Official Report 249KB pdf
Agenda item 2 is the Scottish Executive's response to the committee's report on its disability inquiry. I am pleased to welcome Rhona Brankin MSP, who is the Minister for Communities, and Yvonne Strachan and Hilary Third, who are from the Executive's equality unit.
I thank the committee for inviting me to give evidence. I share the committee's interest in, concerns about and commitment to the issue.
I think that we have shared values and a shared vision on the agenda, and I am glad to hear you talk about the increasing pace of change. However, can I push you a little on the priority? Recommendation 4 of the report asks that a task force be established to advance the independent living agenda in Scotland and that the work be monitored by the Scottish ministers. The committee is extremely disappointed by the Scottish Executive's response, which is to say that it will consider what mechanisms are required to support independent living. The committee considers that such a response amounts to a clear lack of policy direction in this vital area, especially when the DRC and others have said that a Scottish task force is required. What assurances can the minister give that the Executive's work in this area will be given priority and that there will be the full and direct involvement of disabled people?
First, we have not said that we will not establish a task force; it is a matter of timing. This is clearly a priority area for the Executive and for the United Kingdom Government. Discussions are taking place with the UK Government and we want to consider the best way to take the matter forward. Yvonne Strachan or Hilary Third might like to talk about the discussions that have been held with the UK Government. In the broadest terms, I can say that we understand that this is fundamental to work going forward and that it is an area of work on which we will continue to liaise. At a later date, we can come back to the committee and describe our approach in more detail. Would that be okay, convener?
Yes.
(Scottish Executive Development Department): As the minister has indicated, we have an on-going dialogue with the UK Government through, in particular, the Office for Disability Issues. The focus on independent living has been very much part of the office's activities, and that focus is also recognised in Scotland through the two reports to which the minister has referred. We are considering which aspects of the Prime Minister's strategy unit's report and the Prime Minister's direction on disability might be taken forward in Scotland. It is necessary to look at the matter in the context of the work that both the committee and the Executive's working group have done to decide what is the most appropriate mechanism for taking forward the activities and work around independent living. That is certainly not an indication that there is no focus on or commitment to taking the work forward.
One of the issues that we need to discuss with the UK Government is the fact that we have a system for direct payments in Scotland that is slightly different from the system that the Government is looking to have down there. There are areas in which we need to scope out the work—that is already going forward. The commitment is there to do the work. We will certainly examine the possibility of setting up a task force, but the engagement and involvement of disabled people in the work going forward are central.
Thank you. You are not saying that there will not be a task force and you might come back to the committee on the matter.
That is right. The final decision has not yet been taken.
Issues to do with access to work were a major part of our inquiry. A high number of disabled people who are not in work would like to have the opportunity to gain employment. Recommendation 9 of the committee's report asked the Executive to actively encourage disabled people to enter the job market and to promote their doing so, but the Executive's response merely names existing initiatives, which the committee was told in evidence were not working for disabled people. Can the Executive refine its initiatives or do further work to encourage disabled people to enter the labour market?
I want to say a little about "Workforce Plus: an Employability Framework for Scotland", which is a Scotland-wide system of developing employability. In addition to that, there are UK Government programmes such as the new deal for disabled people and the workstep and work preparation programmes.
In a sense, you have answered my next question. You spoke about monitoring workforce plus, which—from the evidence that we took—appeared not to be working particularly well. We found that funding was short term, which makes progress more difficult, that the provision of support was a postcode lottery and that there was no collaboration or joint working between agencies. Disabled people made it clear that workforce plus was not working for them.
We acknowledge that there is a need to ensure that we have a system in which common approaches are adopted throughout the country.
We note that recommendation 19 of our report, which was that the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning should co-ordinate the work-related action plans under the Scottish Executive's disability equality duty, has been rejected in favour of leaving such matters to each department. Through that recommendation, we sought to ensure direct ministerial responsibility and accountability, but the Executive has declined to take our lead. How will you work to ensure that the spirit of recommendation 19 is advanced by individual Executive departments?
The Executive's disability equality scheme, which has now been published, sets out that we have a key role to play in ensuring that the frameworks that we create help to deliver disability equality and that the policies that we develop take account of disabled people.
I am confident that your department understands the issues that disabled people in Scotland face and that it is committed to the work that we are discussing, and I am sure that the committee agrees with me on that. However, to put it bluntly, throughout our inquiry we were not confident that the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department had a genuine commitment to equality of opportunity and to other issues relating to equalities. We feel strongly that that needs to be addressed. I realise that it is difficult for you to respond, but I would appreciate it if you took that message away with you.
I would be happy to do that. The fact that we will have in place a better system, involving regular reporting and the adoption across departments of an outcomes-based approach, will make it easier for committees such as the Equal Opportunities Committee to hold departments to account for their work, which is as it should be.
We hope that that will be the case. I am sure that our successor committee will return to the issue, regardless of which members are on it.
We welcome the detailed work that the committee has done on employment support for disabled people and agree that further work on developing and promoting supported employment must take place alongside the implementation of workforce plus. I assure the committee that we will use its recommendations to inform our considerations on supported employment, but a great deal of work remains to be done on the detail. We will continue to involve internal and external partners who have a specific interest in the issue in the decisions that we take.
The committee welcomes the Executive's response to recommendation 26, which called for a pilot scheme on employment support to be undertaken. Will you tell us about the methodology and timescale for such a pilot?
There have been initial discussions with the supported employment organisations. The consensus is that more work must be done before we consider a new pilot, as recommended by the committee. It has been agreed that we need to explore whether the language that we are using is clear; consider the quality standards and how they are applied; agree on the model to be used; and look in more detail at existing supported employment activity. One of the key matters that we must look at is our resource position after the election and following the 2007 spending review. There is a commitment to move forward but, before we can decide on the timeframe, account must be taken of those matters.
That is a welcome response. As you will have read in our report, we heard in evidence that a lot of work is happening. Mike Evans from Dundee said that, although a lot of money was available, there was no strategic approach and no joint working to develop one. The report offers examples that the Executive could work on with local authorities and others. The committee is putting down another marker to look at how this develops. We are also interested in helping its development if necessary.
We would welcome that.
Good morning, minister. I have questions for you about access to further and higher education. Recommendation 45 asks that the Scottish Executive rectify the lack of careers guidance in schools as a matter of urgency. The Executive's response mentions only the work done by Careers Scotland. The committee was extremely concerned about the lack of guidance and training given to teachers and guidance staff about careers advice to disabled people. That was not mentioned in the Executive's response. What assurances can you give us that the training of teachers and careers staff will be dealt with when that recommendation is implemented?
We will speak later about transition as one of the key times for any disabled young person. The work that was done as part of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 recognised that as well as the need for support and advice to be given to all young people at an early stage so that adequate planning can be put in place for that transition, whether the young person goes into the workforce, training or further or higher education.
Thank you for that answer, but we have heard from young people, particularly those with impairments, that when they are making career choices, emphasis has to be on appropriate support and adjustments, as we said in our recommendation. That is really important and I am not 100 per cent certain that my question has been answered. I note all the different strategies that are in place, but what monitoring will take place to ensure that careers advice on the ground will benefit people in that important transitional period? I know that that is probably outwith your departmental remit, but it is a very important issue.
I agree absolutely that it is an important issue. It would probably be better if I were to get a detailed response from the relevant department because, as you know, there will be changes to the careers service and its relationship with Scottish Enterprise. I do not want to get into that, but I understand that the careers service will be involved in all schools. I can certainly get you information about that.
At the moment, Careers Scotland is under the remit of Scottish Enterprise, but that will change. We are concerned about the transition period because we heard so many reports from across the board that advice was not in place. Some people have been getting no guidance. We were particularly concerned about when people leave school. It would be helpful to have your report on the situation when so much reform is going on in the area.
The problem is also that teachers and people who are involved in guidance are not confident—I hesitate to say "not skilled"—that they have the training and support background to enable them to give appropriate careers advice to young disabled people. Too often, we heard either that young disabled people were given no careers advice or that expectations for them were low—the attitude was, "Well, you suffer from this so we will not deal with you." The issue is about how those involved in giving careers advice understand the possibilities for young disabled people, who have the same aspirations as any other young person. That has not been apparent in the evidence that we heard.
As I said before, some young people said that there was just no careers advice available to them.
It is a matter of consistency. Careers Scotland has an additional support needs policy—
The policy is not working.
That was the concern—that, although Careers Scotland had a policy, it was not working in the way it ought to. The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 has been in place for a relatively short while and it will need to be monitored. The key transition period when people are leaving school was recognised in that act as one of the central challenges. It might be useful if I were to get some information from the Education Department about how that is being monitored, what links there are between the careers service and the guidance teachers who provide careers information and the plans for Careers Scotland to go into all schools.
On the same point, the response to recommendation 45 also notes:
As I said, Careers Scotland has an additional support needs policy but, as you say, that needs to be put into practice. Careers Scotland has given an assurance that it will not focus on a person's disability. I very much agree with you. Having worked in schools with young people with disabilities, I think that all too often their expectations can be restricted rather than their horizons widened. I am conscious of the issue and I know that Careers Scotland is aware of the committee's concerns.
In recommendation 48, the committee asked that research be undertaken to establish the progress of disabled graduates. The Scottish Executive says that its response to recommendation 45 deals with that, but its response does not mention such research. How will the Executive address recommendation 48, which is important?
It is hoped that such work will be done through the survey of Scottish school leavers' destinations. I am sure that the committee agrees that it is hugely important to have that information when youngsters leave school and when they leave university or college. Too many people have disappeared from sight. We are conscious of the matter and will consider the committee's recommendation. Including information on disabled students would help.
In recommendation 50, the committee asked that information on the life changes that are likely to be experienced at college and university be included in careers advice to disabled people. The Scottish Executive says again that its response to recommendation 45 deals with that, but it does not mention such information. How will the Executive address recommendation 50?
Careers Scotland has said that it will consider how it can help to give pupils continuing support. Careers advisers will work with individuals and others when appropriate to consider the level of support that they require, and that support should continue. Careers Scotland has not provided much detailed information on the matter and I am happy to ask it for further information.
That would be much appreciated, because the recommendation is important.
Associated with the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 is guidance in "Supporting Children's Learning: Code of Practice". The Executive has said that, during the review of that code of practice, it will examine whether scope exists to integrate the information as part of the requirements, which is to be welcomed.
Recommendation 51 is that students should not be asked to pay for assessments, such as dyslexia assessments, to confirm situations that other bodies have acknowledged. We heard quite a bit of evidence about that. The Executive's response is that a recent diagnosis from a relevant professional might be accepted, but we heard evidence that that is not always the case, particularly for further education students who do not receive disabled students allowance. Is the minister willing to ask her ministerial colleagues to investigate further that added cost and barrier?
I am happy to consider that with other ministers.
Thank you.
I will explore the issue further. I know that the question might not be for the minister and that she might have to pass it on to her colleagues, but short of having all ministers here, we must ask her. Marilyn Livingstone mentioned that a recent diagnosis from a relevant professional might be accepted, but a condition such as dyslexia has no cure, so why does the diagnosis need to be recent? Dyslexia is often diagnosed when a child is seven or eight. Surely that diagnosis should be enough to carry them through their education.
I am happy to ask my colleagues more questions about that and to provide information for the committee.
That is helpful.
I have a young constituent who went right through to the final stages of training at the Scottish Police College before it was discovered that she was mildly dyslexic. Surely a mechanism should exist for all cadets who enter the police or for people who enter other branches of Government service to be tested for dyslexia sooner rather than later. Is that not elementary procedure?
Much as I would like to comment on that, I will not, but if the member would like me to find out about a specific issue, I am happy to do so. In an ideal world, barriers to learning, such as dyslexia, should be picked up very early in a young person's education, although that has not always been the case. Other bodies that are involved in education and training should have policies on appropriate training for staff and should have services to support people who face barriers such as dyslexia.
Recommendation 53 asks the Scottish Executive to review how key workers are used. The Executive's response does not mention a review and states:
"More Choices, More Chances: A Strategy to Reduce the Proportion of Young People not in Education, Employment or Training in Scotland" deals with the NEET group and makes a specific commitment on key workers. The work that is being done on post-school psychological services will also be important. We need to obtain more specific information about key workers, and the committee is doing that. The importance of key workers was acknowledged through the 2004 act and through "More Choices, More Chances".
One issue is that there is a system in the Highlands and Islands whereas other parts of Scotland do not have one. In creating one system, we could lose something that works well rather than emulate it throughout the structures.
Yes. Consistency must be considered when the new set-up is developed.
To follow up what the convener said, I point out that Scottish Enterprise has a huge role in the work with the NEET group. We want the minister to give a strong message to the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department that guidance, support and key workers are crucial to that work.
I am happy to do that. I agree that the issue is important.
Recommendation 54 asks the Scottish Executive to work with professional bodies to review occupational standards, with the aim of removing or preventing artificial barriers to disabled people when they choose careers. We feel that the Executive has not responded to our recommendation, so what is the Executive's response to our call for such a review?
A UK vocational qualification reform programme, to which the Scottish ministers have signed up, is under way. As part of the programme, the sector skills councils and other bodies must consider whether their current national occupational standards are fit for purpose and whether they need updating or replacing. As part of the exercise, the bodies must ensure that the standards take account of all relevant legislation and that no artificial barriers to access exist. That work is important and, as I said, the Scottish ministers are involved in it.
The sector skills councils and occupational standards have a role, but, even with the work that you mention, the committee is not confident that artificial barriers do not exist, which is why we are calling for a review. We heard evidence that the work that has been done in the sector skills councils—with which I worked in my previous life—is not enough. There needs to be a review, because we heard disturbing comments about the artificial barriers that have been put in people's way. That is why we called for a real examination of the matter.
I am happy to put it on record that a future minister will come back to the committee in the next session of Parliament and give a progress report on the work of the reform programme.
We welcome that.
The work that is being done in further education colleges through "Partnership Matters: A Guide to Local Authorities, NHS Boards and Voluntary Organisations on Supporting Students with Additional Needs in Further Education" is important. If co-ordinated learning plans are used as intended, the learner should be central to the discussion of their plan and their needs and wishes should be taken into account. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education has an important role in that, when it assesses the quality of teaching and learning in further education colleges.
We will want to consider that issue further because, in spite of everything that we have heard from colleges, that approach is not being taken across the board. There is frustration about the fact that some students in Scotland do not have the opportunity to fulfil their potential.
We heard about examples of really good practice, but we must ensure that it is available to individuals throughout the country. The convener is right that people want to fulfil their potential and do not simply want to go round a revolving door.
I acknowledge that. Colleges must get the balance right between the need to create courses that are preparation for work and other courses that are geared more toward social inclusion. That balance is sometimes right, but I acknowledge that sometimes there needs to be more focus on courses that equip disabled people with a range of life skills or that provide skills to allow disabled people to participate in the economy.
The point is valid. We heard time and again about people's commitment to playing a part in the economy. They have so much to give and our nation cannot afford not to give them every chance, as they are a resource.
Our approach centres on the work that is being done through the new skills for work courses, which emphasise employability. The success of those courses has been acknowledged. Thirteen courses will be rolled out nationally in the autumn of 2007. The skills for work courses are intended to be as inclusive as possible, to ensure that everybody has an equal opportunity to develop knowledge and skills that are important to employment and life. To that end, reasonable adjustments may be made to the courses to ensure that barriers to participation by disabled students are removed. It is understood that the courses should be open to all.
But how can the recommendation be taken up in a more mainstream sense?
It is difficult to be specific when talking about all students. Obviously, many students with disabilities can participate in mainstream vocational courses, with additional support provided by the colleges, whereas others who have more complex needs can participate in programmes that are designed to meet their specific learning needs. HMIE has acknowledged that most colleges have taken an holistic approach to developing employability skills through their vocational courses.
A young person with learning difficulties or a disability who has entered an access to work programme may want to move on to a specific vocational area. That is the transition that concerns me. We heard many people say that they took a general course, a life skills course or a specific skills-based course. They might want to move into a specific vocational area. We are asking about that movement to levels 2 and 3. As you say, huge amounts of resources are not always needed, but planning, support and help are needed. We did not hear about people having difficulty getting to the first stage; most of the evidence that we took related to the second stage. The issue is how we can support people's progression. There needs to be discussion with other departments, as the committee has on-going concerns about the matter.
Okay.
My question relates to access to leisure. Recommendation 82 asks that the active schools programme be reviewed, with a view to making it sustainable and funded in the long term. The Scottish Executive's response does not mention whether such a review will be carried out. Can you assure the committee that that will be done?
There is on-going monitoring and evaluation of the active schools programme: progress reports are published annually. The issue of sustainability will be considered in the 2007 spending review.
You have virtually answered my next question, which relates to recommendation 83. The committee seeks assurances from you that funding for the active schools programme will be reviewed to allow all young disabled people in Scotland—not just those who live in the council areas that have benefited from current funding—to benefit from it.
The spending review will consider broader issues related to funding. We recognise that there is a need to ensure that all youngsters have access to physical activity.
My questions relate to attitudes. You have already mentioned the need for a culture shift. In recommendation 94, the committee makes several recommendations about disability equality training. The committee welcomes the fact that the Scottish Executive supports those recommendations, but it is concerned that the Executive is considering setting up an expert group to take forward our and the disability working group's recommendations. The committee's experience of other working groups that were established to consider concrete recommendations that we made has not been positive. The recent strategic group on Gypsies/Travellers went back to square one and negated and duplicated the work that we had done. Can you assure us that our recommendations and those of the disability working group will be used as the starting point for the expert group's work?
That is the intention. The group that we are establishing will not be asked to look again at issues that the committee and the disability working group have already considered. We want to bring in expertise to work with us to take forward the recommendations. There are complex issues, and we need to involve disabled people and others to ensure that we deliver on the recommendations of both the committee and the working group. I know that there have been discussions with some of the main training provider organisations.
This is a sensitive area and a competitive environment, so it is important that we work with the main training providers—disabled people who deliver such training—to ensure that we set the standard at the appropriate level, that quality training is delivered and that take-up is encouraged. We have approached the main training providers and have talked through our suggested approach, which they support. The next step will be for us to convene a meeting with those people to examine how the recommendations should be taken forward. We understand that there is much similarity in the content of courses but that there are differences in how trainers are appointed, assessed and supported, for example. We must work with the training providers and other disabled people to ensure that we get our approach right.
We are always concerned about the time that is given to reinventing the wheel.
The point is well taken.
Recommendation 99 is about developing positive attitudes in young people through citizenship education in schools. The Scottish Executive's response says that the Executive does not want to be prescriptive, but all our evidence points to the importance of influencing attitudes early. The committee recommended that the Executive should take a leadership role in making that happen. Given the importance of the issue, how will the minister ensure that recommendation 99 is fully implemented?
This is another important area. Work is being done with Learning and Teaching Scotland on the development of a thematic section on citizenship and equalities for the education for citizenship website, which will include disability as a sub-theme. In addition, the Executive has funded a development officer at Learning and Teaching Scotland to take forward the inclusion agenda, which incorporates disability. I am aware that the committee feels strongly that specific work should be done on disability. The committee will want to pursue that issue with the Education Department.
I know that I make this point consistently, but I will do so again. There is already a tried and tested programme: Zero Tolerance's respect programme. Some schools have taken up the programme, but others have not. Given that the Executive considers that it can play a leadership role in the area, it should take an interest in programmes such as respect, which began by addressing the issue of violence against women but which is also extremely helpful in educating all young people about equalities issues. If something is working, and it has been tested and piloted, surely it deserves consideration by the Executive.
That is something for the development officer on inclusion, who will consider the whole inclusion agenda within Learning and Teaching Scotland. I am sure that the committee will follow with interest what happens as a result of the development officer's appointment.
It is not all gloom and doom, and the Executive is making its point in many areas. For the first time, I have been invited to a disabled hustings—something I had never heard of before. It seems as though a fair number of young people are involved. We are making an impact.
I have some questions on transport. Recommendation 102 in the committee's report asks that
Accessibility is one of the key aims of the bus route development grant scheme, which provides short-term grants for up to three years to kick-start new services or to support existing, underused services that have the potential to grow. Local transport authorities work with operators to develop projects that feature increased frequency and improved quality of services as well as improved accessibility of vehicles. Up to now, £24.2 million has been allocated to 46 projects throughout the country.
Recommendation 103 asks that the strategy for achieving equality of mobility be backed up with clear targets and monitoring. The committee welcomes the commitments given to establishing the strategy. However, we would welcome reassurances about how the strategy will be monitored. What further information can the minister provide to the committee in that regard?
The Transport (Scotland) Act 2005 requires all regional transport partnerships to include, as an integral part of the development of the regional transport strategies, information as to how transport as a whole will encourage equal opportunities. It is the duty of each regional transport partnership to draw up a strategy for transport within its region that takes into account a number of factors, such as future needs, how transport in the region will be provided, developed and improved, and how equal opportunities and social inclusion will be encouraged. The strategy will ensure that mobility and travel training is built in, so that investment in services benefits disabled people. The strategies will all include targets once they are completed.
The committee welcomes the Scottish Executive's response to recommendation 104, on co-ordination across different transport services, and notes that the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland will fulfil that role. Elsewhere in the report, the committee notes that MACS must be properly resourced. Is the minister therefore satisfied that MACS is sufficiently resourced to take on that role?
Since December 2006, the regional transport partnerships have been subject to the disability general duty and will be consulted on other disability equality duties. The RTPs will address particular social inclusion equality issues through their regional transport strategies. The RTPs will liaise with MACS to ensure that the schemes are co-ordinated. MACS and the newly established Public Transport Users Committee for Scotland have a shared secretariat, which is intended to allow both bodies to deliver best value for the taxpayer. The decision on the number and grading of staff to be employed by the secretariat was made after discussion of its tasks and duties with the Executive's human resources advisers. The performance of the secretariat will be kept under review.
The committee welcomes the Scottish Executive's response to recommendation 110, on targets for improvements at all railway stations. However, the response outlines only current work and does not mention a rolling programme or a target for accessibility at all stations. What assurances can the minister give the committee that such a programme will be developed?
As the committee knows, Network Rail has been allocated a budget of around £4 million a year, through the Great Britain-wide access for all fund, to upgrade stations in Scotland. The stations in Scotland that are to be developed are identified by Transport Scotland. The first six to go through the process are Motherwell, Dalmuir, Kirkcaldy, Mount Florida, Rutherglen and Stirling. Transport Scotland is assessing which stations can be developed over the next few years in order to improve accessibility through the access for all programme. Many of the stations were constructed more than 100 years ago and some of them have difficult engineering challenges to overcome if step-free access for people with reduced mobility is to be provided. It will be impossible to make some stations fully accessible. Through the ScotRail franchise, alternative arrangements for disabled people have been put in place.
Recommendation 115 asks that
I have no information on that to hand, but I am happy to provide it to the committee later.
Recommendation 119 asks the Scottish Executive to co-ordinate and fund "long- term, demand-responsive transport". However, the Scottish Executive's response notes funding only until 2008. The committee acknowledges the constraint of funding cycles, but what further work will the Executive do to take that recommendation forward?
As members will know, the Executive has funded a number of demand-responsive transport initiatives in both urban and rural areas. In most cases, the Executive has confirmed that funding for those will be on-going until the end of March 2008.
Recommendation 121 asks that the Scottish Executive include demand-responsive travel in the new concessionary fares scheme. The Executive's response states that further expansion of the scheme could take place, but that there would be cost implications. The committee is disappointed by the suggestion that costs would be the overriding factor when disabled people are being denied equal access to transport. What assurances will the minister give the committee that recommendation 121 will be considered further?
The Executive has no plans to extend the scheme to all community transport services, but the operation of the scheme is being closely monitored for the first two years following its inception.
The committee notes that the Scottish Executive has not responded to recommendation 126, which calls for the adequate provision of accessible parking. The Executive has also not answered how it will enforce the proper use of accessible parking as the committee recommended in recommendation 127. What is the Executive's full response to recommendations 126 and 127?
The report of the research project is now in its final stages. Our intention is to produce a good practice guidance document that will turn the research into some practical recommendations on how to tackle the recognised problem of abuse of the blue badge scheme. In promoting suitable enforcement mechanisms, all local authorities in Scotland can implement traffic regulation orders to protect parking bays that have been designated for disabled people so that the use of such bays is restricted to blue badge holders only.
On that point, have you and your officials had any input on the issue of parking charges at hospitals, which raises equality issues and issues for people with disabilities? Are you aware of any discussions that have taken place about such charges?
I do not have information on that before me, but I am happy to provide information to you later.
The issue is reasonably topical at the moment, so we ought to have some information on it.
Yes. I think that our response to that recommendation could have been written more clearly.
The response almost seems to suggest that the Executive will decide what disabled people might be interested in. Obviously, we would have concerns about that.
Our policy is that we always aim to provide material in the format that people need. For example, we often produce material in Braille and other formats at the same time. Where we do not do that, we will respond to requests as we receive them. In retrospect, I think that our response to recommendation 134 was not as clear and helpful as it should have been.
We are reassured by that answer.
We very much recognise the importance of dialogue among the various professional disciplines involved. We certainly want to encourage and promote such dialogue. As members might be aware, as part of our efforts to promote forthcoming changes to building standards, we are hosting three-weekly seminars for between 40 and 50 people at our offices in Livingston. The seminars are open to anybody who wishes to attend. We will also be involved in visits to different venues around Scotland to deliver the same presentation to the various professions that are involved in the development of the built environment. Those presentations will continue through April and May. Our action on getting the message out is intended to target approximately 1,000 design professionals and local authority officers as well as other individuals throughout Scotland.
Clearly, complex issues are involved, but the evidence that we took suggested that sometimes, if people just talked to one another, they found that barriers did not need to exist. I know of an example in my constituency where a building was reorganised to allow the installation of automatic doors for the benefit of wheelchair users, but there was nowhere for such people to go once they got inside the building. Such issues are not complex, but they need people in different disciplines to engage in dialogue with one another. I am pleased that the Executive recognises the importance of that recommendation.
Certainly, the planning advice note on inclusive design is intended to be used by a range of disciplines.
As a committee, we hope that our successor committee will develop a programme to monitor and review progress on the recommendations in our report. It is likely that the successor committee will regularly call on Scottish Executive ministers to participate in the process. What mechanisms will the Executive put in place to monitor the future implementation of the recommendations for which it has responsibility?
Clearly, in our response to the committee's report we made many commitments, which we will ensure are progressed. In our response, we made a commitment that the disability working group will take the commitments forward. The work of the disability working group is on-going, and we will work with it and with disabled people to ensure that we make progress in delivering on our wide range of commitments, including those that we made in response to the committee's report.
Thank you, minister. We have asked lots of questions and have raised expectations. The committee is keen for the recommendations to be taken up, and I am confident that our successor committee will share our views. I welcome your commitment to seek information for us on issues on which you have not been able to respond because they are the responsibility of other departments. I also thank Hilary Third and Yvonne Strachan.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Next
Age Strategy