Chamber
Plenary, 02 Mar 2000
02 Mar 2000 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
European Convention on Human Rights
I would like to say at the outset that the Scottish National party starts from a position of unequivocally supporting the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into Scots law. Nothing that has happened in the past nine months changes our commitment to that in any way. I add in passing that it is refreshing to know that now when someone utters the words human rights, journalists and others sit up and take notice instead of yawning.
Recently, there has been some controversy over a court decision which stated that activities in this Parliament would be subject to court review. The SNP does not fear that. After all, if we consider it objectively, that is the way in which the vast majority of democratic Parliaments work, and it is wholly in keeping with the old Scottish constitutional doctrine of popular sovereignty. The Westminster notion of the sovereignty of Parliament has always been the notion that sat oddly in Scotland. It is worth pointing out that Westminster is the odd one out internationally. That is what written constitutions and bills of rights are undeniably about; they are nothing if not ways of enshrining rights that even a Parliament cannot override. The SNP has always argued for an independence constitution that would include both a written constitution and a bill of rights, in keeping with the international norm. I repeat that Westminster is the anomaly; this Parliament sits more neatly into normal parliamentary practice.
My colleague Michael Matheson and I were in Ireland last week, so I was interested in David McLetchie's comments about Ireland. The Irish are noticeably relaxed about the possibility of incorporation. On several occasions, people there said that if they had any concerns about incorporating ECHR, it was that the convention was probably not as robust as the human rights principles that had been built into their constitution. I have to say that, in response, we murmured that perhaps they would like to study the Scottish experience before they became too complacent.
Obviously, our experience in Scotland means that the mention of human rights causes a rather mixed reaction. Although I listened to Mr McLetchie's speech, the Conservatives have been uniformly hostile to the whole notion up to now. I note that even today's motion does not go so far as to welcome ECHR. There is a grudging acceptance that we have got it, so we have to get on with it, which is a bit like their attitude towards devolution.
Recently, there has been some controversy over a court decision which stated that activities in this Parliament would be subject to court review. The SNP does not fear that. After all, if we consider it objectively, that is the way in which the vast majority of democratic Parliaments work, and it is wholly in keeping with the old Scottish constitutional doctrine of popular sovereignty. The Westminster notion of the sovereignty of Parliament has always been the notion that sat oddly in Scotland. It is worth pointing out that Westminster is the odd one out internationally. That is what written constitutions and bills of rights are undeniably about; they are nothing if not ways of enshrining rights that even a Parliament cannot override. The SNP has always argued for an independence constitution that would include both a written constitution and a bill of rights, in keeping with the international norm. I repeat that Westminster is the anomaly; this Parliament sits more neatly into normal parliamentary practice.
My colleague Michael Matheson and I were in Ireland last week, so I was interested in David McLetchie's comments about Ireland. The Irish are noticeably relaxed about the possibility of incorporation. On several occasions, people there said that if they had any concerns about incorporating ECHR, it was that the convention was probably not as robust as the human rights principles that had been built into their constitution. I have to say that, in response, we murmured that perhaps they would like to study the Scottish experience before they became too complacent.
Obviously, our experience in Scotland means that the mention of human rights causes a rather mixed reaction. Although I listened to Mr McLetchie's speech, the Conservatives have been uniformly hostile to the whole notion up to now. I note that even today's motion does not go so far as to welcome ECHR. There is a grudging acceptance that we have got it, so we have to get on with it, which is a bit like their attitude towards devolution.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
The first item of business is a Scottish Conservative and Unionist party debate on motion S1M-610, in the name of David McLetchie, on the European convention...
David McLetchie (Lothians) (Con):
Con
Thank you, Presiding Officer.At the outset of my speech, I wish to clarify what this debate is about and what we are seeking to achieve with our motion. It i...
Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD):
LD
Was not 1988 during the period of the Conservative Government, when that Government was responsible for ensuring that its legislation complied with ECHR?
David McLetchie:
Con
Robert Brown's history is correct, but I return to what I said at the outset—this debate is about mechanisms. Under the previous system, a challenge to secti...
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab):
Lab
Will David McLetchie confirm that all he has outlined is a series of possible challenges and suggestions from academics that measures may be contrary to ECHR...
David McLetchie:
Con
Yes, I am prepared to accept those figures, but there could well be 340 specious charges. Lawyers are creative people when it comes to furthering the interes...
The Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice (Mr Jim Wallace):
LD
First, I welcome this debate and thank Mr McLetchie and his party for giving the Parliament an opportunity to discuss an important and topical issue. Human r...
David McLetchie:
Con
Will the minister accept that, in the legislation on the armed forces disciplinary code, Westminster is taking action in anticipation of the need to bring ou...
Mr Wallace:
LD
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 e...
Roseanna Cunningham (Perth) (SNP):
SNP
I would like to say at the outset that the Scottish National party starts from a position of unequivocally supporting the incorporation of the European conve...
David McLetchie:
Con
On the incorporation of ECHR, we opposed the Human Rights Act 1998 because the issue is the relationship between the convention and our domestic law. The cur...
Roseanna Cunningham:
SNP
I hear what Mr McLetchie is saying, but the Conservatives' tone is one of grudging acceptance of a situation which most of us have welcomed. I sometimes wish...
Mr Jim Wallace:
LD
I hear what Roseanna Cunningham is saying. However, she mentioned that civil cases include custody and access cases. Will she accept that sheriffs principal ...
Roseanna Cunningham:
SNP
I do not doubt that sheriffs principal are doing their very best, but it is clear from the figures that, in many jurisdictions, they are doing a juggling act...
Gordon Jackson (Glasgow Govan ) (Lab):
Lab
It is all very well to say that such a change should be anticipated, but what age would Roseanna Cunningham set to ensure that it conforms to ECHR? Surely we...
Roseanna Cunningham:
SNP
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 p...
Gordon Jackson (Glasgow Govan) (Lab):
Lab
For five minutes, I was enjoying myself, listening to Roseanna Cunningham. I was agreeing with her, and I say to David McLetchie that I share her disappointm...
David McLetchie:
Con
In relation to the certification of compatibility of ministers, does Gordon Jackson believe that a one-line certificate of compliance is sufficient for this ...
Gordon Jackson:
Lab
I understand what Mr McLetchie means, but the difficulty with having the full legal advice analysed is that two lawyers will give two opinions, three lawyers...
Roseanna Cunningham:
SNP
Does Gordon Jackson think that, if the age of criminal responsibility was set at eight, it would survive a challenge?
Gordon Jackson:
Lab
My honest opinion is that it would not have a snowball's chance in summer of surviving a challenge. However, the fact that I do not think that the proposal t...
David McLetchie:
Con
Would Gordon Jackson accept that the previous legal relationship between this country and the convention resulted in changes to our law? I am making the poin...
Gordon Jackson:
Lab
Of course that is right. It means that things are done more quickly. That is, however, far outweighed by the advantage for the citizen in having a matter res...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
SNP
The debate is now open. Speeches should last about four minutes; I will allow an additional minute or so for interventions.
Mrs Lyndsay McIntosh (Central Scotland) (Con):
Con
I am the first non-lawyer to speak. I do not get paid by the minute, so I will be brief.As has been said, we support the Government's aim of protecting the r...
Hugh Henry (Paisley South) (Lab):
Lab
I was fascinated to gain an insight into Roseanna Cunningham's surgeries—surgeries in rural Scotland are clearly very different from those in urban Scotland....
Mrs McIntosh:
Con
Will the member take an intervention?
Hugh Henry:
Lab
No, I am about to finish. I want to echo Jim Wallace's point that the promotion of a human rights culture in Scotland is fundamental. We must respect human r...
Michael Matheson (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
For a fleeting moment during Gordon Jackson's speech, I was of the mind that the problem is not with the ECHR, but with lawyers. We might not be having today...
Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD):
LD
First, I must declare an interest in respect of my membership of the Law Society of Scotland, and my legal consultancy with Ross, Harper and Murphy—not least...