Hansard

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.