Seòmar agus comataidhean

To start with Mr Stewart’s last point, I think that I have engaged fairly well with Crisis, both face to face and by email. I hope that it would agree with that.

I agree with him that Crisis has played a very positive role in getting us to where we are today. Some of the amendments that have been lodged in my name were drafted with the help of Crisis. I therefore absolutely agree with Mr Stewart on that.

I also agree that we want this to have, if at all possible, all-party support. That is why we will not vote against Mr Stewart’s amendments, if they go to a vote today, but abstain. The reason for that is that we need to do a wee bit more work around some of the definitions and make sure that everything is absolutely tied up. Depending on where we end up today, that is perhaps a helpful conversation that we could have before stage 3.

There has been progress. As Mr Stewart will know from his former role, housing bills do not come around very often, and so we want to make sure that what is passed in legislation is workable at the coalface for local authorities.

If Mr Stewart’s amendments are moved and pressed today, the two of us in the Conservative group on the committee want to see whether we can find that consensus. That is why we will not vote against them, even if at the moment we cannot give them our full support. We would be very willing to work with the minister, and with others in other parties, before stage 3 to see whether we could do the tidying up that might be required.

On a point of order, convener.

I have no issue with the Government’s intentions on that. My concern is that we must pass legislation that is fit for future generations. Yes, there has to be consultation, but the mechanism for considering amending regulations in the Parliament involves much less scrutiny than is the case for primary legislation.

I appreciate that time is moving on. We will support amendment 1047, but we would welcome the opportunity to have a conversation with the Government and other members about whether it could be slightly tightened up at stage 3. I hope that such conversations can take place.

Although we have taken a number of minutes to discuss these amendments, that has shown the advantage of having things in the bill rather than in guidance and regulations. Guidance is not scrutinised at all by the Parliament. It can be introduced by any Government without any scrutiny. Nor does it have any legal authority. As I said previously, with due respect, regulations are not given the same scrutiny as primary legislation.

My real concern is that the Government is not willing to put things in the bill because it does not want to have proper scrutiny from me and my colleagues and to be held accountable for those things. That is a concern in relation to the different amendments that have been lodged for this section.

I say with gentleness to the minister that, particularly with regard to my amendment, he has really not grasped the issues that many disabled people face. We are told by the minister that amendment 1015 is not required because it is already covered by other legislation. However, if his case load is anything like my case load, he will know that such legislation is having too little effect for many disabled and older people, who are too often put into accommodation that is unsuitable for them. I also completely accept the point that Mr Griffin makes in amendment 1015A that it is not just those groups who are affected and that there can be other issues in relation to rural areas, for example.

It is deeply disappointing that the minister has dismissed the amendments so quickly, with no practical solution being given. The minister keeps saying that we need to have further consultation on this and see what comes up in guidelines. Surely, that work should have been done before the bill was introduced, so that these issues—which are fairly obvious—could have been ironed out before this point. There has been a lack of thinking by the Scottish Government on how the bill would work in practice.

Having said all of that, I will not press amendment 1015 to a vote this morning. I will look at the matter again with the minister, if he is willing—as I am sure that he is. However, I am deeply disappointed that the amendment seems to have been dismissed without giving real consideration of what it means for disabled and older people across Scotland.

I am happy to.

That is helpful. I wonder whether I can dig a wee bit deeper. It was interesting to read that 69 per cent of disabled people aged 60 and over will use the internet, compared to 83 per cent of non-disabled people aged 60 and over. Do you think that older people with disabilities are being left behind more than other older people? How do we address that particular group of individuals?

Jillian, in your report, you say that the most affected people are people in poverty, older people and disabled people. Based on your report and your thinking, are there different things that we need to do for disabled older people compared to older people in general?

Good morning. Thank you for having us along to give evidence.

The simple answer is that I am not wedded to that model at all. I see the funding of a disability commissioner’s organisation and how it functions as being the least important aspects of its operations. The disability community wants to have an independent voice on Government, health services and local government issues. How that organisation might be put together is a secondary consideration.

The reason for my going down the road that you have described was that that was the one that was taken for other commissioners in the past. At that point, it seemed logical to keep everything under the same roof, as it were. However, if the committee or the Parliament, either now or in the future, were to say, “Look—there’s a different way of doing this that would provide economic benefit or allow us to pool services,” that would not concern me. There are different ways of doing this, which we could perhaps explore later in the meeting. I am not wedded in any way to that one model.

You are right to say that there are existing models that work, and there might be others that you would like to explore. For me, the key issue is to get a disability commissioner in place and advocating on behalf of a community in Scotland that feels that it has been left behind and has, in practice, been left behind, both before Covid and certainly since then.

Yes. As you will be aware, SCOSS scrutinises legislative proposals from the Government to see whether they reflect what the disability community wants. The work of a disability commissioner would go much further. The committee has already heard evidence from other commissions, but they have done very little work on disability issues, which is why the disability community feels that it has been left behind.

When I did my public consultation, people’s responses were that they felt that they had been left behind. That was not just a feeling; it is backed by facts. I have just come from a meeting of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee on issues relating to older people and pensioner poverty. The community that is most left behind in that regard is the disabled community. A pensioner who is poor and disabled will really have to struggle against everything else.

I am not so worried about the model that the Parliament comes up with for how such a commissioner could operate. It could be done through the Scottish Government or perhaps with one central bloc that had an HR team that looked after all the commissioners and had all the backroom resources behind it. I know that the latter is a model that the committee has already explored. For me, that is not the issue; it is about establishing an independent disability commissioner who can advocate on behalf of disabled people in Scotland. The rest of it can follow on from that.

I have three things to say. First, disabled people make up 20 per cent of the population in Scotland, which is not an insignificant number, and that number is growing, for various reasons.

Secondly, we need to follow the evidence on poverty, employability, the transition from education and all the other key issues that we talk about in the Parliament. On almost every occasion, disabled people have been left behind or find it hardest to access those services.

Finally, I will quote Murdo Fraser, who asked a previous panel:

“Are you telling me that, as it stands, you do not believe that the Scottish Human Rights Commission properly represents the views of disabled or older people?”—[Official Report, SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, 27 February 2025; c 7.]

The answer to that was, “We do not think that it does.”

To be honest, if the Scottish Human Rights Commission and other bodies were doing their jobs at the moment, perhaps we would not need a disability commissioner. However, the evidence is that, although those bodies are pursuing other very important issues, they are not dealing with disability issues. I do not foresee there being any change in that regard, which means that the 20 per cent of the population who have diverse needs and face diverse situations simply do not have a voice in the Parliament or the Government.

That does not mean that third sector organisations are not doing their jobs. They are doing their jobs very effectively, but there is no coherent voice of the kind that disabled people strongly feel is needed in Scotland.