Chamber and committees

I think that that probably goes back to one of the points that I made earlier. Getting out of bed takes 90 per cent of my energy. I am not sure that the fault is totally the Parliament’s issue, because there are so many voices that we hear day in, day out. However, for many disabled people, getting to Parliament, sending an email or phoning an MSP to advocate is very difficult, because of the time and energy that that takes. That is particularly true for parents, who are trying to get their child out of bed, dress them, feed them and care for them. Having to write an email to an MSP or come to a protest outside the Parliament is just beyond the ability of most individuals.

As a Parliament, we have to keep reflecting on whether we are engaging with the community, but the community also has to have the energy and the ability to do that and many people with disabilities find that very difficult to do. Your disability comes with other issues and other things that you are trying to deal with.

The disability commissioner would get in at an earlier stage, to raise policy issues rather than implementation issues. Certainly, in my local authority, and, I think, in other local authorities, there is a high-level debate about what types of day centres are appropriate. For example, should people go to one place, or should they have individual care? That much wider philosophical debate is happening at the moment. However, often, I think, the disabled voice is not being heard on that. It is about getting in at an early stage of policy, and raising some of the issues.

Again, I will take a local issue—albeit one that will happen across other towns and cities in Scotland. In Edinburgh, we have George Street, which many of you will know. There is an issue of whether we should stop cars from driving on George Street. That is a really important debate. However, I heard about the consultation only very late on, and many disabled groups had not heard about it at all. There was a real danger that, because of a policy, we would prevent people from being able to access their places of work. Before that policy is implemented, the disability commissioner needs to be at that level. When Government brings forward ideas—for example, on transport or education—we need a disability commissioner, advocating with a disabled voice, at the philosophical level of that policy. I do not think that that happens at the moment.

We are 15 months or whatever away from Scottish Parliament elections, which is not that far down the road. I wonder whether we will get that consensus within that period of time. I do not think that, this session, the Government—whoever was in government—would have the time to turn your recommendations into legislation in 15 months. We should therefore proceed with a disability commissioner at this point, because the issues that disabled people face will not go away.

With due respect to this committee, it will be for the next Parliament to look at your report and decide what it wants to do with it. I just cannot see the timescales fitting in for you to produce your report, for the Government to reflect on it and for consultation with lots of groups and individuals before we face the electorate in 15 months. If the issue was put on hold for us to come back and look at it in the next session of Parliament, I would be very worried. Who knows who will be here? Who knows whether somebody will want to take the issue forward? We should push ahead.

I welcome your 360-degree review. Let us see what you as a committee come up with, then let us see how Government and civic society respond to what you have said. However, that will not happen in 15 months, unless there is a miracle.

I will turn to Nick Hawthorne, who may want to come in on that. My understanding is that that is the normal period of time.

We have deliberately not broken that down, because we are not here to write individuals’ job descriptions. Once the disability commissioner was appointed—if that were to happen—it would be for them to decide, first of all, what their own strengths and weaknesses might be and then what strengths would be needed in bringing the team together. Nevertheless, that would be the budget that they would have to play with. We are not saying that one person will be a researcher, say, or that one will do this and another do that; it will be up to the commissioner to decide what they think that they will need, once they are appointed.

That is a good question for the Finance and Public Administration Committee to address. My view is that if, as a Parliament, we believe that having a disability commissioner is the right way forward, it has to be appropriately funded. I think that that should come from an increase to the Parliament’s budget, but that debate can happen elsewhere.

In an evidence session on the bill at the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee last week, it was interesting that one of the speakers powerfully said that a disability commissioner is an investment in our society. If an investment is worth making, it is worth making. I think that we would be making an important investment in a group of individuals—ultimately, it is individuals who we are looking at—who, in many cases, are marginalised and left behind in society.

I would hope that that would not be the case. That would be a choice for the Parliament and, ultimately, the Government to make when it sets its annual budget. I would be very disappointed if that were to happen.

You are right in that regard, Mr Mason. It is about what our priorities are as a Parliament and as a society. I am sure that I could reasonably easily find an amount of money that could be better prioritised. That is a decision that we have to make, but if we see it as an investment in society, I think that it is a justifiable amount.

The figures are robust and, because we already have commissioners, they are not figures that we simply plucked out of the sky. This is probably one of the most robust finance memorandums produced for a non-Government bill.

I would argue that 20 per cent of the population is simply not being heard, and we need that voice to be heard. We can say, “Let’s get rid of all commissioners and have no voice,” but we must not pick on and pull up the drawbridge on one of the most vulnerable parts of society.

You have raised a really important issue, which I would like to reflect on. When we get to stage 2, I would be open to those types of discussions and amendments.