Chamber and committees

I would hope that that would not be the case. That would be a choice for the Parliament and, ultimately, the Government to make when it sets its annual budget. I would be very disappointed if that were to happen.

You are right in that regard, Mr Mason. It is about what our priorities are as a Parliament and as a society. I am sure that I could reasonably easily find an amount of money that could be better prioritised. That is a decision that we have to make, but if we see it as an investment in society, I think that it is a justifiable amount.

The figures are robust and, because we already have commissioners, they are not figures that we simply plucked out of the sky. This is probably one of the most robust finance memorandums produced for a non-Government bill.

I would argue that 20 per cent of the population is simply not being heard, and we need that voice to be heard. We can say, “Let’s get rid of all commissioners and have no voice,” but we must not pick on and pull up the drawbridge on one of the most vulnerable parts of society.

You have raised a really important issue, which I would like to reflect on. When we get to stage 2, I would be open to those types of discussions and amendments.

No, they could come from a number of sectors. They could come from many different backgrounds, but they would see this as a role that they could play. They might come from the third sector, or they might come from other professional backgrounds; indeed, they might not have a professional background at all, but still have the skills that are set out. If this happens, we will want to throw the net as wide as possible and not limit ourselves with regard to who can apply for the job.

No, I hope that that would not happen. As you said, many third sector charities are quite well resourced, and they will still see such issues as for them. Some of the issues are quite complex. Disability is not like some other protected characteristics, in that there is no one answer.

The example that I always give relates to dropped kerbs. A dropped kerb is really helpful for individuals with certain disabilities—for someone in a wheelchair, it means that they can get across the road. However, for someone with a guide dog, a dropped kerb is a nightmare, because the dog does not know when they are coming to the edge of a pavement. Those are two slightly conflicting interests, and it will be for the disability commissioner to work through such issues. Not every issue will be the same for every disabled individual, so we might want the disability commissioner to advocate in two areas, whereas a charity with a particular interest will advocate on only one issue.

I have heard that suggestion and I have read the submission on that. My concern would still be that disability would be left behind compared with many of the other protected characteristics, because of the reasons that I have outlined. Many disabled people find it very difficult to engage and to have the energy and the ability to advocate for themselves. There are many good third sector charities that work in the space already, but the approach is not often holistic and sometimes, there can be conflicting views—and rightly so. I would be deeply concerned, if we simply gave more powers to a commission that already has a lot of powers and has not focused on disability, that disabled people would be left behind again. That may not be the case next year, but we have to future proof this for five, 10, 15 or 20 years down the road.

I absolutely agree that MSPs, MPs and local councillors should be advocating on behalf of constituents, but that does not deal with the broader policy issues that come out of the Government and the Parliament. We need a co-ordinated voice—somebody who can bring together the disability community so that it can speak to the Parliament.

In the eight years that I have been here, it has been noticeable how very infrequently you hear the disabled community speaking as one voice. Part of that is because it is very difficult for disabled people to find that energy—or even the availability and accessibility of places.

I am not here to write the job description of a disability commissioner, but there will be a role for them beyond just advocacy. They have to look at where policy is and where it should be going, and engage with Government, Parliament and other public bodies to produce that—in a similar role to that of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland.

I absolutely welcome your review of commissioners. We as a Parliament have to address that. However, it needs to be done holistically and in a way that goes back and looks at what previous commissioners have done and are doing. Also, I am slightly concerned that, due to timing, we are now saying, “Let’s pull up the drawbridge and stop at this point.”

Let us have a holistic review. Within the past year, the Parliament has created a commissioner for patients’ rights; probably before the end of this year, legislation will come through to give victims and witnesses a commissioner for their rights. As a Parliament, therefore, we are not necessarily saying that having commissioners is wrong. My concern is that we need to do things holistically and come up with an all-round approach. The Government itself has at least one or two other commissioners planned before the end of this parliamentary session.

I think that it is not an either/or situation, but the problem is that, if there is no voice to speak to local authorities or the Scottish Government—at the moment, there is no voice that is really shouting about this—those issues will not be raised and they will not be dealt with. That is the frustration of the disability community. I do not think that it is a perception; it is the reality that people are often just not being heard by those organisations, and nothing will change unless someone is advocating for those issues to be dealt with.

If you had another protected characteristic with a different issue, that voice would be heard. You would have much more coverage in the media and social media and within the doors of local authorities and this Parliament. Because many disabled people cannot do that, that voice is not being heard. Yes, we need to change attitudes in local authorities, but I am not sure that that will happen unless we have a much stronger voice that is holding local authorities and the Government to account for making those changes.

To some degree, yes—I think that there could be—but I am not sure that that will ever happen unless you have a disability commissioner because, once this debate goes away, local authorities will move on and deal with other things. There are also issues beyond that.

There is still a societal issue. When it comes to issues of employability and employment, those who have hidden disabilities in particular have many fewer opportunities to be in employment. The same is true of those with certain physical disabilities. It is not just that we need to change things; there is a societal issue, and somebody should be able to advocate on the perceptions that people still have about disabled people and what such people can do.

I will be absolutely honest. Before I came to this place—having been born disabled—I thought that my experience was the same as that of most people who have a disability. Mine was a very positive and inclusive experience. My eyes were opened when I came here and had the opportunity to speak to far more disability charities and individuals with disabilities. We would not accept their experience for women or LGBT people, but we still seem to accept it for people who have a disability.