Chamber
Plenary, 02 Mar 2000
02 Mar 2000 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
European Convention on Human Rights
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."
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."
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...