 The next item of business is debate on motion 15126, in the name of Christina McKelvie, on demonstrating leadership in human rights. May I ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now? I call on Christina McKelvie to speak to and move the motion. Ten minutes, please, minister. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It gives me great pleasure to open today's debate. As 2018 draws to a close, it is appropriate for this Parliament to reflect on the state of human rights, not just in Scotland but across the UK, in Europe and internationally. The sad truth, Presiding Officer, is that around the world human rights remain under daily threat. We see the suffering of ordinary people in Syria and Yemen continuing unabated. The lives of children, families, men and women treated as no more than collateral damage. The Rohingya people have been ignored and abandoned by the international community, and those who dare to challenge global injustice do so at genuine risk to their own lives. The cold-blooded murder of Jamal Khashoggi horrified the world. His case gained international attention, but he was only one of more than 30, yes, 30 journalists murdered in 2018. Human rights defenders from all walks of life in every country face daily threats in order to safeguard fundamental freedoms. They are entitled not just to our respect but to our gratitude too. But nearer home, in the context of our own daily lives, we have a personal responsibility to act in solidarity, to respect, protect and realise the rights of everyone in our own society. Every person in Scotland who goes hungry or is homeless or is denied dignity and equality is a person whose rights are being denied, and we are all entitled to those rights and too many, many more. On Monday this week, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was precisely 70 years old. Its formal adoption by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948 was a momentous achievement for humanity. Just 30 articles long, it set out for the first time the fundamental rights that belong to all people everywhere and in all circumstances. Emerging from the brutality of World War 2, the Universal Declaration recognised that disregard and contempt for human rights had resulted in barbarous acts that have outraged the conscience of mankind. The United Nations was clear that such crimes must never be repeated and that the rights articulated in the Universal Declaration should be cherished and universally protected. Over time, the values and rights set out in the Universal Declaration were translated into international law through a framework of human rights treaties and conventions. Those values have, in turn, become central to the values that we share across this chamber. As well as the 17th anniversary of the Universal Declaration 2018, also marks the 20th anniversary of the Human Rights Act and of this place, the Scotland Act. It is no exaggeration to say that these two domestic statues have transformed human rights in Scotland. In a radical departure from the Westminster model, the Scotland Act ensures that acts of this Parliament are not law if they are in breach of rights derived from the European Convention on Human Rights. The Human Rights Act requires every public authority in Scotland to act compatibly with those same fundamental rights, and it enables human rights cases to be pursued in Scottish courts. This Parliament has repeatedly recorded its support for these vital constitutional protections. ECHR rights are now at the heart of how Scotland's public institutions conduct their business, not just as an aspiration or a moral imperative but as a matter of law. However, the Scottish Government wants to go further. We believe that Scotland should act to give even clearer domestic effect to the full spectrum of international human rights, economic, social, cultural and civil and political. Our approach to social security provides a prime example. The way that we understand social security as a right, not a privilege, as an enabler, not a deficit, stands in stark contrast to the UK Government's welfare reforms. Universal credit, as we know, has now gone live for all new claimants in Scotland, and I am gravely concerned about the impact that it will have. Those concerns are widely shared. Professor Philip Alston, the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, was brutally honest in his assessment following his 11-day visit to the United Kingdom in November. In his view, the UK approach is punitive, mean-spirited and often callous—that is a quote—and he also said that it is unnecessarily inflicting great misery. However, in Scotland, we are determined to do things very differently. We are building a system with dignity, respect and human rights at its heart. Crucially, we have recognised that social security is not just a right in itself but that it is essential to the realisation of other fundamental human rights, of course. Oliver Mundell, I am grateful to the minister for giving way. Will she commit today to address all the issues that the UN rapporteur sets out for the Scottish Government in relation to the social security system here in Scotland? Will she give a commitment to do that for definite? Christina McKelvie Yes, we have taken seriously all the recommendations in Professor Alston's report when we are looking at how we can take effect to that. We have also recognised that human rights are not just about what we do, it is about how we do things that are important. That is why I am proud, too, of the new social security charter, a clear, accessible document that explains people's rights in relation to the new system. It provides a practical guide to the standards that we need to achieve and the standards that ministers will be held to account for delivering. It was developed not by civil servants or politicians working in isolation. It was created by rights holders themselves, by people with direct personal experience of why the right to social security is so important. Members will forgive me for focusing on social security. It is a subject very close to my heart, but it is just one example of how the Scottish Government's priorities and activities are focused on enabling people to realise their human rights. We are also tackling poverty and inequality in building a fairer and more inclusive Scotland. We are promoting fair work and developing a fair work action plan to embed good practice in Scottish workplaces by 2025. We are committed to advancing equality throughout society. As a Government, we are articulated in both yet. Daniel Johnson I absolutely agree with the minister and I thank her for giving way that fair work is very much a human right. I am just wondering if she thinks that zero hours contracts are compatible with that human rights view of work. Christina McKelvie The Scottish Government has a very clear view on exploitative zero hours contracts, so I think that we would be in agreement on that point. As a Government, we have articulated in both words and actions our vision for the future. We have a clear understanding of where we want to go and the values that will guide us. I was delighted that on Monday, human rights day and the 70th anniversary of the declaration, the First Minister was able to announce the setting up of a new national human rights task force. The task force will take forward the recommendations that were published on Monday by the First Minister's advisory group on human rights leadership. Those recommendations include proposals for a new act of the Scottish Parliament, legislation to create a comprehensive human rights framework for all the people of Scotland. The ambitious vision that is set out by the advisory group is intended to finally bring home all the rights that are set out in international human rights treaties. The proposal is to set out civil, political, economic, social, cultural and environmental rights together for the first time in a single coherent statute. Article 24 of the UNCRC section E says that segments of society, in particular parents and children, are informed and have access to education and are supported on the use of basic knowledge for child health, nutrition and prevention of accidents. As the convener of the cross-party group on accident prevention, the safety awareness is of keen interest to me and I wonder how the Government is going to support prevention of accidents going forward. Christina McKelvie I thank the member for her intervention and her tireless work on the cross-party group on accident prevention. Promoting and ensuring the wellbeing and safety of children and young people is a huge part of the work that we do in government and in this Parliament. It is something that in schools, social workers, community education, the police, health professionals, voluntary organisation, youth groups and many others deliver on a daily basis. Parents, carers and young people themselves have a special role to play in keeping everyone safe and I am very happy to acknowledge the importance of that work and the importance of that particular article too. At the same time, we will be taking forward our existing programme for government commitment to incorporate the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We will consult on proposals in 2019. I welcome the Liberal Democrats' support for our action on children's rights and we are happy to support their amendment today. Oh, I think I just preempted Mr Cole-Hamilton there. Let me finish when you might just make you happy. I am sure that Mr Cole-Hamilton will acknowledge in his speech the significant progress that we have made and are committed to making on children's rights, including the incorporation of the principles of the UNCRC. He will also be aware that the children and young people's ministers have already made clear that this Government will build on the consensus that is achieved today around current legal reform for the future. In doing so, we will consider carefully any and all comments made by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, noting that its draft general comment seeks to encourage states to increase the minimum age to 14. I am sure that Mr Cole-Hamilton is smiling behind me. I am running out of time, so I want to get to my conclusion. Respecting, protecting and fulfilling human rights is not just a job for the Government. That is why I also want to commend the Equality and Human Rights Committee on the publication on 26 November of its own reporting recommendations, getting rights right. It is an impressive piece of work and a comprehensive piece of work, and I welcome it. It presents a practical proposal and well-thought-out recommendations, and we will respond to that in due course. I know that I am running out of time now, and I do not want to get that look that you sometimes give people. I opened this debate with a note of pessimism in recognising that the ideals of the UN Declaration remain at risk. Barbarous acts continue to outrage the collective conscience of decent people, and I want to end in a positive theme. Yes, challenges do confront us, and yes, we need to strive harder, both here in Scotland and on the international stage, to realise the vision enshrined in the UN Declaration. Scotland has its own unique contribution to make to that. We have been presented in recent weeks with two detailed prescriptions for change, and we will begin 2019 not just with a commitment to continue Scotland's human rights journey, but with specific proposals to carry those forward. I therefore ask this Parliament to reaffirm its own commitment to the fundamental principles and common values that are expressed in the Universal Declaration. Those principles are at the centre of Scotland's shared ambition as a nation, an ambition to create a Scotland where every member of our society is able to live with human dignity, and where the universal human rights, which belong to us all, are finally embedded in every aspect of our daily lives. I move the motion in my name. Oh, you moved the motion, you did. I now call on Annie Wells to speak to and move amendment 15126.1 for seven minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Monday 10 December marked human rights day. The anniversary of the day of the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Significantly, this year marks the 70th anniversary of the milestone document that proclaimed the rights that everyone is entitled to as a human being. Regardless of race, colour, religion, sex, language, political opinion, national or social origin, property or birth. Establishing equal dignity and worth of every person has become the most translated document in the world, empowering us all to stand up for our rights and the rights of others. In recognising the significance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and marking the 70th anniversary of human rights day, we can reaffirm those beliefs outlined 70 years ago. The UK has a proud tradition of respect for human rights, changing our country for the better. In 1950, yes? Daniel Johnson. I thank the member for giving way, and I absolutely agree with her on the point in terms of the words of the declaration, which he also agreed with me that other international institutions are also important such as the European Court on Human Rights. Annie Wells? Absolutely, I would. The Scottish Conservatives have a commitment to remain signatories to the ECHR. In 1950, the UK signed a European Convention on Human Rights, an international human rights framework that enshrined basic rights such as freedom of expression and fair trial and established the European Court of Human Rights to interpret as required. The Human Rights Act 1998 made the ECHR part of domestic law, meaning that anyone resident in the United Kingdom can use the legislation and courts of law to defend their rights, as well as compelling public organisations to treat everyone equally with fairness, dignity and respect. As I have just stated, the Scottish Conservatives are committed to remaining signatories to the ECHR, supporting our continued membership, which is why I put forward the amendment in my name today. Human rights should of course be embedded into the day-to-day business of government, and I absolutely agree that Scotland and the rest of the UK should continue to lead by example. Since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed 70 years ago, we have seen a huge number of positive steps. In just my own time here at the Scottish Parliament, I have had the pleasure of being able to support LGBTI in class of education, as well as the historical sexual offences pardons bill, real milestones in progressing human rights in this country. Although Britain is without any doubt a more inclusive society than it was at the time of the declaration, we must always work to progress and maintain the rights and protections that we enjoy, and there are key errors that I would like to see change. We must focus on gender equality by taking serious action on gender-based violence, sexual harassment and FGM practices within this country. We must continue to challenge modern slavery after seeing a big rise in human trafficking cases in Scotland in 2017—up over 40 per cent from the previous year. We must continue to improve LGBTI rights, focus on supporting education and making sure that mental health support is always available when needed. We must also continue to focus on achieving true parity between physical and mental health. Despite what feels like a major shift in attitudes when it comes to talking about mental health, for many, every day stigma continues, particularly in the workplace. When it comes to education and just through the work of the autism CPG, my eyes have been really opened to the struggles that pupils with additional support need to face, and that is something that I will continue to work at. Not only have human rights changed our own country, they have given us a long-standing responsibility to defend people's rights across the world. All rights that are set out in the UN Declaration of Human Rights and international law are of equal importance, but there are issues that must be prioritised. Modern slavery, for example, continues to be one of the great human rights challenges of our times. If all enslaved people were brought together in a single country, it would be the 34th most populous country in the world, ahead of Poland and Canada, something that is simply not acceptable in the 21st century. Eradicating it through concerted and co-ordinated global action, the UK Government last year called in countries across the globe to endorse its call to action to eliminate modern slavery, with total development spending to tackle the issue, increasing to £200 million. Across the world, it also remains our duty to end inequality and discrimination. Despite the belief shared by many at home that all people should be able to live with dignity free from violence and discrimination, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, far too many people across the world live in persecution. As I highlighted in the debate marking 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, one in three women still experience gender-based violence across the world. When it comes to the LGBTI rights, homosexuality remains illegal in over 70 countries. I am pleased to see the Foreign Office's focus on gender with the appointment of the first ever special envoy in gender equality and the setting up of the equal rights coalition, a group of 35 countries committed to working together on LGBT equality. There is of course much still to be done and I am pleased too that Scotland is leading the way when it comes to human rights abroad. Earlier this year I welcomed the setting up of the Scottish human rights defenders fellowship, a partnership that will see international human rights campaigners come to Scotland to study at the University of Dundee and build relationships with Scottish human rights and the qualities organisations. To close today, I would like again to mark my support for human rights day. I welcome the great progress made on many fronts in relation to protecting and enhancing human rights, while still recognising the need to do much more, not only here in Scotland but all around the world. The debate today will send many powerful messages as a Parliament, which is a hugely positive step when it comes to highlighting our leadership on human rights. That is a message that must continue, and I am committed to doing everything that I can to do so, and I move the amendment in my name. I am grateful to have the opportunity to open this important debate today for Scottish Labour. At the outset, Scottish Labour is happy to support the Government's motion and the Liberal Democrat amendment. I ask for support for the amendment in my name, which highlights the findings of the First Minister's advisory group. That highlights the fragility of human rights protection, as too many people are not enjoying their rights and in too many places services are not meeting their needs. Contributions from both myself and my colleagues will further expand on that. On Monday, the First Minister's advisory group on human rights leadership published its long-awaited report. It was fitting that that report was published on Monday, on the 78th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights. I fully welcome the advisory group's proposal of introducing a human rights act to the Scottish Parliament. However, we must be conscious of ensuring that such a bill is not just a symbolic act. A human rights act for Scotland must be a practical, enforceable piece of legislation that enshrines human rights in Scots law. As elected representatives, it is our duty to ensure that human rights are embedded in our policy-making process. It is the duty of members of this Parliament to adopt a more proactive approach in assessing the human rights implications of proposed legislation. In Scotland, I believe that we must be more reflective and more self-critical of our approach to human rights. We must be honest about the highly concerning rise of racism, Islamophobia and other forms of discrimination. In relation to the universal declaration of human rights, article 14 of the declaration states that every person has the right to seek asylum from persecution and oppression. It is true to say that Scotland has welcomed people seeking asylum, fleeing from some of the world's most oppressive persecution. However, it is also true to say that, after arriving in Scotland, asylum seekers are regularly subjected to substandard housing conditions and are faced with the threat of eviction. In circumstances where asylum seekers are forced into destitution, with no recourse to public funds, they have no support from state services. For example, in Glasgow, there is one night shelter that provides emergency accommodation for destitute asylum seekers. It provides accommodation for 35 male individuals, but it has no facilities for destitute women asylum seekers. The night shelter is provided by a charity that is run by volunteers. There is no support from the local authority or from the Scottish Government. We may meet our basic human rights obligation of protecting individuals' right to seek asylum in Scotland. However, not only can we do better, we simply must do better. In relation to disability rights, article 1 of the universal declaration of human rights states that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and in rights. However, that is not the reality for Scots living with complex and often multiple disabilities. From Locker Bay to Loch Inver, the lack of changing places toilets throughout Scotland is unacceptable. Oliver Mundell, I thank Mary Fee for giving that shout out to Locker Bay. Will she join me in welcoming the fact that there are now new changing places toilets at Johnston bridge service station and plans under way to explore creating one in Locker Bay? Mary Fee, I thank the member for that intervention. I absolutely welcome the progress that has been made in changing places toilets in the provision of them. I congratulate the service station that Oliver Mundell mentioned for installing one. The lack of access to adequate toilet facilities does lock out people living with complex disabilities. It denies those individuals their dignity by forcing them to make the unacceptable choice of either being trapped in their own home or being changed on an unhygienic toilet floor. That simply is not good enough. The reality is that inclusive, supportive rhetoric is hollow without substantive action to match those concerns. Human rights protect us all, providing us with the minimum social protections necessary for living in a civilised and a pluralistic society. I cannot speak in a debate about human rights without talking about a group of people that I have campaigned for since being elected. Gypsy travellers face persecution and discrimination almost on a daily basis. I have often said in this chamber that discrimination against Gypsy travellers appears to be the last forum of acceptable racism. That is simply unacceptable and it must stop. I am hoping that, by taking a human rights approach to the issues that Gypsy travellers face, we can finally bring an end to this insidious racism. In the context of Brexit, we must avoid standing still on human rights. In that respect, I fully support the equality in human rights committee's recommendation to nominate a human rights champion on each Scottish Parliament committee. Secondly, to ensure that human rights are a central consideration when committees undertake post-legislative scrutiny. As I have already stated, I welcome the Scottish Government's approach to enshining human rights within Scots law. However, I would ask the Scottish Government to match its progressive rhetoric on human rights with substantive actions and implement the recommendations of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee's report on human rights and the Scottish Parliament. Human rights are central to making Scotland a more equal, more inclusive and a more progressive society. It is incumbent upon the Parliament to mainstream human rights through the policy making process and to ensure that Scotland and the Scottish Parliament lead the democratic world on human rights. I move me the amendment in my name, Presiding Officer. I remind members of my register of interests, being a former convener of Together, the Scottish Alliance for Children's Rights, and having sat on Scotland's national action plan panel. I welcome very much the work of the First Minister's advisory group and the publication of its report. It has been my privilege to have worked alongside Professor Alan Miller over the course of a number of years, and I find that that report is typically well considered and an important contribution to the rights agenda in this country. For 20 years, Scotland's framework for human rights rested on pillars of civil and political rights, guaranteed by membership of the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights. Brexit removes the former and endangers the latter. Our response to that thread should unite the chamber. The act of Parliament, proposed in the pages of the report, I believe rises in some part to the challenge before us. The amendment in my name this afternoon focuses on part 4 of the report on the provision for children's rights. To be a global leader on human rights that we seek to be, at no point in life's journey should the rights afforded to our citizens fall behind the international curve. We want Scotland to be the best place in the world to grow up. It is an ambition that unites this chamber, but consistently and repeatedly we have been found wanting in our provision for children's rights in this country. I ascribe no blame to any particular administration for that. It is a collective failure, and we need to challenge each other repeatedly as to whether we could be doing better. It would be cheerlish for me not to recognise the commitment of this Scottish Government. I offer credit where it is due and the measures that it took in the last Parliament to increase the age of leaving care and, subsequently, the care review. In offering safe passage and support of Government members to John Finnie's bill on physical punishment and in the commitment of the First Minister to see that Scotland finally incorporates the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law, they are welcome steps forward. The first part of my amendment covers the last commitment. The incorporation of the UNCRC is the only way to make rights meaningful for children. Without doing so, and offering legal redress to children whose rights are denied, we would sit behind the international curve and never lay claim to make Scotland the best place in the world to grow up. I will to Dan Johnson. Daniel Johnson, I am a member for giving way. I wonder if he might agree with me that honouring human rights and honouring international institutions sometimes means doing what is uncomfortable, but it is always the right thing to do. Alex Cole-Hamilton I absolutely agree with that. Sometimes doing the right thing is out of step with public opinion, but it is incumbent on us as legislators to lead public opinion as well as follow it. There are many stakeholders involved in the policy work around the UNCRC who are concerned that Government may lose time within parliamentary session to bring legislation forward. I ask that they restate their commitment to bring legislation in this parliamentary term in their closing remarks. The remainder of my amendment speaks to that final major frontier in children's rights that inhibits our aspiration to be a global rights leader. That is in the age at which we hold children responsible for their actions. In 2007, the UN established 12 as the internationally advised minimum age of criminal responsibility. It was a floor from which it expected all nations to lift still further. That was recognised as an important frontier for the UN. It should be for all of us because it recognised that moments in time, often triggered by unresolved trauma and neglect, should not define young lives for the rest of their days. Criminal records inhibit rehabilitation and self-esteem. In the countries that recognise that, reoffending is reduced and life outcomes are improved. All told, it has taken us 11 years to get Scotland to that baseline. Yet it is serendipitous that, on the day following our stage 1 debate on the age of criminal responsibility bill, the United Nations revealed its intent to lift that floor to 14 in February. Passing the ACR bill unamended would see us reach parity with the foremost socially conservative countries in Europe and rest two years below the limit set by the United Nations. Put simply, the bill before us will be out of date before its ink is even dry. Presiding Officer, if we are truly to set out our stall as an international human rights leader, which I strongly believe that we should, then at the very least we must meet the de minimus expectations of the international community. We will be failing many of the 712 and 13-year-olds who appear before the reporter each year on offence grounds who would otherwise get a criminal record. I will take an intervention from the minister. I am pleased to reiterate, as I did earlier today, that the Scottish Government recognises and respects the significance of the UN committee's general comments as an aid to interpreting the convention. We are absolutely committed to respecting and protecting human rights, and we will consider the recommendations by international organisations very closely in our policy making and seek to uphold the very highest standards of children's rights in a responsible and appropriate way. I ask the member whether he agrees that the responsible Government requires us to consider fully the implications of making any change to the law on any matter, but perhaps most particularly— Can I remind the minister that interventions are interventions and not statements? I am asking the member to agree that, particularly in the area of offending and criminal justice, we need to carefully consider fully the implications. I take the intervention in the spirit that it is offered. It is an important point, and I agree with it. That is why I was delighted that this morning the Equalities and Human Rights Committee agreed to take further evidence on exactly that, so that we can offer due diligence and scrutiny on the legislative changes that I have proposed in my amendments to lift the age of criminal responsibility to 14. I will wind up, I am aware that I am over time. Support for my amendment in this debate does not suggest that either you or your party are yet persuaded that we should seek to increase our age of criminal responsibility beyond 12. However, it does lay out in clear terms the basic reality that, in order to achieve our ambition to establish Scotland as an international human rights leader in the world, we must attain the very minimum standards prescribed by the United Nations in the field of human rights. Thank you very much. Could you move your amendment, please? I move it at the start. Do you want to argue? No, I move on my name. Thank you very much. I now call John Finnie for five minutes, please. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. I am delighted to be speaking in this debate, and I think that largely it is a consensual debate, and I would like to align myself with many of the comments that have been made thus far by the minister, a very comprehensive response. I am particularly pleased that the minister mentioned international affairs, because I think that it is important that we are going to be outwardly. We are looking to pick up on that. I align myself with colleague Mary Fee, and I particularly acknowledge her good work in relation to Gypsy Travellers and work that we are all hoping to see some advancement with. Indeed, Alec Cole-Hamilton and we will be happy to lend support to the amendment. Mr Hamilton's remarks are about young people. Likewise, I want to take Ms Wells' comments in good faith, and I am sure that they do not doubt that she means well about it. However, I have to say that I have some difficulty squaring it with the position of the UK Government, which has done much to discredit the human rights. It has done much to play a part in supporting the journals that vilify, as they would say, human rights, particularly with regard to things like the roll-out of universal credit, which has been alluded to by the minister. That starts off in Inverness, and I can testify to the grief that has been visited in community. There is nothing done for individuals' dignities, nothing done for community dignities, significant sums of money taken out of the locality, which is, I think, £12 million, Highland Council estimated. The roll-out of universal credit, the two-child cap and, of course, the disgraceful rape clause is not indicative to me of a Government that puts human rights very far up their agenda. On a more positive note, I would like to congratulate the First Minister's advisory group, particularly Professor Alan Miller. I think that we are blessed in Scotland by having someone of Professor Mother standing and the regard that is held in around the planet. There was a phrase that I picked up on there. People are empowered to lead lives of human dignity to have a sense of worth. That is hugely important. Sometimes it is very difficult to put in words what is important. That is very helpful. The Government's motion talks about a long-standing commitment to human rights and human dignity. I think that there is much more in common across this chamber than differences on the issue of that. I particularly like the phrase, should work in concert to promote and vindicate human rights. It references me to the equality and human rights committee and commend their work, too. Of course, if we are going to do that, we need to put some meat in the bone of some of these things. With the relation to, for instance, Gaza, where the population is under siege, it has been attacked systematically in terms of weapons, in terms of energy, in terms of food, in terms of water, in terms of sanitation, in terms of medication. I see the Conservative members looking away at this point. The balance for that is that we do not roll out the red carpet after an intervention. I did not notice any Conservative member looking away at that point. However, the situation in Gaza is not that simple. What about the north of Israel that is under attack constantly? I am very happy to unreservedly condemn violence from any quarter. I do not hear the condemnation. Of course, there is also an issue of proportionality that plays here, and there is no proportionality in relation to the siege of Gaza and the disgraceful behaviour of the apartheid of the Israeli regime. If we are going to put some meat in the bones, what we do is not roll the red carpet out for the representative in this country and we lend support to the situation of Dr Philip Whitford, who has denied entry. He is a surgeon offering to provide treatment to denied entry, a shocking situation, and maybe a reciprocation by the UK Government, not that we are going to see that would be helpful. However, we can lend support to boycott divestments and sanctions. I think that there is a range of international matters. In fact, I ran off pages—yes, indeed. Oliver Mundell. I thank the member for giving way and drawing members to my register of interest. Does the member honestly think that by stopping trade and stopping contact with the outside world that that is a good way of influencing people in a modern and global world is that not exactly the opposite from what we should be encouraging, where we should be encouraging openness on both sides to moving forward? John Finnie. I am clearly very different from the member on this, because I do not have my picture taken grinning beside the person who built the apartheid wall in Israel. It is a part to play dialogue, but it takes two people to be engaged in dialogue. I strongly believe that boycotts divestment and sanctions are an important part. I think that, looking to other aspects there, I particularly would like to lend support to the Kurdish community and the seeds that they are under to and the willingness of the UK to have no regard to that. Indeed, it influenced the lives of Kurdish people in Scotland by the harassment as they see it that they face as a result of interventions from the UK state. Of course, the offset of that is that the UK has access to military bases. I also want to talk about investment. If we are going to spend our money, let us spend it on healthcare, on housing and on education, and let us not be giving money to Lockheed Martin, £2 million to accompany the £3.14 billion profit. Let us not put Government money to that. Let us not prop up and lend support to the Saudi regime, a regime that has absolutely no regard for individuals' human rights and has placed an entire country Yemen on the brink of famine and committed countless war crimes. However, that has not stopped the US, the UK or France, from selling weapons to Saudi Arabia or, indeed, rolling out the red carpet until fairly recently to the crown prince who was lauded in the west as being a reformer. That is not the case. I think that we have to be judged by that. It is very close to home. That includes Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which tells me that they do not promote investment in the defence sector. Unfortunately, a few weeks later, they sent me an invite to a trade fair involving the arms sector. Let us practice what we preach. I think that we have more in common than differences, but there is a way to go yet. Thank you very much. We move now to the open debate. Speeches of up to six minutes, please. Ruth Maguire, followed by Michelle Ballantyne. I will respect your rights, regardless of who you are. I will uphold your rights, even when I disagree with you. When anyone's human rights are denied, everyone's human rights are undermined, so I will stand up. I will raise my voice. I will take action. I will use my rights to stand up for your rights. That was the pledge that we were all asked to take by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on this, the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration. On Monday, the Equalities and Human Rights Committee hosted a human rights takeover here in our Scottish Parliament. It was a fitting celebration of the 70th anniversary of the Declaration, a real joy to be at. I would like to place on record my thanks to the Equalities and Human Rights Clerks for organising and all the human rights defenders who came, gave speeches, answered questions, asked challenging questions and took part in our breakout sessions. The Scottish Parliament is rooted in human rights. Human rights are at its foundation and its core expressed through its founding principles. Power sharing, accountability, accessibility and equal opportunities. Human rights are not some lofty concept or something for other people. They are the basic rights and freedoms that belong to every person in the world from birth until death. Wherever you are from, whatever you believe, however you choose to live your life. On Monday here in the chamber, I quoted Chest Heart and Stroke Scotland. I am going to do it again because it is a beautiful submission that they made to our inquiry. Human rights remind us that we are working with people and their lives, not just a condition, not a policy, not a statistic, not just a problem to be solved. They matter because they protect us from the worst that we can do to one another and highlight the joy and positive impact that we can have. Human rights illuminate the respect and humanity that we can show each other. Caring about human rights opens the potential to deliver dignity, fairness, equality and respect for all. There are some really good examples of where the Scottish Government and this Parliament are doing just that. The work to tackle homelessness, social security, support for victims and witnesses and carers policy. In government, the SNP defend existing human rights safeguards, the Human Rights Act, Scotland Act and EU law and are taking action to secure the progressive implementation of all human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights. I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to incorporation of rights set out in treaties but I would say that the most important thing is that this is done correctly in a way that will work in practice, a way that will work in real life and will result in real improvement in lived experience. It is worth taking time to ensure that this is the case. I am not speaking on behalf of my committee today but I will take the opportunity to again speak about the recommendations in our report, Getting Rights Right. We want people across Scotland to understand and feel confident in using their rights. We want public bodies taking decisions to advance human rights. We want the Scottish Parliament to be the guarantor of those rights. Would the member agree that one of the most important things that the Scottish Scottish National Party's Scottish Government has done with regard to human rights is ensuring that anyone, regardless of the economic situation, can access free hire and further education? I thank my friend and colleague Gillian Martin for that intervention and I absolutely agree with her. We want the Scottish Parliament to be the guarantor of those rights. Our report outlines 40 recommendations aimed at achieving those things. Given the major changes to the rights landscape internationally and within our country if we leave the EU, that takes on a new urgency. Recommendations include Parliament tracking the Scottish Government's progress against international human rights obligations, training on human rights for MSPs and staff and integrating human rights considerations into all parliamentary scrutiny. I am very clear that that needs to be about spotting opportunities to advance human rights, not just about spotting where rights might be eroded or impacted on. The committee also recommends adding human rights to the committee's remit permanently and creating human rights champions on each committee of the Parliament. As I said earlier, human rights are at the heart of the Scottish Parliament's vision for being a power-sharing Parliament. The task for us is to make sure that that vision is a reality more often. I know that our Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that Scotland is a modern, inclusive nation that protects, respects and realises internationally recognised human rights. I am sure that we all in this chamber want people across Scotland to be empowered individuals who feel confident using their rights. We want public bodies taking decisions to advance human rights and we want Parliament to be a guarantor of those rights. There are loads of human rights defenders among us. There are lots of good ideas. There are lots of examples of best practice. The challenge now that we all have to take together is to make best practice standard practice. Let me finish with the pledge that I started with. I am sure that it is one that no one would disagree with. I will respect your rights regardless of who you are. I will uphold your rights even when I disagree with you. When anyone's human rights are denied, everyone's human rights are undermined, so I will stand up. I will raise my voice. I will take action. I will use my rights to stand up for your rights. I allowed a bit of leeway in the opening speeches, so we are quite tight for time, so if you could follow Ms McGuire's example, that would be great and come in under six minutes. The concept that human beings should have a set of basic rights and freedoms has very deep roots in the United Kingdom. As a teenager, I lived near Runnymede, where in 1215, almost a century before Bruce's struggles with the Scottish Wars of Independence and a time when Genghis Khan was still laying waste to Asia, the Magna Carta was signed. The charter acknowledged for the first time that subjects of the crown had legal rights and that laws applied to everyone regardless of status. Whilst historians still debate just how much it protected the ordinary citizen, habeas corpus, limits on taxation, protection from illegal imprisonment and the rights of the people and barons alike are just a few of the rights that we take for granted today, which all owe their foundations to the Magna Carta. By 1689, every corner of the British Isles was recovering from years of sectarian warfare, the after-effects of which we sadly still feel today. However, regardless of the religious violence of that era, one defining moment shines through, the creation of the Bill of Rights in England and, in Scotland, the Claim of Right Act. The importance of those documents cannot be dealt with adequately in the few minutes that I have. However, their impact can still be felt, running through the very foundations of this building and up the royal mile to the court of session and the High Court of Justice on Parliament Square. It laid the groundwork that not only enables all of us to speak freely here today, but created a blueprint for fair, transparent and accountable government envid the world over. Today, as we debate leadership in human rights and talk of the protections offered to us by the UNCHR, the ECHR and the Human Rights Act of 1998, it is important that we remember the leadership that was shown by our forebears, who delivered the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and the Claim of Right. I say this because others have. In the United States of America, a country originally founded on the principle of individual rights, the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights were prominent in the minds of Hamilton and Madison. This is true to such a degree that one can go to Runnymede and see the swath of memorials there. The ideals of liberty that rights surrendered to the state must be protected are best demonstrated by the rotunda donated by the American Bar Association and the Senataf of John F. Kennedy. Those memorials, of course, are not only a reminder of the power that the rule of law possesses. They are a reminder that despite centuries of threats to our democracy and our individual liberty, Runnymede has remained. It has witnessed the rise of Cromwell's Commonwealth, the threat of despotism from Napoleonic France, the two global conflicts and the bleak days of the Cold War and yet the things have remained constant. Gillian Martin I am very grateful to the member for taking intervention. It is very interesting to hear the history of human rights, but I was wondering if you are going to make any comments on the situation now with regard to human rights in current modern Scotland. Michelle Ballantyne Yes, in a way I am, but this is about the leadership in human rights. I think that we should rightly remember the background and the history of our countries because we have always been there in the forefront of human rights. The field at Magna Cot was signed in has survived and the rights enshrined in law there almost a millennia ago have survived. My point is that no matter what we have preserved human rights and I have no doubt that in the future we will continue to do so, because those rights however do not come for free, they come with a duty, a duty and a responsibility to uphold them for future generations so that they may enjoy the same liberties that we are privileged to possess today. That is true leadership in regards to human rights because it is the spirit in which we have acted throughout the centuries and that we continue to act today when we pioneer new legislation and when we bring human rights into the actions that we take every day within this Parliament. It is the spirit that reminds us that our obligations as human beings to treat each other with dignity, fairness and respect and the same spirit that I see running through all our legal systems today. We have a responsibility not just to enforce our own rights but to protect the rights of others and as we have heard from others in this chamber this is important work which both the Scottish and the UK Governments have dedicated themselves to across the globe and I know some have their concerns that our rights may be affected in the years to come. However, having examined the history of this country, I can tell you that I have no doubts we have our role models to follow and all that remains is for us to fulfil our obligation to society and continue to fight for oppressed peoples no matter if they are in Paisley or in Ponyang. Very quickly, please, Ruth Maguire. Thank you. I just wonder what assessment would be made if we took a human rights-based approach and looked at the two child cap and the rape clause. How would that be assessed as being compatible with the human rights aspirations that you are speaking about just now? Michelle Ballantyne. I have actually finished, Presiding Officer, but I think that in all of these things a lot of this becomes a political discussion on what you believe is right in terms of the delivery of systems. In terms of human rights, I think that it is always important that we protect people's rights. I think that it is wrong to say that individual Governments don't do that. Thank you. I remind all members that they should take care that they are addressing the motion that is up for debate. Sometimes it is a judgment call, but I would ask everyone to bear that in mind. I call Bill Kidd to be followed by Anasar. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to start by stating appreciation of the advisory group of human rights experts who dedicated their time, knowledge and attention to the development of their comprehensive recommendations over the course of the past year. I would also like to thank the many civil societies, human rights representatives that made up the reference group, keeping the process relevant to the everyday experience in Scotland. The adoption of those recommendations alongside political will and prioritisation of bringing forward the necessary changes can and will result in the development of a more equitable society. Her nation will see social and economic rights, as well as civil and political rights, result in a comprehensive change to the lives of those individuals currently the most in need of realisation of those rights. By economic and social rights, I refer to the adequate housing, food protection against poverty and social exclusion, the right to education, the right to social security and social protection and the right to take part in social and cultural life. That is all about dignity and it is all about the fact that nobody deserves to be living in poverty or be denied his or her rights. Human rights are absolute and they are universal. The Scotland act, which led to the very establishment of this Parliament, incorporates the civil and political rights of the 1998 Human Rights Act. That reflects the concrete legal protections that are laid by the EU convention on human rights. I agree with the proposals to enshrine EU human rights protections against any legal threats posed by Brexit. The proposed act of the Scottish Parliament will go further than any human rights legislation found in the UK by incorporating social, economic, cultural and environmental rights. The OHSHR notes, unless specific action is taken towards the full realisation of economic, social, cultural rights, civil and political, can rarely, if ever, be realised in the long term. That highlights why going beyond the 1998 civil and public rights protections is an important next step. Human rights are intrinsic and they belong to everyone. However, for those rights to improve the lives of those that call Scotland their home, all of us here in chamber have the responsibility to introduce legislation that can make this possible. That means introducing a human rights framework that has the capacity to be transformational. There is no good or intractable reason for why a state cannot uphold human rights and see those rights reflected in the quality of our citizens' lives and their freedoms. That is by no means a small task. There are substantial challenges facing full and comprehensive realisation of human rights in Scotland. However, our duty is parliamentarians and the duty of the Scottish Government to lead the way towards an equal future for all. The biggest challenge facing human rights in Scotland is poverty. Poverty decryphes people of choice, freedom and it takes away what rightfully should belong to an individual. That includes basic things such as the security of a home and good-quality food to eat. Poverty is a significant political issue. Philip Alston has been mentioned the United Nations rapporteur on human rights and extreme poverty. He spoke of how he anticipates that poverty will worsen because of Brexit. He spoke of the disproportionate effect of austerity on the poorest, namely benefits, freezes and the roll-out of universal credit, something that was introduced into Tromchappel, part of my constituency last Wednesday. Universal credit is pushing many families in my constituency into a very difficult situation right before Christmas and it is doing so across the country, resulting in more and more families having to rely on food banks. That is unacceptable. Human rights and the act of treating people with dignity should feed into all areas of policy and be an important consideration in any political decisions. That is the 21st century and it should not be radical or revolutionary to say these things. Nevertheless, the fact that we see policies penalising some of the poorest people in Scotland and the rest of the UK also shows that that still needs to be said. Incorporation of human rights into law and putting a duty on public bodies to comply with this law would once again evidence the Scottish Parliament's prioritisation of the people of Scotland. My constituents should have good quality homes to live in and should not have to worry about relying on food banks to make it through Christmas. Incorporation of human rights should not be revolutionary but it appears that it has to be. That is why I welcome the recommendations of the First Minister's advisory group. We will lead the way in making revolutionary the every day where the abstract rights become the norm and the expectation. I want the children of my constituency and all constituencies to grow up knowing their own rights, knowing everyone's rights in an equal society. I want them to have a future where they can make life choices free from the constraints of poverty and where they are treated with dignity and respect at all times. Anna Sarwar, followed by Gail Ross. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I welcome this debate today that marks the 70th anniversary of universal declaration of human rights. It is a very timely debate given the time of division that we now live in. In particular, I congratulate the advisory group on their report and their call for leadership. That call for leadership needs to go beyond just government and just politicians. I think that we need leadership from every citizen the length and breadth of our country and right around the world. Only if every citizen sees the fight for human rights as their own fight can we actually get true practice and a real change. The reality, Presiding Officer, is that hate and prejudice are on the rise. Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-Catholic hatred, racism, sexism, LGBT rights and so much more seem to be under attack here at home and right around the world. It certainly feels like we, as a nation and as a world, are going backwards. There is a constant debate about the role of social media in that. It amplifies division. It creates echo chambers. It gives people the permission to say things that they would not normally say face to face to somebody but say it on a social media feed and anonymity. On the other side, social media also helps to build solidarity. It helps to build an understanding among people of different parts of the world. It also helps to expose abuse locally, nationally and internationally. I also want to touch upon the role of the mainstream media. So much of us in the political climate attack the mainstream media. My family has had its fair share of troubles with the mainstream media over the years, but I think that all of us should resist the shout of fake news when it comes to our media, because so much of the human rights abuses that take place in our world are only exposed because of the bravery of journalists right across the world to put themselves at risk to report on what is happening on other sides of the world. We have also got to accept that our political leadership is failing, and I mean that in the broadest possible term. The political order is failing, and now, at this time of political failure, we are now reliant more than ever on people driving change rather than on our politics driving change. Fundamentally, change will only come if our politics also changes. I think that that is the responsibility on each and every single one of us that occupies any role in the political sphere. We have had the Declaration of Human Rights. We can break it down into three simple words—equality, justice and opportunity—for every citizen, regardless of their background. What are those basic rights? Protection of minorities, a right to education, a right to healthcare, a right to a home, a right to justice, a right to security and safety, a right to social welfare and a right to live without fear. What do those basic rights mean in practice? The sad reality is that for so many citizens and so many streets and even Scotland, it is unsafe for some to walk. There are women that live in our communities that are scared to walk down certain streets in our country. There are people in certain minority communities that are scared to walk in individual streets, and there also has to be a recognition that so much of prejudice—whether that is Islamophobic prejudice, whether that is racism, whether that is anti-Semitism—is gendered in nature. People seeing women as the easy attack on our streets in our public transport system, the number of women that I have spoken to that have been sworn that threatened had their headscarves removed on our public transport system is simply unacceptable. It also requires us to recognise, respect and accept each other's differences, whether they are physical differences, whether they are colour, religion, gender, age, LGBT or many more. Celebrate our differences and not use them as a way to attack each other and divide each other, because human rights are under attack here in Scotland, across the UK and right around the world. We see a rise of the far right, the creation of the other, the othering of our fellow citizens, the fear of the other and people like Tommy Robinson and Steve Bannon becoming international celebrities as a result. However, how do you defeat Steve Bannon, Tommy Robinson and the others? I do not think that you defeat them by shouting them down. I do not think that you defeat them by even denying them all platforms, although I do deny them all platforms. However, it is actually by defeating the argument. Take on the argument head on with Steve Bannon and Tommy Robinson and that is how we defeat them. We change them through education and building relationships, not punishment, by allowing people to learn from each other and allowing people to change, recognise when they get it wrong and to do it through dialogue, not through division. How do we do that? Let us empower our citizens and our communities. Let us build confidence in our communities so that people, particularly women, can come forward and share their stories so that we can learn from each other, children learning from children, adults learning from adults, people learning from each other and taking that difference as a strength in our community and recognising that our differences are a strength and that it is a fight for every single one of us, not leaving it as somebody else's fight, whether it is a fight at home or whether it is a fight abroad, not leaving it to others to fight their own corner, but imagining that it was our family, our child, our mother, our father, our loved one that was under attack, how would we feel and what would we do in response? I welcome the publication of the recommendations. I welcome the fact that we will have a human rights act here in Scotland, but what we need more than just the change of the law is a change in culture. We need more than just warm words. We can all do warm words, but we all need to lead by example. Let us not have some sort of Scottish exceptionalism that says bad things only happen elsewhere when bad things happen here too in our institutions, in our public sector bodies, in our playgrounds, in our college and university campuses and in our workplaces across the country. Let's have genuine individual leadership and let's give human rights for all. Gail Ross, followed by Jeremy Balfour. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This week, we celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and that is a significant milestone. The UDHR is a historic document that outlines the rights and freedoms that everyone is entitled to. It was the first international agreement on the basic principles of human rights, and it laid the foundations for the human rights protections that we have here today. Nearly every state in the world has accepted it, and it has inspired more than 80 international conventions and treaties, as well as numerous regional conventions and domestic laws. It has been the catalyst for improving human rights protections for groups such as disabled people, indigenous people and women, and it has been translated into more than 360 languages. Celebrating this anniversary here this week shows the significance that we put on such protections. In Scotland, for the first time, we have a committee dedicated to equalities in human rights. We embed these principles in our legislation, and we do it because it is the right thing to do. We are human rights defenders, human rights guarantors, human rights ambassadors and human rights champions. This week in Parliament has seen several milestones for Scotland in terms of human rights. On Monday, our committee had a human rights takeover of Parliament. We heard from human rights defenders such as Bianca Jagger, David Donaldson, Judith Robertson and, as is fitting in the year of young people, children and young people from across Scotland. We heard from the human rights commissioner for the Council of Europe on how Governments need to be strong, how the Scottish national action plan is a good example of human rights policy, how the Scottish Government sets an example with scrutiny of policy, our Scottish human rights commission and our commissioner for children and young people. On Monday, the First Minister's advisory group on human rights leadership launched their report, which will be the basis of the speech today. That is a significant step for us in our role as human rights defenders and the chance for Scotland to continue to show leadership in this field. It has seven recommendations and the main one is that we create an act of the Scottish Parliament which provides human rights leadership. This will specifically look at civil and political rights and freedoms, economic, social and cultural rights, environmental rights and further specific rights belonging to children, women, persons with disabilities on race and rights for older persons and the LGBTI community. The new framework will have dignity as its core value. Launching the report, the First Minister said, as First Minister of Scotland, I am determined that the Scottish Government will be recognised internationally as a Government that stands up for human rights. It is an important time for Scotland in terms of human rights. We stated in our programme for government that we will incorporate the principles of the UNCRC into Scots law, and one of the recommendations of our recent committee report is that we hope that that happens this term if possible, so it was reassuring to hear the minister's remarks in her opening statement. Our committee's report and that of the advisory group have many recommendations that will improve the lives of our citizens, and we must take those seriously. We are considering how far to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility in a couple of months. We aim to try and bring children's legislation in line with that of adult legislation, with the equal protection against a salt bill, and to be reduced to Parliament by my colleague John Finnie. Our committee report also asks that human rights has given more scrutiny in the budget process, that acts of Parliament with a significant human rights approach are prioritised for post-legislative scrutiny, that we hold annual debates on the universal periodic review and the Scottish national action plan on human rights. We would like other committees in the Parliament to identify and appoint a human rights champion, to strengthen our relationship with and look at strengthening the powers of the Scottish human rights commission, and we would like to amend standing orders to make the equalities in human rights committee a mandatory committee of this Parliament. As we debate this today in the chamber of the Scottish Parliament, let us not lose sight of the fact that we still have much to debate, both here and in wider society, in terms of human rights. I hope that, as we move forward with this, everyone's voices will be heard, because human rights do not belong to us, the policy makers. Human rights belong to us all. We know that the world is watching. We are told that often, and there are no second chances on this. We have to get this right and we have to get it right first time. Jeremy Balfour, followed by Fulton MacGregor. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and, like others, I welcome this debate. I think that just even looking back over the last 20, 30 years, the whole issue of human rights is much more embedded within Scottish society, within our education system. About 10 nights ago, I was trying to persuade one of my daughters that she should think about heading towards bed, when she quoted me with the human rights legislation about the right to play and was told that I was taking away her right to play and that she would be discussing that with her teacher tomorrow morning. I think that rights are important, although I would also want to argue as a father that responsibility is as well. For the remaining of my time, if I can move away from my traumatic experiences as a father, I can perhaps discuss an issue of disability, because persons with disability, whether physical and obvious, hidden and much less obvious, face discrimination and barriers to restrict them from participating in society on an equal basis and on an everyday basis. As I talk to many people across our country who have different forms of disability, that becomes clearer and clearer. Sadly, I think that my experience as a disabled individual is too often the exception rather than normality. Because persons with disabilities I think have remained largely invisible and often sidelined in the rights debate. Many people find it difficult to communicate in a way that people understand, and the full range of human rights is being closed down to those with disability. I think that there are many different reasons for that. Unlike perhaps other characteristics, disability is such a wide range in subjects. What affects somebody with one disability will be someone else's very different experience. Perhaps one of the problems that politicians and Scottish Government have, and I sympathise with them, is that who do you consult with when you are talking about disability, because too often you can leave people right. The convention on the rights of persons with disability is an international legal agreement. It exists to protect and to promote the human rights of disabled people. The UK Government signed up to it in 2009, a commitment to promote and protect the human rights of disabled people. However, whether it is the UK Government or can I even suggest the Scottish Government, there is a long way to go in regard to that. A report by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities said that progress had been made around disability within the UK in October 2018, but concluded that there was still a long way to go and that a long large drive and effort would have to be made. Issues such as housing, employability and simple access to basic services are human rights that disabled people often struggle to get. I welcome the debate, and I welcome the comments by the Scottish Government and other members of the chamber. However, can I make a plea again that disabled people's rights in Scotland are not yet fully met? There is still a lot of work to be done, and despite the right moves in direction, words are not enough. We need action, and we need action quickly. The last of the open debate contributions is from Fulton MacGregor. I am honoured to speak in today's debate, recognising the 70th anniversary of the ratification of the milestone of universal declaration of human rights. I am also a member of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee of which we have published a report that sets out a human rights road map for the Scottish Parliament, which sets out 40 recommendations aimed at bolstering MSPs' roles as supporters of human rights. Those recommendations include the Parliament tracking the Scottish Government's progress against international human rights obligations and integrating human rights considerations into all parliamentary scrutiny. In one area that we considered in committee was local authorities, and it is evident that they must use an active human rights-based approach and do more than what is called box ticking. That will lead to better outcomes for residents. The committee made a comment on protecting human rights in public institutions such as local authorities. It is fitting that I start my speech today by mentioning a young man who has care experience and who I have had the pleasure to get to know over the last year or so. On Monday, this week, on the 70th anniversary and the takeover event, Ryan McShane, MSYP and student of St Ambrose High School in Coatbridge gave an exceptional speech to the Parliament and First Minister Nicola Sturgeon. Unfortunately, I could not be there, but I watched at that night and I would encourage anyone here in the chamber to do so. I would like to say on record that I could not be there because I was in Norway with the Justice Committee visiting the Barnahouse to look at how their justice system helps vulnerable child witnesses. With that model, young people who have had to give evidence in a criminal trial do not need to appear in court but are interviewed and supported in the Barnahouse. In its sale, for example, the Scottish Government promoted human rights through the Vulnerable Witness Bill, which is going through stage 1 at the moment that I think the Barnahouse model is something that we should all aspire to. However, staying with Ryan McShane, MSYP and student of St Ambrose High School, a care experience young person, as I said, who has been actively defending human rights and holding decision makers to account such as he demonstrated on Monday when he addressed the First Minister and the Parliament. Ryan went to the UN in Geneva as part of the Scottish delegation supported by children and young people's commissioner to bravely speak about the trauma of his past experiences in the foster care system, moving in and out of many placements before having a lasting family who provides love, happiness and understanding. I would also like to take this opportunity to also pay tribute to his foster carers and all those carers, including kinship carers, across the country that give children the chance to reach their potential. In care experience young people have the right to have a family like Ryan has had and we have a duty to support them in having the same opportunities and rights as anyone else in Scotland. Presiding Officer, as I said before in the chamber before, becoming MSP as a social worker and what with many looked after children. That is why I was delighted when the First Minister launched an independent review into the care system. That review is currently undertaking a comprehensive look at the care system in Scotland and children and young people's voices and experiences are at the heart of that, as well as the people who work with them and care for them. In final recommendations to the change policy and legislation will be reported to the Scottish Government by summer 2020. Nothing can be more important than how we care for those who are cared for by the state, how we promote their human rights. And often when children and young people are in care, they have experienced significant trauma in their lives, and that is why I was glad to hear Derek Mackay commit to spending on the child abuse inquiry just yesterday in response to my question to make sure that victims' voices are heard in that inquiry. Nevertheless, we still have work to do here to ensure that human rights are for everyone. Care experience young people in higher education face additional hurdles in the pursuit of their education, and there are mainly safeguards in place such as the care experience student bursary for those under 26 who have been looked after. However, there are anomalies in the system and I have recently constituency race concerns with me that their daughter adopted from out with the UK, and it is now a British citizen, will not be considered for financial assistance from universities if she has not been looked after by a local authority in the UK at any point in her life. Those young children and young people are adopted from overseas, have care experiences and experienced significant trauma, yet do not get financial support from university. I have recently written to SAS and SAS and the Minister for Higher Education asking for a review of this. Human rights are for everyone, regardless of the country that they are adopted from. No ifs, no buts. They deserve the same higher education opportunities as all other children and young people across Scotland. Presiding Officer, another area that I would like to comment on is the impact of Brexit on human rights, and particularly on EU citizens. I held a constituency surgery last Friday, where my office lettered every EU national living in Coatbridge in Creson, and I am pleased to say that it was an extremely busy surgery, and almost 100 folk turned up over the course of the moment. I am really pleased that people were able to come out. However, what they were coming to see me about was not so good news. They were worried about their status, their employment and, of course, those ridiculous settling fees. I had people there who had been in the country for 10, 20 or 30 years feeling that they were not welcome, that they had to pay a fee to be a citizen of this country. Absolutely ridiculous. I would call on the members of the Benchys left to me to really speak to their counterparts in London to try and get that sorted. What about, while we are talking about the UK Government, as others have mentioned, where are the human rights when it comes to universal credit, two-child cap policy or the rape clause? If MSPs are not getting folk, if they are not getting folk, I am telling you the devastating effects of those policies, then you might want to check out how available you are to your constituents. That, Presiding Officer, is mainly a consensual debate, and you can be guaranteed that myself and backbenchers in the Government will take steps to call the Government to account, such as the SAS issue that I mentioned a minute ago. Again, I make a plea to my Tory colleagues on the consensual debate. Please look at the effects on human rights, some of your London colleagues' policies are having. Finally, Presiding Officer, I can see that I ran out of time. There were some more things I wanted to mention, but I would like to say that it has been an absolute pleasure to speak in this debate, and here is to the next 70 years of demonstrating leadership in human rights. We move now to the closing speeches. I call Alex Cole-Hamilton for around six minutes, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I very much welcome the tone and tenor of this afternoon's debate. That's absolutely right. Can I start by associating myself with the remarks of the minister, Christine McKelvie, at the top of this afternoon's proceedings? Can I also thank her warmly for her remarks around my intervention? I recognise that I have crossed swords with this Government on things like age of criminal responsibility, but I recognise the very much listening mode that the Government is in, and the interests that they have shown, particularly around general comment 24, and the uplift of 14 that the UN is about to embark on. I look forward to working with them on a consensual basis as we progress through the passage of this act. In my amendment, I don't seek to pre-empt those arguments or discussions that we will have at stage 2 or stage 3. I want to lay out a common understanding that if we seek to be a human rights leader and we should seek to be a human rights leader, then we need to achieve the international de minimus expectations. In children's rights, that surrounds things like physical punishment. It's how we offer legal redress to children who have their rights denied them. Jeremy Balfour, be afraid, because your daughter may be coming at you with a legal team. And the age we credit kids with responsibility for their actions. It's been a really good debate. I want to recognise the contribution of Annie Wells. I congratulate her on her support for the ECHR. I'm glad that she's in her party, because there are many people who are in her party who do not. You will have a fight on your hands, but I recognise her credentials in the human rights arena, and I congratulate her for that. I'm grateful also for Mary Fee. Can I make recognition of the tenacious and forensic approach that she took to stage 1? It is Mary Fee who drew forth answers on going further than 12 as a baseline for the age of criminal responsibility. That helped to move the frame of this debate on writing out of the traps. I can also recognise the work that she does around the rights of gypsy travellers. That is another area that we fall behind the international curve on. Benching ourselves against other countries is a very helpful way of making public policy. It's not the only way, and it shouldn't be the only factor that we build into it. However, we are in the age of criminal responsibility right now about, on a trajectory, to join, as I said, the four most socially conservative countries in Europe by having a baseline of 12. Denmark, let's look at Denmark. It's often a nation that we compare ourselves to. They have, for many years, had their minimum age of criminal responsibility set at 15. A more socially conservative government was elected and lowered it to 14, thinking that that was a populist thing to do. Within two years, they had restated that at 15, recognising the demonstrable negative impact on life outcomes and, indeed, re-offending that that had in Denmark. I've been challenged sometimes in comparing this issue with other nations, given that we have a very unique system in our children's hearing system. It's something that we have to be justifiably proud of, and it is more humane than other countries. However, it was very telling at stage 1 that the children's reported administration, who is in charge of the children's hearing system in this country, recognised that there is still demonstrable harm done to children who are criminalised through the children's hearings process. Malcolm Shaffer said, we have not yet recognised the sort of criminalisation effects that appearance hearing for committing an offence can have. It's for that reason, in part, that he resated several times the belief of the reporter that we have an imperative in this bill to go further than 12. In any given year, 650 children who are between 12 and 13 will come before the reporter on offence grounds. Six will come to court. I just want to talk very briefly about one example that we heard in stage 1, and that's of Lindsay Hanbridge, who was on the night that she was taken into care, understandably erupted, kicked off, if you might say, and was arrested and spent a night in the cells. Lindsay was 13 years old, and nothing about the bill as it currently stands will have done anything to change her story. It is stories like Lindsay's who have reframed the debate. I don't think that it's that controversial to move us on to 14. I've done many interviews and op-ed pieces since I lodged my amendments, and I've had no adverse reaction from the Scottish public whatsoever. In fact, many people are surprised that it isn't at 14 already, so we should move forward with confidence. Can I recognise John Finnie's personal efforts in the field of children's rights? In the physical punishment of children, the act that he's bringing forward to Parliament, which I very much hope will become an act, because physical punishment is an abomination. We are outstripped continually by other countries who have outlawed this all the way to South Sudan before us, and most of the— Gordon Lindhurst. I will to Gordon Lindhurst. Gordon Lindhurst. He talks about comparing to other countries, but the suggestion of making, smacking a child, the punishment for that, a common law offence, and with the ultimate penalty up to life imprisonment, is completely extortionate and disproportionate compared to countries like Denmark, Germany or France where it's not criminalised at all. Alex Cole-Hamilton. I'm grateful to the member for his intervention. I look forward to the exchanges on the subject during the conduct of John Finnie's bill, but I would say two things to Gordon Lindhurst. First, in the countries that have criminalised it, they've not seen normal parents march through the courts for normal parenting behaviour. That is about a culture change. And secondly, it is not about the children in countries who we often hear about kids who will put their hands into fire, run into traffic if you don't give them a decent smack. Well, in those countries that have done it, we've not had a rash of kids running into traffic or putting their hands in fires. There are many misconceptions around this issue. I look forward to taking them head on when we bring John Finnie's bill through Parliament. I know that I'm vastly out of time. Can I have a little bit more? Thank you. Ruth Maguire made a typically thoughtful contribution. I want to pay tribute to her convenership. It's not been always easy, and I think today, as I referenced earlier, that we have agreed to take more evidence to fully scrutinise what it means to increase to 14 or indeed 16 is a measure of her commitment to keep us within step within international law and the diligence that she provides to that committee. I pay tribute briefly to Anasawa, depart from the focus of my amendment, because I don't think that I know another person in this Parliament who is more dedicated to fighting racism, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. I'm proud to call you a friend. And I think that you're an asset, not just to your party, but to this Parliament and keep doing what you're doing. It's important. Gail Ross took up Dan Johnson's intervention on why we adopt rights. We do it because it's the right thing to do. It doesn't make us popular necessarily, but it's the right thing to do. Michelle Ballantyne took us back to the Magna Carta. We've recognised now that the aspiring towards human rights is something that we've done for over a millennia. Let's make ours, the very last generation, to have to push back on those frontiers, because if we haven't, if we are still leaving it to other generations to drive forward human rights, then we will have failed in our mission. I remind members that, even when you're being nice, you should speak through the chair. I call Daniel Johnson for seven minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to begin by thanking the Government for bringing forward the story, because I think that it's an important one. Both on the immediate and substantive issues, but also on the general ones, because human rights are important, but they are not permanent. They are concepts. They are something that we've invented. They are a promise based on an idea. Now, those are an important promise, an important idea. The idea being that we are all equal, and if we believe that we are all equal, then human rights are that promise, that pledge, that we will respect one another on that basis. Importantly, when we talk about human rights, is their development in the 20th century, a very fundamental and important development, which fundamentally limited the power of the state. That's what universal human rights do. That's why they're important, because up until the point of the Second World War, it was held that states could do what they wanted, within the boundaries of their own borders. What human rights have done is not just entrenched the idea of what each one of us, as individual human beings, on that basis of equality should expect, but it has also allowed us to build a rules-based international order, one that seeks to build peace, one that limits the rights of the state. In the words of Clement Attlee, since wars begin in the minds of men, and apologies for the gendered language, but they're the words he used, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed. In my mind, I think that sums up where human rights begin and indeed their importance, and why we must celebrate the UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 in Paris. A declaration founded on, and I'm going to reference FDR again, as I did in the human rights dependence, because I think that speech sums up simply, and his Four Freedoms summarises what's at heart here. Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, but also freedom from want and freedom from fear. And there are two lessons I draw from my opening remarks, and those are that human rights don't just exist, they require our effort to uphold them and we must fight for them, not just as a historic fight, but an on-going fight, but also that human need is as much a human right as those human rights of conscience. And I think that sometimes we treat human rights as esoteric rights of freedom of speech and worship, but those freedoms from want and from fear are just as important. So in that context, I think that I believe that human rights cannot be passive, it requires our commitment, it requires a commitment not just to implement but to progress them, and we must challenge ourselves to do so, because human rights are that fundamental cornerstone of an international order, and let's be under no illusions, it is under attack. And I think that the minister was absolutely right to open her remarks by talking about the threats to human rights that exist, threats in developing and less developed nations and oppressive regimes, but also the threats from the more developed nations, because Donald Trump in the United States are pursuing an active project of dismantling the international world order, withdrawing from the Paris peace agreement, refusing to nominate replacements to the appellate body of the WTO. And the link here with human rights is that while human rights are the cornerstone of the international rules-based order, it's the United States which is seeking to dismantle it. But we must also be mindful of the issues closer to home. And while I'm very pleased that Annie Wells and others spoke in favour of the Human Rights Act, and indeed the ECHR, more recently their party's record has been more chequered. Just in November, Penny Mordant suggested that the UK might withdraw from UNESCO. In the 2015 Conservative manifesto they pledged to repeal the very human rights act that many members sought to support. And indeed Theresa May in the single intervention she made during the Brexit campaign, and while she spoke in support of remaining the EU, also suggested that we might withdraw as a signatory from the ECHR. Now I think that that is the beginnings of the toxic logic of exceptionalism and the toxic logic that we must speak up against and we must not give any corner to. Now a number of members, I think, have spoken about the challenge, about taking that challenge forward. And I think, in particular, Annas Sarwar and Gail Ross in two important ways. I think that Annas Sarwar is absolutely right that we cannot leave it to international institutions or even just our government to progress human rights. We must take up that challenge ourselves as individuals. And we must do so on an individual basis within our own communities. But I think also Gail Ross, I think, spoke very well about talking about the ways in which this Parliament, we as parliamentarians, can seek to improve our processes through human rights at the very heart of our approach. So coming to the Government's motion and indeed their approach, I think that they are absolutely right to look at ways that we can take forward, baking into law human rights. But we cannot leave it as simply a legal matter, one about changing our laws. It has to be, in the words of Mary Phee, a practical effort to quote the Scottish Government's human rights adviser, too many people are not enjoying their rights in everyday life. And in too many places, services are not meeting their needs. We must be mindful of article 25 of the UN convention on human rights, that article enshrining freedom from want. Because the reality is in this city there are 20,000 people waiting to be housed. In my recent case work, the health board is stating that people are needing hip replacements and knee surgery are having to wait 12 to 18 months. And indeed, I was very pleased that Jeremy Balfour raised the human rights perspective of disabled people. Because the reality is is that only 43 per cent of disabled people are in employment as compared to 80 per cent of the able-bodied population. And I raised zero-hours contracts with a point. And I think that the Scottish Government absolutely has made some very powerful statements about zero-hours contracts but it continues to use it within their definition of positive destinations. So what I would say to this and the purpose of our amendment this evening is that yes, we must uphold human rights in our language and in our law but we must also uphold it in our deeds and indeed, can I say our definitions? Finally, coming to the Liberal amendment, I am pleased to be supporting it because I think Alex Cole-Hamilton is absolutely right. If that commitment to human rights is to mean anything, it is about upholding the views, the judgments, the regulations from those international institutions which are the arbiters, the champions of human rights even when that is uncomfortable to do so. And that's why his amendment is so important. So in conclusion, Presiding Officer, human rights requires us to challenge ourselves and to struggle to make ensure that we progress them. We can have no exceptionalism. We must abide by the international rule of law and that is ultimately the challenge to the Government. We welcome the sentiment but it must be backed up by action. Thank you. Oliver Mundell, seven minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I've listened to the whole of this afternoon's debate and to be honest I think it's quite depressing. I've maybe missed the consensual tone that other people are talking about. I think that what people in this chamber mean sadly by consensus is that we all must agree to the same thing all of the time or else we can't agree on anything. I don't think that that's true but that's not the approach that I take to my politics. Twice in particular, I was disappointed when John Finnie firstly accused me, Deputy Presiding Officer, of not looking or looking away when I was looking directly at him and secondly accusing me of smiling in a photo when I think that that is irrelevant to the point I was actually making and if Mr Finnie had been present with me he would have known that I belligerently asked questions over and over again of that individual about Israeli settlements something that causes me deep concern and I think that if we're going to genuinely try and improve the situation in the Middle East making categorical statements and virtue signalling in this chamber there's absolutely nothing to serve that cause. I'm happy to take an intervention. John Finnie Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm grateful for the member taking an intervention. Would the member recognise that the rule of international law that UN resolutions are fundamental to it? You can't say I applaud human rights but I have no regard to international law on UN resolutions in the number of violations of both of those in respect of that particular scenario is well known to the member. Oliver Mundell It's absolutely not what I've said and it's not the position I've sought to set out. I think that international norms are important. I don't think that issuing them as if they're absolute actually does take into cognisance the pragmatic realities the difficult and challenging realities we see in this world and that's why I find it very difficult actually reconciling some of these issues. I think that human rights are absolute I do. But I think that when it comes to working out exactly what's going on in individual situations it can be far more complicated. I think that it does an injustice I think that it does an injustice to people to try and suggest otherwise and that is why I find it difficult listening to the Scottish Government who are happy to point to flaws in the UK Government's policies but are less keen to spell out what they're going to do exactly and precisely in terms of the UN rapporteur's recommendations. It's also why I find it difficult to watch the minister squirm about what she's going to do on the age of criminal responsibility. I'm happy to say that 12 is a reasonable and pragmatic compromise. I'm not waiting to see what's happening because I think that it's perfectly legitimate to disagree with the UN on certain judgments of committees. I think that there's nothing to be ashamed of in that. I think that these are decisions to be taken here in Scotland looking at how people in this country feel about issues. Yes? Mary Todd? Can I just assure the member that just as he says that he was not looking away, I was not squirming? Absolutely. Oliver Mundell? I'm happy to confirm that. If the minister would like to stand back up and confirm what the Scottish Government's position is, whether it's 12, 14 or 16, I'd be delighted to give way. Mary Todd? As I have reiterated many times in this chamber and in other places, I was absolutely delighted to gain consensus in this chamber to raise the criminal age of 12. I understand that there is pressure to push it further. There is no consensus to which age to push it further. And I am in listening mode, as you would expect, of a responsible Government minister. I am looking forward to the evidence-gathering session of the committee that you are a member of. Through the chair always please, Oliver Mundell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm pleased because that effectively confirms exactly my point. I hope that, unfortunately, the Government is willing to take a pick-and-mix approach to when UN guidance is to be followed, whereas I'm honest enough to stand up, Presiding Officer, and set out my opinion, and that is that these are decisions that should be taken here in Scotland, taking into consideration how our constituents, as MSPs, feel about these matters. I want to address a point made by Alex Cole-Hamilton when he said that we should be leaders on these issues, not followers. I think that the truth is that our role lies somewhere in the middle. If we move too fast and we push too hard and we stop listening to what real people are saying, if we stop listening to the experience of their everyday life, then we're not going to bring them along on this journey with us. Alex Cole-Hamilton I'm very grateful to the member for giving way. In terms of what I said about leaders and followers, it's fair to say that he was in the committee with me when we took stage 1 evidence, where the vast majority of stakeholders said, we aren't going far enough with 12. The fact that I have put amendments in the public domain for 12, 14 and 16 and received no negative public attention for that should suggest him that we are in step with public opinion by seeking to push the ceiling on that. Oliver Mundell I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for that intervention. I think that the problem with that is the vast majority of people who respond to consultations that come from this Parliament, from our committees, and it's no fault of the Parliament, no fault of the hard work that the clerks do, no fault of members here. The vast majority come from advocacy groups, from charities and organisations. They don't always come from individual members of the public, and I think that we've got a duty to listen to them as well, and that's why I'm happy to stand by my positions and to make them clear whether that's the fact that I'm not ashamed to have visited Israel, whether that's the fact that I believe that 12 is the right age, or whether that's the fact that I believe that universal credit is at its heart a good policy that's designed to make people's lives better to simplify the benefit system and help to get those who want to work back into work. I think that our human rights are much better served by being clear about what our policy positions are and letting the people of this country decide who they want to be in government, who they want to be in charge of taking some of those difficult decisions, and that's my position. I call Christina McKelvie to wind up the debate for eight minutes, please, minister. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I thank members for their contributions to today's debate? On 10 December 1998, the United Nations adopted its declarations on human rights defenders. Having met several human rights defenders this year, including through the Scottish human rights defender fellowship, I have gained a new perspective on how critical the rights contained in the universal declaration of human rights are. On John Finnie's point that he raised earlier about internationalisation and how we should do more of that, I hope that the fellowship gives just a small indication of our commitment to our international obligation to advancing human rights worldwide. Particularly important is how they belong to each of us in equal measure. We've heard a lot of that this afternoon, no matter who we are, what we do or where we come from. In Scotland, we are fortunate to have a legal framework that provides safeguards against the abuse of human rights that includes domestic legislation such as the Scotland Act and the Human Rights Act, as well as a system of international human rights treaties that Scottish ministers have a duty under the Scottish Ministerial Code to comply with. As Bill Kidd highlighted in his contribution, this Government has taken action to make real progress in giving effect to its international human rights obligations in areas such as gender equality, disabled people's rights, tackling racial discrimination, promoting the rights of the child and, more broadly, through measures to encourage fair working practices and to combat violence against women. However, the challenges still remain. We've heard many of them this afternoon and I've listened to them closely and I've written them all down too. Members have raised some areas that give us some challenge. Alex Cole-Hamilton in his contribution earlier asked about the timetable for the UNCRC. I can give Alex Cole-Hamilton an answer that the Scottish Government has said that it will consult and incorporate the principles of the UNCRC in 2019, a consultation that is on-going with stakeholders right now, including the children's commissioners. I hope that that gives him some comfort, that 2019 is only a few short weeks away and we will get on with that work. However, on protecting human rights today, there was a lot said about that and Michelle Ballantyne and Annie Wells and even John Finnie spoke about that as well. However, I want to maybe make a point to Michelle Ballantyne and Annie Wells on protecting human rights today. Section 5 of the continuity bill in Scotland committed this place to retain the European Convention on Human Rights. The withdrawal act at the Lord's stage put it in and then at the next stage took it back out. The Lord Advocate today told us that the Scottish Government will consider ways to give effect to the provisions that are contained in the ECHR. I would be asking the Scottish Tories today to work with the Scottish Government to make sure that we give maximum effect to the provisions of the ECHR when we move forward with the continuity bill. Mary Fee raised a number of issues and so did Jeremy Balfour around disability. I would like to reassure Jeremy Balfour that, just in the recent few days, the disability action plan committed to half the disability employment gap, and we are very committed to doing that. However, on a number of other issues where we have got some work to do, the Scottish Government's commitment to the principles of UNCRPD is set out in its disability action plan, which was published in December 2016, two years ago. We believe that a fairer Scotland can only be realised when we secure equal rights for everyone. The barriers that disabled people face are not barriers caused by disabled people or their disability, because they are barriers caused by prejudice, ignorance and thoughtlessness. They remain the only reason why those of us without a disability allow them to be there. The time has well passed for that work to begin, and we have begun that work. A recent amendment to the plan and bill has Kevin Stewart looking now at how we can increase the number of changing places toilets across Scotland, and it is something that I am very committed to. There is indeed a way to go, as Jeremy Balfour said, because the Scottish Government has made those commitments. Jeremy Balfour asked for action, so here is some action, and hopefully he will take this with the best of intentions. There are a number of measures that we have committed to and have now achieved since 2016. We will extend free personal care to everybody under 65, and that will start in April 2019. We have published a social enterprise action plan, which seeks to increase the number of disabled entrepreneurs and explores the way for social enterprises to employ more disabled people. We have launched a new independent living fund scheme for young disabled people aged between 16 and 21, and we have published the first-ever BSL national plan, the first in the UK. We have also launched the second phase of the NHS disabled graduate intern programme, and we extended modern apprenticeship funding to disabled people up to the age of 30. I hope that that will give some comfort to everyone who I know are champions for people with disabilities across Scotland. Can I turn to Mary Fee and her unstinting commitment to the Gypsy Traveller community in Scotland? I have travelled many of those journeys with her myself. We recognise that Gypsy Travellers are amongst the most marginalized people in Scotland. We understand that. That is why we established the ministerial working group. I had one of the final meetings of the four threads of that just yesterday, and I will be able to give Mary Fee an update on that in the new year. The ministerial working group has taken a firmly rooted position that is firmly rooted in human rights, and will take full account of the United Nations recommendations, which was to ensure a systematic and coherent approach to addressing the challenges that members of those communities face. I hope to update the chamber on that work in the new year. We talked about embedding human rights. Ruth Maguire mentioned that best practice should be standard practice, and she is absolutely right. We are committed to embedding human rights, dignity and quality at the heart of everything that we do, and I hope that that would reassure Ruth Maguire, too. That commitment to embedding human rights drove the First Minister to set up the advisory group on human rights leadership. The group brought together experts of different aspects of human rights and reached out to hear the direct and lived experiences of people from across Scotland. I gave just a moment of time to commend Ryan McShane, Fulton MacGregor's constituent, who stood right there on Monday. I bowled the First Minister and asked her to do more for care experience young people. I have to say that she gave him that commitment, and I was very proud to hear her doing that, too. The result of the report of the advisory council, yes, certainly. Anna Sarwar. I am taking intervention and welcome all the comments that she has made so far. In terms of the advisory group, while I welcomed the report, I noted from the stakeholders that were engaged with that not a single faith organisation was engaged with in the production of that report. Can she make a commitment that the consultation for the act will engage with all faith communities? Christina McKelvie. I think that I could heartily give a commitment that all stakeholders who have an interest in that will be taken part in it. We would encourage them, and I would hope that you would, too, with all of your networks and connections. I would be keen to hear that. We know that the advisory group's recommendations overlap with the findings of the Equal and Human Rights Committee, which I know that there is an interest here as well, and how we can work closely with that. I am delighted to see that committee steared with such capable hands in Ruth Maguire. The human rights takeover in this place on Monday was not just inspirational, it was motivational, and it motivated me to do more. It is clear that the landscape in Scotland is shifting, and we heard from Daniel Johnson that the landscape across the world is shifting, and it is sometimes not a positive way, but people want to take a hold of their human rights and see them increasingly realised in their life, not undermined. The Scottish Government is fully behind the shift, so we will work with the advisory group. The committee was Parliament's widest society, anybody that you think should be given a contribution to this. Gayle Ross spoke about the commitment that the First Minister gave in engaging constructively with the recommendations contained in both reports. In conclusion, in 1940, eight years before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted, and while the world was still in a grip of war, H. G. Wells wrote a book called The Rights of Man. In it, he posed the question, what are we fighting for? Anas Sarwar reminded us what we are fighting for. He reminded us that racism, Islamophobia and other types of discrimination are prevalent in the world, but there is also a gendered issue, and maybe in this case, the rights of women should merit some attention too. It has a question named at drawing forth ideas of society, and indeed the world that should emerge, what kind of world is worth fighting for? As we debate human rights in Scotland today, it is useful to ask ourselves the same question. What are we fighting for? What is the vision of Scotland that we are working to bring about? Anas Sarwar gave us some clear ideas on how we can do this to end racism, discrimination, and he said dialogue, not division—absolutely perfect response to that. Can I just respond to Jeremy Balfour in my closing remarks? Children educating their parents, I think, is a very welcome thing, especially daughters educating their fathers. It's something that I'm sure we would all welcome. Presiding Officer, I am very grateful for the contribution by Professor Allen Miller and the advisory group, and the Equalities and Human Rights Committee through its human rights inquiry, in taking us forward in identifying practical steps that we need to take in order to reach this. I look forward to working with you across all the chamber to make that practical effort to make it work. That concludes the debate on demonstrating leadership in human rights, and it's time to move on to the next item of business. If those involved in that could take their appropriate places.