Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, panel and colleagues, from a sunny but very cold Coatbridge.

I have a question for Nick Bland, but first of all, I want to thank all the witnesses—as colleagues have done—for their evidence so far. Richy, I thank you in particular; I know that it must be difficult to talk about your experience again, but I want to put on record my thanks to you for doing so and, indeed, for continuing to do it in the hope that it will help others.

My question is on one of the advisory group’s recommendations, which is for

“a Commission”,

whether it is

“a single commission ... or another body”,

to be

“given a specific responsibility”.

It comes out of the example of a model in Victoria in Australia, from which we have also heard.

Could that work be undertaken by an existing body, or will it require a new body to be created? What new powers and responsibilities should that body have? As I have said, that question is probably for Nick Bland.

Yes. My understanding is that they can already do that in some instances but, given that the information that we received says that the centres are not for everybody, perhaps they could be expanded.

I back up what others have said. The notes are really good and they capture what we heard from officers, which needs to be taken really seriously.

I will keep my comments brief, because the key points have been clarified and they are in the public domain, but I want to mention the issue that came up about police treatment centres. The one at Castlebrae at Auchterarder was talked about in particular. The consensus is that those centres are really helpful, and I wonder whether their expansion could be looked at. The point was made that, although the centres are there for people who experience any of a range of health issues while they are in the police, that is not necessarily the case when they retire. I think that the help is available only for officers who have retired on physical grounds, although I might be wrong about that. Perhaps that could be clarified in any response. However, if that is the case, will the police consider making that help available to people who have had to retire on mental health or emotional wellbeing grounds as well?

Thanks for that response. There was quite a big statement in it around your feeling that the UK Government is not quite getting the complexities of how its approach could impact on Scottish law on human rights. I know that both of you have touched on this, but what work to advise the UK Government has been done and is continuing? Is there any interaction between the Scottish Government and the UK Government to make the point clear? It would not be good if something happened just because of a lack of knowledge. Does that question make sense?

I also have questions around the national action plan, but first I thank you for those answers. I am sorry if my first question was a bit rushed; I was not expecting the convener to call me that soon. A lesson for me as a committee member is: always be prepared. [Laughter.] I thought that there was somebody else before me, but there you go.

My second line of questioning is around the second Scottish national action plan, which has been touched on already. Will it help the commission to meet its strategic priorities to promote and protect human rights? What contribution will it make to the changing human rights landscape in Scotland?

That is a very important point to make. I have a supplementary question. Do you have any idea how you will be able to measure whether there has been success, whether there have been outcomes or whether things are moving on? Have you thought about the measurement tools?

Thank you very much. I am happy with that, convener.

Good morning to the panel. My question follows on from Maggie Chapman’s line of questioning. You will be aware that the UK Government is proposing a British bill of rights and the Scottish Government has plans to introduce a Scottish human rights bill. What are your thoughts on how those might change the human rights landscape across the whole of the UK and with a particular focus on Scotland? Has your team any thoughts on how those bills might interact?

Thank you for that. Many members here share those concerns. Will you commit to keeping this committee up to date with your thoughts on and analysis of the bill as it progresses?

I will ask about one of the points that Kate Ramsden made, and perhaps Anil Gupta could refer to it when he responds to the question.

Kate, you said that folk will know that change is coming if the bill is passed, but is that the case? Is that the feeling that people have? My understanding is that the bill simply allows the Scottish Government to consult, with the possibility of change. Therefore, does some work need to be done with the workforce and people who use the services to say that change is only a possibility? You were quite definite in saying that folk believe that, once the bill is passed, change will come, rather than that change is a possibility.