Hansard

I am very happy to speak in this debate. I add my voice to the voices of everybody else in the chamber in congratulating Professor Alan Miller on getting out alive at the end of his tenure, and on that fantastic tenure, which has left a mark on all of us. I wish him well.

We are now in the third year of Scotland’s national action plan for human rights, and the second annual report has been delivered. As we have already heard, it has had a huge impact. However, many folk will not realise that it has been heralded at the Council of Europe as an exemplar for other member states to follow in implementing and extending basic human rights.

The Parliament’s European and External Relations Committee is conducting an inquiry into the possible effect on Scotland of a repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998. I have heard no verbal evidence and have read no written evidence from anyone who supports that repeal; indeed, quite the opposite is the case. The people whom we have spoken to—in the trade unions, the third sector and civic Scotland—would like an extension to the human rights legislation to further protect everyone’s rights.

One example of Scotland’s national action plan for human rights work, which has been talked about a lot in our committee inquiry, is that on testing methodology for building a better human rights culture and capacity, especially at the local level for people with disabilities and mental health issues, young people, children and our elderly. If we can incorporate a culture of human rights practice into our everyday work, we will make life better for everyone—not just for the people who receive the service, but for the people who deliver it.

Equality impact assessments are the basic drivers for making the policy at the local level to ensure that it works best for people. However, the quality of some of those assessments leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe a bit of work could be done to look at some of them, and maybe some training and understanding could be offered to the staff who do them. With a good equality impact assessment, there will be success for the person who needs the service.

Our First Minister has said:

“progressive governments”

should be

“finding ways to embed”

human rights

“responsibilities across different areas of policy”

and not trying to find ways to avoid them. I whole-heartedly agree with her.

I have led many debates over many years on human rights and how important they are to our everyday work; in fact, the Deputy Presiding Officer has taken part in some of them. We have a First Minister who came up with that quote, so we have made a bit of progress.

This Government supports human rights, and I believe that all parties in this Parliament support the Human Rights Act 1998. Let us remember that that act means the right to life, to liberty and security, to education, to free elections, to a fair trial, to marriage, to privacy and family life, and to property. It means that people have the right not to be tortured, not to be sold into slavery, not to be discriminated against and not to face a death penalty, and my favourite part is that it gives people freedom of assembly and association, of expression, of thought, of conscience and of religion.

It ill behoves any Government to attempt to undermine those hard-fought-for rights and freedoms, and any Government that does so has serious questions to answer. However, the philosophy of the UK Government seems to be to gag charities, introduce anti-trade-union laws, strip rights from disabled people and take us out of the EU.

I welcome the continued work on Scotland’s national action plan for human rights. I welcome and commend the work of the Scottish Human Rights Commission and hope to see many years of that work in the future. I offer Judith Robertson my help, my support and my best wishes for her endeavours.