Scotland Bill

Debate between Martin Docherty-Hughes and Emily Thornberry

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

The normal response to silly questions like that is to pass on and not make comment, because the hon. Gentleman belittles himself and this place by descending to that.

[Martin John Docherty]

Does the hon. Lady believe the Secretary of State for Scotland should give more credence to the unelected upper Chamber than a cross-party report by the democratically elected Scottish Parliament?

[Emily Thornberry]

I simply think the Secretary of State for Scotland should not introduce legislation that says that we

“will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament”,

because in my view that is not the sort of thing we normally put in legislation. The Bill has been rushed through at the last minute and has not been thought through properly. I strongly suggest that the Secretary of State pays attention to people who are better experts than he is, and makes sure his legislation is a little better than it is.

The Constitution Committee’s report went on to note that this measure, as drafted, would have

“little, or no, legal effect”.

[Interruption.] I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State once more. The Committee says this clause would have little or no legal effect, and I suggest he pays attention to that. It says that the clause would simply

“recognise the existence of the Sewel convention rather than turn it into a legally binding principle”.

In other words, it is a gesture and it does not actually mean anything. I strongly suggest the Secretary of State considers providing some clarity on that point. What do the words of the statute mean? What does he intend? Tell us what “normal” means, and what “abnormal” means, so we all know what we are talking about.

That point is as nothing compared with the nonsense and mess that the Bill will cause in relation to the Human Rights Act. The Government may or may not be changing the Human Rights Act in some way in the future after consulting people—who, we do not yet know. We do not know how it will be changed, but it appears that the Government do intend to change it. As the Secretary of State knows, an integral part of the devolution settlement is that Scotland has a role in the Human Rights Act, and that remains important. If the Government are to honour the spirit of the Sewel convention, they will need to seek the consent of the Scottish Parliament before proceeding on any wholesale reorganisation of the legislative framework upon which our basic human rights rest. The Government need to look at that.

The convention will be pushed to its limit whether it has a basis in statute or not. The Human Rights Act is embedded in Scotland’s devolution settlement, and while it remains for the UK courts to determine whether an Act of Parliament violates an individual’s convention rights, both schedule 6 and section 29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 gave the same power to the Scottish courts to invalidate Acts of the Scottish Parliament if they are judged to be incompatible with the UK’s obligations under the convention. The same prohibition on acting incompatibly with individuals’ convention rights is extended to Ministers in the Scottish Executive under section 57(2) of the 1998 Act. Since the passage of that Act, the Scottish Parliament has established a Scottish Human Rights Commission and a national plan for human rights, so human rights are without doubt a substantially devolved issue. What is more, the Scots were not exactly backwards in coming forwards on the need to preserve the Human Rights Act.

The Minister might remember that the Government spent the previous two years consulting on how to replace the Human Rights Act with their so-called British bill of privileges; they went around the country asking people their views, for suggestions, whether any rights had been forgotten and whether people would like to change this bit or that bit. The Minister might also remember the consultation’s reception in Scotland. When the Government asked Scottish people their views, how many were in favour of changing the Human Rights Act? None. The Government did not get a single person in Scotland to say that it was a good idea to change the Human Rights Act, so exactly how will they be able to implement the Sewel convention and somehow or other change the Human Rights Act in Scotland? How will that work? It is constitutional nonsense, and the Government should take it extremely seriously.

Following the election, the Scottish Human Rights Commission said:

“While we will examine any legislative proposals in detail, the Commission repeats its long-standing concerns about the regressive nature of many elements of previous proposals for a British Bill of Rights. These have included enabling the UK to pick and choose which judgments to accept from the European Court of Human Rights, reducing the scope of human rights laws so that they only apply to ‘the most serious’ cases, or to particular areas of law, and restricting the eligibility of rights on the basis of nationality or citizenship. Any and all of these changes would fly in the face of progressive protection for human rights and would have adverse consequences for people in Scotland”.

That is absolutely right. It is quite clear that the people of Scotland do not want the Government to interfere with their Human Rights Act, and the Government should leave it alone. Frankly, they should leave it alone for all of us.

The Government should not seek to change the Human Rights Act without first seeking the consent of the Scottish Parliament. It is clear that if the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), went up to Scotland and asked people there whether the Government could change the Human Rights Act, they would probably tell him to sling his hook—or possibly something a little ruder.

Will the Minister assure the House that the Government’s intention is to honour the Sewel convention on a matter of such importance as fundamental human rights?