Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 5, 2024

Official Report 761KB pdf

---

Disability Employment Gap

Our next item of business is an evidence session with the minister on the committee’s inquiry into the disability employment gap. This is the final evidence session. I again welcome Tom Arthur, the Minister for Employment and Investment, who is joined by Stephen Garland, who is a senior policy officer and Clare Reddington, who is deputy director for employability, both from the Scottish Government.

I invite the minister to make a short opening statement.

Thank you very much, convener. I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before the committee this morning. I welcome the focus of this inquiry and I put on record my sincere gratitude to all the witnesses who have appeared before the committee for a series of revealing and highly informative sessions.

I want to be absolutely clear about the Scottish Government’s unwavering commitment to ensuring that disabled people can access employment and that they can sustain and progress, not just in any employment but in fulfilling and fair work. I understand that the inquiry will consider the different elements, which is welcome.

Since we made the commitment to halve the disability employment gap, there has been substantial progress. At 30.2 percentage points, the disability employment gap in 2023 was at its lowest since our baseline year of 2016, when it was at 37.4 percentage points. That is the second smallest disability employment gap among the UK nations, with only England having a smaller gap, at 26.2 percentage points. Overall, that means that the gap has narrowed by more than 7 percentage points since 2016, and we are making good progress towards our ambition to halve the gap by 2038.

09:30  

We continue to deliver the commitments that are set out in the fair work action plan across policy areas and in partnership with stakeholders, including disabled people’s organisations. That includes having delivered a public social partnership and the workplace equality fund, which provide support to employers to improve their knowledge and practices in the recruitment and retention of disabled people. We will commission independent evaluation and consider how to best build on and disseminate the learning from those initiatives to employers.

Through the no one left behind programme, tailored person-centred employability support is being provided for disabled people and those with long-term health conditions. We established a Scottish access to work stakeholder forum to allow stakeholders to engage directly with the Department for Work and Pensions to influence policy and the delivery of this UK Government programme.

Work is under way to look at how our health system can better support people to stay healthy in work and move from economic inactivity back into work. Work is progressing to develop Scotland’s first national transitions to adulthood strategy.

We are changing people’s lives for the better. However, there is still much more to do, including improving our evidence base so that we can better identify what is working and build on that. Other challenges include societal prejudice and stigma, employers’ concerns about getting it wrong and there being an older working-age population in Scotland than there is in the rest of the UK. To improve that, we must continue to work together with partners across sectors to make real improvements and create lasting cultural change.

Thank you, minister. As you stated, there is a disability employment gap and we have made progress since 2014, but how can we make further progress to ensure that we meet the target? We have heard evidence that there has been an increase in people who are already in employment who declare as having a disability.

We have also heard that we have made quite a lot of progress with people with physical disabilities, but evidence from the Fair Work Convention and from the Fraser of Allander Institute suggests that people with learning disabilities are not making the same progress. Are you confident that policy decisions are responsive and flexible enough? We have made progress and do not want to plateau. How do we reach our target? Where else do we need to make changes and investment?

The first thing to recognise is that meeting our ambitions on halving the disability employment gap will not be achieved by any one stakeholder, organisation, group or partner in isolation; it will be a collaborative approach.

As the committee will appreciate from the evidence that it has taken, collaboration is at the heart of the approach to address many of the challenges that we face, whether we are addressing the cultural and social barriers that exist, ensuring that our employability landscape is integrated and provides a person-centred tailored approach, or helping to facilitate the sharing of best practice and confidence building among employers.

Although I—the minister for employment—am appearing before the committee this morning, addressing the disability employment gap is a shared agenda across Government portfolios. Various portfolio areas have significant contributions to make to help us to achieve that ambition by 2038.

Crucially, spheres of the Government work in partnership with local government, which is at the heart of our approach to employability. We also recognise the important role that the UK Government plays. Reference is made to access to work, for example, and how we are helping to facilitate stronger engagement through that process. I take very seriously the substantial challenge that we still face.

I recognise the points that have been highlighted by the Fraser of Allander Institute in collaboration with the Scottish Parliament information centre, particularly on where progress has been made on halving the gap. That has been driven, in large part, by issues of prevalence and people already in work being classed as disabled. As such, we recognise that there is still significant progress to make.

That said, it is also important to recognise that, with regard to our interim targets for the number of disabled people who are employed, we met our interim 2023 target of 50 per cent a year early. We have set ourselves a target of 60 per cent by 2030, so we are making progress there.

We are working on addressing issues around measurement and data, whether in the shared measurement framework on employability services or on the fair work evidence plan that we published earlier this year. We recognise that we have work to do to address gaps in data and evidence, and I think that that speaks very much to your point about the challenges of disaggregating particular types of impairment and the recognition that, within that space, there can be quite significant variation in outcomes. Again, we will work in partnership and collaboratively with employability services, employers and our skills and education systems to ensure that we provide as much support as possible and collectively help to address the broader cultural and societal barriers that exist.

I will bring in some other members now, but I might come back in later. I call Maggie Chapman, to be followed by Murdo Fraser.

Good morning, minister, and thank you for your opening remarks.

Following on from that, and thinking about the ambition to halve the disability employment gap by 2038, I would note that over the past few weeks several panels have told us that it is not actually very ambitious and that there should be no disability employment gap at all. I am interested in hearing your response to that challenge that the target lacks ambition and that there should be no gap. Why would we tolerate just halving that gap over the next 14 years? Why are we not seeking to eliminate it?

I welcome that challenge, and I share the ambition that has been expressed. When discussing any aspect of the labour market, we can sometimes reduce things to numbers and just talk about the contribution being made to the overall economy and to employment. First and foremost, work is a fundamental right, and we want to ensure that everyone in Scotland has the opportunity to participate fully in employment for its intrinsic value, not just because of its instrumental outcomes in supporting economic growth and economic activity. I align myself with that ambition, that sentiment and that fundamental belief.

However, I also make it clear that we face a significant challenge. We are contending with ingrained and long-standing societal and cultural barriers, and that issue is reflected in the timescales that we have set out. When we look back at our base year of 2016, we see that, at the time, the Learning and Work Institute, I think, commented that the UK, on its rate of progress, was going to take 200 years to eliminate the disability employment gap. We are talking about halving the gap by 2038.

We have significant progress to make, but we have made tangible progress since 2016; indeed, those 7 percentage points give us the second lowest disability employment gap in the UK. We recognise, though, that there is still work to be done, hence the range of initiatives that we have put in place, whether it be engaging with employers through the public social partnership and the workplace equality fund or our work to roll out our place-based and person-centred approach to employability.

I want to ensure that we set ourselves a target that we can achieve. I am conscious that it is important to deliver it if we are to maintain confidence, but I do not want it to seem that we are not ambitious to go further—we are. This is an ambition that we are all share, and it is an ambition that the Government is committed to working in partnership to deliver.

You have talked about working collaboratively and in partnership with organisations and agencies across the board. The fair work action plan contains a commitment to making fair work the norm, and there are clear metrics and issues that will be monitored as part of that. However, is there sufficient detail in the plan to allow you to make that connection between monitoring the metrics and taking action to create the change that is needed and to achieve that ambition or aim of halving the gap in the next 14 years? Sometimes data is collected, but it happens without any action alongside it to nudge or shift things or get the change that we need.

It is all about taking the data, learning from it and then applying that learning in a way that leads to actual change on the ground. In the fair work evidence plan, for example, there is the monitoring of our progress towards being a fair work nation, and there is also the monitoring and evaluation of our actions in the fair work action plan. There is also the requirement to develop our understanding of the evidence and data that we will need to inform future policy making.

I am always keen to read parliamentary committee reports on any area for which I have portfolio responsibility, but having come into post only very recently, I will be extremely keen to hear the committee’s considered views on this matter. The point that I would make, though, is that this is not something static; it is live. Society develops, and changes occur. As a result, my third point, which was about getting evidence that allows us to understand the evolving landscape and how that can inform future policy development, is going to be key to our meeting the commitment to halving the disability employment gap by 2038.

I am conscious that we are 14 years away from that. If we think back to what the workplace was like 14 years ago—indeed, even four years ago, or perhaps slightly more than that, to take us back to the pre-pandemic period—we can see some of the significant changes that have been made with regard to flexibility. We cannot simply say, “We’ve got a plan and it is going to see us through the next 20 years.” Principles, targets and values are absolutely important, but it is also important to be responsive to societal shifts and changes and new innovation in technologies and take every opportunity to apply that learning and innovation to support our reaching the target.

I think that other members might pick up on some of those points in a little bit more detail.

My final question is on the no one left behind approach and on bringing together that partnership and collaboration that you have talked about. The committee heard contrasting views not necessarily of how successful the approach had been, but of what its impact was; indeed, organisations and people working most closely with those with lived experience said that they did not always see the positive impact of the approach. How, then, would you assess the impact on disabled people themselves? You have talked about culture change, and clearly there has been an impact on how organisations work—indeed, we have heard as much—but do you think that that is flowing through to positive change for disabled people themselves?

The committee will have heard of some very positive examples, but it will have heard about variation and inconsistency, too. Variation will, to some extent, always be a feature of any locally administered scheme. We do recognise the value of a local place-based approach that is integrated with partners, including employers, on the ground, because this is all about responding to the needs and assets of a particular location. There will be variation, but what we want is variation that arises from a positive response to a location’s particular challenges and opportunities rather than variation that occurs through lack of knowledge of best practice elsewhere.

That is why we are taking this partnership approach. The collaborative way in which we are seeking to operate with local government—which is something that I am very much looking forward to—will help ensure that we respect the importance and value of local delivery, facilitate the sharing of knowledge of best practice and provide the level of consistency that we want, without in any way seeking to stymie innovation and an approach that is fundamentally place based.

Okay—I will leave it there.

I call Murdo Fraser, to be followed by Kevin Stewart.

09:45  

Good morning again, minister. I want to ask you about funding, because we took a lot of evidence from representatives of organisations that are involved in delivery of programmes to help disabled people to get into work. Many of those are third sector organisations that derive their funding—sometimes indirectly—from the Scottish Government.

In the budget for the current year, the total employability funding is £103 million. Last year, it was substantially more than that. There has been a cut of £30 million between last year and this year. That is a real-terms cut of 24 per cent in employability funding. You say that the disability employment gap is an issue that the Scottish Government is concerned about and that you want to support measures to get disabled people into the workforce. How does that square with the fact that you have cut the budget by almost a quarter?

That is a completely fair, reasonable and legitimate question, and I appreciate that it is one that has been raised at the committee by a number of stakeholders. I also recognise the views that have been expressed by stakeholders with regard to the value that is conferred by multiyear funding. I am conscious that the committee has taken evidence from organisations that have had quite extended periods of funding about the certainty that that provides. I recognise that, when that is not the case, it can have a material impact on delivery on the ground.

That is not a set of circumstances that any of us would want to be in. I make it clear that the Scottish Government would not want to be in those circumstances. However, we have taken the decision about the budget in the context of a very challenging set of public finances. I have recently taken up the post of minister with responsibility for employment. Prior to that, I was the minister with responsibility for public finance for three years, so I was acutely aware of the challenges that we face and the extremely difficult decisions that the Government has had to take to ensure that we can deliver sustainable public services and meet our requirements to deliver a balanced budget.

With regard to the funding that has been allocated, we have worked to ensure that it can help to maintain the priority services on the ground, so that our funding will be consistent with our broader aims and ambitions on employability and fair work, but also with our commitment to halving the disability employment gap.

You mentioned multiyear funding, which, as you fairly said, has come up in evidence a number of times. Organisations have told us that in some cases they do not even receive their award letters until they are several months into the new financial year, which makes it almost impossible for them to plan ahead. Because the staff whom they employ have no certainty about their future employment, they tend to drift away and do not feel secure in their jobs.

What more can the Scottish Government do to ensure certainty of funding for organisations that work in disability employment and are dependent on that support?

Again, I recognise that point. I will be candid. We have spoken about multiyear funding, the certainty that it can provide and the opportunities that it can create for developing innovative, intensive and supportive practice. The converse is also true: I fully accept that, when there are delays in awarding of funding, that creates uncertainty and can inhibit delivery on the ground.

We work to ensure that we can finalise awards as quickly as possible. The most candid answer that I can give for why that does not take place is to say that it is simply a reflection of the extremely challenging set of circumstances that we find ourselves in with regard to the public finances. Since I came into post, I have been keen to work with colleagues in the Government to identify ways in which we can address the issue that you identify.

We are all familiar with the fact that our broader funding landscape is dependent on various factors that are not within the direct control of the Scottish Government. That creates challenges with regard to our ability to provide multiyear financing. I want to work with colleagues to address the issue so that, when a budget is allocated, we ensure that the award goes out as swiftly as possible, to provide certainty to partners on the ground.

That is very helpful. You will appreciate that, for the people whom we have spoken to, this is a crucial issue, because they are not able to properly plan ahead year to year. Even if they knew at the start of the financial year what the funding was, that would be an improvement on the situation that they are in. Ideally, they want to move to multiyear funding so that they can plan two or three years ahead.

I completely accept and recognise that point. I do not think that any of us in our capacity as elected members engaging with organisations in our respective constituencies and regions would not have had those conversations. I have engaged with organisations in my ministerial capacity in previous roles, so I recognise the challenge. To the greatest extent possible, I recognise the broader uncertainty and challenges that we face in the overall budgetary position, which is just owing to the way in which the public finances and fiscal framework operate in Scotland. I want to work to provide as much certainty as possible, because I completely recognise and accept the legitimate concerns that are raised. The uncertainty has consequences, and I want to work to help address that.

Before I bring in Kevin Stewart, I have a follow-up to Murdo Fraser’s question. The fair start Scotland funding was replaced by the no one left behind funding. It is difficult to compare the figures, because the no one left behind funding is devolved to local authorities, and the Institute For Public Policy Research has raised questions around transparency. Both sets of figures tend to show a reasonable amount of job starts, but the numbers tail off for people still being in employment after three months, six months and 12 months: the numbers reduce. We can get a decent amount of people in work, but how do we keep them in employment? This is about retention. The first question was about barriers to achieving the target. Do you recognise trying to retain people in employment as being a feature of supporting people into employment? What can be done to address that?

I touched in my opening statement on the need not just to gain employment but for it to be fulfilling and sustainable. That is a priority: it cannot merely be a numbers game about trying to get as many people into work as possible. We must also create a structure and a package of support that enable people to sustain employment.

I will be engaging closely with partners over the coming weeks and months on those issues in order to fully identify and understand their views on what the drivers and causes are. Clearly, there are instances in which people are sustained in employment, and I want to make sure that we learn from that best practice. However, at the heart of our approach is recognition that everyone is an individual and that a range of circumstances could influence why someone does not sustain employment beyond a certain period, whether it is three months, six months or nine months.

Claire—is there anything that you want to comment on in terms of our wider learning and understanding?

The data illustrates the minister’s point well. There is measurement of people sustaining being in a post, but other measures of success are easier to capture under the no one left behind policy. There are positive destinations in terms of gaining qualifications, gaining volunteering experience and going back into education, so that makes up the balance of the percentages that you are seeing in relation to that.

I re-emphasise that we are working and focusing on that, because it is about getting an individual into the right job with the right circumstances. That is a long-term aspect of the issue. We need to look at longer-term tracking of individuals and we need to make sure that people are fully supported, in order for the policy to be a success.

Kevin Stewart has questions linked to that.

One of the things that we have been doing, as always, is listening to the voices of lived experience. Some of the stories that we have heard, particularly from young folk, are very similar. Education does not seem to work for them, and does not prepare them for work, which some stakeholders have also highlighted. Many of the young folk whom we have talked to from certain parts of the country feel that college is a bit of a tick-box exercise and are not really interested in it.

Those are some of the negative views, but we have also heard some positive ones, including about initiatives such as DFN Project Search, which I have been lucky enough to see in operation in Aberdeen, where it has provided successful experiences for young folk who have gone into apprenticeships and training, with many attaining full-time employment at the end. That programme works, as do some other things. You talked about variation because of local delivery, but how do we ensure that such best practice, which works for people and is viewed as very positive, is exported across the country?

When I read the Official Report of your initial evidence session on 1 May, I was concerned by the references to the conversations that the committee had recently had with young people about their experiences. I accept that there was variation, but I know that a number of members in that meeting highlighted concerns that young people who had given evidence had expressed to them.

The first point that I will make is that I take that very seriously. I am also acutely conscious of the importance of a young disabled person’s first engagement with work and employability, as well as the importance of discussion of work. It is extremely important that we get that right. Therefore, where approaches are identified as being effective and successful and are leading demonstrably to material improvements and good outcomes, we absolutely want to ensure that they are widely disseminated and understood.

I ask Claire Renton to comment on the existing structures that we have in place to ensure that best practice is shared as widely as possible.

Thank you for the question. It is a good challenge.

As you rightly said, Project Search is an excellent example of working with young people and providing key outcomes. It is a successful model that can be seen in a few other local authorities, apart from Aberdeen. Initially, four local authorities engaged with the programme. The number has stepped up to 11 and we are seeing best practice and the benefit of it starting to roll out.

We are also seeing the benefit of the associated collaborative working—which the minister has emphasised—as Project Search is connected with employers in the individual areas. We have seen good examples of that on site visits. That will certainly form a key part of the minister’s summer tour that he has charged us to put together, so that he can see the experiences first hand.

Obviously, we support and empower our local authority partners—in particular, through the local employability partnerships, because they allow a good range of skill sets and experiences to be shared. We are also involved in a strong forum with the Scottish Local Authorities Economic Development Group—SLAED

All that engagement is good; I get all that.

Another thing that we have heard, which is really important in relation to getting things right, is that the various budget holders often do not join up. For example, social care and employment services do not work together to get the best outcomes for people.

I am not going to go on about self-directed support, because I know that Mr Smyth has got particular questions on it, but how do we get local authorities, which are dealing with all this, to take into account the needs, desires and aspirations of each individual in order to get provision right for them?

In terms of the direction in which we have been moving with the no one left behind programme, we have been creating the structures and approach that will get us there. However, I am conscious that there are challenges in delivering integrated approaches—not just in the realm of employability, and specifically supporting young disabled people into employment, but right across our public services. However, progress has been made.

A number of structural challenges can exist, which we can work to break down. There can also be cultural challenges, such as ways of working that have become ingrained. One of the things that I will consider is how the funding landscape operates and whether it works in such a way that it fully incentivises the level of collaboration that we would like to see. I will give careful consideration to such matters.

10:00  

As an aside, in response to Mr Stewart’s previous question, I put on record the fact if any member wishes to share with me directly any examples of best practice, I would be grateful to hear from them and would be happy to engage with them directly in their constituency or region. I want to see examples of best practice in operation on the ground, because I recognise that, as a minister, I have responsibility and a role to play in ensuring that we share best practice as widely as possible.

On the question of how we incentivise the most effective collaborative approaches and how our broader work and, more specifically, the move to the no one left behind approach are helping to facilitate that, I invite Claire Renton to comment.

By having the local government partner as our lead accountable body on the local employability partnerships, we are encouraging and supporting key colleagues in areas such as health, social care and housing to be at the table, when it comes to collaborative working. We are supporting that through relationship managers, who work with individual local authorities and bring them together, and through collaborative working with our Convention of Scottish Local Authorities colleagues. There have been some really good discussions. As members will have noticed in the evidence sessions, there is a common energy with regard to working together, doing more to remove barriers and building on the good practice that is already happening.

You mentioned data. We have discussed the fact that there are gaps in data gathering. You said that you are going to take stock of that to see what needs to be done.

I have a question that relates to data, but is also about policy formulation and getting this right. How will you include the voices of lived experience in shaping the future and eradicating the disability employment gap? The voices of lived experience are key, as far as I am concerned. People with lived experience know what works for them, they know what does not work and they know what they want.

We have heard from folks who want their independence and who have aspirations. We have even heard from folk who want to create their own businesses. How do we ensure that their voices are heard? How do you go about listening to them when it comes to data gathering and policy formulation?

On that last point and the direct challenge that you have put to me, how I listen, as a minister, is absolutely crucial. My approach is that I will, of course, engage directly with the various representative bodies and non-governmental organisations, but I also want to engage directly with people with lived experience to hear—unmediated—their views.

With regard to how we are achieving that within the broader structure of delivery, I come back to the local place-based approach that we have spoken about. We want to ensure that the voices of lived experience are at the heart of that approach. That is consistent with the Scottish approach to service design, which is focused on the priorities of fairness, dignity and respect, for which Mr Stewart has, I know, been the staunchest of champions in all the roles that he has had.

That is of the utmost importance to me, because bringing that expertise to bear allows us to ensure that we have a culture in Scotland that is inclusive. It also leads to better outcomes. On many occasions, involving people with expertise and experience allows us to arrive at the right answer—the correct conclusion—far more quickly than we would have if we had relied on people who do not have such lived experience.

I do not underestimate the challenge involved in getting a complex series of services to operate in such a way that the experience for the user is seamless, holistic and person centred. That is what we must deliver across all our public services, and that is what I want to be delivered in employability.

I think that we are making good progress, but I am not complacent or ignorant of the challenges that we still face. To face them will require engagement from the top down, and I will lead by example in ensuring that that engagement takes place and, indeed, continues. I know that it takes place locally, and I will want to see it built on to ensure that the voices of lived experience are to the fore in how we design, develop and evolve our services.

I have a final question. You are the Minister for Employment and Investment, but some of the very sound arguments that we have heard from people involve other areas of Government. How will you ensure that you work with ministerial colleagues to get right the journey from school to college and into work and beyond?

I come back to my earlier point that, although “Employment” is part of my ministerial title, I have a listed set of responsibilities underneath that title and I might be speaking on behalf of the Government on halving the disability employment gap, delivering that will require—and this is happening—action from across Government. In taking forward this agenda, I will be engaging closely with colleagues in the education portfolio, particularly in the area where Skills Development Scotland sits, and colleagues with responsibility for children and young people, health and transport, just to name some areas, as well as engaging directly with business as part of our broader fair work agenda.

This is a priority for Government and for me, and I will be engaging constructively not only with all of my ministerial colleagues, but with Parliament and members. I want to ensure that all the learning that the Parliament can bring, with individual members sharing knowledge of the services that are available in their part of Scotland and the experiences of constituents who use them, is drawn to my attention, so that we can meet the ask that you have put to us, Mr Stewart, of ensuring that best practice is shared. Where things are not operating in the way that we would expect or in the way that they should be operating, we can work constructively and collaboratively to address the matter.

Thank you, minister.

Just before I bring in Evelyn Tweed, I should note that, as the minister might know, we did some work on the issue last year before we started our broader inquiry. As part of that, we visited representatives of All In Dundee, which is a consortium that is led by Enable Scotland. Minister, you were asking for good examples of where funding from the no one left behind programme has managed to bring organisations together. I highlight that consortium, which offers a complete employability package and supports a number of people; it might be something that you would be interested in taking a closer look at.

However, one issue that the consortium highlighted to us raised, I suppose, questions about a postcode lottery in provision across Scotland and about unmet need. That brings us back to the data question: do we have an understanding of how many people need to find employment in order to meet the target? Other organisations that have done work on the matter suggest that 6,000 to 7,000 people would need to find employment in that time. Will the work on data cover unmet need? Do you have concerns about there being a postcode lottery? Has the devolving of the no one left behind money led to good provision in some areas but perhaps a lack of provision in others?

I will not repeat my comments about our work on data, but with regard to unmet need, in particular, we will be looking at those areas closely. I want to ensure that we can get as comprehensive a picture as possible; after all, we have set ourselves a target and we need to be able to measure it clearly.

We also need to be able to understand some of the driving factors underneath all this. I recognise the Fraser of Allander’s excellent work on the matter, but nevertheless it can be quite difficult to define and understand some of the factors at play. It is a process, and we are committed to constructive engagement to deepen our knowledge and recognise the roles that other organisations and stakeholders play in the process, too.

On the issue of variation, what is described as a postcode lottery is always an inherent risk when, in order to allow for a tailored response to the needs and circumstances of a particular area, we have local variation. We want to ensure that that variation is used in a way that is additive and positive, that it makes use of opportunities that are unique to a local area and that it does not lead to a situation in which people are losing out or missing out. We do that by taking a partnership approach, recognising the important lead role that local authorities have in each of their areas, while ensuring that, through the existing forums—Claire Renton mentioned the role that SLAED has in this—we take forward consistency and share best practice.

Again, we are engaged in a process. Parliament’s power over devolved employability services is still relatively new, and the no one left behind programme is still a relatively new policy initiative, although it is already delivering benefits—I know that the committee will have heard that in the evidence that it has received. However, there is still significant work to be done.

There is always an inherent risk of variation in having a devolved local approach, and we can work to address that. However, we all recognise that there is also a risk when we try to have a standardised one-size-fits-all approach, because that cannot maximise use of local opportunities and can sometimes lead to unmet need, because there can be a particular model that works for the majority but does not respond for other parts of Scotland. As you have heard, that is a particularly important issue in the context of the delivery of services in rural communities.

One approach would be to come at the issue from a rights perspective. Article 27 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recognises

“the right of persons with disabilities to work, on an equal basis with others”.

We are anticipating the introduction in Scotland of a human rights bill and a neurodivergence bill, which are relevant in that regard. Do you see the establishment of stronger rights for people with disabilities to access employment as a lever that could help to smooth out some of the issues around the postcode lottery or variation? Rather than prescribing what local authorities or anyone else must deliver, you could set out the right that must be delivered.

You highlight one approach that could be considered in helping to address the issue, as it sets the outcome but recognises that delivery will reflect local circumstances. I do not discount the point that you raise, but the priority for me right now, given what we have in front of us and the current legislative framework, is using the tools that we have at our disposal—the delivery vehicles such as the local employability partnerships and the no one left behind programme—to deliver employability in Scotland. I want to ensure that we continue to progress that collaborative, integrated approach, so that we can realise the strong and positive outcomes that will come from having a system that ensures that the individual who is using the service is treated holistically in a person-centred way and has wraparound support that recognises their multifaceted needs. That is what we have at the moment and I will work to ensure that we can continue to take that forward.

I will reflect on your point, and I will be keen to understand what the committee’s views are on the evidence that it has received and on how we can achieve consistency without stifling or restricting local innovation in practice. That is the balance that we need to strike.

10:15  

Thank you for your helpful answers. It is good to hear that Scotland is taking steps to reduce the disability employment gap. However, we heard in evidence from employers and various stakeholders that employers are worried and scared about recruitment and the long-term employment prospects of the people who they are taking on. What is the Scottish Government doing to support employers so that they feel able to recruit disabled people and to ensure that those people have a good journey?

As I mentioned, we provided funding for the public social partnership. The partnership looked at identifying and developing solutions to deal with some of the gaps in understanding and expertise that employers might feel they have. We also provided funding over a number of years for the workplace equality fund, which looked at barriers to employment for a range of priority groups, including disabled people. There will be independent evaluations of those pieces of work, which will help to inform the work that we as a Government take forward with a range of partners.

Engagement is taking place, and I recognise that many employers do excellent work already. I also recognise the important work of the Federation of Small Businesses, which I know that you took evidence from. The Government is undertaking that work, and we will continue to take that partnership approach.

It struck me, from the evidence that the committee has received, that one way of looking at it is that a large employer with a well-developed administrative apparatus, human resources staff and so on, could be perceived as being in a better position to provide support for disabled people in employment. However, we also heard the experience of people in small businesses, where close relationships and a less formalised working environment can allow for the flexibility and support that is required.

I know that the committee will have taken evidence on the challenges that can exist in large organisations in respect of the co-ordination of approaches between various members of staff who have different responsibilities, and on the challenges and concerns for smaller operators, such as the time constraints, time pressures and their concern of getting it wrong. Large and small operators can have concerns, but I recognise that both have particular strengths. That tells me that, with continued work and engagement, we can support employers to build their understanding so that they have the confidence and the means not only to attract and recruit but to retain disabled people in employment.

Stephen, would like to add anything?

Thank you very much for that question. The minister mentioned the public social partnership and the workplace equality fund. Those two programmes were undertaken with a clear timeframe. They considered what benefits they could deliver for the employers involved, which was primarily to help us to learn about what could be applied more widely.

We have a lot of information from the grant process, and the reporting that we have from that is being taken into account now. We also have—this was set out in the fair work action plan—a strong emphasis on engagement with employers. That is to enable us to understand what information would work best for them, to provide them with that confidence and the understanding of the benefits of employing disabled people, as well as wider fair work benefits. We want to understand how to put that in language that works for them rather than put that in policy language.

We are engaging with a wide range of employers to get that feedback and develop that work. We will try to help and convene that work by bringing forward the information that we have received through the public social partnership and the workplace equality fund, together with a range of information from a range of partners including the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and other organisations.

Thanks for that. In taking evidence, we spoke a lot about HR, which is the often the first port of call on employment issues. Is anything being done specifically on HR as something that we must target?

Would you like to comment specifically on the work that has been undertaken to date, Stephen?

I would refer to the range of work that the CIPD has already undertaken and is doing. As the minister said, how we would look to engage with an organisation very much depends on its size. In considering the next stage, we are seeking to understand how to provide the right information, guidance, support and advice to employers. For some employers, that involves working with HR; as some work in other ways, that will involve working through other routes. Peer-to-peer support might be more appropriate with other employers, for instance. We are looking at all the routes.

Thanks for that. What are you looking for from employers? What are your asks of them? What are you expecting them to do?

One thing that struck me from an earlier evidence session arose from a question that Kevin Stewart asked. He raised something that was not directly related: the carer positive accreditation scheme. I have been a champion of that in my capacity as a constituency MSP. Carer positive recognises employers that have workforce practices that support people who are balancing care with work by providing flexibility to enable them to meet their caring responsibilities while retaining employment.

One thing that I have picked up in engagement with employers is that there can be a bit of hesitancy, initially, as they are not sure what the scheme means, what it requires and what they have to do. When it is explained, people realise that they are doing a lot of it anyway. They might say, “We have this in place—I didn’t realise that. We can just make one or two tweaks.”

It has been reflected in some of the evidence that the committee has heard over the past few weeks that there are already some very good examples of what employers are doing. There are others who could become very confident with only a limited or small amount of support and information. With that, they could realise the significant opportunities that arise for them as employers, both in having an inclusive and diverse workplace, which is a key principle of fair work, and in improving productivity, with the tremendous economic contribution that disabled people can make to their business.

I say without prejudice to my earlier remarks to Maggie Chapman that, first and foremost, this is about ensuring that people have the opportunity and the right to have rewarding and fulfilling employment.

There is a cultural shift to be made. Examples of practice can be powerful and compelling—those are certainly more powerful and compelling than a minister or any politician talking about things.

When it comes to asks of employers, it is for those employers who are already doing excellent work in delivering fair work and opportunities for disabled people to participate fully and have rewarding and fulfilling work to carry on speaking up and highlighting and sharing best practice. They will find in me someone who is more than willing to work constructively with them, to engage and to ensure that that best practice is as widely understood and shared as possible.

Culture has been talked about a lot. You have talked about it this morning, and a lot of comments about culture have been made in evidence. We heard from the young people whom we spoke to that people often had no expectations of having a working life or contributing to society. There were limited expectations. How do we move forward on that? How can we really make a difference?

You identify what can be some of the most challenging barriers to remove: those that can be created in our minds. That is indeed a challenge.

Without rehearsing all the things that have already been discussed this morning with regard to support for employability, joined-up approaches, engaging with education, schools and so on, I emphasise the power of example and the importance of ensuring that examples are widely shared and understood.

I mentioned the work that is under way on our national transitions strategy in my opening remarks. There is policy intervention, and there is partnership working, but—going back to the point about being ambitious while recognising the scale of the challenge of halving the disability employment gap by 2030—there is also recognition that cultural change can take time, and it does not always take place in a straight line, as there can be setbacks.

The broader direction of travel is clear, however. We are making progress and, as we move closer to achieving that ambition, that can serve as a way to deconstruct some of the cultural barriers. It becomes more real: going back to one of the key things that has been mentioned, it is a matter of making fair work the norm. That in itself can help people and can break down some of the cultural barriers.

I am under no illusion, however: that takes time, and it will come about only through demonstrable improvements—which have been made, but we still have a lot of work to do.

Thanks for that, minister.

If Gordon MacDonald will excuse me, I have a quick question. Getting down to some of the practicalities, one of the recommendations that I have heard involves job coaches being more widely available, which is something that the Government could drive. We used to have the workplace equality fund, but it closed. The last period for the fund was in 2021, and we heard some quite positive feedback about it. Do you see anything that replaces that or provides that level of support?

When it comes to the practical things that people were looking to the Government for, we had a workplace equality fund, which was a good thing, but it is no longer there; another practical thing is to increase the availability of job coaches so that, when people start employment, they are given support. The idea is for that to be more easily and more widely available.

We touched on the workplace equality fund earlier, and there is going to be an independent evaluation of it. A number of different projects were supported over a number of years, and there is learning to be taken from that, which can be applied, and that will inform future policy initiatives that we pursue collaboratively and in partnership. That was a piece of work that we can learn from and which can inform future policy development.

We have spoken about the fair work evidence plan. Part of the process around evidence and data gathering involves informing future policy development.

There is a gap here while we are waiting. The project that I referred to ran for a few years. People liked it and thought that it was positive. We are evaluating it but, while we are evaluating it, there is no equivalent fund or support available.

We can give some background to the workplace equality fund and how it has operated in relation to a number of priority groups for whom there have been barriers to employment and referring to some of the work that has taken place to date and how we can apply it. I do not know whether Stephen Garland wants to add anything to his earlier remarks.

The workplace equality fund ran until 31 March this year. It was always intended to run for two years in its current iteration, very much as a point of learning. As you would expect with any fund, you need to get to the end of the year to get the full understanding and learning from it. That is what we are doing in the current year. We are already considering how we can start to disseminate the learning from that more widely in advance of the independent evaluation, which will give us greater depth. Notwithstanding the financial pressures that the minister has noted, that will help to inform any future decisions on similar kinds of funding. The workplace equality fund was very much about making significant benefits for the workplaces that it was supporting, as well as longer-term term learning. We are in that place now.

I will perhaps leave this next issue to Gordon MacDonald, as it is covered in the report as a recommendation on job coaches.

Good morning, minister and panel. The review of supported employment back in 2022 made a number of recommendations and findings. They were all accepted in full by the Scottish Government. What progress has been made in implementing those recommendations?

10:30  

The employability landscape has moved on since the supported employment review and the individual placement and support review—which the committee has had some interest in—and I think that the committee will recognise that.

I will give that detailed consideration very soon, and I am happy to update the committee in writing about the outcome. I do not want to pre-empt what the outcome will be, but I can provide an update on the thinking that has taken place to date. We recognise the importance and value of specialist support, which will be critical for some disabled people in accessing work.

On the two evaluation reports that the member and the minister referred to, an initial response was given on the progress that has been made in accepting those recommendations. The reports happened at a key time because of the changes in the employability landscape, particularly when it changed from fair start Scotland to no one left behind. The reviews were appropriate and useful in informing no one left behind. We are making progress against the seven recommendations. The intention is to follow up with a supplementary briefing to demonstrate the full impact and how work on the recommendations has been embedded.

Recently, we have been doing a review of the initial aspects. We are checking that we are still on the right course and that we are learning lessons. As the minister said, this is a constantly evolving situation. There has been movement since the recommendations were announced, but we will follow up with a written report on that to ensure that the committee has the most up-to-date response.

The Scottish Union of Supported Employment has raised a couple of issues in relation to developing a supported employment guarantee and quality standards for supported employment. As you said, the landscape is changing all the time; for example, the UK Government announced the chance to work guarantee coming in. What is the Scottish Government’s thinking on those two areas? Does employment law being reserved to Westminster make it more difficult or does it restrict us on where we can act in those two areas?

There is a lot in that question. We welcome the work that the Scottish Union of Supported Employment undertakes. We have been in discussion with it, and we are actively involved with it. It has been developing the quality standard, and we are working with local government on how best to adopt that. That is about focusing on the qualitative and consistency aspects. There are a number of different ways to look at those. There is the five-stage supported model, and there is also project search. There are a lot of good systems out there. It is important that we work across all of them to get the best for the people of Scotland to ensure that we have an impact in that area.

On the question about reserved and devolved areas, we are working within the devolved area to ensure that we have the most impact. We are working closely with the UK Government and the DWP on items that are under reserved control, because it is about getting the most impact from all the resources that are available to benefit the people of Scotland.

One of those areas is access to work, which is recommendation 7. The committee heard that access to work is

“slow and restrictive”,

that the

“application process can be cumbersome”,

and that

“the scope is too restrictive”.

It also said that

“claims should involve the employer.”

Has there been any discussion about the UK Government changing the application process so that employers can apply directly for access to work funding?

A forum has been set up on Scottish access to work to ensure that we have closer links to raise and address those issues. Stephen, do you want to talk about the progress of that group?

As Claire Renton noted, the Scottish access to work forum brings together the Scottish Government, the DWP and other partners. It is co-chaired by one of the Scottish stakeholders, Heather Fiskin, and it provides a forum to raise such issues. It recently had its first meeting under the new structure, and we will use it to address a lot of those issues.

Issues have been raised about the implementation gap. We took evidence from the Scottish Commission for People with Learning Disabilities about its 2018 report on pathways to employment. It said that what it found in that report, which talked about job coaching and becoming a profession, is still relevant. Does the minister have any concerns about that?

We have talked about a number of reviews, and it is important to review to make sure that we are heading in the right direction, but there is concern that there is a lack of action and implementation, because we spend a lot of time reflecting, reviewing and coming up with different strategies. That organisation said that what it said in 2018 is still relevant now, and that it could see more progress. That follows on from Gordon MacDonald’s question about the 2022 report and what progress there has been since.

Everybody is bringing out recommendations and suggestions, but there is some frustration on the ground. What the minister said this morning is positive, and we have seen positive examples, but the general mood during the inquiry is one of frustration and not enough being done quickly enough.

I accept all the points that have been made but, to use an oft-used phrase in Scottish politics, it is important to remember that this is a process and not an event. Quite a lot has happened in the employability landscape since 2018—as we all recognise. The figures—both the disability employment gap and the percentage of disabled people who are now in work—speak for themselves. I do not want to play down the challenges. Throughout this morning, I have sought to recognise that we still have to undertake a significant amount of work to achieve our 2038 target, but progress is being made. It is important that we do not lose sight of that.

The process will be iterative. We will continue to learn and we will continue to apply that learning. We have touched on the reviews that have taken place previously on how the supported employment and IPS reviews are informing our approach and how they are informing no one left behind. There will be further responses to that forthcoming and further consideration.

I reassure stakeholders that we are continuing to consider all the recommendations and that we are working constructively with partners to ensure that we can maximise the impact on the ground and maintain the flexibility that comes with local delivery. I do not know whether Claire Renton wants to add more on the specific point about the 2018 report.

On work coaches, who we call key workers in the no one left behind approach, once somebody is into employment, they are given support for quite a long period of time—12 to 18 months and maybe more—so that they sustain work and also to guide the employer on how to work together to make their position sustainable.

We may be able to draw out feedback to the committee to give you a golden thread, because I heard what you said about the mood of frustration and wanting to understand what is happening.

I will raise an issue that Kevin Stewart promised that I would raise with you, which is about the use of self-directed support budgets. That was brought to the attention of the committee during our evidence session.

Concern was raised because some disabled people were being encouraged by local authorities to use their self-directed support budgets to undertake placements. It has been suggested that that is done to plug funding gaps that are caused by pressures on the availability of traditional grant support to organisations. It has also been suggested to the committee that, in effect, that amounted to unpaid work. One witness said that it was a “potential misuse” of self-directed support funds, and another said that it was a case of people “paying to be volunteers”. Is the Government aware of that?

I will answer you very directly, Mr Smyth. There is a concern. I respect the role of the local authorities in the administration of SDS, but I have asked officials to look at the issue, and I will be happy to update you directly—with the rest of the committee, if it is interested.

That would certainly be helpful, minister, because some witnesses suggested that there was almost an unintended consequence of the use of that support—for example, there was less scrutiny of those funds. When an organisation receives a direct grant, it has to report back to the funder on its meeting of the objectives of that grant, but that is not the case with self-directed support, the use of which is ultimately up to the individual.

The second concern was that there was almost an incentive for an organisation to hold on to somebody for longer because they were funded through self-directed support. If that person left—for example, to go into employment—they would take the funding with them. That was an unintended consequence. Will you absolutely investigate those issues?

Yes. In response to a question from Kevin Stewart about the range of funders, I may have touched on ensuring that funding structures incentivise the right kind of outcomes. You have expressed a concern that that is not taking place. I reiterate that I have asked officials to consider the specific instance that you raised and I will be happy to update you. On the broader point about considering any wider issues, again I give a commitment to you personally, Mr Smyth, and to the rest of the committee, that I will look at that and give it detailed consideration, and I will be happy to follow up directly with you.

That is helpful.

I have a couple of closing questions. The Fair Work Convention recently published a report on Scotland’s progress on fair work, which looked at international comparisons. Has the convention had a chance to discuss those with you? The report contained some interesting conclusions about the progress that we are making on the disability employment gap. Has the Government discussed that with the convention, and are you looking at its recommendations?

My first meeting with the convention since my appointment is coming up in the next few weeks. I will be looking to discuss that issue directly with the convention at that opportunity, and I will be happy to update the committee about any outcomes from that.

With our final panel, we had a brief chat about the impact of the pandemic on this group of people—in particular, on young people who are looking to get into employment. It feels as though the pandemic had a significant impact on public services and on all of us but, as politicians, we move on quite quickly while everyone else is living with the impact of the pandemic. In thinking about how we make progress on the disability employment gap, does the Government recognise that area? What impact has it had on achieving that target? Have you taken into consideration the impact of the pandemic on the group that we are looking at—in particular, the young people?

Absolutely nothing that we can consider within the whole gamut of public policy or how society operates has not been impacted or touched on by the pandemic. I appreciate that that is a statement of the obvious, but the point that you made is that we can move on quite quickly.

I am conscious of some of the evidence that the committee took about concern that some of the flexible working practices—the home working practices—that were developed during the pandemic are not as readily available as they once were. If I recall correctly, one witness described to the committee the pre-pandemic perception that home working was simply not possible until it was required, and it then worked quite effectively and created opportunities for a range of individuals and groups to sustain employment. A concern was expressed that perhaps those options are not as readily available as they were.

We have provided some resource on flexible working. I ask Stephen Garland to pick up on that, to give the committee some information.

We have been supporting that area for some time in relation to fair work, but it is particularly relevant for people with disabilities. We have been providing support to various organisations to develop support, guidance and advice to employers on how to provide flexible working. That is part of how we promote more widely the guidance and advice that I mentioned to Evelyn Tweed, and the benefits of that. We are considering how to continue that approach in the coming year.

It is about looking not just at working from home or hybrid working but at all the different elements of flexible working that are appropriate for an individual’s circumstances, whether that be providing care, receiving care, mixes of both, or other issues.

Convener, I am conscious that, in responding, I touched on just one very narrow aspect of the impact of the pandemic on workplace practices. In taking forward my engagement with people who have lived experience, I will pose that question directly to them, so that I can develop my understanding of the impact that the pandemic has had. Through that—to touch again on the evidence plan and being informed—we can capture the strongest evidence base for future policy development.

We heard evidence about the gaps in the education of young people with disabilities—at school, and the college sector spoke about it as well—and the impact that that has had on their employability skills.

That brings us to the end of the evidence session. I thank the minister and his officials for attending. I briefly suspend the meeting as we move to our next item.

10:46 Meeting suspended.  

10:53 On resuming—