 The final item of business this evening is a member's business debate on motion 10961 in the name of Cocab Stewart on 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I invite members wishing to participate to press the request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I invite Cocab Stewart to open the debate around seven minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I refer members to my register of interest as a member of Amnesty International. Struggling is a never-ending process. Freedom is never really one. You earn it and you win it in every generation. Those are the words of Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther King Jr.'s widow, written a year after his assassination, 21 years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed. I am very grateful to my colleagues who signed my motion, marking the 75th anniversary of the Declaration and for the opportunity to bring this debate to the chamber today. Those words from Coretta Scott King stand as a timeless reminder that rights do not exist forever of their own accord. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated following a tireless campaign and fight for civil rights for black people in the United States through the 60s. Treaties, agreements, declarations and even laws can be agreed and signed, but it is what we do in practice that determines the rights of people around us. The United Nations General Assembly agreed the Universal Declaration on Human Rights on 10 December 1948, out of the ashes of the Second World War that claimed the lives of more than 60 million people. The declaration contains 30 articles, each setting out rights and freedoms that ought to be respected and enjoyed by every person on this planet. Members in the chamber, looking to contribute to this debate this evening, may wish to delve into some of those articles in more detail, but I would like to start from article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. I do not doubt that such a declaration on universal rights being published for the first time today would perhaps use slightly more inclusive language, such as the evolving nature of our lexicon, but the meaning and intention behind the words endures. The simple prospect that each human is the value of each of those around them, no person can or should expect better or lesser treatment. What an aspiration, what an idea to tirelessly strive for, but we know that we are not there, we are not even nearly there. Be under no illusion, we are here today to celebrate the milestone of the declaration of the 75th anniversary, a groundbreaking international agreement that has done so much in informing and encouraging laws and movements around the world in furthering human rights. It has informed serious major treaties, which has predicted the rights of individuals across the globe, including the European Convention on Human Rights in 1950, recognised in 47 nations as the baseline for human rights across Europe. The international covenant on the civil and political rights in 1966, which has been enshrined in law and used to protect the rights of detainees and freedom of expression here in the UK. The international covenant on the economic, social and cultural rights in 1966, while not formally adopted into legislation in the UK, has informed the court decisions around welfare, housing and labour rights. The elimination of all forms of discrimination against women in 1979, ensuring that women have had the same legal rights as men in terms of nationality, marriage, education, employment and welfare. Of course, the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989 signed and ratified by most countries around the world protecting the rights and welfare of children. However, celebration should not be confused with complacency. On human rights, we should be anything but. Last week, the Parliament passed unanimously the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Bill in its amended form, recognising and enshrining the principles of the Convention into Scots law. A moment in history and when I, myself and I know many other members in this place, were proud to be a part of. The age of the 24-hour news cycle of immediate social media updates of events going on around the world means that we have all witnessed human rights abuses on a scale that we have never seen before. Whether that is in the horror of Russia's invasion of Ukraine or the on-going terror being unleashed in Gaza and Israel, we all hear examples where states act with flagrant disregard for human rights, a stark betrayal of the fundamental duties to safeguard and protect the dignity and freedom of all its citizens. Eleanor Roosevelt, a key driver in developing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, said, where, after all, do universal human rights begin in small places, close to home, so close and so small that they cannot even be seen on maps of the world, yet they are in the world of the individual person, the neighbourhood that he lives in, the school, the college that he attends, the factory, the farm or office where he works. We look to human rights abuses failing abroad, but, Presiding Officer, we know that there is so much to do at home to improve the lives of our own citizens, particularly those who belong to minority groups. Of course, it would be remiss of me not to mention last week's court of session ruling on the gender recognition reform bill passed by this place, voted for by MSPs from every single party represented in this chamber, but struck down by the UK Government. It is our responsibility to improve the rights of all individuals. Whilst talk around Whitehall grows over abandoning the UK's obligation on human rights under international law, I am pleased to see the Scottish Government remain committed to introducing the human rights bill to this Parliament. Whilst limited to the confines of that which is devolved to this place, the bill will help to incorporate further four UN treaties into Scots law. I am not sure if I have a bit of leeway on time to just outline them. I can give you a bit more time. Thank you. The four treaties being the international covenant on the economic, social and cultural rights, the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. As convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, I look forward to being part of the bill's scrutiny on this process. Scotland has an opportunity to show leadership on furthering human rights at home and abroad, and in summing up, I would ask the minister to update the chamber on the work of the Scottish Government to do just that. Earlier today, the chamber debated the report published by my committee on the human rights of asylum seekers in Scotland, where it is clear that there are measures that we can take notably the Scottish Government's commitment to free bus travel that will make better the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in society and the world. I look forward to contributions of colleagues on this debate, and I would urge everyone to join me afterwards in the burn's room for an event that I am sponsoring with Amnesty International on the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration. This is a day for celebration, but also a day for serious consideration on what we must do better. Thank you, Presiding Officer. If I could remind those in the public gallery that they are not to participate, and that includes by applauding, difficult as it may be at times, we now move to the open debate. I call for a shrussel, Finlay, to be followed by Mercedes Villalba, around four minutes. Mr Finlay. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Human rights fought a vast subject, and with just four minutes, where to even begin? Well, perhaps with this simple acknowledgement, as UK citizens, every single one of us here is blessed. By virtue of the lottery of birth or acquired British citizenship, many will give little thought to our immense good fortune. 75 years ago this week, the UK was one of 48 countries to sign the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the aftermath of the Second World War, this was a groundbreaking global pledge. Thirty articles setting out fundamental and far-reaching human rights to be universally respected and protected, applying to everyone regardless of race, colour, religion, sex, language, political or other opinions, national or social origin. In the most recent Foreign and Commonwealth Office annual human rights report, Lord Ahmed of Wimbledon wrote the following. Far too many people. The hatred, depravity and atrocities of the Second World War have not been consigned to history. Too many repressive governments have chosen to disregard their international commitments and rule through discrimination, persecution and violence. How very true. Across the world we see brutal and bloody suppression of freedoms that we take for granted. In Syria, war criminal, al-Assad murders hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens. In Afghanistan, the rights of women and girls are destroyed by the Taliban. In Myanmar, a militia junta conducts extradition killings, torture and sexual violence. In Qatar, you will be arrested for being gay while a world cup built by slave labour buys legitimacy. In Iran, women and girls fight for freedom against a regime that thinks nothing of killing them. And in Russia, war criminal Putin orders the massacre of Ukrainian civilians and the abduction of Ukrainian children. And in China, the Communist Party commits genocide against egars and other minority groups. In all of these places and many more, those who are brave enough to speak out risk being murdered by the state. Imprisoned or killed, most of their stories and most of their names will never be known. In such tyrannical places it is often women's suffering that is the greatest. Deprived of a voice, deprived of education, at risk of sexual violence and exploitation, denied the most basic of freedoms. But here, in the UK, our rights are rock solid. The right to education, the right to housing, the right to healthcare, the right to vote, the right to protest, the right to justice, all of these rights underpinned by our vibrant democracy, diverse free media and independent judiciary. Our country, the United Kingdom, is a glowing beacon and a global champion of human rights. I assess genuinely to the member. Every day, in my constituency, I see families who are going hungry or having to attend food banks, children who are hungry and young people who are suffering mainly because of austerity in this country. Does he understand that the right to food is also a human right in this country? I think that the member can check all 30 articles and see for herself how all-encompassing they are. I think that what she also needs to do is learn a bit of perspective in terms of the positives that the United Kingdom brings to the world. We can use our influence to work with other enlightened nations to defeat the darkness of oppression. We believe that others should expect the rights and freedoms that we have, but it is also in our interests because in today's global village such injustice fuels and spreads instability and insecurity. I end with an observation and a note of caution. We need to be careful. We need some perspective. Shrill and overblown criticism of the integrity of our country is music to the ears of tyrants. It risks distracting from the evil deeds of those around the world who despise our values and the good that we represent. I begin by thanking Co-Cub Stuart for securing this time for us to mark the anniversary of the declaration of human rights as a parliament. It is 75 years since the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, yet to this day human rights abuses are being committed across the world. In Palestine, Israeli authorities carry out inhumane acts against Palestinians, seemingly with impunity. According to Human Rights Watch, these acts include sweeping movement restrictions, including the siege of Gaza, the erection of a separation barrier on Palestinian land and hundreds of checkpoints across the West Bank, as well as land confiscation, forcible transfer, denial of residency rights and suspension of civil rights. That is not news. The reality is that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have been denied basic rights for decades. As the eyes of the world are once more on what was mandatory Palestine under British administration, we must take every opportunity to hold the UK Government to account for its role in the occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine from then on to this day. That means supporting an immediate ceasefire, stopping arms trade with Israel and ending the illegal occupation, the siege and the settlements. Since Israel began its latest offensive on Gaza, 18,000 Palestinians have been killed, more than 7,000 of them children. This has led to the UN Secretary General describing Gaza as becoming a graveyard for children. Each life, mourned by their family, a loss to the world, and each life entitled to the very human rights that we should be celebrating today. Too many lives are being swept into statistics. We are not numbers is an organisation set up to pair aspiring Palestinian writers with mentors around the world. It was co-founded by Professor Al-Area, a Palestinian academic and poet who was killed in an Israeli air strike in Gaza last week. I'd like to take some time to share one of his poems with the chamber. If I must die by Rafat Al-Area, if I must die, you must live to tell my story, to sell my things. To buy a piece of cloth and some strings. Make it white with a long tail so that a child somewhere in Gaza, while looking heaven in the eye, awaiting his dad who left in a blaze and bid no one farewell, not even his flesh, not even to himself. Seize the kite, my kite you made, flying up above, and thinks for a moment an angel is there, bringing back love. If I must die, let it bring hope, let it be a tale. Presiding officer, Palestinians are not numbers, no human being is. Palestinians are not nameless or faceless, none of us are. Their humanity is our humanity, and Israel's assault on their human rights is an assault on all of our rights. So when we see a people massacred, we must name it as genocide. When we see a people displaced and forced from their land, we must name it as ethnic cleansing, and when we see a people dominated and oppressed, we must name it as apartheid. Because if we allow a people to be stripped of their rights, to be described as unhuman, to be treated inhumanely, we can cede our own humanity. Because human rights can only be described as such if they apply to all of us, every single one of us, equally. Thank you. I thank my friend and colleague, Cokab Stewart, for bringing this debate to the Parliament. I congratulate her on all her long-standing commitment to upholding human rights for all, and I'm delighted to be taking part in this debate. On December 10, 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations announced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That's 30 rights and freedoms that belong to all of us. As we observe the world that we live in today, with war, poverty, famine and injustice, it's plain that those rights are not being upheld for far too many people. But seven decades on, those rights continue to form the basis for all international human rights law. This is vital for the code with which we should follow in a civilised society, because without that, people have no protection, no access to justice and more misery and cruelty will ensue. The 75th anniversary is an opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to reaffirm its commitment to furthering human rights protections for everyone in Scotland. The Scottish Government's aim is to create a legal framework for us to embed international human rights within domestic law and drive transformative positive change for people empowering them to claim their rights. Indeed, last week we passed the landmark legislation to incorporate the rights of the child under the UNCRC in everything that we do. That was, in my book, a great day to be in Scotland's Parliament, exercising our duty as elected members to bring forward this vital legislation long fought for by campaigners, third sector organisations to benefit all children and young people in Scotland. People in Scotland face challenges to their human rights every day, whether that is gender-based violence, disability, race or religion. We must promote equality and eliminate bigotry and discrimination because they have an attack on all of us. As MSPs every day, we try to help constituents to gain access to their basic rights, whether that is social care, safe and secure housing or essential healthcare. The human rights bill, proposed to be introduced by June next year, will be a momentous occasion for our nation. We should learn from the problems encountered with the induction of the UNCRC bill, and we should possibly establish an implementation programme similar to that, which is accompanied by the passage of that act, and minimise any reliance on UK acts. We have amazing organisations who have been at the forefront of protecting human rights for decades, one such organisation, its Amnesty International. It reminds us that we need to look only to the very recent UK Supreme Court judgment on the UK Government's Rwanda deal, which drew attention to the country's terrible human rights record, to see that human rights defenders face dangerous challenges. Speeches in the chamber in the earlier debate this afternoon powerfully highlighted the abuse phased by asylum seekers. The 75th anniversary is a chance to pay homage to those who use their power during struggles for liberation and equality of the world over, in their struggle against colonialism, bigotry and equality, against patriarchy and for gender justice, and for a world of greater dignity for all members of the human family. Scotland has an opportunity to show leadership, and 2024 will be a year for politicians of all parties to take the next step in making human rights a reality in Scotland by supporting a new human rights bill. The legislation has the potential to be transformative for people in Scotland by obligating public bodies to uphold a much wider range of rights. Our overarching priority is to ensure that incorporation is led by and results in tangible improvements for individuals and communities, especially those who face the greatest barriers to enjoyment of rights and those whose rights are most at risk. Scotland is a compassionate, caring nation. Human rights have always been at the forefront of our society, and we now have the opportunity to build on that. I congratulate Co-Cab Stewart on securing this evening's important debate. The past week has been a roller coaster for human rights in Scotland, with the relief of the UNCRC reconsideration on Thursday, followed by the bitter disappointment of Friday's judgment. I reiterate my solidarity with trans people in Scotland and beyond as we process the latest blow to your rights and your wellbeing. I and the Scottish Greens stand with you. We won't give up. Amidst all those emotions, this debate gives us the opportunity to take a breath and consider our work here in its international and historic context. The signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights represents, in many ways, the beginning of the modern human rights movement. And yet, during those 75 years, we have failed to achieve a consistent protection of the declaration's rights. Indeed, in many ways, the world in the past few decades has seen a falling away from its vision and its realisation. Today's motion highlights the particular issue of human rights defenders, who, especially when they are Indigenous women, protecting their community environments, are facing more and more intimidation, violence and even murder. Those horrors illustrate one way in which the world has changed in 75 years. Then, were the atrocities of fascism rightly uppermost in the drafter's minds, the focus was upon protection of the individual from state violence, victimisation or neglect. That is still the essential core of human rights law, acutely needed as so many Governments, not least the UK's, slither towards the authoritarian right. Along with that political shift, and I would argue closely connected with it, has come the enlargement, enrichment and empowerment of corporations. Many of the most egregious wrongs, including environmental harms, are now committed by states, not by states themselves, though they may be deeply complicit, but by non-state actors. We see that particularly in relation to fossil fuels, but also to other forms of extractive exploitation. One of the challenges that faces us now is how we can protect people, including children from corporate harms, with progressive Governments as active allies. That is relevant to how our human rights legislation develops, including the right to a healthy environment and effective remedies for groups and communities, as well as individuals. It is also related to the potential for an ecocide law and for specialist environmental courts. That issue of Governments as allies in rights protection connects this debate, with that I closed earlier this afternoon, about the human rights of people seeking asylum in Scotland. How can a devolved Government such as ours challenge and mitigate rights violations by the signatory state in which we live? How, more broadly, can we challenge the anti-rights narrative so variantly promoted by that state Government and its media mouthpieces? Last week, at Strathclyde University's celebration of this anniversary, Nicola Sturgeon pointed out that, today, Eleanor Roosevelt would undoubtedly be derided as woke. I don't think she'd mind, but less robust politicians do mind, it seems, and are increasingly reluctant to use the language of human rights. Is there an alternative framing that would secure the same ends without confronting that hostility to the very concept of human rights? I don't think so. The ultimate purpose of human rights can be expressed as justice, freedom, human flourishing or dignity, and it is the human rights framework that populates those abstractions with the specific requirements and responsibilities needed to achieve them. I would like to suggest that this anniversary can spur us to action in three areas. To speak unashamantly the human language of rights, conscious that, in times of crisis, they matter more, not less. To move ahead with our work on legislation, meticulously, courageously, urgently and co-operatively, and to remember that what we do here in Scotland, we do not only do for ourselves but also for those whose rights are breached and broken across the world, for the human rights defenders of forests and river basins, and for the children of Gaza. I refer the chamber to my register of interest as a trustee of a charity, Freedom Declared Foundation, which aims to promote freedom of religion or belief within the United Kingdom. I also refer the chamber to my membership of my church. I don't believe that we talk enough in this country about article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is about freedom of religion or belief, because I think that we are quite inclined to be a bit smug about this particular article. We think that issues about freedom of religion or belief are confined to other places, other countries or continents. It is some other people's issue but not an issue that we have to deal with in Scotland or the wider UK. Here is what article 18 actually says. Everyone has a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom either alone or in community with others and in public or private to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Unusially, in a debate such as this in the Scottish Parliament, I want to speak about another member of this Parliament, someone who, earlier this year, tested the waters of freedom of religion or belief in Scotland. I have always admired Kate Forbes because she is willing to speak publicly about her Christian faith. When she ran for the leadership of the SNP earlier this year, she spoke truthfully about her beliefs and her values. What followed, we all witnessed, the fragility beneath that consensus that we would all like to think exists in this country about freedom of religion or belief. It is not often atory would reference a nationalist in a socialist publication. The Christmas issue of the new statesman contains an article based on an interview that has been conducted by a writer, Jason Cowley, with Kate Forbes. He references the first few hours and days of Kate Forbes' leadership campaign. I am going to quote the article. It is worthy of being quoted, I believe. But the immediate focus of attention was on her religious and personal beliefs. She answered questions about equal marriage that she would have voted against, premartal sex that she was opposed, trans rights. A trans woman is a biological male who identifies as a woman, unquote. The Scottish gender recognition reform bill, she would not seek to challenge the decision by the Sunat Government to block it, as directly and honestly as she could. What followed, I continue to quote, was a public shaming. Forbes was denounced and abused on social media. Senior SNP politicians, notably those closest to Sturgeon, such as John Swinney, a former party leader and the then Deputy First Minister, said that Forbes' views disqualified her from leading a modern political party. Love is love, unquote, tweeted Stephen Flynn, the leader of the SNP at Westminster. At times, columnists, of course— Rona Mackay. I am struggling to understand the relevance of what you are doing to the motion. I am sorry to be put forward by my colleague. I think that it is bizarre, frankly. The matter of relevance is a matter for the chair. I do not think that anything that Mr Kerr has said is not in keeping with the broader concept of human rights, as he explained at the outset, and I invite Stephen Kerr to continue but to begin the process of concluding. I am grateful for your ruling. Actually, what is bizarre is that the member cannot understand what article 18's implication is. In relation to the experience that I would say the ordeal that the party belongs to put Kate Forbes through. Quote, I continue the quote. At times, columnists mocked her as a candidate for the 19th century and the ultra-liberal Scottish Greens, who had entered a power-sharing arrangement with the Sturgeon Government after signing the BS agreement in August 2021, said that they would withdraw support for the SNP if Forbes became First Minister. That is the end of that quote. The reason I read that, and I will conclude, is that, while we pride ourselves on legal safeguards for freedom of religion or belief, there is a complacency about what that right entails. It is not just about allowing people to demonstrate, practice and observe their religion in private and in public. It is about a degree of tolerance that we should have for one another on the basis of our religious beliefs and on the basis of our private opinions and our public opinions. That, in this instance, was found wanting. Therefore, there is no room for complacency in respect of freedom of religion or belief in this chamber, in this country, not just in the broader world. Thank you, Mr Kerr. I now invite Emma Roddick to respond to the debate, Minister, around seven minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to congratulate Co-Capture on securing this important debate and thank those members who have contributed, as well as Scotland's National Human Rights Institute, the Scottish Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Consortium Scotland, Just Rights Scotland and Making Rights Real for their work in helping to protect and advance human rights in Scotland. The Scottish Government is committed to working with the whole of Scottish society to deliver a shared vision for a Scotland where everyone can live a life of human dignity. We know that human rights are best secured if Governments, civil society, organisations, local communities and others work collaboratively to secure them. I want to make particular mention, as the motion does of Amnesty International's campaign, human rights now available in human, which aims to engage as many people as possible in the legislative process for Scotland's proposed new human rights bill. I look forward to Co-Capture's reception letter. Perhaps that will be an opportunity for those in the gallery to make some noise as well, and I look forward to seeing them there. It is important to mark the 75th anniversary of the adoption by the UN of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The anniversary is marked every year on 10 December, but this year is a particularly significant milestone. As always, it is an opportunity to reflect on how far we have come but also how far we have left to go. Human rights impact everything that we do and discuss in this place. We have just had a debate on asylum seekers in Scotland. The Scottish Government is clear that everyone living in Scotland has human rights that must be respected, protected and fulfilled. That includes EU and other non-UK nationals, refugees and asylum seekers. Sadly, since 2012, there have been a series of attempts by the UK Government to replace or repeal the Human Rights Act. The UK Government has introduced its Rwanda Bill and is openly seeking to remove human rights from some. At the risk of Russell Finlay accusing me of shrillness, I resent any suggestion that calling human rights breaches what they are is overblown. There is no overblowing that. I thought that we were all here in this chamber to mark the anniversary of the declaration of human rights, and human rights are worthless if they are not universal. We cannot decide that some humans are less human than others or less worthy of the same protections from the state that others enjoy. The Rwanda Bill disciplines vital safeguards set out in the Human Rights Act. It tries to sidestep obligations under the refugee convention and other international treaties, and it tries to prevent decisions being challenged in UK courts. Our ambitions in Scotland are very different. As a Government, we recommit Scotland to uphold democracy, human rights and the rule of law, which sustains hope and human dignity for all people in Scotland. We welcome scrutiny on that. We want to do better, and we want people to have access to justice when their rights are not being realised. The International Day of Human Rights Defenders is, of course, another important day in the calendar observed on 9 December. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. This non-legally binding document is the first UN instrument to define the role of defenders. As always, the Scottish Government is keen to support those human rights defenders, including through the Scottish Human Rights Defender Fellowship, funded by the Scottish Government and delivered by the University of Dundee. This year, we entered the sixth year, welcoming five fellows, including a new intake of three fellows, specifically representing women from the global south. There is a close connection between defending human rights, protecting the environment and safeguarding vulnerable minority or indigenous communities. Women are often the most prominent campaigners and activists and can be at particular risk. Members will be aware of the unanimous agreement last week to incorporate the UNCRC into domestic law, ensuring that we are a country that respects, protects and fulfills children's rights, making us the first UK nation to incorporate this treaty. Of course, they will also be aware of our intention to introduce a human rights bill, which will incorporate a wide range of internationally recognised human rights in Scotland into Scots law within the limits of devolved competence, including the international convention on economic, social and cultural rights and the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. I had the pleasure of attending just fairs conference on human rights last month, when I talked about our vision of a human rights bill for Scotland, as well as wider policies on realisation of rights that involve tackling poverty and ensuring public services are well funded. I have to say that the reception for Scotland and what we are attempting to do was not just warm but enthusiastic. I had attendees jumping up and down with excitement that somewhere there is a Government talking about human rights the way that they talk about human rights. That shows that Scotland is a modern, inclusive nation that respects, protects and fulfills internationally recognised human rights. Our move could have ripple effects. I was recently asked how the Scottish Government could do this, introduce those rights for only Scottish people and what about the rest of the UK. We would, as a country, love for human rights to be ensured and realised across the world, but we can only legislate for our own country. Unfortunately, the UK Government does not think that incorporation of those treaties into domestic law is necessary. Our neighbours in the Welsh Government do think differently. They have also committed to incorporating more international human rights treaties into Welsh law, and I certainly hope that we can share our experience and support our friends and wells to take the same or similar steps. The reality is making a political point, because the United Kingdom has been a long time signatory to all of those treaties, and therefore they are in effect respected and upheld in the United Kingdom. Some of what is being done in the name of human rights in terms of legislation is not far removed from virtue signalling. If you compare incorporating treaties into law and ratifying treaties but flat out refusing to incorporate them into domestic law, one is certainly virtue signalling, and it is not the country that is incorporating them into Scottish law. On that note, I would also like to thank Scotland's civil society organisations, many of whom I know are here today, and the Scottish Human Rights Consortium for their continued support and friendly challenge as we continue to develop the bill for introduction during the current parliamentary year. I know that we all want the same thing in the challenge is how we get there and strike the balance exactly right between going as far as we possibly can without stepping over the devolution line, and we are clear that this is simply the next step in our journey. It is not the end, but it is an important step. Kochabster and Rona Mackay were right to highlight that some groups are more at risk and furthest from having their rights realised, and that is why the bill is to introduce specific protections for those who experience racism, disabled people and women. We received almost 400 responses to the consultation on the bill, which are being analysed, and we still plan to introduce the bill by the end of this parliamentary year. Work continues on engagement to inform the bill, and I look forward to hearing from Kochabster and others as it progresses. Thank you minister. That concludes the debate. I am sure that the reception this evening will be a noisy one. I wish them well and I close the meeting of parliament.