Seòmar agus comataidhean

Clearly, the commissioner must be independent, so we cannot tell them what to do, but they will produce an annual report that will come to the Parliament. That will provide an opportunity for, perhaps, a number of committees to scrutinise the work that the commissioner has done over the previous year.

I suppose that we would all say this, but it would be great if there was no need for a disability commissioner in 10 or 15 years’ time because disability was not seen as an issue and disabled people were getting the services, employment opportunities and everything else that people in the rest of society get. In an ideal world, the commissioner would work themselves out of a job.

We can measure the progress that is made. There are issues relating to transport, health and social care and employability, so, if nothing had changed in four years—the commissioner could be appointed for eight years, but there will be a gap at four years—there would be questions about whether that individual should be reappointed for a second term.

I would be deeply worried if that happened. We absolutely need to set some goals or criteria by which we can measure progress. One of the problems in the public sector in general is that it is very difficult to measure such things.

It is both. I think that, often, it is not being done properly—it is often a tick-box exercise. A lot of what happens in regard to policy is driven by public opinion—we have seen that. That public opinion, for many people, does not involve a disability voice. Part of the role of the commissioner would be to provide that voice, not just to Government and civic society but to address the societal issue. We need to challenge that societal issue.

We should be asking, “Can this person work?” To give a very personal example, when I went for my first job, they were only concerned about whether I could use a photocopier with my disability. That was the deciding factor in whether I got the job. Such societal issues need to be challenged—it is not about what you cannot do but about what you can do.

No, convener; I am content.

I get that. It is very interesting to see that, if you go back and read the stage 1 evidence that was taken for the creation of the children’s commissioner, exactly the same questions were being asked then: there are lots of children’s charities out there who are advocating for children to Parliament—why do you need a commissioner?

I think that there is something to be said for bringing things together. I think that you can see the effectiveness of the children’s commissioner, compared to children’s charities, over the past number of years. The questions that you are asking are absolutely legitimate. I think that they were asked and answered with the children’s commissioner. I would want to draw a line between those examples and say that they are very similar. In no way are we trying to push out or minimise what the third sector does, but there is a place for an individual or a commission to have that collective voice, which is really important. They can also look forward, consider legislation and see what issues people are facing, which charities often do not have the time to do.

Therefore, I would answer by saying that we should look at the fact that the same arguments were made with regard to the children’s commissioner. I think that we can answer in the same way with regard to a disability commissioner.

They cannot deal with every issue, but they could highlight the issue to charities that work in that local area. There will be a role for information sharing—for asking whether people know about something that is happening in Ayrshire or on Arran, for example, and whether they have responded.

My apologies.

Good morning, colleagues. I introduced the Disability Commissioner (Scotland) Bill in February this year, having previously obtained the right to introduce a member’s bill.

The bill would establish a disability commissioner for Scotland, whose primary function would be

“to promote and safeguard the rights of disabled people.”

To achieve that, the commissioner would

“promote awareness and understanding of the rights of disabled people ... Keep under review the law, policy and practice relating to the rights of disabled people ... promote best practice by service providers”

and

“promote, commission, undertake and publish research ... relating to the rights of disabled people.”

The commissioner would also be able to investigate

“by what means and to what extent a service provider has regard to the rights, interests and views of disabled people in making decisions or taking actions that affect those disabled people.”

The financial memorandum that accompanies the bill was drafted by the non-Government bills unit on my behalf. In developing the financial memorandum, the NGBU consulted Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body officials. A draft financial memorandum and draft bill were shared with SPCB officials prior to the bill’s introduction. In addition, the NGBU drew information from recent financial memorandums for bills that establish commissioners, as well as the annual accounts of existing commissioners. The policy behind the bill and the details of the financial memorandum were developed using the criteria in the session 2 Finance Committee’s report as valuable context.

The financial memorandum sets out my strong preference that, wherever possible, commissioners should share accommodation and services with other public bodies to reduce costs. However, provision for

“the location of the Commissioner’s office”

and

“the sharing of premises, staff, services or other resources”

would be subject to any direction from the SPCB and the availability of such premises and services at the point at which the commissioner was established.

The financial memorandum estimates that, initially, the commissioner would have four staff members. The estimated remuneration for the commissioner and their staff is based on information provided by SPCB officials. I consider it appropriate to provide estimated costs for four staff members, as that is in line with the staffing numbers of recently established or soon-to-be established commissioners. Should the commissioner seek to employ additional staff, approval would be sought from the SPCB. As the committee will be aware, the financial memorandum contains the best estimates based on the information available at the time.

I note the three responses to the committee’s call for views on the financial memorandum and take on board the points that were made in them. I further note the Scottish Government’s correspondence with the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, in which the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice noted:

“The cost estimates seem to broadly reflect what would be expected with the introduction of a new Commissioner role.”

I consider the costs incurred in establishing a disability commissioner to be an investment in disabled people that is long overdue. Establishing such a commissioner would ensure that disabled people had a champion who would promote and safeguard their rights. In focusing solely on the needs of disabled people, rather than having a remit spread over various protected characteristics, the commissioner would give disabled people the prioritisation that they need and deserve.

As always, I am happy to take questions from the committee.

Pre-Covid, there was quite a strong argument for a disability commissioner. During the Covid period, and since then, the evidence points to disabled individuals having been left behind more than any other sector in society. If we look at the services that are currently being provided for disabled people and, often, the lack of engagement locally, the need for that voice to be heard in civic society has grown more and more.

It is often said to me by disabled people—and, in particular, by the parents of disabled children—that it takes them all their energy to get out of bed in the morning. The thought of having to campaign, lobby and promote disability issues goes beyond the average—if there is such a thing—of what a disabled person can deal with.

Different commissioners have been around for 10, 15 or 20 years, but their work has rarely focused on disability issues and rights. As has come out strongly in the evidence sessions before the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, the disability community feels that it is not being heard and that it is being left behind. It is therefore time for a commissioner to have that voice, to speak to not only Government and Parliament but local authorities and national health service boards.

That was one of the questions that I had in mind as I worked on the bill. I worked on a pre-bill consultation and, last year, I spent the summer doing a bit of a tour around Scotland talking to different disability groups and individuals. The experience of someone who is in a wheelchair would be very different to someone who has a hidden disability, and the experience of someone who has a visual impairment would be different compared with someone who has a hearing loss, for example. Although the issues that they face are very different, the areas in which they are being discriminated against, including education, health and transport, are almost identical. That has become clear from my experience and in the evidence that we received in the consultation.

I do not see there being some kind of list for the commissioner. They would not be saying, “I spend 20 per cent of my time dealing with physical disability, another 20 per cent of my time dealing with this or that,” and so on. They would be looking at the issues that affect most disabled people in Scotland. You are right: one in five people have a disability. If you go beyond that and look at the effect of that on their friends and families, we are looking at a high proportion of people.