Official Report 161KB pdf
Public Transport Users' Committee for Scotland Amendment Order 2008 <br />(SSI 2008/186)<br />Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland Revocation Regulations 2008 (SSI 2008/187)
Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to the 13th meeting this year of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. We have received no apologies for absence. I remind everybody that all mobile devices—phones, BlackBerrys and so on—should be switched off.
Thank you, convener. I am pleased to be here to discuss this important issue with the committee. The amalgamation of the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland and the Public Transport Users Committee for Scotland seeks to integrate and mainstream disability and accessibility issues into one high-level organisation.
I thank the minister for his opening remarks. We have some time for members to ask questions of the minister and his officials if they want clarification on any technical points. I remind members that the officials will not be able to take part in the subsequent debate on the motions. If members have points to raise on technical issues, they should do so under this agenda item.
I should explain, convener, that, strictly speaking, the assessment has not yet been published. You have a copy of it ahead of its publication. In light of remarks that you quite properly made to me previously, I sought to get it to you at the earliest possible opportunity. I am not asking you to keep its contents secret, as it will be formally published later this week. It came to the committee at the earliest possible moment so that you could have it in front of you. I am afraid that it was not possible to get it to you any earlier.
Is it usual for a committee to receive an equality impact assessment after it has been required to make a decision on such a matter?
I ensured that you received it before the meeting.
What does the equality impact assessment tell you? What do you gain from it?
I ask Bill Brash to address that.
The assessment goes through the process that we have carried out, including discussion with stakeholders—there has been quite a lot of discussion with stakeholders in the past few months—and concludes that the amalgamation will benefit the wider public and that we will be mainstreaming disability issues in the new, enlarged PTUC. It concludes that there are no problems with proceeding with the amalgamation and recommends that we review it in the next year to determine whether it works.
I have worked hard not to list the 20 or 40 questions that I have on the issue. The minister does not need to worry too much, but I have real concerns. He started by talking about the amalgamation of the two committees, but it seems to me that one committee is consuming the other with a wee bit lip service being paid to the role of disability. That does not look like amalgamation to me.
It is certainly a change in the organisational structure; that must be accepted. The existence of the new mobility and access sub-committee will enable the same degree of involvement of disabled people in policy making. In fact, it will enhance it because the sub-committee's members will not have to go through the formal appointments process that the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland oversees because the sub-committee will be able to draw them in as required. There is a wide range of disabilities and if, for example, the sub-committee or PTUC was considering a particular issue, such as—I will choose one at random—the special needs of people with motor neurone disease, it could draw in people with expertise on that. The present structure of MACS would mean that the minister would have to appoint people to the committee through the appointments process, which many disabled people find challenging—indeed, some people would argue that the broader community finds it challenging. Therefore, in the sub-committee, we have a body that is able to adapt and respond to the work that it is doing at a particular point.
I agree with what you said about accessibility, which I have worked to achieve all my working life. I believe strongly in accessibility, whether it is for a person with a stookie or a mother with two kids and a buggy.
You said that the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee must mainstream disability in its work, which is absolutely the case. Putting three people who are disabled on the passenger transport users committee is a substantial step forward for that committee, which currently has no statutory requirement for any of its members to be disabled. It brings to the forefront in that committee the rights, obligations, knowledge and connections to the wide range of bodies that look after disabilities and takes that straight to the heart of decision making in that committee.
I am interested in consultation. I am a bit concerned about how two or three people can achieve more participation than could 50 per cent of the members of the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland. How will the sub-committee engage with the wider disabled community, with organisations that represent people with disabilities and with organisations that people with disabilities run? How do we ensure that people are part of the consultation process? How do we ensure that the sub-committee does not simply go off and do its work and that it is an integral part of PTUC?
At the moment, people with disabilities are definitely not an integral part of PTUC. The right people must be involved in making the arrangement work and we have them.
You said that there were 74 responses to the consultation. It is interesting that the main organisations that deal with disability in Scotland, including the Disability Rights Commission and SATA, are the seven organisations that objected to the amalgamation. The fact that a host of organisations that work with disabled people were concerned about the proposals raises questions.
The new sub-committee will probably be a bigger, stronger MACS, and will be leveraged into a new PTUC that previously had no statutory requirement to have any disabled people on it. We propose that there be at least three disabled people on the new PTUC, but I imagine that there will be more than that—in any case, there will be three more than we currently have on PTUC.
I have a few questions about the equality impact assessment. It is my understanding that the purpose of such assessments is to inform policy and decision making. In that case, why was the assessment made after the SSIs were laid before Parliament?
The subject has been under consideration for a long time. The consultation to which I referred was part of the previous Administration's work. A great deal of work was done at that stage. We have formulated the proposals that will give effect to new, stronger representation for disabled people. In the light of that, we carried out the equality impact assessment. The assessment benefited from the joint input of PTUC and MACS when they met. An important part of drawing up the impact assessment was looking at the bodies that are directly involved and which we are seeking to draw together. Getting that contribution, in the knowledge of what we were doing, has enabled us to produce the impact assessment that we have put before the committee.
I did not find the impact assessment particularly enlightening. It gave a sense of the Government going through the motions. The most important part of the assessment is that you say that you have consulted again, so we are not talking about the initial 2005-06 consultation, which, I point out, was wide. I understand that, at the end of that consultation, the minister decided to delay until 2010 the decision on whether the amalgamation should go ahead and to take a bit more time about it. On the back of all that, the impact assessment says that you consulted over 70 key stakeholders
The principled positions that were taken previously were not greatly modified. They key thing that came out of the consultation was that the majority of respondents thought that putting three disabled people on the passenger transport users committee struck the right balance—some organisations suggested two people and one a higher number. The consultation was valuable to us in concluding that the right number is three.
Key groups such as SATA, Inclusion Scotland and the Scottish Disability Equality Forum are advising the Government against this move. Why are you ignoring those views, minister?
A number of suggestions were made and a range of opinions were expressed. For example, Equality Choice Action Support suggested that MACS should merge with the United Kingdom body, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. At the end of the day, I am utterly determined to ensure that we get the resources in place in terms of human beings and that we give PTUC the additional flexibility to draw people into the sub-committee without having to go through the minister or the appointments process. On that basis, I am firmly of the view that the amalgamation will substantially increase the voice of disabled people right across Scotland in policy making and practice.
What resources will you earmark for that? I understand that, up until the end of the last financial year, MACS was receiving £200,000 a year. I asked a parliamentary question on the subject, but you were not able to disaggregate your budget and say how much would go to PTUC and MACS.
I will bring in Bill Brash in a minute. The point is that money is not provided directly to those committees; that is not how it works. There is a budget for supporting the committees but, what is more important, those and other committees have access to funds that are held at departmental level. That enables a committee to tap into central funds. For example, if one year a committee's work programme requires it to commission external research, it can go through the Government central research unit. That allows us to establish whether such research has been done, thereby avoiding duplication, or to consider what extended research might be required.
Did you consider alternative models including recognising the important status of MACS as a statutory organisation and encouraging it to work jointly with PTUC—in effect, to be the sub-committee? MACS could have become the independent sub-committee. Did you consider directing PTUC to do that? Did you consider any alternatives?
Yes. The option was brought to me early in my ministerial career. I cannot speak fully on the subject, but it appeared to be an overhang from before the election. At that stage, as a minister relatively new in the post—I forget the exact date that it was brought to me—
June.
It was in June—within a month of my taking office. At that time, I concluded that I wanted to see what was happening, and that is what we have done.
You said that there is an overlap between PTUC and MACS. When I hear that, I am concerned that some things may fall through the gaps. For example, PTUC may think that MACS will deal with something and therefore not consider its full remit of representing all users correctly. Will you talk us through the overlap and explain how you will ensure that that problem does not happen when there is a sub-committee and full committee in session?
There is overlap and underlap. Some of the responsibilities of the two committees overlap, and others exist only in one of the two committees. An example of an underlap—a responsibility in MACS but not directly in PTUC—is the built environment. That involves many different things, including access to railway stations. There is an issue in respect of devolved and reserved responsibilities, although—as the previous Administration did—we have found that it is possible to invest in relieving access problems at railway stations alongside the Department for Transport's programme. Bus complaints are also part of the underlap: they are the responsibility of PTUC but not of MACS.
There is still anxiety among disability groups that some of MACS's remit will fall. Will you reassure the committee that that will not happen, and that when problems are brought to your attention in the future, they will be dealt with and examined as speedily as the committee or sub-committee can do so?
It is certainly the intention that not a single aspect of MACS's remit should fall. Moreover, the convener of PTUC has assured me that he will ensure that that does not happen. If he is in any doubt, he will approach me for a letter that would empower him to do whatever will be required, which section 42(2) of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005—to which I keep referring—empowers me to provide.
When such a change is made, it is important that there is proper review to evaluate whether the intended aims come to pass and to test the anxieties that some groups have expressed. Will you detail the evaluation process that will be available to ensure that the proposal works as ministers wish it to?
We intend to hold a review in a year's time, but we will do so sooner, if required. It is entirely reasonable that people who have become used to working with one structure should wish to be fully satisfied that the new structure is at least as good as that which is being replaced. I believe that the new structure will pick up everything in the present work programme and all the activities that are being undertaken. I hope that as many of the personnel who have been involved in the consideration of such matters in the past will be available to the new structure.
You mentioned recruitment, which is another issue that disability groups have brought up with us. Why have there been gaps in recruitment? Will you talk us through that process? There is great concern about the fact that MACS was being wound down even before the Government took its decision.
I ask Mr Brash to comment.
As we know, the members of MACS all had terms of appointment. We knew that we would have a problem maintaining the number of members who were statutorily required, and the previous minister was aware of that. Papers were produced for the next round, but an election was coming up and the then minister, who had decided that he wanted to continue with his review following the election, thought that it would be a waste of public money to enter, before he had done his review, a recruitment process that could take about nine months.
There do not seem to be any more questions from members, but I would like to pursue one or two points.
As has been said, the consultation was general. All the respondents have a say in respect of disabled persons, but the consultation was on the Public Transport Users Committee in general. We did not say that disabled people were allowed to speak only on disabled issues.
I accept that it was a public consultation, but I am asking how many organisations representing disabled people, or with a focus on disability, supported the proposal?
I do not think that we will be able to give a detailed answer. However, from the list of consultees it is clear that for a substantial number the interests of disabled people are an important part of their decision making, even those that are not focused solely on such interests. For example there was, as you would expect, significant input on disability issues from the trade unions. The range of respondents included the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Disability Rights Commission and the Rail Passengers Council. Although the focus of many organisations was not restricted to disability issues, the organisations had a direct and engaged interest in disability issues. For other organisations, that interest might appear less clear, as you would expect.
I am aware that all public bodies have an equalities duty, and that it is entirely legitimate that they be consulted on such issues. However, I am asking about the specific organisations and—
Well, what I—
Forgive me, but as far as I am aware, the organisations that you listed did not support the specific proposal. I am thinking in particular of the Disability Rights Commission, as was.
I repeat that there was clearly a range of views. Even MACS said in its response that it is not opposed to the proposal in principle but is merely opposed to changes being made before the Public Transport Users Committee had been established. I understand that MACS, without saying that the change should necessarily happen, said that the subject should be considered again at a later date. It has been considered again: we are here today as a result.
The point that I am driving at is that a number of organisations focus specifically on disability or are representatives of disabled people. As far as I can make out, they have spoken more or less with one voice against the proposal, even if a wider public consultation has resulted in a majority who are in favour of the proposal. Is not it reasonable for organisations to be concerned that, if the merger of the two bodies goes through, they will find themselves in the same situation, in which they speak with one voice on a specific access or disability issue, but are overruled by a wider body of representatives?
No—
You do not understand their concern.
I understand their concern perfectly. I come back to saying that change can always cause concerns until it is explained and justified. Disability bodies should take account of the proposed sub-committee of PTUC, which will be powerful and will engage directly with the issues. It will be able to draw more people into its membership and will be freed from some of the shackles of direct ministerial control that currently inhibit its ability to draw in people from among those with a wide range of disabilities. For the first time, there will be a statutory requirement: PTUC will have to have disabled people among its members. There will be at least three of them and I expect that, in time, there will be more.
As there are no further questions, I thank the minister and his officials for giving evidence.
In a sense, I am not against the idea of PTUC being strengthened. It has a very important role, so I am not against the organisation. My concern is that it will not represent the views of disabled people in Scotland.
It is certainly helpful that Cathy Peattie acknowledges that there is value to be had from increasing the role and input of disabled people on PTUC. The order that is being debated today seeks to do that for the first time, and to put in place a statutory requirement that at least three disabled people will be on an expanded committee of 15.
We have debated the new sub-committee and its wider role. I am unhappy with Cathy Peattie's suggestion that the wishes and needs of disabled people will be sidelined as a result—they are being mainstreamed. PTUC will work in a fashion that will allow the needs of disabled people to be much more at the heart of decisions about public transport and wider mobility interests. The establishment of the sub-committee means that those needs have not been sidelined. The proposals are sensible.
The minister does not wish to respond further to points that members have made. I invite Cathy Peattie to sum up the debate and to say whether she wishes to press the motion or to seek leave to withdraw it.
I stand by the motion because it is important that we consider the issue of mobility. I believe strongly that, if a sub-committee is set up to do a piece of work, that work can get lost. I do not believe that the proposals in the SSI would take forward the views of disabled people in Scotland, so I am minded to press the motion.
The question is, that motion S3M-2022, in the name of Cathy Peattie, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Motion agreed to.
That the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee recommends that nothing further be done under the Public Transport Users' Committee for Scotland Amendment Order 2008 (SSI 2008/186).
The committee will report to Parliament accordingly.
If we want to listen to and act on what disabled people say, we must involve them in the discussion. The voice of disabled people in Scotland must be heard. I would like MACS to be better resourced and its work to be encouraged. I know that in the past MACS has been proactive and has been involved in building access reviews and in advocacy, but recent changes have stopped that work. I know that there have been membership issues, which must be examined, but the committee's role is important.
I certainly agree with Cathy Peattie that MACS's role and responsibilities are important, but to maintain the committee in its present form would deny us the flexibility that would come from integrating it with PTUC. It would also deny us the opportunity to draw more people more rapidly into engagement with the key issues, such as the built environment, on which there are particular issues for blind people.
I agree with Cathy Peattie's motion. MACS should be strengthened—we should ask what we can do to hear the voice of disabled people more clearly. Will disbanding that discrete committee improve the lot of disabled people? I am not convinced that it will. The minister has said that he wants to hear strong messages about what disabled people need, but I am not sure that he is listening. Key disability groups, including SATA, Inclusion Scotland and the Scottish Disability Equality Forum, have all said no to the measure, but the minister is keen to move ahead with it. The case has not been made. We should proceed by strengthening MACS.
I can well understand why there is a lot of frustration among disabled people about progress on the built environment, such as stations and ferry terminals, and about ferries, trains and buses. However, I wonder how much of that frustration has been built up in the past six years and in a long period before that, as a result of a lack of progress on those matters. Perhaps that frustration is clouding people's views about the best way in which to get change and to get it quickly. The members who voted for motion S3M-2022 will want to vote for S3M-2023 and keep MACS in existence. That may send a signal, but that signal will not get to the root of the problem; rather, it will maintain an institution that perhaps has not achieved what it might and should have achieved.
Minister, do you want to respond to any of those points?
I simply highlight that MACS has had considerable difficulty with getting members and with the appointments process. I had thought that creating a more flexible structure under the umbrella of PTUC would remove many of the barriers to disabled people contributing through the formal structures that Parliament has legislated for. We shall wait and see what the vote is on this occasion.
Minister, it would not matter what your political persuasion was—I would feel the same. If you look at my track record, you will know that I would give Labour ministers a hard time if I disagreed with them.
I am sure you would.
It is important that the minister reconsider the proposal—we need to listen to the voice of disabled people throughout Scotland. I agree with Alison McInnes that it is important to listen to organisations, so I would like there to be a strengthened MACS. The minister is right that the work of MACS has been difficult, at least in the past year. That has been a result of its losing its secretariat and, as we heard from Bill Brash, not being able to have elections. I believe that the organisation has been run down. I want the organisation to be built up and to work hand in hand in the future with PTUC to make transport better throughout Scotland for able-bodied and disabled people.
The question is, that motion S3M-2023, in the name of Cathy Peattie, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Motion agreed to.
That the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee recommends that nothing further be done under the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland Revocation Regulations 2008 (SSI 2008/187).
We will report to Parliament accordingly.
The discussion has been useful. I will consider what we wish to do, as there are several options. We are not divided on the objectives—only on the means. Wherever we go from here, it is important that we take that thought from the room. We are all committed to making life better for disabled people and to ensuring that the responses to disabled people's needs benefit the wider community. I hope that we can work on that basis. I thank Cathy Peattie for promoting the debate, which has been useful.
When the SSIs go to the Parliament—the Parliamentary Bureau will decide when that happens—there will be an opportunity to put on the record again the general support for the objectives that we share.