Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 02 Mar 2000

02 Mar 2000 · S1 · Plenary

Item of business

European Convention on Human Rights

Cunningham, Roseanna SNP Perth Watch on SPTV

It is inevitable that Gordon Jackson would ask that question. The truth is that once we decide that eight years old is not acceptable, we need to start the process of consulting to work out what is acceptable. I am not going to pull a figure out of thin air any more than I would expect anyone else to do so. At this stage, I want some reassurance that it is at least recognised that eight years of age will not stand as the threshold. I do not believe that it will. I do not think that any lawyer I have ever spoken to believes that eight will stand as far as a challenge under ECHR is concerned.

When it comes to considering the setting up of a human rights commission, the Conservative motion really means no more than that the Tories are adopting the same stance as the Executive—and I hope that we get a stronger stance from the Executive. I accept that the Executive's position may have been understandable a year or two ago, but I do not think that it is acceptable now.

A human rights commission is not some strange exotic beast. Many such commissions are already in existence. The United Nations strongly endorses them, recognising that the protection of human rights is fundamentally a national responsibility. The SNP wants a commission which would fulfil a wide range of functions. It should promote good practice, and public authorities and private bodies would be covered by human rights legislation. It should be seen not only as a provider of advice to the Executive, Parliament and other public bodies, but as fostering a wider awareness of human rights principles among the public.

Frankly, however, if my recent surgeries are anything to go by, Scots are already waking up to the possibilities of ECHR. During my most recent surgery, three people came in, individually, clutching newspapers that had covered the subject and asking whether ECHR would apply to their specific problems.

I am advised that a Crown Office human rights working group was set up in 1998, but it is difficult to find out details of the work that it undertook, what conclusions it came to or what changes were made as a result of its findings. I have read, however, that it is greatly satisfied that ECHR puts it in a better position than the defence. We are entitled to be concerned about how equitable this is: public money spent on only one side of the equation.

The human rights commission should also provide a scrutinising function for draft legislation and policy. It is most frustrating for MSPs to be routinely refused any information and detail about the advice that the Executive has received. I do not understand why that should continue to be the case.

I know that the Executive, in the person of the Minister for Justice, has not ruled out setting up a Scottish human rights commission. The problem is that neither has he committed himself to the principle. I wish he would do so, and I hope that he does so today. I know that he is waiting to hear from the Scottish human rights forum, which hopes to have prepared some sort of consultation document for mid-April. Surely, however, we can be in a position to commit not to the detail, but at least to the principle, and to proceed on that basis.

The ECHR is important for Scotland, for the people of Scotland—not just for public bodies such as the Parliament and local authorities, but for individuals as well. I respectfully hope that we will get answers to some of the specific questions posed today.

I move amendment S1M-610.2, to delete from "consider" to end and insert:

"establish a Human Rights Commission which would advise both the Parliament and the Executive, issue guidance and promote good practice in public authorities, promote greater access to justice and advise on wider international human rights obligations."

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 02 Mar 2000

In the same item of business