Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S3M-2630, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that 10 December 2008 will be the 60th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by the General Assembly of the United Nations; believes that the UDHR is one of the outstanding statements of the dignity, integrity and rights belonging to every human being, and further believes that the principles of the UDHR should continue to serve as inspiration for the future development of Scotland.
I thank those colleagues who signed my motion to enable the debate to take place. I put on record my particular thanks to Michael McMahon, who readily agreed to give up this spot, which had been allocated for Labour Party members' business, to enable the debate to take place tonight. I am especially grateful because that has allowed the debate to be held on the anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adding to the pertinence or purpose of tonight's exchanges. I am also grateful to colleagues who have stayed behind to participate in the debate. I look forward to hearing what everyone has to say.
This year is the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The anniversary is being marked in different ways by various organisations. I was delighted to receive today, among the growing number of Christmas cards that I am getting, a birthday card for the declaration from the Equality and Human Rights Commission—I remind the commission that that does not mean that it should not send me a Christmas card as well.
I also welcome the booklet "My Rights Passport", which is published by Amnesty International and which underlines its commitment to educating people about the declaration. I should declare that I am a member of Amnesty International and that my wife works for the organisation.
I also note that the Scottish Human Rights Commission has published the declaration in Scots Gaelic. The cover of the document is illustrated with 30 concentric circles of light, which symbolise the 30 articles of the declaration. Clearly, a lot of work is going on to acknowledge the anniversary.
The declaration, which is often called the world's best-kept secret, was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1948. It is easy to see how the world leaders of the time, emerging from the years of horror and terror that the second world war represented, felt that was important to create a document that would set out the basic rights with which we should all be endowed due to the simple fact that we are human beings.
The principal mover behind the declaration was the person who was chosen to head up the UN Commission on Human Rights, which drafted it: Eleanor Roosevelt, to whom I shall return later.
I was privileged to be able to attend, along with our Presiding Officer and other colleagues, the launch event for the Scottish Commission for Human Rights earlier this year. At that event, Mary Robinson, the former Irish President and former UN human rights commissioner, was able to inform us that the declaration has been translated into more languages than any text other than the Bible.
I was delighted to learn that today, Amnesty International was able to present to the First Minister a translation of the declaration in the Scots language. Added to the Gaelic translation, that is a welcome demonstration of Scotland's commitment to human rights, and I hope that it is not long before the Scots translation is listed among all the other language versions on the UDHR website.
However, the fact that the declaration is one of the most translated documents in the world does not make it one of the most widely read, and it is certainly not one of the most implemented. That is why, even though it is in its 60th year, the declaration remains important to us today.
The significance of civil liberties and broader concepts of human rights is all too often maligned and downplayed, but I can think of little that is more important to the human experience than the rights and freedoms that we all too often take for granted. We should not take them for granted, for many of them were hard fought for and hard won by our forebears many years ago.
It is true that ideas of human rights and civil liberties are misunderstood by many. All too often, people seem to imagine that those rights exist only to protect the worst among us. Although it is true that they are indeed designed to protect such individuals, we should recognise that those rights are universal and apply to us all—that is why we call them human rights. However, all too often, the human aspect is forgotten as we read stories in the popular tabloid press about the application of rights. That is why the declaration of human rights is as important today as it was 60 years ago.
There exists a long global tradition of the declaration of rights. The American declaration of independence set out that
"all men are created equal";
the French revolutionary Assembly set forth fundamental rights, not only for France's citizens but for "all men without exception"; and our own declaration of Arbroath helped to build the idea that sovereignty is invested in the entire people of a nation, and not in one individual alone.
The declaration of human rights draws on that fine tradition, but, in a sense, is of even greater importance than any of those documents, for it sets out rights for us all on a universal basis. Its universality—the fact that it is for everyone on the planet—makes it unique and capable of superseding those other documents.
Article 1 of the declaration reads:
"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."
Those are fine words, but they are more than that; they represent a fundamental right that everyone here and across the world is endowed with. However, I am afraid that, in many ways, they represent ideals much more than reality.
We are all aware of human rights abuses around the world. None of us can fail to be aware of the detention without trial that Guantánamo bay has come to represent. We all know about China's continued suppression of Tibetan national identity. We know about the sweat shops of the far east, where many children are forced to work to the exclusion of their education. We know about the appalling situations in Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and across much of the world.
The declaration stands against those abuses. We can bemoan the fact that they happen, or we can work—using the declaration as the basis of that work—to end those abuses. It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
I turn to the part of my motion that states that the Parliament
"believes that the principles of the UDHR should continue to serve as inspiration for the future development of Scotland."
Members might have heard me in the chamber, on occasion, state my belief that Scotland's future is best served by independence. I am proud that at my party's most recent annual conference, we were able to pass a resolution that stated that the declaration should serve as the inspiration for any founding declaration, bill of rights or constitution adopted by an independent Scotland. Whatever our beliefs about the future constitutional direction of travel for our country, we should always emphasise the importance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I close by quoting Eleanor Roosevelt, whose words demonstrate why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is important. She was once heard to say:
"Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home—so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighbourhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere."
I could not have put it better myself.
I congratulate Jamie Hepburn on securing the debate to mark the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which for the first time set out universal human rights for all people in an individual context.
The anniversary is being celebrated by United Nations organisations around the world, which are informing and reminding us of the achievements of the declaration, and of the issues and campaigns that bring people together in a common cause. The theme of the United Nations campaign is dignity and justice for us all. Amnesty International, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and others are hosting a number of events to mark this significant anniversary. Oxfam has discussed climate change and human rights, Help the Aged has considered the rights of older people and the Scottish Trades Union Congress is campaigning for improvements in workers' rights.
Positive action can be achieved, and progress is being made. The 60th anniversary is an occasion for all of us to recommit to the declaration's vision. The European convention on human rights was legislated for in the United Kingdom Human Rights Act 1998, which resulted in the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission and our own Scottish Commission for Human Rights. I look forward to further important work by those commissions.
Signing up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an important step, but it must be backed up by action. Human rights sit behind everything that the Scottish Parliament does—all legislation has to be human-rights compliant. Human rights are particularly relevant for the Equal Opportunities Committee, whether we are considering legislation such as the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill or the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill, taking evidence on the sexualisation of goods for children, or considering inquiries on unpaid carers' rights or women offenders.
I welcome the strenuous campaigning by Amnesty International supporters and others, which has led to the UK Government signing the European convention against trafficking. That convention demands that trafficked people be provided with support and protection rather than hounded as illegal immigrants. That also requires action from the Scottish Government—in particular in providing specialist support, emergency medical care, legal advice and safe housing to victims of trafficking; in training officials to identify and help victims; in agreeing not to prosecute victims of trafficking for offences relating to documentation and working illegally; and in extending the reflection period that is allowed to victims of trafficking from one to three months. I look forward to hearing details of such action from the Government, and I call on the Westminster Government to ratify the convention without delay.
I conclude by quoting the 2008 anniversary publication on the declaration, which states:
"It is our duty to ensure that these rights are a living reality—that they are known, understood and enjoyed by everyone, everywhere. It is often those who most need their human rights protected, who also need to be informed that the Declaration exists—and that it exists for them."
I congratulate Jamie Hepburn on securing the debate exactly 60 years, as he said, since the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the declaration on 10 December 1948. It was an historic occasion and one of which we should all be proud. As Jamie Hepburn said, it was born out of the horrors of war.
My comments will perhaps be a wee bit controversial, but we must all ask ourselves whether we and other nations have upheld the democratic rights that are outlined in the declaration. I think that, sadly, we have not.
The preamble to the declaration states that recognition of the
"inherent dignity",
equality and rights
"of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world".
Those are fantastic sentiments, which we should all strive to live up to, but we know of many cases of inequality not only in Scotland but throughout the world.
Let us look at some of the articles. Article 14 states:
"Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."
That was written 60 years ago, but it is still relevant today—perhaps it is more relevant than ever. However, as I said, do we really uphold those sentiments? We may accept people who are fleeing persecution, but it is certainly not an enjoyable experience for them. We do not allow them to work or to contribute to society and we hound them continuously, which leads to dawn raids, imprisonment in Dungavel and deportation. Those are not examples of respect for the dignity and rights of human beings.
Article 13(1) states:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state."
and article 13(2) states that
"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
In referring to those articles, I draw members' attention to the creation of the state of Israel which, by coincidence, is also 60 years old today. I will point out some of its actions that are against articles 13(1) and 13(2). In the west bank in Palestine, Palestinians do not have freedom of movement or the right to residence. Instead, they are confined to certain areas and must go through checkpoints that are manned by Israeli soldiers. They sometimes wait for hours at a checkpoint just to visit their families. That is directly against article 13(1). Parliament must highlight those issues as best we can, as this debate will do.
As I said, Article 13(2) states that
"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
People who live in Gaza, within the country of Palestine, are not allowed to leave their country. If they manage by good fortune to leave their country, they are not allowed back in, which is directly against the declaration. The Scottish Parliament has a duty not only to Scotland but to the world and to all human beings to ensure that we highlight that infringement of people's basic human rights.
Because I have been known to criticise the somewhat eccentric application of some aspects of European human rights legislation, it may seem surprising that I am speaking in the debate. However, I am reminded of the words of Churchill when he was asked what he thought about democracy. He replied that it seemed a terrible way to govern any country until one considered the alternative. A society in which human rights do not operate is not the sort of society in which any of us in Parliament would wish to live.
Some progress has been made since the lofty but sincere declaration was made 60 years ago. Progress has been considerable in this country, but the tragedy is that in many other parts of the world the declaration has not worked at all. For example, how many people in Darfur or the Democratic Republic of Congo have heard of the declaration, never mind been able to enjoy the rights that it encompasses? That is the real tragedy. In the years ahead, we must all strive to ensure that the declaration is enacted more widely than it is now.
We are not without our own little foibles in that respect. Jamie Hepburn rightly raised the question of detention without trial in Guantánamo bay. However, I remind him that when the matter of detention without trial came before this Parliament, his party voted—albeit before he was here—to extend the 110-day rule to 140 days, which I think was inappropriate. There is a presumption of innocence here, so the period that a person should spend in custody awaiting trial should be minimal. I also point out that the actions of this Parliament have resulted in legislation dealing with the question of trial in absence. Do we want to send out a message that says that although we are in favour of human rights, people can be tried when they are not in court? That would be somewhat dangerous.
Having made those points, I have to say that we are, indeed, fortunate that the society in which we live enables its citizens to enjoy human rights of a type that cannot be enjoyed by citizens of many other countries around the world. That is why—although I recognise the very real tragedies and victims of the asylum system, to which Sandra White referred—I think that how we operate the asylum system is, on the whole, fair. Again, members will have heard me criticise the way in which the asylum policy has been implemented by the Westminster Government, which has sadly not been able to separate in the public consciousness those who are in desperate need of asylum and succour and who face real physical risks in their country of origin, from those who are simply economic migrants. I will not criticise anyone for coming here in an attempt to better themselves, but such people are not asylum seekers in the true sense of the words. The real tragedy has been that the Government's failure in asylum policy has not been fair to a number of people because of the way in which asylum was allowed to escalate.
60 years on, there are real hopes that people are becoming much more humane as time passes. That can surely be only a good thing and it can surely only continue to be supported by the declaration that was made 60 years ago today.
I congratulate Jamie Hepburn on securing this timely debate. 60 years on, the declaration is better observed in its breaking than in its keeping in too many parts of the world. Other members referred to Darfur, the Democratic Republic of Congo and other locations. However, I make no apology for using the debate to highlight an all-too-often ignored scenario that has slipped off the media agenda. I am talking about Gaza.
I want, through this debate, to encourage all human rights organisations to focus their attentions on raising the profile of the situation of the people of Gaza. I went there recently with Sandra White and Pauline McNeill and we saw for ourselves the extent to which the human rights of the people of Gaza are being abused. In Gaza, 46 per cent of the children suffer from anaemia and large numbers of people cannot leave the area, which is contrary to the convention articles to which Sandra White referred. That is surely a clear breach of the international declaration.
Although the lofty words and high ideals of the declaration give us a benchmark, we must put pressure on all our Governments in relation to application of the declaration. We should do so not only in relation to their own legislation and behaviour, but in relation to the behaviour of other countries over which they have influence. By our silence, we are complicit in what is happening.
Just this morning, a spokesman for the Westminster Government indicated that it might revisit the UK Human Rights Act 1998, which was described by the spokesperson as being perceived as a "criminals' charter". We must ensure that we continuously underline the fact that human rights are for every single person. They are not just for the people society feels have been wronged, but for us all. With that, we have a responsibility to ensure that every country that ratified the treaty 60 years ago upholds its commitment to ensuring that its fellow countries do as much as they can to ensure that the human rights of the most marginalised people in the world are protected.
I, too, congratulate Jamie Hepburn on securing this debate on the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
If we were to wander out into the street and ask people about human rights, they would talk about other countries—they would talk about countries where they know there is torture, about Guantánamo bay and about asylum seekers. Perhaps some of them would know about the house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma. I do not think that they would think of this country in the first instance in relation to a lack of human rights, but there are abuses of human rights that I believe this Parliament has the power to change and I will talk about a couple of them before I talk about international violations of human rights.
Article 25 of the declaration states:
"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for … health and well-being"
and that we should be given help if we are out of work, ill, elderly, disabled, widowed or cannot earn a living. Those fine sentiments would raise a hollow laugh among some of our military veterans. I have a young constituent who was severely wounded in Iraq who had to wait nine months for a wheelchair. When he was finally given one, it was in such poor condition that it did not fit his needs. He had, to put it bluntly, served his country with distinction and bravery but been denied his human rights as a disabled veteran on his return home. The same can be said for those who return and are in need of social housing or community employment. I believe that this Parliament and the Scottish Government have an important role to play in these matters and in relation to their commitment to human rights.
Article 27 of the declaration states:
"Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community".
Tell that to someone who is housebound because of the lack of appropriate wheelchair provision. Forty per cent of the wheelchairs in this country are not fit for purpose. That is not good enough.
Article 5 states:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
As Marlyn Glen said, what about the women and children who are trafficked into this country? What are we doing to stop that sickening abuse? Some inroads have been made in the attempt to stem the flow of women and children who are being trafficked, but, again, not enough is being done. I hope that the new criminal justice and licensing bill will attack with vigour the horrendous crime of trafficking.
The rights passport that Amnesty International sent us states that we have a duty to stand up not only for our own rights but for the rights of others. What can we do to eradicate the grinding poverty, ill health and lack of education that blights the lives of the citizens of Zimbabwe today? How can we show our solidarity with them? What can we do? I believe that Mugabe should be deposed and stand trial at The Hague. We have no influence over these matters in this place, but we should stand four square with our colleagues at Westminster to make demands on the UN and on other African countries.
In December 1955, in Alabama, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white passenger, which resulted in the Supreme Court of the United States decision that Alabama laws requiring segregated seats on buses were unconstitutional. As Rosa Parks said, she sat down so that others could stand up. Jamie Hepburn has already quoted Eleanor Roosevelt. I will do so, too. She said:
"Where … do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home … the neighbourhood … the school or college … the factory, farm or office".
Rosa Parks is an excellent example of how true that is.
Although I readily acknowledge that we cannot ignore the gross violation of the human rights of hundreds of millions of people who are living in the developing world, we in this devolved Parliament have a duty to protect the human rights of our fellow citizens, whether they are unable to work, victims of trafficking or armed forces veterans. We should remain vigilant and hold the Government to account.
I join my colleagues in congratulating Jamie Hepburn on securing this important debate. We all know a lot about the sad affront to human rights all over the world, but tonight I would like to draw to members' attention the thin veneer of civilisation that pertains in this country in relation to how our human rights are slowly being eroded.
Several members have mentioned articles from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I will consider how two or three pertain to what is happening in the United Kingdom today.
Article 3 says:
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
That sounds all right, does it not—but does our role in the global arms trade contribute to everyone's right to life?
Article 5 says:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
We have heard about trafficked women. We have looked with some smugness at Guantánamo bay, but what about our role in rendition flights via Prestwick for people who are being tortured in other countries? Not much has been done about that.
Article 9 says:
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."
My wife, who is a medical doctor, visited her daughter in New York, where she is an attorney. That should have been a fairly middle-class experience, but my wife was suddenly taken to a detention room, where her passport was taken from her and she was separated from her luggage. She was detained for some time, along with a crowd of other people who were being questioned in a rather hostile manner about their criminal records and so on. She regained her freedom after an hour, without any explanation for being kept in that way. That gave her the feeling of what it would be like to be put in prison on detention without charge—people have wanted to detain some suspects for up to 42 days—and of the experience of child migrants and asylum seekers who have been locked up in detention camps. It was a shock to a middle-class person to realise what it is like when everything that we take for granted is suddenly taken away in a frightening manner.
Article 11 says:
"Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."
Despite that, the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 restricts the ability to present a defence to some alleged crimes if a person has been charged—whether or not they were found guilty—with a similar offence in the past. Is that in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Article 12 says:
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy".
More and more DNA samples are being collected and stored for future use. I am glad that the European Court of Human Rights recently ruled against that, but it has happened. Closed-circuit television surveillance can also sometimes be misused.
Article 19 says:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression".
What about the anti-terrorism legislation that was used to get rid of an elderly heckler at a Labour Party conference, who was not allowed back in? What about the recent raid on the offices of a member of the Westminster Parliament under such legislation?
Article 20 says:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association."
What about the break-up of demonstrations outside the Houses of Parliament in London?
We have much to account for in our own country.
I join other members in congratulating Jamie Hepburn on obtaining the debate and introducing it with a good speech. As he said, it is important to remember the context in which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was made in December 1948. It was made in the aftermath of world war and of horrendous abuse, torture and murder of individuals, families, communities and racial groups—not just of Jews, but of Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals, people with disablements and those with mental illnesses. The declaration followed huge displacement of populations throughout Europe and beyond and the rape and murder that occurred in the wake of some armies. It was coincident with the rule of Stalinism in the east, with the gulag and with the descent of the iron curtain, in Churchill's famous phrase,
"From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic",
while an increasingly apartheid Government ruled in South Africa.
Nevertheless, the assertions of the universal declaration sound modern and relevant to today's concerns here and abroad. It refers to equality before the law and no arbitrary interference with privacy, which Ian McKee and others mentioned. When the Government holds and loses vital personal information left, right and centre, when DNA samples are collected—Ian McKee touched on that—and when even a senior member of the Opposition can have his rooms in the House of Commons searched and be held for nine hours, we do not have anything to be particularly proud of.
Other members have touched on
"the right to seek and enjoy … asylum"
and yet we hear so many desperate stories from people who are left unable to work and living in a sort of legal limbo land between their arrival in this country and the determination of their case. Marlyn Glen talked eloquently about the victims of trafficking.
Everyone also has
"the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family".
Things tended to be written from that perspective in those days. We need only contrast that with report after report on child poverty and vastly varying life spans and health inequalities.
The declaration also says that
"Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality",
but that remains an aspiration, albeit one that we are seeking to obtain through the curriculum review in the Scottish education system.
As article 30 says, powerfully:
"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."
The world has seen many changes since 1948: the apartheid regime has gone and countries of eastern Europe have—to a greater or lesser degree—joined the comity of nations where the rule of law is upheld, but appalling Governments in many parts of the world remain to be inspired by the principles of the declaration.
As several members have rightly said, here in Scotland the need is for us not to take for granted our human rights and civil liberties. Hugh O'Donnell and others mentioned moves on various pretexts to modify the Human Rights Act 1998 and the commitment to the European convention on human rights, and attempts to say that human rights are conditional. I hope that the Scottish Parliament will resist such moves. Indeed, we have seen it do so in the furore over proposals to join commissioners together. I hope that members recall why the Parliament established the Scottish Commission for Human Rights, the bill for which I took through the Parliament in the previous session. We should remember why we set up such institutions and why they are important.
Let the chamber say clearly tonight that human rights are unconditional, universal and expressive of our highest aspirations for the present and future. As many members have said, human rights challenge all aspects of our national life and politics.
It might not be a bad idea to cause, as the universal declaration requires, the text of the declaration
"to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded … in schools and other educational institutions".
We should know about the declaration, as should our young people and citizens more generally. We should bring forth the declaration into the activities of our politics and daily lives. There could be a worse new year resolution than that.
I will touch on three separate areas. Before I do so, I thank and praise Michael McMahon for his great public spirit. I also thank Jamie Hepburn for bringing the debate to the chamber. I apologise to him and to you, Presiding Officer, for having to cut short my presence in the chamber owing to a prior engagement. I will make my comments brief.
The 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is something to celebrate. The declaration has made a difference, but it has not yet reached into all the places that Governments worldwide protect, in the main on the false premise of public interest or safety.
One of the most glaring examples of somewhere with a complete lack of human rights is the despicable Guantánamo Bay, an example that is compounded by multi-Government duplicity in co-operating to render people to and from that place. Of course, there are also the horrors of torture for those who find themselves in that unjust place.
People around the world have campaigned vocally for the closure of Guantánamo bay and for the individuals who are held there illegally to be transferred into the US justice system where they can be given a proper pre-trial evaluation, without threat. A considerable amount of that campaigning has taken place in the USA, even at high political level.
Having had to be taken to the European Court of Human Rights on the issue of building and retaining a DNA database that includes samples taken from innocent people, the UK has nothing to crow about. I am pleased that last week 17 judges ruled unanimously that the UK Government broke human rights law in retaining those samples.
Lastly, human rights are being breached in Scotland day in, day out by the well-financed and organised gangs that are involved in the slave trade and trafficking women and children into the sex trade.
I am pleased and honoured to speak in this debate, but I am ashamed that society requires such laws to establish fundamental human rights in the first place. I declare—as I hope other members will—a commitment to join others in continuing to campaign for worldwide enforcement of the declaration.
I join other members in congratulating Jamie Hepburn on securing the debate. I am pleased that the Parliament is marking the important occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The declaration was adopted by the UN General Assembly in response to the experience of the second world war, especially the horrors of Nazism. It was appropriate for Robert Brown to remind us of that point. As a Liberal Democrat, he pointed out in a typically balanced way that Stalin was equally guilty—perhaps at the other end of the spectrum, or as one of two heads on the same coin. The secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, has described the declaration as the first global statement of what we now take for granted—the inherent dignity and equality of all human beings. Jamie Hepburn was right to emphasise that point.
Human rights are not just for other people in other countries. As many members have said this evening, in a wide-ranging debate, they are also for us in Scotland. The values of the declaration are at the heart of what the Parliament and the Government are about. For example, article 4 prohibits slavery and servitude. Members will recall the debate on human trafficking that took place in Parliament in March this year. In that debate, to which Marlyn Glen referred, I was pleased to set out what we in Scotland are doing to stamp out that vile trade. During last month's debate on children's rights, we made clear our intention to use the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to deliver improved outcomes for all children in Scotland. In my portfolio area, I am reminded that between 40,000 and 60,000 children in Scotland live with one parent who has a serious drug misuse problem and that 65,000 children have at least one parent with a serious alcohol problem. Recent events have shown just how seriously we must all continue to take issues relating to the rights of those sad and vulnerable children.
In last month's debate, members spoke passionately on the rights of children, and today I have been encouraged to hear many members speak with equal passion on a variety of topics related to the rights of every human being. As Jamie Hepburn said, human rights are universal. The Government has taken a firm stand in defence of human rights on a wide range of issues. We have spoken out against the UK Government's proposals on identity cards and 42-day detention without trial. We have strongly condemned dawn raids on failed asylum seekers and the holding of children in Dungavel, and have made clear our opposition to rendition flights. I pay tribute to Trish Godman for her eloquent advocacy of the rights of veterans. In my constituency, I have encountered similar difficulties, with constituents not even getting a wheelchair. The member is right to highlight that issue today. I know that she is aware that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing views it with the utmost gravity.
Rightly, many members have taken the opportunity to set out their views on the situation in other parts of the world, not least Israel, Zimbabwe and Gaza. They are quite right to do so and to use the platform that today's debate provides to raise their concerns. I do not have time or the portfolio responsibility to address all the issues that they raised, but it is entirely appropriate for members this evening to express concerns on international issues, on which the Parliament has a voice.
We should also recognise the need for a proper balance between rights and responsibilities, to which some members alluded, including Hugh O'Donnell and Bill Aitken. For example, there is understandable public concern about substantial amounts of public money being used to pay compensation to convicted criminals. The rights of others, such as the victims of crime, prison officers and other staff who work in our prisons, should also be respected. We need to find ways to address such issues if we are to maintain public support for the human rights agenda, which can be tarnished by episodes such as the ones that Bill Aitken was right to highlight.
I should not and will not let this occasion pass without mentioning the new Scottish Commission for Human Rights. The SCHR has as its chair an internationally respected expert in human rights, Professor Alan Miller, and we look forward to working closely with the commission.
When I was listening to various members' speeches, I was reminded of the huge contribution that authors have made to strengthening human rights and ensuring that they are not breached. They include Solzhenitsyn, with his "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich"; Kafka, with "The Trial"; Orwell, with "Animal Farm"; and Camus, with "The Outsider". Those formed the staple diet of my adolescence—and I am sure that those authors' works will be long remembered after this speech is long forgotten.
I conclude with the observation that struck me as I listened to the speeches from Robert Brown and Ian McKee, who mentioned the time when a member of his family suddenly found herself in a nightmarish situation. The reflection is a prosaic one, and certainly not an original one. It is this: human rights are not only important when they are under threat; it is when they are under threat that we begin to appreciate just how important they are.
Meeting closed at 17:47.