The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-15645, in the name of Christine Grahame, on behalf of the Justice Committee, on Scotland’s national action plan for human rights.
14:54
I rise to speak on behalf of the Justice Committee and am pleased to speak on the progress of SNAP, Scotland’s national action plan for human rights, which is now in its second year.
A considerable amount of progress has been made in the 20 years since the international community agreed to promote national action plans for human rights, but despite the relatively strong laws and institutions to protect human rights in Scotland, that has not always translated into the everyday experiences of many people.
SNAP was introduced in 2013. It builds on the values of dignity, equality, freedom, autonomy and respect, which were first set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it provides a framework for human rights in Scotland. SNAP’s overall vision is of a Scotland where everyone can live with human dignity. To realise that vision, the Scottish Human Rights Commission has developed an action plan that seeks to make human rights law a reality in people’s lives by responding to the distinct challenges that we face in Scotland.
The SNAP report allows us to take stock of our progress towards a sustainable human rights culture. It also maps out next steps in areas where the value of a human-rights-based approach is already recognised and, more important, it allows us to foster learning and innovation in areas of life in which the value of human rights has not yet been realised.
The Justice Committee engages with SNAP through our rapporteur, John Finnie, who will, I understand, sum up for the committee. Mr Finnie receives biannual updates from Professor Miller, which are then fed back to the committee for its consideration.
The Justice Committee and Justice Sub-committee on Policing have also sought to examine human rights as part of our scrutiny. Probably the most referred to article against which we test legislation is article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which is about the right to a fair trial. I use the word “trial”, but it is called a hearing in civil cases. Article 6 states:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
That can refer to a simple hearing about which school a child goes to, or to something on a larger scale, such as criminal proceedings. The right to a fair hearing is an important part of Scots law and we test all proposed legislation that comes before the committee against that.
Another example is our consideration of the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Bill, during which we took evidence from a representative of the Scottish Human Rights Commission. The Justice Sub-Committee on Policing continues to scrutinise, within the context of human rights, Police Scotland’s approach to stop and search and its use of surveillance. It is about the difficult balance that is to be struck between the rights of the individual and the requirements of society and the community as a whole.
With its focus on seven specific outcomes, SNAP offers a long-term vision for human rights all the way to 2030, but it is encouraging to note the progress that has already been made in the past two years. There is a new online portal that brings together resources that have been developed on human rights in health and social care. I am pleased to see that the cabinet secretary with responsibility for older people is here today, because the issue has an important application to older people. There is also the housing rights in practice project, which I will say more about later.
The progress that has been made is testament to the dedication of the commission, its staff and its partners: the committee commends them for their achievements to date. Special mention should go to Professor Alan Miller, who I believe is with us in the gallery today. As many members know, he is stepping down as chair of the commission this year. I take this opportunity to commend him on behalf of the committee for his commitment in driving forward the human rights agenda in Scotland and elsewhere. I understand that Scotland now enjoys an internationally recognised reputation for its approach to human rights, which is due in no small part to the work of Professor Miller.
The committee heard from Professor Miller back in January, and members were particularly interested in the work that is being done through SNAP at local level. We in Scotland enjoy a relatively high standard of living, so it is easy to take for granted the intrinsic role that human rights play in our everyday lives. Eleanor Roosevelt, in her speech marking the tenth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, asked where human rights begin. For her, the answer was that they are found not in some philosophical ideal, at the negotiating table or in some international forum, important though those are, but in the small places, close to home. They are in the world of the individual person, the neighbourhood we live in, the school or college that we attend, the factory, farm or office where we work or the hospital and care home. She said:
“Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere.”
I mentioned the housing rights in practice project, which is being conducted just down the road in Leith. That pilot project is helping residents in Edinburgh to use human rights to tackle substandard housing and living conditions. The Justice Committee was surprised to learn that the chair of the commission, Professor Miller, was busy with a small project like that, but that is where it matters. It is such projects that demonstrate the need for us to move beyond the preconceived notion of human rights as being something that is separate and academic or esoteric, and instead to see them as being practical and relevant to the everyday.
A tenant who is involved in the project had this to say about the value of considering local issues in the context of human rights:
“Before, I had no idea that I had any human rights regarding my housing conditions. I had contacted the Council on many occasions to try and improve conditions in my home and in my community. On some occasions I succeeded however, in the majority I failed.
Through the organisations involved I have learned a lot. They have encouraged me to involve the community as a whole and to discuss our problems in regards to our homes and environment. As a result the residents association has reformed. I have learned that housing conditions not only impact on physical health but also on our mental health.
The process is currently in the early stages and I look forward to working … to make our community a peaceful and happier place.”
It is encouraging to see how the commission’s work is contributing to the lives of constituents. The committee will continue to monitor its progress.
Under SNAP, the commission is also working to ensure that human rights inform our approach in a number of other important areas. It has continued its focus on justice and safety issues by holding a series of accountability round tables to scrutinise the commitments that have been made by the Scottish Government, Police Scotland and others. By involving people whose rights have been affected through a series of stakeholder round-table meetings under SNAP, the commission has created an open and frank space for organisations to account for their record on human rights issues.
Another important area is the commission’s work with the Scottish Government under SNAP to monitor implementation of the action plan on historic abuse. By using human rights to inform how survivors interact with authorities, SNAP has encouraged parties to take a structured approach that is based on the delivery of 10 key outcomes. Those include exploration of options for a national survivor support fund, consideration of the merits of an apology law—my colleague Margaret Mitchell has made progress on that—and consideration of the value of a national inquiry. All those areas of work help to foster a human rights approach across our public institutions, and will inevitably embed in the public consciousness the principles that are advocated by SNAP. It is important for SNAP to build on those achievements and to maintain momentum in order to realise successfully its long-term goals.
Human rights are an effective means of achieving many of Scotland’s other policy goals and, through SNAP, the commission has already forged excellent relationships with many of Scotland’s public authorities. Although substantial progress has been made, more action is needed to ensure that human rights are successfully embedded in the fabric of Scottish society. If they have not already done so, I encourage all Scotland’s public authorities to reflect on SNAP’s year 2 report and to consider how human rights can be embedded throughout their organisations.
SNAP will play an ever-increasing role in the wider debate about human rights law and—more important and more relevant at the moment—our relationship with the European Union. I am confident that the progressive approach that has been taken under SNAP will be invaluable in ensuring that human rights continue to be the foundation on which our society is built.
I look forward to listening to members’ speeches and to reflecting on positive and constructive debate on SNAP. It is encouraging to note the progress that has been made in the space of two years, but we should not be complacent in our pursuit—or, indeed, our defence—of the principles that are advocated by SNAP.
I again congratulate Professor Miller and his team for all their hard work. I am confident that the commission will continue to maintain Scotland’s reputation as a leader in human rights on the international stage.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the publication on 10 December 2015 of the second annual report on Scotland’s National Action Plan for Human Rights (SNAP), SNAP: Scotland’s National Action Plan for Human Rights - Year Two Report.
15:04
I thank Christine Grahame and the Justice Committee for promoting the debate. It provides a timely opportunity to reflect on the journey that we have all taken in giving further and better effect to human rights over the fourth session of the Scottish Parliament. It provides, too, a chance to reflect on the work that remains to be done, and serves as a sobering opportunity to recall the real and present danger to our human rights—not least from some of the illiberal and regressive policies that the current United Kingdom Government promotes. I will say more about our response to that continuing threat in my closing remarks.
First I want to talk about Scotland’s achievements. I want to recognise the actions that the Scottish Government, this Parliament, Scotland’s wider public sector and Scottish civil society as a whole have taken in order to acknowledge Scotland’s international human rights obligations. We have a shared vision: a vision for a Scotland in which respecting, protecting and realising human rights enables everyone in our society to live with human dignity. We are, in this Parliament, united in the belief that all human beings have equal worth, and that all of us are entitled to the same fundamental protections and freedoms.
As a Government, we have argued that the cause of human rights is also the cause of social justice. A socially just society is one that embeds human rights at every level, one in which every one of us enjoys genuine equality of opportunity, and one in which we acknowledge a fundamental bond of solidarity and the principle that no member of our society should be left behind. Those principles transcend political divisions. At their heart lies the fundamental challenge of making rights real in everyday life for individuals and communities across the whole of Scotland. That means embedding human rights not in some abstract theoretical sense, but—as Christine Grahame said—as part and parcel of how Scotland functions at every level. It means addressing not merely the important civil and political rights that historically have received greatest attention, but the economic, social and cultural rights that are every bit as essential to our ability to function as an inclusive, successful and socially just nation.
The renewed emphasis that has been given to the full spectrum of human rights—civil, political, economic, social and cultural—provides some of the most powerful evidence of the progress that we have made. By reasserting the importance of the full spectrum of human rights, and by recognising the direct connection between rights and real-life concerns, we are working to strengthen our devolved democracy.
We are working to build a Scotland in which fairness, equality, social justice and fundamental human dignity can genuinely be regarded as normal features of everyday life for all members of our society. As a Government we have made our own contribution to realising that vision. The action that we are taking to promote fair work and a living wage is a good example of our work towards that vision. We have emphasised the importance of not just economic growth, but growth that is also sustainable and inclusive. We have been working to close the education attainment gap and to address gender stereotypes. A rights-based approach is one reason why we have opposed the UK Government’s Trade Union Bill, and we are committed to ensuring that disabled people have the same freedom, choice, dignity and control that we all expect to enjoy in our daily lives. We have recently consulted on a draft disability delivery plan, which will contribute to implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and Scotland has directly recognised the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in law through the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014.
Perhaps the clearest possible example of the need for human rights to inform action is the refugee crisis. As a nation, we recognise our obligation to those who are fleeing war and persecution, which is why Scotland has already promised to play a full part in offering sanctuary to those who need it. Such work demonstrates that the key challenge for any progressive modern democracy lies not in finding ways to avoid human rights responsibilities, but in finding ways to embed those responsibilities throughout our work.
As members know, 2016 marks the 50th anniversary of two of the core treaties of the international human rights framework: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Those covenants remain as relevant today as they were when they were originally drafted. Today’s debate provides a welcome reminder of their salience, and of the importance of our efforts here in Scotland to give further and better effect to those obligations.
I therefore invite members around the chamber to look back with pride on our achievements and the progress that Scotland has made. Let us also look ahead with confidence and commitment, and with a belief in the value of collaborative action, to continuing that work in the next session of the Scottish Parliament and beyond.
15:10
I thank Christine Grahame for introducing this afternoon’s debate. I identify entirely with the comments of the cabinet secretary and of the convener of the Justice Committee.
The work on human rights as they impact on Scotland lies at the very heart of all that the Parliament is about. I know that members are busy elsewhere in the building currently, but it is unfortunate that there is not more time for members to participate in this very important debate.
I acknowledge Professor Alan Miller’s presence. SNAP is a personal triumph not only for him—he has worked hard for that in all the years that I have known him—but for his colleagues who sit with him today in the chamber and for those in the drafting group and the advisory council of members from civic life and elsewhere. All have contributed to bringing us to where we are today.
This afternoon’s meeting of the Parliament was opened by Dr Angus Morrison, the moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. He mentioned the essential mutual dependence at every level of our society, and a community dedicated to love, justice and compassion.
In the foreword to SNAP, there is an acknowledgement of
“Scotland’s own historical approach to rights, our vision of limited sovereignty of the state, and the relationship between the individual and community”,
which
“resonate with present day values of fairness, empathy and dignity.”
The moderator’s words this afternoon and the words in the foreword to SNAP speak in the widest terms about delivering justice. That is not justice solely in connection with what happens in our courts and in our criminal justice system. It is justice not only in small places but, if I can describe them in this way, for small people—people who are not empowered and who cannot stand up in the Parliament and make themselves heard, but who would expect the Government and those in positions of power, who act on the decisions made in the Parliament, to act in good faith and with openness in delivering the way forward.
To that extent, the contents of the action plan and the changes in outcomes that are delivered within that action plan for consideration by the Government and by those in public services and elsewhere are important steps forward. The action plan gives the Government a clue on how to go forward in developing further human rights in our country.
As the cabinet secretary knows, in my time in Parliament I have spoken to him about constituency matters on health. People who are suffering the worst of all outcomes because of ill health have found it very difficult to access the information that they need in order to take forward the justice of their own case. Constituents have also approached me about outcomes from planning. Again, they have found it very difficult to access the basic information that is necessary to know whether their situation is being dealt with properly.
The cabinet secretary and the convener mentioned Police Scotland and the way forward for that organisation. At the heart of the problems that we face there lies the ability of ordinary members of the public to be assured that proper governance is in place and that information is shared to the extent that would give confidence that public services and Government operated not in the Government’s interest but in the interests of the citizen.
Those issues are central to our discussion this afternoon. The cabinet secretary in particular, and his colleagues in the Government, must take those issues to heart as we go forward. In a new session of Parliament, a new Government will need to read the action plan and ministers will have to ensure that their officials and those who work alongside them operate with human rights requirements in mind, not only in writing and in plans but in the way in which they make decisions. Only when ministers operate with openness and candour can citizens believe that they have a part to play in civil society in Scotland.
In order for human rights to be respected, Government must comply with the timescales that are set down in freedom of information requests and so forth. Further, when replies are obtained, the Government must respond with candour to the members of the public who are seeking the information. I have no doubt that there will be times when information cannot be shared because of legal or confidentiality requirements, but there will not be a member of this Parliament who has not taken part in what I see as intellectual chess, in which we find a way to phrase a question in order to ascertain information that a citizen should have been given without challenge.
I welcome the plan and applaud Professor Miller and his staff on what they have done on behalf of the Parliament. I look forward to a new Government taking it to the next level.
15:16
It is a pleasure to participate in today’s debate to mark the publication of the second annual report on Scotland’s national action plan for human rights. SNAP is a road map for collective action across Scotland to make human rights a reality for everyone.
The Scottish Human Rights Commission described SNAP’s first year as being mainly about “setting the stage”. Since then, however, SNAP has moved “off the page” in the action that has been taken to ensure that human rights become very much a reality for everyone. To achieve that objective, a diverse range of events and “hub” and “spoke” projects have been adopted on health, justice, housing and other areas. However, while significant progress has been made during the two years since SNAP was launched, it is fair to say that there is still much more to be done. In particular, the report points out that
“A step-change is needed across the Scottish public sector”
and that
“those in power with a responsibility to protect, respect and fulfil people’s rights must step up to discharge their duties.”
The SHRC says that that, in turn, means that SNAP
“must become firmly embedded in Scotland’s institutional fabric rather than sitting separately in a silo.”
That joined-up, holistic approach makes sense. It can be seen in the efforts that have been made so far to cement it in the foundations of Scotland’s public services. One striking example of that is the mechanism that SNAP has become for holding Police Scotland to account. That is good news, given the now self-evident absence of proper and effective oversight of the single force. That issue was warned against by the Scottish Conservatives and was a major factor in our rejecting the creation of Police Scotland in the first place.
It is very much to be welcomed that accountability here is being delivered through SNAP in a number of ways, including the SNAP accountability round-table events that have been held over the past year. Those events have focused on justice and safety, and have covered Police Scotland’s commitment to embed human rights in the structures and culture of policing.
The commission recognises that people in Scotland do not know a lot about their rights. It is therefore extremely positive that a dedicated round-table meeting was held to examine how Police Scotland can ensure that the experience of everyone who comes into contact with the police is underpinned by a recognition of their human rights. It is also positive that a separate session was held on proportionality in stop and search and the use of force.
In addition, the SHRC’s action in July last year in reporting the disproportionate use of consensual stop and search to the United Nations Human Rights Committee helped to concentrate the Scottish Government’s mind on ending the controversy.
There is no doubt that, by focusing attention on those issues through SNAP, the SHRC is helping to provide the vital checks and balances that are by and large absent under a Scottish Parliament majority Government. As Professor Miller explained in his recent evidence to the Justice Committee:
“A lot of the earlier work of the commission had to be about increasing awareness and understanding of how to apply human rights on a day-to-day basis ... We are getting to a stage where those bodies have to be increasingly held to account—where they actually need to do it.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 26 January 2016; c 38.]
In my closing remarks, I will say more about Professor Miller’s outstanding record as the chair of the SHRC.
As the new parliamentary session approaches, it is imperative that the Parliament continues to support SNAP and that Professor Miller’s impressive legacy is delivered through his successor, Judith Robertson, when she takes up her position as the new chair of the SHRC.
We turn to the open debate. Speeches should be four minutes, please.
15:21
I am very happy to speak in this debate. I add my voice to the voices of everybody else in the chamber in congratulating Professor Alan Miller on getting out alive at the end of his tenure, and on that fantastic tenure, which has left a mark on all of us. I wish him well.
We are now in the third year of Scotland’s national action plan for human rights, and the second annual report has been delivered. As we have already heard, it has had a huge impact. However, many folk will not realise that it has been heralded at the Council of Europe as an exemplar for other member states to follow in implementing and extending basic human rights.
The Parliament’s European and External Relations Committee is conducting an inquiry into the possible effect on Scotland of a repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998. I have heard no verbal evidence and have read no written evidence from anyone who supports that repeal; indeed, quite the opposite is the case. The people whom we have spoken to—in the trade unions, the third sector and civic Scotland—would like an extension to the human rights legislation to further protect everyone’s rights.
One example of Scotland’s national action plan for human rights work, which has been talked about a lot in our committee inquiry, is that on testing methodology for building a better human rights culture and capacity, especially at the local level for people with disabilities and mental health issues, young people, children and our elderly. If we can incorporate a culture of human rights practice into our everyday work, we will make life better for everyone—not just for the people who receive the service, but for the people who deliver it.
Equality impact assessments are the basic drivers for making the policy at the local level to ensure that it works best for people. However, the quality of some of those assessments leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe a bit of work could be done to look at some of them, and maybe some training and understanding could be offered to the staff who do them. With a good equality impact assessment, there will be success for the person who needs the service.
Our First Minister has said:
“progressive governments”
should be
“finding ways to embed”
human rights
“responsibilities across different areas of policy”
and not trying to find ways to avoid them. I whole-heartedly agree with her.
I have led many debates over many years on human rights and how important they are to our everyday work; in fact, the Deputy Presiding Officer has taken part in some of them. We have a First Minister who came up with that quote, so we have made a bit of progress.
This Government supports human rights, and I believe that all parties in this Parliament support the Human Rights Act 1998. Let us remember that that act means the right to life, to liberty and security, to education, to free elections, to a fair trial, to marriage, to privacy and family life, and to property. It means that people have the right not to be tortured, not to be sold into slavery, not to be discriminated against and not to face a death penalty, and my favourite part is that it gives people freedom of assembly and association, of expression, of thought, of conscience and of religion.
It ill behoves any Government to attempt to undermine those hard-fought-for rights and freedoms, and any Government that does so has serious questions to answer. However, the philosophy of the UK Government seems to be to gag charities, introduce anti-trade-union laws, strip rights from disabled people and take us out of the EU.
I welcome the continued work on Scotland’s national action plan for human rights. I welcome and commend the work of the Scottish Human Rights Commission and hope to see many years of that work in the future. I offer Judith Robertson my help, my support and my best wishes for her endeavours.
15:26
When Professor Alan Miller, the outgoing chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, came before the Justice Committee, he explained to us that, in developing the Scottish national action plan for human rights, the SHRC had benefited from international experience and best practice. He advised us that the UN’s Paris principles require national human rights organisations to act as a bridge between their country and the international human rights system.
As Margaret Mitchell said, the first year of the action plan was principally about raising awareness of how human rights should impact on daily experiences in hospitals, care homes, the justice system and the delivery of public services, and about developing an understanding of how a human rights approach should change the way in which services are provided. In the second year, SNAP has reached the point at which service providers can and, we hope, will be held accountable. In getting there, the SHRC has worked with individuals and organisations on the implementation of SNAP. Some 1,000 care providers have received training, which has been independently evaluated and considered to be extremely successful, and that training is being scaled up to be available to all care homes.
The convener of the Justice Committee told us about the housing project in Leith, where residents in poor housing conditions were made aware of their rights to adequate housing and enabled to participate in decisions. Christine Grahame also spoke about the work that uses a human rights approach to place survivors of historical sexual abuse at the centre and provides a framework that can be used to enable them to access justice. That work is relevant in the context of the current inquiry. In another example, Perth and Kinross Council has run a pilot project to promote a human rights culture at a local level, which has involved communities and public services coming together at three participative events.
Following the passage of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Bill last year, the Scottish Prison Service is working on a research project on the experiences of the victims of trafficking, using a whole-system approach. Police Scotland, too, is committed to improving the human rights training that is provided to officers, and to cultural change within the organisation.
The SHRC has twice been awarded “A” status, which is the top award, and it therefore has the right to speak at the United Nations, the UN Human Rights Council and treaty bodies. Professor Miller has spoken to the UN Human Rights Council on matters such as the right to housing and the bedroom tax, and he supported the special rapporteur who was critical of the UK Government on that issue.
However, human rights in Scotland still face challenges, not the least of which is the perception—which is encouraged by some of the right-wing media—that a human rights approach favours the bad guys over the ordinary citizen, whether that is in relation to the treatment of offenders in prisons or the mythology, which is perpetuated by the likes of Theresa May, that illegal immigrants are being allowed to stay in the UK because they have a cat.
There is still work to be done, not just by the SHRC through SNAP but by all of us who support human rights, to develop people’s understanding that human rights are fundamental to us all and are essential to the way we treat each other. Here, I might surprise Alex Neil by saying that I agree with him, because I too believe that the UK Government’s intention to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and replace it with a watered-down British bill of rights represents a significant threat to progress.
As I said, Professor Miller is about to vacate his position as chair of the SHRC, and he will be succeeded by Judith Robertson. I was very pleased to be one of the parliamentarians on the panel that appointed Judith Robertson, from a strong field of candidates. Judith has worked for Oxfam and the see me programme and has done valuable human rights work in that regard. It is clear that she is hugely committed to public engagement with human rights, and I am certain that she will carry on the good work that Professor Miller started, while bringing her extensive experience to the role.
I am sure that everyone in the Parliament wishes Judith Robertson all the best in her challenging but exciting new role. I am sure that we also wish Professor Miller all the best in his retirement from the position.
15:30
I thank all members who have contributed to a good debate this afternoon. From the tenor of the speeches, it is clear that there is a strong degree of consensus around the positive impact of SNAP since its inauguration. The success and value of SNAP is testament to the hard work of the Scottish Human Rights Commission and its chair, Professor Alan Miller.
In his recent evidence to the Justice Committee, Professor Miller reminded us that, when the Scottish Parliament established the SHRC in 2007, it did so
“with a fair degree of hesitation.”
He went on to acknowledge that the commission’s
“relevance and credibility are now beyond question.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 26 January 2016; c 39.]
That is an important legacy, and one of which he and his team can be justifiably proud.
On a personal note, I benefited hugely from Professor Miller’s experience and wisdom during the passage of my Apologies (Scotland) Bill, which he recognised would help to deliver effective remedies for survivors of historical child abuse. Members might be interested to know that the Apologies (Scotland) Act 2016 received royal assent today.
Well done.
As Professor Miller prepares to step down from the SHRC at the end of March, I wish him every success in his future endeavours.
Even in its fledgling first year, SNAP attracted considerable international interest. As we heard in the Justice Committee,
“It is now recognised internationally that SNAP has set the bar for how a plan should be put together and how its potential should be realised.”
Given that human rights institutions are established in more than 100 countries, that is quite an achievement.
During the evidence session, I was also interested to learn about how the SHRC balances its international interests with its focus on domestic work. Professor Miller explained that that is a “two-way street”, with the SHRC acting as
“a bridge between”
Scotland
“and the international human rights system.”
Professor Miller went on to say that one example in that regard is the area of survivors of historical child abuse, and he told the committee that the approach that we have adopted to help to bring about much-needed closure for victims
“is of considerable interest to many other countries around the world.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 26 January 2016; c 37-8.]
I am pleased that others can begin to build on what we have achieved so far in Scotland, in what is an incredibly complex and sensitive area.
It is important to understand that in year 2, as a result of research that was undertaken in an effort to get SNAP right, it was recognised that people in Scotland do not know a lot about their economic, social and cultural rights. Furthermore it was revealed that people who, by virtue of their occupation, have a duty to protect human rights often worry about how that can be done.
There is therefore a need to bridge the gap in people’s understanding of human rights. That has led to a big focus on generating and sharing accessible information about human rights, for the wider public and for people who work for organisations that have human rights duties.
I welcome the Scottish Government’s achievement in co-ordinating and funding a public awareness campaign about human rights. The campaign took place in the run-up to 10 December, which was international human rights day. However, I echo the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s call for the Scottish Government to provide further indication of how the First Minister’s commitment to better incorporate human rights into devolved policy areas will be achieved.
I look forward to following the work of the SHRC and SNAP as the plan enters its third year, and I wish Judith Robertson well in her new post.
15:34
I am pleased to close on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party. I am also pleased to recognise the tone of the contributions from all sides of the chamber. This is one of those debates where there is nothing to argue about. Human rights lie at the very heart of who we are and what we seek to achieve in our lifetimes—to treat others as we would want ourselves to be treated.
I thank members of the Justice Committee for the work that they have done on behalf of the Parliament in considering the plan that we have debated this afternoon, and I join other members of the Parliament in welcoming Judith Robertson as the new Alan Miller for Scotland. I wish her as much luck and as much success as Mr Miller enjoyed during his time in the post.
Christine Grahame quite rightly focused on the fair hearing and the need for legislation in developing a criminal justice system that reflects at its heart a recognition of human rights and respect for those rights. She gave some examples of how those things have been developed in new legislation and in our approach to a new national police force. She went on to point out how important it is to take human rights to small places. I acknowledge that whole-heartedly, and I hope that she equally acknowledges the small people I spoke about earlier.
One of the key statements made this afternoon, during what was necessarily a truncated debate, was made by the cabinet secretary himself. He said that he acknowledged that there was much more work to be done. Although everyone feels good commenting on the positive aspects of human rights, the comfort that we gain from being able to say those things in this chamber can continue to be comfortable only if Government takes truly seriously its responsibilities in relation to human rights and what that means for the future and only if it works hard to ensure that a culture of openness and frankness with the citizen is delivered.
I agree with that, but a lot is about what happens in practice. If people at work on the front line, in policing, hospitals or schools, or even in our shops, practised that culture of openness, as my colleague Christina McKelvie has said, the world would be a better place. The person who is giving that kind of respect, as well as receiving it, would also be in a better place.
I acknowledge what the member has said. The lead from Government not only in saying those things but in ensuring that they are delivered will give the individual public servant the confidence to know that they will not be blamed for their openness and will not feel any pressure because of being frank. In future, we will not need whistleblowing lines and the like, because every citizen will feel free to operate within the law and to be frank with their views.
I am conscious that time is short. In closing, I say that I hope that SNAP will become an attractive early project for the new Government and that we can continue to work so that internationally, as Christina McKelvie has said, we continue to be respected for the work that is done here in Scotland. I hope that this subject matter never becomes political, because it is important that we work together as human beings to deliver human rights.
15:38
Although this has been a truncated debate, it has nevertheless been one in which there is a broad consensus across the chamber on the importance of human rights. As Graeme Pearson said, it is important that the Government—in particular the new Government when elected in May, whoever may be in it—should agree to embed human rights in every aspect of our work in Scotland and to take forward that agenda.
I join in the chorus of congratulations and thanks that have quite rightly been offered to Professor Alan Miller, who is an outstanding public servant. I wish Judith Robertson all the best, but Alan Miller will be a hard act to follow. Not only has he established the Scottish Human Rights Commission but he has, more importantly, established the human rights agenda in Scotland and, through SNAP, is embedding that throughout the entire life of our nation. Alan has gained huge respect not just in Scotland but internationally, and he is recognised as one of the global leaders in human rights—rightly so.
It is important to recognise what SNAP says about the likely areas of activity in its third year. There are too many for me to mention them all, but they include:
“developing a greater range of case studies ... evaluating the impact of awareness raising efforts”
and
“rolling out a local model and process to empower people and organisations to develop a shared approach to building a human rights culture”.
Those are just three out of a long list of actions that are to be undertaken in year 3 of SNAP, which underlines the point that everybody has made—that, despite the progress that we have made, there is still a great deal to be done.
The plan also outlines four main challenges for the period ahead. First, public authorities must
“demonstrate how they are protecting human rights in practice through the design and delivery of their services.”
I commit the Government to working full-out on achieving that and taking forward that agenda. Secondly,
“monitoring and reporting on human rights, and on SNAP itself, must become firmly embedded in Scotland’s institutional fabric rather than sitting separately”.
I wholly endorse and agree with that. Thirdly,
“wider resources need to be harnessed and redirected towards”
SNAP’s aims. I think that we all accept that, even in these difficult financial times, we must prioritise resources for the development of human rights. Fourthly, the report states that we must resist what it calls
“the toxic influence of regressive debates about human rights laws at Westminster”.
I will say a few words on the last of those challenges. Although this Parliament is united on the human rights agenda, unfortunately the Parliament in London is not united on the way forward. As I noted in my opening remarks—I scarcely need to remind members of this—our fundamental rights will remain under direct threat if the UK Government proceeds with its plans to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998. We, as a Parliament, have made our views clear, and those views have been repeated in the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
In making our views known, it is critical that we can influence opinion not just here in the UK but further afield, particularly because we are now in the run-up to a referendum on the future of Europe and the European Union. The prospect of the legislation at Westminster endangers the UK’s international reputation for being at the forefront of human rights, which is all the more reason for us, as a country, to dissociate ourselves from any such plans.
The cabinet secretary will recognise that Scotland has the power to implement human rights. Does he accept that there are various instances of the UK’s having a better record of implementing human rights, including on non-statutory stop and search—stop and search was never statutory but has always been consensual in England—and on the right to congregate, with six days’ notice required in the rest of the UK but 28 days’ notice needed here? There are various other examples. It is far from the case that Scotland has an exemplary record while the UK does not.
That exemplifies the tragedy that, although a lot of progress has been made in some areas, the Trade Union Bill is travelling in the opposite direction. The threat to the human rights legislation and, in particular, the role of the European Court of Human Rights is doing a lot of damage not just to the UK and the UK Government but to the international human rights agenda at a very sensitive time when we should be championing human rights in the middle east, Africa and elsewhere, where there are major violations on a daily basis.
I know Michael Gove and I regard him as a very civilised individual. I will be surprised and disappointed if he does not ditch the proposals, which are, frankly, unworkable. It is also clear that the European convention on human rights is written into the statute that set up the Scottish Parliament and the good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland. The proposed legislation cannot go through without the explicit approval of the Scottish Parliament, and I would bet my bottom dollar that the Parliament will utterly refuse to endorse any such proposal.
I hope that Michael Gove and his colleagues will look again at the damage that has been done in Europe to the UK Government’s reputation—which, unfortunately, outflanks all the good work that has been done in some areas—and will come to the conclusion that the proposals ain’t worth the candle and the quicker they are ditched, the better. There could be no greater signal of a commitment to human rights than for Michael Gove and his colleagues to take that decision.
I hope that the issue will not divide members here, because it is divisive in the Westminster Parliament, and it is certainly divisive in the country. I think that there will be strong, uniform opposition to any such legislation. I have had discussions with people such as Dominic Grieve, and it is clear that a significant number of Tory back benchers at Westminster are utterly opposed to the proposals and will go out of their way to frustrate them as much as they can.
I know that the Parliament is absolutely united on not just the principles of human rights but progressing the agenda that has been laid out by the SNAP report, by the commission, by Alan Miller and now by Judith Robertson. As a member of the present Scottish Government—and, I hope, the next Scottish Government—I look forward to taking forward that agenda on a very proactive basis.
I call John Finnie to wind up the debate on behalf of the Justice Committee.
15:46
I am delighted to close the debate on behalf of the Justice Committee. I thank all participants for their contributions; it has been a largely consensual debate. It started with the committee’s convener talking about a fair hearing, which is what everyone wants. A theme that kept cropping up is people’s desire to understand the relationship between their rights and their expectations.
The convener mentioned the rights of the individual and how those rights relate to the rights of wider society. She also talked about police stop and search. We would all want citizens to understand their rights. New police officers swear an oath to uphold human rights and, for that reason, I was very impressed when John Scott, who undertook the inquiry into stop and search, said that he wanted the police to be the front-line defenders of citizens’ rights. That is the approach that I want the police to take.
The convener encouraged public bodies to reflect on the importance of human rights. That was a recurring theme, as was reference to the plans of the UK Government in relation to Europe. I commend to everyone as a good reference point the evidence that the SHRC gave to the European and External Relations Committee in November of last year, which the convener mentioned.
The cabinet secretary talked about the journey that we have taken, which has been significant. He acknowledged, in both his opening and his closing speeches, that there is work to be done, and I think that we would all agree. He made the point that there are common principles that are shared across the UK, including those of ensuring that there is genuine equality of opportunity, making rights real, which was another recurring theme, and looking at rights and real-life concerns. He also talked about how we function.
Economic, social and cultural rights were mentioned. The cabinet secretary gave the example of fair work and the living wage, and he talked of the on-going need to improve things in that area. The Trade Union Bill, which several members mentioned, is clearly a cause for concern. It was a cause for concern for Professor Miller when he was asked about it. He told us that it was a frustration that not all such matters can be dealt with by the SHRC, which works closely with the Equality and Human Rights Commission. That is important to remember.
Various members talked about finding ways to embed human rights, and the cabinet secretary mentioned the covenants and their continuing relevance. We face the danger that, if there is any change, the long-standing covenants will be set aside. It is very important that there is collaborative action in the next session, regardless of who is in Parliament.
Graeme Pearson spoke about openness and consensus, and he was right to describe SNAP as a personal triumph for Professor Miller—I think that we would all agree with that—and his colleagues and the wider participants. Graeme Pearson also used the phrase “small people”, which I thought was very telling and important. He gave examples from health and planning where access to information meant, in fact, that the individual was unable to understand whether their rights were being met, which is an important point. He also referred to police governance and the confidence that people must have in the police service. He commended SNAP to the post-election Government, which he hoped would operate with openness and candour—something that we would all hope for.
Margaret Mitchell spoke about setting the stage and the reality of where we are. She talked about the events that have been held and how they had contributed to the national action plan. She said that those in power must step up. Again, her reference to Police Scotland was important in terms of the accountability that can be put in place for public bodies through SNAP. There was also reference to embedding rights and the use of proportionality in relation to rights. Specifically, there was reference to concerns that proportionality was not being applied in any sense on stop and search.
Christina McKelvie talked about Professor Alan Miller getting out alive. He has a wee while to survive yet, but it is certainly the case that his work has been acknowledged way beyond our boundaries. It is very telling that the Council of Europe has commended his work as an exemplar.
Christina McKelvie’s reference to the embedding of rights in everyday living has been a recurring theme, and she make a telling point about the role that equality impact assessments would play in the success of that. She also mentioned the First Minister’s endorsement of the national action plan, and that high-level endorsement for the SNAP approach should not be underestimated. Christina McKelvie also listed a number of rights and freedoms that she would chide any Government for setting aside. I think that she had a particular Government in sight, but given the nature of my job here I will not go into that in any detail.
Elaine Murray talked about care and housing and about victims being at the centre of justice, which is the practical application of human rights that a lot of people want to see. She also mentioned Police Scotland and the Scottish Prison Service, and it is important that all aspects of rights work are covered by them. Again, mention was made of the “A” status and what that involves, and the role of the UN rapporteur. We understand that the UN rapporteur had robust things to say about the bedroom tax and housing.
Margaret Mitchell mentioned in her summing up the success with the Apologies (Scotland) Bill, and we would all look to ways of resolving matters short of formal procedures.
Professor Miller has fulfilled an ambassadorial role, and he was before the Justice Committee just a few weeks ago. We welcome his successor, Judith Robertson, and we wish them both every success. It is the case that Scotland’s position on human rights, not just the national action plan, has an international reputation. The “A” status has not come about lightly but is given through assessment by peers; it gives an organisation speaking rights at the UN and treaty bodies. Professor Miller told us that that means that a rights organisation can hold its state to account, which is what we want from the SHRC.
I understand that, although there were very robust things to say about the bedroom tax, the UK Government gave the UN rapporteur “short shrift”, in Professor Miller’s diplomatic words. However, that did in fact lead to increased debate. Lest we get complacent, though, I asked Professor Miller about our position on Gypsy Travellers, because we in Scotland have a way to travel, too.
We need to look forward, and it is hoped that by 2030—15 years on from the publication of the report—SNAP will have made visible and significant progress towards achieving seven specific changes in Scotland. I will put them swiftly on the record: one, each of us is empowered to understand and embrace the value of human rights, asserting them in all parts of our lives; two, each of us can participate in shaping and directing decisions that affect our human rights; three, organisations providing public services contribute to a human rights culture by valuing and putting human rights at the heart of what they do; four, Scotland increasingly implements its international human rights obligations, influences and learns from international experience, and promotes human rights in all its international engagements; five, all organisations are held to account for the realisation of people’s rights through international and domestic laws, regulation and monitoring; six, each of us has access to and can enjoy quality public services that respect our dignity, irrespective of who we are or where we live; and, seven, each of us experiences improved opportunities and life outcomes, while Scotland experiences an overall reduction in inequality of opportunity and outcomes. Who could object to all that?
It has been a consensual debate. We have far more in common than we have differences, and I think that we should marshal around Scotland’s national action plan. Again, I send our best wishes to Professor Miller.
Previous
Fiscal FrameworkNext
BBC Charter Renewal