³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

That is an interesting question. Undoubtedly, public services are failing disabled people in regard to many issues, and it is not just the big headline-grabbing issues—it is often the small issues that local authorities in particular and health boards, too, are not picking up on.

There is a big debate going on about the type of transport systems that we should have in city centres. I do not want to go down that road, but I note that, fairly often, the disabled voice is not heard, and it is disabled people who are most affected by the changes.

There is a lack of understanding. Many people will do a tick-box exercise, but they will not actually engage with the disabled community. Let me give you a very basic example. It is great that we keep the main roads clear when it snows, and it is really important that the buses run, but I live 200 or 300 yards from my nearest bus stop and, if those 200 or 300 yards of pavement are not cleared, I cannot get to the bus stop, which means that I cannot get to work. Obviously, I can work online, but many people cannot do that.

The policy that many local authorities have is that we keep the main roads open, but we never clear the side streets—we wait until it all melts away. That means that you are saying to somebody who has a wheelchair or a mobility issue that they are housebound for a longer time.

We have not done that for 25 years, so the gap is there. That gap will continue, because who will do that advocacy? We all move on to different issues when something else hits our email or something else hits the media. That is the point that the disability community is making. There are organisations out there that have been running for many years—there are many commissions that could have done that work, but they have not. We have given civic society and other organisations the opportunity to do it, but the evidence is clear that they have not done it, so let us use this commissioner as someone who can be really positive and who can challenge Government, local authorities and health boards in order to see that change in society. If we do not do that, the landscape will not change and we will leave people further behind.

Back in 1999, in year 1, we could have given the Parliament, the Scottish Government and all the organisations—even the different commissioners that we have introduced in the past number of years—the opportunity to do it. However, we have not done that. My point is that you will move on to another inquiry and other committees will move on to other issues, so that voice will still not be heard.

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 think that that probably goes back to one of the points that I made earlier. Getting out of bed takes 90 per cent of my energy. I am not sure that the fault is totally the Parliament’s issue, because there are so many voices that we hear day in, day out. However, for many disabled people, getting to Parliament, sending an email or phoning an MSP to advocate is very difficult, because of the time and energy that that takes. That is particularly true for parents, who are trying to get their child out of bed, dress them, feed them and care for them. Having to write an email to an MSP or come to a protest outside the Parliament is just beyond the ability of most individuals.

As a Parliament, we have to keep reflecting on whether we are engaging with the community, but the community also has to have the energy and the ability to do that and many people with disabilities find that very difficult to do. Your disability comes with other issues and other things that you are trying to deal with.

The disability commissioner would get in at an earlier stage, to raise policy issues rather than implementation issues. Certainly, in my local authority, and, I think, in other local authorities, there is a high-level debate about what types of day centres are appropriate. For example, should people go to one place, or should they have individual care? That much wider philosophical debate is happening at the moment. However, often, I think, the disabled voice is not being heard on that. It is about getting in at an early stage of policy, and raising some of the issues.

Again, I will take a local issue—albeit one that will happen across other towns and cities in Scotland. In Edinburgh, we have George Street, which many of you will know. There is an issue of whether we should stop cars from driving on George Street. That is a really important debate. However, I heard about the consultation only very late on, and many disabled groups had not heard about it at all. There was a real danger that, because of a policy, we would prevent people from being able to access their places of work. Before that policy is implemented, the disability commissioner needs to be at that level. When Government brings forward ideas—for example, on transport or education—we need a disability commissioner, advocating with a disabled voice, at the philosophical level of that policy. I do not think that that happens at the moment.

We are 15 months or whatever away from Scottish Parliament elections, which is not that far down the road. I wonder whether we will get that consensus within that period of time. I do not think that, this session, the Government—whoever was in government—would have the time to turn your recommendations into legislation in 15 months. We should therefore proceed with a disability commissioner at this point, because the issues that disabled people face will not go away.

With due respect to this committee, it will be for the next Parliament to look at your report and decide what it wants to do with it. I just cannot see the timescales fitting in for you to produce your report, for the Government to reflect on it and for consultation with lots of groups and individuals before we face the electorate in 15 months. If the issue was put on hold for us to come back and look at it in the next session of Parliament, I would be very worried. Who knows who will be here? Who knows whether somebody will want to take the issue forward? We should push ahead.

I welcome your 360-degree review. Let us see what you as a committee come up with, then let us see how Government and civic society respond to what you have said. However, that will not happen in 15 months, unless there is a miracle.

I will turn to Nick Hawthorne, who may want to come in on that. My understanding is that that is the normal period of time.

We have deliberately not broken that down, because we are not here to write individuals’ job descriptions. Once the disability commissioner was appointed—if that were to happen—it would be for them to decide, first of all, what their own strengths and weaknesses might be and then what strengths would be needed in bringing the team together. Nevertheless, that would be the budget that they would have to play with. We are not saying that one person will be a researcher, say, or that one will do this and another do that; it will be up to the commissioner to decide what they think that they will need, once they are appointed.

That is a good question for the Finance and Public Administration Committee to address. My view is that if, as a Parliament, we believe that having a disability commissioner is the right way forward, it has to be appropriately funded. I think that that should come from an increase to the Parliament’s budget, but that debate can happen elsewhere.

In an evidence session on the bill at the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee last week, it was interesting that one of the speakers powerfully said that a disability commissioner is an investment in our society. If an investment is worth making, it is worth making. I think that we would be making an important investment in a group of individuals—ultimately, it is individuals who we are looking at—who, in many cases, are marginalised and left behind in society.

I would hope that that would not be the case. That would be a choice for the Parliament and, ultimately, the Government to make when it sets its annual budget. I would be very disappointed if that were to happen.