Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is an interesting question. Undoubtedly, public services are failing disabled people in regard to many issues, and it is not just the big headline-grabbing issues—it is often the small issues that local authorities in particular and health boards, too, are not picking up on.

There is a big debate going on about the type of transport systems that we should have in city centres. I do not want to go down that road, but I note that, fairly often, the disabled voice is not heard, and it is disabled people who are most affected by the changes.

There is a lack of understanding. Many people will do a tick-box exercise, but they will not actually engage with the disabled community. Let me give you a very basic example. It is great that we keep the main roads clear when it snows, and it is really important that the buses run, but I live 200 or 300 yards from my nearest bus stop and, if those 200 or 300 yards of pavement are not cleared, I cannot get to the bus stop, which means that I cannot get to work. Obviously, I can work online, but many people cannot do that.

The policy that many local authorities have is that we keep the main roads open, but we never clear the side streets—we wait until it all melts away. That means that you are saying to somebody who has a wheelchair or a mobility issue that they are housebound for a longer time.

We have not done that for 25 years, so the gap is there. That gap will continue, because who will do that advocacy? We all move on to different issues when something else hits our email or something else hits the media. That is the point that the disability community is making. There are organisations out there that have been running for many years—there are many commissions that could have done that work, but they have not. We have given civic society and other organisations the opportunity to do it, but the evidence is clear that they have not done it, so let us use this commissioner as someone who can be really positive and who can challenge Government, local authorities and health boards in order to see that change in society. If we do not do that, the landscape will not change and we will leave people further behind.

Back in 1999, in year 1, we could have given the Parliament, the Scottish Government and all the organisations—even the different commissioners that we have introduced in the past number of years—the opportunity to do it. However, we have not done that. My point is that you will move on to another inquiry and other committees will move on to other issues, so that voice will still not be heard.

I hear your point, but I think that there is a difference here. I would argue that there are very loud voices advocating on behalf of women. Clearly, that does not always bring the change that you want, but I do not think that anyone is unaware of the issues that you are addressing with regard to women and with regard to other protected characteristics.

My point is that disabled people do not have those voices. Due to the disability and the effect that it has on the day-to-day life of many people, they will never have the strong advocacy voice that other people in society have. To take your argument to its logical conclusion, a bit like Mr Mason said, you would want to get rid of all commissioners. That might well be where you want to go. My point is that, until we get to that point, let us not discriminate against some of the most vulnerable people in society whose voices are not being heard and who do not have the champions that other groups in society have.

I have thought fairly long about that question, because I think that it is a genuine one. We have not said in the bill that the commissioner must have a disability themselves; after all, many good people out there have experience of disability through family, work or other areas. Clearly, they will have to understand disability and the issues that are faced by people in a disability context. If I were to write down who the ideal person would be, I would say that they would have lived experience of disability themselves, but I do not think that that has to be in the bill.

I will move on. Susie, the bill contains a requirement on social landlords to have a domestic abuse policy. Many social landlords already have such a policy. In your experience, do social landlords already implement domestic abuse policies? What difference would a statutory requirement make, if any?

The obvious follow-up question is whether you think that that should be delegated to IJBs in all 32 local authorities.

That is a good answer.

Moving on to the issue of domestic abuse, the bill’s provisions aim to prevent homelessness for those who are at risk of, or are suffering, domestic abuse. What is your view of the effectiveness of those provisions? Perhaps Mike Callaghan or Pat Togher could come in first.

Thank you. I want to come to Valerie Arbuckle on that point. Obviously, the police are the first to deal with domestic abuse. Do you have any views on that aspect of the bill? Just to develop the discussion slightly, is Police Scotland concerned that you are becoming more social workers than police officers?

Good morning, panel, and thank you for coming.

What are some of the problems with the fact that the current legal framework considers people to be threatened with homelessness if it is likely they will become homeless within two months? The bill would change that period to six months. Would that make a difference?

Perhaps we can start with Shea Moran and work along the row.

Following on from that, does anyone have comments on the proposal in the bill that, as part of the local housing strategy, councils should undertake an assessment of people’s housing support needs and the availability of housing support services, including homelessness services?