 The next item of business is a debate on motion 74740 in the name of Angela Constance on dignity, equality and human rights for all. Can I ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons, please? I call on Angela Constance to speak to and move the motion up to 10 minutes, please, Cabinet Secretary. I have a great pleasure in opening today's debate on dignity, equality and human rights for all. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, articulates what I believe to be a self-evident truth, and that is that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and in rights. There is a sense in which any debate on dignity, equality and human rights necessarily begins and ends right there with that simple statement. Almost everything that we need to do in the world of government and public policy and legislation and in our roles as elected representatives can be derived directly from our acceptance of that single sentence. In fact, nothing that we do and nothing that we seek to achieve can ultimately have meaning if it does not strive above all else to give practical effect to the principles of freedom and equality to human rights and the overriding obligation to secure human dignity. It is certainly a truth that shapes our collective response in government and indeed in this Parliament to critically important domestic challenges. From the elimination of poverty, ill health and inequality, to the delivery of inclusive and environmentally sustainable economic growth, those universal principles directly inform our work. It is a truth that lies at the heart of how we confront as a nation and as a society the prospect of life post Brexit. It is a truth that reminds us, if a reminder is indeed needed, of the monstrous tragedy that we see unfolding in Myanmar and of the continuing scandal of modern wealthy nations that fail on their duty to alleviate the suffering of refugees cast up on European shores. Of course, the work of both government and of this Parliament is also shaped by our common responsibilities to do more than simply acknowledge big principles. We also have a shared duty to get the details right, to ensure that we achieve the outcomes that people of Scotland have tasked us to deliver. In doing so requires a human rights approach. It demands ways of working that embed dignity and rights and equality in everything that we do. It recognises that such action is more than just a policy choice or a consequence of the most recent manifesto commitment. In other words, it is not just what we do—important though that crucially is—it is also about how we do. It is about how we do our business, how we implement our commitments, how we include others, how we work with those and listen to those and respond to those that we seek to serve. Giving practical effect to quality and human rights and securing human dignity for all is a core function of government and of this Parliament. As Scotland's Government, we have a particular responsibility not only to lead that work but to be accountable for our records and delivering. That is why the programme for government that we set out on 50 September provides an ambitious road map for long-term progressive change. It builds on the actions that we have already taken to make human rights real in Scotland and to enable all members of our society to live with dignity and equality. We have made clear that the Scottish Government will maintain our resolute defence of human rights and equality in the face of threats posed by the UK Government. We will work to prevent existing and future human rights protections, including the charter of fundamental rights being eroded by the impact of Brexit. The European charter of fundamental rights is crucially important because it has a direct effect in this country. It also complements the ECHR. We know that the Scotland Act on the Human Rights Act implements ECHR in Scotland, but crucially the European charter actually goes further than the European convention on human rights because it includes social, economic, cultural and third generation rights around employment, environment and consumer protection among others. We are determined to take every opportunity to give further and better effect to those economic, social and cultural and third generation rights for all of Scotland. Adam Tomkins I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for making way on that point. The European charter on fundamental rights and freedoms applies only to the EU institutions and EU member states when they are implementing EU law in national law. Given that we are leaving the EU, the charter cannot have any further effect in the United Kingdom post-Brexit, can it? Angela Constance If Mr Tomkins had listened to what I was saying, of course the EU charter and its principles has a direct impact on laws in Scotland as they stand. It gives us protections that we all benefit from. What we do not want to see is a UK Tory Government eroding those protections. Further still, we have to recognise that the European charter of fundamental rights complements and actually goes further than the European convention on human rights for reasons that I have exemplified because it includes social security, economic rights, cultural rights and social rights. Those are the rights that are included in our vision of fair work, something that this Government—I believe that most of this Parliament is in favour of—but those rights not only include the right to fair work or an adequate standard of living, decent housing, health, social security and access to education. Those are the things that we now need to stand up collectively and protect in the face of a UK Government and the Brexit process. That is one of the reasons why we are establishing an expert advisory group to make recommendations on how Scotland can continue to lead by example. That group will be chaired by Professor Alan Miller, former head of the Scottish Human Rights Commission. Its work will be founded in participation and a deliberative approach, one that reaches beyond those who already have easy access to power and influence. Human rights belong to everyone in our society, and it is essential that voices from all walks of life, from every corner of our nation, are heard. We are also continuing to put the rights of our children and young people at the heart of the programme for government, including by conducting a comprehensive audit of ways to further embed the UN convention on the rights of the child and domestic law. We know that Scotland has a strong track record in empowering and evolving children and young people so that their voices too can be clearly heard. The Government has also been explicit in recognising social security. As a human right, that commitment remains at the heart of our programme of Scotland's new social security system and how it will be founded on dignity and respect. We are determined too that Scotland should be a place where disabled people can live with real opportunity to realise their potential free from the barriers that hold them back. That commitment to disabled people's rights was acknowledged by the United Nations last month when it welcomed publication of our disability delivery plan. Later this year, we will publish an action plan that will drive positive change for minority ethnic communities in Scotland. We will publish our delivery plan for equally safe, detailing our programme to tackle violence against women and girls. We will also implement Scotland's human trafficking and exploitation strategy, which is about supporting victims, identifying perpetrators and addressing the causes of trafficking and exploitation. We also have an ambitious programme of work to take forward the recommendations of the independent advisory group on hate crime prejudice and community cohesion. Many of those issues feature among the 227 recommendations that were made by the United Nations Human Rights Council following its review in May of the UK's human rights record. Over the past two years, the UK has been examined by the United Nations committees on its record under five of the seven court international human rights treaties. In relation to disabled people in particular, the UK has been found to have been engaged in grave and systematic violations. Indeed, such are the concerns that the UK has been ordered to report back on progress next year. Members of the United Nations Human Rights Council have made clear their own concerns that the legal protections in place in the UK to safeguard human rights are increasingly at risk. Those are concerns and criticisms that this Government shares and which we remain absolutely committed to addressing. This month marks 20 years since the referendum vote for the Scottish Parliament. The vote was a watershed moment for Scotland and its democracy. From the outset, equality and human rights were embedded in the very fabric of this institution as a founding principle for Scotland's new Parliament. The 20 years since those principles and ambitions have remained firm and have informed all that we do. Much work still remains to be done, but I am proud of the commitment that this Government, and indeed this Parliament, has made to equality, to human rights and to the fundamental importance of human dignity. I am proud of the stance that has been taken to protect those rights. We can be confident that the self-evident truth articulated by the Universal Declaration will, I believe, ultimately triumph if we continue to work diligently and in partnership to give full and meaningful effect. That is the work that I know that this Government and Scotland's national Parliament are both fully committed to. I move the motion in my name. I now call Pauline McNeill to speak to you and move amendment 7740.3. I move the amendment in my name. It is not just our signature to the various treaties and conventions on human rights that matter, but rather how we take them forward and use those conventions to improve the law on human rights, but make the lives of those most in need of protection against prejudice, discrimination and poverty. I would like to associate the Labour Party with the remarks of the Minister, Cabinet Minister, on the treatment of Rohingya Muslims by the Marmar province. It should be condemned worldwide as ethnic cleansing. There is a great deal to focus on in the coming Parliament, inclusive education in our schools, transphobia, the rights for transgender people, tackling disability, discrimination and employment, smashing the barriers, preventing women from equal and fair representation in all levels of their profession, whether it be in public, in private, in the boardroom. The concept and definition of human rights by its very nature should be a wide one, not only confined to gender, disability, race and religion and sexual orientation, but also to other protections such as protections in the workplace, the right to join a union, the right for dignity and health, and old age, and environmental protection rights. Friends of the Earth draws our attention in their briefing about the high cost of taking action in relation to environmental rights, but my observation is that this is also true in areas of civil justice where people try and enforce their rights and the subject of legal cost to ordinary citizens is a serious piece of work that needs to be looked at in this Parliament. We will support the Government's motion and all the other motions. We will be abstaining on the Liberal Democrat motion until we have heard the outcome of the Human Rights and Equality Committee's work on prisoner voting. In many cases, parliaments have gone beyond the legal convention requirements, such as the legislation on equal marriage and gender recognition. Credit is due to former Prime Minister David Cameron for the equal marriage across the United Kingdom and the Scottish Government for implementing it into Scots law. We should continue to make sure that Scotland is ahead of the trend here, as we have been. I have to give way to Sandra White very briefly. I thank the member for taking the intervention that I recollect just a couple of seconds ago. You mentioned the fact that people should have a right to join a trade union. I just wonder if Anna Sarwar would say that the workers there have a right to join a trade union. I have no idea why Sandra White thinks that I would disagree with that statement, but that is perhaps for another day. Labour is proud that we are proud of our time in shrining the European convention of human rights into domestic law, and we are proud of the decision to do that, and we will continue to defend that decision. Someone even said that a smoking ban is an important human rights question in the traditional sense—the right not to breathe in damaging smoke. Nonetheless, it was a life-changing act. There have been many benefits of law that have prevented people from enforcing their human rights. Being part of the European Union gave workers rights that they had to ensure that they have holiday pay that they previously did not, and ensure that employers now have to include overtime in calculating that holiday pay. The Tory proposals to remove ECHR from our current law is a backward step. It is not easy for countries to accept decisions that they do not agree with, but it is an important check and balance on laws from time to time. If it was not for the Supreme Court's decision implementing the ECHR principles, then suspects of crimes would not have the right to have a lawyer present during their questioning. They overturned a seven-bench decision of the appeal court, and I think that they got it right. I want to talk about the UK's role in immigration. The detention estate is one of the largest in Europe. Between 2009 and 2016, 2,000 to 3,500 people were held in detention at any given time. It is a principle of human rights law to have the right to enter a place of detention as an elected member at any point. I have been refused as an elected member by the minister, Robert Goodwill, the right to go and see for myself the conditions in which the teenies are held. We cannot hold ourselves up to be a progressive country if we do not uphold the right for elected members to be able to see for themselves the conditions in which those are held. I realise that I have to... You can have another minute, if you really, really want one. I will close at this. I do not want to get on your wrong side. I think that that is a really important principle of human rights. I urge members to support me in this and to write to David Mundell, who I have also written to, who seems to be supporting this decision, that all of us, if we are going to uphold human rights and the conditions in which asylum seekers and people in places of detention are held, and that is all of our prisons and all of our places of detention, we must go and see for ourselves not to disrupt the regime, but just simply to uphold that principle. I will finish on that, Presiding Officer. I call John Finnie to speak to you and move amendment 74740.1. You have up to five minutes, please, Mr Finnie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move the amendment in my name. I think that there is a lot of common ground already. We have heard that the Scottish Government motion talks about the Scottish security system based on dignity and respect, and I certainly hope that everyone would go along with that. Also, the recognition of social security as a human right is a very much a fundamental thing. I could also commend taking things a bit further and incorporating article 9 of the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and also relevant sections of the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled People. That is a position that is supported by the child poverty action group and also Inclusion Scotland. The motion discusses equality, fairness and rights but does not mention disability rights or the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability. I appreciate that it is a big area, but the motion is notable for a number of reasons. That is that the CRPD is the most recent UN human rights treaty. Less than a year ago, although it has been alluded to by the committee on the rights of persons with disability, which oversees the CRPD, concluded an inquiry into the UK and found systematic violations of rights. Indeed, about three weeks ago at the same committee, it concluded in its multi-annual monitoring process on the UK and agreed a report recommending 85 courses of action. There are a number of rights alluded to by the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled People. Some of them have been touched upon. They are the rights to healthcare, social welfare and education to participate in society. Of all the debates that we have in here, another area in which there is a lot of commonality is the view that we should be an inclusive society. There is nothing that should mark people out as being unable to participate. Indeed, if a UK Government is put in place mechanisms that do that, that is very damning. The inadequate standard of living. Those are substantive rights in their own regard, not simply a right to enjoy services on a non-discriminatory basis. That is something completely different. Touching on the specifics of that inquiry, the inquiry found systematic violations of basic rights, including, as I have said, the right to independent living and being included in the community, an adequate standard of living and social protection. If that legislation is about anything, it surely is about protecting people, to work in employment. They were very clear on the cause of the violations. It was identified as the welfare reforms unequivocally as a result of the welfare reforms introduced in the context of austerity. Both specific measures and the combined impact of the range of measures are identified. Specific measures include the loss of access to motability cars under personal independent payment roll-out, which replaced disability-alive allowance. Many of us will recall the Conservative leader joyriding on a motability scooter during the recent election campaign and how distasteful that was to so many people. Also, ESA, in the high level of recipients, is placed in work-related activity group and the high number of work-related activity group participants who are sanctioned. At the committee, it also singled out impact assessments. Impact assessments are clearly pivotal in making understanding the consequences of policies that we enact. They were conducted by the state, and they foresaw an adverse impact on disabled people, yet policies were still implemented. That clearly is very dammy. The committee also highlighted the absence of a cumulative rights-based impact assessment. I think that it is only fair having laid out that to say what the UK Government has said about that. Does the UK Government dismiss the committee's findings? I quote, "...patronising and offensive". What's patronising offensive is anyone who holds surgeries, anyone who has members of the public come through their door seeking assistance. What's patronising and offensive is the treatment that they've had at the hands of this UK Government. The UK Government claims that it spends £50 billion per year on welfare for disabled people. However, that figure is hotly disputed, the view being that it's 37 billion. Of course, there are a range of rights that we could and should talk about. Access to justice has been alluded to by Pauline McNeill. The recent Supreme Court ruling on the case that was brought by Unison about fees for employment tribunals is a very good example of where the law has found in favour. Mention has been made of the Civil Litigation Bill, which has taken forward the Sheriff's Principal Taylor's review, and the phrase David versus Goliath is often mentioned. As has been said, who was going to pay the sums of money to the employment tribunal to recuse some of the issues there? There are environmental rights. The Scottish Government is still found to be lacking in respect of that House Convention. Indeed, it was only reprimanded in recent days in Paris about that. Protective Spence's orders are insufficient for that. I now call Mike Rumbles to speak to and move amendment 7740.2. I move amendment in my name. Deputy Presiding Officer, you've heard already that there's been some significant progress made in recent times in this Parliament when it comes to human rights for all. Years of campaigning by the Liberal Democrats and others paid off when the SNP Government finally announced earlier this month that it would increase the age of criminal responsibility. That means that we will now meet the minimum standard set down by the United Nations. The Government should have answered our calls years ago, but at least it has finally caught up. Likewise, after the Liberal Democrat campaigning, we now have properly regulated police stop and search procedures. Recently, the Scottish Government has said that it will no longer oppose giving children equal protection from assault. That is a very welcome change. Whilst there is a long way to go, there has been much progress in Scotland when it comes to inclusivity and welcoming diversity. However, our celebration of the progress that we've made should not distract from the work that we still need to do and the areas that have been so far neglected. The Government seems to have something of a pick-and-mix approach to human rights, shouting loudly about any successes and falling silent where there is in action. The fact is that Scotland continues to fall short of international human rights standards. That's the findings by respected bodies, including the Scottish Human Rights Commission. Their most recent report concluded that, and I quote, the Scottish Government has been vocal in its support for putting human rights at the heart of government and opposing the repeal of the Human Rights Act. Nevertheless, significant human rights challenges continue to be felt in people's day-to-day lives in areas such as poverty, health, education, social care, disability and detention." There is a wide range of areas in Scotland where human rights needs rights need to be significantly improved. Those are complicated challenges, often interlinked, but we shouldn't shy away from the task of fear of criticism in the newspapers or from anywhere else. Elaine Smith I thank the member for that intervention. On that point, I wonder whether the member could comment on the issue of non-discrimination based on religious belief, whether that should be upheld so that, for example, practicing Catholics can have a right to bear witness to their faith in a country that seems to be becoming increasingly intolerant to religious belief. Mike Rumbles I would agree that we need to be tolerant. I'm not even sure I like the word tolerant, because it seems to be so. I'm not quite happy with the word tolerant. We need to be all-encompassing, and we need to be sure that we treat everybody with respect, and the point that you make is a fair one. To continue, I said that, unfortunately, like nearly all challenges facing this Parliament, those problems are exacerbated by the uncertainty, cost and impact of the impending exit from the European Union. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations surveyed their members, of which 80 per cent felt that leaving the European Union would negatively impact human rights and equality. Slightly more believe Brexit will also worsen poverty and social exclusion. While the nature of what a potential Brexit will look like remains to be seen, there's plenty the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government could do right now to improve rights for our citizens. In particular, the blanket ban on prisoner voting and the inadequacy of mental health services continue to tarnish Scotland's reputation as a leader in human rights and equality. I urge the Scottish Government to rectify these immediately and ensure international human rights agreements and our legal obligations are actually enacted here in Scotland. Put simply, the blanket ban on prisoner voting is indefensible. It flouts international law and is neither fair nor progressive. Outside of these islands, no other Western European democracy does it. I'm in my last minute, unfortunately, otherwise I would. The Scottish Parliament has the power to deliver change, but thus far has ignored repeated calls both domestically and internationally. The Liberal Democrats tabled amendments to give some prisoners the right to vote and both the independence referendum and the 2016 elections, but our attempts were voted down here in this chamber and I think that that was shameful. We know that to reduce re-offending, more must be done to prepare offenders to rejoin our communities. An important part of that is ensuring that they are more aware of their responsibilities as citizens, not alienating them altogether. Deputy Presiding Officer, there is so much more we need to do to ensure that everyone has the chance to get on in life from delivering a step change in mental health treatment to changing the law to ensure that children have equal protection from assault and ensuring that we accept the legal requirement to end the blanket ban on prisoner voting. We don't just need fine words from the Scottish Government, we need action and we need action this day. I now call Adam Tomkins. Five minutes, please. I think that if Mr Rumbles is not sure about toleration, he should probably go and read some John Locke. If even the Liberals in this Parliament are not sure about toleration, then we are really in trouble. However, it is not a blanket ban on prisoners voting. It is a ban on prisoners who are convicted of criminal offences, who are serving terms of imprisonment in jail. It is not a ban on prisoners on remand, and it is not a ban that extends after prisoners are released from prison, so it is not a blanket ban. I will support the Government's motion today, and indeed the Labour Party's amendment to it, but not the Liberal Democrat or the Green Party amendments. I would say, even though we support the Scottish Government's motion today, that no nation, not even Scotland, can afford to be overly self-congratulatory about its human rights record. In Scotland, there are welcome measures, and the Cabinet Secretary alluded to a number of them in her remarks earlier this afternoon. However, there are also, Presiding Officer, serious and significant flaws in the Scottish Government's human rights record, and Mr Rumbles just referred to a few of them. The Offensive Behaviour at Football Act, with its bizarre and incoherent restrictions on aspects of free speech, the named persons legislation unanimously held by the Supreme Court only a year ago to be a disproportionate interference with the fundamental human right of protection for families, and the bill that we have seen introduced in the last few months to rectify that legislation does not go anything like far enough, as lawyer after lawyer after lawyer has pointed out to the Education and Skills Committee. On inequalities, Presiding Officer, one of Angela Constance's legacies, as a former education secretary, is the dismal fact that in the 30 per cent most deprived communities in Scotland, only 54 per cent of primary 7 school children perform well in numeracy and only 56 per cent in writing. Half of our primary school leavers in the most deprived communities in Scotland cannot write to the required standard and cannot count properly. That is not a human rights record to be proud of. When we turn from educational inequalities to health, the picture is just as stark. Scotland has the widest mortality inequality anywhere in Western Europe. Suicide rates, cancer survival rates, stroke mortality, alcohol-related deaths, teenage pregnancy, childhood obesity—in all of those areas of health and wellbeing, Scotland suffers from severe health inequalities. It is, to my mind, a damming indictment of 20 years of devolution that, under both Labour and nationalist administrations, more has not been done to address and confront this problem. Ruth Maguire I thank Adam Tomkins for taking an intervention. I wonder if he would tell the chamber what his reaction is to a UN committee commenting that his party's policies were a human catastrophe for disabled people. I do not think that it is a human catastrophe for disabled people that there are now 600,000 disabled people in work who were not in Britain when David Cameron became Prime Minister in 2010. I do not think that it is a human catastrophe that the United Kingdom Government spends £50 billion supporting disabled people in our economy. I do not think that it is a human catastrophe when the United Kingdom, through its Groundbreaking Disability Discrimination Act, passed under a Conservative Government led by John Major in 1995, on which the UN convention is largely based, was one of the world's first and is still one of the world's leading anti-discrimination legislation pieces of legislation with regard to disability. I do not think that any of those things are human catastrophes, but, as usual, Ruth Maguire wants to talk Britain down. Let me turn to the Social Security Committee, which the cabinet secretary referred to in her opening. We all know that the bill seeks to place devolved social security on a human rights footing with dignity, fairness and respect at its heart. Tremendous, but among our human rights, Presiding Officer, is the right to effective legal protection, the right to effective judicial protection. That is enshrined in article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and it is also right at the heart of EU law. What are we to make of the evidence that the Social Security Committee has already received in its stage 1 inquiry into the Social Security Bill from a variety of sources that shows that the Scottish Government is seeking to walk the walk with regard—let's put it at the other end—the Scottish Government is seeking to talk the talk of social security as a human right, but not walk the walk. Professor Tom Mullen, my colleague at the University of Glasgow Law School, says, for example, that it is difficult to work out the Government's intention. If the legal status of the charter in particular is not clarified, citizens and their advisers may be unsure what their rights are, and inclusion Scotland adds that it appears that the charter is planned not to be about rights, but instead to be about service delivery. Let's hear a little bit more detail, perhaps, from the minister, as he winds up, about exactly how the rights of social security that the bill is seeking to enshrine can be judicially enforced in—compatibly with article 13 of VCHR, otherwise it's not really a human rights-based approach to social security at all, is it? We now move on to the open speeches. The majority of the opening speakers took more time than they should have, so it may be that people will have to cut down their speeches towards the end of the list. I, first of all, call Sandra White to be followed by Annie Wells. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. If I could just reply to one of the areas that Professor Tomkins raised about suicide, as a member of the Social Security Committee, you were there when evidence was given black triangle what people have, committee suicide, because of what's happened to their cuts and their benefits. You were at that committee meeting, and I'm sure you'll take that on board. A cornerstone of the Scottish Government's approach to social security is the principle that it is a human right, as identified by the UN, helping to eradicate the stigma associated with accessing benefits. Our system was the very first in the UK to reflect the UN principle that such systems should be established under national law and ensure the right of individuals and organisations to seek, receive and impart information on all social security entitlements in a clear and transparent way. I think that that's something that this Parliament should be proud of. Earlier on, the minister announced in regard to the creation of an agency in both Dundee and Glasgow, and the opportunity that that will bring. I thank the minister for that and particularly answering my questions in regard to staff that should reflect the diversity of our communities. I think that that's a very important issue that we should take on board also. I sincerely believe that members of the Parliament, regardless of what political party they are, want to create a system that is effective, based on dignity and respect. We do not want to stigmatise those who are accessing the social security system. That is something that has been highlighted in many occasions, not least by the welfare conditionality project at Glasgow University and in collaboration with various other institutions. It's almost a year since I highlighted their research in this very chamber, and the situation hasn't changed much. I want the Tony's and the Opposition's benches to perhaps even listen to this and take that back to whoever they want to take it back to in the UK Parliament. What's happened is that the situation hasn't changed much. The UK Government has continued to punish those who are most in need, while its bank benches in Westminster have described their eyes on food banks' use as uplifting. It has described the kind of situation in this way that only reinforces to me and many others how completely and utterly out of touch the Tories are with the reality of their ideological policies and the effect that it has on the people who are on the receiving end of those policies. Now, researchers looked at too many areas, how effective conditionality is in changing the behaviour of those receiving welfare benefits and also services and any particular circumstances in which the use of conditionality may or may not be justifiable. The findings were and remain a stark reminder of the complete and utter failure of the Tony Government to provide meaningful support to those who need it. I know that I've got to conclude shortly, Presiding Officer, I don't have much more to say, but what I want to conclude with, it really boils down to what kind of society we want to live in. One way we protect and support those who need it and when they need it, or one way we actively work to demonise those in need. I'll always opt, I'm sure others will too, for a society where we protect, support and nurture with a commitment to respecting and implementing human rights. That is a way forward and that's what's going to happen in this Parliament. I'm sure, as I've said before, all members in this Parliament, for whatever party will support that absolute basic right, but I would like to hear it confirmed, particularly from the Opposition, Benchys and the Tony Party, that they will actually stand up for the people most in need and that's the people being most hurt by the UK benefits system at the moment. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. I say to members regrettably that it has to be a straight four minutes. There is no time in hand. I call Annie Wells, who is followed by Christina McKelvie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Upon seeing the cabinet secretary's motion, I was, of course, aware of the breadth of topics that would be brought to the debate today. Of course, underpinning this and intrinsic to any Government policy, dignity, equality and human rights should be at the centre of our thinking. That is why I will support the Government's motion today and I, too, welcome the appointment of Professor Alan Miller as the chair of the new expert group seeking to enhance human rights in Scotland. We have recently celebrated 20 years of devolution and the Scottish Parliament is rightly recognised as a pillar of everyday life in Scotland. Taking decisions that can help build a fairer Scotland and I am sure all of us in this chamber want to see that. I want to see constructive debate when it comes to discussing issues such as social security, the rights of children and human rights more generally. I want to see at least recognition from the Scottish Government that it has had 10 years of governing over fully devolved areas such as health and education, pillars of people's everyday lives that are so fundamental in bringing about equality. Getting back to basics, just this weekend, analysis by Professor Jim Gallacher, an expert in Nuffield College Oxford, found that spending on schools and health were two of the public sector areas to have lost out most since the SNP came to power a decade ago. The First Minister has said not once but twice, made education her priority and yet we have not seen any narrowing of the attainment gap. In science, maths and reading, Scotland's poorer children are nearly three years behind children from affluent backgrounds. By the time Scotland's children have reached university age, just 10 per cent of the poorest 20 per cent of Scots go to university, compared to 18 per cent in England and 16 in Wales in Northern Ireland. When it comes to health, we see that Scotland has some of the highest mortality rates in Western Europe. In my own region, Glasgow, discrepancies in life expectancies of people in different areas of the city are truly shocking. Whilst in areas such as Jordan hill, Heinland and Partick, men and women can expect to live on average until 78 and 84 respectively, in areas south east of the city, those figures drop to 64 and 72. Looking across Scotland, we see vast gaps between those living in the most and least deprived parts of the country when it comes to the health fundamentals. If you are a child living in a deprived area, you are twice as likely to be obese. If you are a teenager, you are five times more likely to get pregnant. If you live in a deprived area, you are 42 per cent more likely to die of a stroke and six times more likely to die from alcohol related issues. Those are absolute fundamentals to tackling inequality in Scotland. As I have said, they are pillars of people's everyday lives that are so fundamental in creating a level playing field for everyone in Scotland. To finish today, I would like to reiterate my support for the Government's motion. No one would deny the promotion of human rights for all has become intrinsic to our values as a country, and that is a concern shared across our parties. That is why it is absolutely vital that the Scottish Government recognises that it has the economic and social levers at its disposal to do that, and we can have a constructive debate on all sides in this Parliament. Thank you very much. Human rights are fundamental to everyone's existence. There can be absolutely no question of diluting them. Before I go into the substantive part of my speech, I should alert Mr Rumbles and Mr Tompkins to the work of the equality human rights committee on prisoner voting rights, and I would welcome any contributions that they would like to make to that. That is why this motion is very important. It is absolutely intrinsic to our strongly held views, views of equality, justice, dignity and respect, and we need to lock those down permanently. Clearly, the same does not apply for Theresa May's Government, and maybe Mr Tompkins can find out for his pals at the UK Government why the Justice and Home Affairs paper on Brexit makes no reference to Scots law if he is such a fan of Scots law, but make no mistake about it. Our human rights are under a threat, not only from the unseen consequences of Brexit, but also from the internal politics of the Tory party. We have just heard some of it. This is a UK Conservative Government that has twice, twice, once in 2010, once in 2015, and the manifestos promised to scrap the human rights act. Let's just repeat that, not once, but twice pledged to scrap the human rights act and nothing more than a showpiece pandering all of branch to the right-wing factions, the same right-wing faction that forced the hand of David Cameron and brought forward an unwanted, unnecessary and damaging European Union referendum. That Scots would now vote 71 per cent in favour of remaining in the EU if there was a referendum today reveals just how much the lies of the leavers impacted on votes in June last year. Reality is really biting now. Reality is setting in that our fundamental human rights are at risk as a result of Brexit. If you can't see that, I'm sorry, but you must be blind to the effects of it. We have all had the right to life, we know that, we have the right to freedom from violence and degrading treatment, freedom from discrimination, freedom from fear and freedom from want. We want to have the right to have an adequate standard of living, to have a safe home to support good physical and mental health. This Scottish Government has given explicit pregis that, in a 10-year mental health strategy, a welcome and progressive step showing Scotland is leading the way on human rights. However, when I was on the Social Security Committee, I've seen from people like Black Triangle, I've seen from people who come to my constituency surgeries the effect that the welfare reforms are having on them. We also, Presiding Officer, have the right to self-determination. I would like to pledge my support in this chamber—I told many of my colleagues—to the Catalan people for their right to self-determination and a free from interference referendum. We also need to lead the way in clamping down harder. We've clamped down on human trafficking, on criminalising revenge porn, on recognising the rights of the LGBTI community and on protecting refugees, especially those who are fleeing from persecution. However, we have people in this country fleeing from persecution, fleeing from Tory persecution. The rights of all including the rights of those persons with a disability—I'm not going to shy away from saying this, and it should be said over and over again. The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disability has laid it out plain. Not only has there been a grave and systematic violation of human rights of people with disabilities, but it is now a human catastrophe. Presiding Officer, the European referendum has regrettably shone a light into some dark corners. It showed us some inequalities, it showed poverty, it showed exclusion, it showed discrimination and it gave us a rise in xenophobia. In Scotland, we reject those attitudes. In Scotland, we have proven our will not by words but by actions. We will lead where others will follow and we will act where others won't, including the UK Government. I, along with this Scottish Government, will defend and promote our human rights, underpinned by our determined and long-held values of respect, dignity and equality for all. Maybe the Tories in this chamber should try it. Thank you very much. I welcome the opportunity to speak in today's debate, and I thank the Scottish Government for bringing these important issues to the chamber to discuss. Dignity, equality and human rights for all should be at the heart of all democratically elected governments and parliaments across the world. Unfortunately, in too many parts of the world, it is not. To me, dignity, equality and human rights for all is much more than the title of a motion. It is what drives me in my politics and when fighting for my constituents. Our human rights have been fought and won over many years and to make any attempt to strip them back would be in affront to our standing in the world and an assault on our shared decency. I cannot take comfort in the idea of the Tories replacing the human rights act with a British Bill of Rights. The thought of a Tory Government meddling with basic rights is horrendous, and we as a Parliament must use our strength to resist any attempt to repeal the human rights act. On issues such as LGBT rights, our Parliament has been a shining light over the last 20 years. From repealing section 28 to the introduction of equal marriage, we have always sought and will continue to seek to do the right thing. On disability rights, we are united in opposition to shameful actions imposed by the Tories, from welfare cuts that withdraw the basic needs of disabled people to supported employment being stripped away. We have made our voice clear that people with disabilities deserve much better. Recently, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has expressed its dissatisfaction with the Tory Government over the treatment of some of our most vulnerable members of society. In assessing the welfare cuts imposed on disabled people, the CRPD has previously said that the welfare reforms led to grave and systematic violations of disabled people's rights. No, I am sorry, I am not prepared to do that. The motion today asks for Parliament to support to embed a human rights approach in our public services. Our amendment adds to that in calling for human rights to be viewed as a broad-based principle encompassing workers' rights. That is the right path to take, and my discussions with equality, disability and human rights groups also informs me that the Government's approach is the right one. During the summer recess, I met the Ash project in Glasgow, who helped asylum seekers with their accommodation rights. I was appalled to learn of the treatment that many of them face, not from the community that they reside in, but from the organisation that is contracted to accommodate and support them. If we are serious about embedding a human rights approach into public services, we must call on the UK Home Office to respect that decision and treat people fleeing persecution, war and terror with much more respect and to provide the rights that we expect for ourselves. I thank the Scottish Government for bringing this debate today, and I also welcome the statements that were made by the First Minister during the programme for government on protecting our human rights and guaranteeing them for all those who live in Scotland. I would like to take this time to talk about the quality of life and the rights of those living with a disability and their families. I would also take this point to explain to some of the members and the Conservative benches, particularly Adam Tomkins, when we are having this discussion, please let us be very careful with the language that we use. To use an analogy like walk the walk when you are talking about people living with a disability is extremely offensive and is a typical example of why Tories are as toxic as they currently are, because from my time as a councillor in Renfrewshire I have worked with these disability groups. Yes, quite gladly. Mr Tomkins. Will he make the same point to Christine McElvie about describing me as blind, because I cannot see something? Mr McElvie was actually explaining that you could not see that this was wrong. What you are doing, in fact, I would ask you and your colleagues to stand up and defend the position and say, you are wrong here in this position. Your position as you use language that was totally unacceptable during this debate, but that is nothing unusual with the Conservative party, because whether I am working with the Renfrewshire access panel, which I was a councill representative of now, I am a member of it, or whether it is the Scottish Disabled Supporters Association, I have worked with people with their disabilities and I have worked and heard their stories and their struggle. Never have those stories been more vivid and more scary than when they have talked about the people with disabilities that have had to contend with Tory welfare reform, which is nothing more than an attack on our most vulnerable within society. Gladly, Mr Balfour. Jeremy Balfour, I thank you for the intervention. Does he recognise that we have to be careful with our language? When we talk about disabled people, there are lots of individuals who have had lots of different experiences. For example, the lady that I talked to on Saturday, who was not entitled to do DLA because of the PIP, is now entitled. We have to be careful that we do not put everybody in one group but talk about individuals. I will give you some extra time for taking to intervention, Mr Adam. I really do not need to listen to Mr Balfour with that, because my wife has multiple sclerosis, which is an invisible disability for many when they do not have their disabilities enshoing. As one, I will take no lectures from a Tory online language on how we actually talk about people with disability. I, for one, am working with her family that are living with that since she was diagnosed at 16 years old. When we talk about the Tories, we only have to look at some of the situations that people have gotten themselves into at this stage. Where they come to our committee and we hear from Black Triangle that people have got so desperate because of Tory reforms that they have talked about taking their own life, and in many cases some have. We had a Tory Government minister come to us and actually say that he thought that that was not the issue, and he knew people who had multiple sclerosis. Obviously, he had been briefed that my wife had it as well. However, the whole point of this is that the Tory in Westminster has got this totally wrong. I would give all other opportunities for the Opposition to come in if I thought for one minute that one of them would actually stand up and say that that was wrong. The wee Westminster Tory drones are not going to do any of that, because for too long, disabled people have had to deal with a DWP who have talked to them at them and not listened to them, all because they believe that this is the reform and the way that we must go forward. We will only have to look at the way that people who have been going through the DLA-pip migration and how they have been made sure that they have lost their cars, have lost the amounts of money that they have had. This has been an absolutely unmitigated disaster since the very moment of its inception, and one that has actually caused people with disabilities in Scotland, absolute heartache and financial hardships. And when we talk about the UN that the Tories have created, a human catastrophe, a human catastrophe, Presiding Officer, you know, I get involved in politics for a number of reasons. One was to protect my community from Tory excesses, while some things never change from the 1980s, they're still the same. And the other was to build the type of future that I want my children and my grandchildren to live in. I'll keep working towards that future. I only hope that the Tories and other members in this chamber will join me and build that future. Thank you. I'll call Michelle Ballantyne before I clear Adamson, Ms Ballantyne, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a newcomer to this chamber and these debates, I would like to begin by drawing upon the words of Bruce Crawford, who said in this chamber back in March of this year that members have a special responsibility and a public duty to show leadership and to show respect to each other in how we conduct debate. He also that day quoted the head of the Scottish consortium for learning disability when he noted that, if we characterise our opponents as divisive, we will divide. If we use the language of hate, we will create bitterness. This intervention drew applause from this chamber and rightly so. His words, of course, were in the context of the debate on Scotland's choice, but they are just as appropriate and just as resonant in today's debate. And indeed, in every debate that we have in this chamber. Unfortunately, when I sat in on last week's debate on housing, I feared that Bruce Crawford's eloquence had not gained traction with some of his colleagues, and again I hear it today. Last week we heard expletives, we heard accusations of false motives and, worst of all, we heard assumptions of ignorance and contempt for those in greatest need based purely on where a member sits in this chamber. I truly hoped that this debate would not be visited by such conduct. It reflects negatively on all members, all political parties, on and in this place as an institution of democracy. Now, it's in that spirit of positive engagement that we on these Scottish Conservative benches actually support this motion. Of course we are committed to creating a fairer Scotland underpinned by respect for human rights. Of course we want to protect, promote and implement human rights and equality of all across Scotland, and of course we are proud of the strides that Scotland has made in entrenching the rights set out in international treaties into law. Nevertheless, it is the most vital role of the Opposition to hold this Government to account whenever necessary. And as my colleague Annie Wells has said, this Government must do better in its approach to tackling inequality. When it comes to health, my colleague Professor Tomkins has already indicated that Scotland continues to have the widest mortality inequalities in Western Europe, with cancer and stroke mortality rates and alcohol-related deaths significantly higher than in the most deprived areas. Mr Finnie. Thank you. I'm grateful for the member taking that intervention. I wonder if the member would like to express her view as to what impact someone being sanctioned and being unable to heat their house or have fuel to cook with has on health expectations. Ms Ballantyne. It doesn't help. That's the bottom line. The whole point of it is that actually, when sanctions were brought in, it was to ensure that people were doing what they were expected to do within the remits of the benefits that they got. None of this is about trying to harm people. It's about people stepping up to the responsibilities that they have. Members, in our closing remarks, we can't look at rights in isolation. This is the whole point of it. We need to see equal emphasis on the parallel responsibilities that accompany such rights, and to ignore that balance will not produce a generous, inclusive, trusting society. However, I don't draw attention to those issues for the purpose of political point scoring, but rather to say that we should ignite a productive debate about the path that we should be taking. It comes from a desire for co-operation and getting the right path, not condemnation. Whilst we in this chamber might differ in our approach to achieving and safeguarding equality, dignity and human rights, we stand united behind our belief on these principles. The common ground between us is vast and yet too often disregarded by those on the Scottish Government benches. On issues of such fundamental importance as equality and human rights, let us disagree humbly, debate constructively and work tirelessly towards a better, more equal Scotland. Clare Adamson, followed by James Dornan, and Mr Dorn will be the last speaker in the open debate. One of my favourite historical novels was written by the Claim Scottish author James Robertson, and it's about the case of Joseph Knight. A real case from 1777, Joseph Knight sought the freedom to leave the employment of John Wetherburn of Ballandean and claimed his pleadings that the very act of landing in Scotland freed him of perpetual servitude as slavery was not recognised in Scotland. He'd been brought to Scotland many years earlier as a slave bought in Jamaica. Knight feared at the time that Wetherburn was to take him back to Jamaica to sell him as a slave in the colonies. In defence of his position, he also argued that, in Scott's law, Knight, even though he was not recognised as a slave in Scotland, was still bound to provide perpetual service in the same manner as an indentured servant or apprentice-artisan. In the ruling, the court of session said that the dominion assumed over Joseph Knight under the law of Jamaica being unjust would not be supported in this country to any extent. The defender had no right to Joseph Knight's service in any space of time nor to send him out of the country against his consent. Essentially, Knight succeeded in arguing that he should be allowed to leave domestic service, provide a home for his wife and child and, in doing so, he gave the court of session in Scotland the opportunity to declare that slavery was not recognised by Scott's law and that runaway slaves could seek protection from the courts if they wished to leave domestic service. A wonderful judgment that changed Scotland in 1777, and yet it seems so long ago today. He made it absolutely clear that I made no comparison with slavery of the past. Indeed, the appropriation of that history would be entirely inappropriate, as there are no comparisons to the excesses and misuses and injustices of that time. However, I think that the rights won by Joseph Knight in this country have parallels today. It touches on so many of the injustices on modern Britain, the fears of EU and other nationals who have chosen to make Scotland their home and no longer are securing the status. Joseph Knight established the right to live work fairly in Scotland, reflecting so many of the fair work pledges made by the Scottish Government going forward for a fairer Scotland and mentioned by the Labour motion and by Paulic McEil earlier today. I feel that many people facing the rules under universal credit when sanctions could be levelled against those refusing to take on a zero-hours contract, those people would have something to say about perpetual service and indentured servitude, as would those in Scotland today, who are at the will of human trafficking and modern day slavery. Those seeking asylum would only look on envy that Joseph Knight could not be returned to a country where the law was deemed to be unjust by Scotland. This Government is taking leadership in the area of human rights and equality. We cannot like the rights that we have been diminished at all going forward. Is it incumbent on all of us to work towards a Scotland that is fairer and recognises the human rights of all? I welcome the appointment of Professor Alan Miller and I look forward to working with those across the chamber who hold human rights and equality at the core of what they do here. Before I start with the body of my speech, I would like to comment on a couple of the things that have been said by our Conservative comrades, which is not a phrase that we do very often about them. I am delighted that the Government is supporting the motion. I think that that is something that we should all take some comfort from, but it is difficult to take it seriously when every single one of them uses a speech to deflect attention from the Government with 85 per cent of the welfare powers that could make this a much more equal society. We have got Adam Tomkins with his desperate attempt to deflect by bringing in the offensive behaviour at football act. We have got education and health. It seems that it is okay to talk about them, but let us not talk about welfare or sanctions or immigration. Let us make them taboo subjects because this Parliament does not have control over them, but we still have people that we are responsible for who are suffering for the actions of the Government that you represent in this Parliament, and you point blank refuse to mention them in any of your contributions. I am going to start with a quote that is a very unusual source from me. It is a quote by Winston Churchill. I could give you many quotes by Winston Churchill that I would be very unhappy to use, but this one he gave in a speech at the University of Zurich in the 19th of September 1946 where he urged the nations to form a United States of Europe to dwell in peace, safety and freedom together. Churchill's speech 71 years ago today marked the beginning of the Council of Europe, a monumental project that still rightly describes itself as being the leading human rights organisation on our continent. Throughout many of the speeches, the Council of Europe's achievements, European Convention on Human Rights has been commended, but most of the members, I think, would agree that it is still as vital today as it was when drafted by the Council in 1950. It is enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998 that it is fundamental in safeguarding our human rights, however it is now under severe threat from the Tory Government of Westminster. The Conservative general election manifesto is the only committee to remain a member of the ECHR for the lifetime of the current Parliament. That convention has been absolutely instrumental in safeguarding our human rights, and it is for that reason that the SNP manifesto reaffirmed our commitment to the Council of Europe, the ECHR and its institutions. Thanks to the ECHR, victims of domestic violence have been able to get better protection, LGBTI people have used human rights to overcome discrimination, and as we have seen with regard to the bedroom tax, disabled people can fight against cruel welfare reforms, yet the UK Government will not commit to its long-term future. As I say, I appreciate the support that we are getting from the Conservatives, but I do think that it is telling that they have not tabled an amendment today. I think that they have conceded that their track record when it comes to human rights is both nothing short of shambolic and almost impossible to defend. On the other hand, I would say that the Scottish Government's record does not want to be proud of its consistent application of the principles of quality, dignity and respect, and ensures that fundamental human rights are guaranteed for every member of Scottish society. Against the backdrop of Brexit, the Scottish Government will ensure that existing and future human rights protections are provided under EU law and maintained, and we will not allow the Tories to undermine human rights as they drive us off their Brexit cliff. The Tories in their austerity economics, their abolition of the independent living fund, the cutting of employability programmes and reforms to the welfare state, as others have said earlier, caused the UN last year to accuse them of grave or systematic violations of UN conventions on the rights of the persons with disabilities. Adam Tomkin said that the UN has got it wrong, just like the Tory Government down south has said that the EU has got it wrong. It is only us who know better, not the people who suffer from the actions that it takes, but you know best. That is why, in our programme for government, we have, for example, committed to working further with the fantastic time for inclusive education campaign, who are at Parliament today, who are campaigning to combat homophobia, biphobia and transphobia with inclusive education. The Scottish Government is great at working on upholding the rights of the disabled of children, of women and of the LGBTI community as only the tip of the iceberg, and we will continue to do that great work across the whole of our society while the Tories try their hardest to drag us back to Victorian times. Thank you very much. I call on Mike Rumbles to close the Liberal Democrats five minutes, please, Mr Rumbles. I was surprised by the fact that, unlike all the other opposition parties, the Conservative Party did not feel it necessary to lodge an amendment to the Scottish Government's motion today. Perhaps they felt that they did not have anything specific to add to it, but that, of course, is entirely up to them. Despite some of his comments, I welcome Adam Tomkin's contribution to the debate today, and I acknowledge his expertise in the field, so it is more puzzling, given that expertise, that there is no Conservative amendment before us to debate, but there you are. Okay, yes. Mr Tomkins? There is no Conservative amendment to the motion because we agree with the motion and will vote for it at decision time. Mr Rumbles? I took that as a given, but I just was saying that I thought that it was odd that the Conservatives had nothing to add to the motion, as all the other opposition parties have done. I have to say, referring to Adam Tomkin, that his comments that there is no blanket ban on giving the vote to prisoners is bizarre, or some would say that the Professor may be dancing on the head of a pin, he said that since those remanded by our authorities had the vote and those released from prison had the vote, there is no such blanket ban. I am laughing because it is obvious, is not it? The fact that short-term prisoners sentenced and serving time in prison do face a blanket ban on their right to vote. This position is quite indefensible if we are concerned about effectively reintegrating prisoners into society when they are released. I said earlier on in an intervention from Elaine Smith that personally I am not convinced that the use of the word tolerant is the best one to use in the context of human rights. Should we simply be tolerating? Is it not better to use a different word? I always think of tolerating as putting up with. I do not want to put up with everyone's human rights. I want to support them and celebrate those rights. Indeed, I hope that you are tolerating me now. I would expect that from the Conservative benches. I would like to now have to turn to Labour's amendment, focusing as it does on improving the rights of disabled people in areas of education, employment and public transport. Of course, all those things are interlinked. If I could just use one example to highlight this from my region in the north-east, at Interrailway station, there is no disabled access to the northbound platform. It affects people's ability to access employment, education and their ability to socialise. Yesterday, Nestrans unanimously agreed to fund a £25,000 feasibility study to change the situation, because it is not part of the programme for Aberdeen in Venice Railway. I have also met Humza Yousaf, the transport minister, who is also fully supportive of this initiative. Councillor Peter Argyll, the chair of Nestrans, said yesterday that it is not acceptable to have a station in the 21st century where a substantial amount of the population finds it difficult to access. I could not agree more. Improving the rights of disabled people, especially on our public transport, is essential. I am confident that, in my region, that is just one example of addressing the human rights of disabled people. I am conscious of time, Deputy Presiding Officer, so in conclusion, all I would say is that the Liberal Democrats will, at decision time, support the Government's motion and we will support the other amendments. It is interesting that I would like to have said that I would support a Conservative amendment, since there is not one and they decided not to put one forward. I am just questioning whether that was the wisest thing to do. Our particular amendment covered the issue of the report by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I make no apology for returning to that and again saying that the committee singled out that impact assessments conducted by the state foresaw an adverse impact on disabled people, yet policies were still implemented. That is not a neglectful decision, that is a conscious decision in the face of evidence. How has that manifested itself? I should have, in my opening address, thanked the various people who have been in touch with the information as ever briefings. Here is one comment. Between 2011 and 2014, 2,380 people died shortly after being found fit for work. Their final days will have been marred by the stress and indignity imposed by the UK Government's policy on disability benefits, in this case employment and support allowance. It is helpful to put a particular face on that. One of the examples given is a former soldier. We would understand that the UK Government historically certainly would have been supportive of its armed services. That is a former soldier who died from a lack of insulin after being unable to keep his insulin at the correct cold temperature, falling being sanctioned and having his electricity cut off. I apologise for the detail, but it is important to say that a post-mortem found his stomach was also empty. Those are the real manifestations of when you assess something and then you disregard it. It is quite appropriate that the Tories all have their heads down at this point. I am very happy to take an intervention if anyone would want to justify that situation. Moving on, there are a number of issues that require to be addressed. In fact, they are in front of me rather than below me. They are issues such as age of criminal responsibility. I think that it is welcome and I think that it is childish to be involved in a profession that is about persuading folk to change their mind and then being disrespectful to them when they do that. I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has taken the position in respect of age of criminal responsibility that many people campaign for. I also welcome the support for the legislation equal protection. Outside bodies have suggested that that is the right thing to do, but let us do it because we want to do it. I think that that is the general direction of travel. I do not always agree with my colleague Mike Rumbles entirely agree with him in relation to the position of voting rights. In the last session, it was a relatively small group when we were looking at the issues around the referendum that did lend their support to that. I would entirely agree with his view. People on the Justice Committee will be familiar that one of the elements of pitting pupil to prison is an element of punishment. That is very clear, but it is also clear that the reason people are sent there is for rehabilitation. If we do not, therefore, encourage people to engage in external society, how are we going to progress that? I talked in the opening speech about access to justice and the issue of equality of arms is one that is important. That is why we need the fall back of state intervention. I first raised the issue of the Arhards Convention in 2011. I think that it is disappointing that it took to the final weeks of the last session before there was a consultation. I would hope that the Government would take a look at what has been said most recently about it. I know that there is a will to ensure that there is not an issue around access to justice, and it is certainly my view and others that there is with that particular convention. What does that mean? The implications are that those who have the necessary finance have impunity, and we do not want that. I think that there is an important role for equality impact assessments. Nothing has been said about gypsy travellers. There has been a lot said about gypsy travellers in recent times. It is the one area where we would all agree that people still feel they can say what they wish when, if they were to transfer that to other categories, people would not. There is a long way to go. There have been two very strongly worded reports from this Parliament to Government. That applies to our Roma residents, who are very welcome here and who I feel are welcome here, as are welcome fugitives from justice. James Dornan talked about Winston Churchill and the history of a lot of rights. That was about assisting people who are fleeing persecution, and that is a very loyal line. I welcome Professor Miller's appointment, and I wish him and his team well to understand that they will keep the Scottish Government to count. That is the role of the Opposition, nasty party aside. I think that there is a progressive consensus in this chamber that we will be supporting the Labour amendment while supporting the Lib Dem amendment. The 1998 act, the EU charter and the European Convention underline the human rights protection that everyone in Scotland rightly deserves as citizens. Human rights are regularly portrayed as a negative, a problem caused by Europe. They have consistently been the focus of right-wing press misinformation since the 1998 act was enacted by Labour. We are committed to standing up for people's rights. That is why we introduced the human rights bill and why we have consistently pledged to fight any attempt to water down the protection that it brings. The 1998 act brings home our rights, given our most vulnerable citizens a powerful means of address and protecting us all against the misuse of state power. The European Convention on Human Rights was not imposed from abroad. It was drawn up by our lawyers, drawn on our philosophy to set international standards of respect for common humanity after the Second World War. Our voice in the world is not only a reflection of the size of our economy but the moral leadership that we demonstrate on human rights. We must continue to urge others to respect the rule of law and freedoms and rights that every human being is entitled to in my and my and everywhere else. We welcome the importance given to dignity, equality and human rights in the latest programme for government, including the commitment to a comprehensive audit of the most effective way to further embed the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child into policy and legislation. The Government has a right to oppose any attempt by the UK Government to undermine the Human Rights Act 1998 or withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and to commit to ensuring that existing and relevant future human rights protections provided under EU law are maintained following UK withdrawal, but we think that the Scottish Government should do more than all. The Government's failure to include some key guarantees in the social security bill, including a ban on private sector contractors and uprating payments in line with inflation, could see the commitment to dignity and respect undermined by future governments and provides no certainty that the new Scottish Agency will be and will continue to be better than the DWP. SNP speaker after speaker rightly criticised the Tory Government for its treatment of disabled people, but they seem to forget that full power over disability benefits still lies with Westminster because this Government delayed full devolution of them until the end of the decade. When 26 per cent of people in poverty in Scotland are disabled, the second highest rate in the UK, it is wrong that the Government willingly left powers over disability payments in the hands of the Tories, and that is something that I would ask SNP speakers to reflect on. The most recent Scottish Government hate crime statistics show an increase in both sexual orientation and transgender identity aggravated crime charges reported. Transgender identity aggravated crime charges were a shocking 33 per cent year-on-year. Earlier this month, Stonewall Scotland reported that 17 per cent of LGBT respondents suffered abuse because of their sexuality up from 9 per cent in 2013. The report also found that almost half of trans people experienced a hate crime or incident because of their gender identity in the last 12 months. The Government should publish a full breakdown of LGBTI hate crime statistics in Scotland so that we can fully understand what is happening and prevent those attacks from continuing. Finally, the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled People must be enshrined in law, and significant progress should be made in the parliamentary term to improve the rights of disabled people in areas of education, employment and public transport. The Scottish Conservatives decided not to lodge an amendment today to the motion because, in principle, there is not anything to disagree with in the wording of the motion itself, simply because, when it comes to human rights and dignity, I am sure that most of us in this chamber are able to find consensus. I would like to touch on some of the contributions that are made today because they have been quite wide and varied in the short time that we have had to speak and debate this. From my own benches, it is fair to say that we are committed to engaging quite constructively in these debates. Why? Because we want to help to shape a better future for Scotland too, which is why, listening to this debate, outside of this chamber, people will have noticed quite a substantive difference in the way that we approach the debate today compared to some of the other parties. We did not amend the motion. We will vote with the Government at decision time. We accept Labour's additional wisdom in this debate. We gave collaborative speeches. I will not name names, but today we heard from a number of other members who took this as nothing more than another opportunity to pull the speaker of the folder called Tory bashing anti Westminster that comes out week after week in this Parliament every time we try to have a meaningful debate about something that matters to people in Scotland. My colleague Adam Tomkins opened his remarks today, touching on some very important issues that there are already a number of inequalities in Scotland, in health, in education, in access to public services. He has already pointed out a number of areas of legislation where this Government has failed to meet its own human rights obligations. He talked about the Offensive Behaviour at Football's Act. He talked about the name person scheme to name a few. The Government benches can sit there and blame Westminster for the ills of the world when it has the ability itself and its policy and its legislation making and the bills that it puts before this Parliament to make access to equality better in Scotland as it is. My colleague Annie Wells also spoke about some of those huge health inequalities that we experience in Scotland and that are experienced by our poorest communities. Mr Greene, I am very tight for time in this debate. You have some spare time if you wish. If I get extra time, I will. Minister? I have a great vote to the member for giving way. What does he think lies behind and drives those health inequalities and those social inequalities? If we had another hour, we could talk about equalities in Scotland. In fact, we have debated it in this chamber on a number of occasions and I believe that I spoke in that debate about some of the long-standing issues that affect Scotland. I am very happy to have a meaningful debate about the complex issue of poverty in Scotland. If he is happy to do so, we can do it after today's debate. I would like to focus on one particular speech today that I think says a lot about how this Parliament debates those issues. That was from my colleague Michelle Ballantyne. I thought that it was an excellent speech. The reason why I thought it was an excellent speech is that she took the opportunity to say that we will work constructively with other parties and other members in this Parliament if we are able to respect each other's differing point of views. That is something that many members in this chamber are absolutely incapable of doing. I think that Michelle made a very good point about the tone in which we approach issues such as equality in this Parliament. Thank you, Michelle Ballantyne, for that contribution. No, I will not. I would like to touch on some of the comments from the cabinet secretary. The cabinet secretary made some very valid points about some of the factors that can help inequality in Scotland, such as economic growth. I am pleased to hear her mention sustainable economic growth, tackling ill health, access to education and so on, and a number of triggers that this Parliament already has and levers that this Parliament already has. However, there are no mention of them in the motion, and that is my only criticism of the Government's motion today. We are unable to support Mr Finney's amendment today and we are unable to support the Liberal amendment today, too. That being said, Labour made a very valid contribution around some of the additional inequalities that disabled people have in Scotland, and it is absolutely right that we address them. Too often in this Parliament, we fall into the trap of saying that simply by talking about issues, we will resolve them. Our limited time in this place would be better served by debating and discussing how we can use the powers already at our disposal to tackle the challenges in Scotland. Presiding Officer, in my closing seconds, I wish I had more time to talk about some of the other contributions that were made. In that case, I was pleased to hear some of the contributions made by, for example, Claire Adamson, who gave a very meaningful and thoughtful—I might not agree with everything that she had to say politically—but I respect the approach that she took to the debate today. I thank her for that contribution. In the spirit of being constructive, I would like to close by asking the Government and the front bench not to overlook the challenges that we face in Scotland in health and education and to use the Parliament's powers that it already has to address some of those to tackle those inequalities. I urge the Government to work constructively with other parties in this place to build a consensus on some of the key issues that the debate was focusing on today. We want to see bold action and real substance, not just words. If the SNP is serious about addressing inequality in Scotland, it should step out of its own glass house before it throws stones at others. I call Mark McDonald to close with the Government Minister until five o'clock. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It has been a wide-ranging debate, as one might expect. I want to begin by referencing what I was up to earlier on today. I met pupils from Sheen's primary school in Edinburgh who were discussing with me the mural that they have created around the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It came as a result of a series of children's rights seminars and was a distillation by them of how they see the issues that affect children and young people in relation to their rights. It begins with a mural that describes what they call the policy factory, which depicts adults making policy as it affects children and debating and discussing how those policies will affect children, but also depicts those children on the outside, looking in, unable to give effect and have their voices heard in relation to their rights. It moves through a series of pictures to the end picture, which they call the Meadow of Rights, a much more harmonious picture that demonstrates the benefits of taking a more collaborative and listening approach in relation to the rights agenda as it pertains to children. That is the approach that I intend to take as a minister in relation to how we give effect to and embed further the UNCRC. One of the commitments that I have made as part of the upcoming year of young people is that I will be out across the communities of Scotland discussing with young people directly their rights and how they can participate. It also extends further than that to the approach that we have taken as a Government in relation to the shaping of our social security agenda. The experience panels, which my colleague Jeane Freeman has convened, to look at how people who have real lived experience of social security can help us to design a system that will give effect to their rights and give effect to their wishes in relation to how they want to see a Scottish social security system shaped. It was a point that was made most eloquently by Clare Adamson and Mary Fee that human rights and the position that we have arrived at in relation to human rights is not something that happened at the beginning of time, it is something that has evolved over time and has been hard fought and hard won by a number of individuals throughout history. Therefore, having been hard fought and hard won, it is exceptionally important that we continue to fight to ensure that those rights are protected and advanced wherever possible. That was the point that I think was brought up by a number of speakers during the course of the debate when they were speaking about some of the potential threats that exist in relation to the current rights framework as we currently see it. Pauli McNeill. I wonder if the minister agrees that when it comes to enforcing and protecting whether it is human rights or individual rights, there is also a need to look at the question of legal costs, because at the end of the day there is no point of having laws if being able to enforce a law is not accessible or affordable. I think that one of the things that we have taken a very clear view on is that we want to ensure that justice is accessible in its broadest sense and that is something that we are committed to. I take on board the point that Pauli McNeill raises. What we want to ensure is that where we can take a collaborative approach, we will take that collaborative approach, and we have demonstrated that already in some of the actions that we are taking forward on the rights agenda. Pauli McNeill raised a very specific point in her opening remarks regarding the refusal of entry to a place of detention. That is a point that my colleague the cabinet secretary has written to both Robert Goodwill and his successor Brandon Lewis in relation to. It is something that the Scottish Government is very much alive to and is seeking to ensure that the UK Government takes a different approach on. John Finnie rightly highlighted some of the challenges that have arisen as a result of the examination under the UNCRPD. That led to what I thought was quite an extraordinary exchange in the chamber when my colleague Ruth Maguire asked, very rightly, whether he agreed with the conclusions of the chair of the UNCRPD examination whether or not this was a human catastrophe that was being presided over by the UK Government. Adam Tomkins had spent that point up until then, saying that the Scottish Government needed to take its medicine when it was told that it was not achieving what it should be achieving in relation to the rights agenda. I would point out that the cabinet secretary in her remarks, the First Minister in the programme for government, stated quite clearly that we recognise that there is work still to be done, that is why we have convened the expert advisory panel, that is why we have undertaken and committed to an audit in relation to the UNCRC. However, having stood up and said that, he then launched a response that basically said, I reject the findings of the United Nations in relation to the UK Government, and here are the reasons why, in actual fact, disabled people in the UK have never had it so good. It comes down to the crystallisation of the points that have been made previously, is that looking at it only through those examples and not looking at the totality of the experience of disabled people in the UK is, I think, being ignorant to the fact, is being ignorant to the genuine experiences that are being inflicted upon many of our disabled people. We then came to the debate and the point that Jamie Greene made, that perhaps we would be better served by a wider discussion around the concept of inequality, while the Conservatives brought it to the table today. They spoke about the attainment gap, which we are committed to addressing. They spoke about health inequalities, which we are committed to addressing. However, the point remains that what underpins and underlies those inequalities is, in itself, systemic societal inequality. We, as a Parliament, only have so many powers available to us to tackle that systemic societal inequality. If what we are doing in this Parliament, if what our health service is doing in our hospitals, our GP practices across the country, if what our education system is doing in our early learning centres, our schools, our colleges and our universities, is fighting against the chaos and circumstances that surround those people at the very margins of our society, we will only be able to advance so far, because we have to ensure that what meets those people when they leave those facilities, when they leave those educational facilities, is an environment that works with what is happening in those systems, works to ensure that we deliver the best possible outcomes for people. If we do not have that situation, then we will not be able to make progress. That is the point that lies underneath this. It is fine for the Conservatives to come here and for other Opposition parties to come here and say that this Government must do better in certain areas. We accept that there are journeys that we still have to travel in relation to educational attainment and in relation to health inequalities, but they cannot ignore the wider impact of the wider macroeconomic policies, the wider social security policies that their Government administers over, which are having a detrimental impact on our ability to close those gaps and to improve those outcomes for people across Scotland. In conclusion, I think that this debate has been a very important one, it has been a very welcome one. It has touched on a number of different areas where we recognise that there is still a road to travel, but we must also acknowledge the significant progress that we are making in Scotland in taking forward the rights agenda, in taking forward the agenda of human rights. We recognise that there is work that we have to do collaboratively across this Parliament. That is why we will be happy to support the Labour and Green amendments today. I say to the Liberal Democrats that we will not be supporting their amendment today, and I say that Mike Rumbles is fine for him to come here and say that we have only now seen action in relation to things such as the minimum wage of criminal responsibility in the areas such as the eco protection. I would gently point out to Mr Rumbles that he should have a little bit of humility on the fact that his party did have a role in governing this country from 1999 to 2007 and did not and failed to take forward any meaningful advance in either of those areas. A little bit of humility sometimes goes a long way, but in general, we recognise that there is a road still to travel, but we also must acknowledge the progress that we have made to this point. That concludes our debate on dignity, equality and human rights for all. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 77770, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the bureau setting out a revised business programme. I would ask any member who objects to say so now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 77770. Formally moved. Thank you very much. No member has asked to speak, therefore the question is that we agree motion 77770. Are we agreed? We are agreed. There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that amendment 77740.3, in the name of Pauline McNeill, which seeks to amend motion 77740, in the name of Angela Constance, on dignity, equality and human rights for all, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 77740.1, in the name of John Finnie, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Angela Constance and be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division and members will be cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 77740.1, in the name of John Finnie, is yes, 85, no, 31. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, agreed. The next question is that amendment 77740.2, in the name of Mike Rumbles, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Angela Constance. Are we all agreed? Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote and members will be cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 77740.2, in the name of Mike Rumbles, is yes, 9, no, 88. There were 19 abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, not agreed. And the final question is that motion 77740, in the name of Angela Constance, as amended, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division and members will be cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 77740, in the name of Angela Constance, as amended, is yes, 85, no, 31. There were no abstentions. The motion, as amended, is, therefore, agreed. And that concludes decision time. We will now move to members' business in the name of Mary Fee on tackling homophobia in sport, and we'll just take a few moments to change seats.