Chamber and committees

My apologies.

Good morning, colleagues. I introduced the Disability Commissioner (Scotland) Bill in February this year, having previously obtained the right to introduce a member’s bill.

The bill would establish a disability commissioner for Scotland, whose primary function would be

“to promote and safeguard the rights of disabled people.”

To achieve that, the commissioner would

“promote awareness and understanding of the rights of disabled people ... Keep under review the law, policy and practice relating to the rights of disabled people ... promote best practice by service providers”

and

“promote, commission, undertake and publish research ... relating to the rights of disabled people.”

The commissioner would also be able to investigate

“by what means and to what extent a service provider has regard to the rights, interests and views of disabled people in making decisions or taking actions that affect those disabled people.”

The financial memorandum that accompanies the bill was drafted by the non-Government bills unit on my behalf. In developing the financial memorandum, the NGBU consulted Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body officials. A draft financial memorandum and draft bill were shared with SPCB officials prior to the bill’s introduction. In addition, the NGBU drew information from recent financial memorandums for bills that establish commissioners, as well as the annual accounts of existing commissioners. The policy behind the bill and the details of the financial memorandum were developed using the criteria in the session 2 Finance Committee’s report as valuable context.

The financial memorandum sets out my strong preference that, wherever possible, commissioners should share accommodation and services with other public bodies to reduce costs. However, provision for

“the location of the Commissioner’s office”

and

“the sharing of premises, staff, services or other resources”

would be subject to any direction from the SPCB and the availability of such premises and services at the point at which the commissioner was established.

The financial memorandum estimates that, initially, the commissioner would have four staff members. The estimated remuneration for the commissioner and their staff is based on information provided by SPCB officials. I consider it appropriate to provide estimated costs for four staff members, as that is in line with the staffing numbers of recently established or soon-to-be established commissioners. Should the commissioner seek to employ additional staff, approval would be sought from the SPCB. As the committee will be aware, the financial memorandum contains the best estimates based on the information available at the time.

I note the three responses to the committee’s call for views on the financial memorandum and take on board the points that were made in them. I further note the Scottish Government’s correspondence with the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, in which the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice noted:

“The cost estimates seem to broadly reflect what would be expected with the introduction of a new Commissioner role.”

I consider the costs incurred in establishing a disability commissioner to be an investment in disabled people that is long overdue. Establishing such a commissioner would ensure that disabled people had a champion who would promote and safeguard their rights. In focusing solely on the needs of disabled people, rather than having a remit spread over various protected characteristics, the commissioner would give disabled people the prioritisation that they need and deserve.

As always, I am happy to take questions from the committee.

Pre-Covid, there was quite a strong argument for a disability commissioner. During the Covid period, and since then, the evidence points to disabled individuals having been left behind more than any other sector in society. If we look at the services that are currently being provided for disabled people and, often, the lack of engagement locally, the need for that voice to be heard in civic society has grown more and more.

It is often said to me by disabled people—and, in particular, by the parents of disabled children—that it takes them all their energy to get out of bed in the morning. The thought of having to campaign, lobby and promote disability issues goes beyond the average—if there is such a thing—of what a disabled person can deal with.

Different commissioners have been around for 10, 15 or 20 years, but their work has rarely focused on disability issues and rights. As has come out strongly in the evidence sessions before the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, the disability community feels that it is not being heard and that it is being left behind. It is therefore time for a commissioner to have that voice, to speak to not only Government and Parliament but local authorities and national health service boards.

That was one of the questions that I had in mind as I worked on the bill. I worked on a pre-bill consultation and, last year, I spent the summer doing a bit of a tour around Scotland talking to different disability groups and individuals. The experience of someone who is in a wheelchair would be very different to someone who has a hidden disability, and the experience of someone who has a visual impairment would be different compared with someone who has a hearing loss, for example. Although the issues that they face are very different, the areas in which they are being discriminated against, including education, health and transport, are almost identical. That has become clear from my experience and in the evidence that we received in the consultation.

I do not see there being some kind of list for the commissioner. They would not be saying, “I spend 20 per cent of my time dealing with physical disability, another 20 per cent of my time dealing with this or that,” and so on. They would be looking at the issues that affect most disabled people in Scotland. You are right: one in five people have a disability. If you go beyond that and look at the effect of that on their friends and families, we are looking at a high proportion of people.

I will take the second question first, if that is okay, and will leave the detail to Nick Hawthorne and Liz Anderson.

I have heard that argument being used by a number of third sector charities that are worried that the money would be diverted from what they get to fund the commissioner. That is a political choice. I would be deeply concerned if any Government said that it would do that. The funding for children’s and young people’s charities has in no way been changed because we have a children’s commissioner—and rightly so. I would be deeply disappointed and I hope that other MSPs would challenge it if money were to be taken away from disability organisations simply because we had a disability commissioner. The commissioner’s role would be very different and we would still need to fund the third sector.

I will bring in Nick Hawthorne or Liz Anderson to talk about the robustness of the figures.

On your first point, the commissioner would not be able to pick up on every local issue across all 32 local authorities. It simply would not work in that way. There would still be a vital continuing role for councillors, MSPs and MPs to advocate on local issues. What needs challenging is that, although you did well to get that local street cleared, what about the street next door? We need a policy change on that from local authorities.

The third sector charities do an amazing amount of positive work. It is interesting that they themselves are in favour of a disability commissioner. They do not see it as some kind of threat that will take away from the role that they play. There is still a wee bit of saying, “This is my disability, so I bring together other people who have it.” I want a much more holistic approach, so that everybody is brought together on a certain issue. A disability commissioner can help in that. There would still be a role for all the third sector organisations, but a commissioner would be an amplified voice and, I hope, would have better access to those who make decisions in different areas.

The idea would be to highlight to us as politicians and to the Parliament that this is an issue and ask what we are going to do with it. Partly, it would also be to give people a voice; in my opinion, that voice is not being heard in Parliament or in Government as effectively as it could be if it was targeted.

Ultimately, the choices that we make come down to Government, Parliament and local authorities, but in the case of the children’s commissioner, we have seen that issues that were not on the agenda a number of years ago are now on the agenda, because the commissioner has highlighted them and kept on highlighting them over and over again. There is a role for simply bringing issues to people’s attention. Ultimately, it is up to the Parliament to decide what we do with that, but at least it would be in the public domain.

Well, I am here to debate a disability commissioner; I am not here to look into a crystal ball. Given your rationale, why did you vote for a patient safety commissioner? Why have we, as a Parliament, voted at stage 1 for a commissioner for people who are victims of crime? We have taken a view as a Parliament—once at stage 1 and once through an act—that we think that those voices need to be heard. I suppose that, if we were to follow your logical argument, we would get rid of all voices and hear no voices.

That is an interesting question. Undoubtedly, public services are failing disabled people in regard to many issues, and it is not just the big headline-grabbing issues—it is often the small issues that local authorities in particular and health boards, too, are not picking up on.

There is a big debate going on about the type of transport systems that we should have in city centres. I do not want to go down that road, but I note that, fairly often, the disabled voice is not heard, and it is disabled people who are most affected by the changes.

There is a lack of understanding. Many people will do a tick-box exercise, but they will not actually engage with the disabled community. Let me give you a very basic example. It is great that we keep the main roads clear when it snows, and it is really important that the buses run, but I live 200 or 300 yards from my nearest bus stop and, if those 200 or 300 yards of pavement are not cleared, I cannot get to the bus stop, which means that I cannot get to work. Obviously, I can work online, but many people cannot do that.

The policy that many local authorities have is that we keep the main roads open, but we never clear the side streets—we wait until it all melts away. That means that you are saying to somebody who has a wheelchair or a mobility issue that they are housebound for a longer time.

We have not done that for 25 years, so the gap is there. That gap will continue, because who will do that advocacy? We all move on to different issues when something else hits our email or something else hits the media. That is the point that the disability community is making. There are organisations out there that have been running for many years—there are many commissions that could have done that work, but they have not. We have given civic society and other organisations the opportunity to do it, but the evidence is clear that they have not done it, so let us use this commissioner as someone who can be really positive and who can challenge Government, local authorities and health boards in order to see that change in society. If we do not do that, the landscape will not change and we will leave people further behind.

Back in 1999, in year 1, we could have given the Parliament, the Scottish Government and all the organisations—even the different commissioners that we have introduced in the past number of years—the opportunity to do it. However, we have not done that. My point is that you will move on to another inquiry and other committees will move on to other issues, so that voice will still not be heard.