Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a personal view on that. Although I mentioned some of the initiatives, policies, funding, support and funds, the situation is multifaceted and complex. I have touched on the fact that this comes under the remit of equalities but that, actually, we cannot get away from the fact that mainstreaming—I think—is the way forward. I am thinking about whose responsibility it is, and that is my concern about a commissioner. Intersectional barriers make it more complex to address issues. In my position, for instance, as a woman of colour, would I access services for women, services for ethnic minorities or services for disabled people? Where would you go for that support?

The observation that I would make with regard to the historical limited progress that has been made on the impact on disabled people’s lives is this: who takes responsibility for it? You are almost having to choose your own hierarchy. Is the issue your disabledness? Is it your curtailed employability? Is it your accessible housing? People should not have to choose.

This is all about looking at the whole person. Part of my role, then, as Minister for Equalities is to work cross-portfolio and to ensure that every portfolio is meeting its responsibility to mainstream disabled people’s rights. They have done so, but those rights need to be taken up if they are to have that impact.

I absolutely have sympathy on the matter. It is complex, but we all need to do it. I suppose that the disability commissioner would have a role in making sure that that happened, but I also highlight the public sector equality duty, in that respect. There are bodies out there, and there might be options where we can beef up that aspect. I know that disabled people’s organisations, for instance, are very conscious that any such commissioner would have to have teeth, so we would need to look at issues such as enforcement. The fact, though, is that we already have bodies that deal with statutory rights, and there is more work to be done to ensure that those statutory rights are executed properly and that they have that impact.

Well, I cannot say too much about that, because of the programme for government. Once we are over the next few days, I will be happy to write to you and the committee to give you more information on that.

As I said, the programme for government and the financial statement are yet to come. However, if there is anything wider to say to the committee, I am more than happy to provide further information drilling down into the numbers once we all have it over the next few days. I am happy to write to you with more detailed information, Ms McNair.

I think that the benefits are obvious. The motto is “Nothing about us without us.”

Disabled people’s organisations are excellent representatives. They would be the first ones to say that hearing directly from those with lived experience and those with learned experience is so important because, with the best will in the world, no matter how much we think that we know best, we do not. It works both ways: some of the things that I perceive would be difficult for people are not a big deal for them, but there are other things that we do not see.

The practical reality is that it will be a challenge to ensure that the bill and the commissioner are truly inclusive. We need to consider how the consultation will take place—will it be done online? That will have various implications relating to travel, health and social care, and carers, for example. All of those things will come into it.

That feeds back into the financial area. We need to consider whether those things have been taken into account in order to make the bill truly meaningful. I would look for transparency regarding the additional costs that would arise from those things and at where those costs would be accounted for, to ensure that those things happen. Does that answer your question?

Thank you for recognising that the commissioner landscape is already complex. As I said, the Finance and Public Administration Committee is considering whether a more coherent and strategic approach is needed to the creation of commissioners in Scotland. Under the current financial climate in particular, we need to be extra considerate of the financial sustainability of a growing commissioner landscape while ensuring that the people of Scotland are also well served. If there are too many commissioners, disabled people might not know where they can go for help. The accessibility of that help is equally important.

That issue was raised in the consultation on the bill, notably by both the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Law Society of Scotland. There are issues on which the bill has the potential to overlap with the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s existing functions. There are also several provisions in the bill that correspond broadly to the provisions in the Equality Act 2006. Under the Equality Act 2010, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has powers that relate to all those with protected characteristics, including disabled people. Therefore, there is a possibility that there could be a weakening of the duties that, for instance, the Scottish Human Rights Commission already has, and it has expressed that concern.

In one of the committee’s evidence sessions, Nick Hobbs of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland also voiced concerns about a new commissioner making it more difficult for existing stakeholders to undertake work. I will stop there.

I can understand that. Disabled people have multiple barriers. I communicate regularly with our disabled people’s organisations and hear directly not only from them but from those with lived experience. Last week, the First Minister and I met the disabled people’s organisations to hear from them directly.

I recognise the reality of the multiple barriers that disabled people face. The issue is systemic and has been historically. Although the Scottish Government has been taking action on benefits and on the independent living fund, for instance, I cannot help but refer to the cost of living crisis and the impact of austerity. Although we are trying to help as much as possible, we have, in certain ways, a hand tied behind our back. The effects of the supports and policies that we can put in place are diluted by the erosion of the financial landscape due to austerity.

Therefore, I can absolutely understand why there would be support for a commissioner. As I said, we have already taken action to address that poverty in a wider context, because we cannot forget that the issues are also intersectional. For example, disabled people’s lives are affected by housing, access to transport, education and employability. Therefore, it is a multifaceted picture, so I am absolutely sympathetic. Progress has been made, but I absolutely recognise that there is much more to do. There is healthy discussion and debate around whether a commissioner is the vehicle for that.

That is a really good question. There are advantages and disadvantages to having both a disability commissioner and an LDAN commissioner, but I would also note that there is no shared viewpoint on the disability commissioner bill among disabled people—that is, in the focus groups that we have spoken to. I am very conscious that there are different views on the matter.

I know that some autism and learning disability groups have concerns about the disability commissioner bill, because they see it as potentially diluting the focus on their concerns, which they believe have been marginalised. Should two separate commissioners be established, there is likely to be some overlap as well as greater potential with regard to functions. We have also had representations that not all people with learning disabilities, autism, neurodivergence and so on believe that they have a disability. They would not put that label on themselves, and that has to be respected, too.

We are in that space of carefully considering the matter, but my short answer is that I am maintaining my neutral position. What I am doing—indeed, what we are all doing—is scrutinising very carefully the commissioner route, whether it be the Government’s proposal for a commissioner or the proposal in the member’s bill. The more important question is who the proposal is trying to help and whether it will have the effect that is wanted. That is the space that I am in.

I absolutely understand that frustration. I will not go over what I have already said about the complexities and challenges of truly mainstreaming these issues and getting all the policy areas to work together, but it is a challenge. Indeed, we as a Parliament often find these matters difficult, because there are many views, and they are strongly held.

However, we also know the challenges that disabled people face, and we cannot get away from the fact that their plight is getting worse, with austerity continuing on top of everything. As I have mentioned, the cuts to the winter fuel payment are going to have a huge impact. I have heard from people that their costs are going to be higher; after all, they have to pay for very expensive equipment, and their energy bills are much higher. This has brought the issue into acute focus.

The LDAN bill focuses on a range of actions that are specifically for people with learning disabilities, whereas Jeremy Balfour’s bill is broader in scope. I maintain my position: I am open to it, and I understand the frustrations.

We have the disabled people’s equality plan, which has been made in collaboration with disabled people’s organisations. That sets out clear pathways and expectations, so I hope that that will help. I use the word “hope” because I have been in the job for a small amount of time and that piece of work was started long before I came into the job.

However, the Government is continuing to put money into benefits expenditure. With regard to what the Scottish Government is doing on social security, £300 million is going on adult disability payments, the Scottish child payment has increased and we reopened the independent living fund. Given all those things, you are right to ask why there is still that frustration and whether we are having the impact that we should be having. Those are valid questions, and I am listening very carefully to our disabled people’s organisations on how they think that we can improve. I have to give a heavy caveat on that because of the very difficult financial landscape. However, we will get more information on that with the programme for government and the financial statement.

The demand that I have heard disabled people make is for stronger accountability and greater transparency, and I think that we can beef things up a wee bit to make sure that there is clear accountability. The Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Equality and Human Rights Commission have the remit of ensuring that the rights of a wide range of people are protected, although they focus on specific groups from time to time. The Scottish Human Rights Commission has previously expressed concern about the weakening of its mandate through the proliferation of commissioners. That is my concern. I go back to what I said at the beginning—I think that there is a danger of everybody passing the buck, with the result that it is a case of who does what.

It is the role of Government to scrutinise the situation and to make sure that we hold all the various bodies to account, and that the Scottish Parliament holds them to account, but it is a difficult balancing act. I hold on to the fact that it is everybody’s business to make sure that the needs of disabled people are taken account of. Mainstreaming is hard. If it were not hard, we would have done it by now, but we have not.

There is a lot in what you have said and those are important points. My broad reflection on that is that we need to take a holistic approach and see people with disabilities as people first and foremost, who have a range of needs, which could be in health and social care, in housing or in education—it could be that one of those things comes to the fore at a particular time and others at other times. The valuable contributions and information that disabled people’s organisations have given me show that they find it difficult to navigate who is giving them the support that they need. There is already a lot of crossover, so we also need to look at streamlining as well as mainstreaming to make it easier for disabled people to navigate that. On the one hand, I can see that there could be a commissioner, but I have also seen other models, such as champions and rapporteurs, working alongside the enforcement of the powers of the current commissions.

We cannot get away from the fact that it is a challenge and it always will be. Part of my role is to poke everybody into that space of working together to take a holistic approach. For example, I am attending a meeting that Alasdair Allan is having with energy providers to look at the social tariff. I am scrutinising carefully wherever equalities issues come up. This case particularly pertains to disabled people, because they are also very concerned about the cut in the winter fuel payment. I am now reaching out and working alongside my colleagues to make sure that they consider equality duties right from the beginning as opposed to somewhere along the line. I think that everyone is committed—I have assurances that they are—but it is just that the cultural change needs a little bit more shoring up, shall we say.