Official Report 239KB pdf
Good morning and welcome to the 14th meeting in 2006 of the Equal Opportunities Committee. I remind everyone—including members—that mobile phones should be turned off completely, as they can interfere with the sound system.
Thank you for inviting me to the meeting. I have followed the committee's inquiry with great interest. The inquiry has been one of the most detailed that I have come across, so reading the evidence has been quite a challenge. The committee has obviously become very involved with the issues and we are pleased to be involved today and hereafter.
Thank you. I will ask the first question. The committee notes that the Scottish Executive's equality strategy was published six years ago in the document "Equality Strategy: Working together for Equality", that the strategy was reviewed in 2001 and 2003 and that it is scheduled for review again this year. Given the recent legislative changes in respect of equalities, will the review present an opportunity to refocus the strategy and set new targets?
It is certainly a big opportunity to reinforce the strategy but I am not quite sure whether we will refocus it. For some time, we have been trying to do voluntarily what is required by the important statutory levers—the disability, gender and race equality duties. We have been trying to follow the principle of mainstreaming. We accept that we need to and can do better, but the mainstreaming approach is consistent with the new statutory duty.
The committee would welcome a discussion on targets. There has been reluctance in the past to discuss targets because it is difficult to set them. We understand that, but we feel that, unless we can measure how successful a policy is, it is difficult to see where we are going.
I work to do that as an individual, but I should mention Yvonne Strachan, who works on all equality strands, and Hilary Third, who works on the strands of disability and sexual orientation. The formation of the Executive's equality unit in 1999 was crucial to promoting the agenda, and the unit's work with officials must be given as much attention as the work that I do. Indeed, the unit is focused on that work 100 per cent, whereas I also have to attend to other areas of my portfolio, albeit that they must all embody equalities.
You have clearly indicated that although progress is being made on mainstreaming, we are not there yet. There is concern about the apparent lack of progress on mainstreaming, which the committee feels may have led to some of the complaints from disabled people who have given evidence to us. There is also concern that some Executive departments seem to have embraced equalities issues better or more fully than others. What challenges face Executive departments in that respect? Would you like to add anything to what you are doing to advance mainstreaming?
I certainly share the frustration of the committee and, indeed, of disabled people that disability equality is not sufficiently embedded in mainstream policies and services. However, it is a long-term commitment and I do not think that we ever thought that we would change things overnight. Obviously, however, we want to speed up the pace of progress. The new disability equality duty is an important lever in enabling us to do that. It means that there is a legislative requirement for everybody to take responsibility for disability equality. The Executive as a whole will have to report in 2008 on progress on the duty; crucially, all ministers will have to report on progress in their areas of responsibility. Therefore, apart from our collective efforts, the external lever of the disability equality duty will in itself be a great aid in driving forward mainstreaming, removing barriers and creating opportunities for disabled people.
Are you happy that there is a sufficiently joined-up approach in the Executive with regard to policy development in relation to disabled people?
No, I would not say that I was happy; it would be complacent of me to say that. I think that we are making progress, but I am the first to admit that we have a long way to go. That is why I very much welcome the disability equality duty, which I think will enable us to make the step change that we want to make.
The committee heard in evidence that new legislation introduced by the Executive may make it more difficult or expensive to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. For example, the committee heard that an owner who wishes to make structural changes to premises in order to make reasonable adjustments may find that there are costly building standards, planning or licensing consequences. How can the Executive ensure that legislation is co-ordinated in a way that avoids those difficulties and which does not create additional barriers for disabled people?
This is a complex area, but I would certainly hope that, in principle, legislation would enable us to drive the equalities agenda forward rather than hold it back. It would be good to hear of other examples like the one that you described. Certainly, I have become aware of the occasional tension between health and safety legislation and the requirements of the DDA. Genuine issues may well be involved at times, but I worry that health and safety legislation is sometimes used illegitimately to block progress. There might be issues around that. However, health and safety legislation is a reserved matter, so it is obviously not so easy for us to deal with it.
We will give practical examples when we ask questions about physical access.
We are trying to develop systems and mechanisms to track progress across the Executive. For example, we designed a database that logs the outcome of equality impact assessments and we will develop systems that enable us to focus on outcomes. Part of our duty as a public body will be to review our disability equality scheme annually. We are keen to hold organisations and ourselves to account.
The Prime Minister's strategy unit report, "Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People", was published in January 2005. Witnesses from the Disability Rights Commission Scotland told the committee that there was no delivery mechanism in Scotland for the report's recommendations and that there was a lack of co-ordination. How do you respond to those comments?
I am interested in the report and support many of its recommendations. However it begins by saying that it makes no recommendations for the devolved Administrations. It makes recommendations that apply to reserved areas and to the devolved Administration in England—if I can put it that way—but it makes no direct recommendations for us. That is not to say that we are not interested in the report's conclusions. I was most struck by the recommendation on independent living when I read the report. We are considering such policy areas and the disability working group with which we have been involved has been considering the same range of matters within devolved areas of responsibility. We will consider the reports of the committee and the disability working group alongside the United Kingdom report.
It seems that action will be postponed until we have prepared our report.
The disability working group has been considering the matter and I am sure that the committee has been doing so, too. Although I have not formally received the working group's report, I am told that it regards the matter positively. I cannot today make a commitment to setting up a task force, but I certainly do not rule out doing so. The independent living agenda is important in the context of the social model of disability, which we and the committee accept. I am sure that the committee will ensure that the Executive gives further thought to the matter.
During our visits throughout the country, disabled people talked a lot about independent living and asked us to consider the issue—we will return to it.
Good morning, minister. The written evidence that we received from the DRC states:
Sorry, what was the last bit of the question?
Basically, will disability equality training help to combat the problem?
Absolutely. Disability equality training is extremely important and we take it seriously within the Executive. The corporate learning services team within the Executive is reviewing our diversity training course to ensure that it delivers stronger messages about the perception of, and attitudes to, disabled people and other groups. We also have an active staff disability network. Within the Executive, that is certainly important.
Good morning, minister. My question is along the same lines. It is a fact of life that, until disability actually touches people personally, they are unaware of what is really happening out there. Do you have any thoughts about how we could educate school children to make them more aware? Could we build the issue into the school curriculum to alleviate the problem?
That is a good example of the importance of mainstreaming, as there is certainly a role for equality training in general in schools. The younger that people can be made aware of these issues, the better. However, the way in which the curriculum is described and constructed is quite positive from that point of view. As members will know, the curriculum for excellence concept includes four key elements, one of which is on becoming a responsible citizen. The curriculum framework emphasises values, respect for others and the importance of understanding the position of others. There are specific guidelines on such matters for schools, but perhaps even more important than those is the fact that the fourth national priority in education is values and citizenship. There has been some movement in the school curriculum, but that is not to deny that much more needs to be done.
You used the word "respect", which reminded me of the Zero Tolerance Charitable Trust's respect campaign—it has rolled out a pack to some schools. I will understand if you do not have the answers to my questions at your fingertips, but we would appreciate further information.
I am a great admirer of Zero Tolerance's respect campaign and have discussed it with the Minister for Education and Young People. We are certainly keen to promote it. Similar campaigns exist, so one issue is whether to promote just one campaign or campaigns in general. However, we are in no doubt that such an initiative has a positive impact in schools, so I am positive more generally about such initiatives in relation to disability equality, if that is what we are focusing on.
John Swinburne, Elaine Smith and others have talked about mainstreaming, which involves staff training. We have heard evidence that people believe that, to mainstream service provision to disabled people effectively, equalities should be included in job descriptions and objectives. What are your thoughts on that? Does the Scottish Executive do that?
That is an important matter. I am not sure to what extent equalities are covered by job descriptions; that might be a question for one of the officials, because I am not really responsible for that.
Equalities are not contained in job descriptions, because the pattern of recruitment for jobs—especially internal recruitment—relates to the objectives of a job or involves a more general description of what a job entails. However, that does not mean that some job descriptions do not have specific objectives that refer to an equality perspective. That will vary, but there is no central determination of that.
Thank you for that explanation. We have been talking about job descriptions, equalities and diversification, and I would like to know the minister's thoughts on the idea that objectives should be written into job descriptions. Is that something that the Executive would be prepared to consider, so that it leads by example if that is not the practice in the big, wide world?
I would certainly be happy to consider that, but job descriptions in the Executive are not something for which I have responsibility. Nevertheless, it is something that could be looked at.
I hate to labour the point, but is that something that you could suggest to other colleagues?
Okay. We can agree on that.
I squeezed it out of you. Thank you, minister.
I certainly think that it is an important area and that the Executive has a role to play. We want to explore the most appropriate and effective way of ensuring that disability equality training is delivered to a consistently high standard across Scotland, and we are working with disability organisations to consider how that can be done. It is certainly something that has been considered by the disability working group, and we will certainly also want to look closely at the committee's research and at any recommendations that the committee wants to make.
In its written evidence, the DRC called for a
I was pretty positive when I touched on that earlier. There are judgments about how many big campaigns we can have, so there are different ways of doing it. We have led the way on race equality and on an aspect of disability that I referred to—the see me campaign—and I think that what we have done in Scotland has been groundbreaking. The DRC's are we taking the dis? campaign has been successful—at least, I imagine that it has, although all such things have to be evaluated. I do not know what the evaluation will be, but the campaign certainly seems to be a good initiative so, in principle, I certainly support public awareness campaigns. We also touched on the school dimension, and there is always a question about how targeted such campaigns are, so we always have to do more than one thing.
The committee has heard that teaching citizenship in schools offers a way of combating negative attitudes. What plans do you have to integrate equalities into the primary and secondary school curriculum, to ensure that attitudes are changed as early as possible and targeted throughout the school years?
I touched on that earlier. There are guidelines in relation to social subjects, religious and moral education and so on. Those guidelines touch on individual and collective rights. Perhaps more important, the fourth national priority that I referred to—on values and citizenship—is:
Is there any mechanism whereby, if you run across some gem of excellence somewhere in the education system, you can financially reward the people responsible, so that they can make more progress with it? Alternatively, will people just have to work within their tight budgets?
I know that a lot of funding goes directly to schools nowadays, but education spending is a bit out of my territory, I am afraid. I am not sure whether any of my officials is sufficiently into mainstreaming to answer. One of the problems with equalities issues is that we have to know everything about everything. Sometimes that is not possible, so we might have to leave that question sticking to the wall.
No, I am talking about particular schools. The other day in Parliament we were talking about schools of excellence such as Glencairn primary school in Motherwell, which teaches children with hearing impairments. A great difficulty arises when the children go to secondary school, because there is no continuation of the scheme. Can you ensure—with finances—that there will be a continuation?
That is a more specific issue. It is surely part of mainstreaming in schools to ensure that disabled students have proper support.
Yes.
Well, that is certainly something that should happen. There is an attempt to make it happen, but I do not know the precise details of how that is worked out. Marlyn Glen looks as though she knows all about that from her previous job.
I do try.
It is important in principle. I am sure that there must be issues that are to do with different local authorities operating differently. I will follow the matter up with the Minister for Education and Young People. I am sorry that I cannot give a precise answer. I do not know whether any of my officials has pursued the issue. It is obviously an important area, as it is a prerequisite of mainstreaming that support is available. Some of the negative comments that we have, unfortunately, heard about mainstreaming recently—in so far as they are at all justified—have related to there not being the necessary support available for that to happen properly.
Are there any other ways of combating negative attitudes towards disabled people that the Executive could pursue?
We have pursued some. I came across an example in which Nanette Milne might be interested, given the fact that her party flagged up our use of a certain newspaper. In 2003, we had a supplement in The Sun—
Was that on the 25p that pensioners get when they reach 80?
It was on the European year of disabled people. In that instance, we were trying to combat negative attitudes. I am not saying that that is why we picked The Sun, but that happens to be the newspaper that we picked.
It is worth noting that the frustrating thing about the sticker or sign for disability is the fact that it always shows a wheelchair. Disabled people feel that that is perhaps not an appropriate symbol to use. We need to use an image that is more up to date.
I want to ask about information, but I have a final point to make about tackling negative attitudes. The committee believes that it is important to do that from an early age, which is why I asked you about the respect campaign. You said that there may be other information packs. Do you think that there should be a curriculum standard and a co-ordinated approach to that? If the respect campaign material is used, there should be some input from the Executive in commissioning that material and rolling it out across Scotland, so that we do not have only some authorities or only some schools within an authority taking it up, which would lead to completely different standards. If that material works, why cannot the Education Department and the Development Department's equality unit work together to find some funding to get that rolled out as standard throughout Scotland?
That is a good point. Most of the areas in which I am not able to give definite commitments this morning seem to impinge on education. I have paid tribute to the progress that has been made in education, but some issues have come up to do with education funding and, now, the curriculum. There are all sorts of issues around the extent to which curriculum material is dictated from the centre, some of which are to do with whether we have a national curriculum in Scotland, which we are always told that we do not have. There might be some potential sensitivities and controversies on that point. We need to draw the whole range of issues to the attention of the Minister for Education and Young People.
My point is that the Executive could co-ordinate the materials—look at them, do some research on whether one of the information packs could be standardised, and fund it. Funding is a big issue as well. We will leave it at that for now, though, as I want to talk about information.
I am not sure about the extent to which we have a co-ordinating function. The Executive, as an employer, definitely has a role in that, and human resources in the Executive has a diversity strategy and programme that involves information. Hilary Third or Yvonne Strachan might want to say something about that. However, for the most part, it is other agencies that have that role, whether they are local authorities, further education colleges, or whatever. To be honest, I do not think that we have a great role in co-ordinating that information.
No, minister—what you have said is correct. There is no specific role for the Executive. The legislative framework for disability is a reserved matter, so it has tended to be UK departments that have provided information relating to legislative change. Latterly, the Disability Rights Commission has played an enforcement role. There is no need to duplicate that work or to cut across other agencies' responsibilities.
I will come to formats in a moment. Is there not a case for promoting the services that are available through a helpline that the Executive could co-ordinate? People may not want to approach leisure services only in their own area—they might be visitors or tourists. I can imagine situations in which people would want to access information but in which it could be difficult to track down all the individual providers. Also, how does monitoring and evaluation take place? There could be good services out there, but how do people know about them?
That is a challenge to us. As Yvonne Strachan and I have said, that is not a role that the Executive performs at the moment; we cannot pretend otherwise. You make an understandable point, although I think that it might be difficult to co-ordinate such information at a national level. However, if that is something that you want us to look into, we will do that.
It would be worth looking into, as the issue has been raised with the committee.
In general, we make information available in the form that people ask for. The need for that arises particularly in respect of consultation documents that the Executive issues. The only qualification that I make to that is that it is individual departments that take the lead on that, so I cannot claim that there is standard practice throughout the Executive. That may be a weakness, if there are bad examples, but the general principle that we follow is to make information available in the form that people ask for. There are obviously quite a lot of variations regarding whether a document is published immediately in other languages, formats, and so on. In general, we would make a document available in other languages and formats.
So you make different formats available on request.
Yes.
How long does it take to meet such a request, or does that depend on the format that has been requested? I am concerned that if a consultation lasts three months and it takes two months to provide the consultation document in a different format, that gives the people who have made the request only four weeks to respond.
It does not normally take that long. However, I will ask Yvonne Strachan to comment, as she is closer to some of these matters.
The situation will vary according to the request. Experience has shown that demand will be greater in certain areas than in other—perhaps more technical—areas, and we have to anticipate and balance such aspects and be proportionate.
Of course, the issue might not have arisen because the barrier is so great that people simply do not bother to participate or contribute.
The consultation and dialogue on the development of good practice have concentrated not simply on providing documents in an alternative format but on different methods of communication such as face-to-face meetings or the use of interpreters to ensure that any difficulties of engagement are overcome and that evidence, information and responses are gathered in a way that allows the individual or group to participate more fully. We are trying to become better at such processes and to have a range of methods that allow us to engage positively with communities and allow individuals or groups to respond to consultations and to be involved in policy making.
That is good news, because the issue of engagement arose when the committee took evidence from the Somali women's action group on the Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Bill.
We have provided about £80,000 to the Scottish accessible information forum to assist it with its various objectives, the most fundamental of which is to develop, publish, promote and support standards for disability information and advice provision in Scotland. That is what we are doing at the moment; I am not sure whether you are suggesting that we should be doing a lot more than that.
I think that I will leave that matter for our recommendations.
The committee has received evidence on the lack of availability of interpretation services. Indeed, a recent Scottish Executive research document entitled "Investigation of Access to Public Services in Scotland using British Sign Language" concluded that disabled people
That research reached some challenging conclusions, particularly the one that you have highlighted. Of course, as the report highlights, the corollary of that is the lack of available interpreters. We are aware of deficiencies in that area and have, at least, been reasonably active in dealing with them. For example, we are involved with the British Sign Language and linguistic access working group, which has been meeting for a few years now and can claim some significant achievements, especially with regard to the number of sign language interpreters in Scotland.
Another piece of Scottish Executive research, "Translating, Interpreting and Communication Support: A Review of Provision in Public Services in Scotland", highlighted the need for a language strategy and a coherent translating, interpretation and communication support policy. How is the Executive taking forward the findings of that research?
We are bringing together an implementation group to consider the recommendations of the research and the most effective ways of taking them forward. There are lots of issues in relation to minority ethnic communities, but obviously the research touches on British Sign Language as well.
It seems to me that it is an increasing problem that will have to be given some priority if we are to involve everyone in the community. Thank you.
I agree.
I do not think that you are blowing your own trumpet enough. We see people using sign language in the chamber and you are doing great work in encouraging that. It is caught on camera as well. You are doing an excellent job.
You mentioned the research that the Executive commissioned following the debate on communication impairment. What is the timescale for developments with that?
We are doing the research in phases. We have started commissioning the first phase of the programme, which will be fairly brief in that it will be a review of existing research. That will report in the autumn. We will not use it as a delaying tactic, but we need to do that work to inform the second phase, which we will commission in the autumn when we have considered the implications of phase 1. We will then develop a detailed set of requirements and a research advisory group will work on the tendering process. Individuals who have particular expertise in the field will be invited to join the group.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I reconvene the meeting. Marilyn Livingstone has the next question.
The committee has heard at its many consultation events throughout the country that, despite the DDA, physical access is still a barrier to employment, education and daily life. Why do you think that that is still a problem?
It is a big issue. The simple answer is because lots of buildings are old. I hope that building standards will take account of access in new builds. Although there is still discussion about the extent to which those standards are adequate, we are upgrading them. I hope that physical access will be dealt with increasingly in new builds, but there is a major issue with existing buildings.
In the context of taking a co-ordinated, joined-up approach, we have been looking at access to leisure and recreation buildings, but inaccessible buildings also create problems in workplaces. We have to consider how people get there and how they access transport. I do not ask you to answer that in detail because we have heard from the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications, but you asked for examples. One example would be to give young disabled people taxi passes to allow them to get around more freely. However, if there are no adapted taxis that they can use, the passes become a bit useless. I just wanted to put that example of evidence that we have heard on the record for you.
I suppose that there is communication. I am not sure whether the witness was referring to communication within the Executive or communication between the Executive and other tiers of government, particularly local government. Perhaps he was referring to both.
I think that it was both.
Discussions take place already. As with other matters, the situation could no doubt be improved. The committee will be aware of the planning advice note on inclusive design, which was a collaborative effort between the planning division and the Scottish Building Standards Agency. That fairly recent document is a positive one that lays out what is expected of new developments. That is a positive example, but I certainly do not claim that deficiencies do not exist. Obviously, the equality unit is involved in discussions, which Yvonne Strachan may want to mention.
An issue has been raised about the plethora of legislation, regulations and guidance on access for disabled people. The committee heard in evidence that there is confusion about what is mandatory and what is reasonable, an issue to which the minister has alluded. We have heard that disabled people sometimes feel that health and safety legislation, which the minister mentioned, can be used as an excuse for not allowing them to participate in particular activities. What can the Scottish Executive do to simplify the process?
I have asked questions about that. The issue is much easier when we are on mandatory territory, which is the case with the building standards and with what I believe will be the improved building standards that will be produced at the beginning of next year. However, the territory of reasonable adjustments is more difficult. Marilyn Livingstone talked about the relationship with health and safety legislation, which I mentioned earlier. Another issue that we come across from time to time is the apparently conflicting priorities of the DDA and Historic Scotland. The DRC and Historic Scotland are aware of the issue and are doing research on how it might be resolved. I am aware of the difficulties that arise from competing priorities and from the term "reasonable adjustment"—I do not claim that the situation is ideal. Any suggestions about how to improve it would be welcome, although the DDA is a reserved matter.
When the relevant provision in the DDA came into force in 2004—when reasonable adjustment should have taken place—it was difficult to decide how far service providers had to go to provide the service. For example, could a very small organisation afford to put lifts or even a ramp into a building or paint the building to help those with visual impairments? A group of access consultants has been set up for the past four or five years. It has given advice to service providers and building advisers on what it believes would be reasonable under the circumstances. The final decision on what is reasonable is up to the sheriff, but I am not sure how many cases go to the sheriff. I hope that the DRC would come to an agreement with the service provider and the disabled person on what would be reasonable. The access consultants would be a big help in deciding what would be reasonable.
We heard in evidence that, whether a building is being adapted or is a new build, there is not enough consultation with disabled people at the beginning of the process and that a lot of ensuing problems could be avoided by proper consultation.
Ian Herd might want to take up the issue about BS 8300. Your general point is important, in that delivering disability equality is important for everyone. As you suggest, if we get it right for disabled people we will get it right for everyone. That is an important dimension for all policy makers to be aware of.
Marilyn Livingstone raised several issues. First, architects have been encouraged to discuss their proposals with access panels. To what extent they take the feedback from the panels on board in their design is up to them and their client. The client will make the final decision and I think that it was clear from earlier evidence that, much of the time, the client will decide on a financial basis. Architects are aware of the access panels.
Can I just interrupt you there? How much of that is required and how much of it is in guidance? That is the issue.
The mandatory requirements are functional. There is no prescriptive guidance; that was removed in 2005 because it was very restrictive to say that architects or designers had to do one specific thing. If they wanted to do something different, they had to get a relaxation of the requirements and it was quite a bureaucratic process. However, I am convinced that when they are verifying applications, local authorities examine disability issues closely and, if architects or designers do not follow the guidance that we give, they ask very specific questions on how they can make their designs comply with the standards using the guidance as a baseline. If architects and designers do not comply with the specific requirements in the guidance, they have to do something equal, if not better. So even though it is guidance, the local authorities have been very strict in seeking compliance with it and asking for our requirements to be included in new buildings.
Yet we have had disabled people from up and down Scotland complaining about new buildings not being accessible.
It would be good to have some examples of that. I hope that some of it will be dealt with by the new building standards.
It is very difficult to see how new buildings are not accessible because they are required to be, and they will be even more accessible under the guidance that will be introduced in 2007. Certain small parts of buildings did not require to be accessible because, at the time, the technology or the cost of providing the access was prohibitive. However, technology has taken big steps forward and it is now much less difficult to provide access to all parts of a building.
What about my question about making BS 8300 compulsory?
Many of the issues covered by BS 8300 have been covered in the guidance that will be introduced in 2007. It is mentioned in our technical handbooks as good practice guidance. Clearly, the minute that legislation is made, it becomes the minimum requirement, so BS 8300 is proposed as good practice guidance and because we are calling it up, it will de facto become the minimum requirement. We are suggesting that that is a method of compliance; the local authorities do not have to do it but they must provide something similar, equal or better.
My question is in a similar vein. Minister, you have already mentioned the planning advice note on inclusive design and said that it is a positive development, and I am sure that there is agreement on that. However, the committee is concerned about the evidence that it heard from the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland. Its representative said that the PAN would not make much difference to the work that architects do. Ian Herd just said that local authorities use that advice when they are giving planning permission and if the design does not comply with the guidance, they go back and ask the designers to do something different. There seems to be a bit of a contradiction in the evidence that we are hearing.
I was concerned by more than one thing that the RIAS said, but some of the new developments should help. I have mentioned the access statements that will be required for a large number of planning applications. They will alert architects to the issues and the access statements will be broader than the building standards; they will cover all the other access issues in a development. That will be helpful and, equally, I hope that the new guidance will also be helpful. Certainly, architects will have to follow what is required by the building standards.
I must admit, I was a bit surprised by what the representative from the RIAS said. Many architects try very hard and disability issues are becoming much more visible. We admit that, some time ago, they were not, but since we introduced accessibility into the building regulations in 1985, we believe that architects have been taking the subject much more seriously. Obviously, we have a lot further to go. The new format of the building regulations explains the issues that architects should be thinking about rather than prescriptively requiring them to do X, Y and Z without understanding the reasons for those requirements. That will mean that they will give closer consideration to disability issues.
On that point, it might be worth noting that we had three or four witnesses from the architectural community. Sitting listening to their evidence were some disabled people, one of whom said that the architect did not have a clue what he was talking about. That was said by the elderly gentleman from Dumfries who was in the wheelchair. The architect's evidence did not inspire me with any confidence.
There is no doubt that that session was very striking. As you pointed out, Mr Swinburne, that gentleman's evidence was very refreshing. It just highlights the fact that if we do not involve disabled people, we are not going to get it right. From the developments that have been described, I hope that we are getting better, but I do not think that we can claim that we have got it all right. We need to involve disabled people at every level of policy making.
The Scottish Building Standards Agency has recently consulted on amendments to the building standards in relation to access to buildings. Minister, you just mentioned access statements being linked to planning applications. Are those compulsory? Can you give us an idea of how the proposed changes are going to affect disabled peoples' access to buildings?
There are two separate issues there; I am sorry if I have confused them. Access statements are referred to in the proposed new section 32 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as proposed in section 6 of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill. The proposed new section 32(3)(a)(i) says that an application
The committee heard oral evidence on the existing inconsistencies in the approach to funding, training and methods of working in the work of access panels in Scotland. You mentioned good practice; access panels have a big role to play in ensuring that we get good practice. What is the Scottish Executive's view on the work that is done by access panels?
Certainly, access panels are important in terms of the input that they have into a range of policy developments. In particular, they help local authorities in their work to create environments that are physically accessible. We have allocated £500,000, I think, to support access panels. In tandem with funding individual access panels, we are also providing £300,000 of funding to the Scottish Disability Equality Forum, which is the umbrella body for access panels and provides co-ordinated support and training. In those two ways, we are providing resources to build the capacity of access panels. Having said that, we are looking at how we can build on the work that has already been done. We are in discussion with the Scottish Disability Equality Forum about the most effective way of providing continued support.
Given that I stated that people are telling us that things are not changing, I am interested in how the proposed changes to building standards will include physical access for disabled people.
Ian Herd can talk about this in more detail than I can, but there are lots of specific examples. Lift access, which was referred to in general terms by Ian Herd, will now be provided to all storeys. Currently, there are exemptions for particular areas in a building. There will be improved guidance on accessible toilets, to the effect that the size and provision of accessible toilets will reflect current good practice. There will be improved guidance on accessible bedrooms in residential accommodation. I could read out a lot of examples from the list before me. Each one might appear to be relatively minor but, cumulatively, they make a difference.
It would be good to have a copy of the list that you are referring to, minister.
Okay.
Although each issue might appear small in isolation, those are the kinds of issues that make a difference between a person having, for example, a good stay or a bad stay at a hotel.
The major change relates to the provision of lift access to virtually all parts of a building. There were exemptions with regard to area size, because the provision of a large passenger lift was quite expensive for a small building. Now, we have hoists—platform lifts—which are easier to provide.
Thank you—we would like to have such a list.
I have a point about accessibility that relates to lifts. In most hotels, there are signs that say, "In the event of fire, do not use the lifts." If there is a fire, how can disabled people get out of such premises?
There are various ways of getting people out. Lifts—apart from those that are specifically protected from fire—cannot be relied on. If there is a fire, the electrics might well be broken, with the result that someone who is in a lift could get stuck. That is why people should not use a lift in such circumstances, unless it is a fire lift.
You mentioned that there needed to be a certain force on fire doors and that consideration could be given to the use of electrically operated doors. Surely fire doors could not be electrically operated because, as you have just said, the electrical supply can be knocked out in the event of a fire.
The specific details of fire evacuation are not my speciality, but I know that such doors are released magnetically. By the time that they are closed, people should have been evacuated.
We move on to the DDA. In its written evidence to the committee, the DRC said that the provisions of the DDA were not always reflected in policy makers' thinking. How does the Executive ensure that it takes the DDA into account when it develops policy?
We are developing a single equality impact assessment process that will enable policy makers to assess the impact of equalities on new policies and policies that are being reviewed or revised. Although the assessment tool covers all six strands, it is designed so that focus on any individual strand will not be lost. The process will be rolled out through the Executive and its agencies, starting in June—from now, in other words. It will help policy makers to consider equality issues in the early planning stages. In addition, guidance on consultation encourages engagement with equality groups.
How does the Executive ensure that all policy makers, including senior staff, are given specific disability equality training to ensure that they take account of such issues in their work?
I am not sure whether we could claim that all those members of staff get disability equality training, although some of them do. Yvonne Strachan might want to talk about that.
That is correct. As a result of an internal change, we are discussing with our training colleagues and HR people what needs to be done in future in that regard. We are doing that not just because of the drive from the duties but because of a recognition of what needs to be done on the training agenda. We are exploring training. We recognise that disability equality training is critical and that it needs to be considered in some detail.
My questions are on the disability equality duty, which you have touched on already, minister. How is the Scottish Executive working across its departments to implement the forthcoming disability equality duty?
Obviously, that is a big, big issue for us this year. We have to produce our scheme by December. We are working with disabled people, particularly through the disability working group, on the requirement and, indeed, on our desire to involve disabled people in the development of the scheme.
The minister has outlined our general framework for the duty. The critical thing that we learned from the implementation of the race duty is that, if we want to deliver effectively, we need to focus on the impact assessment process. As the minister indicated, we are producing a detailed briefing for staff, which is focused around their policy areas and will lead to a better understanding of disability issues.
What work is being done with outside agencies to ensure that they, too, comply with the duty in full?
There are two points to make. As the minister said, some agencies fall within the Executive's remit—in other words, their work comes under the Executive's programme. For example, Historic Scotland will work with the Education Department. Other agencies, such as the Scottish Prison Service, have their own scheme but work with us to share in developing and understanding the duty and to participate in our implementation group. The idea is that information and experience are shared and there is an opportunity for agencies, where possible, to develop work in concert.
What mechanisms will be put in place throughout Scottish Executive departments and agencies to ensure that Scottish ministers fulfil their duties and obligations?
That is a specific feature of the disability equality duty. I suppose that ministers will have to report in 2008. It is probably true to say that not a great deal of specific work has been done on the ministerial duty, as distinct from the more general duty on the Executive. We are considering what needs to be done specifically with regard to the ministerial duty. The equality impact assessment process has been designed with due regard to that. We will need to report in due course on the specific arrangements for ministerial reporting. I am conscious of the new duty for me and my colleagues, which will have a positive effect on our general mainstreaming ambitions.
I have questions on disabled people in public life. The committee heard at its consultation event that disabled people often feel isolated from their communities and that few disabled people are active in the community. What is the Scottish Executive doing to encourage more disabled people to participate in public life?
I am not sure how broadly or narrowly public life is defined. There is obviously the issue of public appointments, although you are probably thinking of participation more generally. As I said earlier, the main thrust of what we want to do is to emphasise the contribution that disabled people make and will increasingly be able to make if barriers are removed.
The committee received written evidence from the DRC that a target should be set for increasing the number of disabled people in the public appointments system in Scotland. Given that the committee heard evidence from the DRC last week that only 3 per cent of public appointees are disabled people, can you do anything more, other than simply encouraging people?
At the beginning of the meeting we talked about general targets. You are now asking about a specific area in which there could be an argument for targets. I am quite sympathetic to the idea. It would not just be about targets for the number of disabled people; a great frustration for me when I was involved in health appointments was to do with the gender balance. A case could certainly be made for targets for various groups. However, I do not think that that is policy at the moment and I am not sure that it is up to me to make policy in that area.
Go on—do it.
I will just express sympathy with the idea.
The setting up of shadowing and mentoring schemes has been suggested. If that were to happen, it would be a more proactive approach than simply hoping that people come forward.
I do not know how such schemes would work, but they sound like a positive idea.
I do not know if you are aware of it, but the idea has been tried in different parts of the UK for public appointments. I think that it is worth while.
It sounds as though we should consider it.
Would you like to make any more general comments about how to encourage people to take part?
We can consider encouraging disabled people directly, but equally important are the attitudes towards disabled people participating in various activities. We have to work on both; we have to work on public attitudes as well as access and support issues. Changing some of the perceptions about disabled people would be one of the most positive things that we could do, so that it became the norm for disabled people to be involved in the full range of activities that others are involved in.
I want to ask about volunteering but, before I do, we have not heard an awful lot about post-school education and lifelong learning. That is partly because previously we had other ministers before us.
The Beattie report was very important. It was commissioned just before this Parliament started, and it was good for us to have it in our first year. Many positive initiatives have come from it; the horizon centre is one of them. I think that Coatbridge College received a lot of inclusiveness funding. I am told that in 2005-06 it received £1.6 million, so obviously it has benefited greatly from the money that surrounded the Beattie report. We should acknowledge such positive developments. What the acronym BRITE stands for escapes me, but it has something to do with inclusion and technology. The development at Coatbridge College is important.
Perhaps your department will want to consider that issue in carrying out an overview of access to further education. For the—
Marilyn Livingstone is waving at me.
I was going to say for the Official Report that BRITE stands for Beattie resources for inclusiveness in technology and education.
Well done. Was that what you were going to say, Marilyn?
No.
That is a difficult question for the minister to answer.
I read and was interested in the evidence that the committee received. At the moment, I have another constituency case that involves access to FE colleges. We come across such issues in our different roles. There are many experts in the room, but Marilyn Livingstone has direct experience of FE colleges. The issue has been flagged up, and people will consider it in the context of FE college inspections. Somebody made a point in the evidence that there is monitoring, but I am not close enough to the matter to know what the reports have said.
Volunteering is clearly within the minister's remit. Apart from helping society as a whole, volunteering can help volunteers to develop a sense of self-worth, learn new skills and meet people. It can also open the door to paid employment to people if that is what they want. Therefore, volunteering can help disabled people and accessing volunteering is an important equalities issue. Last week, we heard evidence from the DRC that only 6 per cent of disabled people volunteer, which is somewhat concerning. What opportunities does the Scottish Executive's volunteering strategy, which was launched in 2004, present for disabled people to increase their participation in volunteering?
The member raises an important issue to which we have given some attention, although I would be the first to admit that we could probably emphasise its importance even more. Dismantling the barriers to volunteering for disabled people is relevant to the general principles of the volunteering strategy.
The committee got a copy of VDS's top tips, which were interesting. I was a volunteers manager many years ago for VDS and I worked on a project in which VDS was clear about trying to encourage disabled people to volunteer. I had a young man who was a wheelchair user working on that project. VDS is ahead of the game in understanding the issues and trying to promote volunteering in all sorts of ways.
It is an interesting one, but I would have to get project Scotland's view on it. We will certainly raise the suggestion with NCH and project Scotland. I am interested in initiatives that enable citizens to support one another directly and that suggestion sounds positive to me. All I can say is that we will certainly raise it and I hope that we can progress it.
I will await that with interest.
Yvonne Strachan mentioned the disability working group. Do you have an idea of when the group will finish its work and when it will report? I am interested in any possible tie-in with our report and recommendations.
It is interesting that the two reports are being worked on in parallel. I am not sure when the disability working group's report will be ready. Perhaps you can tell me when you will give us your report. It sounds to me as if both reports might be ready at about the same time. I think that we are expecting the disability group's report in about a month's time.
We will have a draft report by the end of the month or the beginning of July.
There you are—it sounds as if you are competing to be first. However, it does sound like the reports will be ready at much the same time, which I suppose is good.
It will be late autumn before we actually publish the report and the final report will be published by the end of the year.
Okay.
We are in a similar position. The group is finalising a draft that will obviously be published a bit later, so it looks like the timetables are consistent.
I thank the minister and his team for their evidence.
Next
Items in Private