Chamber and committees

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendment 2 would introduce a requirement for operators of a protected premises to include signage that outlines the safe access zone and summarises the restrictions of the zone. The amendment would require that the operator displayed the sign on the day that the safe access zone took effect. It would also allow ministers to make regulations about the signage. However, those regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure.

I am grateful for the conversations that I had with the minister and Gillian Mackay on signage, and I hope that they understand the good intentions behind lodging this amendment at stage 3. It is not my intention to press the amendment, but I wanted to raise the matter in the chamber because signage was not included in the original consultation process and in case any member wished to make further comments.

From my perspective, I am content with the reason that I received from the minister and Gillian Mackay for why they would not support the amendment at stage 3. The reason relates to health boards making their own decisions with regard to whether or not signage would be appropriate outside the particular premises concerned. I am content with the answer that I got from the minister and Gillian Mackay at stage 2, and I do not intend to press the amendment at stage 3.

I welcome the comments that have been made in relation to my amendment 3 and Jeremy Balfour’s amendments 4 and 5. I will start with my amendment. I completely understand where the minister and Gillian Mackay are coming from regarding current protections in the bill. The intention was to strengthen the bill as much as possible to ensure that women do not face unwanted harassment or recording, particularly in the days of social media, as Carol Mochan pointed out.

My colleague Jeremy Balfour’s amendments 4 and 5 are important, because they provide the right checks and balances that we need for bills such as this. Regarding chaplaincy services, it is right that we protect the right to freedom of religion, ensuring that choices are made by individuals and that they have the right care, services and support required in their time of need.

As Jeremy Balfour has highlighted, the defence of reasonableness has been used to strengthen previous legislation, while determining when behaviour is reasonable. There are measures and metrics in terms of what is acceptable and not acceptable when it comes to behaviours. For that reason, I believe that it was right to lodge amendments 4 and 5 in order to have further discussions on that point.

As advised previously, I do not intend to press my amendment 3 to a vote.

Amendment 3, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 6—Exceptions to offences

Does Suzi Martin want to come in on that?

Good morning. My question is on the point that Paul O’Kane raised in relation to other commissioners who should be carrying out work to help, support and promote the interests of people who are living with disabilities.

I was interested in the responses to the call for views. An Inclusion Scotland member stated:

“We are very aware of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. All do work to promote and protect disabled children’s and adults rights. However, all have wider responsibilities that sometimes mean that disabled people's rights are not their first priority.”

Heather Fisken, even though the SHRC’s and the EHRC’s remits could be strengthened, do you still feel that there would be a gap for disabled people and, because of that, do you think that a disability commissioner is essential?

The point about lived experience is important. I know that we use that phrase a lot in the committee, but what Heather Fisken said shows how important having lived experience within such organisations is in terms of the aims of the bill. Does anyone else want to respond to the question?

Does Jamie Cooke want to come in on that?

I would like to touch on what you said about the powers of the Scottish Human Rights Commission in response to Paul O’Kane’s question. We heard from the previous panel concerns about the commission not having sufficient powers and about disabled people always feeling as though they are at the back of the queue, given that that overarching commission deals with a lot of various issues and groups. Why do disabled people feel as though they are not being represented? Even if the SHRC’s role was strengthened, would there still be a black hole, with disabled people not fitting in? Is that why it is important to have a disability commissioner?

That was helpful.

It was helpful, because I am concerned that some sections of the disabled community would have a commissioner while others would not.

From reading the submissions and from feedback that I have had from the disabled community and disability charities, I know that people cannot wait. Action is required now if they are to feel valued and part of something wider that protects them and which encompasses their rights. That is where the buffer is, and there have been explanations as to what could be done to enhance their rights. Do the witnesses support the creation of, for example, a learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence commissioner?