Equal Opportunities Committee, 11 Mar 2008

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Official Report 288KB pdf

---

Disability Inquiry

Agenda item 4 is our final scheduled evidence-taking session on the implementation of the recommendations in our predecessor committee's disability inquiry report. I am pleased to welcome John Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth. Mr Swinney is supported today by Bill Brash and Fiona Locke from the Scottish Government and Alastair Young from Transport Scotland, who are also welcome.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make a brief opening statement before we move to questions from members.

It is my pleasure to give evidence to the committee on the report that its predecessor committee produced in the previous session of Parliament. The inquiry covered a broad range of issues and I will not attempt to go into every element of the evidence in my opening remarks. I will respond to questions from members.

I emphasise that the commitment to delivering equality for people with disabilities is shared across the Government. We are working in every area of the Administration to ensure that we tackle appropriately the Government's statutory duties to ensure equality for people with disabilities and that we make interventions in policy areas to tackle relevant issues where we need to improve performance. Our focus is on ensuring that we tackle the issue by delivering a mainstreamed approach, that we work throughout the public sector on implementing our duties in respect of equalities and that we do that as part and parcel of the working and operating priorities of public sector organisations.

The report covers a broad cross-section of matters. In relation to my responsibilities, today we are looking at, predominantly, transport, volunteering, tourism and employment—in respect of access to work—although I will be happy to answer questions that the committee has on other issues.

We are working with people with disabilities and their representative organisations to ensure that the agenda is taken forward effectively within the Government. I look forward to working to ensure that, in the course of the Administration's term of office, we not only deliver our duties in relation to tackling issues of equality for people with disabilities but take positive and active steps to ensure that we improve access to public services and opportunities for them. I will be delighted to answer the committee's questions.

Thank you for your opening statement and for the written submission and answers that you gave the committee on aspects of the recommendations relating to physical access.

I will start with the report's recommendations on access to work. What is the Scottish Government doing actively to encourage disabled people to enter the job market? The question relates specifically to recommendation 9.

Our purpose as an Administration is to increase sustainable economic growth in Scotland. We have a particular opportunity to make progress by ensuring that we motivate those who are currently economically inactive to enter the labour market and to become economically active.

Many people who have disabilities are unable to access the labour market because of impediments and the lack of facilities in and access to different employment situations. Part of the challenge that the Government faces is to ensure that we do everything in our power to make it as practical as possible for individuals who are excluded from the labour market to gain access to employment. We are taking forward priorities in a number of areas.

The work that we are undertaking through a dialogue with stakeholders and interested organisations is designed to identify barriers to employment for people with disabilities. I know that the committee has discussed the skills development agenda with Fiona Hyslop. We aim to try to ensure that we have, essentially, a seamless approach to creating routes for individuals to gain access to employment through skills development.

One of the impediments that we have to get over is that of ensuring that our policies and those of, for example, the Department for Work and Pensions, are properly aligned. We must not put in place, through our decisions, structures that individuals use only to find that they run counter to DWP rules. We are trying to ensure that there is common ground, so that we can guarantee that it is easier for people to gain access to employment.

You will be aware that recommendation 9 sprang out of a concern that, although the fresh talent initiative was promoted in order to bring people into the country to increase the size of the workforce, we were not exploiting our pool of talented disabled people. Are you confident that a balance has been struck?

I take the committee's point that some people in our society are economically inactive. Many different obstacles prevent people from gaining access to employment: some have drug and alcohol problems; some have mental health problems; and for others physical disabilities are the obstacle.

We have to encourage employers. There is a lot of activity in different public sector organisations to find ways in which people can make a meaningful contribution. In the private sector, there have been some fantastic initiatives for people with disabilities. Not so long ago, I visited a distillery in which the bottling line had been designed so that people with physical disabilities could work on it. In one fell swoop, about half a dozen people with disabilities entered the labour market. I welcome and applaud that initiative. It was one intervention by one company, but such practical interventions in the private sector will make it possible to employ disabled people.

The public sector has an equal duty to make it possible and practical for people to enter the labour market. That is a continuing priority for us. I assure the committee that the Government will not do anything to give priority to one element of our policies without ensuring that access to employment for disabled people is considered fully and effectively. Without a doubt, we have a real talent base that we are not utilising properly.

The example that you gave is welcome. Highlighting good practice will raise awareness and perhaps encourage others to utilise the skills of disabled people in a similar way.

I want to ask about access to work as well. The cabinet secretary has just been speaking about routes into work for individuals. Obviously, the DWP has responsibility for that as well.

Petition PE1069 calls for the promotion of opportunities for disabled people to work from home. Could information on working from home be included in information that is sent to businesses? If businesses then disseminated that information, it could make life easier for people who currently find it difficult to access work.

The Government's election manifesto contained the aspiration of encouraging more flexible working and more home working. There were many reasons behind the aspiration, such as having less congestion on the roads into our cities in the mornings and making a positive contribution to reducing our carbon footprint. If, procedurally and structurally, organisations—including public sector organisations—accepted more home working, it is clear that people with disabilities would have more opportunities to become active in the labour market.

When we talk of home working, one issue that we have to watch and guard against is isolation. We have to strike a balance between the benefits of home working and the risk of isolation. In another forum, when I was making the argument for more home working, a member of the public reminded me—vigorously—of the risk of isolation. People with disabilities can feel isolated in the community. If we try to ensure access for them to a place of employment, we may tackle that sense of isolation.

Within the parameters of that approach, there is a good deal more that we can do to make it possible for individuals to gain access to economic activity through home working. The Government is working to try to encourage more home working and more flexible working, in both the private and public sectors. We will continue to take forward that work. I take on board Sandra White's suggestion that we should encourage and motivate businesses in that regard. The suggestion fits well with the convener's reflection on the employment opportunities that I saw on my visit to the distillery. We have to beat the drum for success by highlighting good practice where we see it and encouraging others to follow suit.

On the issue of isolation, it is important to differentiate between different sorts of home working. Someone with a job at the Parliament may be able to work from home, which would help to address congestion and the other issue that you raised. However, exploitation of home workers was recently brought to my attention again. Trade unions cannot organise for home workers and the minimum wage may not apply to them. We need to bear those issues in mind when we discuss home working.

The point is absolutely valid and was well made. In all the interventions that we make, we have to be careful to take proper account of the protection of individuals' rights. As a society, we have to undertake that obligation.

I turn to recommendation 10. What monitoring or evaluation has been done to assess the extent to which the recommendation that

"the enterprise agencies fully integrate disability into all their future policies, initiatives and publicity material"

has been met?

The enterprise agencies have taken on board that recommendation. Their mainstream work and priorities reflect an approach that is designed to be inclusive for people with disabilities. That chimes with what I said in my opening statement.

On monitoring, we maintain regular contact with the equality officers at Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. As a consequence, we can supervise closely the equality matters in business programme that emerged from those discussions. Scottish Enterprise has published its "Equal Opportunities Annual Report 2007", which is the second such report. We have requested a similar report from Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which is in preparation.

We want to ensure that the agencies undertake the work. Obviously, they have a significant contribution to make in the wider dissemination of our agenda on motivating more people, including disabled people, to become active in the labour market. We will supervise the role of the agencies in that context.

In recommendation 15, the committee proposed that the Scottish Executive should work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission

"to raise awareness and provide information and advice to employers on the employment of disabled people"

and that

"the enterprise agencies should establish networks with employers' organisations to disseminate information and examples of good practice."

What progress has been made on the two aspects of the recommendation?

Scottish Enterprise has worked to raise awareness of disability issues among employers. In October last year, it hosted a conference on mental health considerations being an obstacle to individuals entering the labour market. About 150 organisations attended the event, 45 per cent of which were from the private sector. The event focused on ensuring that those who attended were made aware of workplace issues in relation to people with mental health difficulties. Best practice was shared on how to address and support people with such challenges.

Highlands and Islands Enterprise is planning joint activity with the Highland employer coalition to promote the employability of disabled people—that work is continuing. Both enterprise networks are involved in the equality matters in business project. There is a further contribution to be made to that project by the enterprise networks. We will evaluate the work that has been undertaken to assess its effectiveness and determine what difference it has made in helping to address the challenges that individuals face.

It would be useful to get your response to a comment by the Federation of Small Businesses. It said that it has not seen any significant improvement in the area, and specifically that there has been no progress on the recommendation to establish

"networks with employers' organisations to disseminate information and examples of good practice."

The FSB said:

"the definition of the range of disabilities is something that continues to be unclear to many of our members."

All of us, and particularly those in the business community, operate in an environment in which time is precious. I make a point that is a hallmark of many of my contributions to parliamentary debates: we can put in place structures that are just too cumbersome. I am not suggesting that the networking opportunity that you mentioned should not exist, but I would rather that we just got on with the task of engaging with people and companies.

In mentioning what Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are doing, I cited two examples of productive activity that is designed to address the issue rather than to create another structure that would have to be serviced, would become another priority and another part of the infrastructure and would contribute to the overall bureaucracy. I would rather that we did things and created positive outcomes as a consequence.

The enterprise networks are trying to incorporate positive thinking into their areas of activity. Frankly, I would rather that they concentrated on best practice and said to employers, "Look at what's possible. Here's an example. Look at what can be done." They should motivate others to play a part. A great deal more can be achieved in that way.

If the committee has a specific concern that the FSB has highlighted, I will of course be happy to look into it in further detail and provide the committee with further information, if that would be helpful.

Your comments are sensible and I am sure that the FSB will be encouraged by them. You said that there is continuing engagement so that activity in this area becomes almost a norm rather than something that is set apart.

Correct.

Will the changes to the structure of Scottish Enterprise have implications for those who are responsible for implementing the employment strategy?

It is likely that the only impact will be greater cohesion in what goes on. One difficulty posed by the local enterprise company structure was the fact that the task of conveying messages throughout the organisations and getting buy-in to those messages was often challenging. With the new structure that we are putting in place, the leadership of Scottish Enterprise will have a greater opportunity to do that work. It is clear that Scottish Enterprise is involved in the area of work that we are discussing.

If my memory serves me correctly, the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise reported to the convener of the previous Equal Opportunities Committee on performance in that area. The reforms that we have introduced will provide Scottish Enterprise with a much more cohesive opportunity to spread the message directly, through the enterprise network.

We move on to the issue of career progression.

The inquiry heard contradictory evidence on the career progression prospects of disabled people in employment and recommended that the previous Executive carry out research to establish whether there was a disparity between disabled and non-disabled people in employment. Has such research been carried out? If so, what were the findings?

We have not carried out any more research, for the simple reason that the available research pretty much tells us the story. Although I am sure that some members of the Parliament would like the Government to engage in endless studies by consultants, the Government takes the view that the available research confirms the central point of the committee's recommendation—that there is a real disparity in career progression between people with disabilities and non-disabled people.

Tabulating the problem again will not take us any further forward. We must advance the arguments for a more inclusive approach to people with disabilities and ensure that there are no impediments or barriers to their advancement in the labour market. We can address those issues in the public sector, where we must meet certain obligations to ensure that individuals have proper access to opportunities. There are many areas in which both private and public sector organisations could do more to tackle the problem. I would rather focus on constructive interventions than on rehearsing the extent of the problem that exists.

The recommendation was not just about counting numbers. Do you not agree that research is important, as it provides us with a baseline and measurements that have been tested? We can use that baseline to test whether the situation has improved. If we do not have a baseline in the first place, we cannot know whether what we have done has made a difference.

In 2005, the previous Administration published "Disability and Employment in Scotland: A Review of the Evidence Base". The information that is available to me indicates that the review gave a pretty comprehensive picture of the extent of the problem and can provide us with a baseline. I agree that we must focus on delivering action to address the issue, but I am satisfied that the current evidence base quantifies the scale of the problem and the challenge that we face. The real issue is to ensure that we make progress in tackling the problem.

I am pleased that Marlyn Glen raised the issue of baselines, because I was planning to mention the 2005 report. Every year, John Wheatley College monitors the situation to see who has and has not been promoted. That is a good approach. The 2005 report bore out the disability inquiry's conclusion that fewer opportunities are available to disabled people. The committee is seeking a guarantee that action will be taken to close the gap that exists, to ensure that disabled people are not overlooked for promotion—the report indicates that that is happening—and that their career prospects improve.

I come back to my point that the evidence base supports that proposition and the committee's concern. The challenge is to ensure that we create the circumstances and culture in employment that enable us to make progress on the matter. That is the nub of it for me. Employers, whether in the private or public sector, must make it as practical as possible for individuals with disabilities to progress within the labour market. As well as continuing to take steps to expand the range of opportunities for people with disabilities to gain access to employment, we must intensify those efforts to ensure that the problem that the evidence base highlights is addressed more urgently than it has been to date.

I do not want to labour that point, because I know about the report that you mentioned and the work that is going on at John Wheatley College, which is encouraging employers to take a stance such as it has taken by monitoring and ensuring that career prospects exist for disabled people. I am sure that the committee will come back to that at some point.

We will move on to questions on access to leisure.

I will ask about the tourism review. The report recommended that

"In order to increase provision of services to disabled people"

the relevant Scottish Executive minister—that is you now, cabinet secretary—

"and VisitScotland should develop, as part of the tourism review, a strategy to promote Scotland as an accessible destination to potential disabled visitors both from home and abroad".

We saw some evidence that disabled visitors, particularly those from home, could not access ferry services, for instance, and that the VisitScotland website did not always say which boarding houses and hotels were disabled-person friendly. What is your view of services—including VisitScotland's services—for disabled visitors, and has any strategy been considered or developed?

Since the report was published, VisitScotland has established a standing group that is used as a channel for input from people with disabilities to the disability equality scheme that it has run since 2006. The group has met three times since January 2007 and primarily focuses its attention on meeting disabled people's needs for tourism information services. That work is designed to improve access to information such as the web-based information on suitable destinations and facilities that Sandra White highlighted.

The VisitScotland disability equality scheme sets out VisitScotland's approach to fulfilling its general duty to promote equality of opportunity between disabled people and others, eliminate discrimination and ensure that it promotes positive attitudes towards, and participation by, disabled people in the life of our community.

In addition, VisitScotland is considering redesigning its disability equality scheme to ensure that the organisation takes a much more comprehensive approach than has been taken to date. Ideally, an individual with disabilities should be able to access very easily the type of information that they require to have at their disposal before they make a trip. Obviously, web-based technology allows us to provide exactly that information.

I know that you will go on to discuss transport, but one point that was raised under the tourism review was the need for ferries and other public transport services to be wheelchair friendly. I raise the issue because it comes under the tourism remit, but I know that you will respond to that fully later on so I will leave it until we come on to questions on the transport strategy.

Our predecessor committee recommended that the Scottish Executive's volunteering strategy be reviewed to ensure that it promotes and encourages the participation of disabled people in volunteering. How has that recommendation been progressed? Will there be any opportunity for people with disabilities to volunteer during the Glasgow Commonwealth games in 2014?

There are great opportunities to make significant progress. A cross-Government submission is to be made to ministers, providing options for the review of the volunteering strategy. That will come to ministers before the end of the month—we are awaiting that now.

On volunteering generally, I announced last week some of the allocations to the third sector. To me, the third sector offers a broad range of opportunities to encourage volunteering, particularly for people with disabilities. It comprises a flexible set of organisations that are very attuned and attentive to finding practical solutions to the challenges that individuals face in our society. I am confident that ways to enhance and support volunteering will emerge from the organisations that support volunteering in Scotland—Volunteer Development Scotland comes to mind.

We will be looking for opportunities to encourage people with disabilities to become involved in volunteering. The evidence trail is clear that, if an economically inactive individual becomes involved in volunteering and has a good experience, they will end up in the labour market. That is why I attach such significance to the third sector tackling some of the challenges and encouraging people who are economically inactive and who have disabilities to enter the labour market.

Your specific point about the Glasgow 2014 games was excellent—a really super point. I will certainly feed back to the officials who are involved in our constructive discussions with Glasgow City Council and the Commonwealth games organising committee the importance of reflecting on the opportunities for people with disabilities to become involved in the 2014 games. There are admirable examples of individuals with disabilities taking part in sporting activities—with more zeal than some of us these days—which shows what can be achieved. Glasgow 2014 will provide a great platform, and I will ensure that those involved are aware of the suggestion.

The committee will be interested to see that correspondence.

We move on to the huge cross-cutting issue of transport. You may be interested to know that, before your evidence, we had a round-table discussion on age. There were older and younger representatives, and transport was mentioned. It is certainly timeous that you are attending the committee so we can put the issues to you directly.

Are we any closer to achieving equality of mobility for disabled people than we were in 2006 when the committee's report was published? Do we have an appropriate strategy to create parity of mobility for disabled people within the Government's overall transport strategy?

I think that we are making progress. I am not going to sit here and say that the job is completed, because it clearly is not. We have enormous physical challenges in our transport infrastructure, but I think that we are making progress.

I attended a bus summit this morning, before I came here. It was essentially a gathering of key local authority people, the leaders of most of our major bus operating companies in Scotland and a variety of other interested parties, including the traffic commissioner. One point that I discussed with the bus operators was the steps that they are taking to ensure that the bus fleet is replenished regularly and in a way that is mindful of the needs of people with disabilities.

I know from my constituency experience that there is now a broader range of services. Buses have low floors and are wheelchair accessible so that people in wheelchairs can easily gain access to a comfortable and secure place for their journey. In that respect, progress has been made in a number of areas, which I am sure we will explore in more detail.

The Government's national transport strategy, which we were happy to inherit from our predecessors and which we have given a commitment to follow, makes it clear that the delivery of service must take full account of the six strands of equalities, which ensures that adequate account is taken of the needs of people with disabilities. That runs through the policy approaches that have been taken.

Within the new national performance framework, we are testing the Government and the public sector in general on our ability to achieve major outcomes, one of which is to have tackled the significant inequalities in Scottish society. So, right at the heart of the key elements on which the performance of the Government in making Scotland a more successful country will be judged and measured is the outcome that we have tackled the significant inequalities in Scottish society. There will be a number of measures by which to assess whether we are making progress in that respect.

This morning, the ageing stock of some bus companies was mentioned. It was suggested that if users could be told that a user-friendly bus—as opposed to a double decker that would be inappropriate for those who are less mobile or who use wheelchairs—would definitely turn up at a specific time, that would go a tremendous way towards servicing the need without having to replace the stock with buses that are practical for those with mobility issues.

That is a helpful point. I understand that the Traveline Scotland information will shortly include information on whether the vehicle that serves a particular route is accessible to people with disabilities. I am pretty sure that that is not far from being implemented. That will go some way towards addressing the issue.

I feel obliged to point out on behalf of the various bus operators, who made the point to me quite forcefully this morning, that they are investing in significant refurbishment and replenishment of the fleet. In all the decisions that they make on interventions, they will be mindful of the need to fulfil their obligations in relation to disabled access. We all accept that it is impossible for bus operators to replenish the entire fleet in one fell swoop, but good progress is being made. The information that will soon be made available by Traveline Scotland will, I hope, address the issue as well.

That is encouraging. Thank you.

You referred to the aspiration to make Scotland a more equal place. When you assess the progress that has been made, what baselines will you use to measure success or otherwise?

Further to the point that you have just made, have the bus companies given a timescale for making their fleets fully accessible to people with disabilities?

I do not have information on how long it will take for the entire bus fleet to be made accessible to people with disabilities. I am not sure whether I could be given a definitive timescale even if I asked, although I will make inquiries on that point.

Work on the baseline has been going on for some time. We inherited progress on the issue that the previous Administration had encouraged. I could draw a baseline today, but that would not take into account the progress that has already been made. A rising number of the vehicles that are being used are fully accessible to people with physical disabilities, and the Government is taking steps to encourage that rise to continue. That is part of the focus of the discussion that is going on at the bus summit in my absence.

Is a policy in place to incentivise or penalise those who do not expedite the progress of disability access, or are discussions on that taking place? I realise that it is much easier to incentivise people in the public sector, but has any progress been made on that?

I am much more the incentivising than the penalising type because in my experience penalising does not really work.

The Government encourages a variety of players in the transport network to progress disability access. In that network, we try to do as much as we can with the available resources to ensure that we deliver as much progress as possible.

There is tremendous willingness to make progress on disability access. This morning, we discussed ensuring that the bus industry, for example, works with local authorities as part of the Government's agenda to try to improve the performance of the network to satisfy the various needs of individuals, which include, of course, the needs of individuals with disabilities. The Government takes that process seriously. It is engaging partners within the national outcomes framework, through which we have given a clear steer to people about what we want them to achieve. We cannot state the importance of the national outcomes too frequently. The Government has given a message to all organisations in the public and private sectors about what we want to deliver and achieve, and about the difference that we want to make. We encourage others to play a part in assisting us to achieve our aims.

Do you have an example of a specific incentive to progress disability access, as opposed to the encouragement that is provided?

We are investing heavily in all public transport activities. We are investing heavily in infrastructure and in the operation of services in the rail and bus sectors and, as a result of our priorities, we take steps to allocate resources to encourage different players in the transport services to ensure that they deliver on our expectations. No specific grant allocation is available to progress disability access at the moment, if that is what the member is asking about, but we are using our policy framework to ensure that organisations recognise the importance of their contributions to delivering on the Government's objectives.

I would like to press you a wee bit further on joined-up transport. We do not have nationalised public transport, so we must accept the reality that there are local and regional differences around the country. I refer to your answer to the previous question. How can the Government ensure that there is appropriate co-ordination across the different transport operators and geographic boundaries to maintain an effective chain of accessibility for disabled people?

In accepting that we are where we are—and we are definitely there—

That is profound.

I assure members that I am full of profundities today.

The discussion that Stewart Stevenson and I had this morning with the key players around the transport table was designed to achieve that co-ordination. It is sheer coincidence that we had a discussion with the bus sector this morning—on another day, we could easily have had a discussion with the rail sector. We are working to ensure that the considerations of different organisations and what they can contribute to achieving the Government's objectives are aligned. There is no point in our putting money into services without saying to people, "Look. This is what we want you to achieve as a consequence." That is why we have moved to the outcomes framework.

The discussion at the forum today drew together all the key players to try to ensure that we establish common approaches and styles of doing business. I know that there are some examples of terrible transport integration but, equally, there are some great examples. The forum that we addressed this morning is trying to encourage the sharing of information and experience of good practice, to encourage ever-better practice. That is the approach that we are taking.

You mentioned this morning's bus summit. In recommendation 107, the committee stressed the need actively to involve disabled people

"in the strategic development, design, implementation and monitoring of all transport services across Scotland".

Was there any representation of that issue at the summit? Have you considered how you could tackle it in the future?

I am keen to ensure that we hear the views and have the input of all people who use our public transport. That is part of the Government's approach. I will certainly be keen to ensure that we have adequate and appropriate input to transport planning from people with disabilities—it is a central issue.

I came away from the discussions this morning hugely encouraged by the willingness of bus operators to make a contribution. Bus operators want to transport as many people as possible. If they can make it easier for members of the public with disabilities to use those services, I detected a willingness to make that possible.

You mentioned the outcome agreements in relation to your discussions this morning. Recommendation 106 was about the monitoring of the equality impact assessments in relation to the transport plans of regional transport partnerships. Has that been set aside or will you still pursue it?

The guidance that we issued to all regional transport partnerships asks that they undertake an equality impact assessment as part of the development of their regional transport strategies. I can confirm that all seven of the draft strategies that have been submitted to the Government, and to which we have responded, include equality impact assessments. There is willingness in the RTPs to do that.

Should there be a requirement to enshrine such assessments in legislation, or are you happy that it is working?

I will reserve my position on that until I see what the pattern of performance is. We have to make progress on such issues and encourage different organisations to play their part. If we feel that there is poor performance, it is clear that legislation is a route that we can take, to create a statutory duty.

Public transport is extremely important to lots of people, especially disabled people. Some people might not have a car, or be able to afford one, or want one for environmental reasons. As was pointed out in our earlier session this morning, although bus passes for older people are welcome, they depend on their being able to get on and off buses. There might not be any bus services in some villages. Elderly people in one part of my constituency have to walk, but I will not go into that.

You are trying to join up transport, but people will not be able to use their bus passes on the trams. On trains, there is a discount fare rather than a free scheme. Do you envision something similar for the trams?

Some issues remain to be resolved, particularly in relation to the trams—a hot subject if ever there was one. We will look at those questions and other wider ones about access to concessionary travel, which I know the committee has concerns about. We will reflect on your points.

The committee highlighted in its report a concern that the service quality and incentive regime—SQUIRE—that Transport Scotland uses to assess the performance of rail transport services covers only some accessibility criteria, and recommended that that regime be amended to cover the full range of accessibility criteria. Can you or, indeed, Alastair Young tell us whether that has been done? I refer to recommendation 108 in the committee's report.

Transport Scotland examined the issue in 2007 and sought opportunities to use SQUIRE inspectors to perform additional checks relating to accessibility and to provide information about them to First ScotRail. The additional checks were to ensure that wheelchair spaces on trains were left in the default position—that they were available to wheelchair users. Checks were also undertaken at stations to ensure that the accessibility information that had been provided by First ScotRail accurately described the situation for members of the public with disabilities and was easily understood. That was essentially an extra element to what the SQUIRE inspectors were doing.

The franchise agreement between the Scottish ministers and First ScotRail has been effective from October 2004. If we wished to enforce any additional changes, that would be a variation from the contract that we have established with First ScotRail and it would result in a direct additional cost on the Scottish ministers. As we examine the First ScotRail franchise in due course, and as we assess what could be delivered through such an approach, we will ensure that those issues are properly considered.

So you will be consulting further—

We will certainly look at the situation. Work has been undertaken despite the fact that there is no real contract provision for it. I hope that the committee will acknowledge Transport Scotland's willingness to make progress. As we consider the franchise, we will examine the issues involved further.

Thank you.

How many of Scotland's railway stations are now fully accessible to disabled people?

I am not sure that I can give you a definitive answer, but I will aim to do so. I cannot give you a definitive total just now, but I can tell you that, last year, a further two stations—Barrhead and Cupar—were added to the programme for taking part in the access for all scheme. The current work-in-progress list is Dalmuir, Kirkcaldy, Motherwell, Mount Florida, Rutherglen and Stirling. Works at those stations are due to be completed by March 2009.

There are more than 130 stations in Scotland that do not have step-free access to all platforms, so we have a major challenge ahead of us. I have just given you a list of stations where initiatives are being taken as part of the access for all programme. That work is directed by the Department for Transport—it is a reserved area. Through Transport Scotland, we suggest particular stations that would benefit from such interventions. We imagine that that approach will continue for some time to come.

Do we have a timescale for when we expect Scotland's railway stations to be universally accessible?

We do not have a target or an estimate of the timescale that is likely. There is a 10-year programme of activity that will permit Network Rail to invest approximately £39 million in improving access to Scotland's stations. I mentioned the list of work for the period until 2009. There will be a further tranche of proposals for investment between 2009 and 2014, and Transport Scotland is working on the identification of appropriate stations for that investment. I suppose that I have inadvertently publicised that, so if members want to make a pitch for a particular station to be assessed by Transport Scotland for the next funding tranche, they should do so sooner rather than later. We aim to make progress as quickly as possible in the context of the resources that are available.

The Administration makes other interventions through Transport Scotland in relation to work to improve stations. As part of such exercises, if there is more that we can do to improve access for people with disabilities we will pursue those opportunities.

You have answered the final question that I intended to ask, so I will focus instead on school transport. I am interested in the provision of accessible buses, given what we have said about the quality of the fleet and the contractual nature of school transport arrangements. What pressure can the Government bring to bear to ensure that school transport is as accessible as we intend public transport to be?

I am unable to guarantee that every child with physical disabilities who goes to school will be transported in a school bus, because it would be practically and logistically difficult for us to deliver that. However, I am pretty certain that local authorities endeavour to deliver the requirements of all children who have special needs in relation to school transport. I would be surprised to hear that that was not the case and I would investigate further.

I asked about ferries in the context of a discussion about tourism, and we heard evidence about joined-up thinking and so on. During its disability inquiry, the Equal Opportunities Committee in the previous session of the Parliament heard that people who try to phone the ferry companies sometimes cannot get hold of the right contact, and that people have had to wait at the bottom of the jetty, flashing their car headlights to alert staff that they need help with a wheelchair. That is not acceptable.

We also heard that on a ferry that had been upgraded, the only place for a wheelchair was right next to one of the poles—I do not know what they are called. During a fabulous sail to the islands, the passenger's only view was of the pole, so she could not take much pleasure from the upgraded ferry. Will you consider such issues?

Those are fair points. The committee asked us to consider the availability of travel information in accessible formats, to support people with disabilities. Transport Scotland continues to develop travel information services, either by providing information directly or by funding other organisations, such as Traffic Scotland and Traveline Scotland—which I mentioned—to provide information.

Work is in progress to dedicate a section of the Traveline Scotland site to accessibility issues, such as information on accessibility in bus stations, railway stations, ferry terminals and airports. I hope that in all circumstances in which an individual with disabilities was travelling, every endeavour would be made to ensure that they were accommodated and supported properly.

The disabled persons protection policy, which was reviewed in 2007, is designed to ensure that people with disabilities are able to obtain the proper assistance they require while they are travelling. If there are any gaps in that provision, we would be happy to consider them.

You have obligingly answered in considerable detail the first question that I was going to ask, so I will skip on to my next one.

Recommendation 117 is that the Scottish Executive should

"introduce and ensure the enforcement of minimum national standards in relation to staff training in disability equality and the provision of suitable customer care for disabled travellers".

Are any such national standards now in place?

The national transport strategy referred specifically to the introduction of training, particularly for bus drivers in Scotland. It is to ensure, for example, that people are given enough time to get on a bus and to be comfortable and secure before the driver moves off. Training has been recommended in the strategy and work on it continues.

I said to Sandra White that it is incumbent on operators, such as ferry service operators, to take into account the circumstances of people with disabilities. I have seen a large number of laudable examples, particularly in the rail network and the bus network, of care being taken to ensure that people with disabilities are supported properly. That is a priority for service operators. If there was a concern that that was not functioning properly, the Government would be prepared to consider carefully any issues that might arise.

Interestingly, when we took evidence on age we heard that people do not have enough time to get on buses and have difficulty keeping their feet when the driver decides to take off without warning.

I do not disagree that that is a concern for members of the public. I am happy to look into whether appropriate training infrastructure is in place that will guarantee that people are being given enough time to get on to buses and so on. I would have thought that it was a pretty elementary part of operators' duties of care and safety provision to ensure that care is taken before drivers move off.

We all agree with that.

Recommendation 118 is that

"the Scottish Executive should encourage all transport providers to implement … suitable monitoring programmes to ensure that Disability Equality Training has the desired impact".

That relates to what we have just discussed. What action does the Government plan to take to ensure that such monitoring takes place?

Last June, First ScotRail, in association with the Disability Rights Commission, conducted a survey of travel for disabled people and held a conference to discuss the results. There is on-going work on undertaking such assessments, which individual operators will take forward. Transport Scotland manages the ScotRail franchise. First ScotRail has recently undertaken what could be characterised as a mystery-shopper exercise to see how disabled individuals are dealt with. That is an effective test of whether approaches have been properly taken forward. Obviously, that is not a one-off: such exercises must be used systematically to ensure that provision is appropriate and that operators of transport systems are taking appropriate approaches and are taking into account the needs of people with disabilities.

My first question relates to recommendations 119 and 120. Sheila Fletcher of the Community Transport Association has said that

"Demand-responsive transport and flexibly routed services are the ideal solution"

to the problems of disabled people, and that

"small, local, flexibly routed services is the key to success."—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 2 May 2006; c 1719.]

You might have answered my question when you talked about the disabled persons protection policy. Recommendation 119 said that the Scottish Administration should

"co-ordinate the development of properly funded, long-term, demand-responsive transport services across Scotland".

What is being done to implement that recommendation? Has it been addressed? If not, how will that be done?

The Government funds several demand-responsive transport services through the DRT initiative and the rural community transport initiative. As part of better aligning and integrating public transport services, we decided to include such resources in the local government finance settlement, to give local authorities the opportunity to plan demand-responsive transport effectively in the context of the wider transport provision in a locality. Our judgment is that an opportunity exists to involve and immerse local authorities in planning and directing the formulation of new demand-responsive transport services.

A good amount of activity is going on but, to be blunt, it will never be enough. Some remote localities in my constituency would dearly love to have demand-responsive transport, but it is a comprehensive service to deliver. Initiatives are being taken and there are several very good examples of how such services are targeted at the needs of people with disabilities. The Government will continue to support that process through dialogue with local government, to ensure that councils are fully engaged in developing it.

Such services are particularly important to disabled people in rural areas.

Yes.

Recommendation 121 was that the Scottish Government

"make current and future demand-responsive transport services eligible for concessionary fares in line with the"

confessionary—I mean concessionary—fare scheme.

Confessionary?

Thank you. I tripped myself up, but I recovered.

Learning disabled people who receive the low-rate mobility element of disability living allowance and who regularly use public transport for social and employment reasons are having difficulties because that element is going. How will the Government address that?

I appreciate that the question raises issues about provision. A major review of the free bus travel scheme for older and disabled people will be undertaken in the forthcoming financial year. This Government did not initiate that—the previous Administration built it into the establishment of the national scheme. That review will provide the opportunity to consider the position of people who receive the low-rate disability payment. Extending the travel scheme would obviously have financial implications; the scheme is already a pretty challenging financial undertaking for the Government.

Before we leave demand-responsive transport services, have you had representations from the deafblind community? They have a dual sensory impairment and so often need to be accompanied by a carer or someone else, but that does not always happen on our travel services.

Mr Stevenson, the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, has received significant representations from Deafblind Scotland. We have discussed the issue and will examine it further as part of the review of the scheme to which I referred during my answer to Bill Kidd.

Okay—that is very welcome.

The committee report recommended that the Scottish Executive

"work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to encourage and support local authorities in providing concessionary taxi schemes."

What has the Scottish Government done on that?

Although I am certainly happy to enter into dialogue with COSLA on that, such schemes can really only be offered at the discretion of local authorities. We do not require local authorities to provide such facilities, although there will be examples of local authorities that do so. We have not actively pursued the issue with local authorities, but I would be happy to raise the issue with COSLA during our discussions.

That would be helpful. To recap, the 2004 research showed that less than half of local authorities operate a concessionary taxi scheme, although it would seem to fit in with demand-responsive transport schemes. Sometimes a person might not be able to get a bus but could take a taxi, so a concessionary fares scheme could be important to older people and lots of people in rural communities. Access to a scheme should not depend on one's postcode.

I know that there are different levels of provision in different parts of the country, but it is a local issue. The previous Administration absorbed the various local authority concessionary fare schemes into a national scheme, but did not include that particular provision. I am certainly happy to consider the point, but I stress that, as it stands, it is a local issue.

Such a taxi scheme would be beneficial in rural areas, but would the taxis be suitable for disabled people? A lot of taxis in rural areas are private and do not suit disabled people.

Yes—that would be a challenge in rural areas, and it would have to be considered as part of the initiative.

Thank you.

The report recommended that the

"equalities criteria included in tender documents for transport services should be developed in conjunction with disabled people and the subsequent services monitored and evaluated against these criteria in consultation with the disabled travellers who use the services."

Can you update the committee on that recommendation?

That goes back to my earlier comments about the First ScotRail franchise, which is the tendering exercise that the Administration has under its control. The franchise will run until 2011, with a possible extension until 2014, and when the contract is due for retender, the questions of disabled access will be reconsidered to determine what additional provision might be required.

The procurement or tendering process must ensure that there is no discrimination in relation to employment, so contractors and service providers must not discriminate unlawfully. That must be applied in all circumstances.

My final point relates to the investment process that we undertake through the Scottish transport appraisal guidance. That is being looked at again, and it will include the need to ensure that funding and approval for accessibility issues is adequately considered and that it is included in the infrastructure investment process. When we are making major investment, those issues are very much at the heart of our decisions.

Funding is fundamental to that.

Evidence during the inquiry highlighted concerns regarding provision and use of accessible parking. The committee recommended that the Scottish Executive, COSLA and others identify and implement a suitable process to ensure the provision of adequate accessible parking for disabled people. What has the Scottish Government done to take that forward?

Some research has been undertaken under the umbrella of tackling the abuse of off-street parking for people with disabilities in Scotland. The aim of the research was to investigate abuse of parking bays that are reserved for people with disabilities and to consider measures that might be taken to address that. Jackie Baillie has proposed a member's bill on disabled persons' parking. We expect the bill to be published in the spring. The Government will give serious consideration to its provisions.

That is encouraging. However, that is about abuse of parking spaces. There were also concerns about the provision of spaces. Is there any progress on that?

That is really a matter for local authorities, which are trying to ensure that their accessibility commitments are fulfilled. The most effective way of doing that is to allow for local dialogue in individual areas about whether provision is adequate for people with disabilities. It would be difficult for the Government to try to direct or second-guess that. It is an issue in which local authorities should engage in dialogue with people with disabilities and their representative groups to determine what provision would be most appropriate. If there is an issue of abuse—which is what Jackie Baillie's bill is designed to address—it is one that the Government must consider in terms of legislative provisions. At this stage, however, the other issues are best left to local authorities.

I understand that it is a local issue. I will not go into a particular example, but I know of areas in which the provision is inadequate. Will you try to encourage local authorities in that respect?

Yes, although I would be reluctant to go down the route of issuing further guidance, because we would be beginning to overspecify what is expected of authorities. We have a shared aspiration with authorities to ensure that our communities are as accessible as possible, and that individuals are able to be economically active, and involved in our communities. To do that, however, individuals may require disabled parking places in appropriate places. There is willingness by authorities around the country to try to address that point. The question whether provision is adequate is one for dialogue between representative groups and local authorities.

I want to highlight a matter that is related to that. As well as considering the availability of disabled parking, particularly for wheelchair users, we need to consider the availability of drop-down pavements. Disabled parking without such pavements is rather valueless. If we are considering protection for disabled parking spaces, it would also be useful to have protection for drop-down pavements, for example by making it easier to put double yellow lines beside them. The problem is often that, although there may be a drop-down pavement for the disabled parker to get their wheelchair into their car, if someone has parked over it, the effect is much the same as having been denied the disabled parking space in the first place.

That is a fair point. In considering such issues, we reach a point at which we just have to ask people to be decent and to think about other folk. No amount of guidance that is issued by the Scottish Government is going to affect the practice that you mentioned. We can see with our own eyes the insensitivity that is displayed by some members of the public. Only individuals can take responsibility for that.

Perhaps that is an example of a case where disincentives are needed. It is not just about encouragement.

We could have more double yellow lines, perhaps, but the last time I looked, some folk were still parking on double yellow lines.

Has resourcing of the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland been reviewed to ensure that it has the capacity to carry out its representative and advisory roles effectively?

Yes. In October 2006, when the then Scottish Executive prepared for the establishment of a joint secretariat for MACS and the Public Transport Users Committee for Scotland, it reviewed the number of staff and their gradings, roles and workload. It concluded that a remote secretariat of four seconded staff was adequate to cover the business of both MACS and the PTUC. In December 2007, a further review of the secretariat's workload concluded that the secretariat would be more efficient and effective if it was co-located with the transport directorate at Victoria Quay in Edinburgh. That change was made in February 2008. A dedicated staff of two is supplemented by management and administrative support as well as by policy input from throughout the directorate.

Have you had any feedback on that? Have the changes been enough to support MACS's extensive roles, or is it too early to say?

The changes were made only last month and I have not had any immediate feedback or an update. However, examination of the matter showed that there was a need for the change to be undertaken.

It would be interesting for the committee to follow that up.

That concludes our questioning, cabinet secretary. I thank you for your evidence today and for offering to provide additional information. I also thank your officials for attending our meeting. It is safe to say that we are all encouraged by the progress that has been made in a huge number of key areas.

At a future meeting, the committee will consider all the evidence that it has taken, which dates back to December, when Stewart Maxwell came before us. We heard next from Fiona Hyslop, and our evidence taking has concluded today with John Swinney's evidence. We will decide what to do next.

Meeting continued in private until 13:02.