 The next item of business is a debate on motion 3297, in the name of Angela Constance on Scotland's place in the European Union, protecting and promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms. May I ask those who wish to speak in this debate to press the request to speak buttons, and I call on Angela Constance to speak to and move the motion. Fifteen minutes, please, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and happy new year to you and to members across the chamber. It gives me great pleasure to open this first debate of the new year. It is, of course, both appropriate and symbolic that, as we begin 2017, we begin with a debate on human rights and Scotland's place in Europe, a debate that combines two themes of such monumental importance to this country and to its people. In a matter of months, it is likely that the UK Government will invoke article 50 of the treaty on European Union and trigger the process of UK departure from the EU. The UK Government also remains committed to repealing the Human Rights Act and replacing it with a British Bill of Rights. However, it seems that the Prime Minister intends to go even further. What is now in prospect is not just an attack on the Human Rights Act. Theresa May wants to turn her back on the world's most successful human rights treaty, the European Convention on Human Rights, and she plans to make pulling the UK out of the ECHR, a central plank of the 2020 Tory manifesto. That is shocking but not surprising from a PM who, as Home Secretary, spoke so publicly about her desire to scrap the Human Rights Act. The foreign secretary claimed in the aftermath of the EU referendum that the EU Government is not intent on pulling up a drawbridge or pursuing a policy of isolationism. However, where our fundamental rights are concerned, that seems to be exactly the agenda being pursued. We should be in no doubt in this chamber and in this Parliament and across Scottish society as a whole that dragging Scotland out of the EU and attempts to undermine fundamental human rights safeguards will indeed have profound implications for our country. This Parliament will need and indeed will want to address those potential impacts in great detail. We will wish to speak out on the implications for the wider world of the UK Government's attempt to remove Scotland from the EU against the will of the Scottish people and to undermine the ECHR. It is essential that we stand against each and every threat to the rights and freedoms of the people of Scotland. Alex Cole-Hamilton, I think, is giving way. Will she confirm whether the Scottish Government will be prepared to back the UK Liberal Democrats call for a Brexit deal referendum, which is our best chance of stopping the process altogether? Angela Constance I am tempted to say that Mr Cole-Hamilton seems to have a bit of a fixation with the referendums. The serious point is that there is some considerable distance to travel and much water to go under the bridge. We have a UK Government that has yet to show its hand on the detail of the negotiations that it will pursue. For the Scottish Government, the one thing that we would be concerned of is that, given the outcome of the previous referendum, despite the will of the Scottish people in the context of a UK referendum, we now face the prospect of being taken out of the EU against our will and even an event of another UK-wide referendum that that risk may indeed remain. I began to talk about how it is essential that, together, we stand against each and every threat to the rights and freedoms of people in Scotland. In doing so, we will be confronting matters that range from employment rights to human trafficking, from non-discrimination to data protection, from the rights of disabled people to the loss of vital funding for civil society and the third sector. We will continue to press for an immediate end to the scandalous disregard that is shown by the UK Government for the rights and interests of non-UK citizens from the EU and the European economic area. I am talking about fellow citizens who live and work and have made their homes here in Scotland, fellow citizens who are being treated as what has been termed bargaining chips by UK Government ministers. That is an intolerable situation. I want to speak about the symbolic importance of today's date. On 10 January 1946, 71 years ago today, the First General Assembly of the United Nations convened not in Geneva, not in New York, but at Westminster Central Hall in London. It did so in an age when the UK Government understood that it had a duty to act for the greater good to be a positive force in post-war efforts to promote human rights and achieve closer international co-operation. It played a leading role in establishing not only the United Nations but also the Council of Europe. It was very much at the heart of the human rights work of both institutions, including the development of what has become, I repeat, the world's most influential human rights treaty, the European Convention on Human Rights. That work was founded on common values—values that prioritise human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights. Those post-war values have been a defining influence not only in the context of the UN and the Council of Europe, but the same fundamental principles and protections are at the very heart of the European Union. That point deserves emphasis. It reveals something important about where, as a nation, Scotland has chosen to take its stance in both the EU referendum debate and the major fallout since. The principles that have grown to define the European Union resonate with Scotland's sense of self and the values that we espouse. In its actions and in its attitudes, Scotland is a country that locates itself not where geography has placed us on the periphery of a continent but at the heart of a progressive vision for Europe. If the seismic events of 2016 have communicated a message to us all, it is surely that the bonds that unite progressive nations must always be greater than the issues that divide us. European Union law and European institutions have been instrumental in promoting equality and human rights across all member states. Sometimes that has meant learning from and reflecting UK best practice and sometimes it has challenged us all, including in Scotland, to go further and to try harder. Yet that progressive European vision is now at risk. Expert advice and evidence given in this Parliament and indeed elsewhere makes clear that the removal of obligations set down in European law could open the door to the erosion of protections that we have come to take for granted. In the field of employment law, the EU guarantees core rights and protections for workers, including the rights to paid holidays and maternity leave, limits to working hours, the right not to be discriminated against and health and safety protections. Such safeguards are fundamental to our vision of a fair and equal Scotland that delivers on social justice and inclusive economic growth. That is why we have argued for employment legislation to be devolved to this Scottish Parliament. Respect for private life is a human right that is protected by a range of international treaties, including the ECHR. However, EU law has made a particular and important contribution in the context of data protection. We also have to recognise that global concerns are also Scotland's concerns. Notable achievements have also been made in confronting human trafficking as one notable example. Trafficking is an intolerable abuse of human rights prohibited by the ECHR and other international instruments. EU law enhances and extends that core framework by establishing minimum rules that require assistance, support and protection to be given to victims of trafficking. Does the cabinet secretary agree with Winston Churchill, who in 1948 in the Hague said that a charter of human rights is a sincere expression of a free democracy? I agree with Winston Churchill on this matter and on this instance. It seemed to me that the UK Government endeavours to repeal the Human Rights Act and, reprehensibly, to even talk to mute the suggestion of withdrawal from the European convention. It appears to me that it is tearing up any notion, any shared heritage that we have as political nations, and indeed ripping up any shared notion that we have of what being British actually means. It is a fundamental violation of the rights of us all right across these islands and elsewhere, to now turn our back in such an important time in history and to turn our back on the European convention. As members of this Parliament know, in Scotland, the obligations that we have carried forward in our own human trafficking and exploitation act 2015 and our trafficking and exploitation strategy has been developed with input from a very wide range of stakeholders. I am pleased to inform members that it will be laid before Parliament by the end of May 2017. We all have a duty to assist those driven from their homes by war and brutality and to demand action to ensure that the EU-based controls on the export of weapons and torture equipment remain in place. Accessibility is a fundamental human right for people with disabilities. Directly applicable EU regulations have progressed the rights of disabled people regarding accessible transport by air, by bus, by rail and by ship. The proposed European Accessibility Act will further benefit disabled people by providing common rules on accessibility in relation to computers and operating systems, including the everyday electronic services, which are so much a part of modern living, from cash machines to smartphones, from online check-in to digital television services. However, we stand to lose those benefits if we are no longer members of the EU or participants in the single market. In the right of EU citizens and their families to move freely and to work and reside anywhere in the EU, is one of the four freedoms that underpin the single market and are firmly established in EU law. That freedom of movement includes important safeguards for the family life of EU citizens living abroad and extends to members of a family who are not themselves EU citizens and who would receive far less favourable treatment under EU law. The current refugee crisis has shown us the importance of working in partnership with EU members to respond to a humanitarian crisis and to ensure that people desperately seeking refuge find a place of safety through resettlement or relocation. Scotland has opened its arms and welcomed more than 1,000 refugees fleeing the violence of Syria, but I am concerned about the future of refugees and asylum seekers. The UK Government will remain a signatory of the 1951 refugee convention, but options for family reunion with relatives in the EU may now become far more difficult. Ceasing to be a member of the European Union also means EU funding, which supports work to protect and promote human rights and equality in the UK. That is a concern that I know has been ably articulated by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations and others across the third sector. The challenge is clear. There can be no doubt about the principles at stake and no hiding from the potential impacts for individuals and families and communities across the whole of Scottish society. The Scottish Government's approach to securing Scotland's position in the coming EU negotiations confronts that challenge. Our position statement on Scotland's place in Europe, published on 20 December, makes clear that there can be no regression in the rights, freedoms, social protection and equality that is currently secured by EU law. There must be absolutely no race to the bottom in the UK and no erosion of the rights of working people, families, disabled people, local communities, consumers or the environment. In seeking to ensure that Scotland remains firmly part of the European single market, we should be clear that the market is not just an economic arrangement important, though that is. It delivers very real economic benefits, but it also provides a framework that is capable of protecting and advancing individual and collective rights. We have been clear that Scotland must take concerted action, not just to avoid regression, but to ensure that we actively keep pace with future progressive developments across the European Union. Simply avoiding being left behind by our closest EU neighbours is too small an ambition for a nation such as ours. We must ensure that Scotland's distinctive voice continues to be heard. I want to conclude where I began, our obligation to give further and better effect to human rights for all the people of our country is essential to the work of this Parliament. That applies across the full spectrum of our work as ministers and as members, but in 2017 it will apply, perhaps above all else, in the context of the crucial negotiations that must now take place with the UK Government and the European Union to secure Scotland's place in Europe. With that momentous responsibility in mind, I therefore asked this Parliament to reaffirm its commitment to the fundamental principles and common values that unite all progressive nations. I asked, too, that we commit collectively and with unshakable resolve to defend not only those values but the interests and the rights of all people of Scotland. I move the motion in my name. I now call on Douglas Ross to speak to and move amendment 3297.2. 11 minutes, please, Mr Ross. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am pleased to open today's debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives and can I take the opportunity to wish you and all parliamentary staff a happy and prosperous new year. For many, the new year signals a new start, a fresh beginning, but it seems to be that old habits die hard for the SNP. Since the end of June, members will be aware that this is the 15th such debate, or statement that we have had on Scotland's place in the European Union. Instead of using their parliamentary time to debate Scotland's pitiful PISA rankings, closing the attainment gap, or finding ways to get more girls into STEM subjects, we spent hours upon hours upon hours in this chamber at the SNP's behest talking about the EU. In fact, how many hours? 31 hours since the 24th of June. That compares with seven hours, seven hours speaking about education, so that is more than four times as much on the EU referendum to the detriment of something that the First Minister said would be her and her Government's number one priority. Go away to the minister. I thank the member for giving way. Sorry if this seems a simple question for the new year, but he does not like the Scottish Parliament talking about the consequences of the EU referendum. Why did his party have an EU referendum? What I do not like the Scottish Parliament doing is fixating its whole debating time on the EU referendum at the detriment of education. Your Government, your First Minister, your ministers and cabinet secretaries said that education was their number one priority. Why have you had your parliamentary time four times as much on the implications of the EU referendum than education? I think that you need to answer that question. Back in December, when attempting to defend her Government's derisory record on education, the First Minister ironically lambasted those benches for her so-called Brexit obsession and added that she wants to get back to the important matter of Scottish education. That is exactly what she should be doing and using her time in this chamber to focus on that priority. I urge the First Minister and her SNP colleagues to do exactly that, to reflect on their own Brexit obsession, which is clearly continuing to dominate their parliamentary business, which is dedicated by the nationalists in this chamber. A few people underestimate the impact of the decision that this country took in June of last year. There are decisions by this country that we are so part of the United Kingdom. There are discussions that need to be had, and they need to be had the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. My amendment to the Scottish Government's motion reflects this sentiment, emphasising the UK Government's commitment to ensuring that all devolved Administrations will be closely engaged throughout the negotiation process and we begin to leave the EU. The SNP's strategy, which it must be said seems to have gone slightly awry in the communications front over the past few days, is to use the outcome of the EU referendum to deflect attention from its own woeful record in government after a decade, while co-opting the EU cause in its bid to secure a second Scottish independence referendum. Something Scotland not only said no to in September 2014, but which a pinion poll, after a pinion poll shows the country has little appetite for, even after the SNP's own material change, the outcome of the EU referendum. Brexit presents opportunities, not opportunities to whip up a second round of support for Scottish independence, but opportunities for our economy, for farming, for aquaculture. By also accepting, it presents challenges, and we must tackle those head-on. One issue that is currently under consideration is what the post-Brexit human rights landscape will look like. As the negotiation process gets under way, we are committed to protecting human rights, but in order to protect them, we need to have a better understanding of what is involved. I do not often find common ground with the SNP, but its motion is correct that human rights are universal and inalienable. Human rights, in essence, are moral truths, fundamental, inherent and intrinsic in our society. On that, there is some level of agreement across the chamber. As the judicial power project has emphasised, fundamental human rights are, and I quote, not created by treaties with foreign powers. That is a crucial point. Instead, it is the imperative of the states to recognise human rights and to give them effect. My colleagues on the SNP benches have missed the point, because it is not the EU law or the EU charter of fundamental rights or the European Convention of Human Rights, which affords us those rights. That mistakenly assumes that the UK would not have acted to secure certain rights but for our involvement in the EU. Not my words, but the words of the judicial powers project. The assumption that there will be a net loss of rights protection following the UK withdrawal from the EU is simply a faulty one. Nevertheless, members will recall that when announcing the great repeal bill, the Prime Minister confirmed that we will convert the body of existing EU law into British law. Following Brexit, that will be secured by a sovereign Parliament. The same rules and laws will apply after Brexit, as they did before. Any changes to those laws will be subject to full scrutiny and proper parliamentary debate in Westminster by elected representatives of the whole of the United Kingdom, including the 54 or so SNP MPs. I will give way to Mr Findlay. Neil Findlay has clarified with his colleagues at Westminster that, if under the Tory plans for Brexit, he will still be able to exercise his right to freedom of movement and referee football matches abroad to give him a second income. I have less to worry about with the UK Government's position on that than the opposition politicians in here, who seem to be obsessed with the fact that I have outside interest in trying to do something for the Scottish national game. SNP members are also mistaken if they believe that leaving the European Union means that we will de facto leave the European Convention of Human Rights, for the two are very much distinct. The ECHR is entirely separate treaty, and Brexit will have no effect on our ability to enforce convention rights in UK courts or in Strasbourg. We can be proud of the leading role that the UK played in drawing up the European Convention on Human Rights, and we can also be proud that we were one of the first European countries to ratify the convention when we did so in 1951. It is important to note that that predates our involvement in the ECC by more than two decades. The SNP should stop misleading the public and be clear that leaving the EU does not necessarily mean that we will cease to be a signatory of the ECHR. Further, the UK is not only committed to safeguarding workers' rights but to strengthening them. With our review announced last year to ensure that workers are adequately protected in the era of modern, flexible employment, including zero-hour contracts and self-employment, let us not forget that under the current regime, nearly one in five, UK employees do not receive protection from the current employment rights law. Brexit will therefore not erode employment rights but could improve and strengthen them. On the status of EU nationals, as the cabinet secretary spoke about in her speech, it is important to get the message across that, although the UK remains a member of the EU, EU nationals who reside in the UK will continue to have the same rights that they have now. The Prime Minister has been clear that she wants to protect the status of EU nationals here. The only circumstances in which that would not be possible would be if British citizens' rights in other EU states were not guaranteed in return. In fact, and please forgive me for using the expression, while the SNP certainly talks to talk—sorry, I have to make progress, we have only a couple of minutes left—it by no means walks the walk. Speaking ahead of the 2014 independence referendum, none other than the current Deputy First Minister at the time, sorry, at the time Nicola Sturgeon, used 160,000 or so EU nationals in Scotland as her own bargaining chip over the EU membership, saying that if Scotland were outside of Europe, they would lose their right to stay here. No, it was not going to let you in on my point last time, I am not going to let you in now. That is not the only example of the SNP's astonishing hypocrisy. Take, for example, the SNP's illiberal, evasive, overarching and deeply flawed name person scheme, which was found to be in contravention of ECHR article 8, the right to respect for private and family life last year in the UK Supreme Court. The court's decision emphasised that, and I quote, information could be disclosed to a wide range of authorities without either the child or young person or their parents being aware of the interference with their article 8 rights, and in the circumstances in which there was no objectively compelling reason for the failure to inform them, meaning that part 4 of this Scottish Government's Children and Young People's Act did not satisfy the requirement of being in accordance with the law. The SNP subverted the ECHR to advance its own political agenda, riding roughshod over the principle highlighted by the court's decision. That, within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way. In advancing its own political agenda, the SNP has tried to abolish the requirement for corroboration, a central tenant to Scots law that helps to prevent miscarriages of justice without first considering what safeguards would be required. The way the SNP handled the sorry affair, as put by Lord McCluskey, rings alarm bells for anyone concerned about democracy in Scotland. Let us not forget also the thousands of children who were stopped and searched by Police Scotland before opposition politicians and the public alike expressed outrage at the tactic, which continued despite assurances from senior officers that it would end. It is also worth mentioning that my SNP colleagues are trying to overturn the democratic will of the people in not one but two referendums. Deputy Presiding Officer, before the SNP starts mudslinging about leaving the EU and so-called erosion of human rights, it believes that it will inevitably follow, perhaps it should get its own house in order. Quite simply, the SNP is using Brexit as a political football, trying to score points to appeal to the nationalist base and whip up support for independence, something that the majority of Scots have said no to and continue to say no to. Leaving the EU will not erode or diminish our inherent human rights and the SNP needs to stop using such alarmist language to suggest otherwise. It is high time that the Scottish Government starts to act in the interests of all Scots instead of holding us hostage to the threat of a second independence referendum if it doesn't get its way. As new year resolutions go, this one would be very welcome from Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP. I move the amendment in my name. I now call Alex Rowley. In speaking in favour of the Government motion, I would like to start by emphasising the commitment that Labour wants to see given to non-UK EU citizens resident in Scotland. In this Parliament, we should be united in our support for the guarantee of future security for all those non-UK EU citizens who call Scotland their home. Scotland has a history for welcoming people and I wish to see that spirit of hospitality continuing in post-Brexit situation where we find ourselves in today. It is appalling to see the Tory Government at Westminster refuse to commit to this guarantee. There are non-UK EU citizens living, working and contributing to Scotland up and down our country. I believe that it is within our values to give them a guaranteed commitment of security, regardless of what eventually transpires from Brexit. If we are indeed a nation of fairness, justice and dignity, then those values must be upheld and protected in these uncertain times. If we are to attempt to provide certainty, let that certainty be that all decisions that we strive for in the coming months and years uphold those values. Human rights should be a universal construct, not simply a political one. At this time of turbulent politics, we must do all we can to defend the fundamental rights that we believe individuals should hold. The Scottish Human Rights Commission has warned that human rights, protecting fairness, justice and dignity, stand to be eroded in the United Kingdom's change in relationship with Europe. The commission wants to see the laws and institutions that protect our human rights strengthened, not weakened, and change to be progressive, not regressive, enhancing human rights protection for all. The Labour Party in this chamber and across the country, indeed across the UK, agrees with this view, and Labour is committed to standing up for people's rights. That is why we brought in the Human Rights Act and we will fight any attempt to water it down or water down the protection that it brings. The Human Rights Act brings our rights home, giving our most vulnerable citizens a powerful means of redress and protecting us all against the misuse of state power. The European Convention on Human Rights is not something that was imposed from abroad. It was drawn up by British lawyers, drawn on the British philosophy and the understanding of our laws to set international standards of respect for common humanity after the Second World War. The main reason the Labour Government ensured that the European Court of Human Rights was incorporated into British law with the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998 was to ensure that British people could argue for their rights in the British Court. That means that cases dealing with violation of human rights could be tried and resolved here before, if necessary, going to Europe. The Labour Party has always been committed to the protection of fundamental rights for citizens and we will continue to argue that there should be a positive case made to ensure that there is no wearing away of rights that people hold. However, it is evident that, when we leave the EU, there is an assumption that the charter of fundamental rights will cease to be binding. That raises concerns as it enshrines some of the basic legal rights of EU citizens and residents, especially those rights within the scope of EU law. In particular, that could affect protections and remedies in areas of privacy, data protection and a fair hearing. It has been noted that there is also the potential for a fuller protection of social rights found within the charter to be at risk. I hope that we can work together to safeguard the rights and protections that are currently held by citizens in post-Brexit Scotland. I do not want to see Scotland or, indeed, a UK that is left behind the rest of Europe. I have previously made clear that I would like to see the areas currently governed by EU regulation to be returned to Scotland rather than the UK when we leave the EU. That would include human rights and the social chapter of European law. I hope that both the Scottish and UK Governments will work to ensure that that happens. We must explore the mechanisms that are necessary for that to take place in order to see human rights and social protections coming down from Europe to be within the jurisdiction of this Parliament and of Scotland. It is essential that we discuss the impact of leaving the EU and what that will have on human rights for Scotland. It is also worth taking this opportunity to note that we can do more in this Parliament on human rights. The Scottish Human Rights Commission and their report to the United Nations noted that the Scottish Government must go further on human rights. There are a number of international human rights standards and recommendations that have not yet been met in Scotland. To quote Judith Robertson, she said that the commission wants to see progress where it really counts in people's everyday lives. To achieve that, the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament must go further and systematically respond to the recommendations from the UN on integrating a human rights-based approach into all law and policy-making. I hope that we can take those words. Michael Russell. I think that the member is absolutely right that that is the opinion of the commission. I am sure that he would acknowledge that that is also the position of the First Minister, who has made it absolutely clear that that is what she wishes to do, and indeed that is the positive nature of the Scottish Government's agenda to move those rights into law. Alex Rowley. That is to be welcomed. I hope that we can take those words on board across this chamber and recognise that more can be done right now to protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Scottish Government has within its capabilities the power to incorporate the UN human rights treaties as directly enforceable in domestic law. I hope that progress can be made on this front, as now is perhaps the most important time to be holding a serious debate on that matter. Now is a time where we must work together as a Parliament to ensure that we do all that we can to uphold the values that we believe in. Following the result of the referendum, the poverty alliance in Scotland stated that tackling poverty and seeking social justice is ultimately about solidarity. Whether that solidarity is expressed at the community level, within a country or at international level, it is the bedrock of what is needed for a better society. Scottish Labour will stand up to protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms. There is much discussion and debate still to be had as we see the terms of Brexit unfold, but I hope that those values of fairness, justice and dignity are considered at every stage of our Brexit considerations. We now move to the open speeches. Can I remind members to press their buttons if they wish to take part in the debate? Quite a few members have not yet done so. We do have a little bit of time in hand, so interventions can be taken and the extra time given. I call Christine McElvie to be followed by Gordon Lindhurst. I thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and happy new year to you and the chamber too. Colleagues, what are fundamental human rights? The right to life, not to be tortured or enslaved, to liberty and security, to a fair trial, to a private and family life, to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, to freedom of expression, to freedom of assembly and association, the right to marriage and not be subjected to discrimination, to a peaceful enjoyment of your property, to fair and free elections and the right to an education. When this Parliament and many parliaments across this planet are advancing and consolidating human rights, the UK Government wants to scrap the human rights act and take us out of the ECHR. Maybe some in this place need a reminder of where those rights come from. The UK was the first signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights when it was signed in Rome on 4 November 1950. In the early 1940s, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill raised the idea of a council of Europe. As Europe reeled and emerged from the world war 2 hearing some of the horrific details of the Holocaust, that was his first thought. We need to come together. The idea behind the Council of Europe was to set up an international organisation to promote democracy, the rule of law and human rights. The council was established by 10 states, including the United Kingdom on 5 May 1949. On 12 August 1949, Winston Churchill, the British Prime Minister, said, The dangers that threaten us are great, but great too is our strength. There is no reason why we should not succeed in establishing the structure of this united Europe, whose moral concept will be able to win the respect and recognition of mankind. Human rights, Presiding Officer, is in our DNA. That is what I call British values. The Council of Europe set to work creating a human rights convention. Again, Churchill was an advocate. He proclaimed, and the centre of our movement stands, the idea of a charter of human rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law. One of the key writers of the European Convention on Human Rights was British Conservative MP and lawyer David Maxwell Fife. Maxwell Fife's contribution to the convention was so great that he was described as the doctor who brought the child to birth. He had been a prosecutor at Nuremberg and helped to draft universal declaration of human rights. Human rights is in our DNA. So why would the current UK Government want out of the ECHR and a repeal of our domestic human rights legislation? Why would they want that? I think that it is very worrying that this Tory Government promotes an end to the free movement of people, closes off membership of the EU market, makes relentless cuts and supports benefits to vulnerable people and wants to keep out, well, everybody who wasn't born and bred here. I'm not altogether clear who is included in Theresa May's shared society, only that it seems to be a select group, and it's certainly not the people that I know. For Douglas Ross' attention, where has Theresa May, at any point in the last six months, given any reassurance to any EU national who's sought that reassurance, she hasn't, she never has? On you go. Theresa May has given that assurance every single time by saying, well, I've been asked the question, so I'll try to answer, by saying that the rights of EU nationals living in the UK is secured, while the rights of UK people living in the EU is secured by those countries, and I think that makes a perfectly sensible argument. Christina McKelvie? Where and when has she ever said that, because I've not seen it and I've not heard it, and our Government here has asked it, but numbers and numbers of organisations have asked it, and no one has had that answer. She has never given that reassurance, she's given some really words about a shared society. Please, let's just stick to the facts. Those rights matter in everyday life. For example, the Human Rights Act has protected victims of domestic violence, has allowed victims of rape to ensure that the police properly investigate the offences. They have been used by disabled people, affected by welfare reform, by LGBTI people who have used human rights to overcome discrimination. The Human Rights Act has been used by the families of military personnel, killed and active service, because the Ministry of Defence of this Government supplied them with outdated equipment. An elderly couple married for 65 years, where a local authority was going to force to live apart, they used the Human Rights Act so that they could stay together. In November 2016, a report on the inquiry concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland carried out by the committee under article 6 of the optional protocol to the convention on cumulative impact of legislation, policies and measures adopted by the state party on social security schemes and on work and employment found grave and systemic violations of the rights of disabled people by the UK state party. She's amazing, I've never given those people reassurances either. Welfare reform, a SNP, trade union laws and now they want to take away any recourse to justice you may have via the Human Rights Act or the European convention on human rights. This is a Government that is hell bent on attacking and undermining those hard fought for protections and freedoms. A right wing xenophobic reactionary Government who uses citizens as bargaining chips and has no care for people who are sick, unemployed or marginalised because of their race, their religion, their culture or their sexuality. Never forget that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Silence in the face of atrocity is not neutrality. Silence in the face of atrocity is acquiescence. We will not remain silent on any attempt to take away those rights. Human rights that are so precious to our human decency and democracy, I will not be silent. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. This afternoon, we have yet another speculative debate on Scotland's future after the UK leaves the EU. The decision to leave has, of course, many facets, but there are a few conclusions that can yet be drawn before the invoking of article 50. The relevance of the European convention on human rights to leaving is unclear, as it is not a product of the European Union nor is it tied to it. Yet the SNP Government has chosen to include it in its motion today. Regrettably, some politicians appear more interested in trying to whip up fear for political reasons rather than considering matters dispassionately having regard to consequences and context. A proper starting point is the history of our great country as a beacon for rights and freedoms across the world. The member says what the referendum said. The question on the referendum paper was, should the UK be in the EU or not. It said nothing about the free market, free movement of people, European convention on human rights, and yet I hear the Tories reading into the result a whole series of things that are not in the ballot paper. Is that not correct in terms of what the member is saying? The question was or was not that was posed to the British people? Gordon Lindhurst? No, that is not correct. The question posed the British people was whether or not the United Kingdom should remain in the European Union. The answer was, the United Kingdom should not. The leaving of the European Union is triggered by article 50 and all other matters are subject to debate and discussion in Parliament in terms of the usual legislation-making process. I will return to what I was saying. The Prime Minister has already announced, and this may answer your last question when, that when the Government repeals the European Communities Act, it will convert the Achae or existing framework of laws into British law and the Great Repeal Bill. Future alterations, as my colleague has already pointed out, of those laws will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and consideration. It is dissimilar to the position that would have pertained if we continued as a member state of the EU and the traditions of the United Kingdom as a member state that gold plates EU law is important to remember. What, after all, are human rights? I refer to human rights with a small h and a small r, which have as the counterpart responsibilities and accountability particularly of the individual. That is an important point that should not be overlooked. We surely all agree about the basic principles of fairness and equality before the law. It is the detail that we may sometimes disagree on. How do we give effect to human rights? We do that not just by the passing of laws, as important as they can be, but also by how our institutions operate, how our legal thinking develops, and how our public bodies treat individuals. We do it in our society by ensuring in particular the freedoms and liberties of individuals, rather than allowing for an overbearing state interference on behalf of either politicians or specific individual interests, by protecting our families by rejecting schemes such as the named person scheme. Does membership or non-membership of the EU affect any of that? No, it does not. Bearing in mind that the ECHR is under the auspices of the Council of Europe, not the EU, membership of the EU itself is not determinative, even of the application of the terms of the ECHR to our country. Nor is it dependent from that point of view on the existence of the Human Rights Act 1998. Human rights did not come into existence with the Human Rights Act 1998, which, as we all know, happened a long time after the ECHR came into existence, and they would not cease to exist if the 1998 act, an act of the British Parliament, were repealed. Irrespective of EU membership, we in Scotland and the UK generally will and should seek to provide for fundamental rights and freedoms and for them to be protected and promoted into the future. The UK Government, rather than seeking to draw back protections and rights, is currently looking at how they can be reinforced. The Prime Minister has recently announced, and this is public and in the newspapers, a review of workers' rights with a view to legislating for the one in five UK employees who are not covered under existing employment rights law. This includes 4.8 million workers who are self-employed and others working to a more flexible working pattern to take into account the changing face of the workforce in the modern day. Again, an example of where the UK is going further than the EU would require us to. Our international political relations with the EU nations or the rest of the world should not alter our approach to human rights. We can lead the way to building a just, free and fair society for all, but we will fail to do so if we cling unthinkingly to laws including the Human Rights Act 1998 or other structures that are political or otherwise such as the European Union of the past and even the recent past, which do not serve us well in the present. It is crucial that all politicians get on board to look to that future rather than seeking to manufacture artificial constitutional crises for their own political ends. Stuart McMillan, Neil Findlay. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I, too, would like to wish you and all members a happy new year. No member state has ever left the European Union. We certainly are in an unprecedented period of time and this is an unprecedented position, which certainly is not of our making. It threatens our economy and our society and it is incompatible with the kind of country that we are now and also what we want to be in the future. The EU referendum raises difficult political and legal questions, not least what the post-Brexit landscape might look like and what a leave vote might have meant for Scotland's position within the UK. The UK Government must ensure that Scotland is fully involved in all decision making with regard to negotiations with the European Union, including in relation to all matters affecting fundamental rights. In the earlier comments, Douglas Ross, in his opening comments, highlighted about the number of EU debates that we have had in the chamber. It is quite critical of the number of EU debates in the amount of time that has been taken in the debates in this chamber. Only a few months ago, Gordon Lindhurst spoke about an answer to a question to Stuart Stamson. He spoke not so much about the legislation aspect but about where other elements of EU issues will be up for debate. Those will take place in Parliament. Surely, that is what we are doing today. To me, when I was listening to the two contributions, it seems to be a confusing picture and a confusing narrative from the Conservatives here in this Parliament. Douglas Ross, I thank the member for giving way. Does the member believe that debates on the future of the EU are four times more important than debates on education? That is the amount of time that your party has given in this Parliament—four times more—on the EU than on education. Stuart McMillan One of the most important things that is going on in society today, and if Mr Ross does not fully understand or appreciate this, he really needs to get out more, he really needs to get off the football pitch a bit more and get into the communities and talk to people, because the issue of Brexit, the issue of Scotland and the UK leaving the European Union is that it is vexing many, many people across Scotland. Mr Ross really needs to listen to the electorate that has to put him in this Parliament and also the council that he also represents. As a nation, Scotland takes its place not only within the UK but also within Europe. The law of the European Union and human rights law coming from the Council of Europe through the European Convention on Human Rights is also crucial to Scotland. Each of those areas of law restricts the powers of the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998 and the Scotland Act directly refers to the European Convention of Human Rights created by the Council of Europe. The ECHR is an instrument that was agreed between many states at the foundation of the Council of Europe in 1950. The purpose of the instrument is to ensure that every person throughout Europe is entitled to life with a certain level of dignity through the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. It is worth bearing in mind that historically this came about at a time when states in Europe were emerging from two horrific world wars. I have already heard comments from colleagues regarding Winston Churchill's comments. The loss of life of millions of people has resulted in the desire to ensure that the human rights never again face the atrocities that occurred during those conflicts. European law and the European institutions have been instrumental in promoting equality and human rights across all member states, and yet that progressive European vision is now at risk. Inexplicably, the Conservative party manifesto for the 2015 UK election included a commitment to abolish the Human Rights Act and create a so-called British Bill of Rights. Before the turn of the new year, the Telegraph reported that the Prime Minister hopes to put ECHR withdrawal at the heart of a post Brexit election in 2020. The removal of obligations that are set down in European law could open the door to the erosion of protections that we have come to take for granted. Those rights matter in everyday life, and my colleague Christian McKelvie gave a few examples of cases that were taken to the European courts. The Scottish Government has been elected to take forward a progressive agenda, embedding human rights in everything that we do, not seeking to erode safeguards that matter to everyone in society. People and organisations in Scotland are far more concerned with questions of how to better fulfil all human rights in practice in people's everyday lives. Any action that weakens or undermines participation in international human rights mechanisms, including the Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights, will be resisted at every opportunity. I commend Alex Rowley's speech earlier on, because I can agree with much of what Alex Rowley had to say today. I do not always do that with Mr Rowley, but I certainly can. I make no mistake that the strong cross-part of support for the ECHR and human rights act in both the Parliament and across Scottish civil society means that consent would not be forthcoming. The purpose of such a bill of rights would be definitely to govern and restrain devolved powers and devolved executive action. The Tories have a reckless ideological obsession with attacking human rights, but their attempt to leave the ECHR and draw up, or so-called British Bill of Rights, has been utterly shambolic so far. We know that there is this rightward surge of politics taking place south of the border. Clearly, the Tories are just following that with their UKIP colleagues. Any attempt by the UK Government to repeal existing rights would be likely to provoke a constitutional crisis. I refer to the House of Lords European Union Justice Sub-Committee, which published its report in 2016, and I quote the difficulties that the Government faces in implementing a British Bill of Rights in the devolved nations are substantial. Given the seemingly limited aims of the proposed Bill of Rights, the Government should give careful consideration to whether it means unravelling the constitutional knitting for very little. Before she became Prime Minister, Theresa May set out her view of a UK in which Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England continue to fly side by side as equal partners, maybe that is what she meant by the shared society. It is time for the Prime Ministers to honestly honour those words. The way in which the Westminster Government responds to the Scottish Government's proposals, Scotland's place in Europe, published in December 2016, will tell us much about whether or not the UK is indeed a partnership of equals. Human rights and the protection and enhancement of those rights is something that must exercise all across the world. We see major sophisticated technological advances. We see new vaccines, new agricultural techniques, new systems of industrial production, all of which should mean that the human race is not just sustained but lives and prospers together in a healthy, peaceful and co-operative way where everyone enjoys a fulfilled life. However, that is far from reality. Across the globe we see human rights abuses taking place. People deny their rights. They are victimised, subject to oppression, violence and displacement, dragged into disputes over land, resources, religion or ethnicity, with families torn apart and children orphaned. Arabs bring encouraged and supported by many. In the west, we were told that we would bring democracy to the region. Instead, it has brought bloodshed, fear, violence and instability. That is just one example of the many conflicts across the globe that impact on the EU, the UK and Scotland and all of our citizens. As the Syrian Middle East and North African crisis deepened, Europe's response was yes to offer some help but also to erect barriers to take action to prevent people from fleeing trouble spots. We saw increased marine patrols, barbed wire fences being erected, refugee camps forcibly flattened. In many countries we have seen increased attacks on the Roma community, a rise in Islamophobia, racism and anti-Semitism. The far right on the march with fascist, neo-fascist, neo-nazzi and extreme nationalists being elected in Greece, Germany, France, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, the Netherlands and elsewhere, human rights is one of the great issues of our time. All of those abuses have not come about by accident. They have been fed by the policy decisions of global and European institutions. Is it any surprise that war and the diplomatic failure to bring about peace creates a sense of injustice and desperation in people? Is it any wonder that political power games and the resultant instability have resulted in civil wars and the mass movement of people? Is it any surprise that military intervention from outside forces creates more problems than it solves, devastating the lives of ordinary families? Presiding Officer, there are many other human rights issues that need to be addressed but are not being spoken about. Who is champion in the rights of the 50 per cent of young Greeks and 40 per cent of young Spaniards who are out of work? Is the EU delivering human rights for them? I think that the right to work and to sustain a good life is a human right, but it is the economic policies of the EU that has created the appalling levels of youth unemployment. It is important to question the assertion within the motion that all EU powers are in the interests of all the people of Scotland. Today, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn rightly raised the issue of workers' rights and pay, saying that Labour will take action against the undercutting of paying conditions by closing down cheap labour loopholes, banning exclusive advertising of jobs abroad and strengthening workplace protection. I think that most people would agree with him on those points. I also agree, certainly. I thank the member for taking the intervention. It is a very interesting aspect of advertising abroad for workers. It is reported that Jeremy Corbyn will mention the fact that he is not really wedded, as he might call it, to freedom of movement for EU citizens. Would that mean that EU citizens are able to work in Britain, or would there be British jobs for British people? It seems to be that is what you were saying yourself, Mr Finlay. Neil Findlay, please. I will come to the free movement at the end of my contribution and hopefully that will help you. I also believe that it is a human right to have a home and not sleep rough in shop doorways, yet we see homelessness on the increase. The right to food and water is one of the most basic human rights, but across Europe food bank cues grow. More people in our country go hungry and countries privatise their water system. What did the post-crash austerity policies of the ECB and the IMF do to the rights of our fellow citizens? Let me tell you, wedges were frozen or cut, public sector jobs slashed, pensions and social security benefits reduced, essential civilising public services privatised, the young, the old, the weak and the poor punished by the very people who created the crisis in the first place. Where is the respect for people's rights as all that plays out with all its ugly manifestations? Finally, on the issue that Sandra White raises, I want to address the free movement of labour issue. I think that we need to stop kidding ourselves that this is not an issue here in Scotland. It is. Some want us to believe that this is about protecting people's rights to exercise basic freedoms. It is not like the free movement of capital. It is a neoliberal policy designed by and for big business to maximise profit. That is what it is about. Capital is free to move, where it can benefit from low or no taxes and the cheapest labour costs. People often follow to take up insecure, low-paid work. We then see competition in our communities for jobs, housing, school places and other public services. Against the backdrop of austerity and cuts, it is the recipe for the social tension that we then see. If we ignore that and if we think that it does not affect Scotland, then we do our constituents and the people whose rights we seek to defend a great disservice. I want all the people in every country of the world to have security and protection and freedom from fear and exploitation, but by seeking to avoid difficult questions, we do our people, the people whose rights we seek to protect in this Parliament, a disservice. I thank Mr Finlay for the clarification. I will mention that particular part in my contribution. I would like to begin by reiterating the comments of today's time for reflection, David Logan. He said that our duty was to treat people with dignity, respect fairness and charity. I think that we, in this chamber and elsewhere as well, would do well to remember those words, as surely those are the very basis of human rights and fundamental freedoms. I touch on the issue that Neil Finlay had mentioned. I believe that one of the basic fundamental freedoms is freedom of movement, and it must be retained. I very much believe that. I join my colleagues in condemning the UK Government refusing to provide non-UKU citizens residence in Scotland with an immediate and unequivocal guarantee of future security and fair treatment. I think that it is absolutely shameful. Can I remind the Conservatives, Opposite and others, that non-UKU nationals are not bargaining chips? You cannot say that, if I want to do this, you must do that. They are not bargaining chips. They are human beings, they have families, they have jobs, they have friends and they have lives here. They really should not be treated in this disgraceful way. I also put that question out. We are talking about freedom of movement, and we mentioned earlier on in the questions about the health service. What is going to happen to all of those people if they are told by the Brexiteers, the Tony Government, who are fundamentally very negative in their thoughts that they can no longer stay here? What will happen to our industries in this country and what will happen to the people who, at this moment, are living in Limbo and they have no idea one way or another if they can remain here? That is a question that has not been answered regardless of what the Conservatives of the Tories say, and it must be answered as quickly. I think that it is possible to ensure that those people can get on with their lives, not just in my constituency but throughout Scotland and the UK as well. I have been thinking about this, and I thought to myself, if you know—I will take an intervention, Neil Findlay. Thank you. Sandra White also said that a number of people come here to work out of sheer economic necessity because of the conditions that they find themselves in European countries. We are saying that, as a great success, it is a failure of European economic policy that is forcing people out of their homeland, forcing people away from their family and the social scaffold in that they have around them. That is something that we need to address also. I agree with some of the issues that Neil Findlay has raised, but I think that, from time immemorial, I remember that it was one of the Conservatives that called it economic migrants. If we need economic migrants for centuries, not just coming from abroad here but from here going abroad, so it is not just the European Union that has been created by poverty. I do agree with Neil Findlay and I have to look at that, but I think that stopping freedom of movement absolutely stops those people wherever they come from, here or elsewhere in Europe, or even non-EU citizens the opportunity and the chance to perhaps live a better life, but perhaps change the lives of the fellow citizens of their countries as well. That is something that we should be looking at and I am sure that we will look at. As I said earlier on, I have been thinking about this particular debate and I started to think back. I thought that it is really unbelievable that circumstances, which quite literally are out of Scotland's control, have led us to the point that we are now debating Scotland's place in Europe and the important part, the protection of human rights. If anything, we should be doing something about enhancing human rights, not about just trying to protect the ones that we have, but enhancing them. Neil Findlay would possibly agree with me there no matter where he lives about enhancing people's human rights. The substantial majority of people in Scotland and the SNP Government have made it quite clear that the preferred option would be to remain a member of the European Union. However, we are facing the prospect of being pulled out of the EU without us wanting to do so. Now we have to face up to, and we have to deal with, the situation created by the Leave campaign. Nobody has mentioned the Leave campaign, but it has certainly got enough coverage in the press, the media, the TV campaign, which had absolutely no plan in place if a Leave vote was delivered. We were absolutely shocked to think that a Leave vote was delivered. I think that we have to give the Scottish Government some credit. It has taken steps to address the situation that we now find ourselves in, unlike the UK Government, who are currently presiding office at Shambles really—nothing more than at Shambles. The SNP Government has published a paper on Scotland's place in Europe, setting out proposals to mitigate the risks of Scotland being taken out of Europe against our will. First, it has asked the UK Government to stay in the European single market for the UK as a whole. Secondly, it is not possible to work with the UK Government to find a solution that will preserve Scotland's membership of the European single market, even if it is a reminder that the UK chose to leave. Thirdly, to work with the UK Government to ensure that, in the light of the removal of the rights and protections provided by EU law, and whatever the outcome of the Brexit negotiations, the powers of the Scottish Parliament will be fundamentally revisited and enhanced to continue to protect Scotland's interests within the UK. That seems sensible. That is a Government that is thinking about the future, and that is why we should be debating it. We do not even know when it will happen. It is apparent that, in two years, it could be ten years. It is something that is eminently sensible to protect Scotland's interests and to represent the views of the people of Scotland who rejected the prospect of being dragged out of the UK. Repealing of the Human Rights Act has been mentioned by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and others as well. It has been on the toes of the danger for some time now. Theresa May believed in 2020 general election. She was able to come forward and put forward her own idea of human rights. It has been there for a long time. It has given them the opportunity to step up and do something like that. The SNP Government has also long argued that we should be insured a place at the table to ensure that we are fully involved in all the decision-making with regard to negotiations with the EU. We have been assured that that would happen, but it has not happened. I doubt very much if it will happen. Scotland's place in Europe, as far as I am concerned, and others, is sensible and looks at the future, to keep Scotland in the single market and to transfer substantial powers from Westminster to Scotland if that does not happen. In conclusion, the SNP Government has put forward a measured proposal on how we move forward. The UK Government now needs to step up to that mark. Step up to the mark. If it does not, if it rejects what so far has been the only comprehensive strategy in the current circumstances, then the people of Scotland should be given the right to decide whether or not they wish to remain a part of the UK outside the EU. I commend the Scottish Government on its motion for recognising the indivisibility of all human rights—civil, political, social, economic and cultural. That is a tremendously important aspect of human rights. In Europe, we enjoy access to the European Convention of Human Rights on issues relating to civil rights and oversight of social rights provided by the European Social Charter. Although I am disappointed that Westminster Governments of all colours have failed to ratify the revised European Social Charter despite having signed it in 1997, I would like to focus on the Conservative amendment and its claims that the Westminster Government will safeguard and strengthen workers' rights. Surely that must be a joke that the rest of us are not in on. That is the same Tory Government that passed the recent trade unions act, an act that the now Brexit minister David Davis described as more akin to fascism in Franco's Spain than Britain today. It is worth asking when Conservative members of this parliament talk of their Westminster colleagues' commitment to workers' rights post Brexit, do they agree with the Brexit minister that their most significant piece of recent legislation in this area is fascist in nature? Indeed, this trade union act introduces excessive restrictions on the rights of workers, including arbitrary thresholds on industrial action, restrictions on pickets and restrictions on the campaign activity of trade unions. The Tories have now mandated that union ballots and what it defines as important public services are subject to a 40 per cent approval threshold. It is notable that this is a Government that won an election only last just over 80 months ago on 37 per cent of the vote. Of course, the now foreign secretary was a strong supporter of this legislation when he was mayor of London, a position that he was elected to on a 38 per cent turnout. So it begs the question, does this Government at Westminster consider itself or the office of the mayor of London to be important public services? Those new restrictions on trade union activity have been introduced to an area of law that is already highly restrictive. Before the trade union act was even passed, the European Committee of Social Rights, tasked with overseeing the European social charter, had determined that the UK had the lowest conformity with Labour rights across all of the European Union. That includes former Soviet satellite states. It is stated, and I quote, "...the possibility for workers to defend their interests through lawful collective action are excessively limited. The requirement to give notice to an employer of a ballot on industrial action is excessive and the protection of workers against unfair dismissal when taking industrial action is insufficient." On top of that, the Government at Westminster is still considering going further by lifting the ban on using agency workers to break strikes, which could only serve to undermine the fundamental right of workers to collective bargaining. I do not disagree with a single word that he has said, but we should not be too precious about what is going on in Scotland. Is he aware that, on the new Dumfries hospital, for example, the trade union UK has not been allowed on site by the contractor? On a major public infrastructure project here, that is also unacceptable. I do not agree with a word that Neil Findlay has said, and I think that our parties have both been consistent in their defence of workers' rights in Scotland in recent years. It is difficult to see how the Tories believe that workers' rights will be safeguarded and strengthened by their Westminster Government, and nothing that I have heard today has reassured me. We know that the European Union has a mixed record on workers' rights, and Neil Findlay has brought that up already. However, the achievements that we have secured at a European level face a deeply uncertain future in Brexit Britain. It is not only workers' rights that are at risk. According to an inquiry by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Tory Government has systematically violated the basic rights of people with disabilities. The UN Committee criticised the Government for ignoring its own impact assessment for seeing an adverse effect on disabled people, repeatedly refusing to conduct a cumulative impact assessment and even refusing to authorise an impartial inquiry into deaths that have occurred following welfare assessments, finding people fit for work. That goes beyond negligence. The Government at Westminster has repeatedly been warned not only by campaigners but international bodies about basic human rights violations, including people dying as a result of their policies. It is simply offensive for the Scottish Conservatives to table an amendment claiming their support for basic human rights while their colleagues at Westminster are responsible for reforms that are literally killing people. They cannot even come to this Parliament today to distance themselves from those changes. Indeed, in the past few days, Ruth Davidson has said that cuts that could see young renters and social housing lose up to a quarter of their support, dubbed the second bedroom tax, are necessary. In Scotland, we are fortunate to have some powers to mitigate those damaging policies. The first bedroom tax has been mitigated. The independent living fund replaced. We are reassured by the Scottish Government's disability delivery plan that directly responds to the findings of the UN Committee, and we hope that everything possible will be done to prevent and undo the harm caused by Tory Government policies in this area. It is certainly an area where the progressive parties of this Parliament will prove a far more effective opposition than the Conservatives. We appreciate that the Scottish Government having worked with us when research by the Scottish Greens found that 13,000 sanctions a year could be prevented with the devolution of new powers, but we cannot be complacent and we cannot pat ourselves on the back. So much more needs to be done. Can the Scottish Conservatives give us their assurance that they will respect their own amendment and publicly call on their colleagues at Westminster to stop their regressive, damaging welfare reforms? As the Tory amendment notes, the European Union and the ECHR are indeed distinct organisations. Leaving one does not entail leaving the other, which is why we are dismayed to hear that Theresa May plans to campaign to receive a mandate to leave the ECHR as well. Its domestic implementation in the human rights act has been directly responsible for or underpins many rights and freedoms that we enjoy today, whether it is ensuring that employers must respect the wearing of symbols of one's faith, ensuring that disabled people have a say in their care arrangements, or that newspapers, that journalists have the freedom to report on legal cases if it is in the public interest. What is it about those cases that the Conservatives dislike so much? Is their opposition to the ECHR even based on fact, or will they be reduced to once again making up stories about cats, as the now Prime Minister did in her role as Home Secretary? Yet again, this Parliament has to entertain Tory hypocrisy and diversion, and I trust that we will reject it before the end of the day. The movement for European unity must be a positive force, deriving its strength from our sense of common spiritual values. It is a dynamic expression of democratic faith based upon moral conceptions and inspired by a sense of mission. In the centre of our movement stands the idea of a charter of human rights guarded by freedom and sustained by law. Winston Churchill, the Congress of Europe, 1948, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1941. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights and keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose. The issue of human rights is hardly a new one. It would be selfish, wrong for us to turn our back on hard-won expression of shared values and duties that Governments owe to those in whose interests they serve. It would be selfish, wrong to turn our back on international treaties. We would certainly undermine their value and their applicability and the respect that they have by restyling from signatures. Rights without law, law without enforceability, enforcement means no rights. The debate today that is about leaving the European Union is about our rights is, of course, an important debate. It is one that we can have in this Parliament, but it seems reluctant to have in the Parliament, which also purports to represent us further south. A little bit of the history of how we got to where we are. I, like a couple of others in the room this afternoon, was born and brought up in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. None of us were old enough to have any direct experience or real memory of it, but we certainly were close to its effects. We did not smell in our nostrils the putrefaction of dead human corpses across Europe. We did not hear the booming of the guns, the clashing of explosions, but we are lucky that we were born after that war into a world determined to step away from the economic and social chaos that authoritarian regimes brought us, and, in particular, the desolation that came from the Holocaust. I was old enough to remember on the brain's trust on Sundays, watching Jakob Bronoski, who was a Jew who escaped from the horrors of the Holocaust and came to the UK to seek refuge. The UK is along an honourable tradition of providing refuge to people from across the world, which the present Tory Government would appear to want to put under threat. Jakob Bronoski—I referred to it before in the previous debate—had, for me, the most moving piece of television in his series, The Ascent of Man. He is standing at a concentration camp in Poland, and he leans forward to pick up some mud from a puddle. He looks at the mud in his hand and, with a slow move to camera, he says, that these are my relatives, because his relatives all died in the concentration camps. If we wonder why human rights matter to us, we only need to think of what the denial of human rights in Nazi Germany and the attrition against an entire community caused for those people and for all of us. There were hundreds of innocent, terrified people being herded into the gas chambers. Today, we can barely imagine that such a thing would happen. If, as Gordon Lindhurst would have us do, we reduced human rights not to capital H, capital R, but small H and small R, we are on the first step of a long road that I accept in a relatively democratic country. The UK is not fully democratic because the majority of our legislators are not elected. I will come in a moment, but it is a dangerous step away. As Edmund Burke said, laws like houses lean upon one another and take away a critical part of the structure and threaten the whole structure. Does Stuart Stevenson accept the historical fact that the atrocities that he refers to that took place in the concentration camps and so forth happened under the auspices of the Government that were elected under a constitutional framework that included the Weimar constitution, which was set out to guarantee rights and freedoms? Therefore, that is not the issue at debate here. Stuart Stevenson On the country, I suspect that Gordon Lindhurst inadvertently has just made my point for me that democracies and structures are not good enough. As Edmund Burke said in the 18th century, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. We are the good men and women who will not stand by to see our human rights encapsulated in the laws of this country, deconstructed by the mindless vizygoths that reside on the part of the chamber over there. I have only my history as anoteded act to allow me an excuse for my ignorance. I do not know what excuse the Tories have for theirs. Mr Stevenson, I may be slightly incapacitated due to a back problem, but I am very glad to be here today to participate in this debate. The vote to leave the European Union was not a vote to water down or undermine the fundamental rights and freedoms that we in this country are proud to defend. The UK Government has been absolutely clear that it is committed to ensuring that those rights are protected and maintained. The great repeal bill will enshrine all those current EU laws in British law, and therefore all rights and protections are currently come in together during that. The only thing that will change is that, once we leave the EU, the sovereign British Parliament will have democratic oversight of the laws that we will see in British courts, not courts in Luxembourg, enforce our legislation. To that end, Theresa May has guaranteed that all workers' rights will be upheld and that her administration is committed to strengthening those rights. The Prime Minister has ordered a review into workers' rights, which will particularly focus on more modern, flexible working, especially for those individuals who are self-employed, or others who want to work flexibly, and that is their wish. The Scottish Nationalist Party's motion today is just another example of their posturing over Brexit. Not so long ago, the SNP sought to weaken and undermine one of the essential pillars of any democracy—the right of a fair trial—by attempting to abolish the practice of co-operation, which sets out the very heart of the Scottish judicial system. The policy was criticised by many organisations in civic Scotland. Co-operation helps to guard the public against miscarriages of justice shortly, and its abolition would have had serious consequences, particularly for individuals who work with individuals on a one-to-one basis, from whom such a challenge may have led to an increase in the number of inappropriate prosecutions. I will take the intervention. I wonder whether the member could give us his view of the English legal system, which, of course, lacks that same provision of co-operation. Alexander Stewart? I believe that we have a different jury system in the situation, but I take on board what you say, but at the same time, you appear attempted to do that, and you have to stand up and recognise that. You cannot hide from it. In 2015, Lord McCluskey, a former solicitor general in Scotland, observed that the way in which the Scottish Government has gone about trying to impose the change has rung alarm bells across many sectors in Scotland. The approach to the issue has, sadly, proved to be indicative of its style of government. I would also like to address the issue of the European Convention on Human Rights, which, as has been mentioned, is a fundamentally separate institution to the European Union, and that our leaving the EU does not automatically mean that we will leave ECHR. Any such decision seems to be something that will be considered post Brexit. I do think that it is implicit in the defence of the nationalists and others from the left of the political spectrum, where they mention and criticised where we are. There is an assumption that Britain is somehow not responsible enough to be trusted with the human rights of our own citizens. That suggestion strikes me as utterly ludicrous. Would it not be fair to say that sometimes Governments of all shades and opinions are irresponsible? This Parliament had to legislate based on the convention to allow every citizen the right to have a lawyer present, and that was based on the convention of ships. Sometimes we do get things wrong, Alexander Stewart. We have an independent judiciary. That is why it is independent, because it manages that situation. We also endlessly hear that our membership states an example to the rest of the world. It encourages other countries to have greater respect for human rights, but also that we look at the record of countries around the world. It seems difficult to seriously take that assumption. What we want to see is the strengthening of those rights, not the weakening of them. Moreover, while today's statement criticises the UK Government for not giving European Union citizens current living in Britain an unconditional leave to remain, it is the fact that the Scottish National Party is the one who has been playing politics with people's lives. As I have mentioned before in this chamber, although I think that it bears repeating given the current situation that the former SNP and the referendum campaign, the now First Minister, threatened EU nationalists' right to remain in an independent Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon said, and I quote, that there are 160,000 EU nationals from other states living in Scotland. If Scotland was outside Europe, they would lose their right to stay here. That is her quote. Theresa May has absolutely, unequivocally indicated in her commitment to guarantee the future residency of those living in the UK from the rest of the EU, so long as a reciprocal arrangement can be agreed to allow Britain's living in other parts of the European Union to continue to do so. It is the European Union leaders who have failed to accommodate those responsible and requests before we start triggering article 50. As I have said, I am glad to be here today because, in conclusion, Britain's vote to leave the European Union was not one to undermine or weaken human rights and workers' protections, but rather to see greater national democratic oversight, to see and to have decisions over the implications taken closer to home. That is what the people wanted, and that is what they will get as they support the amendment in Douglas Ross's name. Without the benefit of EU human rights legislation, there is a strong possibility that I would not be here in this chamber. It is not a stretch of imagination to say that many other women MSPs might not be here today either. EU legislation ensured that my rights as a woman, an employee and a parent are all protected. In my working life, before coming to Parliament, I was protected from employment practices that would have discriminated against me and my family in the workplace. Those rights continue to protect people in all walks of life every day to ensure that equality is maintained, discrimination is tackled and, above all, fairness is enshrined in our legal system. In the workplace, women are more likely to be in part-time work with 40 per cent of his working part-time compared with 12 per cent of men. The EU has helped part-time workers gain equal pay and benefits to bring them in line with full-time colleagues. This, like so many progressive European policies, helps us all, but benefits women and children most. EU law underpins the rights for women to get paid time off for antenatal appointments. It safeguards the rights of pregnant women in the workplace, and it also guarantees maternity leave for mothers. I not only experience those benefits as a working mother, but as a nurse, a predominantly female profession saw so many examples of other working mothers for whom time off. Pay protection meant that they could have a career and a family. The introduction of parental leave, which guarantees 18 weeks leave for parents to care for and to bond with their infant, was also a direct result of EU law. As is the right for parents and carers to take emergency leave to care for their children. Without those progressive measures, women would have remained second-class citizens in the workplace and the care of many thousands of children would have suffered. While all workers have benefited from the protections guaranteed by Europe, it is women who have doubly benefited. Women's legal protections first rose to equal that of men, and then subsequently all workers' protections have improved. In 1970, the Equal Pay Act was a landmark piece of legislation that prohibited unequal treatment of men and women in the workplace in terms of paying conditions. However, the events that made the act happen weren't exactly the forces of progressive leadership, but a reaction to hard-fought industrial action by women and ultimately by the UK's impending obligations on joining the EEC. Progressive policies and workers' rights have been hard-won in Britain, but they are often underpinned by European legislation that absolutely requires the UK to comply. Without the pressure of the obligations that the UK is required to uphold as a condition of single market membership, we should all be concerned that progressive policies on workers' rights would be a substantial risk by successive administrations in Westminster. As mentioned by Ross Greer earlier, we have already witnessed attacks on trade unions through recent legislation. We are in a period of uncertainty about the legal basis of so many of the rights that have improved the lives of everyone in this country. In fact, the repeal of the Human Rights Act, an absolutely vital piece of legislation, has already been promised by the Lord Chancellor. This act further protects the rights of people in the UK across many areas, including employment. There is no better symbol of the Tory's desire to shred the rights of ordinary working people than their commitment to repeal the Human Rights Act. It is promised replacement. The British Bill of Rights, with who knows what it will contain, is of huge concern to all of us who care deeply about the impact of the repealing of the Human Rights Act and the subsequent impact of it. However, we are clear on who will be writing this, and I have little confidence that Theresa May's Government will draft a bill that provides the same level of protections for ordinary people. Thankfully for Scotland, European convention rights are embedded in the devolution settlement, and I am certain that many in this chamber will not allow fundamental rights and freedoms to be removed at the whim of a UK Tory Government that we in Scotland did not vote for. Even if we can, for a moment, take various Conservative ministers at their word that our existing rights would not be cut back after leaving the EU. What guarantee do we have that the on-going development of rights in the continent would be matched here in the UK? The direction of travel in Europe for the rights of the individual are clear, with just one example being the EU spending nearly €6 billion in promoting gender equality between 2014 and 2020. There are repeated examples of the clear commitment to the rights of the individual that is core to the European project going back to the Treaty of Rome in 1957. Maintaining and further developing individual and workers rights will simply not be at the top of the agenda in Westminster for the foreseeable future. With the likelihood of UK Tory Governments for the next decade, who should we in Scotland trust with the protection of our rights? The Scottish Government is doing all it can to maintain connection and parity with Europe or the Brexiters who are determined to cut what they see as red tape and the rest of us see as basic human dignity. I am heartened to hear the Scottish Government's determination to either retain our rights or to ensure that this Parliament can legislate on these issues after Brexit. I think that most of the members here today will agree with me that the fundamental protections underwritten by Europe have been overwhelmingly positive, both for workers and women. I am wholeheartedly in support of the motion for the detention of the hard-won rights of the people of Scotland. I take the opportunity to wish you a happy new year and to all of our colleagues. I start with the declaration of my interests that, before I came to this place, I was convener of the Scottish Alliance for Children's Rights. I also sat on the Scottish National Action Plan on Human Rights Leadership panel. I spent much of my career steeped in the events of human rights in this country. Unlike the Conservatives, I welcome this debate. It is a very important one and the contributions that have come forth so far. It is the first debate since the Scottish Government announced its approach to the Brexit discussions and negotiations. Although the Scottish Government and my party differ manifestly, particularly on the potential of another independence referendum, I was heartened to hear the First Minister describe on Andrew Marr that her first priority would be to keep the UK in the EU, if that were possible. It was why I was keen to intervene on the cabinet secretary. I am grateful for that intervention as to whether the Scottish Government would support Liberal Democrat calls for a deal on the final terms of article 50 negotiations. Our amendment called for that, and I do not think that it is incompatible with anything in its stated approach. I hope that the Brexit Minister, when he sums up the debate, will explore that a little further and give us assurances that the SNP will support us in that regard. On 24 June, I will ask Ross Greer. Ross Greer, please. I thank Mr Cole-Hamilton for taking that intervention. I have much sympathy for the argument that there should be a referendum on the terms of Brexit, but would Alex Cole-Hamilton and the Scottish Liberal Democrats consider it acceptable if there was a second referendum, which resulted in the same outcome? Scotland voting one way and the rest of the UK voting another, and us having to leave the European Union despite having them voted twice to stay in. Mr Cole-Hamilton. I thank Ross Greer for his intervention. The fundamental principles of being an internationalist are that you embrace political unions with other countries wherever you find them. If that were the case, it would not mean that my next recourse would be to Jettison, the other political union that I hold dear. I would spend the rest of my political life fighting for closer integration with the EU. On 24 June, we saw etched on the faces of so many leave voters an incredible buyer's regret as the leave campaign and the leave case evaporated around them. We accept that the Liberal Democrats, the people, voted for a departure, but they have not yet voted for a destination to their credit. The SNP in the 2014 referendum produced a white paper delineating what an independent Scotland would look like, but we saw no such prospectus from the leave campaign and we saw pledges jettisoned within hours of that result. Since then, we have seen pension funds collapse. We have seen the value of the pound-nose dive and with it the rise in cost of living. While the original Brexit years have largely quit the field, we see alarms and warning lights tripped and triggered in every aspect of our economic outlook. The experts that we were told to ignore by Michael Gove are back and they look terrified. Although it is not hugely surprising that the leave campaign had no discernible plan as to what to do in the event of their success, it is profoundly terrifying that its Conservative Party Central office did not seem to have one either. If the international future of these islands is to be determined on the back of a napkin at checkers, then without question the people we all serve should have the right to a final say on what that future should be. Very people expected the hard Brexit. Many leave voters, known to you and known to me, did not expect the hard Brexit that lied before us. Had we narrowly switched things the other way, had we narrowly edged a victory for remain? That story government is now actively seeking a hard remain— Excuse me a minute, Mr Cole-Hamilton. Interesting though it is, have you mentioned human rights, so I missed this. I mentioned them at the start. I'm just coming on to them. Coming on to them again, that's kind. Absolutely. It's all tied together very neatly. If we were now looking at a hard remain with immediate entry to the Euro and to the European Army and Schengen, there would be open rebellion within the ranks of the leave campaign. The resultant calamity that we have seen since Brexit can only be resolved with the endorsement of the electorate who put this in process in the first place. My first speech to this place was one in support of continuing membership of the EU because of the rights that it enshrines in this country. Like the very excellent speeches that we've heard from people like Clare Haughey and Ross Greer, it is not just about our human rights, it's about our working rights, it's about our personal rights as well. I made reference to the fact that, in many ways, the founding treaties of this community were an answer to centuries of conflict on this continent. I still think it a measure of the success of this project that I am only the second generation in the recorded history of my entire family never have to face a war with our European neighbours. There's not only warfare that this European project stood to answer, but there's internment, forced labour and genocide. With it, conventions and treaties enshrine our rights and freedoms. The epicentre of this is the Treaty of Rome in 1957. The free movement of goods, people, capital and services is the most important charter for freedom that our world has ever seen. Over decades, multitudes of the dispossessed and persecuted have flocked to the shores of this great continent in search of the protections that those treaties and conventions afford to their human rights, protections that they are denied in their homelands. It stands as a beacon of hope and safety for many people in our troubled world today. Whilst we withdraw from Brexit, only the charter for fundamental rights will be the first casualty of it, to withdraw from any rights institution is to diminish us as a nation, but so, too, does our reluctance here to enshrine the international treaties into Scotland's law that we are still missing. I have spoken many times in this chamber about our failure to incorporate the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scotland's law. By doing so, we deny every child growing up in Scotland access to justice through the courts should their rights be so impinged. I was very interested to hear Mike Russell's intervention earlier, to which he said that we would be seeking to incorporate principles like those in the UNCRC. I hope that, in his remarks at the end, he will confirm that he intends to incorporate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scotland's law. As Alex Rowley said, the Scottish Human Rights Commission advised that the best way to counter any threat to the treaties and freedoms that we enjoy is to look inwardly at the steps that we can take within the competence of this place to improve the rights of our citizenry through the existing powers that are available to us. That is why the Liberal Democrats will support their Government today, but we will reject the Tory motion. I thank you very much. It is right that we restate our commitment to human dignity and to acting at all times to respect, protect and promote human rights. Human rights set up and its relationship with Brexit is complex. Brexit will lead to leaving the EU, so we will not be signed up to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Until and unless we decide otherwise, the European Convention on Human Rights will still be applicable through our membership of the Council of Europe and the Human Rights Act. It is not clear what the impact of Brexit will be on equalities and human rights or what Brexit negotiations will mean for those protections. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union includes a broad range of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. If the charter no longer applies in the UK as a result of Brexit and no changes are made to compensate, there will be fewer human rights limits on both the UK and Scottish parliaments. According to what we know now, the great repeal bill is meant to repeal the European Communities Act 1972. However, the Scottish Government has said in answer to parliamentary questions that it has not yet received any information regarding the great repeal bill. I would say that it should use its meetings of the joint ministerial committee to clarify the protections that will be transferred to UK law. Human Rights, the UK act, the EU charter or the European convention, underline the protection that everyone in Scotland rightly deserves as citizens. Human rights are regularly portrayed as a negative problem caused by Europe. They are consistently the focus of right-wing press misinformation since Labour's Human Rights Act was enacted. We are committed to standing up for people's rights. That is why we brought in the human rights act and why we have consistently pledged to fight against any attempt to water down the protection that it brings. The human rights act brings home our rights, given our most vulnerable citizens a powerful means of redress in protecting us all against the misuse of state power. The European convention on human rights is not something imposed from abroad. It was drawn up by our lawyers, drawn up on Earth philosophy to set international standards of respect for common humanity after the Second World War. Our voice in the world is a reflection not only of the size of our economy but also of the moral leadership that we demonstrate on human rights. We must continue to urge others to respect the rule of law and the freedoms and rights that every human being is entitled to. The Scottish place in the UK and the EU was put at risk because of the Tory's reckless Brexit gamble. In doing so, the Tories have been willing to put the future of the UK in danger at every turn, and it is high time that they shouldered responsibility for that. Now, because of Brexit, human rights are at risk because of them. However, the Tories are not just content with leaving the EU, they have threatened to scrap the human rights act for years. They promised to in the 2005 general election campaign again in 2010 and failed to commit to protect human rights in May. We committed to protect the act and seek to right their wrong for the people that denied the basic human right to work by delivering a full inquiry into the practice of blacklisting. The Scottish Government said that it would oppose repeal of the human rights act and refuse to consent to its abolition and embed Scotland's national action plan on human rights and the sustainable development goals into the national performance framework. The action plan's most recent progress report called for fundamental steps to enshrine human rights laws into domestic law, noting that that should be done increasingly by 2020. In particular, that focus needs to be underpinned in the social security bill, building out the idea that the system will be built on the principles of dignity and respect. That argument that Sandra White makes on not just protecting human rights but also enhancing them. The Scottish Human Rights Commission, in a powerful paper on creating a fairer Scotland, said that tackling poverty has to be done with a human rights-based approach. The arguments in that paper are compelling and give meaning to what are complex, abstract legal mechanisms. When key legislation is lodged in Parliament this year—in particular, the child poverty bill and social security bill—it is highly likely that we will revisit those themes so that we can best secure and enhance civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights for people in Scotland. It is clear that, in the coming months, Parliament will consider how it instills the dignity and respect that the Government has promised. Considering that human rights-based approach will be an opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to ingrain protections and future laws and, in doing so, will allow us to restrate our commitment to human dignity and to acting at all times to respect, protect and promote human lives. I do not know how others feel, but in recent times I have never felt such a deep sense of responsibility and such a strong sense of compulsion to stand up for protecting and promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms here in Scotland, on this island, around this continent and throughout the world. That is why today's debate is so important. Progressive values are under attack in Europe. Liberty is being challenged around the globe. Equality is being questioned. Narrow forces of prejudice and discrimination are playing on fear and economic injustice and austerity to further their own regressive interests, and they are gaining worrying and dangerous traction, whether in the streets or in social media or at the ballot box. The point has been made earlier today that membership of the EU and participation in the European Convention on Human Rights are distinct. That is true and significant, but what is also true and significant is that the entities are profoundly connected. What is also true and significant is that Brexit, which Scotland did not vote for, and the Tory UK Government's determination to needlessly scrap the Human Rights Act, is a proposal that Scotland also did not vote for. The truth is that, when implemented, those two measures will be seriously damaging blows for the protection and promotion of human rights and social protections both on this island and beyond. As measures, they will signify a step backwards on a journey and a step away from our fellow men and women. I am very proud to say that I am an internationalist. Like many others, first and foremost, I believe that we are all citizens of the world. Our characteristics may be remarkably diverse, but our core humanity is the same. That is what is inspiring about human rights, conceptually, morally and legally. It is that notion of our shared rights that binds our stories. It articulates our universal bonds. It enshrines our equality. It protects the rights of all with our friends or enemies in a true spirit of democracy. From Thomas Paine's The Rights of Man to the American Constitution, from Anthony Eden's signature on the European Convention on Human Rights in 1950 to the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998, to the creation of this, our Scottish Parliament in 1999, the protection and promotion of human rights has been a long road forward. So why would we want to turn back now, especially when there is so much negativity already challenging the progressive liberal values that took so many generations to gain? Repealing the human rights act would be both wrong and wrong-headed. With Brexit already fanning the flames of regression elsewhere, what message would it send to our fellow men and women struggling to defend their human rights in other countries if the UK, a country that helped to draft the European Convention on Human Rights, took the retrograde step of repealing the implementation of these fundamental freedoms into our domestic law? The question today is not whether we should protect and promote human rights. It is not just that question. Who is going to make that stand? Joanna Cherry MP, who has been leading brilliantly on the issues at Westminster, has previously asked Prime Minister Theresa May not to bow to Tory pressure from backbenchers to scrap the Human Rights Act. In that same spirit, today I ask the Scottish Tories in good faith not to bow to Theresa May on proposals to scrap the Human Rights Act and to challenge her if she is indeed planning on running a 2020 election campaign on the basis of withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights. The UK Government's proposal to replace the Human Rights Act to repeal this internationalist outward-looking, progressive, important piece of modern legislation and replace it with a potential so-called British Bill of Rights is inward-looking and reckless. We will be a momentous step backwards for this island and for all those in harsher parts of the world who look to us for democratic leadership and inspiration in their struggles for equality and justice. I hope that the Scottish Tories will have the wisdom and good sense to oppose proposals to scrap the Human Rights Act and to replace it with a British Bill of Rights and to oppose any measures to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, because such moves would be deeply insular, damagingly separatist, irresponsible and a profoundly misguided example of narrow British nationalism. Now is the time to stand up for human rights and other fundamental freedoms and social protections, and I urge all who believe in them to do so with passion and intent, support the Scottish Government's motion. Colin Liam Kerr, to be followed by George Adam. There should be contentious debate. It is right that this Parliament restates its commitment to human dignity and to acting at all times to respect, protect and promote human rights, and reiterates the importance of freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law. However, I am less persuaded in the merits of a motion running to 267 highly charged, often polarising words where a simple statement as I quoted above would have been an appropriate statement of intention on human rights. It would be foolish and misleading to generate an argument that somehow the protection and promotion of human rights is jeopardised as a function of the people of the UK's decision to leave the EU. Yet that is what is risked by drafting such an extensive missive, the risk of misinterpretation and misunderstanding. The UK is leaving the European Union, but that does not mean that the UK is leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. It does not mean that human rights in this country will, by default, be reduced or, in some way, disintegrate. The recognition of fundamental human rights in the United Kingdom predated EU membership and it will post-date EU membership. Christina McKelvie is right. The United Kingdom was one of the first to sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights to enshrine rights such as freedom of expression and right to a fair trial across the continent and established the European Court of Human Rights. It is entirely separate from the European Union. Brexit will have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the ability in the United Kingdom to enforce convention rights or privileges in the UK. I generally prefer to listen to history lessons from Stuart Stevenson. That sentence is not entirely accurate, but here by way of reassurance are some key dates regarding human rights on these islands. 1215, the Magna Carta, 1688 in England and 1701 in Scotland, habeas corpus, 1689, the Scottish claim of rights, 1832 reform act, 1833 factory acts, 1918 representation of the people act, 1948 universal declaration of human rights. I did wonder if I would get one, Stuart Stevenson. Interesting that the member omitted 1320 and the letter that the Scottish nobles sent to the Pope to protect the rights of the people in Scotland. I thank Stuart Stevenson for the addition to my list of human rights that this country has recognised over a considerable time. My point is this, we must avoid the conflation of the democratic decision of the people of the United Kingdom to vote to leave with fears that, by handing back control to a democratically elected sovereign Parliament in Westminster from an unelected and unaccountable European Commission in Brussels, there will be some dilution for human rights in the United Kingdom. Let me reassure Ross Greer and Claire Hoche and point them to our amendment, which recognises the numerous assurances that workers' rights will be safeguarded and strengthened. Briefly, Christina McKelvie. Liam Kerr says that we are not withdrawn from the ECHR. Is he saying that I shouldn't believe that the organ of truth, the telegraph when they published the other day that Theresa May said that she was going to put withdrawal from the ECHR as one of her first proposals on Brexit? I thank Christina McKelvie for that intervention. What we are talking about here is pulling the UK out of the EU in accordance with the democratic decision of the people of the United Kingdom. It is to fundamentally misunderstand the debate to start talking about pulling us out of the ECHR. To argue otherwise is to misunderstand how European law ports into domestic law or to prefer the control of European legislature operating under a democratic deficit to the law of a democratically elected UK government. Many of the protections under EU law have already been implemented into UK domestic law by legislation. Those laws themselves would have to be repealed or amended, otherwise any rights conferred by them would continue to apply. Not my words, those of inclusion Scotland. As Professor Murray Hunt of Oxford University has said, human rights discourse is everywhere bedevilled by a permanent crisis of democratic legitimacy. I am sure that no one seriously thinks that by increasing the democratic legitimacy of those who make our laws, you diminish people's human rights. The democratically elected UK Parliament will have the power to amend and improve any law that it chooses. If the people do not like what is proposed by their government, they will vote them out. That is democracy. I am afraid not, Stuart Stevenson. As Douglas Ross said, this Parliament has spent four times as much time on the EU referendum than on education. We would be far better focusing parliamentary time, not on overarching statements on who has the most concern for human rights, but on the practical difficulty of protecting, promoting and legislating for them. The cabinet secretary referenced private life in article 8 in the opening, only last year the Scottish Government breached that on the name person scheme. Only following pressure from amongst others the Scottish Conservatives, the SNP Government U turned on plans to abolish corroboration. Douglas Ross talked about stop and search of children. We cannot forget that, in 2014, Nicola Sturgeon threatened to strip EU nationals of their right to remain in an independent Scotland. It is clear to me that human rights are inaliable and irrevocable. We stand here today proud of the history of this nation and its history defending the rights, not only of its subjects, but of people all over the world. Our amendment makes clear that the UK Government is determined to not only protect but enhance the rights of British workers. That is why the chamber should give serious consideration to whether it could support an unamended Scottish Government motion today. The human rights of the people of this country are safe now, as they have been for centuries, and I commend the Scottish Conservative amendment to the chamber. Colin George Adam, and then we will move into closing speeches. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and you stay here long enough in this place. You will hear just about everything from the Tory benches, but this debate is subtitled Protecting and Promoting Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Those rights and freedoms are under threat should the Tory Westminster Government get its desired hard Brexit. I will explain to Conservative members why Scotland's place in Europe is so important. That is one of the many reasons a hard Tory Brexit could cost Scotland 80,000 jobs. 80,000 jobs would be a further 80,000 Scots pushed into poverty by an uncaring Conservative party. The Tory members in this debate are clearly not of this world, nor do they appear to be aware of the challenges that our communities face. That is the party that gave us the so-called Westminster welfare reforms, where they have victimised people throughout our nation, particularly disabled people. The Tory attack on our disabled has been such that a UN report published in the 7 November described the austerity policies introduced into the welfare and social care by UK Government as amounting to systematic violations of the rights of people with disabilities. The report stated that there is reliable evidence that the threshold of grave or systematic violations of the rights of persons with disability has been met in the state party. The impact of several measures has disproportionately and adversely affected the rights of persons with disabilities. However, this Conservative Government refuses to accept this and tries to defend its position. It said that, while the Government continues to improve and build on its support available to disabled people, it stands by its proud and is proud of its record. Proud of a record that is bringing misery to many families living with disability, proud of the record that, on more than one occasion, has made some disabled people reach such a low point in their life and end up in such a really dark place that they could see no light and consider taking their own life and, in some cases, they have. They are proud of that record and then they ask us to trust them with protecting our communities with human rights post-Brexit. Are the Conservatives having a laugh? So arrogant and so distant from the realities of life, they cannot see the irony of that. Perhaps it is just the case that they do not care. I, for one, will continue to stand up for the rights of disabled people in Scotland and will not allow Westminster bully boy mentality to get in the way. Following the results of the EU referendum, the poverty alliance expressed a fear that the outcome would potentially weaken the bonds of solidarity that are necessary for tackling poverty. They said that Alex Rowley has already mentioned us, but he deserves to be mentioned again. Tackling poverty and seeking social justice is ultimately about solidarity. Whether that solidarity is expressed at the community level, within a country or at international level, is the bedrock of what is needed for a better society. We need to ensure that we stay focused on the important people in this debate, and that is the people that we represent. Ensuring that we can get the best possible deal for them, they will provide the type of opportunities that our communities yearn for. That is not a hard Brexit with a weak Tory Westminster Government obsessed with immigration because of a fear of Tory extremists on the right of their party. At times like this, we must keep an eye on the prize. As the First Minister has articulated on Sunday's Andrew Martial, do not disregard Scotland because it is not acceptable to do so. It is now time to prove that how you respond to sensible compromise consensus proposals that the Scottish Government has put forward will tell us much. Possibly everything we need to know about whether Scotland really is an equal partner. Our First Minister asks a very simple question of Theresa May. Is Scotland an equal partner and will we be treated as one? There has been promise of full engagement for Scotland before any further actions are taken, but this does not happen in reality. The Scottish Government's proposals, published in Scotland's Place in Europe, is a sensible compromise consensus proposal that sets out how to mitigate the worst damage of Brexit by keeping Scotland in the single market and transferring substantial powers from Westminster to Scotland. The ball is now firmly in the Tory Government's court. It must show some strength and resolve and look to the paper as a way forward. Will it be difficult to achieve many of the points in Scotland's Place in Europe? Probably, but the important things in life are seldom easy. If we believe in the common values in which the EU and the Council of Europe were funded on, then we must fight for those rights. Westminster shows no interest in Scotland or the rights of Scots. As the cabinet secretary Angela Constance mentioned in her opening remarks, she was echoed by Alex Rowley. What about the rights of 181,000 non-UK EU nationals living in Scotland, bringing new skills and expertise and helping to underpin future productivity and growth? All those European citizens, as well as those living in other parts of the UK, should be given an insurance by the UK Government without any further delay as their residency status here is secure. Those people are part of our communities, our friends and our neighbours. No matter how Douglas Ross tries to spin Theresa May's position, she has not offered those members of our community anything. No promises and little hope is all they have had from Theresa May. Where is the commitment from the UK Government on their future rights? As I said previously, we are dealing with the important issues in life and seldom is that easy. However, we must be up for this challenge. The Scottish Government has shown that it is willing to work in compromise to ensure that we retain the levels of access to Europe that we need. It is up to us to ensure that we can provide the type of values and support that Scotland believes in and not listen to the right-wing extremists from the Westminster UK Government. Thank you. We now move to closing speeches and I call on Polly McNeill to close with the Labour Party and you have eight minutes. Britain's had a long history of protecting human rights and contributing to international jurisprudence. As Baird McPherson eloquently said, Britain was the first signature and a key player in the European convention of human rights. However, in fact, Britain and Scotland have legislated to protect the rights of women in the Equal Pay Act and the rights of same-set couples to marry. We have done that without reference to the European convention on human rights. However, if anyone believes that it was not because of the constant challenges and decisions made in the European Court, the body of jurisprudence and international law providing the backdrop for that, I think that they are very much mistaken. Governments, as I said earlier in my intervention, do not always act in the best interests of people. This Parliament had to legislate for the basic rights of a citizen to have a lawyer present when they are being questioned by the police, and it was a decision of a seven-junge bench in Scotland that was overturned by the Supreme Court, rightly in my opinion, but using the reference of the European convention on human rights. Liam Kerr is not persuaded by the Government motion, but I would point out to the chamber that the Tory amendment deletes virtually most of the Government motion. It talks about the universal importance of human rights, as if everyone else is in agreement with what you say. It is pretty obvious to me that, by its very nature, if it is universal of universal importance, by its very nature it has to be the collective experience of countries internationally that creates an international obligation and not an isolated one. I do not believe that you could provide the same level of protection to human beings if we come out of the European convention on human rights. Labour is committed to standing up for it, that is why we brought it in and we will fight and any attempt to water it down. It may be that the Government has, perhaps on that one point I will agree with, is that they should use more of their time to let us concentrate on the other issues that we want to question them on, on education and so on. However, there is some unfinished business in relation to human rights in this debate. The only sentiment in the amendment that I can really agree with is that ACHR is a distinct legal structure from the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is true to say that many people commonly get them confused, so it is leaving the EU that means that we leave the Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, I think that there is a bit of confusion created by the Tory position itself, because in fact it is the Conservatives who have announced the intention to leave the European convention on human rights. Perhaps that may be where the confusion is coming from and replace it with a Bill of Rights. The convention is an entirely sensible statement of principles that should be underpinned in any modern democratic nation. That is a statement from Chris Grayling, the minister, who has the opening forward statement in the first document where the Conservatives say that they intend to break in a human rights bill. We have heard nothing since. We have had no detail. We have had no debate about how a Bill of Rights would operate. Has it not struck anyone who is arguing for this, but whether it is a Bill of Rights or a convention, you have to create a body of law underpinned by the basic universal principles of human rights. I suggest that you might be back to where you started and perhaps you might as well remain in the convention of human rights. The UK Government and the Tory benches are confused about the question of sovereignty, which they argue. The Human Rights Act requires courts to take into account the judgments of the European Court on human rights. As the Supreme Court says in its website, it confirms this, where it says that it is open to any domestic court to decline to follow the Strasbourg decision, given reasons, so our sovereignty is not compromised. Before the Human Rights Act, it was not possible for any individual in the UK to challenge a decision of a public authority on the grounds that it violated their rights under the convention. As Neil Findlay alluded to, there are many ordinary citizens who had to go directly to the European Court. Not an easy thing to do. It takes a very long time, and that is why Labour incorporated it into domestic law. I do not need to go on about the many rights that have been established, rights for people with disability, pension inequality, the dignity of older people and LGBT rights. All of that is at stake if we meddle with this convention. However, to turn to the issue contained in the motion relating to EU law and the implications of the UK and Scotland leaving the European Union. Like many other speakers, EU residents living in Scotland are morally entitled, I would argue, to illegal entitlement from the UK Government. I really do not know what is holding the UK Government back. If you are saying that it is not being used as a bargaining chip, that is the only other reason that you could be holding back. It makes Britain look weak and it makes Britain look insular. For Theresa May, it is not simply to say that if you are an EU citizen and you have chosen to make Scotland or Britain for that matter your home, we will enshrine your right to stay here in law the very same way that she said that she will adopt EU law into British law. I do not see what the difference really is. We live in uncertain times, not just because we have made the decision to leave the European Union, which we have known, but as others have said, compounded by the global situation, the conflict in Syria and so on, and the economic uncertainty. We have had few answers provided so far on any substantial matters on Brexit—immigration, freedom of movement, the position of Northern Ireland in relation to the Republic and membership of trade agreements. There will be an impact on individuals and their rights and protections when we finally will leave and we wait to see what the outcome of that will be as it unravels. However, it is not to say that there are not opportunities as we have already made the decision to leave the European Union. As Alex Rowley has said, it gives an opportunity, if it is taken, to strengthen workers' rights. I have heard many of the speakers on the Opposite Benjans talk about how the Tory Government has plans to improve workers' rights, and I would like to hear more on that, but I have followed the question of employment rights since I was a trade union official before coming to this Parliament. I have never known the Tory party ever to strengthen the rights of workers, but, again, I think that there are many things that could be repatriated if I have time. Does the member not accept that a vast body of employment legislation in the UK has been gold-plated by the Westminster Government, and so actually the Government does look after workers? If the member believes what he says, how about gold-plating the rights of workers when they are transferred to a new employer to give them gold-plated redundancy? How about when they move from one employer to a new employer, how about gold-plating their pension rights? Are you up for that? That is the kind of gold-plating that I am interested in. Neil Findlay is quite correct. Human rights and the enforcement of them are about the lives of ordinary people in their lives, the right to challenge power made by Governments who make decisions on their behalf. The right to work is a fundamental right, and the fundamental right to be protected in that. I do not really know what a Bill of Rights looks like, and I would like to hear more because we have not really heard anything. However, we must remember that enforcing human rights can be on any matter affecting any one of us who believe that rules or laws have discriminated against them or worked against them. It could be any one of us, it could be any one of our families. Labour will fight alongside all parties and all organisations, and indeed individuals, who believe in the convention of human rights and human rights itself. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Oliver Mundell, to wind up for the Conservative Party. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have genuinely enjoyed this afternoon's debate, if for no other reason than hearing Christina McKelvie talk up by Britain and shower Winston Churchill in praise. Just before we are finished with Winston Churchill, all I would say to Stuart Stevenson is that I might be a busy something, but he is no Winston Churchill. I would have genuinely welcomed the opportunity more generally to close today's debate if I thought that it was going to be a genuine attempt to strengthen our nation's very proud history of human rights. Like Ben Macpherson, I share a passion to stand up for rights. I am looking forward across the rest of this parliamentary term to be pushing forward on things like the TIE campaign to be working with other members to highlight some of the concerns that Enable has brought forward. I would say to him that, whilst there are legitimate challenges for us around holding our Government to account in Westminster, there are real questions for the Scottish Government on how it is going to take forward rights here in Scotland. I think that the last intervention that we heard from George Adam gave away the nature of today's debate, because, as ever for the SNP, that is not about the topic that is down or listed in the motion. Instead, it is another veiled and crude attempt to lay a trap for those of us on our benches. That, of course, is politics, and I can accept that. It probably now amounts to a compliment, the amount of time that the SNP and the Scottish Government choose to dedicate to attacking our party rather than getting on with the day job. However, what I can overlook and what I think is quite poor in my opinion from ministers that I have a lot of time and respect for is the desire, or impression, deliberate or accidental to try and conflate leaving the European Union with the future implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights. That was indeed a point that seemed to catch Alex Cole Hamilton out, because the truth is that the two are distinct. Indeed, as the Law Society of Scotland reminded us, the EU is not a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, and it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. Furthermore, it goes on to say that, following the UK's exit from the EU, the ECHR would still apply and the UK would still be bound to it—a point that was well made by my colleague Gordon Lindhurst. Absolutely right. Many people are confused by the difference between the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights, but why make the point if it is the intention of the UK Government to come out of it anyway? I am not aware of it being the intention of the UK Government. I think that what has been reported by the telegraph, which I would add does not speak on behalf of the Government, is that it is certainly not here in Scotland, and I would remind SNP colleagues that we are here in Scotland. On a serious note, I think that that is an idea that has been floated. It has not been confirmed or put forward in any definite sense whatsoever, and I think that, pretty fairly, the UK Government is quite busy at the moment working towards an orderly Brexit that will protect EU nationals' rights to stay in the UK, and I think that it is quite legitimate within that context. Theresa May has made her own views on that very clear, that we try to come to a suitable arrangement that ensures not just the human rights of EU citizens who are already resident here, but the human rights of British citizens who are living elsewhere in Europe. I think that we should be aiming for that parity, and, obviously, it is going to be difficult to do that at a point at which not only is it the UK Government that does not want to make its negotiating position clear, but also the other member states who are reserving judgment on those matters. To me, that begs the question of motive, and I think that there is at least a perception that the SNP is trying to whip up concern around Brexit. I do not say that this debate is necessarily entirely part of that, because there are legitimate questions, but I think that mixing the two issues together does not... Mr Mundell earlier quoted the submission and evidence from the Law Society of Scotland, which says that the UK's exit from the EU is arguably the most significant constitutional development to affect the UK since 1945. Surely it is highly appropriate for us to be debating the consequences of Brexit in this Parliament, and given that the telegraph apparently does not speak for the Conservatives here in Scotland, I wonder if Mr Mundell would give his commitment to opposing any moves to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. I am certainly in no hurry to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, and if people want to intervene, they are welcome to stand up. I notice that Mr Cole-Hamilton was absent earlier in the debate when I mentioned the fact that he seemed to have got confused between leaving the EU and leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. I am vastly and very quickly running out of time, so what I would like to do is pose a couple of the more tricky questions that arise out of the balancing act that comes with being part of the EHCR. I think that there are questions for the Scottish Government about their own position, and here in Scotland, just as across the rest of the United Kingdom, we must be open and honest enough to admit that it does great a little when our own democratic decisions are curtailed or brought into question by the common observance that the European Convention on Human Rights requires. We ourselves in this very Parliament have seen it both with the recent name persons legislation and minimum pricing on alcohol. I think that there is a little bit of hypocrisy from some of the SNP benches, because let me remind them that it was not anyone on this side of the chamber who called the UK Supreme Court's decision to uphold the EHCR disappointing, and it was not anyone in my party at Westminster who accused the court of blocking the Scottish Government. No, that was one of their own SNP colleagues, and that's just the beginning, because take prisoner voting, for example, where today's rhetoric and the SNP's thinking, if I'm to put it mildly, seems muddled, when former Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's hit the nail on the head, when he said that shamefully the Scottish Government has so far refused to adhere to the spirit and judgments of the European courts. Worse still, and here we get to the Rotting Court, he tells us that initially the SNP Government hid behind the franchise for the independence referendum being reserved to Westminster and that it was the wrong thing, albeit done for the right reasons. It was to avoid any needless distractions in the run up to, you guessed it, the referendum to deny the right-wing press lured headlines that could tarnish the bigger picture. I don't want to bore members too much by quoting a lot more from Mr MacAskill, but his intervention is worth hearing, and I daresay that he is right. To have any credibility on the issue, the Scottish Government must now review their position on votes for prisoners or the defence of the Human Rights Act will ring hollow. The question is, where does the Scottish Government stand? Is it with the settled will of the British people or the European Court? Which bits of the ECHR and which court rulings will it stand by? Or is the truth that they, like many members of my party, recognise that there are some aspects of the ECHR and questions over how those aspects should be applied domestically? Let us not try and pretend, as we are so keen on doing in this chamber, that just because something is positive that it is perfect or that just because something is good that it is untouchable. Indeed, the Scottish National Party itself, and I quote, have argued that the protections offered by the Human Rights Act are central to any civilised country and should be a floor rather than a ceiling in protecting the most vulnerable in society, and we should look to go even further. I would like to join members of this Parliament in going further to try to protect the rights of people here in Scotland, which are not always being met. Indeed, as the Law Society has stated in the report to the inquiry on this issue held in the last session of this Parliament, the HRA has had a positive impact on the development of law and policy both in the UK and in Scotland. We therefore support the retention of the HRA, but we also accept that there is room for improvement in the act. Rather than jumping the gun and throwing around accusations and indulging in speculation, is it not time that the Scottish Government came clean and admit that even they do not believe that every single aspect of the European convention on human rights or the Human Rights Act itself worked perfectly, that they are not a full encapsulation of all the fundamental rights that our citizens should enjoy? I have to say that that was a defence of the ECHR, and I would not like to hear a condemnation of it. I think that people were a little surprised to read in the press over the festive season a taster for the next Tory manifesto. No doubt is a means of distracting the public from the chaos caused by the present UK administration who operate without a manifesto, indeed without any other plan at all. That taster was the promise to abolish the ECHR just as soon as it was done with abolishing a host of other rights—employment, environmental protection, free movement, trade, all those things that the Tories are hell bent on abolishing when they leave the EU—including abolishing the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. That promise is not new for the past decade's excessive Tory shadow ministers and then ministers have salivated at the prospect of getting rid of the gold standard in global protection of human rights. When they have been pressed on why they would want to do such a willfully stupid and damaging thing, all they have been able to do is to fall back, as Michael Gove proved when he gave evidence to the Westminster committee, as unfortunately Oliver Mundell has just done, on entirely erroneous claims that the ECHR is confusing or benefits the bad and the undeserving or allowing courts in Luxembourg to, as Alexander Stewart put it in the debate later, to ride roughshod over a good plane, no nonsense, so-called British law. Of course, it doesn't do any of those things. What it does is challenge the powerful, it reminds those who rule that they do so by consent and must do so with justice. It's been the human rights act that helped to uncover the truth about Hillsborough, that helped to challenge the bedroom tax, that allowed rape victims to access their records, and it still protects each of us in our right to enjoy our homes. Underpinning that act is the EU charter of fundamental rights. It's a charter that's part of the aqueous communitaire. It's a necessary condition for being in the EU, and leaving the EU means leaving the protections of that charter. Leaving the EU also means leaving the dynamic progress that's being made in developing and extending rights to every citizen across Europe. Professor Allan Miller, a UN envoy in human rights, the former chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, is a member of the First Minister's Standing Council of European Advisers. He's been active in taking forward the issue of the threat to human rights that will be caused by leaving the EU. Angela Constance in her opening speech indicated the fear that exists of being left behind in the development of human rights, and that's one of Allan Miller's concerns. He's also concerned that once the UK is outside the EU, then it would be perfectly possible for a UK Government to chip away at the protections given in the charter. Allan quite rightly wants the Scottish Government to go further on the issue of human rights. He's welcomed the First Minister's commitment to ensure that the charter and its protections are enshrined in Scots law, embedded in our everyday life and practices. However, he and others have also made clear that the real fear is that the Tories agenda is, and the plan to abolish the EUCHR most definitely is, to erode rights, and nothing we've heard from the Tories today would make him feel any more confident about the future. Mr Ross certainly didn't contribute to raising confidence in his opening speech. Not only was he reluctant to talk about the nub of the matter, he merely repeated a series of Theresa May-like platitudes without any sincerity, often without any indication that he understood the issues underpinning them. He clearly, of course— Douglas Ross. I'm just interested in understanding things. As a former education minister in this Parliament, is he concerned that his Government is now dedicating more than four times its parliamentary debating times to the EU, rather than the subject area that he used to be the cabinet secretary for, which is raising concerns up and down Scotland at the moment? I'll deal with the reason why the Tories are afraid of these debates when I get to the end of my speech, because they are now afraid of these debates. However, the reality is that Mr Ross doesn't understand very much. The reality is that he doesn't understand very much. He doesn't understand what independence is, though he talks about it a lot. With that, he doesn't understand ECHR and the means by which it applies to legislation. He showed that in his completely erroneous description of the name person case. He doesn't understand the link between the charter and the convention and the effect of leaving the EU and the farmer. He clearly isn't in the loop on the intention of his Westminster bosses to get rid of the ECHR. In fact, I'm going to recommend a YouTube video to Mr Ross. It's an excellent YouTube video recorded by the actor Patrick Stewart. It's called, What has the European Convention on Human Rights ever done for us? I think that he should watch it this evening. He would discover how it undermines every single sentence of his speech. Now, Alec Rowley does know about this subject and he spoke in detail and eloquently upon it. We can make much common cause in ensuring that the ambition that we share to see rights fully enshrined in our law and increased year on year is fulfilled. That was a contribution born out of experience. Mr Lindhurst, unfortunately, though he was legalistic and scholarly, seemed to make what we call uncharitably a bloodless contribution. This is about people in real difficulty and usually in extremis. Splitting hairs about which piece of legislation might or might not apply or not apply does not confront the tragedies nor the aspirations. Mr Lindhurst concluded by describing the EU as a structure of the past. He is at least consistent in his hostility to the EU. He was one of the seven Tory MSPs voting for leave in this chamber on 26 May. The one Maurice Corry later said that he pressed the wrong button. Mr Lindhurst may have achieved a coup d'etat in his own party. They are all now Brexiteers of the hardest persuasion, but he did not achieve that coup d'etat in Scotland. Scotland does not believe that the EU is a structure of the past. Indeed, for many of us, we are quite happy to say that it is a structure imperfect, as it might be, which we need if we are to achieve a better, more peaceful, more prosperous Scotland. Mr McMillan anticipated a constitutional crisis if the UK Government forced the issue of repealing ECHR. He may well be right, but the best way of not getting to that point is to make sure that we retain the protections of the charter and thus retain membership of the EU or as close to it as we can achieve. Now, we have heard a lot about freedom of movement today and we have heard about the issue of immigration, but Alexander Stewart's contribution was about the other idae fixe that exists in the Tory Government in England that of permitting courts in Luxembourg to have an opinion on anything. The pleasure that Mr Stewart showed in bringing that to an end was palpable. Of course, he was another of the original Brexiteer magnificent seven Tory MSPs, so that anybody—and Mr Stewart's point of being to be—that anybody who wanted to, voluntarily, of course, could work any number of ours or perhaps they or their employer wanted. Who knows, children might suddenly want to go up chimneys too? Most interesting though, Mr Stewart probably got the loudest applause from his fellow Tories when he finished expressing those sentiments. The idea of overthrowing courts in Luxembourg, once anathema to every one of them, is now something that they treat with enthusiasm along with allowing people to work as long as they or their employers want. The correct balance in this situation came from Claire Hockey, who cleverly and cogently connected equal pay to the overall issue of human rights and employment protections and made it human and personal. That is how things actually are, Presiding Officer. This debate is not just about high principle, but still less about the Tory's ideological fixation. It is about individuals who have had their lives improved, as Claire Hockey said, but the growing influence of human rights legislation and practice on a European scale is now embedded in the devolution settlement. That improvement is put seriously at risk by the Tories, who go on insisting that they mean no harm by it. We should be very wary of those assurances. Indeed, we should be very afraid of them. The Tories want to go on ruling for a long time. Their agenda for the next two decades includes the steady, continuous erosion of the rights of each and every one of us. As Jacob Rees-Mogg recently said, what is good enough for India should be good enough for us. Well, the tragedy, of course, is that India aspires to greater worker protection. The Tories want to go in the opposite direction. Human rights is a progressive matter, Presiding Officer. That point, ably made by Sandra White and Mark Griffin, among others, needs to underpin our consideration of how to take forward the issue of human rights within the Brexit negotiations. We are not at the acme of civilisation. We can and should do more and make more progress. There is still more to do, and the European project based on the betterment of society, the improvement of the lot of individual, is taking forward that agenda. We need to play an ever-bigger part in it, not be relegated to the sidelines. As Ben Macpherson put it, we must not be forced to step aside and then be left behind. My day job, as the Tories keep saying, is to find a way to prevent the journey that the Tories are on taking place. The day job of all of us should be to ensure that Scotland survives the political vandalism of the Tories in every part of our nation's life, and the refusal of the Tories to do their day job without whining and moaning about it speaks volumes. They should be helping Scotland to fight back, not punching it below the belt on every possible occasion, because this Government won't be distracted from what we've got to do. We've got a different route ready from the Tory one. This Government has outlined a route. We published our proposals in that regard just before Christmas, and we're going to pursue them with vigor. We've done so with generosity and in a spirit of compromise. Now it's time that this chamber rallied around that approach, because it is, indeed it's not only the best, it's the only bulwock against the wrecking selfish Tories, as they have once again revealed themselves today. That concludes our debate on Scotland's place in Europe, protecting and promoting human rights. There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that amendment 3297.2, in the name of Douglas Ross, which seeks to amend motion 3297, in the name of Angela Constance, is agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We shall move to our vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 3297.2, in the name of Douglas Ross, is that yes, 30, no, 92. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Ms Beamish, if your vote didn't register, do you wish to rerun the vote? The vote was 92.30. I think that your point is noted if your vote was not registered. The final question is that motion 3297, in the name of Angela Constance, on Scotland's place in the European Union, protecting and promoting human rights, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We shall move to our vote, and members may cast their votes now. Thank you. The result of the vote on motion 3297, in the name of Angela Constance, is that yes, 93, no, 30. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. That concludes the decision time. We shall now move to members' business. I would ask members to change seats. We'll take a few moments. Members' business, in the name of Claire Adamson.