Chamber and committees

I note that similar questions have been raised in the chamber. With regard to our funding decisions, we continue to fund LGBTQI organisations that provide a service to a community that faces increased threats in the current climate. The quality assurance and monitoring process is done by either “Inspire” or “Aspire”—forgive me, but I always get confused; I think that it is “Inspire”. That organisation scrutinises the governance and ensures that the money that the Scottish Government allocates is used for its intended purposes. There is clear guidance. I have answered questions on the matter in the chamber, but, if Tess White wishes further information, I can certainly provide it.

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

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

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

Good morning, convener, and thank you for your invitation to contribute to the evidence session on this member’s bill. It would be remiss of me not to note that sitting on this side of the table is an interesting viewpoint, having been on the other side of it at one point.

I start by recognising and thanking Jeremy Balfour for the attention that he has drawn to disabled people’s equality through the bill. We are acutely aware of the exceptionally challenging times that disabled people in Scotland are living through. Disabled people continue to be impacted by the cost of living crisis that is gripping the United Kingdom and, alongside facing higher costs of living, a great many are being pushed into deepening poverty. I take the opportunity to recognise the unstinting work of disabled people’s organisations and communities across Scotland in tackling those challenges.

I share Jeremy Balfour’s intentions in introducing the bill. Improving the lives of disabled people and furthering disability equality are priorities for this Government, committed as we are to delivering a fairer Scotland for all.

As the Minister for Equalities, I have a key role in considering the possible implications of legislative proposals that fall within my portfolio. I am happy to share my learning and understanding in order to support the committee’s scrutiny of the bill.

Tackling the challenges that disabled people face is a collective responsibility and it requires a shared commitment across the public, private and third sectors. To secure real change, we must focus resource and opportunity where they are needed most.

We have concerns about a few of the bill’s provisions, which are currently being scrutinised, and we are considering very carefully the establishment of a disability commissioner and whether that is the right vehicle through which to achieve the change. The most significant concern that the Scottish Government has is the potential for the bill to simply duplicate functions that are already undertaken by existing bodies. As well as possibly being inefficient use of public money, that risks causing a lack of legal certainty and making it less clear to disabled people whom they can turn to for help.

Although the commissioner would have a single focus on disabled people’s rights, there are a few commissions that protect the rights of disabled people, including the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. It is notable that the Scottish Human Rights Commission has raised concerns about the potential weakening of its mandate that could be caused by the proliferation of commissioners.

That links closely to another key concern—the content and timing of the bill. There is already, in Scotland, a complex commissioner landscape which, as the committee knows, is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Finance and Public Administration Committee. Part of the inquiry’s remit is to consider whether a more strategic approach is needed to the creation of commissioners in Scotland. Whatever that committee’s recommendations will be, its report will surely require significant consideration by the Parliament and further dialogue with Government and other stakeholders. Given that context, it seems to be inadvisable to bring a new commissioner into an already complex environment at this time.

To add further context to our position, the Scottish Government is preparing to publish the first phase of a disability equality plan that is aimed at tackling the systemic barriers that affect the daily lives of disabled people and impact on disability poverty. The plan, which has been developed in partnership with disabled people’s organisations, will bring about significant progress in advancing disability equality. Setting up a disability commissioner could divert resources from that valuable work without there being an evidence base to suggest that it would be an effective way of achieving change.

Although we have concerns about the bill, our commitment to furthering equality means that I remain open to hearing alternative views. I reiterate our commitment to greatly improving the position of disabled people in Scottish society, and I extend an invitation to Mr Balfour to discuss those shared aims.

I look forward to answering the committee’s questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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