ICCPR at the CPPPC MEETING 2nd APRIL

By Leah Gunn Barrett

Parliament's Public Petitions Committee agreed to progress Petition PE2135 on implementing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) into Scots law

The committee asks that Cabinet Secretary Angus Robertson directly respond to the petitioner

Today the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee (CPPPC) met to consider new petitions, one of which was PE2135 - implementing the ICCPR into Scots law. I attended the entire session which began at 9.30 am and ended at 11.41 am. 

The committee finally got to PE2135 at 11.35 am. The video of the six minute discussion can be found here.

The committee convener, Jackson Carlaw (Conservative), began by reading sections of the SPICe briefing (7 February) and the ScotGov written response (31 January) to PE2135. However, he ignored Respect Scottish Sovereignty’s written response (March 13) to both these responses which highlighted omissions and inaccuracies. I’ve included just the headline ones here, more will come next week: - Omitting that in May 2024 the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHC) instructed the UK to “ensure that all Covenant rights are given full legal effect in all jurisdictions that fall under its authority or control….”

- Omitting any mention of The Scotland Act 1998, which clearly gives Holyrood the power to implement international human rights treaties IN FULL. This is unforgivable.

- Falsely claiming that implementation of international obligations only applies to devolved matters. Again, The Scotland Act 1998 imposes no restrictions on Holyrood’s legislative competence to implement ICCPR in full. It is not reserved. 

Jackson Carlaw then asked if the committee had any comments or suggestions for action. 

Fergus Ewing MSP did.

Here’s what he had to say:

Ewing: I’ve studied the response of the petitioner to the Scottish Government’s written submission of the 31st of January. The petitioner’s written response is 13 March and it does raise a whole series of issues, some of them technical and legal but the thrust of it that the petitioner does adduce various examples of statements, notably by the FM in 2023 when it was stated that there should be a right to participate in public affairs as expressed in Art 25 of the ICCPR. And the petitioner has highlighted originally that the MSPs continued to ignore the Parliament’s motion of Sept 2012 which acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish People to determine the form of government best suited to their needs.

The Petitioner also challenges the view that this matter is not within the devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament, and refers to the Scottish Human Rights Commission as endorsing that view. I do think that, without rehearsing the whole of what the Petitioner has said on the 13th of March, that it does raise further issues of substance that I feel the Cabinet Secretary Angus Robertson himself should be asked to comment on further to do justice to the petitioner. This is the first time we have considered this matter. I do think the petitioner is perhaps right when he states that it’s disappointing that the reply from the Scottish Government was not issued by Angus Robertson but was issued by an official, and perhaps Mr Robertson could be asked to give detailed comment on all the arguments which the petitioner has set out in response to the initial Scottish Government position. I appreciate that this will take more time, convener, but this is the first calling of the petition and I think that the issues raised are substantial and the mixture of political and legal and technical – so I won’t add to that as I could quote extensively from the petitioner’s detailed and very helpful submission, but I do feel that it requires a further response from the ScotGov.

(Regarding Fergus Ewing’s point about Angus Robertson not responding directly to RSS but delegating the Scottish Government’s response to a civil servant, RSS did request that Robertson should sign the Scottish Government submission, but the CPPPC Admin team didn’t want to ask him.) 

Jackson Carlaw then turned to Maurice Golden MSP: “Mr Golden?”

Golden: I echo Mr Ewing’s comment. I think that as part of that response that it wuld be useful for the petitioner and indeed Parliament to understand what the Scottish Government’s position is on the codification and enablement of international law in a devolved setting. We have a position from the Scottish Government on alignment with EU law, but I’m unclear as to how international law in the devolved setting is to be adhered to. I’m not asking for it treaty by treaty but I also probably want to note that tomorrow there is a debate in parliament around the Aarhus Convention 1998* and how that is being enabled in a devolved context, so it would be useful to know the overall approach. I do have concerns it may not be practical in the timescales for the Scottish Government to adhere to it as the petitioner requests, however, it would be interesting to know what the overall trajectory would be. 

Jackson Carlaw appeared somewhat taken aback that these two committee members thought the petition had merit.

Carlaw: Thank you. Well, in the light of that I have to say that my own preference, having looked at this petition, [he laughs] was to actually move to close it, but respecting the views of our two colleagues, are the committee content to let the petition run on the basis of the further enquiry to Mr. Robertson that has been suggested?

The committee members agreed, whereupon Carlaw merely said, “Right.”

So PE2135 lives on. However, we urgently need more signatures. We currently have 6,367 but need thousands more. If we were to reach 40,000, that would meet the international standard for launching a popular referendum. Please help us to share the petition with as many people as you can and please also share it on social media. There is so much at stake. ICCPR provides us, the Scottish People, with the tools to exercise their Sovereignty. Without these tools, Direct Political Rights, we are powerless, which is why we must demand them.

*The “Aarhus Convention,” formally known as the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters and was adopted in Aarhus in 1998. 

An article in the Modern Law Review said: The convention’s premise is that public participation is a good thing: normatively good for democracy (itself a virtually unquestioned – if rarely explored – value); good also for outcomes, for making good decisions – although again, what that might mean was under explored. The Aarhus Convention represented a moment of democratic optimism, an assumption that democracy is both a good in itself and a good way of solving problems.