���˿���

Is that discussion included in the biannual meetings?

There is a place for you tomorrow, from 12.00 pm until 2.00 pm, if you would like. We would like you to come.

My final question relates to access to justice. Prisons and hospitals are almost like burning bridges—they need immediate action. My question is about the direction of travel in relation to access to justice and relates to adults with incapacity work, which is the largest case type, by volume, for civil legal aid. Lawyers who provide legal aid work in that area are struggling to make ends meet, and the direction of travel basically means that access to justice for the most vulnerable will be withdrawn because there will be no lawyers, or only a few—they will be like hen’s teeth—who are prepared to do legal work in that area.

On 11 November, on the Scottish Legal News website, Govan Law Centre’s adults with incapacity unit raised serious concerns about the potential wider impact of the proposals to replace detailed fees with block fees. Jan Savage is nodding, so she is aware of that.

Solicitors doing that work are already in short supply, as I said. They believe that the proposals are poor, are being bulldozed through and will exacerbate the existing access to justice issues for the most vulnerable in society.

The lawyers from Govan Law Centre produced a report in which they say:

“increased state intervention, where an adult or those close to them cannot access justice, is unlikely to be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. Delays in the current system already have profound consequences for vulnerable individuals and wider society, such as bed-blocking in hospitals.”

What is the EHRC’s role when such alarm bells are sounded and access to justice is being further eroded?

Before I hand back to the convener, I note that I have raised three issues for your horizon scan, as you call it—and it is good to know that you do that. Those issues are women in prisons, women in hospitals, and the huge issue of adults with incapacity and the legal aid system. Thank you.

The chair said in the foreword to the annual report that human rights feel “increasingly precarious”. Can you share with us what developments are behind that statement?

I will be talking about hospital care in a minute. This is just about prisons and the Scottish Prison Service.

Thank you for coming this morning. My question is about the spotlight project on places of detention. It highlights a number of areas of serious concerns, including the widespread use of segregated or solitary confinement and lack of mental health care support for women. What changes, if any, have you seen in response to the findings?

So, the Prison Service has sought your opinion.

Thank you.

My second question is about hospitals and the Women’s Rights Network report, “How safe are our Scottish hospitals?” I mention this because it is about humanity and people when they are at their most vulnerable. People are at their most vulnerable in prison—I spoke about prisons—or in hospital.

The report highlighted significant systematic failures in Scottish hospitals, especially mental health wards. That was amplified by the Sunday Post coverage, and there was a parliamentary debate and a round-table event. There is another round table tomorrow, which will include some of the health boards, Health Improvement Scotland and the new Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland, and it will focus on mixed-sex wards.

We are talking about humanity, safety and human rights. I mentioned the report, as well as the Sunday Post article. We had a big debate in the Parliament, framing the issue as both a public health issue and human rights issue. However, the Scottish Human Rights Commission has not touched on the issue. I realise that you cannot boil the ocean, but it is a big issue and has been a big issue this year.

Professor O’Hagan, the SHRC is independent of the Scottish Government and the Parliament. Is the Women’s Rights Network report on your radar and do you think that it should be?

I hear you and I think that this committee hears you. There are multiple layers to what you have just said, but how can the commission help navigate through that?

I accept your point, but if you look at human rights budgeting—the workshop that you ran was excellent—you say that you almost judge on output. If you look at where spend is taking place, that is politicised. Whoever will be leading the Government after May next year, it is politicised—you cannot detach the two. One could say that it is naive in the extreme to think that you can divorce politics from it. Take, for example, free speech. There is a huge debate going on right now about what is free speech and the right to free speech. I suppose that I hear what you say, and I think that the committee has heard resoundingly what you have said. You are a small but mighty team and have been very effective in the first year, but you do not have enough teeth to mandate anything.

Even when it comes to the absolutely superb, poignant comments about human rights budgeting, it is flaccid. It is not going anywhere because the budget will not change. We will go through a budget round and human rights budgeting is ninth, after paperclips. What guidance or input can you give to us as a committee so that we get something like human rights budgeting right at the front of healthcare or housing?