 Thank you, and welcome to the 31st meeting of session 4 of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. Our first agenda item today is to hear from the Scottish Human Rights Commission and our afer members to papers one and two. I'd like to welcome to our meeting Ian Dughey, chair of the commission, Aloy Dixon, policy and international officer, and Commissioner Jim Farish. He is all very welcome. A fyddwn i gael i ddae, Iann Dudi, i yn ei gilydd o'r ddechrau meddwlol. Baid i i gael i ddim yn amlwg gyda'r gyrd trafnodol. Rwy'n gael ni'n drwg wirio'r anôn o rhan, o'r 2020-21. Felly, rydw i'n rhan, bod rydw i'n gael i gael i gael a rydon ni i gael i'n dim ond yn y prif sydd wedi gynnig o'r anud o'r anon o'r awrach i gyd, a fyddwn i shouldru arfer â'r llawer o'r myd. Rwy'n cael eu chagolodau i chi'n gweld i ddweud i ddechrau i Ffrediscesa Djudas Robertson, ar gyfer y cyffredin dros 6 yma, ymdpsech yn tawf yn 2021. Felly, mae'n gwybod bod iawn i sig fod yn ganodaeth yma, a chi fod yn ei gydag hwnnw i'n cael ei ddweud i fod yn cael ei ddweud i gydag hefoedd, ond mae'n gyrsbyd yma, oherwydd mae eich We are a public body independent of Scottish Government but funded by the taxpayer via Parliament. My position is appointed by Parliament and we have, under our mandate, up to four commissioners who work part-time, so Jim is one of those new commissioners. We currently have three commissioners in position. Our powers are to conduct inquiries, intervene in relevant civil court cases, publish research, give training, make recommendations to law, but we don't have powers to litigate and nor are we able to take on legal complaints. The UK has three national human rights institutions, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Scottish Human Rights Commission, so we're a little bit unique in having three UN-recognised institutions. In 2020-21 we had a budget of £1.2 million and most of that is spent on our staff. Around 85% of our total budget is staff costs. Our total staff headcount is £12.5 million. We're hoping to increase that to £14.5 million next financial year. We've submitted a budget bid for next financial year of £1.37 million. Compared to the other two UK NHRIs, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and the Northern Ireland Commission, we are quite lean, so in comparison the Northern Ireland Commission had a budget of £2.3 million in 2020-21 and 22 staff and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission had a budget of £17.1 million and 183 staff. Obviously our mandates are a bit different, but we are a small NHRI in comparison. We're halfway through our four year strategic plan, which runs from 2020-24. We have four key strategic priorities that we're aiming to deliver. Number one, progressing the understanding and strengthening legal protection of economic, social and cultural rights. Number two, strengthening accountability for human rights. Number three, building wider ownership of human rights and number four, advancing best practice locally and sharing our knowledge globally. The other thing that I'd like to mention in 2020-21 covered by this report is that our A status as a national human rights institution was reviewed by the UN and I'm pleased to say that our A status was renewed. Looking forward, in terms of the next year ahead, some of the issues that we're planning to be working on include the plans by the Scottish Government for a new human rights bill and incorporating several treaties into Scott's law. That will be a big piece of work and that may result in the commission having additional powers, so we need to think through what that means in terms of our own work and resourcing. The UK was recently reviewed on its human rights record at the UN under the Universal Periodic Review just last month and commitments were made by the UK and Scottish Government, so we'll be looking to follow those up over the next year or two. We also work quite heavily in the justice sector, so prison inspections and prison monitoring that were suspended during Covid, but we'd like to renew our work on that, obviously working hand in hand with the prison's inspectorate. Also, the cost of living crisis addressing that in the year ahead, particularly around housing, health, access also to mental health and minimum core obligations. I just wanted to give the committee a flavour of some of the things that are coming up in the year ahead and perhaps some of the things that the committee may want to look at as well. That's really helpful. Thanks for that. You mentioned Covid, so you probably just skipped straight to that. There's obviously a degree of work that has been paused because of Covid and developing the strategic litigation being one of the areas. It would be good just to get an idea of what else has been paused and what plans there are to pick up anything that was paused because of Covid. In 2020-21, we had to divert some of our work on to Covid. The commission in that period issued quite a lot of guidance to the government, to chief medical officer, around recommendations on vaccines, certifications. We made a statement about human rights and care homes, also feeding into the Scottish Government's Covid inquiry and the terms of reference for that inquiry. We had to divert a fair bit of work to respond to Covid. At the same time, some other work was paused, so I mentioned prison inspections. We're hoping to work with partners to pick that up in 2023. Also, some of our work on participation, lived experience, some of that had to be paused or done in a different way. There's a bit of a challenge in Covid with a digital divide as well. Not everyone is able to dial in via Zoom, so that means reaching some more marginalised or vulnerable communities can be a challenge. Also, the pandemic highlighted new areas. Some of the things that we mentioned in our reports to the universal periodic review around mental health, social care, disabilities and the struggle for some communities in accessing services locally. Thank you. One of the areas that you mentioned is that one of my colleagues is keen to press further on, so Rachel, we're talking about prisons, so it probably is a as good a place as any other for you to cover the area. It was just really to ask you in terms of what you expected of the prisons inspectorate and the report that you had published with regards, could you talk us through the recommendations that you have made and what you expect of ensuring that death and custody review is acknowledged by the Parliament? My predecessor, Judith Robertson, worked closely with the prison inspectorate and also civil society group called Families Outside around the death and custody review, which was published this time last year. A year since that review was published, and we understand that the Scottish Government accepted most of the recommendations, in fact, all of the recommendations. I think that we have some questions about whether those recommendations are being followed up and implemented. We're now a year into that review. Jill Emery, who is currently reviewing that work, is expected to publish a report very soon. We will want to ensure that those recommendations that the Scottish Government agreed to are implemented. One of the key ones was whenever there is a death in custody, that there should be an independent investigation, and so we'd like to see that in practice. I'll ask my colleague, Chim, whether he wants to add anything on that, given his background. On what to say, we've met with Jill and we know that there's work on going to challenge the uptake on the recommendations. There are some actions that have already been taken regarding contacting, how to contact next of kin and who should make that contact from the establishment. There is some work being done, but I think that the report is not due until the middle of the month. Another question on that. Obviously, it's a really important report. What powers does the SHRC have over the Parliament in terms of ensuring that we do carry out the recommendations that you have set in place? What is the process of this? In the past, have those reports just gone to one side? If the Parliament decides not to take it up, is it just in our gift to be able to take this forward, or can you put pressure on us as the parliamentarians? I think that that's a really interesting question. I think that some of the responsibility lies within the committee to do some of that follow-up. We do not have powers in terms of the separation between ourselves and the prison's inspectorate, so we do not have powers to litigate against the Scottish Government if we found them to be failing. However, I think that there is a role for us as the NHRI to explain and question when public commitments are not being followed up. We have also done some work on a related matter around remand in Scotland as well. Again, the figures are quite high compared to the rest of the UK. I think that the justice sector is one of the areas that we will be wanting to follow up next year. Thank you for the information that you have provided so far. During the pandemic, obviously, a number of things had to pause and you were doing some work, as I understand, on the Covid inquiry. In your view, does the terms of reference that have been updated as a result of Ladypool's resignation now take account of human rights? Do you expect that the inquiry will be taken that frame, or is there anything further that we as a committee or parliamentarians can do to make sure that that is the case? In terms of reference, we lobbied openly and publicly for the inquiry to take a human rights-based approach. I am pleased by the recent commitments by the Deputy First Minister to say that that approach has been included in the terms of reference. We are pleased that that has been made explicit. One of the roles that we have is to ensure that that is implemented throughout the inquiry. We will be following up with Lord Brailsford and the Covid-19 inquiry team about next steps on that. Do you have a view about what that would look like in terms of the inquiry? I think that it is too early to say, but I think that the inquiry team will need to strike a balance between making sure that those most affected by the pandemic and the most marginalised groups and individuals have a chance to give evidence and that there should be a proper participatory process by those most affected by the pandemic. Obviously, there is a balance between 15,000 families perhaps wanting to give evidence, but trying to do it in a way that is inclusive as possible so that everyone gets a chance to contribute. Is the inquiry going to take your advice on that? Are you intending to give them advice on how to do that, or do you know how they are going to approach it? We have not met yet the new chair of the inquiry team, but we are planning to do that before Christmas and to follow up on that conversation. I just have one further question about staff and resources. In your opening statement, you mentioned that you were a lean organisation and that you are hoping to build up to 14.5 members of staff in the coming year. We will come on to talk a little bit more about some of the incorporation and other aspects of that, but if that were the case, do you expect that you would have to exceed the 14.5 members of staff on the basis of further incorporation? Are you proportionately leaner than the other organisations that you mentioned, or do you have specifically less resources and staff? My mandates are a bit different. In Northern Ireland, we have powers for strategic litigation, but we do not. If the new bill meant that there were new obligations placed on us as a commission, particularly around legal powers, we are not staffed to do that at the moment. Therefore, we would need to increase resources. The bid that we put in for next financial year is basically steady state, just to keep the ship still sailing. If we have additional powers, I think that we will be needing additional legal resource. At the moment, we have two full-time legal officers. We are quite lean. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us this morning. If I can follow on from Pam Duncan-Glancy's line of questioning around staffing and how the commission is at the moment. Yes, we have been through some of the impacts of Covid and we have talked about some of that, but there has also, as you outlined in your opening remarks, been a significant amount of organisational change. I have a few questions in the space. I am interested in how are your staff, how is the team feeling? I should also declare that, as a member of the corporate body, I will be scrutinising the budget that you have put in for next year. I am interested to know how the team is doing. It has been a challenging year not just for Covid but for quite a big change in staff, also having a new set of commissioners. There was a gap between my predecessor leaving and me starting of three to four months. Perhaps that is something that could be looked at in the future in terms of succession planning. That is within this committee's gift in terms of recruitment to avoid that gap. We have had quite a bit of staff turnover as well, so we have had to ruthlessly prioritise what we have been working on. I am grateful to the Parliament's corporate board for providing us with a finance director to make sure that we are able to complete our report and make sure that all our invoices and staff will continue to be paid. We have two new senior staff joining us in January, so a new executive director and a new finance director. I think that will help to rebalance. It is worth clarifying that there is a difference between the chair's role, which is a full-time role, and the commissioners who are part-time. As a commission, the part-time commissioners, including Jim, are responsible for strategic oversight, but the operational executive decision-making rests with the chair. We are also looking to outsource some functions, so things like payroll. We are quite a small organisation, with less than 20 people, so we are being encouraged by Parliament to look at shared services. We already share our building with a number of other public bodies, share reception facilities and now sharing things like payroll. The Human Rights Commission is not the only commission that is talking about sharing services like payroll and those back-office functions. Jim, can I ask you in your new-ish role now how do you find the balance between the strategic work that you and your fellow commissioners are asked to do and the operational side that Ian heads up? Do you think that we have the balance right in that? Do you think that we are allowing, notwithstanding the requests for additional staff that Ian has already outlined, but do you think that we have that kind of balance between strategy and operations? I think that it is an on-going analysis that needs to be undertaken on what the balance is. The staffing is coming from a big organisation as I did, to such a small organisation. It is impressive that the volume of work that is produced by such a small core group of staff is credited to the staff for doing that. I think that there is some work that needs to be done around that balance between the strategy and the operational side of things and making sure that commissioners are there to support and help to develop as opposed to developing a nosy in-fingers-out approach. I think that that balance might not be quite right in the past, but that is something that we have already discussed and we will look to develop over the coming months, especially when the two new senior staff members come in, you will then have a sort of operational function within the commission staffing group that will allow a lot of maybe the work that is slipped to the commissioners to be rebalanced. Thanks, that is really helpful. My final question, Ian, you talked about the shift from 12.5 to 14.5 members of staff and that would be steady state. Given what is coming at you or coming at all of us with the human rights bill and incorporation and some of the distinct legal and constitutional challenges around that, never mind just the human rights bit. When you say steady state, how much additional resource would you anticipate needing? I know that some of those conversations will have started with the staff in the Parliament that support you, but where are conversations with that going? Yes, it is a good question and a key challenge for us in 2023 is to map that out. To be clear, having two additional staff is really just regularising two fixed-term contracts that we have, so it is not an overall addition to our capacity, it is an overall addition to our permanent headcount. We need to see the shape of the bill when it comes through. We were expecting a consultation before Christmas, but I understand that that has been pushed into 2023, so we would need to see the detail to work out exactly what is being proposed, but from initial conversations we understand that there could be a move for, and again this is in the hands of a Parliament in terms of the role of the commission with these new treaties being enshrined in Scots law, the commission having that sort of regulatory type of function, which would be different to the mandate that we have at the moment. If that means things like strategic litigation, I would envisage us needing a new set of lawyers to be able to take cases to court and to follow them all the way through. That is helpful, I suppose. One more if I can. There have also been discussions around commissioners for other bits of rights, and I just wondered how you view the SHRC's role in an overarching body or how you see that developing or potentially developing. Again, a really interesting question. There have been several proposals for additional public bodies covering women's rights, an older person's commission, a victim's commission. I think I'm aware of perhaps a proposal around autism and neural diversity. We're open-minded. I think in our mandate it's quite clear that we shouldn't duplicate functions, and I think that should work both ways, particularly given the challenge that we are all facing around public finances. So making sure that if new commissions are created, there's a sort of clarity of purpose and that they're not duplicating functions that we carry out. We are the NHRI for Scotland. Our mandate is meant to be wide and broad and cover all human rights issues. So I think that the devil is in the detail on that. Okay, thank you. I'll leave it there. Thanks. Pam, did you have one to come in this area? Thank you, chair. Good morning, and thank you for providing the information. You mentioned in your opening statement that you're setting out the plan, the vision ahead. With that in mind, we all know that the UNCRC bill would have a significant impact on the work of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, such as through the powers introduced by section 10A. Given that there is continuing uncertainty around when the amended bill will be reintroduced to Parliament, is this uncertainty causing any issues for the commission in their long-term planning, and would the commission like to see more clarity from the Scottish Government around the timescales for the bill's reintroduction? Thank you. That relates to the previous question as well. There is in Scotland a separate child rights and young persons commission. Again, we try not to duplicate their work. They have led on most of the policy and legal analysis of the CRC bill, given that it is within their mandate. However, as the NHRI, we support the work of Bruce Addinson and the rest of his commission. We do want to see clarity from the Scottish Government about the bill and its introduction. We hope that the Scottish Government introduces the announced amendments as soon as possible. Thank you for that information. In relation to clarity, you have talked about your budget and what you are hoping to ask for the year ahead. Is that included in that, or is there uncertainty that you are looking for more staff and more money, but you are not certain about when that work is going to come through? Could that affect your long-term planning, but also in relation to the budget side as well? In terms of our medium-term planning, we are awaiting the detail on the new human rights bill. We want to make sure that we are properly staffed and budgeted for that. It is a bit difficult at this moment to totally predict what we will need in future years, but I think that we will be coming back to this committee in 2023. I want to come back to you with a firmer proposal about what our needs are. I have fallen on from Maggie Chapman's question. You will be aware that the UK Government is proposing a British Bill of Rights in the Scottish Government has plans to introduce a Scottish human rights bill. Have you had any thought about how that will change the human rights landscape across the UK, particularly focusing on Scotland, but across the whole UK, and how that might interact? Have there been any thoughts among your team on that? Sure. I will ask Ailey, one of my colleagues, to respond on that. For the record, we have been, as a commission, quite open and public about our concerns with the proposed Bill of Rights and the implications for Scotland, given that the Human Rights Act is enshrined in Scotland's law. We think that the Human Rights Act is working well for Scotland. We are not clear about some of the intent behind the Bill of Rights and concerned about its regressive effects. We have published a briefing in the summer. We gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in Westminster about the Bill of Rights. We understand that there may be a second reading before Christmas, and we intend to continue with our advocacy and questioning about the bill. I thank you very much for that. I think that many members would share those concerns, but as that bill progresses, will you commit to keeping the committee up-to-date with your own thoughts and analysis of that? Sure. The evidence that we gave in the summer to the Westminster Committee and all our evidence, whether it is to Westminster or to this Parliament, is public and published on our website. It is something that we will be working on in the year ahead and will keep the committee informed. I will check with my colleague Hayley to see whether I have missed anything there. No, thanks Ian. As we have outlined in previous submissions to both the Westminster and the Scottish Parliament, we are quite concerned about some of the technical impacts of the Bill of Rights. It was noticeable in the universal periodic review that a significant number of recommendations in that from other states referred to the proposals, some of them at a sort of structural level, some of them at a more technical level. One of the concerns that we have around the general landscape that you noted in your question is the Scotland Act and the restriction on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament in relation to convention rights and how that might lead to uncertainty around the legal landscape about the level of protection or the interpretation of some of the convention rights under the Human Rights Act and the Scotland Act. We are concerned that not enough scrutiny has been given to that particular point in the conversation so far. We are aware that the UK Government is engaging with the Scottish Government around some of the more technical matters of the Bill, but we are not yet seeing any evidence that the UK Government understands the constitutional impacts of some of the recommendations and how those might lead to uncertainty in the process. In terms of updating the committee, I think that we can definitely commit to sending you things that we are publishing. We are intending to put out a briefing and a sort of summary of our concerns around the stage 2 debate for the Bill of Rights, which, as far as I am aware, had not been scheduled yesterday when I caught up with my colleague leading on this, but we expect that to be forthcoming in the next few weeks. I mean that. Thanks very much for that response. That was quite a big statement. I felt around about perhaps the UK Government—you are feeling that the UK Government is not quite getting the complexities of how it could impact in Scottish law and human rights. I know that you both have already touched on it. We can ask what work has been done and we will be continuing to advise the UK Government, or is there any interaction between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on that, just to make this point clear? If it is something that perhaps happens just because of a lack of knowledge, that would not be good. Does that make sense? Does the question make sense? It is fair to say that the Scottish Government and the UK Government—the consultation between the two of them is a matter for them. We have certainly raised the points around some of the technical implications and the perhaps challenges in the broader culture around human rights protection and some of the duties on public bodies that have been mooted around the new forthcoming Bill of Rights in respect of some of the specific treaties and some of the rights in the ISCR treaty that will be brought forward to protect social, economic and cultural rights in the Scottish Government's proposals. There is still a lot of room for movement around what that Scottish Bill looks like. We are not at a stage to be able to comment on how those treaties might look, but it is a point that we have made and a number of other public bodies have made around fully understanding what some of the differences for public bodies and understanding their obligations under the Scotland Act and the Human Rights Act might be. I have a question about national action plans. I should first say as well, thanks very much for those answers, but my first question was a bit rushed. I wasn't actually expecting the convener to call me and it suddenly listened to me as a committee member, always being prepared, but there you go. I thought it was somebody else before me, but thanks to the convener. I have a second line of questions around the second Scottish National Action Plan. I know that it has been touched on already, but I wonder if you think that it will help the commission in meeting its strategic priorities to promote and protect human rights and what contribution will it have to the changing human rights landscape in Scotland? The Scottish National Action Plan is currently being developed. We are part of the leadership panel with the Scottish Government and a number of other civil society organisations. This has been several years in the making. Some of it was paused during Covid as well, and what the group has been trying to do is agree a set of actions that will be launched as part of a new national action plan in the new year. We are getting to the business end of that process just before Christmas, so those actions are being now agreed, the wording. I think that the intention by the Scottish Government is to launch the action plan in March next year. I think that this is something for the committee to think about and be involved in in the year ahead. It is one thing to make commitments, but they need to be followed up, so ensuring that the action plan and all the... There are about 50 actions that I think will be included in that plan, how they will be resourced, how they will be prioritised, how they will be implemented in the years ahead. It is a big piece of work. I think that it could be great for Scotland, it could be transformational, it is being co-produced with civil society and those groups perhaps most affected by inequalities. However, the plan will only stand up if it is fully delivered and implemented. I think that part of our role as the NHRI is to ensure and monitor the follow-up. Yes, and thanks very much for that. I think that that is a really important point to make, and I guess it was taken on to the supplementary part of my question about that. Have you got any idea how you will be able to measure those, if there has been success or outcomes or if things are moving on? Have you thought about the measurement tools? That is also currently being discussed within the leadership panel as well. In some areas, it is easier than others. It is always quite challenging in public policy about how you measure impact and success, but there are indicators and proxy indicators that you can use for some of the actions. For example, rates of child poverty, we have discussed the justice sector already around prison populations remand. There are metrics that can be used for others. We will need more qualitative evidence, so feedback from civil society, those with lived experience about what they think and what they feel. I just wanted to ask on what you had mentioned earlier on in your opening statement in relation to the sort of work that you are the big areas that you will be focusing on. How do you come to that conclusion that which areas you would like to focus on and obviously creating your vision and plan? Some of this is through horizon scanning and working out what are the big issues coming up in terms of the legislative agenda. The Human Rights Bill is going to be an incorporation of a big piece of work. I think that there is a role for us as the NHRI to lean in on that and make sure that it is done well. In terms of responding to lived experience and the feedback that we receive from civil society, we have a lived experience group that represents various communities and individuals, so getting feedback from them helps inform our work and our priorities so that we are really responding to the human rights issues that are pertinent in Scotland. We have done some recent work on that. I do not know whether, Ailey, you just want to mention about the recent work on Isesca and some of the lived experience work that we have done? Yes, absolutely. In relation to the current strategic plan, that is what we are working through and next year will be a strategic plan. The strategic planning year, when the 2020 strategic plan was drafted, we underwent a significant amount of consultation with public bodies that we work with, with civil society. We had an open call for evidence around what those priorities should be. It was very clear from doing that work that economic, social and cultural rights were a priority for the public at large and for us. Obviously now we have the incorporation agenda and the potential incorporation of the convention on ESCR rights. The strategic priority around economic, social and cultural rights and the protection and understanding of those rights is a big factor in leading our work over the next few years. As an NHRI, we also have a number of responsibilities under international law to report on various treaties. We are coming into the reporting process for the Isesca treaty protecting economic, social and cultural rights, so that process will begin in the new year. The first stage of that is that stakeholders, including NHRIs, produce written reports summarising some of the key concerns. Obviously, at the moment, we are well aware of some of the impacts around the cost of living crisis. We held a workshop with civil society organisations asking them around some of the impacts that the cost of living crisis was having on the groups that they work with, and looking at the various treaty articles that Isesca protects around housing, health, education and culture, looking at the cost of living particularly and adding that to the workshops that we have done over the last year to inform our universal periodic review work. All of that has fed into our report, which we planned to publish early in the new year, and that will be the beginning of what will likely be a process that takes a couple of years in terms of the UK reporting on how it protects economic, social and cultural rights. I am a practical person, so I apologise for that. We may be a bit basic, but the rights holders, if rights holders understand their rights and how to access those rights, that is the most powerful metric that you can have in my book. It is about engaging with those individuals and understanding how that happens. On our website, there is an excellent little film about rights in a care home. That lady says, I always thought that rights were something that goes out there, but it actually applies to me. That was a very powerful statement. We need to make sure that the legal policies are vital and important, but underneath it is, what is the impact for those rights holders? Are they seeing benefits? Are they seeing change? Are they seeing some more empowerment? That is a means by which we identify progress in its broadest sense. Obviously, I know that I got that call. I am sure that my other colleagues here got that call as well from you. One of the questions that you had asked was what is it that is really the top priorities in our constituencies and in our regions? I feel that that is quite important. I do not know how many MSPs you have reached out to—maybe just the committee—but all MSPs represent a constituency in regions. I think that it might be good if you reach out to them to see what the top concerns are, because we are on the ground and we listen to people. I know that the cost of living has mentioned that, but there are many other areas around the constituency, so that might be a good idea. We are also happy to receive feedback from the committee in terms of the casework inquiries that you get. I understand that they are significant. In some ways, that tells us a picture about the concerns that are being raised at a local level in your communities. I think that it would be an excellent time to raise the predecessor committee's report from 2018 on getting rights right, which talks about an expansive role for the Parliament and a collaborative role between the NHRI and the Parliament in terms of being the protectors of human rights and how we can ensure that we are working together to ensure accountability for human rights, that the right issues are being raised, that we are giving proper scrutiny to Scottish Government actions and other public bodies actions. There are a lot of recommendations in that report. Obviously, it was published in 2018, so it has fallen a little bit victim to Covid, but I think that it would be a really excellent opportunity for the committee to look at some of those recommendations, to take into account what we have said about our resource and our desire to work collaboratively and to see if there might be opportunities to make sure that we regularise that communication between ourselves, not just the committee but MSP colleagues across the chamber. I suppose that this is following on from what we have just been discussing here, what Jim was saying about people understanding their rights, and what you are talking about as a whole is an institution people knowing what human rights are and how they interact. In your statement, you are saying that training is one of your remits. I was just wondering what does that training look like? Who does that apply to and just for the benefit of the committee? How do you roll that training out? There are two sides to our mandate to step back a second in terms of protecting human rights, our legal and policy analysis, but also promoting human rights. Jim was saying about connecting the legal floor with also making it real for the ordinary person in Scotland. Part of our job is to communicate and promote that. We do some of that through training, so we have offered training to parliamentarians. We are happy to do that. We have done sessions on human rights budgeting, on incorporation on the new human rights bill, but that training is not just for parliament but also for other public bodies in Scotland. If the human rights bill develops in the way that we think it will, that brings new obligations to public bodies and local authorities in Scotland. I think that part of our role is making sure that those public bodies understand those new obligations. I am slightly concerned that perhaps not all of them fully understand the implications of a new bill and what it would mean for them, because those rights would be justiciable in Scottish law, meaning that if they are not upheld, citizens can assert their legal rights for remedies. There is a role for us in training and working with public bodies to do that. I also might be bold and suggest that that is a critical component for MSPs, as ultimately you are the human rights guarantors in parliament. We suggest that that could form part of the core training for new MSPs coming into Parliament, and we are happy to do that. That is really interesting. I think that understanding how human rights interacts with all policy and legislation is crucial. I remember being a councillor and we would read through reports and we would get to the end of the report and read how the quality impact assessment worked with that at the end of it. It almost seems that it should be flipped on its head. That human rights should be a foundation approach to a lot of things, particularly working across committees. How crucial is it that all committees—not just here in the human rights committee, but all committees—are taking human rights at the foundation of their policy making and scrutiny? That is a good question, and it is something that we have been trying to work on in the past couple of months. We have broadened awareness beyond this committee in Parliament. Colleagues recently gave evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee—that is the right name—on the national care service bill. Some of our concerns about the bill. We have also had colleagues speaking to the Finance Committee on Human Rights Budgeting. We are happy to do that. It is important that the committee is still the functional home for human rights in the Parliament, but we are happy to work with other committees because there are so many cross-cutting issues, particularly around finance resources implementation. If I may, convener, one thing that struck me when we were discussing the impacts of Covid was the accessibility and locality of resources for people. People might not necessarily think that the Rural Affairs Committee, for example, would have any obligation to underpin any kind of human rights, but rural and rurality are quite a hot topic in terms of our neighbourhoods and how we can access even healthcare, for example. It is really interesting to hear your testimonies on that, as so to speak. That is a classic example of where there are some cross-cutting issues. We have been working with a women's group in the North Highlands about the difficulties that they have in accessing gynaecological care in remote areas. There is a trade-off or balance to be struck between offering specialised centres of excellence and making sure that they are accessible. There are questions about that in some rural parts of Scotland, to what extent the centralisation of public services, for understandable reasons, puts up a barrier for women accessing healthcare in rural areas. On the point that you made just a moment ago about the two aspects of your work around protecting the floor and promoting it, we heard quite a bit in the committee, and I am pretty sure that it was this one, from a group of learning disabled people who spoke to us about their experience. It was clear to me that the floor that we would expect for them was not just being met—the numbers of people who were dying of preventable illnesses, people who were stuck in hospital in the thousands, in some cases for years at a time. How do you think that we, as a committee, can try to ensure through things like the universal periodic review and the review of the 2018 report that you mentioned earlier, how can we make sure that that floor is protected? What would you expect to see in terms of not just policy but budget for us to be able to tell whether or not we are protecting that minimum core? I will ask Eddie to speak in detail. We are just to say that those are some of the issues that we raised in the universal periodic review specific to Scotland, because they are devolved areas where the Scottish Government does have responsibility. I think that the UPR is a good tool to hold Government to account in terms of the recommendations that it has agreed to accept on that area, and also in terms of the resourcing. Eddie, I know that you have been working closely on the UPR. Thank you, Ian. Taking different parts of your question, in terms of making sure that the voices of incredibly vulnerable communities are taken into account, we do have a statutory obligation to pay particular attention to marginalised groups, and that is something that we take very seriously. We also try to mainstream across our work, and one of the ways in which we are thinking about better systematising that throughout our work and the policy work that we publish is reverting almost back to treaty and looking at the specific treaties that do exist. There are gaps in terms of older persons and LGBTI rights, but the core treaties that the UK has signed up to include a substantive equality provision around some of the marginalised groups that you refer to. I think that the committee has an important role in ensuring accountability in a way that we try to do as the NHRI, but the committee has the public parliamentary democratic voice in making sure that those reports from the UN, that the scrutiny is brought home, we think of ourselves as the NHRI as the bridge between domestic policy and international policy. We can advise, we can explain some of the human rights standards that exist, but this committee can really hold government to account and other public bodies to account for the protection and sometimes the regression that we see around some of those standards, so I really would encourage the committee to similarly look at what it can do in the space around the human rights treaties, but they aren't the answer to everything, they are cyclical, there are considerable gaps between some of the reporting processes. It's an important role that we can all play in terms of mainstreaming across different committees, working collectively around human rights budgeting and taking that preventative approach. The universal periodic review, the commission attended a pre-session for a nature-isense civil society that gave us direct access to some of the representatives from UN member states, so that we could spend some time explaining some of our core concerns. We were lucky to have SCLD come from Scotland, so they were able to raise their concerns directly, but obviously not every organisation can do that every time and we think it's important that we reflect those concerns through the participatory work that we do in developing our reports, so we do try to raise issues of concern on behalf of organisations when they don't have access to those systems, but domestically, obviously, it's much easier for some of those organisations to participate and therefore it's great to create a space for them to do that. Just a final comment on the universal periodic review, which is that there was a marked increase in the number of recommendations that came from other member states. The UPR is a peer review system, so under the Human Rights Council, so the most senior standalone human rights body within the UN system and all states participate as equals. We saw a number of recommendations around tackling structural racism and racial bias. We saw a huge number of recommendations around women's rights, gender equality, around violence against women. We saw a huge number of recommendations around disability and the exclusion of disabled people from public life, and we saw a number of recommendations around LGBT rights and some of the policy changes that are on the table around LGBT rights, so it was a marked increase in that more focused approach, something that I think we really welcome and something that gives us a really good basis for on-going dialogue around progressing human rights in Scotland. Do you have a sense as to why there's that increase? I mean, I think there are a number of reasons. We obviously did advocacy around our report and some of those issues came up in our report, but as with all policy, there wasn't a clear sense of why those things had happened, but I would say that I think Covid has certainly shone a light on some of the inequalities that are deeply rooted in different structures around the world. I think that has probably helped the conversation at the international level, but I don't think there's that one simple reason for that increase. We also saw a marked increase in recommendations relating to economic, social and cultural rights and environmental rights, so it's just interesting to watch over time how states perhaps the focus on one particular area of human rights doesn't dissipate, but it moves into other terrains. What's your view on the Scottish Government's response to the recommendations? The Scottish Government has not responded yet, so we have the draft recommendations and it will now be up to the UK Government to respond to each of the 302 recommendations. The Scottish Government, we hope, will produce a position statement outlining its own response to some of the recommendations and we are committed to kind of helping them to understand how some of the higher level recommendations can have a Scottish focus. For example, where some of the recommendations talk about domestic abuse policy in the UK, obviously in Scotland we have different law and policy, so we're open to doing a bit of work to see how we can map some of the recommendations to developments here. I will say for the Scottish Government, they produced a position statement in October ahead of the UPR that was very comprehensive, obviously setting out the areas of progress, but really going through a huge number of areas of policy. I think that we also should be making sure that we hold the Scottish Government accountable for some of its voluntary commitments, as the UPR does. Just one very, very final question, sorry. Do you know when we could expect the responses? The UK Government has until March 2023 to respond. Scottish Government, as it doesn't have a formal role in the UPR, doesn't have a deadline, but I would imagine that it will be working to a similar deadline in terms of wanting to get a response relatively quickly. Two weeks ago, the United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Asleam, raised a number of concerns about the Scottish Government-proposed gender recognition reforms. As you will be aware, Ms Asleam raised concerns that the proposed reforms could open the door to violent males who identify as men to abuse the process of acquiring a gender certificate and the rights associated with it. That is present risks to the safety of women in all their diversity. Does the Scottish Human Rights Commission have any comments to make on the intervention by the United Nations? Do you agree with Reem Asleam that the bill should be postponed so that the concerns such as that can be properly addressed? Yes, we have seen the letter. We are still working through it. She is one voice of several within the UN. There are a range of opinions within the UN. I note that the letter she recently submitted contradicts an earlier letter that she sent in 2021, where she appeared to support self-id with a number of other UN special rapporteurs. We are still working through our response. My personal view is that I am not convinced that she has presented new evidence that has not already been debated at length within Parliament. We presented our evidence in June. I think that the committee had heard from lots of other individuals and groups. We tried in that evidence session to respond as well to the evidence that you had heard previously. I am concerned as well about a underlying narrative that has been developed that trans people are sexual predators. I worry about that because they are a marginalised and vulnerable group. I recognise that the bill is contested. It is up to parliamentarians now to reach their conclusions. However, our initial view is that we stand by the evidence that we gave in June and recognise that there is a range of opinions, including within the UN. I have mentioned many times in the committee and in the chamber that rights should be for everybody. That is why human rights are here today. We are talking about rights that should be there to protect trans people as well as women and girls. That is why the concern is that you do not want those predators out there to pretend and obtain a GRC to do it. You have talked about concerns. You have mentioned that either way. Do you not think that it would be a good idea if the Scottish Government postponed the bill to look at those concerns because they have been highlighted? We cannot dismiss somebody from the United Nations saying something now. I know that you are saying that they said something else before, but it is very clear that that is said now. Should we not be looking at that? However, it is to protect the trans people as well so that they do not get blamed later on for something. I have said it very plain and clear in this committee that we should have rights for everybody. We need to make sure that trans people really need those rights and that they have been fighting for them so that they get their rights. We also need to make sure that women and girls are safe from the actual real bad people, not the trans people here. Some of the concerns that the special rapporteur has mentioned in her recent letter have been looked at at length by this committee. Our understanding of the equality law in the UK means that it would still be possible to exclude trans women from women's safe sex spaces if there is a justifiable reason to do so. We think that the bill is appropriate in terms of striking that balance and simplifying a process that already exists in terms of issuing gender recognition certificates. I do not know whether my colleague Ailey wants to add anything given that you have followed this file for many years. We are still working through the letter and we are obviously aware of a couple of civil society letters that have also been exchanged with the special rapporteur and the special rapporteur indicates her desire to respond to those. As members of this committee know, I worked in the women's sector for a very long time, so I have been across this particular issue and have looked through the letter from Remas Leam. One of the things that we noted was that the advice that she presented did not appear to be Scotland specific. There were a number of references to the Women's and Equality Committee and to the prison services in England and Wales and how they do their allocations, which is different to Scotland. We were not convinced that the letter, our preliminary view, is that the letter does not raise anything new. We are still keeping an open mind as to what the civil society responses might say, but again we would encourage the committee to listen to the voices of the women's sector who use the Trans Exceptions and the Equality Act and understand how those work in practice. The Equality Act is what would be the basis for doing an exclusion, so that the gender recognition act in our bead would not change that. For the record, as far as I am aware, I do not think that Ms Leam made any attempt to contact the committee to present any evidence through the entirety of stage 1 or stage 2. Iain, you just said that we had no contact with the special rapporteur either, so we were not aware of the letter until it was published. Maybe there is a clarity thing there in terms of where the research that she did to justify the letter came from. Rachel Hamilton. Mr Doddy, if I am right in what you are saying, I am not sure if you referenced Ms Al Salam's letter correctly, because she said that, however, I share the concern that such proposals would potentially open the door for violent males who identify as men to abuse the process of acquiring a gender certificate and the rights that are associated with it. That presents potential risks to the safety of women in all their diversity, including women, born, female, trans women and gender non-conforming women. I just wanted to put that on the record. In your submission or your reply, your response to the UN special rapporteur, will the committee see that? When is it likely to be completed? With regard to the—we know that, obviously, we can use exceptions, women's services, in services for trans people through the Equality Act, but why do you think and will you address this in your response? Why do you think Reem talks about her concern around the access to single sex spaces for women and invites the Scottish Government to broaden its discussions, examinations and reform process beyond the changes that it wishes to introduce to the G.R.A.? I think that it is important that we recognise that women feel safe as well as trans people, so I wonder if that will be as part of your letter and that response. Very much so, we think that women's rights and trans rights can go hand in hand. We human rights are indivisible. We do not think of a hierarchy of rights. My reference to underlying narrative was not a reference to that letter per se, but to debate in general around comments being made, particularly on social media, around predatory trans people, which I worry about. We recognise the comments that the special rapporteur has made. We do think that they have been addressed several times within this committee. The debate has been going on now for a number of years. I can't speculate for the reasons why she wrote at this time or who she contacted to get her evidence. In your initial response to Pam Goswell's question, you said that you stand by the evidence that you gave in June. At that meeting, we also heard from the United Nations independent expert on the protection from violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, Victor Madrigal Ballot. In his evidence, he was quite clear that, in work that he has undertaken, that the so-called alleged competition of rights has come up before. He has found no evidence to support that there is any systematic or identifiable pattern or risk in the situation created by self-id legal recognition. I wonder whether the SHRC would agree with that view of the position on the situation and whether, in your understanding of where legal recognition by self-identification works in other countries, there has been evidence to suggest that it can be that conflict that the letter referred to by Pam and Rachel earlier indicates. Yes, we were at the committee session in June, where the committee also took evidence from the independent expert on sexual orientation and gender identity. There is a diversity of views within the UN. I should stress that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has also come out in support of self-id. There are a number of states who already have self-id. We haven't seen the concrete harms that have been hinted at throughout this debate. Therefore, we still stand by our position that we gave in June because looking also at the evidence from countries that have introduced self-id, I think that some of those concerns that were expressed have not materialised. I think that I should also emphasise that, in our evidence in June, we did recommend that the legislation be reviewed in two years' time to see how it works in practice. I think that we would still stand by that recommendation. Perhaps I can just ask my colleague, Eilidh, if there is anything that she would like to add. It is important to remind the committee members that countries that have introduced self-id and there are now a number of them have different processes, different equality and different exemptions that may apply. Some countries have exceptions such as the Equality Act that allows service providers to exclude a person on the basis of their gender reassignment status, regardless of their sex, legal, biological, presentational or whatever. Comparing countries is challenging, but we haven't seen any evidence that this has been a systemic problem. As I said, the exceptions in the Equality Act exist for a reason. It is not for this commission that we are not the equality regulator. We cannot go into some of the detail about how the Equality Act exceptions work. However, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has a role to advise service providers on how to use those exceptions properly. Maybe that advice needs to be updated in light of self-id, but it would be entirely a matter for them. That concludes our session. I thank all three of you for what was a really interesting session. We will now move into private for the remaining items on our agenda.