Meeting of the Parliament 11 November 2014
The Scottish Liberal Democrats will also support the motion, which sets out a robust defence of human rights.
Some politicians and media would have us believe that, taken together, the European convention on human rights, the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 somehow amount to a criminals’ charter or a terrorists’ treaty. That is, of course, nonsense.
In preparing for the debate, I took the time yesterday to read some of the recent cases relating to the United Kingdom that have been considered and upheld by the European Court of Human Rights. In one case, the court identified that safeguards were insufficient in enabling an applicant with Down’s syndrome to contest their compulsory emergency detention, given that they lacked legal capacity. That violated articles 4 and 5 of the convention. In another case, the court judged that a local authority had failed to provide a disabled elderly person with a care plan that met her “assessed and eligible needs”, in breach of article 8 of the convention, on respect for private life. Given the explosion in the use of non-statutory stop and search, I was interested to read about a police stop and search that again constituted a violation of article 8 of the convention.
The court has considered situations that have involved people who have been taken into care; it has protected the anonymity of journalists’ sources; and it has curbed the storing of the digital DNA profiles of those who were arrested, but were never charged or convicted. Such cases show the institution’s relevance to all of us, but in particular to the most vulnerable in our society here and across Europe.
The court has required Russia to improve its treatment of prisoners, forced Bulgaria to strengthen its care of disabled people and compelled Turkey to end the impunity of those who engage in domestic violence.
The creation of a common legal space to the benefit of 820 million citizens across 47 states is an astonishing achievement, but, as one senior British court official reportedly mused,
“Our name contains the words ‘European’ and ‘human rights’. Not exactly a winning combination.”
A tiny minority of cases, which have been portrayed as meddling in our domestic affairs, have led to the whole system being unfairly maligned. It is disappointing that the Conservatives’ amendment, which seeks to remove any expression of support for the Human Rights Act 1998, echoes such attitudes.
The Human Rights Act 1998 did not provide new rights; it incorporated into UK domestic law the rights that were provided by the convention. Driven by fear of UKIP, the Conservatives’ plans to selectively ignore the convention, limit its powers or withdraw from it entirely are ill considered. I am particularly disturbed by their proposal that somehow only the most serious cases should be able to draw on human rights law. What message would that send to others? What message would it send to the countries that account for tens of thousands of cases at the European Court of Human Rights?
To put the matter in perspective, just 1,650 applications came from the United Kingdom in 2013. I understand that the majority of them concerned prisoner voting rights. Just eight cases led to judgments finding violations. In that context, it seems absurd even to contemplate withdrawal and undermining our moral authority.
I am proud that, with Liberal Democrats in government, there is no possibility of the UK renouncing our hard-won human rights framework. Alongside the scrapping of identification cards and the ending of child detention, that is part of our strong and consistent record on civil liberties.
In Scotland, the Liberal Democrat MSP Robert Brown was the minister who guided through Parliament the bill that established the Scottish Human Rights Commission. As a result, Scotland’s first national action plan now seeks to promote a
“consistent understanding and respect for human rights”
by making them more tangible. For example, it identified the need to improve the quality of care for vulnerable and older people; the need to empower them to remain autonomous as far as is possible; the need to treat them with dignity and respect; and the need to realise their rights.
The action plan reminds us that human rights define how each one of us is treated and determine our opportunities. It tackles the dangerous perception that human rights are abstract or immaterial and encourages us to embed them in everything that we do.
By supporting the Government’s motion, I by no means applaud its record on human rights. At times it has damaged our credentials: by failing to raise the age of criminal responsibility; through its efforts to scrap corroboration; and because of the isolation for long periods of female offenders who have mental health problems.
On this remembrance day, it is worth remembering the events that led to the creation of the convention. It is worth recalling the abuses in the early 20th century that caused the United Kingdom to lead efforts to enshrine and instil respect for life, security and freedom of thought, expression and religion across the continent.
Our human rights framework and the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights are not foreign impositions—they are British rights, drafted by British lawyers, that are designed to reflect our values of justice, democracy and the rule of law.
15:46