Chamber and committees

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?

In the interest of openness, I declare that my older brother, Dr Balfour, is a member of the Edinburgh IJB and that my wife is a special constable.

Before we turn to domestic abuse, I will quickly go back to the previous theme and ask Pat Togher a question about how IJBs work in practice. If someone is in hospital and needs housing or might become homeless, is it the role of the local authority or of the national health service to deal with that, or is that your role? How do we ensure that such individuals do not fall between the cracks?

And Social Security Scotland.