Chamber and committees

Thank you very much for that, Clare.

Lucy, what are your views on what we need to do and how engagement is going on the concept of a legal framework on mandatory human rights due diligence?

It would be helpful to see that report—we would appreciate that.

Unless anyone else wants to come in on that point, I am happy to hand back to the convener.

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.

Not moved. Thank you. [Laughter.] I knew it was one of those words.

Amendment 1067 not moved.

The homelessness provisions in the bill are potentially game changing, but they could quite easily fall flat if they are not properly resourced and monitored. Pilots of some of the key provisions are being planned, and we will learn from those. Given the complexity of some of the provisions, it is important that we step back and review how things are working out at dedicated points after commencement and enactment, and that is what my amendments 1067 and 1074 seek to enable.

Amendment 1067 provides for a review of specific

“duties of relevant bodies ... within 2 years of the date that section 41 comes into force”.

It is about ensuring that the relevant bodies are working in the way that the bill intends them to work and that they have the resources and the connections and relationships that they need.

Amendment 1074 provides for a review of the whole of part 5 of the act

“within 2 years of this Part coming into force”.

Again, it is about ensuring that the bill does the things that we all hope that it will to tackle homelessness and provide support to people who need it.

I am open to conversations with the Scottish Government about whether the mechanisms and timescales in my amendments are the right ones, but I hope that we can agree today that the principle of review—the principle that we should seriously and rigorously review this section of the bill post commencement—is important, and I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say in response.

I wholly support the other amendments in the group, in particular those in the name of Mark Griffin.

On a point of order, convener. I should have noted my entry in the register of members’ interests at the start of the meeting. Prior to my election, I worked for a rape crisis centre. I have said that at previous meetings, but I forgot to do so this morning. I apologise.