THE House of Commons big vote for or against the Brexit deal next Tuesday will immediately follows International Human Rights Day. December 10 is celebrated globally by progressive governments, the public sector, civil society organisations, businesses and the media. This coincidence reminds us that, as Home Secretary, Theresa May achieved notoriety in 2011 by claiming an illegal immigrant could not be deported because he had a pet cat. She secured instant, evidence-based derision of her claims but the words satisfied her particular agenda, which was to malign the system of adjudication on human rights by the Council of Europe using the standards in the European Convention on Human Rights.

Demonising a set of legal principles to achieve a political end is an ongoing strategy as, after Brexit has been sorted, out the Conservative Government is committed to abolishing the Human Rights Act 1998 and coming up with its own Bill of Rights. I don’t know whether to be worried or relieved at that timescale.

The process for deciding Brexit is a human rights issue for MPs as well as the public. Under Article 6 of the Convention, we have the right to form an opinion by receiving and imparting information. MPs will exercise that right in a formal vote in the Commons and we will all continue to form our own opinions on the proposed deal. There is a presumption that the information we receive and share will be accurate and known to be so. Exposure of co-ordinated action by various state and corporate actors to breach that right in elections and referenda means we are now a little wiser about why some information is “shared”.

Maintaining a free press is also a human right and that includes giving media access to government news conferences and journalists holding politicians accountable by asking, it is to be hoped, awkward questions as well as using their press releases. Being able to provide people and politicians with a news menu of evidenced analysis is what makes a democracy robust.

Hostility to criticism and managing the news to gain advantage is not new but I am getting increasingly annoyed at the casualties. The refreshingly frank UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights, Professor Philip Alston, is cast as the problem to detract from the facts and evidenced analysis in his report. The UK deserves approbation as the world’s fifth largest economy but one in which one in every two children is poor. Professor Alston calls it “a disgrace, a social calamity and an economic disaster”. Correct.

The political environment on human rights standards is different in Scotland: more a question of “what can we do?” than “shut up”. The gulf has been exposed this week by the welcome publication of Human Rights and the Scottish Parliament, which makes 40 recommendations for government, public bodies, regulators and civil society organisations. The product of two years’ work by the Equalities and Human Rights Committee of the Scottish Parliament, the focus is on working differently so that human rights are acknowledged, understood and audited for impact.

The willingness of the Scottish Parliament to lead on human rights changes the narrative and performance for public bodies. Human rights law can no longer be ignored and the committee is keen that a delivery framework makes compliance routine and not exceptional, understood as an entitlement rather than an act of benevolence and an obligation regarded as an opportunity to do better, not a risk to be avoided. Some changes are welcome.