Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you very much.

Good morning. I am interested in the conversation, and the exchange with Marie McNair, about the reasons why the bill has not progressed, and the feelings within the sector, which I sympathise with, in relation to the bill being halted for now.

Do you think that perhaps the Scottish Government has bitten off more than it could chew with the bill? I was looking at the consultation responses with interest to find out the range, breadth and depth of the types of areas that people wanted to see incorporated. You have mentioned some of those things this morning, such as housing and the right to food, but of course there were other elements in the responses, including those to do with women’s rights and women’s single-sex spaces. Do you think that there is an element of the bill being too large in scope and perhaps the Scottish Government not knowing how to home in on those particular areas to formulate and bring together legislation that would work for every single sector that wanted their rights to be incorporated? There was a lot in there. Who wants to start?

Thank you very much.

I want to go back to the point about the human rights remit being too broad. In our various sessions, we have discussed whether the Scottish Human Rights Commission could be reformed in such a way. Is there any situation in which those reforms could bring in more representation for disabled people, or do you think that disabled people will have to continue to fight just to get their voices heard?

Good morning, Jeremy. We have talked a lot about advocacy this morning, which is a really important point in relation to your bill. We have also talked about the current Scottish Human Rights Commission, the remit of which, you have stressed, is far too broad. From the communication that you have been having with various groups and organisations to piece your bill together, can you tell us how easy or difficult it is for a disabled person to contact the commission and seek that advocacy just now?

Thank you very much. I am not sure whether anyone else wants to come in.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to comment?

I do; it is just a short one. We have rightly spoken about the cultural assets of Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee and their cultural significance and importance, but, of course, we have local culture and heritage right up and down our country. North Lanarkshire, which is an area that I represent, is well known for its deep-rooted industrial heritage. How do we level things up when it comes to cultural protection? I can understand why people gravitate to areas such as Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee, but we do not want to lose the deep-rooted cultural pockets that exist in other areas, which are very important to our history, and which have excellent examples of local museums and other cultural buildings. How do we level things up in that regard?

I also want to ask about our rural communities, which are harder to get to. It is harder for people to visit museums in rural areas. How do we protect the cultural assets of those areas as well? We would not want important cultural assets such as libraries and museums to disappear from more rural areas.

I think that we are both in the same boat, convener.

Good morning. My question relates to local government. We have spoken a lot about collaborative working and partnership between various levels of government. That will, of course, be really important in relation to what happens over the next few years, particularly given the difficult financial challenges that all sectors are experiencing as a result of the levels of funding that are available.

I have always been struck by the different funding streams, or the different ways in which local authorities operate, in relation to their leisure facilities and cultural assets. Some councils use arm’s-length external organisations, while others keep things more in house, if I can use that phrase. Is it difficult for the sector to navigate that as a whole, given that councils are doing different things in different places? Do we need a further review of ALEOs and of how councils are operating their leisure and cultural assets to try to protect them as much as possible? After all, another difficulty that local authorities are having just now concerns the use of ring fencing, which, of course, exposes our leisure and cultural assets, as they are not included within the protected brackets as other sectors are.

I do not know who wants to kick off on that.

I think that we are both in the same boat, convener.

Good morning. My question relates to local government. We have spoken a lot about collaborative working and partnership between various levels of government. That will, of course, be really important in relation to what happens over the next few years, particularly given the difficult financial challenges that all sectors are experiencing as a result of the levels of funding that are available.

I have always been struck by the different funding streams, or the different ways in which local authorities operate, in relation to their leisure facilities and cultural assets. Some councils use arm’s-length external organisations, while others keep things more in house, if I can use that phrase. Is it difficult for the sector to navigate that as a whole, given that councils are doing different things in different places? Do we need a further review of ALEOs and of how councils are operating their leisure and cultural assets to try to protect them as much as possible? After all, another difficulty that local authorities are having just now concerns the use of ring fencing, which, of course, exposes our leisure and cultural assets, as they are not included within the protected brackets as other sectors are.

I do not know who wants to kick off on that.