Consensus is great, and it is fantastic to work on a cross-party basis in any kind of collaboration, particularly when it comes to human rights. However, I can never work with anyone who would vote against the rights of LGBT people.

International human rights day marks the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, as the minister said. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a milestone document that proclaims inalienable rights that everyone as a human being is entitled to.

It is really sad to see the political attacks in here. We are accused of talking about the Tories and the UK Government. We have to say that, unfortunately, we have another Government that has influence over the Scottish Parliament—but not for long. I have heard the SNP mentioned many times. I appreciate the ad, but that is not what we are here to talk about.

The theme for this year is dignity, freedom and justice for all. Unfortunately, I recognise that, for some, today is yet another day of torment, torture and denial of the very rights that we celebrate. It is shameful that there are people around the world, including in Scotland, who seek to deny others those inalienable rights.

The motion rightly applauds those who bravely speak truth to power at great personal cost, wherever they are in the world. We are aware of recent examples of people who have placed their lives in danger in doing that so that others may have a tomorrow full of basic human rights and protections. For example, who could not have been impacted by the activism and boldness of Iranian women? I applaud the courage and determination of protesters in Iran and elsewhere who are challenging police brutality and the deep-seated misogyny of their legal systems.

One of the protesters in Iran is Mahnaz Parakand, who is an Iranian lawyer and activist. She recently stated why she does what she does. That could easily apply to what the day really represents. The statement is as bold as it is beautiful. She said:

“I suffer from seeing other people’s discrimination as much as those individuals themselves suffer from it. It is our responsibility to clear the way for the recognition of the humanity of all human beings, regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, beliefs, ethnicity ... and to respect all human beings and human rights. I consider the struggle for human rights and justice not as a duty, but as a part of my identity.”

That has to be our struggle, our journey and our identity.

As the First Minister stated to women in Iran who are fighting for basic human rights, “We stand with you.” Scotland should be a home for all, committed to delivering a shared vision in which everyone can have a life of human dignity. It should be a nation in which human rights are respected and protected. I am pleased to see that the Scottish Government remains committed to supporting the rights of women and girls on an international stage as well as at home.

The Human Rights Act 1998 brought convention rights home by enabling people to raise human rights issues in Scottish courts. That legislation also places a duty on public bodies to comply with human rights in everything that they do. However, the act is under threat, as the Tories at Westminster have proposals to replace it with a new Bill of Rights Bill that would weaken the protections in the Human Rights Act 1998 and put the UK in breach of its international obligations.

By contrast, work is well under way in Scotland to incorporate into law the human rights that are contained in a number of other international human rights treaties that cover economic, social, cultural and environmental rights and stronger protections for the rights of women, disabled people, trans people, black and ethnic minority people, older persons and children. I agree with the Scottish Human Rights Commission that

“the UK Government’s Bill of Rights Bill threatens to damage Scotland’s progress in developing a human rights culture”

and to

“undermine the UK’s international reputation”—

or, at least, what is left of it.

Scotland has ambitions to be a global leader in human rights with integrity and an identity that is rooted in compassion, empathy and understanding. I stand with everyone who is battling every day for their basic human rights and challenge us all to be better allies to the people who desperately need it.

Will the member take an intervention?

Good morning. I will follow on from what we have just been discussing. Jim Farish talked about people understanding their rights, and Eilidh Dickson talked about people generally knowing what human rights are and how they interact. In his opening statement, Ian Duddy, said that training is one of the commission’s remits. What does that training look like? Who does it apply to? For the benefit of the committee, how do you roll out that training?

That is interesting. It is crucial that people understand how the issue of human rights interacts with all policy and legislation. I remember that, when I was a councillor, we would read through reports, at the end of which would be a section on the equality impact assessment. It seems as though that approach should be flipped on its head and human rights should be a foundation of the approach to many things.

How crucial is it that all committees, not just the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, put human rights at the foundation of their policy making and scrutiny?

In relation to the impacts of Covid, I was struck by what you said about people’s ability to access resources locally. People might not think that the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, for example, would have any obligation to underpin human rights, but rurality is a hot topic in the context of the debate about our neighbourhoods and people’s ability to access healthcare, for example. It is really interesting to hear your testimony on that.

That is fascinating.

Hearing your evidence has been really helpful. Committee members are now a bit more familiar with, and have a better understanding of, viruses and precautionary measures such as washing our hands and wearing masks than might have been the case two or three years ago. How effective are such things? How precautionary are they? How much depends on communication with poultry farmers and their ability to carry out the measures?

I was asking how much the effectiveness of the measures depends on communication and farmers carrying them out.

I, too, thought that last week’s round table was extremely helpful, and I was satisfied by the comments about how well the hunts are run, how seriously they take the safety of everyone who is involved and, in particular, how they have trained the dogs exceptionally well. It really comes down to what you said in your opening statement about the real concern being the risk of vexatious complaints that might be made that would disrupt hunts if there needed to be investigations. I asked DS Telford if he thought that it would be helpful to warn the police that a rough shoot was going to take place, and he said that it would. What are your thoughts on that?

The bill is mainly about animal welfare. Different types of hunt use different breeds of dog in different ways. We have heard how people manage and train those animals, and about how differently they behave. What are the differing concerns for animal welfare in different hunting scenarios? Does that make sense?