Equal Opportunities Committee, 18 Jan 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Official Report 298KB pdf

---

Disability Discrimination Bill

The second item on our agenda is an evidence taking session on the Sewel motion on the Disability Discrimination Bill, which is currently before the UK Parliament. I warmly welcome to the meeting Kate Higgins from Capability Scotland, Bob Benson and Lynn Welsh from the Disability Rights Commission and Bill Campbell from Inclusion Scotland. [Interruption.] I am sorry—I missed out Norman Dunning from Enable. Do not take it personally, Norman.

I certainly will not.

Before we start our questioning, I give the panel an opportunity to make an opening statement about their views on the bill.

I thank the committee for this opportunity to discuss the Disability Discrimination Bill, especially given that several of its provisions have particular implications for Scotland.

The bill represents a significant extension of the powers and scope of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and incorporates the remaining recommendations of the disability rights task force, which was established in 1997, reported in 1998 and preceded the setting up of the Disability Rights Commission. As a result, the bill marks a positive move towards ensuring comprehensive civil rights for disabled people in Scotland and across the UK. In effect, it covers the nine-year window of disability rights legislation, which is now coming to a close.

Of the bill's provisions, we draw the committee's attention in particular to the new disability equality duty on public authorities, the widening of the legal definition of disability and the regulation-making powers that the bill confers on ministers to remove the exemption of modes of transport from part III of the DDA, which concerns access to goods and services.

The public sector duty is designed to foster over time a cultural shift in public authorities' attitudes to disability and how they meet disabled people's needs. The aim is to reach a point at which individuals will have less need to seek retrospective redress for instances of discrimination, because organisations will have proactively addressed the root causes of discrimination. The DRC looks forward to working with the Executive and the Parliament as the Scottish code of practice is drafted and consulted on.

The bill seeks to extend the definition of disability to cover, from diagnosis, cancer, HIV and multiple sclerosis. In future, people will not find themselves unable to bring a case under the DDA simply because their condition has not yet manifested itself. That is significant, given the fact that Scotland has the highest per-capita incidence of MS in the world. The change should benefit many people. The bill will also remove the proviso that a mental illness must be clinically well recognised in order to be covered.

The transport provisions will mean that, in future, disabled people will have the right not to be discriminated against when using public transport. That should be seen against the target dates for train and bus accessibility that the UK Government has set for 2020. However, shipping and aviation will remain subject to voluntary codes—a fact that has particular resonance in Scotland, given the reliance of remote and island communities on lifeline ferry and air services. The transport provisions must also be seen against the wide-ranging administrative reform of transport in Scotland that is proposed under the Transport (Scotland) Bill and the significant new powers that are conferred on Scottish ministers under the Westminster Railways Bill.

Finally, we highlight our desire that the bill amend the DDA to ensure that education discrimination cases will, in future, be heard by the new additional support for learning tribunals that were set up under the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. Overwhelming evidence built up over the years suggests that tribunals offer a better forum than the sheriff court in which to resolve education disputes.

I have little to add to the statement from the DRC. Enable represents children and adults with learning disabilities, and we very much welcome the new public duty to promote equality, especially for those we represent who have a hidden disability. As Bob Benson said, in the past, too much has relied on people taking action when things have gone wrong, and people with hidden disabilities are less likely to feature and to take their case forward. The new duty is particularly useful.

We are looking to benefit from the extension of the DDA to areas where things can be made more easily understandable. For example, tenancy agreements are pretty inaccessible documents, but there will be a duty on authorities to make them much more accessible. We think that the bill may also have an impact on such things as direct payments, of which there has been a low take-up by people with learning disabilities, sometimes because the processes seem inaccessible. We are concerned about the access that people with disabilities have to the health service, and we would like more promotional policies and much more thought to be given to that by the health service. We think that the bill will place a duty on those authorities to do that.

We welcome the bill and, in the circumstances, welcome the Sewel motion as a way of pushing it forward quickly.

Like our colleagues, we welcome the Disability Discrimination Bill, especially as it implements several of the outstanding recommendations that were made some time ago by the disability rights task force. Similarly, we welcome the extension of the definition, but with the same concerns as the DRC. We also welcome the extension of the provisions to cover transport. Capability Scotland has campaigned on and conducted research into disabled people's experience of transport, and it is now widely known how crucial transport is to disabled people's participation in all aspects of daily life. The bill will be an important step forward.

For similar reasons to those given by our colleagues, we too welcome the new duty on public authorities to promote disability equality. We would welcome the committee's consideration of a specific issue that our written evidence picks up on, even if it is only to flag up the need for clarification of the existence of a particular transport mode. However, we have no wish to wreck the chances of the bill; we want it to be passed.

Like all other organisations, we are anxious about the uncertainty surrounding the date of the general election and whether there will be enough time to pass the bill. We certainly want the bill to be passed at Westminster—hopefully with some amendments.

We acknowledge and welcome the Disability Discrimination Bill. We might be coming from a different angle from our colleagues because Inclusion Scotland is an organisation that acts as a conduit for disabled people who represent themselves. We certainly welcome the advances in the bill and worry about it running out of time, given that it has been in the system for more than a year, since the draft stage in December 2003.

We have concerns about some things that have been left out of the bill. We are concerned that people are still referred to as having disabilities. We do not accept that. We certainly have impairments; our disability comes about through society's reaction and attitude to those impairments. I notice that the Sewel memorandum on the bill twice mentions "persons with disabilities" and we are quite sad about that. It might not be important to the legislators, but it is important to us. If it can be accepted that people are disabled by society's attitude and reaction to their impairments, we would move some way along the road to feeling more included.

We are also not 100 per cent sure about the burden of proof and whether that is going to change. We know fine well—and it has been accepted, although nothing seems to have been done about it—that it is very difficult for disabled people who do not have knowledge of the law or a big enough income to take on employers or companies to get redress for the discrimination that they feel. We really need to feel that that is being tackled. We could use the example—and I hope that I am allowed to do this—of the Ryanair case where there might have been a victory, but we are not too sure who won, because Ryanair still charges a wheelchair levy on every single ticket that it sells. It prints it on the ticket and we are appalled that that is allowed to happen in this country.

We welcome the bill. We are not too sure about the Sewel motion; perhaps the convener could explain that to us. If the bill runs out of time, does that mean that we lose everything?

There is a Sewel motion because much of this subject is reserved, so the legislation will have to be done at Westminster. We will examine elements of the bill and when it has gone through Westminster, it will come back to the Scottish Parliament and this committee. We will have another bite at the cherry.

I will start the questions. The DDA is not an old piece of legislation. Why was it considered necessary to make such significant changes to the legislation? What level of involvement, if any, have your organisations had in the development of the legislation?

The original Disability Discrimination Act 1995 had many gaps and flaws that needed to be addressed. We were pleased when the 1997 Labour Government established a disability rights task force to advise Government on the further development of the DDA and on equality legislation in general. The report "From Exclusion to Inclusion" contained 156 recommendations covering many of the areas that have now been legislated on, such as the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, and the extension of access to goods and services. We now have the final piece of the jigsaw, which is the move towards a public sector duty. The process has evolved over a considerable period to address flaws in the original legislation.

The original DDA was a long time in its inception; I remember 14 attempts and I was involved in them all. It was therefore not surprising that we made compromises when it went through, but now is the time to address some of those compromises.

The big thing will be to change people's attitudes and responses. A duty to promote is exactly that, which is why we want it. We do not want to say to people, "Here's a piece of legislation that you'll grudgingly have to adhere to—or else somebody will follow it up with you." The duty to promote is a significant move forwards—perhaps more significant than it seems on paper.

Like Norman Dunning, I have been involved in the campaigning since 1981, when the British Council of Disabled People was formed. Our tack was that we were looking for rights, not charity. We lobbied and campaigned for years on end and got the DDA. It was not necessarily what we were looking for but it was a move forwards. Inclusion Scotland, as you know, has been involved since its inception three years ago, but activists and campaigners in the disabled people's movement have been involved for more than 20 years. We continue to lobby and campaign.

Further amending the legislation should not be seen as a bad thing; it is positive. The legislation has gaps, and the issue also arises of the place of disabled people in our society. They are now less marginalised, although much remains to be changed. The new legislation will go some way towards redressing some of the flaws and filling some of the gaps. It is good that the Government is prepared to say that the original act did not go far enough and that its scope can be widened. That is positive.

When reading the new bill, I was encouraged at how things have moved on; and, as a past campaigner, I am delighted with some of its provisions. Are you content that the bill will result in significant improvements to the lives of people with disabilities in Scotland?

Yes.

Yes.

I can see that there is general agreement on the panel.

Do the panel members feel that adequate consultation was carried out on both sides of the border before the bill was introduced? Does the bill, as introduced, show that responses to the consultation were taken into consideration?

The Disability Rights Commission was heavily involved in the lead-up to this legislation. We conducted a legislative review that was well-received by the Westminster Government. From that process, a joint Westminster committee evolved, which undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposed legislation. That is what has led to the bill that is now being considered. It has already gone through considerable scrutiny, which is one of the main reasons why it enjoys so much support throughout Westminster—and in the comments that we have heard today.

In the run-up to this bill, we have worked with the DRC on some of the committees. Obviously, we accept that not everything that we submit in our consultation papers will be accepted, but that is what keeps us campaigning. However, there has been a significant sea change in opinion, and we hope to keep working on that.

You may be intending to ask about the notion that—because of work that public authorities are doing on the implementation of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000—the Disability Discrimination Bill will not have a significant cost. Offering access to buildings, and offering information in accessible formats, may indeed incur costs that will not be incurred by the provisions on race.

That is now on record, Bill. We can find out.

We heard in the opening statements that Norman Dunning thinks that dealing with the bill by Sewel motion is a good idea but that Bill Campbell has some doubts about that. How do Kate Higgins and Bob Benson feel about it?

We do not want the bill in its entirety to be lost. If it did not proceed by way of Sewel motion, there would be difficulty in trying to legislate in Scotland. Lots of areas of the bill could not be covered because they deal with reserved matters, and there might also be an issue about timing. We do not want any of those areas of the bill to be lost.

Whether someone lives in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England, they are entitled to the same rights and to be treated in the same way. However, we have concerns about specific issues on which we would welcome clarification from the committee and the Parliament. We have raised the transport issue of lifeline ferry services. Shipping may not be covered by the DDA until well into the 2020s or 2030s, and there is an issue about what might happen with those services in the meantime. Nevertheless, we support the Sewel motion as the way forward. We share Bill Campbell's concern that, if the bill falls, we will go back to square one.

We understand that there has been some discussion about ferry service tendering. You will be aware that tendering for ferry services is about to take place and that disability access will be high on the agenda. The Scottish Executive will take that forward now, rather than wait for the outcome of the bill.

Thank you for that information, convener. Some members may be aware that we raised the issue at that end as well, as we saw that as an alternative route. It is excellent that the Executive has picked up on that and that accessibility will now be a condition of the tender.

I apologise to Nanette Milne for hijacking her question.

I just wanted to hear from the DRC.

The DRC is aware of the concerns around Sewel motions; however, we feel that, in this specific circumstance, the Sewel motion is the most appropriate way forward. The powers are reserved to Westminster, but the Sewel motion procedure exists to ensure that questions about how reserved legislation concerning duties on public authorities is implemented in Scotland are decided by the Scottish Parliament and the Executive. By going through that process, the Scottish Parliament will ensure that the provisions are properly scrutinised. The Sewel motion is, therefore, an appropriate vehicle in this circumstance.

There are some specifically Scottish bits that we would like to see enacted—provisions relating to consent, which are quite different from what is in the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000. However, our understanding is that it is a matter of ensuring that the regulations are properly drafted to take account of the Scottish situation and that it should not be a matter for the primary legislation.

As Bob Benson says, it is an unusual Sewel motion because, although the public sector duty provision has to be passed at Westminster because it is a reserved matter, the power will be given to Scottish ministers to add the meat to it. That is different from removing powers and making legislation elsewhere; therefore, it is an odd kind of Sewel motion.

You are right to say that we have to preserve and look after the Scottish end of it. Obviously, Scottish ministers will be able to pass their own regulation, and the DRC is producing a separate code for Scotland because we recognise—as Norman Dunning has said—that specific issues require to be addressed here. There will, therefore, be a separate code and separate regulations to protect the Scottish position.

I understand entirely what you are saying with regard to what I would prefer to call the legislation rather than the Scottish bits. I wonder about something that has been mentioned by two members of the panel. If the bill were not passed and the matter were dragged out further—it has been going on for 20-odd years, with bits added on to it regardless of which country the bits have come from—what would be your reaction? Would you come back to the Parliament to ask for a specific bill for transport and public authority bodies anyway? Obviously, it is the equal opportunity part of it that is reserved, not the rest of it, but that is quite a lot and matters a lot to disabled people. Would you be prepared to come back if, unfortunately, that were to happen? Do you think that you would be prepared to come back with separate legislation?

If the bill were lost and we were back to square one, I would be tempted, based on many years' experience, to advise people to go through the European route. It is quite clear that European directives are sometimes the only way that things get done, and we can certainly prove that through the non-discrimination directive on employment. If that had not come from Europe, I am pretty sure that it would not have happened in this country either. It would be very sad if we had to bypass Westminster and go through Europe and then the Scottish Parliament to get things done, but that may well be the only way forward.

I understand that, if the bill does not go through, it is a human rights issue and something needs to happen. It is a timing issue, but it will happen, whether this year or next year, although people are clearly impatient because they want it to happen now.

To be fair, the Westminster Government is committed to ensuring that it goes through. That is why the bill has been put through the House of Lords—to try to short-circuit what can sometimes be a long process. The Government is committed, which is good, and we still hope that the bill is on its way.

Would you come with separate legislation if it did not go through?

There is very little that the Parliament could legislate on, but there are other ways of dealing with it.

Yes, you have mentioned that.

May I raise an ancillary point? Although we could not do that, there is sometimes an issue about different pieces of legislation joining up. We have raised concerns in the past about how some of the Scottish Parliament bills sit with UK legislation in relation to the DDA and in relation to how they play off one another. Sometimes they do not seem to match up, and sometimes they seem to contradict one another. We have asked on previous occasions for a provision on the face of legislation that almost reinforces people's rights under the DDA. The Parliament has, to date, been unwilling to go down that route, and we would like to see the Parliament taking a fresh look at that approach and generally doing a bit more joining up, so that in future fewer questions are left unanswered about how different pieces of legislation interact.

Bob Benson alluded to the regulations on public authorities. The provisions of the bill require that Scottish ministers consult the Disability Rights Commission before making regulations to impose specific duties on public authorities in Scotland to promote equality of opportunity for people with disabilities. How do you see that working and what are your views on the requirement? How will that help to improve the situation?

I shall ask Lynn Welsh to address that, because she will be heavily involved in the consultation process.

I live my life in public sector duty. We are already working closely with the Scottish Executive through the equality unit. We have drafted a code of practice on what we think the regulations will contain, and we have consulted the Scottish Executive about that. The English regulations are coming out in draft form fairly soon and the Scottish ones will follow. We are confident that we have a good relationship with the equality unit in the Scottish Executive, which I am sure will involve us at all stages of creating the regulations, as we shall involve it at all stages of the code.

For specific duties to be imposed on cross-border authorities, the bill requires that the secretary of state consult with Scottish ministers and that Scottish ministers consult with the secretary of state. Are you content with those proposals or do you have any concerns?

I do not think so. That is exactly the same system as is in place for the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, and it seems to have worked successfully there, so I do not think that we have too many concerns about that.

The consultation document "Delivering equality for disabled people" listed the Scottish bodies that the Executive intended to require to publish disability equality schemes under the bill. Have you seen that list—I am sure that you have, but the paper asks me to ask you—and have you any comments about the bodies that are listed there?

Yes. Far too few bodies were listed. We have given the equality unit an idea of what other bodies, such as qualifications bodies, should be covered. As part of an on-going process of trying to include more bodies in the scope of the bill, we have spoken to colleagues who also have great ideas. The bodies that are mentioned in the document may originally have been taken from the list of bodies to which the duty on race applies, but we believe that disability might be an issue for many more bodies. We are consulting on that; we hope that the list will be extended.

I can sum it up in three words: all of them.

Not surprisingly, our particular concern was that the list did not include any of the qualification bodies, such as the Scottish Qualifications Authority, the Scottish Social Services Council and the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care. All those bodies can be discriminatory in the way in which they apply qualifications. That can make it difficult for people with disabilities to gain qualifications, so we very much want all such bodies to be included.

I echo what the others have said. When we first saw how short the list was, we wondered whether the long-promised bonfire of the quangos had taken place. However, on a more serious note, Capability Scotland believes that the scope of the bill should be as wide as possible. Otherwise, the impact of the duty on the public sector will be lost and the bill will not effect a change of hearts and cultures. Frankly, the wider the net is cast, the better. Along with the comments of everybody that we can think of, we will feed back to the DRC our ideas on which bodies should be on the list.

I am sure that the committee will echo those comments.

The DRC submission notes a concern about the problems that many home owners face when they wish to make adjustments to the common parts of their tenements or flats. Did the DRC make representations to Westminster on that? Has it discussed with the Executive the inclusion of relevant provisions in the Executive's forthcoming housing bill, which is also mentioned in the DRC submission?

The answer to both questions is yes. We are pursuing the possibility of an amendment to the Disability Discrimination Bill at Westminster, although I am not sure how successful we will be. We would certainly prefer the issue to be dealt with in Scottish legislation because, apart from anything else, housing is very much a Scottish issue. In our response to the recent consultation on housing, we welcomed the Executive's move to extend the right to make changes to private rented accommodation—that will be a great step forward—and we suggested that the Executive consider the further step of allowing changes to common parts of private properties. We regularly receive complaints from people who want to make small changes to their property, such as by installing a wee handrail at the front door, but who have been refused by other owners for reasons that they are not sure of. It can make living almost impossible if people cannot have accessible housing.

Our concerns on housing reflect those of the DRC. We have two main concerns. One can be illustrated by the case of a young chap from Islay who came to Glasgow to be educated. When his impairment became worse, his mother applied to the council to add an extension to their house, but she was refused on the ground that it would affect the aesthetics of the island. We need to get away from such appalling attitudes. Secondly, we are very much aware that Scotland has about 850,000 disabled people but fewer than 25,000 wheelchair or barrier-free houses. Given those figures, we still have a long way to go, although we appreciate the work that the DRC has done.

We have heard a little about the impact of transport accessibility issues on disabled people. What are your views on the transport provisions in the bill, including the proposed timescale for accessibility, and on the use of voluntary codes of practice in relation to aviation and shipping? After all, the tendering document says that "Tenderers must include"—[Interruption.] I am sorry—is it okay for me to read this out?

I think that you are quoting the consultation on the tendering document.

Right. The document refers to

"detailed proposals setting out how"

tenderers

"intend to satisfy this requirement".

I am concerned about whether proposals to improve access will be implemented and whether they simply represent good intentions, rather than actual work that will be carried out. I am aware that that matter is rather detailed.

I shall go first—our organisation has probably made the most noise about transport.

During the draft bill stage, people asked for end dates in respect of accessibility to transport. We welcome the fact that the UK Government has given such dates for most forms of transport. Some of them seem to be a long way off, but we appreciate the reasons for that, including cost effectiveness over the lifetime of vehicles and different modes of transport.

We also understand why the UK Government has chosen voluntary codes of practice for aviation and shipping: after all, research is needed on how those measures are working. People must be given time to implement any code to which they sign up and we must find out how the code is working. That said, we in Scotland are concerned that the voluntary code for small passenger vessels is not yet up and running and we would like some movement on that. Moreover, we seek a commitment from the UK Government that an end date for accessibility to such transport will be given as soon as possible after it concludes its current research on voluntary codes.

We share the member's concerns about the tendering consultation. Any successful bidder for the lifeline routes will need to set out only their intentions with regard to accessibility. Those measures need teeth, with monitoring taking place of whether operators have introduced more accessible facilities on their vessels. Obviously, the ultimate sanction for not implementing proposals should be that the operator will lose the contract. Capability Scotland will respond in those terms to the consultation on the tendering document.

I fully support any move to make transport more physically accessible. However, we must also make other aspects of the transport system, such as timetables, easier to understand to ensure that people know where to get on and off. We must also introduce simple measures such as ensuring that buses do not pull off before infirm people can sit down. Such measures are not hugely costly; they come down to the attitude and training of the people who operate transport systems. Enable has been able to introduce the voluntary thistle travel card scheme, which allows people who have an impairment to show a card discreetly to the driver and conductor, who are then able to make allowances for those people; for example, they might not understand where to get off, or might need more time to sit down or whatever. People can find it embarrassing to announce that they have a particular problem.

Such aspects could well come within the scope of the bill's provisions in respect of public authorities. We want those measures to be pushed forward. A voluntary code is fine, but we want the legislation to cover other matters and we want to be able to say to all public authorities throughout Scotland that such schemes should be introduced to make things easier. Although we must continue to work on various physical barriers, some of the other barriers that I have mentioned could be quickly overcome.

We deal with disabled people every day; committee members will not be surprised to learn that transport is probably at the top of their list of complaints. This might sound a bit controversial but, as our website points out, we only kind of welcomed the decision that was made a week or so ago about free bus passes for disabled and elderly people. I said "kind of welcomed" because many people will have died before 2017 or 2020 when the buses are fully accessible. That also seems to add to the perception that disabled people are somehow poor and in need of a bus pass. What we need is money to pay our bus fares. We would have really appreciated it if the Executive had worked with bus companies and helped them with the transition to low-floor buses and then introduced travel cards, if that was seen to be the way forward. We are not too happy about the situation.

We now know that the trains in Scotland have gone to FirstGroup, which also runs many buses in Scotland. What is it going to do about integrated transport? When I get off the train at Irvine, it is always just in time to see the bus driving away, but the buses are owned by the same company. Something has to be done about integration. I will leave ferries to Kate Higgins, who has done more work on that than have I.

On aviation, we must remember that there are two ends to every journey. There is currently a lot of work going on in Europe on codes of practice so that disabled people can be absolutely sure that when they get to Amsterdam, Paris or Brussels, they receive the same treatment as they get here. The Scottish Executive should look at what is happening in Europe. On voluntary codes, my only comment would be that I am very suspicious.

I have a question about taxis. There seems to be great emphasis placed on providing bigger taxis for wheelchair access. That raises issues in respect of people with other mobility problems. Capability Scotland's document deals with the Government's intentions and points out that the emphasis on wheelchair access exists almost to the exclusion of people who have other mobility problems or other disabilities. What are your views? Are we going too far down a particular route?

The end dates are for what the UK Government has said it will do on accessibility and they apply to the requirements that it will place on transport providers. We share the concerns of Enable, Bill Campbell and everybody else. Everything has been targeted at wheelchair accessibility, which sometimes means things not being accessible to people who have other mobility impairments. There are issues around making things more accessible for people who have visual impairments and the impact that that has on people who have physical disabilities. There is a balance to be struck; we should make our environment more accessible in general, That approach would satisfy more people.

On taxis, the Government said at a conference that we attended that it hopes to introduce new licensing laws or regulations to help in the process of making taxis more accessible, but it is not clear whether that would apply in Scotland. I presume that it would not, because licensing is devolved. We could end up with a two-tier system if that is not picked up on in Scotland.

I will mention another point that came up at the conference. Someone from the Glasgow subway asked about its being a special case. There are huge issues about inaccessibility there; I am sure that Bill Campbell could talk all day about the experiences of people with a range of disabilities and impairments in trying to use the Glasgow subway. The head of the Department for Transport's mobility and inclusion unit said that the department is aware of the subway's being a special case because of the size of the tunnels and so on. It may be that, ultimately, the subway will be exempt from the DDA. We would be very concerned if a particular transport provider had a total get-out clause. Strathclyde Passenger Transport has made what it considers to be improvements to the subway's facilities but, to be frank, it could have made it much more accessible. The subway has not been made more accessible; in fact, it has become even more inaccessible than it was. We would welcome the committee's taking up that issue.

There has been considerable discussion of how we make the social model of disability relevant in legislation, because clearly we can legislate for only so much in the social model. However, as has been said, it is the issues around the widest sense of the word "accessibility" that are in question. The bill will bring about significant changes; for example, it will be illegal to refuse to allow someone who has a learning disability on to a bus. Other conditions will be covered, which are also covered by the DDA, such as communication problems or multiple impairments that people often do not understand and perceive in an unsocial way, as it were.

The powers in relation to the public sector duty could help to raise awareness and educate service providers. On issues relating to taxis, Scottish local authorities have the power to license taxis and, under the public sector duty, they would have powers to ensure, through the disability equality schemes, that we are delivering on accessibility in its widest sense. That issue will be the same for other service providers. The bill is a powerful vehicle for implementing public service provision and it is likely to have spin-offs that relate to the private sector and to contracting out. The private sector would be covered by the same terms as local authorities and other service providers. We have a powerful legislative vehicle, which we should not underestimate. I will return to the other points that I want to make when we are talking about widening of definitions.

Taxi licensing is the only bit of discrimination legislation that is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Parliament has already passed regulations relating to access to taxis for assistance dogs because of the way that the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 worked, so things can be done and regulations have been passed. The public sector duty can make a huge difference. We have asked for Caledonian MacBrayne to be covered by the public sector duty, which would have a massive impact because it would have to start considering properly how to deal with disabled people and it would have to make its services more accessible. We hope that the Scottish Executive will consider that.

It is something of an irony that Glasgow subway is the only transport system in Scotland in which access from the platform to the train is level. Once we get down to the platform, it is accessible; getting down there is the problem. I realise that there are engineering problems and I am told that it would take £12 million to £20 million to make every station accessible. I do not know whether that is a lot of money; it sounds like a lot to me. It is ironic that there is such a level of accessibility in the system already.

There is no audio on the subway—at least there was not when I travelled to the University of Glasgow—and blind people find it difficult to know what station they are at because, if the train stops in the tunnel, they lose count of how many stops the train has made and alight where they do not want to alight.

On taxis, I do not know whether members are aware that in the mid to late 1990s the then Strathclyde Regional Council, with Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive, ran two pilot schemes for taxi cards in the west of Scotland. One was in Irvine, where I live, and one was in Clydebank. Those two places were chosen because Irvine had no black cabs and Clydebank's taxis were all black cabs. I am sure that if you could access the findings on that scheme, they would show that the more successful scheme was the one in Irvine, simply because it appealed to people who had other mobility problems, and who had been rattled around in big black cabs and had uncomfortable journeys.

There was also a point made about taxi drivers. It was quite clear from both schemes, especially the one in Irvine, that many taxi drivers are in their 50s. They may well be disabled themselves, and taxi driving provides income for them. It was extremely unfortunate that many disabled people wanted taxi drivers to come into the house and wheel them out to the taxi. That should be examined in terms of training for taxi drivers. Disabled people should also understand that if they need to be escorted from the house to the taxi, they should make their own provision.

Bill Campbell mentioned the difficulty with terminology in the bill, which I will go into further. The general duty on public authorities mentions

"the need to take steps to take account of disabled persons' disabilities, even where that involves treating disabled persons more favourably than other persons."

Is there concern that that terminology could impact on good relations between disabled and non-disabled people?

It may just redress the balance a little bit. I have no anxiety about the terminology. Too often, an excuse for not advancing better policies for people with disabilities is that such a form of positive discrimination would be unfair on everybody else, but everybody else has been unfair on people who have disabilities for a long time.

I agree with Norman Dunning. The bill advocates positive action; we are trying to get equality of opportunity, not a level playing field. The DDA is asymmetrical legislation—it protects only disabled people, unlike sex and race legislation, which protects both ends of the spectrum—because it is recognised that positive action must be taken just to achieve equal status for disabled people. All our organisations work hard to get the general public and authorities to recognise that that is what we are talking about.

We do not have concerns. I echo the sentiment that it is about time that the balance was redressed. In the past, we took issue with measures that were designed to plug gaps. The one that concerned us most was when new rules were introduced on blue-badge enforcement. Our biggest concern was that disabled people were being targeted for offences that were being committed by non-disabled people; disabled people were going to have to prove that they were disabled and therefore entitled to a blue parking badge, but it should have been the non-disabled people who were abusing the system who were gone after and made an example of. Anything that shifts the balance to the other side is welcome in our book.

On the DDA, we discussed for a long time the meaning of reasonable. Somebody said that it is reasonable to believe that something is reasonable if it is reasonable.

What does "more favourably" mean? If it means having an advantage over the rest of the community, we would—to be frank—be totally against it. We are asking for inclusion and equality. If "more favourably" means providing my phone bill, my council tax bill and other items in large print to put me on a level playing field with the rest of society, we are absolutely in favour of it. We need to know what "more favourably" means. I am sorry for being pedantic.

That is okay. You are allowed to be pedantic.

That was a robust reply.

You said that you welcome the bill's changes to the definition of disability. Could you expand on that? Are you now content with the definition, or would you like it to be changed?

I do not think that we have ever been totally content with the definition of disability. It comes back to a question I asked earlier: how far do you go in defining people? We already officially have 1 million disabled people in Scotland. That is one in five of the population. The spirit of legislation should be about planning in advance and in the knowledge that someone who has a range of mobility or other problems will, at some stage in their life, require equality of access.

We have looked at specific issues, for example in respect of people who have a genetic predisposition to conditions such as Huntington's chorea. When people with such conditions try to access certain forms of life insurance, they are discriminated against on the basis of some spurious test. That issue remains to be addressed.

It is arguable that provision for disability at the point of need is also important. I am thinking of people with short-term disabilities who might be disabled in their environment for perhaps only six weeks, for example. Again, I suggest that the committee consider that further. It is clear that some good pre-planning needs to take place around the needs of all members of society, in the light of the knowledge that people might, at some stage their lives, have impairments or conditions that could lead to difficulties in accessing services or employment. The issue is significant. I am sure that Parliament will want to ensure that people are covered at the point of need, but it is possible to go only so far in terms of legislation. That said, I am sure that more work can be done around the edges of the issue.

It is becoming clear that people who are discriminated against on the ground of disability are also discriminated against on other grounds. Recognition needs to be given to the fact that disabled people are citizens with multiple identities, which could usefully be applied to wider issues for disabled people. We could, for example, consider harmonisation of equalities legislation through a single equalities act. Although we can improve the Disability Discrimination Bill, the introduction of a single equalities act might take us much further forward.

Does Norman Dunning or Kate Higgins wish to comment?

No.

No.

Do you wish to do so, Bill?

I agree with Bob Benson that there are certain areas on which we will never reach consensus, including the definition of disability. Inclusion Scotland asks—or demands; the word that is used will depend on how the request is taken—for philosophical consideration of the definition of disability. That is something that the British Council of Disabled People also asked for.

As I have said, constant reference to "people with disabilities" is wrong. People are disabled by society's attitude to their impairments. The more quickly society accepts that that is the case, the more quickly disabled people can move on.

Of course, we are also concerned about who defines disability. Is it doctors or psychiatrists, for example? Will disabled people be allowed to define whether or not they are disabled? I am not sure that any of the acts take that sort of philosophical look at the subject. Although the legislation is in place and it is workable, it is by no means complete.

I thank the witnesses for their evidence this morning—or this afternoon, as it is now after 1 o'clock. Does any member wish to take further action in respect of the Sewel motion?

No.

In that case, I suggest that we continue to monitor the process. When the subject comes before Parliament again, the committee will look to being involved in scrutiny of any future legislation that results from the act. Are members content with the suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting closed at 13:13.