Chamber and committees

I appreciate Paul O’Kane’s comments about his frustration that we are discussing this now—that frustration was clearly expressed during the committee’s stage 1 evidence gathering.

During that evidence gathering, it was clear that even representatives from the denominational schools that you have just mentioned support the separation of religious observance and education. There is frustration that that broader education or “instruction”, as the 1980 act calls it, is conflated with, essentially, worship. Those two things remain and should be distinct, and denominational leaders and teachers were comfortable with that. Some of them said, “There is that distinction and we can make it work.” I am interested in hearing Paul O’Kane’s response to that.

I am interested in what Tess White is saying about capacity and the presumption against expecting every young person who is under the age of 16 to understand or have capacity. How does she consider that that aligns with the principles—set out in the UNCRC and elsewhere across legislation that has already been passed by the Parliament—that assume capacity unless there are reasons not to? There is a presumption for, rather than a presumption against, as her amendment proposes. How do you see that aligning with our existing legal and other practices?

There is a concern that the plan could have been more ambitious. If the local plans have that ambition, that may be more effective. I do not think there is disagreement about government setting the standards that are expected, but there needs to be an understanding that different public bodies and different listed authorities will need to work through those differently because of geography, rurality and all sorts of different things. It will be interesting to see progress on that in subsequent years.

I will leave it there because I know that others want to come in with questions on specific details.

Yes. You talked about the engagement with BSL users during the development of the plan. That happened, but they were still disappointed when the final plan was developed. They thought that certain conversations had gone further than were reflected in the plan. The implementation advisory group that you talk about is one mechanism of ensuring that we cannot just tweak the plan, but make the next few years as ambitious as possible. We might tick all the boxes, but those boxes have to deliver meaningful change. I accept your point about education.

You highlighted this morning the high-level priorities of engagement and the reviewing of qualification guidance, which was really good to hear.

This may follow on from Paul O’Kane’s question. Given the need to support other public bodies, what is the role of engagement between the Government, other public bodies and BSL users? How do you see that triangle working? Where there will be disagreement or frustration because of resource allocations and so on, what is the role of engagement in making sure that the plan delivers for BSL users?

In your opening remarks, Deputy First Minister, you talked about the national plan, how it is not static and how it needs to evolve and be built on as we go through. The correspondence that you sent the committee notes comments that we heard during the inquiry, which we highlighted in the report, about how the second national plan appears to be watered down. You partially accept that, but you give the space for building and evolving. Do you want to make any comments on the robustness of the plan? How do we make sure that it actually delivers and does not feel as though it is not as ambitious as it should be?

Good morning. I thank both witnesses for joining us and for their comments so far. My first question is on the new powers that the SHRC received under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. I am curious to understand how that act has affected your work. Have you used the new powers yet? Do you have the resources for them? Do you have what you need to make best use—full use—of those powers and have you been able to do so?

That is helpful. As you said, it is quite exciting to be laying down that vital foundational work. You have gathered so much evidence and scoped so much in the spotlight projects that you will be identifying potential areas for intervention or litigation.

I will move on to ask about where a couple of spotlight projects will go next. First, I will ask about the project on moving from institutions to independent living. I was interested that Angela O’Hagan talked about the increased engagement that there seems to be with the Parliament. Given that too many people remain in institutional care, are commitments from the Scottish Government not being borne out in people’s lived experience or realities? Is the increased engagement masking real action? Are we talking about stuff but not actually doing it? In relation to institutional care, where are the challenges? What barriers are preventing the implementation of the recommendations that the Scottish Government is seeking to follow?

That was really helpful, and I know that the committee will be keeping an eye on that in our inquiry in the new year.

My final question is on the human rights assessment that you are doing on the tinker experiment. In your opening remarks, Angela, you mentioned the work that the commission has done with Gypsy Traveller communities. Thinking about the apology that was given in June, and which came after many years of campaigning—and I pay tribute to people like Roseanna and Shamus McPhee and Dr Lynne Tammi-Connelly for their work in that respect—I am just curious about how your work intersects or integrates with the work that the Scottish Government has done and is doing.

Also—and this picks up on a point that Jan Savage just made—what does redress for victims mean? What would that look like, given how long the tinker experiment went on for?

The rhetoric and the comments from so many people in this building and beyond—from duty bearers and those who support duty bearers—are about wanting to make the change and make the shift. I appreciate that you have not yet done your assessment of the position 12 months on from “Tick Tock”, but is there something that you can put your finger on now? I suppose that, if you could answer yes, you would have done that by now.

Is something blocking the cultural shift—the move away from the review, recommend and repeat cycle—in detention and so many other areas where that cycle applies? We know—or think that we know—where we want to get to, but there seems to be no pathway and there is a reticence to publish an attempt at that pathway. Eleven months on, we still have no response from the Scottish Government, for example. Can you put your finger on something or is it just that the cultural change—the refocusing and reorienting towards rights realisation in everything that we do—is a very big thing, so it takes time? The situation is incredibly frustrating.

Thank you. We look forward to reading that report.