Chamber and committees

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.

That is an important point. When hope is dashed and goes, it pushes you back much further. A lot of hope has been taken away from disabled people over the last few weeks by various announcements. I understand why some of those announcements have been made, but they have pushed back hope a lot.

A disability commissioner will not answer every issue that disabled people face—it is not going to be some sudden panacea here in Scotland—but it will make a massive difference, I think. It will give people some hope and some voice.

As for what will happen to the landscape a number of years from now, it is possible that the inquiry could come back in a year and say, “Actually, this is not the ideal model, but it is the best one out there, and we are just going to keep going with it.” That would mean that, if the bill was not passed, the disabled voice would not have been heard for all that time.

I just do not think that we can wait any longer, and that is why I think that it is time to bring this forward. We do not know what the future holds—we do not know what will come up and what it will bring—but we do know that if a disabled voice is not being heard, it is going to be ignored. I am not sure that that is the legacy that we want to leave.

It is safe to say that none of the members who are here was in the Parliament when the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill went through but, if you go back and read the evidence on that, you will find exactly the same argument made there—that the children’s commissioner would divert money away from children’s activities and on-the-ground resources.

It is not an either/or—we need both, and that comes down to a political choice that we have to make about what we want to fund. The children’s commissioner has shown that a voice for young people can be powerful, and the commissioners have brought about changes in this Parliament as a result of their work.

I do not see the proposal moving money away from disabled people—I think that it is a both situation and that we will continue to fund disabled charities and organisations. However, although the amount of money that it would cost to run a commissioner is a lot in my terms, in the Scottish Government’s five-year plan, it really is a drop in the ocean.

There has been quite a lot of criticism of the new strategy. I am sure that the Scottish Government will respond to that, and I hope that we will listen to what the disabled groups have said. However, when Inclusion Scotland and the Glasgow Disability Alliance are saying that the strategy will not make any difference to disabled lives, we have to hear that. Actually, is it not better to invest the money in a commissioner, along with all that is being funded at the moment?

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 Scotland, 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. 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.

Without labouring the point, the present structures simply are not doing it. I do not see any reason why, if the bill goes away and everyone goes back to normal in six months, they will not go back to doing what they have done normally. Who is going to hold them accountable for that?

That is a slightly cynical view. On a more positive note, to be absolutely honest, I would have been giving very different evidence if the programme for government had been different. If we had seen the implementation in Scots law of disabled stuff from the United Nations, we would have been in a very different place, because that would have given disabled people a statutory right to challenge decisions. We could have made a lot of progress in regard to those with neurodivergence conditions, if a bill on that had been proposed.

Even within the past two weeks, two major things that would have helped disabled people have disappeared. That has led to some comments on Twitter but, despite the impact on disabled people’s lives, there has not been the same input that there would have been if something had happened to a child or a young person.

I just think that no one is going to do that work. There are some very able people, such as Mr O’Kane and others, who are very good at advocating on behalf of disabled people, but they have 500 other things to do. That is why we need that individual person who can be the advocate and who can bring together those voices and make sure that they are heard. At the moment, the disabled voice just is not being heard in the public sphere.

As I said to the convener, if you look at education, health, social services and even things such as changing places toilets, you see that there is mass discrimination. I will be honest. As I think that I have said previously, I was born with a disability and, before I came into the Parliament, I thought that most disabled people’s experience had been my experience, which had been pretty positive. I went to a mainstream school, to mainstream further education and into mainstream work. I thought that that was most disabled people’s experience.

When I entered the Parliament and started hearing the stories about what the majority of disabled people face and what the majority of parents of disabled children face, I was horrified. I will be honest—I was naive in that regard. Until you start talking to people who have disabilities about how they struggle to get interviews for jobs, how they seem to be at the bottom of the list when it comes to social care or about how their packages are being cut, you do not realise. There is so much that disabled people or parents of disabled children can talk about.

To use a very basic example, in Edinburgh, we are very good at clearing the main roads for the buses, as they should be. However, that is no good to me on an icy day if I cannot get out of my house to the main street, and no one ever clears the side streets. Older people, people in a wheelchair or those with some form of disability that makes them more likely to slip are housebound for far longer than others. That voice has not been heard by us in the Parliament or by other bodies in Scotland.

Absolutely. I appreciate that £1 million or £1.5 million sounds like a lot of money, but in a £30 billion budget, it is not so much. When the Scottish Government was promoting the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, it spent £400,000 or thereabouts on that. A third of the budget for a commissioner was spent, not on introducing that act, but simply advertising it on social media and through other forms of communication. The cost for the commissioner sounds like a lot of money, but it is not in real terms, and this is something that needs to happen.

Two weeks ago, we heard that, although the Government was going to commit £10 million to changing places toilets—that money has been promised for the past four to five years—that has now been taken away. If that had related to another protected characteristic, there would have been outrage in the Parliament, and people would have been emailing and writing to members. However, because it has happened to disabled people and, looking at it realistically, because of all the problems that they have, there has not been much of a campaign on the issue. However, that will be a massive blow to many people with disabilities.

The commissioner is an investment in relation to what the Government, local authorities and other public bodies do. We are setting this up over the long term; it is not just a one-year budget decision. I think that it is worth funding the commissioner until that review, if it ever takes place.

Good morning. I will start with funding, and specifically multiyear funding. From your experience in your different organisations, what is the benefit of multiyear funding? Are there any disadvantages to multiyear funding? You probably want it for 100 years but, realistically, what timescale are we looking at for multiyear funding? Is it two, three or five years? From your experience, what would work best? We will start with Judith Turbyne and work our way along the line of witnesses.

I will follow up on that briefly. Obviously the money itself is important, but is there, to a degree, a perception of work in the third sector that is based on the funding model? The Government guarantees funding for public bodies and public services for indefinite periods, so a doctor or someone who works in the Parliament knows that they are going to get paid, and have a job, next year, but that is not true for the third sector. Does that affect recruitment, because people do not want that lack of stability?

I see the problem that you are outlining, Rachel, but what is the solution? How do we get around that problem?