Seòmar agus comataidhean

For the record, there is some concern at Crisis about the homelessness definition and the Government’s ability to change it through regulations. The Scottish Conservatives will support amendment 1047, because its intention is right, but I would like to have further discussions with the minister.

My intervention is similar to that of my colleague Megan Gallacher. I am not sure that I heard you address the issue. Would the amendments mean that, in practice, for a local authority, we would go down to one list? How would local authorities then work with that list in practice?

Depending on where we go this morning, I am unclear on what that actually means. What does that test mean? How would it be applied? One reason why we do not support the amendment is the lack of information around that. What does that mean for the average housing officer in how they deal with people? For that reason, we will not support amendment 1052.

I am very sympathetic, in some ways, to Mr Stewart’s amendments, which I know he has worked on with Crisis and the Scottish Government. However, I am still concerned about some of the wording in some of them. We still need to work a wee bit harder on getting definitions correct and getting things correct.

On this occasion, we will therefore abstain on all Mr Stewart’s amendments in this particular area, in the hope that, whether they are agreed to or not this morning, a wee bit more work can be done between stages 2 and 3, between all parties and with the third sector, to ensure that we end up with something that is not only good for those who are being threatened with homelessness, but workable for those who have to work with the system. I am not sure that we have quite got that balance right within those amendments.

I want to explore further the point that Mr Griffin made in his intervention about the Government’s proposed ability to redefine homelessness through regulation. We are making legislation not just for the current Government in this session of Parliament but for future Governments in future sessions of Parliament.

I am a member of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, which spends a great deal of time looking at regulations. It is obvious from our work that regulations do not get the same scrutiny as primary legislation does. We do not know what a future Government might look like in five, 10 or 15 years’ time.

Will the minister tell me why there might be a need to introduce a new definition of homelessness via regulations? Why can we not simply include a definition in the bill? If a future Parliament or a future Government wants to change that, it should do so through primary legislation rather than through regulations.

Good morning. Thank you for having us along to give evidence.

The simple answer is that I am not wedded to that model at all. I see the funding of a disability commissioner’s organisation and how it functions as being the least important aspects of its operations. The disability community wants to have an independent voice on Government, health services and local government issues. How that organisation might be put together is a secondary consideration.

The reason for my going down the road that you have described was that that was the one that was taken for other commissioners in the past. At that point, it seemed logical to keep everything under the same roof, as it were. However, if the committee or the Parliament, either now or in the future, were to say, “Look—there’s a different way of doing this that would provide economic benefit or allow us to pool services,” that would not concern me. There are different ways of doing this, which we could perhaps explore later in the meeting. I am not wedded in any way to that one model.

You are right to say that there are existing models that work, and there might be others that you would like to explore. For me, the key issue is to get a disability commissioner in place and advocating on behalf of a community in Scotland that feels that it has been left behind and has, in practice, been left behind, both before Covid and certainly since then.

Yes. As you will be aware, SCOSS scrutinises legislative proposals from the Government to see whether they reflect what the disability community wants. The work of a disability commissioner would go much further. The committee has already heard evidence from other commissions, but they have done very little work on disability issues, which is why the disability community feels that it has been left behind.

When I did my public consultation, people’s responses were that they felt that they had been left behind. That was not just a feeling; it is backed by facts. I have just come from a meeting of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee on issues relating to older people and pensioner poverty. The community that is most left behind in that regard is the disabled community. A pensioner who is poor and disabled will really have to struggle against everything else.

I am not so worried about the model that the Parliament comes up with for how such a commissioner could operate. It could be done through the Scottish Government or perhaps with one central bloc that had an HR team that looked after all the commissioners and had all the backroom resources behind it. I know that the latter is a model that the committee has already explored. For me, that is not the issue; it is about establishing an independent disability commissioner who can advocate on behalf of disabled people in Scotland. The rest of it can follow on from that.

I have three things to say. First, disabled people make up 20 per cent of the population in Scotland, which is not an insignificant number, and that number is growing, for various reasons.

Secondly, we need to follow the evidence on poverty, employability, the transition from education and all the other key issues that we talk about in the Parliament. On almost every occasion, disabled people have been left behind or find it hardest to access those services.

Finally, I will quote Murdo Fraser, who asked a previous panel:

“Are you telling me that, as it stands, you do not believe that the Scottish Human Rights Commission properly represents the views of disabled or older people?”—[Official Report, SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, 27 February 2025; c 7.]

The answer to that was, “We do not think that it does.”

To be honest, if the Scottish Human Rights Commission and other bodies were doing their jobs at the moment, perhaps we would not need a disability commissioner. However, the evidence is that, although those bodies are pursuing other very important issues, they are not dealing with disability issues. I do not foresee there being any change in that regard, which means that the 20 per cent of the population who have diverse needs and face diverse situations simply do not have a voice in the Parliament or the Government.

That does not mean that third sector organisations are not doing their jobs. They are doing their jobs very effectively, but there is no coherent voice of the kind that disabled people strongly feel is needed in Scotland.

It is important to say that it could be doing that work already. It has chosen to put its resources into certain areas, and it has chosen not to put them into disability issues. We could give the Human Rights Commission more money and whoever is in charge of the organisation at the time could say, “Yes, we’re going to sign up to that and we’re going to do that”, but three to five years down the line, when a new person with new priorities is in place, there is nothing statutory to say that it must continue to highlight disability issues. To be fair, it could have done such work in the past, but it has not. Unless we are going to absolutely change the remit of the commission and give it a whole new way of working, I fear that that simply will not happen in practice. We can put more money into it, but it still gets to decide what work it does. If it chooses not to address disability issues, that will take us no further forward.

I am slightly further down the road than my two colleagues, in that a stage 1 report has been produced on my bill. Redefining the Scottish Human Rights Commission would probably be too broad an area for a member’s bill; such a bill would need to be led by the Government or a committee. Having consulted the office of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner on how it works, I have tried to mirror in my bill many of its powers. In fact, my bill goes further, because the Children and Young People’s Commissioner said, “Here are some of the weaknesses—we wish that we had these powers,” so we added those powers to my bill.

Ultimately, if we are going to change the Scottish Human Rights Commission or do something different, that will take time, and it will not happen in this session of the Parliament. The issue might be back on the agenda in the next session of the Parliament, but we do not know what the Government will be or what the priorities of MSPs will be. If my bill is not passed, the disability community will have no voice for two, three, four or however many more years. It is really important that my bill is passed at the moment, so that there is that voice at the table.

There are legitimate calls for a big debate on what the landscape should look like. However, my concern is that, if there is no one to advocate for the disability community in Scotland, it is inevitable that that voice will not be heard. Let us have that debate, but it will not happen fully in the next 12 months—there will certainly be no worked-out legislation in the next 12 months.

There are legitimate questions about how such bodies are funded and where they sit. The question that the Parliament has to ask in the next few months is: do we believe that there needs to be an independent commissioner to advocate for disabled people? That is the issue that we need to address. Everything else will follow from it.

Yes.