Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. I am conscious of the time, so I will stop there.

Thank you, convener. The deputy convener and I have served on this committee together since 2023. There are areas on which we agree and there are areas on which we disagree. She has a right to express her views on a wide range of policies in relation to her constituents, her region and her party, and I recognise that many people view her as an advocate and a passionate voice for them.

However, fundamentally, I believe that, to retain confidence, particularly in terms of the committee’s role on civil justice, she must take the opportunity to clarify the points that I have raised. If she takes the opportunity to do so sufficiently, I believe that we can move forward as a committee. Otherwise, we might have no choice but to refer the matter for the consideration of the whole Parliament, with a recommendation for her removal.

Good morning to the panel. Housing and homelessness are extremely topical at any time, but particularly at this juncture, given that legislation is progressing through the Parliament. We have covered quite a lot of issues this morning. Based on your work, how effective do you think the current policies in Scotland are in assessing the right to housing and addressing the right to housing?

Obviously, all of the witnesses work with particular groups, but it would be good to get a first stab at the terminology, and then we will look at the issue in more detail. Clare, I can see that you are ready to go now.

I do not know whether anyone wants to come in on the broad point. As I said, the Housing (Scotland) Bill is progressing through the Parliament and is now at stage 2. In the bill, there are ask and act duties in relation to homelessness and people’s rights. However, I am keen to get a sense of whether the witnesses think that there has been a missed opportunity and that more could be done through the bill. It has been an interesting bill in its attempt to deal with some of the issues outlined by Clare MacGillivray, but it does not deal with supply. It is about trying to use a system that does not have enough houses. It would be good to get views on that, if we can.

Angela, would you like to comment on the commission’s duty in relation to some of these issues?

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate as we consider the motion before us this morning.

The motion has been lodged under the standing orders of the Parliament, and it is important that we have a full and open debate. I recognise that debating and deciding on such a motion is challenging, as it relates to a colleague and their responsibilities in the committee, so I wish to address my comments to all colleagues in a respectful tone. We should deal in factual information and provide an opportunity for the deputy convener to clarify her position to the committee and more widely. I have not provided commentary on the motion prior to the debate in the committee, because I believe that the proper place to have the debate and to reach a conclusion is in the Parliament.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has handed down a judgment in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v the Scottish Ministers, stating that the meaning of the terms “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex. That judgment was unanimous.

Since that judgment, there have understandably been a number of different reactions from different organisations, politicians, academics, lawyers and individuals in society. Many have welcomed the clarity of the judgment and the definitions that are in it, particularly for women and sex-based rights. Many have expressed concerns about what the judgment will mean in practice for transgender people and their lives.

Throughout debates on the broader issues, the discourse has often been heated, and I have consistently said in all my contributions on those issues that applying general pejorative terms to whole groups of people is wrong and does a disservice to our debates. I note, once again, that when giving the opinion of the court, Lord Hodge stated that the court

“counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not.”

Since the judgment, people have exercised their freedom of speech to voice opinions on the judgment. That is, of course, entirely right in our democracy. MSPs around the committee table and across the Parliament have done likewise. However, in doing so, it is incumbent on us all to recognise and respect the jurisdiction of the court, the independence of the judiciary and the fundamental importance of upholding the rule of law. Indeed, we have a solemn duty as parliamentarians to do so.

As we have already heard, in the comments that she made in Aberdeen, the deputy convener referred to

“the bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court and from so many other institutions in our society.”

Although I acknowledge the passionate reactions to the judgment, as I have previously outlined, I was concerned to read such a statement from the deputy convener, which appears to suggest that the institution of the Supreme Court and therefore its judges are engaged in bigotry, prejudice or hatred in relation to their judgments.

I was further concerned by the correspondence that the committee received from the Faculty of Advocates and the response of the Law Society of Scotland. The faculty sought to remind members that

“the Supreme Court—indeed, all judges—are in post to apply the law. They do not take sides. They decide without fear or favour, consistently with the judicial oath.”

The Law Society said:

“The Supreme Court’s task is to consider the most difficult and complex legal questions and it must be able to do so without fear or favour.”

I agree with those statements.

In the past, I was equally concerned when the Supreme Court was accused by members of Parliament of showing partiality in determining judgments on, for example, the consent of the United Kingdom Parliament in relation to triggering article 50 or in relation to the legality of the prorogation of the UK Parliament.

The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee has an important role in this Parliament, not only on matters of equalities and human rights but on civil justice. It is the civil justice role that I am most interested in talking about today. It is our job to scrutinise the administration and delivery of civil justice in the Scottish courts and in relation to the Supreme Court as the final court of appeal.

Our scrutiny role is important but so, too, is our role in legislation, given that we recently considered a bill at stages 1 and 2 to amend the regulation of legal services in Scotland, which included taking evidence from the most senior members of the judiciary.

For us to be effective and our role properly carried out, all members must leave no doubt that we support the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. To that end, it would be immensely helpful to me if the deputy convener would take this opportunity, on record in the committee, to withdraw her remarks relating to the Supreme Court; to state her respect, without qualification, for the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary; and to acknowledge the concerns that have been raised with this committee by the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society with regard to her remarks.

I appreciate that the deputy convener has already made a statement. However, I do not feel that it has done what I have just set out, so I am willing to give way to her, if appropriate, convener, if she wishes to clarify anything at this point.

Thank you very much.

My next question is for Charlie McMillan. Angela O’Hagan referred to the “Tick Tock...” report, the “Coming Home Implementation” report and the fundamental right to a home, not just the specific issue of housing for people who have a learning disability. Obviously, the committee has covered such issues in detail, but it would be useful to get a sense of them from you.

It would be useful to reflect on those duties when they are passed on to local authorities and housing associations and how they are monitored and delivered. We might legislate in this Parliament, but how are they delivered on the ground? Do we need to do more analysis of delivery and provide more support for agencies to do that?

That was useful. We look forward to hearing the outcome of your discussions with COSLA—that will be helpful to the committee.

I will broaden my questions. The report looked at the challenge of people continuing to be admitted to institutions on the basis of their learning disability. How we define “learning disability” remains a significant challenge more broadly. For example, the Scottish mental health law review has been considering the definition of learning disability as a mental health issue for some time, and we are expecting legislation on a range of those issues. Admitting someone to an institutional setting due to their learning disability is a contravention of the European convention on human rights, so I am keen to understand what particular concerns you have identified around that in the report.

Thank you, Cathy—that was a helpful and comprehensive overview. What I would take from those final comments—I might ask Jan Savage for her reflection on this—is that the work to bring people out of long-stay institutions has been on-going for decades. It feels as though we are no closer to having people not live in the state hospital, for example, than we were all those decades ago.

Jan, are there immediate actions that could be taken to stop that inappropriate placement of people? The recommendations are there, but how do we get that sense of pace that Cathy Asante referred to?