���˿���

Section 2 introduces a new benefit called care experience assistance. Beyond that, we have no idea what we will be voting for. There is no substantial detail on how the benefit will work. What is it? Who will benefit from it? What timescales are involved? What process will take place? It seems slightly strange that we will be voting for a new benefit without having any of that detail.

We all want care experience assistance to be introduced. Yesterday afternoon, some of us attended an event at which we heard about the negative experiences that some people have when they are in care. However, I find it difficult to leave the timescale open-ended and let the Government go away and do whatever it wants. Regulations will come along at some point, but—I say this with due respect to the cabinet secretary—under the present Government, timescales seem to slip from time to time. I am seeking to make sure that care experience assistance comes about in a timely manner.

My amendment 2 seeks to provide that the regulations in question must be laid within 24 months of the bill receiving royal assent. That would give the Government plenty of time to engage with stakeholders, and it would give the committee and the Parliament as a whole plenty of time to scrutinise those regulations and to make sure that they were appropriate. It would also mean that the people who expect to receive such assistance would not be left not knowing when or if the new benefit will be introduced. None of us knows what will happen at the election in 14 or 15 months’ time. A different Government with completely different priorities could be elected, and care experience assistance could simply disappear off the map and never be introduced.

We all have the same policy intent as the cabinet secretary. Amendment 2 simply seeks to make the Government move slightly more quickly than it has done in the past and to give stakeholders and the committee reassurance that care experience assistance will be introduced.

I move amendment 1.

Thank you, convener. Good morning, colleagues. I thank the committee for all the work that it has done to date in considering my bill. I have been following the evidence sessions with great interest, and I welcome the views of all who have contributed. I was pleased to hear continued overwhelming support for the bill being expressed during the evidence sessions, particularly by organisations that work with and for disabled people. I think that everyone who has given evidence to the committee, including public bodies and the Minister for Equalities, accepts that the current situation that disabled people face, particularly in the aftermath of the Covid pandemic, is simply not good enough.

There was cross-party consensus that, in relation to understanding, representing and actioning the needs of disabled people in Scotland, change is needed and is needed now. Disabled people cannot wait any longer for a disability commissioner. I introduced the Disability Commissioner (Scotland) Bill in response to such concerns, with the aim of ensuring that disabled people have a champion—someone whose sole focus is on disabled people.

I acknowledge that not everyone thinks that a commissioner is the solution, but I believe that a commissioner can only have a positive impact in improving the lives of disabled people. In developing my bill, I drew inspiration from the work of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner, as that role has shown the positive impact that an advocating rights-based champion can have. I also note the work of the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales and the Commissioner for Older People for Northern Ireland. The commissioner model is popular for a reason—it works. A disability commissioner could play a similar high-profile role to those that I have highlighted by advocating for disabled people at a national level.

I note that some witnesses raised concerns with the committee. For example, there was a view that there are already a number of existing commissioners and public bodies that have a remit in helping disabled people, and that the creation of a disability commissioner might lead to duplication of work and overlap of remits. I firmly disagree.

I acknowledge the important and wide-ranging work of public bodies such as the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, but those organisations’ remits are split between multiple protected characteristics and the impact can therefore be diluted. Only a disability commissioner would be able to be laser focused on disabled people, as is urgently needed.

Moreover, I believe that the work of a disability commissioner would complement that of existing bodies. For example, currently, protecting the rights of children in Scotland falls within the remits of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, the SHRC and the EHRC, but that has not prevented those organisations from being able to carry out their roles and, as far as I can see, it has not led to any problems or duplication of work.

I note that the majority of those who have raised concerns about the establishment of a disability commissioner, particularly regarding the potential for overlap of remits and the costs involved, are in positions of authority and power, such as politicians and public bodies. Very few, if any, disabled people or third sector organisations have raised those issues as major concerns.

Yes, public bodies that help disabled people already exist at a national level, but we are being told by disabled people that they are not meeting their needs. I will quote Heather Fisken from Inclusion Scotland:

“If the landscape is so busy, why has there been no change so far?”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 11 June 2024; c 8.]

We must listen to what disabled people are telling us, rather than to the public bodies that are currently not having the necessary impact.

I note that the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s report on the commissioner landscape was published yesterday, as the committee is probably aware. The report calls for

“a moratorium on creating any new SPCB supported bodies, or expanding the remit of existing bodies”

until a review has been undertaken. I understand the instinct to have a review—I would even encourage that to happen—but it should not take place until disabled people have been given the same chance as other groups to benefit from a champion who speaks on their behalf at all levels of government. Pulling up the ladder on disabled people at this point would send a clear message that they are less worthy of an advocate than others. It is also worth noting that the recommended review would conclude by June 2025, which would, in effect, end any chance of further legislation on the proposal for a disability commissioner being introduced in this parliamentary session.

I note that other concerns have been raised about the potential cost of a disability commissioner. I emphasise what I said when I gave evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee: I consider the costs that would be incurred in establishing a disability commissioner to be relatively modest in the context of the Scottish Government’s total budget of £30 billion, and those costs should be seen as an investment in disabled people that is long overdue and very much needed.

It is my firm belief that establishing a disability commissioner will ensure that disabled people have a champion who will give them the prioritisation that they need and deserve. The commissioner’s overarching purpose will be to promote and safeguard the rights of disabled people. The bill sets out various functions that will help the commissioner to achieve that goal. Those include promoting awareness and understanding of the rights of disabled people and promoting best practice by service providers. That could be carried out in a multitude of ways, but it is important that the views of disabled people are central to that work.

For that reason, the bill provides that the commissioner must consult disabled people and organisations that work with and for disabled people on the work that the commission is undertaking and must publish a strategy for involving disabled people in their work. The commissioner must ensure that those who have difficulty in making their views known or in accessing information have the means to do so when engaging with the commissioner. That could be done through the provision of information in different formats, such as Braille and easy read.

The recent programme for government was yet another bitter blow for disabled people in Scotland, with the news that the Scottish Government will not be pursuing a human rights bill in this parliamentary session, as was previously planned, and that the proposed bill to create a learning disability, autism and neurodiversity commissioner has been shelved.

On top of that, many disabled people’s organisations believe that the Government’s disability equality plan falls short of its promised intentions. Glasgow Disability Alliance stated that it

“lacks ambition, meaningful actions or commitments needed to improve disabled lives blighted by #Poverty #Trauma #Inequality”.

Inclusion Scotland stated that it was disappointed that the draft plan does not include the actions that it had discussed at a meeting with the First Minister. The Scottish Government’s disability equality plan is therefore not an effective or credible alternative to establishing a disability commissioner, so if a disability commissioner is not the answer, what is?

We know that disabled people need action now. They cannot wait any longer. The bill seeks to make positive changes for disabled people and is in front of the Parliament now. No viable alternative is currently on the table to ensure that disabled people have a champion who will ensure that their rights are respected and enforced. The proposed learning disability, autism and neurodiversity commissioner bill is being dangled in front of us, but, for the foreseeable future, it will remain out of reach. We are being asked to trust existing institutions to provide a voice for disabled people when they previously have not provided that voice, even though they already have that mandate. The reality is that they will never be able to prioritise disabled people because they have such broad remits. Only a disability commissioner will be able to focus their full attention on disabled people.

If the bill falls, we risk this parliamentary session ending without our having passed any meaningful legislation to improve disabled people’s rights, which would be shameful. We know that disabled people need action now. They cannot wait any longer. I therefore urge the committee and the Parliament to ensure that this opportunity is not missed and to support the bill. I am afraid that disabled people will not forgive us if we do not pass it.

I am happy, as always, to answer questions.

Clearly, it is not ideal timing for that report to come out, but it raises an important issue that we need to explore.

In the past two and a half years, all members round the table voted for a patient commissioner and, at stage 1 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, we voted for a commissioner for those who have been victims of crime. The proposal is still in that bill and I would be interested to know whether, at stage 2 or 3, we are going to say that that commissioner should go away. I suspect that the answer will be no, because the Scottish Government is very keen to see that commissioner. Within this session, the Parliament has already voted for one commissioner and has agreed in principle to another.

I fully agree that, if we were starting with a blank piece of paper, a full review would be important, but I am not sure that disabilities can wait. Even if a review sticks to the timetable of a year, that will take us to the autumn of next year, which means that, realistically, nothing will happen in this session. There will have to be a cross-party discussion on that, and legislation would have to be introduced, if we ever wanted to do it, in the next session of Parliament. That legislation may take two or three years to happen. Therefore, we would be saying that, for the next four to five years, disabled people will be left behind again. Why are we drawing the line or pulling up the ropes here?

My request, my suggestion and my plea is that we get the disability commissioner in place, have a full review and see where we go. Do we genuinely want to say to disabled people, “It’s okay—everything is going to happen, but it will be seven years before anything changes for your lives”? That is a long time, particularly for those who are struggling at the moment.

Well, you know me, Annie—I always have a few ideas.

I think that enforcement and investigation powers are interesting issues. As far as stage 2 is concerned, I was interested in some of the comments that were made about how you define disability, so I have come up with a definition. I would probably want to pursue that definition with others to ensure that it is as inclusive as possible and that people feel that it is so. Ultimately, we will have to come to a decision on that, but I am interested to hear what other voices have to say.

The issue came up a wee bit in my initial consultation. It was probably not highlighted as much then as it has been to you since, so it would be interesting to explore that further.

That is an important question. A lot more needs to be done on back-office sharing among all commissioners. We do not need human resources or accountancy functions for each commissioner. There is a real argument that commissioners should be sharing those functions. We need to look at office premises. It would be good to have all the commissioners under one roof, where possible, so that they can share best practice. I would definitely agree on all those things.

With regard to the overlap, I suppose that I am getting old and cynical but, if it is so easy to do this work, why have we not done it already? The work that the various commissions have done on disability is minimal. Around 20 to 25 per cent of the population in Scotland has a disability. I am absolutely willing to guarantee that that does not represent the percentage of work that any of the commissioners has done on the issue. It is all very well to jump up now and say, “Yes, we’re going to do all this,” but history tells us that that has not happened.

In relation to overlap, as I mentioned in my opening statement, that already happens with the children’s commissioner. People are old enough and big enough to say, “Look, I’m thinking of doing this piece of work. Is anyone else doing it?” If not, whatever commissioner it is can carry on and do that work.

It has been really interesting to me to speak to the commissioners. There is more than enough work for everyone, and the work on disabilities is simply not happening. I do not think that we will have much of an overlap. We will simply find people working together where appropriate and dividing the work up where appropriate. At the moment, the disabled voice is simply not being heard or being investigated in that way.

That is an important point. When hope is dashed and goes, it pushes you back much further. A lot of hope has been taken away from disabled people over the last few weeks by various announcements. I understand why some of those announcements have been made, but they have pushed back hope a lot.

A disability commissioner will not answer every issue that disabled people face—it is not going to be some sudden panacea here in Scotland—but it will make a massive difference, I think. It will give people some hope and some voice.

As for what will happen to the landscape a number of years from now, it is possible that the inquiry could come back in a year and say, “Actually, this is not the ideal model, but it is the best one out there, and we are just going to keep going with it.” That would mean that, if the bill was not passed, the disabled voice would not have been heard for all that time.

I just do not think that we can wait any longer, and that is why I think that it is time to bring this forward. We do not know what the future holds—we do not know what will come up and what it will bring—but we do know that if a disabled voice is not being heard, it is going to be ignored. I am not sure that that is the legacy that we want to leave.

It is safe to say that none of the members who are here was in the Parliament when the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill went through but, if you go back and read the evidence on that, you will find exactly the same argument made there—that the children’s commissioner would divert money away from children’s activities and on-the-ground resources.

It is not an either/or—we need both, and that comes down to a political choice that we have to make about what we want to fund. The children’s commissioner has shown that a voice for young people can be powerful, and the commissioners have brought about changes in this Parliament as a result of their work.

I do not see the proposal moving money away from disabled people—I think that it is a both situation and that we will continue to fund disabled charities and organisations. However, although the amount of money that it would cost to run a commissioner is a lot in my terms, in the Scottish Government’s five-year plan, it really is a drop in the ocean.

There has been quite a lot of criticism of the new strategy. I am sure that the Scottish Government will respond to that, and I hope that we will listen to what the disabled groups have said. However, when Inclusion Scotland and the Glasgow Disability Alliance are saying that the strategy will not make any difference to disabled lives, we have to hear that. Actually, is it not better to invest the money in a commissioner, along with all that is being funded at the moment?

Thank you, convener. Good morning, colleagues. I thank the committee for all the work that it has done to date in considering my bill. I have been following the evidence sessions with great interest, and I welcome the views of all who have contributed. I was pleased to hear continued overwhelming support for the bill being expressed during the evidence sessions, particularly by organisations that work with and for disabled people. I think that everyone who has given evidence to the committee, including public bodies and the Minister for Equalities, accepts that the current situation that disabled people face, particularly in the aftermath of the Covid pandemic, is simply not good enough.

There was cross-party consensus that, in relation to understanding, representing and actioning the needs of disabled people in Scotland, change is needed and is needed now. Disabled people cannot wait any longer for a disability commissioner. I introduced the Disability Commissioner (Scotland) Bill in response to such concerns, with the aim of ensuring that disabled people have a champion—someone whose sole focus is on disabled people.

I acknowledge that not everyone thinks that a commissioner is the solution, but I believe that a commissioner can only have a positive impact in improving the lives of disabled people. In developing my bill, I drew inspiration from the work of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, as that role has shown the positive impact that an advocating rights-based champion can have. I also note the work of the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales and the Commissioner for Older People for Northern Ireland. The commissioner model is popular for a reason—it works. A disability commissioner could play a similar high-profile role to those that I have highlighted by advocating for disabled people at a national level.

I note that some witnesses raised concerns with the committee. For example, there was a view that there are already a number of existing commissioners and public bodies that have a remit in helping disabled people, and that the creation of a disability commissioner might lead to duplication of work and overlap of remits. I firmly disagree.

I acknowledge the important and wide-ranging work of public bodies such as the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, but those organisations’ remits are split between multiple protected characteristics and the impact can therefore be diluted. Only a disability commissioner would be able to be laser focused on disabled people, as is urgently needed.

Moreover, I believe that the work of a disability commissioner would complement that of existing bodies. For example, currently, protecting the rights of children in Scotland falls within the remits of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, the SHRC and the EHRC, but that has not prevented those organisations from being able to carry out their roles and, as far as I can see, it has not led to any problems or duplication of work.

I note that the majority of those who have raised concerns about the establishment of a disability commissioner, particularly regarding the potential for overlap of remits and the costs involved, are in positions of authority and power, such as politicians and public bodies. Very few, if any, disabled people or third sector organisations have raised those issues as major concerns.

Yes, public bodies that help disabled people already exist at a national level, but we are being told by disabled people that they are not meeting their needs. I will quote Heather Fisken from Inclusion Scotland:

“If the landscape is so busy, why has there been no change so far?”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 11 June 2024; c 8.]

We must listen to what disabled people are telling us, rather than to the public bodies that are currently not having the necessary impact.

I note that the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s report on the commissioner landscape was published yesterday, as the committee is probably aware. The report calls for

“a moratorium on creating any new SPCB supported bodies, or expanding the remit of existing bodies”

until a review has been undertaken. I understand the instinct to have a review—I would even encourage that to happen—but it should not take place until disabled people have been given the same chance as other groups to benefit from a champion who speaks on their behalf at all levels of government. Pulling up the ladder on disabled people at this point would send a clear message that they are less worthy of an advocate than others. It is also worth noting that the recommended review would conclude by June 2025, which would, in effect, end any chance of further legislation on the proposal for a disability commissioner being introduced in this parliamentary session.

I note that other concerns have been raised about the potential cost of a disability commissioner. I emphasise what I said when I gave evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee: I consider the costs that would be incurred in establishing a disability commissioner to be relatively modest in the context of the Scottish Government’s total budget of £30 billion, and those costs should be seen as an investment in disabled people that is long overdue and very much needed.

It is my firm belief that establishing a disability commissioner will ensure that disabled people have a champion who will give them the prioritisation that they need and deserve. The commissioner’s overarching purpose will be to promote and safeguard the rights of disabled people. The bill sets out various functions that will help the commissioner to achieve that goal. Those include promoting awareness and understanding of the rights of disabled people and promoting best practice by service providers. That could be carried out in a multitude of ways, but it is important that the views of disabled people are central to that work.

For that reason, the bill provides that the commissioner must consult disabled people and organisations that work with and for disabled people on the work that the commission is undertaking and must publish a strategy for involving disabled people in their work. The commissioner must ensure that those who have difficulty in making their views known or in accessing information have the means to do so when engaging with the commissioner. That could be done through the provision of information in different formats, such as Braille and easy read.

The recent programme for government was yet another bitter blow for disabled people in Scotland, with the news that the Scottish Government will not be pursuing a human rights bill in this parliamentary session, as was previously planned, and that the proposed bill to create a learning disability, autism and neurodiversity commissioner has been shelved.

On top of that, many disabled people’s organisations believe that the Government’s disability equality plan falls short of its promised intentions. Glasgow Disability Alliance stated that it

“lacks ambition, meaningful actions or commitments needed to improve disabled lives blighted by #Poverty #Trauma #Inequality”.

Inclusion Scotland stated that it was disappointed that the draft plan does not include the actions that it had discussed at a meeting with the First Minister. The Scottish Government’s disability equality plan is therefore not an effective or credible alternative to establishing a disability commissioner. If a disability commissioner is not the answer, what is?

We know that disabled people need action now. They cannot wait any longer. The bill seeks to make positive changes for disabled people and is in front of the Parliament now. No viable alternative is currently on the table to ensure that disabled people have a champion who will ensure that their rights are respected and enforced. The proposed learning disability, autism and neurodiversity commissioner bill is being dangled in front of us, but, for the foreseeable future, it will remain out of reach. We are being asked to trust existing institutions to provide a voice for disabled people when they previously have not provided that voice, even though they already have that mandate. The reality is that they will never be able to prioritise disabled people because they have such broad remits. Only a disability commissioner will be able to focus their full attention on disabled people.

If the bill falls, we risk this parliamentary session ending without our having passed any meaningful legislation to improve disabled people’s rights, which would be shameful. We know that disabled people need action now. They cannot wait any longer. I therefore urge the committee and the Parliament to ensure that this opportunity is not missed and to support the bill. I am afraid that disabled people will not forgive us if we do not pass it.

I am happy, as always, to answer questions.

We have to look at what powers a commissioner can choose to enforce. Many people who are better legally qualified than I am will tell you that there are restrictions in that regard, even on the powers of commissioners. However, we can probably go further and I am certainly willing to work with the Glasgow Disability Alliance, other charities and ���˿��� to see how far we can go and still keep on the right side of legality.

I have put forward some powers for the commissioner, and we will just need to make sure that they are legal. If they are, I am certainly happy to have discussions with you and others about that.

Interestingly, there was an argument for a disability commissioner before Covid, but, as a consequence of Covid, disabled people have been left behind by public bodies and funding organisations far more than people with any of the other protected characteristics.

When I was doing my consultation on the bill, one of my big concerns was about how to balance the commissioner’s job in relation to dealing with people in wheelchairs, people with hidden disabilities and people with hearing loss. How would one commissioner be able to do all that? What became very clear to me—all the evidence points to this—is that the same issues relating to education, employment and benefits affect people in wheelchairs, people with hearing or sight loss and people with hidden disabilities. The commissioner would not be spending, say, 20 per cent of their time dealing with people with one type of disability and 10 per cent of their time dealing with people with another type of disability. They would be looking at issues such as education and social care provision.

Interestingly, the City of Edinburgh Council has still not introduced the care measures for the parents of disabled children that were available before Covid. In fact, based on a meeting that I had with the council a number of months ago, it has no intention of introducing those measures again. That is true not just of the City of Edinburgh Council but of many local authorities. Who is advocating for those people? Who is telling ���˿��� that that is happening? Who is putting the message out there? Frankly, at the moment, no one is, so local authorities and other public bodies are getting away with it. That is why disabled people need a voice and why the bill is so important.