Chamber and committees

Good morning to the witnesses. Thank you for joining us, and I am sorry that I cannot be with you in person. I am interested in what we can do now and in the coming months before we have—we hope—a maximalist approach to incorporation, as Lorne Berkley described it.

CESCR called for a legal framework for mandatory human rights due diligence. I am curious about how you think that not only public bodies but businesses are engaging with that concept, because there is perhaps a mixed understanding of what due diligence might look like and what the obligations actually are. Angela O’Hagan said that there are things that we can and should be doing now, so I wonder whether part of the work that we need to be doing now is ensuring that everybody, including businesses, understands what their responsibilities are. Obviously, there has been a lot of focus on public bodies. How are public bodies and businesses engaging with the concept of due diligence?

I will just say a couple of words in response to members’ contributions. First, Rachel Hamilton said that I was the CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, but that is not true. I was chief operating officer at the point of my election. At the time of the witness session in question, that connection had long ceased. I just want to correct the record there.

Pam Gosal said that we have been chosen by our constituents

“to be their voice and represent their interests”.

That is precisely what I have been doing: representing trans and non-binary constituents and their friends and loved ones who live in the region that I am privileged to represent.

In response to Paul O’Kane’s challenge to me, I say categorically that I do respect the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary; I have no problems in confirming either of those things. I have never questioned the Supreme Court’s right—its constitutional right—to make the judgments that it has made on this, or any, matter.

Finally, I repeat the words of Lord Hope:

“I do not think that she should stand down or be removed from her post but she should be more careful with her language.”

Convener, I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate so far—I know that Tess White will sum up in a moment. I am grateful for members’ thoughts and comments and I will, of course, reflect on and consider what has been said this morning.

I have said what I wish to say.

Thanks for that, Lorne.

Are there any specific issues or questions that we need to be asking or to be aware of in order to ensure that human rights due diligence is understood by businesses, particularly those that should be providing the kind of support for people with learning disabilities that you have described?

Thank you very much. You have highlighted the barriers to accessing education at all, never mind culturally appropriate education. I come to Lorne Berkley on the same question.

Thank you, Lucy. I will leave it there for now, convener.

Convener, do you want me to come in?

Thank you, Lorne. That is helpful.

Charlie McMillan, do you have any comments on the point about public bodies and businesses engaging with the content of the mandatory human rights due diligence? I also have a question about action plans, which follows up on your earlier comments.

I am in two minds about this, but given what the minister has said and the future that Bob Doris’s amendment may or may not bring, I will withdraw—or rather, not press—my amendment at this stage.

Good morning, convener, committee, and minister. Thank you for the opportunity to give a brief recap of my amendments 1022 and 1069 in this group.

Amendment 1022, which was worked up with Scottish Women’s Aid, expands the definition of domestic violence to cover coercive control and other aspects such as threatening, degrading and violent behaviour. We feel that that is important because certain groups of people, particularly young people and, often, women with children, might feel that they cannot leave an abusive situation as they would be intentionally making themselves homeless. We need to ensure that they have the support and protections that they need.

Specific examples of abuse and violence perpetrated by someone who is not a partner or ex-partner also need to be included in the legislation—indeed, that is the second part of amendment 1022. The more we can identify domestic abuse in our homelessness systems, the better we can help victims and survivors and support them to move on and build better lives. That is helped by having the wider definition.

Amendment 1069 seeks to understand how this section of the bill will work. We know that it is important to monitor how these measures will support women with children at risk of homelessness, and the amendment, therefore, sets out a review mechanism to ensure that we capture information so that we can see what is and is not working and improve things for the future.