Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

European and External Relations Committee 03 March 2016

03 Mar 2016 · S4 · European and External Relations Committee

Item of business

Human Rights

Neil, Alex SNP Airdrie and Shotts Watch on SPTV

Our very strong view is that we not only disagree with the UK Government’s analysis but think the opposite. Far from undermining the UK Parliament’s sovereignty, the human rights legislation enhances its democratic accountability to the people of the UK. Similarly, we believe that the human rights legislation enhances the courts and their ability, where they believe that a human right has not been observed, to rule that that is the case, which effectively ensures that people’s human rights are fully protected. We have already mentioned the example of the bedroom tax, but there are many examples of rulings under, or with reference to, human rights legislation that have enhanced ordinary people’s living standards. One such ruling related not only to disabled children but to the bedroom tax, while another related to a woman who had been the subject of domestic abuse and violence and her need to take measures to protect her from any further violence from her partner. That ruling was enforced by a court under the terms of the human rights legislation, and it might have been very difficult for that lady to have had the same result without it. It is a very good example of where the court’s ability to do the right thing morally and ethically has, in my view, been substantially enhanced. I find the concept of mission creep absurd. Ever since we created a Parliament in the UK nearly 1,000 years ago and ever since we have had the Scottish Parliament—indeed, ever since every Parliament in the world has been created—courts have had to interpret the laws that those Parliaments have passed. In interpreting the law, the courts have to take account of changes in society that have happened since it was introduced. If you look at specific cases under human rights legislation, you will very often find that the position is very similar to cases under any form of legislation; it is for the courts to interpret the law, and they must take account of changed circumstances, developments in society and whatever is relevant to what is presented in court. I do not regard that as mission creep. The law of the land is a dynamic force; it is not static, and it must keep up with the times. A good example is the rights of Gypsy Travellers. Another example goes way back to the 1950s—which you might remember better than me, Adam—when we had discrimination against children, corporal punishment and capital punishment. Gay rights and the rights of other minorities are other examples. The rights in all those areas have been enhanced by the courts under human rights legislation. I do not think that people disagree with that approach. The one or two controversial decisions—the one that is often cited is prisoners’ right to vote—have triggered, from a very small, extreme group in the House of Commons which is obsessed with the issue and which disagrees with those decisions, demands that we take down the whole edifice. That is just not on.

Search Hansard contributions

European and External Relations Committee 03 March 2016

In the same item of business