 I want to ask the Scottish Government whether it will make a statement on the resignation of the convener of the Crofting Commission. Minister Eileen McLeod. I thank the Scottish Government for bringing forward this typical question this afternoon. Susan Walker stepped down as commissioner and convener of the Crofting Commission on 8 ryswun ddylch yn y pwylliant, a nid i'n ddim yn defnyddiant i'r Cyfreithio Llywodraeth o ddylch yn y cwmallol canffredigol. Rydyn ni'n gwybod i gyda'r defnyddio, dwi'n ddim yn gwych, rydyn ni'n i'n eu ddiw i'r ynch Democracy, a i tari Gwyrdd Sausen Ymdraith, ddim yn gwybod i fynd i ddylch yn cyfleidd i'r cyflawn i'u cyfrif yardwyr yn gyflydd gyda'i cyfan. Cyfaint Þr oathwyr mlyneddau einach mlyneddau ar dweud, bod yn mynd i rhaewt i gweithio ar gyfer'i cymdeithaseth a'r cyfaintaig ac'r cymdeithasedd sydd yn ei hanfrifau'r cyfaintaig ac mae'r gwaith o'u cymdeithasedd ar eich cymdeithasedd, ac mae'r cyfrifetau cymdeithasedd cael ei peïn drwy'r cymdeithasedd ac rwy'n cyfeirio i'r sefylliant o gyfrifetau cymdeithasedd ac mae'r cyfrifetau cyfaintaig i'r cyfrifetau ganelinessach cyfan argynniadau cyfrifetau. I have written to the rule of affairs committee following Mrs Walker's decision to step down and I will be meeting with the commission on 22 May to discuss options and next steps for filling the vacancies of convener and commissioner that now exist. I thank the minister for that reply. Would the minister now accept that a couple of things have to happen as a result of the commission convener resigning, which has simply never happened in the past before? Firstly, the Government should accept a nomination for commission convener based on the crofting commissioners choosing one of their own to be the convener, and secondly that the commission should drop a one-size-fits-all approach to crofting regulation and instead implement an approach based on sensible plans for the different crofting counties, allowing decrofting so crofters can borrow money for their businesses on the assets of their croft. Would the minister undertake to take both of those matters forward? I thank Tavish Scott for supplementing both of Susan Walker's rules were appointed, but in the spirit of being constructive and collaborative, I am open to discussing options with the commissioners in the first instance, obviously with their meeting next week, but also with colleagues in this chamber and through further correspondence with the Racky Committee. I am also happy to continue discussions with Tavish Scott on our previous discussions when we met on 23 April together with his colleague Liam MacArthur. I am grateful to the minister for that approach and I welcome it. It is constructive and what is needed. Would she accept that Susan Walker had the impossible task of implementing the 2010 Crofting Act, which simply has not worked in the eyes of crofters and has already meant that the Government has had to introduce and indeed rush through emergency legislation? Would she therefore undertake to work with crofting assessors, the crofting foundation and indeed crofters across the crofting counties to ensure that agriculture and land use are what we are trying to achieve rather than lawyers, bureaucrats and the Scottish Land Court? To be short, I am absolutely very happy to do so. I note that the chief executive of the Scottish Crofting Federation, the representative body for crofters, has said that it is not about democratic legitimacy of the ex-convener and indeed that they had worked very well with the ex-convener of the Crofting Commission. That also he said that it was a big enough job dealing with the legacy that the commissioners had to face rather than washing dirty linen in public. I wonder if you could tell us what steps you will take to ensure that moves to modernise crofting under Susan Walker's excellent but frustrated leadership will be continued. As Rob Gibson acknowledges, Susan Walker made a very valued and lasting contribution to the commission in crofting in Scotland. She led the commission through a period of transformational change and has helped to build strong foundations on which the organisation will now move forward. I look forward to meeting with the commission next week and to discussing the opportunities and the work ahead. As I said to the member in my letter to his committee, although the legislation enables ministers in respect of both vacancies to select a new commissioner and convener, I want to take a considered and consultative approach to filling those vacancies and believe that we really do have an opportunity to further improve the commission's operation, transparency and accountability. I want to engage with the commission and in due course with the Racky Committee in this process and I'm very happy to keep the Parliament fully informed as well. I also thank Susan Walker for being certainly very constructive with her dealings with me, but I agree with Tavish Scott that the commissioners should be allowed to appoint their own chair. Certainly, concerns have been raised with me that the minister has not met with the other commissioners since her own appointment and I'm glad that, in her previous answer, she said that she is going to put that right and meet with them next week. However, should she have done that sooner in order to listen to their concerns and indeed deal with the problems that arose before we reached this situation? In my reply, I met with Susan Walker on 28 January this year when I met to discuss the Crofting Commission. Late on the same day, I also had a meeting with the Government's Crofting Stakeholder Forum. I also met with the Scottish Crofting Federation on 11 March as well as a meeting with the cross-party group on crofting. Officials contacted the commission at my request on 15 January to arrange a meeting for me. That initiated a suggestion to change the date of the commission's board meeting away from the 13 May to a date that we could make. The date is next Friday for the meeting with the commissioners. I am very much looking forward to the meeting with the commissioners next Friday. As convener of the cross-party group on crofting, I also wish to thank Susan Walker for her service and hard work and thank her for her regular attendance at the cross-party crofting group. Does the minister agree that the most democratic way forward and one that has crofter support would be for elected commissioners to determine Susan Walker's replacement and would she agree also that a replacement for Susan Walker should be decided on as soon as possible so that the Crofting Commission avoids any period of uncertainty and instead can focus on its key role of regulating and not only regulating but actually supporting our crofters? No, I would agree with that. I would also point out to Jimmy Greger and just to reiterate what I have also said in both the letter to the Racky Committee and also to members across this chamber that I am obviously meeting with the commissioners next Friday. I am very open to discussing options with the commissioners in the first instance but obviously with colleagues across the chamber and in further correspondence with the Racky Committee. As I have said previously, I am very keen and happy to keep the Parliament fully informed of those discussions. To ask the Scottish Government what the implications for Scotland would be of the abolition of the Human Rights Act by the UK Government. The Scottish Government's position is that the implementation of the Conservative Government's proposals would require legislative consent and that this Parliament should make clear that such consent will not be given. On 11 November last year, this Parliament passed a motion in support of the Human Rights Act by a majority of 100 to 10. There is currently insufficient detail in what is proposed to predict the impact in Scotland with any certainty. However, given the almost unanimous opposition in this Parliament and among Scottish MPs at Westminster, it would remain open to exclude Scotland from legislation to repeal the Human Rights Act or for the Scottish Government to pass legislation to give effect to a range of rights in policy areas that are within devolved competence. If the UK Government were to follow through on its threats to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, people in Scotland would no longer be able to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR is the world's most successful human rights treaty and has been hugely influential around the world. It is incumbent on this Parliament to send a clear message that those proposals are unacceptable and will not receive our support. Mark McDonald. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for his comprehensive answer. Given that, in 2013, the percentage of cases in which Strasbourg rolled against the UK totaled a measly 0.48 per cent, does the cabinet secretary agree that what we are seeing here is a case that is built on sand and is extremely dangerous posturing by this Conservative Government? We believe, as a Scottish Government, that the European Court of Human Rights fulfills an essential function as part of the ECHR system. It is essential that citizens have the right to petition the Strasbourg court where they feel that their rights have been breached. The statistics demonstrate that rulings against the UK are comparatively rare, which is not reflected in some of the rhetoric that we see around the issue. Mark McDonald. I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer. The cabinet secretary has also highlighted that he considers that this chamber would need to be asked to give consent through legislative consent motions and that he would be minded to recommend that we refuse such consent. Has he received any indication, as yet from the UK Government, that they would seek consent from this chamber via legislative consent motions at this stage? We have not received any information about the intentions of the UK Government. Obviously, the Queen's speech will take place in the next two weeks or so. I hope that, in or around the Queen's speech, we will get more details of what the Conservative Government proposes. There is not a case for abolition, and I firmly believe that the Human Rights Act should stay. It is appalling that one of the first acts of this Conservative Government is to abolish the Human Rights Act and to attempt to leave the ECHR, but, like many of its policies—this is ideology and rhetoric being put above the actual practicalities and impact of delivering a policy—I ask the cabinet secretary how he plans to keep this chamber informed of any discussions that he has with the UK Government. I am happy to give such an undertaking. As I referred to in my first answer, in November last year, the Parliament voted on this very issue. With the exception of the Conservative benches, we were united in our opposition to the scrapping of this legislation or withdrawal from the European convention. I am very happy to keep the Parliament informed. As in when, I have information to give to the Parliament. It is my understanding—perhaps the cabinet secretary could explain whether the Government agrees with that—that, if the Tories, whom I see, have not bothered to turn up to defend their position, scrap the Human Rights Act without withdrawal from the ECHR. The other signatories to that convention accept that position. They may not need a legislative consent motion, but consent would be needed for withdrawal from the convention but not necessarily for the scrapping of the Human Rights Act itself. That would give rise not just to fragmentation within the different parts of the UK but even within Scotland. Police Scotland, for example, would be subject to a different rights regime if they were dealing with devolved criminal justice matters, as opposed to reserved drugs and terrorism matters. Is that an accurate description of the situation, particularly in relation to legislative consent? Presiding Officer, rather than trying to speculate, I think that it would be better to wait to see exactly where the precise proposal is and then I can give a more precise reply to Patrick Harvie. That goes beyond the powers and the legislation setting up this Parliament. For example, the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland has built into it ECHR requirements and therefore this is a matter that affects not just Scotland and the Scottish Parliament, it affects very clearly in particular Northern Ireland and the Stormant Parliament, but it also affects people in England as well as people in Wales and the Welsh Assembly as well. I am happy to give a specific answer to that question once I see the detail of what is proposed. I congratulate the new MPs entering the UK Parliament this week but I hope that the very understandable euphoria of Scotland's new batch of SNP MPs is curtailed somewhat because the plans to get rid of the Human Rights Act is no doubt just one in a long, long list of policies that will see the new Tory Government attack the young, the old, the weak, the vulnerable and of course migrants and trade unions. Does the minister agree with me that in fearing for the future of the rights of ordinary working people across the UK, does he think that this is just a first grenade being lobbed and which is going to be a very bloody assault? I agree in general terms with what Neil Findlay is saying. It is very clear from a whole range of policy pronouncements that have already been made in relation to a range of issues such as welfare cuts, that very clearly the prospect of some of the legislation and measures being proposed by the new Conservative Government gives a lot of cause for concern, particularly for the more vulnerable members of our community. In terms of human rights, we are all vulnerable irrespective of our social status or economic status. Human rights is a fundamental that affects every individual in our society, and we in this Parliament and right across the United Kingdom, including I believe some Tory MPs, will be very concerned about any delusion of the human rights legislation in this country. Does the minister consider that there is an opportunity here to sort out some of the not inconsiderable problems that have arisen from the incorporation of ECHR directly into Scotland's law via the Scotland Act 1998? That is demonstrated by the CADR ruling when the consequences have not been fully appreciated. I do not think that when you are looking at a system of law, you can decide on the basis of some rulings that you like or do not like that you then tear up the whole thing. The whole point of rule of law is probably from the week to week judgments that we might not agree with, but that is not an excuse to get rid of the court system. It is a fundamental point that our human rights are protected under ECHR. As Mark McDonald pointed out, the ECHR has played a vital role in upholding the rights of individuals and organisations. It would be a sad day if we were to tear up our membership of the ECHR or in any way try to dilute the legislation and the protection that exists in the Scotland Act and in various other legislation that cross-references the ECHR. It is a fundamental framework for the protection of human rights in our country. That ends the topic of question time. We now move to the next site of business, which is a debate on motion number 13107, in the name of Michael Matheson, on the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Scotland Bill.