Chamber and committees

Good morning, panel, and thank you for your testimony so far. I have some questions on temporary accommodation and evictions, which have been touched on already. We know that there are a large number of children in temporary accommodation. What can we do to move them rapidly—I think that that is the word that was used—into more settled accommodation? Would it be possible to do that before Christmas? I would like to think so, but I am keen to hear how we could do it.

It was rightly pointed out that the change to the ban on evictions has had a serious impact on the numbers. Do you have any concerns about the lifting of the ban and its impact on homelessness?

I promised that I would remember to do that, convener. I ask Dr Watts and Maggie Brünjes to comment.

Thank you for setting out the position, Mark.

As the convener has said, we have received a number of emails that call for Covid-19 to be made an industrial disease under the new benefit; others have said that women make up just a fraction of the applicants and that the benefit must start to recognise women’s injury and disease in the workplace. Your bill does not propose to do that, so could you tell the committee how it will contribute to dealing with those issues?

I will continue the theme of equalities and ask about disabled people who present as homeless. In the interests of time, I will put these questions to Lorraine and Gordon in particular. Will you briefly explain the experience of disabled people who apply through the homelessness route? Are enough accessible homes being built to put people into?

Good morning. I thank the witnesses for coming to the meeting and for your testimony, which is incredibly powerful. I also appreciate the strength of passion and feeling that you bring with it; that is really important for the work that we are doing.

I declare an interest: like other members in the room, during the election campaign, I supported a full and comprehensive ban on conversion therapy. I remain committed to that—the more I hear about conversion therapy, the more I want to introduce a ban as quickly as possible.

My first question is about human rights, although some of it has been answered by what has been said already. I also have a question about the children and young people that the witnesses have worked with.

As you are aware, the committee has heard from a number of faith-based organisations about the human right to religious belief, and your testimony this morning highlights where that interplays and where the line is. What specific human rights are at play in relation to people’s religious rights and people’s right not to be discriminated against on the grounds that they are LGBT+? Can you help us with ways in which we can provide reassurance to people who have those concerns?

Finally, the Rev Elder Maxwell Reay made a point about his work in the children’s hospital. I am keen to hear more about the work that you do around conversion practices in hospitals and the conversations that are taking place, because it is also incredibly important that we work with young people on that.

I will do that and, if it is okay, I will also defer to my colleague Robert McGeachy, who will be able to talk about that in a bit more detail.

Some specific changes have already been made, partly as a commitment and a response by Johann Lamont to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in the previous session. They concern section 4, on the duty to comply with the legislation; section 8, on the other duties; section 13, on dispute resolution; section 14, on guidance; and section 15, on directions. Specifically, we have strengthened the draft legislation by adding the need to consult people who are representative of the people on whom the provisions will have an impact, as well as bodies that will have duties and that will need to act. That consulting element will be really important, so that we get the right legislation and so that it is delivered in real life and on the ground, where it affects young disabled people.

Do you have anything to add on that, Robert?

I thank you for your question and for sharing that you have experience of transitions. It is incredibly important to do so. Sometimes, we assume many things about who disabled people are and who has experience of disability, so it is important to say it out loud. I thank you for doing that.

I have had many conversations with the Scottish Government, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government, in which I indicated that I would be really keen to talk with them about how to make the bill a reality. I have also said to the Government that if it thinks that we could strengthen any area of the legislation, I would be happy to work with it on potential amendments as we go through the process. That is what that process is about—we have three stages of the bill for a reason. It will be important to get all of Parliament to talk about the bill and to work together, including with the Government, on areas in which we need to make any changes.

I have been really clear and said that the policy intention of the bill is to improve the outcomes for young disabled people and, in so doing, to ensure that the responsibilities of ministers, local authorities, and all the actors of which I spoke earlier, require them all to work towards that specific aim. A national transition strategy that is set out in legislation would underpin or overpin—if that is even a thing—that aim, so that it did not come and go with different Governments but always had to be there, because young disabled people will always need that support. I hope that the Government will engage in dialogue so that we can get the bill through, because we really need to do that.

On the point about the previous consultation responses and the urgency of the situation, although, as one would expect, the consultation responses went into some detail about legislation, the overarching message was that the transition process was chaotic, stressful and difficult, and that it held people back. We see the outcomes now for young disabled people and older disabled people into adulthood. Let us not forget that what happens to young disabled people at school stays with them for a long time, which is one of the reasons why the employment gap is what it is.

All the bits of evidence that we got at that stage, and that the Education and Skills Committee took, were really clear that we cannot continue to let that situation roll on longer, and that we need to draw a line in the sand.

I know that the committee has had representation from People First Scotland, which has said, “You have asked us—please now just listen and act.” I ask that we do that. We have done the asking, and we now need to do the acting.

Honestly, if I thought that we needed more information to help us to take forward the bill, I would seek to gather it. Between now and when the bill goes through the various stages in Parliament, I want to continue to engage, consult and talk to people. That is just how I do things, and it is also how I think Parliament should work. It is not that we draw a line in the sand today and never again shall we hear another piece of evidence about the proposed legislation. Actually, there will be numerous opportunities to hear from people, and that is important.

If I thought that we had not heard the same things from largely the same groups of people for an awful long time, I would say that we needed more consultation, but I do not believe that we need to do more. This might sound twee but, honestly, the bill means too much to me to not get it right. If I thought that we needed to ask more and do that through a formal consultation, I would suggest that, but I do not think that we do.

I take a lot of comfort from the fact that the bill was drafted with the support of the user-led organisations Inclusion Scotland and Camphill Scotland, which literally put pen to paper. I am confident that the views of the people who we listened to during the consultation are reflected in the bill. In developing the bill in the first place, those organisations, along with my colleague Johann Lamont and now me, have benefited from years and years, and sometimes decades, of experience of what would make a real difference to people’s lives. Therefore, I am confident about that.

I reiterate that, if there are any ways in which we can strengthen the bill, the parliamentary process allows us to do that—that is why it is the way that it is. However, I am confident at this stage that the bill takes account of not just the responses that we heard in the previous session of Parliament but the long-held views of organisations that were involved in helping to draft it.

You are right that it is incredibly important that we listen to people with lived experience. As a number of the previous consultation responses highlighted, legislation is key, but it is not the only part of the issue. It is therefore important that we keep talking to people and asking them what will make this a reality for them.

I want the legislation to be passed as soon as possible. Because of the decades of failure that young disabled people have faced, I do not believe that any delay would be fair or just. I hope that I can reassure the committee that I want the best possible bill, so that, after the Parliament passes it, as I hope it will, generations of young disabled people can benefit from strong legislation that gives them a fighting chance and underpins their rights to an education and employment opportunities after school.

In that vein, since lodging the intention and the statement of reasons, during the summer, I have spoken again with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and with various lawyers about different parts of the bill to see whether it needs strengthening, and if so where. I have also spoken with a number of organisations, including cross-party groups, and other members of the Scottish Parliament to seek their views, because it is incredibly important that we get this absolutely right.