Chamber and committees

It is fair to say that there is cross-party consensus, and some of the frustration is that there was cross-party consensus across the manifestos for the 2021 election, which has been followed by a five-year parliamentary session. I do not deny that lots of things have happened in the course of both that election and the parliamentary session so far, but, as we heard at last week’s evidence session, there is a frustration that we will not have got to the stage of legislation in that five years.

I will move on slightly to other areas where people feel that there has not been progress. There is an opportunity for the Government to consider how it will use its remaining time in office to advance many of the issues that the minister hears when, for example, she comes to the cross-party group on learning disability or engages with people who have a learning disability.

At the moment, there is a significant issue with learning disability health checks, which I have been raising, particularly around the pledge that was made that everyone would be offered a health check in 2023. That has not happened. We know that funding of £4 million to health boards was attached to that pledge, but some health boards, including NHS Lanarkshire, have offered no checks at all. That is really concerning. I raised that with the First Minister on Thursday, but I am not sure that he fully grasped what I was asking about or had knowledge of it.

That is another totemic issue that speaks to the frustration of people who have learning disabilities, so this is a good opportunity to ask the minister to respond on that point, and to say what work she is undertaking to understand that picture and deal with the situation.

It would be helpful for the people who have a learning disability who have given evidence to the committee or come to the cross-party group on learning disability to be able to engage in that as well.

My colleague Clare Adamson started to touch on some of this, but it would be useful to understand the other non-legislative interventions that the Government intends to make to support people. We know that there are huge issues around school exclusions, for example, and seclusion and restraint. We have heard about access to employment and support for that. There are also issues about specialist training on learning disability and the barriers that exist. We also have the national moves to try to tackle bullying and stigma.

What more do you intend to do in the remaining time in this session of Parliament to deliver?

As I did last week, I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am a member and a former employee of Enable Scotland.

As we have touched on, last week’s panel referred to other bills that the Government has delayed—the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill and the human rights bill—as well as the bill that we are discussing this morning. We heard that that

“represents a tranche of disappointment”,—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 26 November 2024; c 22.]

which was quite stark. The situation was particularly referenced by those with a learning disability who gave evidence.

We could look at that and say that there is a pattern that might illustrate that legislation that focuses on the equality and human rights of people who have a learning disability is being deprioritised by the Government. I appreciate that the minister has touched on that already, but what would you say about the particular views that were expressed last week?

Would you accept that people who have a learning disability were made a promise on no less than two occasions by two ministers, and that has been broken, so they feel a sense of frustration? That is against the backdrop of everything that I have just said about other pieces of legislation. We heard last week that they feel as if they

“remain unheard”

and that they are

“not a priority for Scotland.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 26 November 2024; c 3, 4.]

I am keen to understand whether the minister intends to update Parliament on the progress that she wants to make. She has acknowledged that there is a significant challenge with the health checks, so it is important that we have regular opportunities to scrutinise that going forward.

I want to build on what Chris Birt has said. The Poverty and Inequality Commission’s submission refers to the focus on those people who are on the cusp of the poverty line and on how there is perhaps too much focus on incomes. Professor Sinclair, would you like to touch on that? How can we take a broader approach and focus on the issue of deep poverty as well?

Does anyone else want to come in?

Other colleagues have questions on data, so I will hand back to the convener.

Chris, do you want to come back in on that point?

Can I expand on a point, convener?

Colleagues will come on to ask about data and aspects such as modelling. John Dickie referenced the Scottish child payment and the efforts to understand facets such as the depth of its impact. More broadly, academic work has been commissioned on that, which the committee will be interested in.

I think that there was a submission that said that targets are not without controversy and, obviously, there is a political dimension to trying to reach targets. Do you think that there is a temptation not to get into the real detail? There was the issue in relation to the 100,000 figure for keeping children out of poverty as opposed to lifting them out of poverty. There is perhaps a temptation to lean on that without understanding the depth of what lies underneath it.

Do you think that we need to do more to understand the impact that the Government’s policies are having? Do you recognise the role that the committee can play in helping to understand some of that?