Seòmar agus comataidhean

That was very helpful.

I have a brief question on international examples. Professor Miller mentioned Finland, which was helpful, but I think that the committee would find it useful to reflect on where else in the world this has happened and what the outcomes have been. The documentation refers to Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Colombia and Brazil and the variety of ways in which justice is accessed in those nations, but are there any other examples that we should be focusing on?

We have touched on some of this already. I am particularly interested in how we monitor and scrutinise the minimum core obligations and in what the Parliament’s role would be in that. Is there a role for the Parliament? Should parliamentary committees scrutinise whether organisations are meeting the minimum requirements? We have heard suggestions about local authorities and it is crucial to think about the Scottish Government. Who holds the Government to account and checks whether it is meeting its obligations? In connection with that, what indicators would you measure Government or public bodies against? I appreciate that that is quite a wide-ranging question, but I am keen to know what our role should be.

Does anyone else want to add anything? That was very helpful. This and other committees of the Parliament, absolutely have a scrutiny role and a responsibility to ensure that legislation is compatible.

I suppose that my question is partly about what happens when targets or standards are not met. In a parliamentary democracy, it can often be difficult to enforce those, if I can use that word, because of the nature of majorities. Would the courts be the place where much of that would be done, rather than the Parliament? Alternatively, is there a role for a commissioner within the Parliament or the Scottish Human Rights Commission to have those powers of redress, I suppose, and to deal with significant issues when they arise?

John Taylor, you mentioned the current challenges with regard to interaction with local authorities, particularly around housing supply, and you said that wider dispersal will exacerbate those issues. Is the challenge with local authorities about what is available, or is it about how Mears chooses to interact with them? There have been a number of high-profile cases, which I think we would all recognise and which have been particularly concerning. Is it your view that the problem is with the interaction with local authorities?

I have one more question on local authorities before I move on to the human rights approach. Caroline O’Connor, in your interaction with local authorities, where do you see the gaps or challenges in terms of wider support provision?

Are you cognisant of the criticisms that have been voiced by people such as the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland of the circumstances in which pregnant women, in particular, have found themselves and of the issues around how hotels are managed and supported by Mears? How do you react to that criticism, take it on board and make changes? Much of the evidence that we have heard thus far has suggested that that does not always happen—or, at least, there is a real feeling that it does not always happen.

We have had a conversation about resource and how such decisions often become very resource driven because of the pressures that local authorities and other agencies face. The evidence that the committee has heard thus far from people such as the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland is that we need to refocus on the issue and look at it through a human rights lens, because there are serious concerns about dignity. John Taylor spoke about dignity and respect in his opening statement, and there is a lack of dignity and respect for people who are seeking such support. In a previous question, I referred to high-profile cases of people being housed inadequately or in inappropriate settings and the challenges that people who are being left destitute face.

Do you think that Mears takes a human rights approach? What more do you think that you could do in your contracts to achieve the dignity and respect that you spoke about?

Obviously, the committee is cognisant of the Illegal Migration Bill and has been looking at its impacts. Caroline O’Connor, it has been suggested that a broader humanitarian strategy that would pull lots of different Scottish Government strategies together might be a better way to respond to that. Do you have a view on that?

Good morning. The committee recognises that asylum and immigration are reserved matters, but we are particularly interested in the devolved areas, especially the Scottish Government’s work to address many of the issues about which we have already heard this morning and throughout our evidence taking.

Will you share with us what involvement you have had with the Scottish Government’s strategies, particularly the new Scots and ending destitution together strategies?

I want to follow up the conversation about the legislation and, indeed, on what can be done within devolved legislative competence on those issues. The Scottish Refugee Council has called on the Scottish Government to use its powers under section 9 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 to look at creating an anti-trafficking protection process, essentially, that would bypass the NRM. To what extent do the witnesses consider that that would be useful in protecting our obligations under article 4 of the EHRC? I will start with Bronagh Andrew to get a sense of whether you want the Government to push that forward.