Hansard

I am grateful to Mr McLetchie for that question, because this is a case not of either/or but of both/and. There will be occasions where it is important—for example, on the appointment and use of temporary judges—to find out the position of the courts. However, as I said, if it is necessary to introduce legislation as a result of the audit that has been undertaken, I will do so.

Mr McLetchie mentioned bail. We have taken note of the recent judgment in the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Caballero v United Kingdom and will consider our response to that. If that requires legislation, I will bring proposals to the Parliament. We are trying both to anticipate and to react. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton—I presume in anticipation of this debate—lodged 11 parliamentary questions on whether aspects of our procedures from planning to prisons were compatible with the European convention on human rights. In fairness to him and to Mr McLetchie, I should make it clear that all those questions will be answered later today.

Given the detailed audit that I have described—although it is not yet complete—the answer that will be given is that we are systematically reviewing all our activities to identify issues where there is a risk of ECHR challenge. If we believe that it is necessary to amend existing legislation in order to comply with the convention, we will bring forward proposals for that purpose at the appropriate time.

In the Conservative motion and the SNP amendment, the possibility has been canvassed of establishing a Scottish human rights commission that would have responsibility for promoting human rights and for working with the Parliament to do so. I can confirm that the Executive is considering that matter; I do not want to rule out the possibility of establishing such a body. Important questions need to be addressed about the need for such a body; about its nature, functions, remit and funding; about whether it should be statutory or non-statutory; and about its relationship with existing non-governmental organisations as well as its possible relationship with this Parliament. I am aware from meetings that the Scottish human rights forum has been considering those issues and will be putting proposals to me in the near future. I will, of course, seriously consider those proposals. As our amendment states, proposals for legislation will be brought forward in due course, if that is considered necessary. In the meantime, I welcome any views on those matters from members of this Parliament.

The SNP amendment would commit us to a human rights commission before we had given the human rights forum the chance to put forward its views. I hope that SNP members will agree that, for that reason, their amendment is premature. I ask them to support the Executive amendment, which expresses our desire to consider this important issue positively.

I should emphasise that no one can predict with certainty where challenges will come from or whether they will succeed. There are many issues on which different lawyers take different views; the final decision will always be a matter for the courts.

Let us put things in perspective. So far, convention points have been raised in some 374 cases, of which only 10 have been upheld—and some of those are the subject of Crown appeals or references. That does not suggest that our system is failing. We are being tested against a high and developing standard, and rightly so. Any justice system should welcome such a benchmark and the opportunity for continuous improvement.

I believe that the new settlement in Scotland represents a step change in many different ways, not least of which will be the promotion of greater respect for human rights. The Scotland Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998 will change the way in which we think. Government and public authorities alike will take care to respect the rights of individual citizens; over time, our legal system will change for the better.

Of course there will be teething troubles; of course we will be found wanting from time to time. That experience has been shared by many other European countries, and by countries such as Canada and New Zealand, that have incorporated binding human rights into their constitutional arrangements. The experience in those countries is that in the short term there are difficulties, but in the longer term there is a process of coming to terms with a different approach and a new way of thinking.

For the Parliament and the Executive, the convention presents both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge is to ensure that respect for human rights becomes an integral part of our thinking in developing policy and practice across the whole sweep of our devolved powers. The opportunity is to promote a genuine human rights culture in Scotland that will increase awareness among the public and public authorities alike—in other words, to ensure that respect for human rights becomes part of the fabric of our society and institutions.

We will work to ensure that the Scottish Executive lives up to those expectations and strikes a proper balance between the rights of individuals and the wider public interest—a balancing act that lies at the heart of the convention and its jurisprudence.

I move amendment S1M-610.1, to leave out from "with concern" to end and insert:

"that the obligation to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has existed since 1951; appreciates that the Scotland Act 1998 together with the Human Rights Act 1998 will enable Scots to enforce their basic human rights in their own courts; notes that substantial training on the ECHR has been provided for the main justice agencies and that detailed guidance has been sent to public authorities; notes that the Scottish Executive will be considering the possibility of establishing a Scottish Human Rights Commission; and further notes that if it is considered necessary to do so, proposals for legislation will be brought forward in due course."