Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. I will shift the topic a wee bit to funding for advice projects. The question is probably mostly for Aaliya and Hyo as CAS and SALC both have experience of the Scottish Legal Aid Board’s funding of advice projects. We know that the early resolution and advice programme stream 2 funding is coming to an end at the end of this month. Can you say a bit more about what you think the impact of that will be? We have already talked about the geographical inequality of the central belt versus more rural areas. Aaliya, I will come to you first. What will be the impact of the loss of that advice project funding on people’s ability to access justice?

Good morning to the panel. Thank you very much for your contributions this morning. I take very clearly the message that you have all given about being opposed to these increases. I am interested in your views on where you think the burden of payment for court processes should lie. Do you agree with the Scottish Government that there should be some element of user payment as part of this? I will come to Aaliya Seyal first.

Good morning, Mr Balfour. Thank you for your opening comments and for the time that you have previously given me to discuss your bill. It is much appreciated.

I hear clearly from you this morning and from previous evidence the concerns with the disability equality strategy and your point about how we will get action if not through a disability commissioner. How do you approach the inherent tension in what we have heard about the need for a disability commissioner to focus on disabilities and the huge range of disability issues that people face? You talked about focusing on issues such as education, employment and social care. Why is a commissioner the answer, rather than using existing structures to focus on mainstreaming or on employability for everyone?

Many of us in this place are pretty scunnered at the lack of a human rights bill and incorporation of UN treaties into Scots law. I get that very clear connection and the different position that we find ourselves in.

To pick up on a point about accountability and who will do this work, do you consider that your proposed disability commissioner will have the resources to do that? Given the systemic failures that you have well outlined, if the role is pan-disability, will one person be sufficient?

When we heard from the minister, she spoke about mainstreaming. We heard in other evidence—you will have picked this up as well—about some of the tensions around mainstreaming, including with regard to intersectionality. I suppose that this follows on from my other questions. How would a disability commissioner deal with every aspect of a disabled person’s life in every aspect of society? How would we get those levels of accountability in the powers of one office?

Thanks very much.

Good morning, minister. In many ways, my questions follow on from those that were put to you by Evelyn Tweed.

You have talked about the potential to give existing bodies—or existing structures—more teeth if we do not go down the line of having a disability commissioner. Given our persistent failure to deal with the stark inequalities that are faced by disabled people, which Evelyn outlined, is there any value in having such a role, whether it be that of a disability commissioner, specifically, or something with a stronger mandate to tackle these matters? In earlier responses, you talked about having a balance across all organisations and mentioned the SHRC’s concern that this commissioner, as outlined, would be more powerful than it was. Given the failures to address disability inequality, do you think that we need more clout specifically in this area?

Following on from that and your points about intersectionality, which you have highlighted as being extremely important, there are concerns about how we manage to take a mainstreaming approach while recognising that disability covers a range of disabilities and a range of very different needs, which, if not conflicting, are at least in tension with one another, given the breadth of what a pan-disability approach could look like. How do you see that balancing act, which involves the integration of genuinely intersectional approaches, being done, given the complexity that exists within disability, even before we start looking at the other issues that you have highlighted to do with things such as ethnic minority status and gender?

I want to take you back to your comments about the review of the public sector equality duty and where we go next. We will have to wait until tomorrow to find out exactly what is in the programme for government, but it is clear from what you have outlined that there are gaps in the powers that existing bodies have, whether through the PSED or through the mandate of the Scottish Human Rights Commission. I am curious to understand where you think more powers are needed and what those powers should be, if we are to ensure that we tackle the issues that are raised by the bill.

Thanks, Amy. I will delve a little bit deeper. You said in your response that there are many other commissioners and statutory bodies, as well as legislation that is clearly failing. You talked specifically about the need to have mechanisms that will have an impact. Will you elaborate on that? Why are all those statutory bodies and commissioners failing? Is it purely about resource or is there something else going on?