Scotland’s first national action plan. For those reasons, I cannot find any reason to support the amendment.
I am very sorry to hear what the minister is saying. Does she understand that Jenny Marra’s addendum accepts all the wording of the minister’s motion, but that she lodged the amendment because the serious crime in question was not included in the action plan, there have been no prosecutions, and there is a perception that it is easier to commit that horrendous crime in Scotland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom? As the minister says that there will be a strategy, I can see no reasonable or legitimate reason why she should not support the amendment.
I normally find myself broadly in agreement with Malcolm Chisholm, but we could have had an entire catalogue of amendments on individual subjects today. I am simply saying that I think that the motion should be passed in its entirety, as it is presented to members.
Jamie Hepburn made a very good point, which was perhaps a counterpoint to Alex Johnstone’s speech, in reminding us that many people still do not see human rights as applying to them at all. The debate can sound very high flown, and it is often wrapped up in legalese. An important outcome of the national action plan will be to relate those ideas to the real existences of ordinary people where they live.
Malcolm Chisholm, who was interesting, as always—even if I do not always agree with him—flagged up some issues that he thought were missing from the ECHR. That was an interesting perspective that I had not considered before. I think that he talked about issues around the standard of living. Perhaps that highlights how perceptions change over the years, even in an area that we think of as somehow inalienable.
Alison McInnes highlighted the human rights issues that surround mental health decisions and outcomes. That is also a significant area of current concern. She was right to flag up that human rights issues apply in that area as they do everywhere else.
As befits the convener of the cross-party group on human rights, John Finnie outlined the huge number of specific areas to which human rights could apply. Certainly, individuals and communities understanding their rights and duty bearers understanding how to apply them, all set in the context of an international human rights framework, are critical to creating empowered communities.
I am conscious that I am running out of time, so I will move quickly towards the end of my speech. My colleague Stewart Stevenson mentioned Mary Robinson. She has been quoted as saying:
“Every human has rights. What does it mean? It means simply that rights belong to people, not Governments. That the Universal Declaration on Human Rights gave a birthright to every child born in the world”.
That usefully encapsulates the challenge before us, not just for Christmas or for Governments but for everybody everywhere.
I invite members to support the motion.