Chamber and committees

As you have recognised, this is quite an unorthodox approach. It is not ideal that, this morning, we are dealing with regulations that come with an intention to amend them.

You said that there was a legal responsibility and that the deadline required you to produce the code as soon as is reasonably practicable. Is there an argument that “reasonably practicable” could be interpreted as meaning that you should produce the code once you have made the amendments or had the chance to do the focused consultation? Why are we having to deal with this process this morning, rather than leaving it until after recess?

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.

I have a couple of questions before I bring in other members. You referred to a further SSI. Can you give us a timescale for when you anticipate that being introduced?

I know that other members will want to ask about the concerns that have been raised, but you have recognised that there are quite strong views around the pubs code. Do you feel that the focused consultation will be able to resolve the situation so that we end up with a code that everybody is happy with? So far, that has not been achievable.

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.

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 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?

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?

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

As the minister will know, in session 5 the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee made recommendations on protected trust deeds, which the Government took forward as a voluntary code. Why has the change been introduced as a statutory code? What has changed in the Government’s thinking?

The voluntary code made changes in three areas, two of which are being taken forward in the regulations and are being placed on a statutory footing. However, the third provision in the voluntary code, which requires insolvency practitioners to accept referrals only from lead generators that are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, is not being taken forward. What is the thinking on that?