Hansard

Although this has been a truncated debate, it has nevertheless been one in which there is a broad consensus across the chamber on the importance of human rights. As Graeme Pearson said, it is important that the Government—in particular the new Government when elected in May, whoever may be in it—should agree to embed human rights in every aspect of our work in Scotland and to take forward that agenda.

I join in the chorus of congratulations and thanks that have quite rightly been offered to Professor Alan Miller, who is an outstanding public servant. I wish Judith Robertson all the best, but Alan Miller will be a hard act to follow. Not only has he established the Scottish Human Rights Commission but he has, more importantly, established the human rights agenda in Scotland and, through SNAP, is embedding that throughout the entire life of our nation. Alan has gained huge respect not just in Scotland but internationally, and he is recognised as one of the global leaders in human rights—rightly so.

It is important to recognise what SNAP says about the likely areas of activity in its third year. There are too many for me to mention them all, but they include:

“developing a greater range of case studies ... evaluating the impact of awareness raising efforts”

and

“rolling out a local model and process to empower people and organisations to develop a shared approach to building a human rights culture”.

Those are just three out of a long list of actions that are to be undertaken in year 3 of SNAP, which underlines the point that everybody has made—that, despite the progress that we have made, there is still a great deal to be done.

The plan also outlines four main challenges for the period ahead. First, public authorities must

“demonstrate how they are protecting human rights in practice through the design and delivery of their services.”

I commit the Government to working full-out on achieving that and taking forward that agenda. Secondly,

“monitoring and reporting on human rights, and on SNAP itself, must become firmly embedded in Scotland’s institutional fabric rather than sitting separately”.

I wholly endorse and agree with that. Thirdly,

“wider resources need to be harnessed and redirected towards”

SNAP’s aims. I think that we all accept that, even in these difficult financial times, we must prioritise resources for the development of human rights. Fourthly, the report states that we must resist what it calls

“the toxic influence of regressive debates about human rights laws at Westminster”.

I will say a few words on the last of those challenges. Although this Parliament is united on the human rights agenda, unfortunately the Parliament in London is not united on the way forward. As I noted in my opening remarks—I scarcely need to remind members of this—our fundamental rights will remain under direct threat if the UK Government proceeds with its plans to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998. We, as a Parliament, have made our views clear, and those views have been repeated in the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

In making our views known, it is critical that we can influence opinion not just here in the UK but further afield, particularly because we are now in the run-up to a referendum on the future of Europe and the European Union. The prospect of the legislation at Westminster endangers the UK’s international reputation for being at the forefront of human rights, which is all the more reason for us, as a country, to dissociate ourselves from any such plans.