Hansard

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.