���˿���

I can understand that. Disabled people have multiple barriers. I communicate regularly with our disabled people’s organisations and hear directly not only from them but from those with lived experience. Last week, the First Minister and I met the disabled people’s organisations to hear from them directly.

I recognise the reality of the multiple barriers that disabled people face. The issue is systemic and has been historically. Although the Scottish Government has been taking action on benefits and on the independent living fund, for instance, I cannot help but refer to the cost of living crisis and the impact of austerity. Although we are trying to help as much as possible, we have, in certain ways, a hand tied behind our back. The effects of the supports and policies that we can put in place are diluted by the erosion of the financial landscape due to austerity.

Therefore, I can absolutely understand why there would be support for a commissioner. As I said, we have already taken action to address that poverty in a wider context, because we cannot forget that the issues are also intersectional. For example, disabled people’s lives are affected by housing, access to transport, education and employability. Therefore, it is a multifaceted picture, so I am absolutely sympathetic. Progress has been made, but I absolutely recognise that there is much more to do. There is healthy discussion and debate around whether a commissioner is the vehicle for that.

That is a really good question. There are advantages and disadvantages to having both a disability commissioner and an LDAN commissioner, but I would also note that there is no shared viewpoint on the disability commissioner bill among disabled people—that is, in the focus groups that we have spoken to. I am very conscious that there are different views on the matter.

I know that some autism and learning disability groups have concerns about the disability commissioner bill, because they see it as potentially diluting the focus on their concerns, which they believe have been marginalised. Should two separate commissioners be established, there is likely to be some overlap as well as greater potential with regard to functions. We have also had representations that not all people with learning disabilities, autism, neurodivergence and so on believe that they have a disability. They would not put that label on themselves, and that has to be respected, too.

We are in that space of carefully considering the matter, but my short answer is that I am maintaining my neutral position. What I am doing—indeed, what we are all doing—is scrutinising very carefully the commissioner route, whether it be the Government’s proposal for a commissioner or the proposal in the member’s bill. The more important question is who the proposal is trying to help and whether it will have the effect that is wanted. That is the space that I am in.

I absolutely understand that frustration. I will not go over what I have already said about the complexities and challenges of truly mainstreaming these issues and getting all the policy areas to work together, but it is a challenge. Indeed, we as a Parliament often find these matters difficult, because there are many views, and they are strongly held.

However, we also know the challenges that disabled people face, and we cannot get away from the fact that their plight is getting worse, with austerity continuing on top of everything. As I have mentioned, the cuts to the winter fuel payment are going to have a huge impact. I have heard from people that their costs are going to be higher; after all, they have to pay for very expensive equipment, and their energy bills are much higher. This has brought the issue into acute focus.

The LDAN bill focuses on a range of actions that are specifically for people with learning disabilities, whereas Jeremy Balfour’s bill is broader in scope. I maintain my position: I am open to it, and I understand the frustrations.

We have the disabled people’s equality plan, which has been made in collaboration with disabled people’s organisations. That sets out clear pathways and expectations, so I hope that that will help. I use the word “hope” because I have been in the job for a small amount of time and that piece of work was started long before I came into the job.

However, the Government is continuing to put money into benefits expenditure. With regard to what the Scottish Government is doing on social security, £300 million is going on adult disability payments, the Scottish child payment has increased and we reopened the independent living fund. Given all those things, you are right to ask why there is still that frustration and whether we are having the impact that we should be having. Those are valid questions, and I am listening very carefully to our disabled people’s organisations on how they think that we can improve. I have to give a heavy caveat on that because of the very difficult financial landscape. However, we will get more information on that with the programme for government and the financial statement.

The demand that I have heard disabled people make is for stronger accountability and greater transparency, and I think that we can beef things up a wee bit to make sure that there is clear accountability. The Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Equality and Human Rights Commission have the remit of ensuring that the rights of a wide range of people are protected, although they focus on specific groups from time to time. The Scottish Human Rights Commission has previously expressed concern about the weakening of its mandate through the proliferation of commissioners. That is my concern. I go back to what I said at the beginning—I think that there is a danger of everybody passing the buck, with the result that it is a case of who does what.

It is the role of Government to scrutinise the situation and to make sure that we hold all the various bodies to account, and that the Scottish Parliament holds them to account, but it is a difficult balancing act. I hold on to the fact that it is everybody’s business to make sure that the needs of disabled people are taken account of. Mainstreaming is hard. If it were not hard, we would have done it by now, but we have not.

There is a lot in what you have said and those are important points. My broad reflection on that is that we need to take a holistic approach and see people with disabilities as people first and foremost, who have a range of needs, which could be in health and social care, in housing or in education—it could be that one of those things comes to the fore at a particular time and others at other times. The valuable contributions and information that disabled people’s organisations have given me show that they find it difficult to navigate who is giving them the support that they need. There is already a lot of crossover, so we also need to look at streamlining as well as mainstreaming to make it easier for disabled people to navigate that. On the one hand, I can see that there could be a commissioner, but I have also seen other models, such as champions and rapporteurs, working alongside the enforcement of the powers of the current commissions.

We cannot get away from the fact that it is a challenge and it always will be. Part of my role is to poke everybody into that space of working together to take a holistic approach. For example, I am attending a meeting that Alasdair Allan is having with energy providers to look at the social tariff. I am scrutinising carefully wherever equalities issues come up. This case particularly pertains to disabled people, because they are also very concerned about the cut in the winter fuel payment. I am now reaching out and working alongside my colleagues to make sure that they consider equality duties right from the beginning as opposed to somewhere along the line. I think that everyone is committed—I have assurances that they are—but it is just that the cultural change needs a little bit more shoring up, shall we say.

I would just go back to what I said—it is about the enforcement bit of it.

That is exactly what I would want to see in the bill. Exploring that a little further, we can see that there are clear advantages. We have commissioners, so we know that having a commissioner is a possibility; what we are discussing today is whether this particular commissioner’s bill will have the effect that it is intended to have. That depends partly on the powers of the commissioner, which could potentially be used to positive effect to not only focus specifically on the rights of disabled people, but hold public bodies to account and, as Meghan Gallacher said, act on behalf of disabled people. The commissioner could also have a role in highlighting ableism in Scotland and the issues of discrimination against disabled people, so there are clear merits there.

I can try. I think that I have covered most of that already. My concern around the finances is duplication. That is the bit that I am worried about. Would it be an effective use of the money? I refer to the money that it would cost not only to set up the office but to sustain it. We want it to be sustainable. It has to be. We would not want to set an expectation that was not delivered.

I would not want anyone to think that one set of money is taking away from another. That is not how it works. We have to discuss the bill on its own merits. I am not going to get into that question.

I am aware that the issue of costs has been spoken about in previous evidence sessions and that, for instance, at the evidence session on 18 June, when asked whether the proposed costs were an underestimate, Amy Dalrymple from Marie Curie Scotland said:

“The costs of ensuring that disabled people can access services ... are often underestimated”.—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 18 June 2023; c 18.]

I do not think that the establishment of a commissioner can be done cheaply. I welcome Jeremy Balfour’s willingness to look at how administrative aspects could be shared and at how to make the role more affordable. However, you would expect me to be very cautious about that. I have looked at a comparison of similar commissioner roles across the UK. They usually have between 15 and 20 staff. The Commissioner for Older People for Northern Ireland has approximately 18 staff and the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales has approximately 16 staff. Therefore, you have to be very cautious—well, I have to be. I am scrutinising the money that goes into that.

As I said, my mind is open. If there is clear evidence that the best use of the money would be to have a commissioner who could possibly have an administrative team of between 15 and 20 staff, that will be looked at very seriously. However, the disabled people’s organisations want to ensure that the commissioner has teeth, and they can have teeth only if they have a full team of people who are able to execute that work. Therefore, I would worry that if, for example, we thought that we could cut down on the staff and have five or 10 people, the commissioner would not have the reach that was expected. Therefore, we need to be very mindful of that. However, I look forward to getting more facts and figures and evidence and analysis of that.

There has been a lot of discussion of inclusive communication. My initial delving into it indicates that there is no consistency. There are councils and public sector providers that are doing a really good job on inclusive communication but it is not consistent. I hope that we can address that through the bill and by spreading good practice.

Again, intersectionality comes into it as well. There are different layers of communication. We are not just talking about British Sign Language, for instance, but inclusive communication in everything for the hard of hearing—I am not going to list all the groups, because you always forget something, so please forgive me.

The general principle of it is that there are amazing good practices, but people use that term “postcode lottery”, which means that, depending on where you live, you do or do not get something. We cannot have that.

The principle of inclusive communication is important because it goes to the heart of the dignity and agency of those who have communication barriers. Perhaps they do not have the barriers; perhaps it is us who are creating those barriers, so it is on us to deal with them.

We need to ensure that provision is consistent. The public service equity duty is a big part of that. Again, it is about using the carrot and the stick. Currently, I am looking at whether there is a place for legislation. However, remember that we work in partnership with local authorities through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We have to respect that relationship, so we need to consider whether the best way is for the Scottish Government to legislate or whether we need to provide the tools and the frameworks.

Also, ministers have additional powers to strongly suggest—well, more than suggest; I cannot remember the phrase that is in the powers—something. I am considering those at the moment. What powers do we have to enforce that everybody is honouring their duties with regard to inclusive communications?