Chamber and committees

All three of the amendments in the group are important. It is a really helpful debate and it shows what the bill can do—reviewing what we did initially, how it has worked in practice and how it can be improved. On balance, on this occasion, the Scottish Government’s amendments are probably more correct than Mr O’Kane’s, although they seek to do almost exactly the same thing. For the reasons that the cabinet secretary has given, we will support amendments 24 and 28 and, with reluctance, we will not support amendment 105.

The previous few groups of amendments have been fairly politicised, but I think that this group will be less so. I am grateful to Poppyscotland, which reached out to suggest an appropriate amendment on the effect of compensation on discretionary housing payments. I look forward to hearing what the cabinet secretary will say about amendment 8. There is a principle that, if a person is involved in a civil claim and receives money from that, those funds will not be included in discretionary housing payment decisions. However, if someone has received military compensation, that would be included. To me, that seems unfair on those who have served our country. I look forward to seeing how the cabinet secretary will deal with the amendment, which I feel is appropriate.

I move amendment 8.

I did not move the amendment.

I will respond briefly to what Mr Stewart has said. He talked about new benefits, but he has not talked about existing benefits. Existing benefits at the moment in regard to criteria and eligibility—

Can I finish this one point?

The criteria and eligibility for adult disability payment exactly mirror those of PIP. There is no difference.

Apologies, but can we not move those amendments en bloc? I do not want to move amendment 109, but I want to move the others.

Thank you, convener. Good morning, colleagues. I thank the committee for all the work that it has done to date in considering my bill. I have been following the evidence sessions with great interest, and I welcome the views of all who have contributed. I was pleased to hear continued overwhelming support for the bill being expressed during the evidence sessions, particularly by organisations that work with and for disabled people. I think that everyone who has given evidence to the committee, including public bodies and the Minister for Equalities, accepts that the current situation that disabled people face, particularly in the aftermath of the Covid pandemic, is simply not good enough.

There was cross-party consensus that, in relation to understanding, representing and actioning the needs of disabled people in Scotland, change is needed and is needed now. Disabled people cannot wait any longer for a disability commissioner. I introduced the Disability Commissioner (Scotland) Bill in response to such concerns, with the aim of ensuring that disabled people have a champion—someone whose sole focus is on disabled people.

I acknowledge that not everyone thinks that a commissioner is the solution, but I believe that a commissioner can only have a positive impact in improving the lives of disabled people. In developing my bill, I drew inspiration from the work of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner, as that role has shown the positive impact that an advocating rights-based champion can have. I also note the work of the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales and the Commissioner for Older People for Northern Ireland. The commissioner model is popular for a reason—it works. A disability commissioner could play a similar high-profile role to those that I have highlighted by advocating for disabled people at a national level.

I note that some witnesses raised concerns with the committee. For example, there was a view that there are already a number of existing commissioners and public bodies that have a remit in helping disabled people, and that the creation of a disability commissioner might lead to duplication of work and overlap of remits. I firmly disagree.

I acknowledge the important and wide-ranging work of public bodies such as the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, but those organisations’ remits are split between multiple protected characteristics and the impact can therefore be diluted. Only a disability commissioner would be able to be laser focused on disabled people, as is urgently needed.

Moreover, I believe that the work of a disability commissioner would complement that of existing bodies. For example, currently, protecting the rights of children in Scotland falls within the remits of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, the SHRC and the EHRC, but that has not prevented those organisations from being able to carry out their roles and, as far as I can see, it has not led to any problems or duplication of work.

I note that the majority of those who have raised concerns about the establishment of a disability commissioner, particularly regarding the potential for overlap of remits and the costs involved, are in positions of authority and power, such as politicians and public bodies. Very few, if any, disabled people or third sector organisations have raised those issues as major concerns.

Yes, public bodies that help disabled people already exist at a national level, but we are being told by disabled people that they are not meeting their needs. I will quote Heather Fisken from Inclusion Scotland:

“If the landscape is so busy, why has there been no change so far?”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 11 June 2024; c 8.]

We must listen to what disabled people are telling us, rather than to the public bodies that are currently not having the necessary impact.

I note that the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s report on the commissioner landscape was published yesterday, as the committee is probably aware. The report calls for

“a moratorium on creating any new SPCB supported bodies, or expanding the remit of existing bodies”

until a review has been undertaken. I understand the instinct to have a review—I would even encourage that to happen—but it should not take place until disabled people have been given the same chance as other groups to benefit from a champion who speaks on their behalf at all levels of government. Pulling up the ladder on disabled people at this point would send a clear message that they are less worthy of an advocate than others. It is also worth noting that the recommended review would conclude by June 2025, which would, in effect, end any chance of further legislation on the proposal for a disability commissioner being introduced in this parliamentary session.

I note that other concerns have been raised about the potential cost of a disability commissioner. I emphasise what I said when I gave evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee: I consider the costs that would be incurred in establishing a disability commissioner to be relatively modest in the context of the Scottish Government’s total budget of £30 billion, and those costs should be seen as an investment in disabled people that is long overdue and very much needed.

It is my firm belief that establishing a disability commissioner will ensure that disabled people have a champion who will give them the prioritisation that they need and deserve. The commissioner’s overarching purpose will be to promote and safeguard the rights of disabled people. The bill sets out various functions that will help the commissioner to achieve that goal. Those include promoting awareness and understanding of the rights of disabled people and promoting best practice by service providers. That could be carried out in a multitude of ways, but it is important that the views of disabled people are central to that work.

For that reason, the bill provides that the commissioner must consult disabled people and organisations that work with and for disabled people on the work that the commission is undertaking and must publish a strategy for involving disabled people in their work. The commissioner must ensure that those who have difficulty in making their views known or in accessing information have the means to do so when engaging with the commissioner. That could be done through the provision of information in different formats, such as Braille and easy read.

The recent programme for government was yet another bitter blow for disabled people in Scotland, with the news that the Scottish Government will not be pursuing a human rights bill in this parliamentary session, as was previously planned, and that the proposed bill to create a learning disability, autism and neurodiversity commissioner has been shelved.

On top of that, many disabled people’s organisations believe that the Government’s disability equality plan falls short of its promised intentions. Glasgow Disability Alliance stated that it

“lacks ambition, meaningful actions or commitments needed to improve disabled lives blighted by #Poverty #Trauma #Inequality”.

Inclusion Scotland stated that it was disappointed that the draft plan does not include the actions that it had discussed at a meeting with the First Minister. The Scottish Government’s disability equality plan is therefore not an effective or credible alternative to establishing a disability commissioner, so if a disability commissioner is not the answer, what is?

We know that disabled people need action now. They cannot wait any longer. The bill seeks to make positive changes for disabled people and is in front of the Parliament now. No viable alternative is currently on the table to ensure that disabled people have a champion who will ensure that their rights are respected and enforced. The proposed learning disability, autism and neurodiversity commissioner bill is being dangled in front of us, but, for the foreseeable future, it will remain out of reach. We are being asked to trust existing institutions to provide a voice for disabled people when they previously have not provided that voice, even though they already have that mandate. The reality is that they will never be able to prioritise disabled people because they have such broad remits. Only a disability commissioner will be able to focus their full attention on disabled people.

If the bill falls, we risk this parliamentary session ending without our having passed any meaningful legislation to improve disabled people’s rights, which would be shameful. We know that disabled people need action now. They cannot wait any longer. I therefore urge the committee and the Parliament to ensure that this opportunity is not missed and to support the bill. I am afraid that disabled people will not forgive us if we do not pass it.

I am happy, as always, to answer questions.

Clearly, it is not ideal timing for that report to come out, but it raises an important issue that we need to explore.

In the past two and a half years, all members round the table voted for a patient commissioner and, at stage 1 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, we voted for a commissioner for those who have been victims of crime. The proposal is still in that bill and I would be interested to know whether, at stage 2 or 3, we are going to say that that commissioner should go away. I suspect that the answer will be no, because the Scottish Government is very keen to see that commissioner. Within this session, the Parliament has already voted for one commissioner and has agreed in principle to another.

I fully agree that, if we were starting with a blank piece of paper, a full review would be important, but I am not sure that disabilities can wait. Even if a review sticks to the timetable of a year, that will take us to the autumn of next year, which means that, realistically, nothing will happen in this session. There will have to be a cross-party discussion on that, and legislation would have to be introduced, if we ever wanted to do it, in the next session of Parliament. That legislation may take two or three years to happen. Therefore, we would be saying that, for the next four to five years, disabled people will be left behind again. Why are we drawing the line or pulling up the ropes here?

My request, my suggestion and my plea is that we get the disability commissioner in place, have a full review and see where we go. Do we genuinely want to say to disabled people, “It’s okay—everything is going to happen, but it will be seven years before anything changes for your lives”? That is a long time, particularly for those who are struggling at the moment.

Well, you know me, Annie—I always have a few ideas.

I think that enforcement and investigation powers are interesting issues. As far as stage 2 is concerned, I was interested in some of the comments that were made about how you define disability, so I have come up with a definition. I would probably want to pursue that definition with others to ensure that it is as inclusive as possible and that people feel that it is so. Ultimately, we will have to come to a decision on that, but I am interested to hear what other voices have to say.

The issue came up a wee bit in my initial consultation. It was probably not highlighted as much then as it has been to you since, so it would be interesting to explore that further.

That is an important question. A lot more needs to be done on back-office sharing among all commissioners. We do not need human resources or accountancy functions for each commissioner. There is a real argument that commissioners should be sharing those functions. We need to look at office premises. It would be good to have all the commissioners under one roof, where possible, so that they can share best practice. I would definitely agree on all those things.

With regard to the overlap, I suppose that I am getting old and cynical but, if it is so easy to do this work, why have we not done it already? The work that the various commissions have done on disability is minimal. Around 20 to 25 per cent of the population in Scotland has a disability. I am absolutely willing to guarantee that that does not represent the percentage of work that any of the commissioners has done on the issue. It is all very well to jump up now and say, “Yes, we’re going to do all this,” but history tells us that that has not happened.

In relation to overlap, as I mentioned in my opening statement, that already happens with the children’s commissioner. People are old enough and big enough to say, “Look, I’m thinking of doing this piece of work. Is anyone else doing it?” If not, whatever commissioner it is can carry on and do that work.

It has been really interesting to me to speak to the commissioners. There is more than enough work for everyone, and the work on disabilities is simply not happening. I do not think that we will have much of an overlap. We will simply find people working together where appropriate and dividing the work up where appropriate. At the moment, the disabled voice is simply not being heard or being investigated in that way.