Official Report 278KB pdf
I welcome Sarah Jane Allan from North Lanarkshire youth council, Shaben Begum from the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance, Irene Garden from the older people's consultative forum and Graham Morgan from the Highland users group. This is the first meeting to gather evidence to assist the committee's design of the questioning and visits for its inquiry into disability. I realise that the witnesses will want to raise a host of issues with us—I have just been speaking to Irene Garden about that—but we are keen to get the kind of information that we need to facilitate our inquiry.
There should not be a definition of disability. There should be something broader than a definition—perhaps only a statement—because if people did not fit into the definition, they would not get help or the authorities would not see fit to give them help. I have a statement with me, if you want to hear it.
Fire away.
I am talking about anyone with any illness, disability or other condition that affects their everyday life and full participation in society.
Do you feel that a definition would be too narrow but that your wider statement would be more inclusive?
Yes.
What Sarah Jane Allan said is perfectly true: "definition" is not a good word. I would say that anyone with anything from a simple eyesight or hearing problem, through learning difficulties, mental health problems or mobility problems to a severe handicap or a progressive illness is disabled. That is what I think is a suitable statement—it is much the same as Sarah Jane Allan's. We definitely do not want a definition, because a definition can stigmatise people or make them think that they are not handicapped when in fact they are. It must be kept reasonably simple.
It is important that there be some sort of framework. I agree with Sarah Jane Allan in that definitions can be narrow and excluding. The main group in which I am interested is those who do not define themselves as being disabled, who therefore fall through various gaps, do not access services and are forgotten. There is also an issue with the stigma that disability attracts in our society. Most of us would say, "Oh no, I'm not disabled. I just have a difficulty of some sort."
I echo what the other witnesses have said. In a statement or definition, we need to include the fact that part of the cause of disability is the way that society works—we need to include the social model of disability—but we equally need to recognise that the impairment or condition can create its own barriers. In the world of mental illness, the majority of us do not consider ourselves to be disabled even though we might fit into that language and have similar issues to those who consider themselves to be disabled. As has been said, that means that we can be excluded from the debate, because it does not seem immediately relevant to the people with whom we work.
That is important for us. We have highlighted the fact that we want to get out and meet organisations and individuals, but how do we get out to those who are excluded although they do not consider themselves to be disabled? How can the committee ensure that it reaches the widest possible range of groups in its evidence gathering? How do we get past the labels?
I suggest that the committee goes out and meets different groups in their own worlds, using their own language and experiences, and starts off by finding out about the lives that we lead and our experiences to give a context for the inquiry so that the committee is immersed in the backgrounds and cultures from which we come and has a good understanding of our lifestyles. The committee might not need to use the word "disability"; it might just go to different groups that it knows are excluded and use their words instead.
We do not want to get bogged down in the medical model and define disability in that way. The committee needs to be creative in accessing different groups. For example, general practitioners will have lots of access to people with disabilities who might not use other social support networks. As Graham Morgan said, the committee needs to go into people's domains and access them that way. People get involved in different community groups and networks that are not necessarily associated with disability.
The committee could contact organisations that will put it into contact with disabled people who want to go into further education, but it should not ask those organisations to do the work for it; the committee should employ its own facilitators to do that. Much of the time, the organisations about which everyone is talking create barriers because they have been working with people for far too long; the committee could use those organisations, but it should not get them to do the work for it.
That makes a lot of sense.
I would ask for the help of the Royal National Institute of the Blind, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and people who work with Alzheimer Scotland—Action on Dementia, but my gut feeling is that the committee must go into communities and approach day centres, mainstream schools, special schools and lunch clubs. It should approach organisations that can identify the people who use their services as well as service providers, because there are many housebound disabled people. The committee could use home helps to get housebound people involved. If it wants to find real disabled people, it must go down to grass-roots level.
I am involved with an organisation called SOL—Support for Ordinary Living—which is in contact with many adults with disabilities who want to enter the workplace and to get out into the community. That organisation would put the committee in contact with disabled people. There are many other similar organisations, such as LEAD—Linking Education and Disability—which helps disabled people to access further education. The committee could speak to such organisations, as they are all in contact with disabled people. It could also go into the colleges that disabled people attend. The committee also needs to find a way of getting to the many individual disabled people in the community.
We want to examine the whole issue of employment and education. I know that Sandra White has some questions on employment.
Good morning. We all know that people with disability find it much more difficult than others to get employment and that when they do they are paid half the average wage of people who are not disabled. The committee is seeking to prepare a paper on that issue. What do you see as the priority areas in relation to disabled people and employment that we should explore when we talk to organisations?
One priority is changes in the benefits system. Many disabled people are scared to go out to work because they think that that will affect their benefits and they will be worse off. Many organisations give disabled people jobs simply as tokens, but like everyone else disabled people need real jobs for real wages. There should also be recognition of non-waged jobs, so that they are seen as jobs. Many disabled people would like employment, which is a really important issue, but they do not think that they will have the chance to have it. We need employers to want to employ disabled people, as many people think that employers would rather not do so. Many disabled people have the ability to be employed, but they do not have the necessary self-confidence.
It is important that employers are provided with education on employing people with disabilities, as there is a great deal of stigma. Most employers do not want the bother of employing someone who has a disability, as the perception is that they will require a lot of support and that that will cause a lot of hassle for the employer and the person's colleagues. We need both to educate society in general and to educate employers on the law and their responsibility to employ a wide range of people.
If I were meeting employers, I would ask them whether their premises were fully accessible, whether they had an equal opportunities policy and whether they had disability awareness training. One of the biggest barriers that disabled people face is that they are not sure whether to go for an interview because they do not know whether the workplace will be accessible. They also feel that there may be particular attitudes towards them if they enter the workplace. As Shaben Begum said, education is one of the most important points to address. As soon as education is widespread, the issue of disability may go out of the window.
I have picked out four themes that the committee may want to consider. First, 85 per cent of people with long-term mental health problems are unemployed. Some studies indicate that only 4 per cent of people with severe mental illness are in employment. Fifteen to 30 per cent of employees have mental health problems and 37 per cent of those report discrimination at work. The first theme to be examined is that of discrimination in mental health. Ninety per cent of employing agencies have no mental health policy, but 98 per cent of people say that they should.
I asked what you thought were the priorities for disabled people in relation to work. One area that you have highlighted is the benefits system, although unfortunately that is reserved. Another point that you have made is that employers should be aware of their responsibilities under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. A third point is that people should have a meaningful job, rather than one that just involves stacking shelves. We will also ask employers questions. Do you think that we should ask them and their clients—the people who are seeking jobs—the same questions, or should we approach the two groups in different ways, in order to get the most out of the inquiry?
The questions for the two groups must be different. Following on from what Graham Morgan said, I would like to make a further point about employers' responsibilities. We need to examine the whole process of recruitment: how jobs are advertised—if they are advertised—and where they are advertised. There may be barriers that prevent people from finding out about jobs before they even consider applying for them. We need to consider how groups may be excluded because of the way in which job descriptions are put together and how language is used to put people off.
SOL, which I mentioned earlier, has job coaches who can find adult disabled people jobs that suit them and will either not affect their benefits or do so in a way that leaves them better off. The job coaches accompany disabled people to their jobs and stay with them to provide help for as long as those people want. The system provides a really good template. The job coaches will leave when people feel that that is necessary, but they are available to give them a hand. The committee could lead by example by employing disabled people as facilitators in this consultation.
I would keep the questions for employers and prospective employees entirely separate. One of the main questions that I would ask someone who was applying for a job was whether they feared discrimination and whether they felt that they were not capable of doing the job that they would like to pursue. You should also ask people whether they are frightened of the attitude of co-workers. If they did not fit in, would that make them feel separate? Perhaps they would like to be part of a team but feel shunned simply because other people think that they are different from everybody else.
I echo that. You should relate to the difficulties of the person who is going for a job, identify the barriers and limitations and identify their needs and the support that they will require. To make that person want to go for the job, that support needs to be in place. We should find out what kind of job that person enjoys doing—the job should be not just any old job but something that they enjoy. Worries about benefits and support costs come up again, along with the need for transport to get the person to the job, because some people who are disabled would need transport to be provided.
Sarah Jane Allan gave an example of good practice: a mentoring system. Does the panel have any other examples of good practice that we should promote or mention when we are asking questions and taking evidence?
You should certainly go to the City of Edinburgh Council—I work with it in a voluntary capacity and know that it has a good equal opportunities policy. It employs disabled people and everything is fully accessible. It goes out of its way to accommodate disabled people in its work force.
I have four examples of good practice. First, clubhouses such as Flourish House in Glasgow offer a form of employment for people with mental health problems. Secondly, social firms have been very successful as ways of getting into employment; two examples are 6 Mary's Place in Edinburgh and TouchWood on the Isle of Skye. Thirdly, I do not know whether the Pathfinder trust in England still exists, but it promoted the idea of desirable characters in getting employment for people with mental health problems. It said that mental illness can sometimes be an advantage. Finally, Redhall walled garden is a training centre and the Scottish Association for Mental Health is also good.
I have an example of bad practice—not all organisations are good—and that is my local jobcentre.
Do you think that it is unaware of things that it should be aware of?
The staff there know about disabled people and know that they should try to be helpful. My experience is that I was taken in by the jobcentre and an assessment was made of what kind of job I would like and what I could do. I was getting really excited, but the assessment said that I was unemployable and that there was no job that was suitable for me. The jobcentre has not helped me since then. That is bad practice, but I then found the good practice that I told you about earlier.
You are concerned about the attitude of employers and people in jobcentres towards people's capabilities.
Yes. On both sides, attitudes are one of the main barriers to people getting work.
On that point, I notice that the Disability Rights Commission's submission states:
People need to be trained and made to realise that the way that they think and do things is completely wrong. When a person applies for a job as a teacher, if they have the right qualifications, have done all the work and can do the job, why should they not do it? I do not see why someone who is in a wheelchair cannot be a teacher, as long as the building is fully accessible to that person, as it should be by law.
We need to show that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 can be used and that it can be effective as a tool for persuasion, but equally we need the gentler approach of showing what we can take to the workplace and raising the general awareness of employers. The see me anti-stigma campaign is focusing on employment; it is trying to make the argument about how productive and useful we can be in the workplace and how many of us are already there.
I do not think that everybody is necessarily treated equally as a candidate in the interview process. The attitudes of panels and prospective employers ensure that people are not treated equally at the interview stage, if people get to that stage. Equal opportunities are an ideal that some of us work towards, but not everyone does that. As Graham Morgan said, attitudes need to be changed in a gentler way, with education. Perhaps the best way is for schools and colleges to educate younger people before they get hold of negative and derogatory attitudes.
It is discrimination when a teacher cannot work as a teacher because they are in a wheelchair, but that is going to happen. Someone will go for a job and will have qualifications that are as good as those of the other people there, but the employer will pick the person who is not in a wheelchair because they realise that they might have to change a few things to allow the person who is in a wheelchair to work there. That person might be better at the subject than the person who is employed just because they are not in a wheelchair.
I wonder how many wheelchair users are able to qualify as teachers. I do not know the figures on how many people with disabilities get on to courses at teacher training colleges.
That is a good question, because that is the next area that we want to examine.
Before I start, I should mention that before I was elected I worked as the head of the business school at Fife College of Further and Higher Education. I still have links with the college and I am a member of the Fife lifelong learning partnership. You will not be surprised to hear that my questions relate to further and higher education, which is an important area for the committee to consider. This is our opportunity to ensure that we put the right questions during the inquiry and I want to ask your advice. What areas should we prioritise? What key lines of questioning should we pursue with students who attend colleges and how can we highlight the most crucial areas for them?
I noted a few priorities that you might want to examine, but the subject has not been mentioned frequently by our members, so I might not have enough knowledge.
To reiterate Graham Morgan's point, the initial difficulty is that, as members know, many people with disabilities will not have completed their education, so they will not be in a position to go into further or higher education. It would be interesting to find out more about that.
On further priorities, seamless additional support must be provided when people leave secondary school and go to college. Colleges have to be ready and have that support in place. People have to be allowed to attend proper courses rather than be stuck in a special class and made to repeat work that they have already done at high school.
I want to give a bad example of higher education. A couple of years ago, I applied to do a European Union degree at Newbattle Abbey College, but I was told that the college is not wheelchair accessible because it is in an old building. It is possible to access the college through the residential buildings, but I was not going to be a residential student; I was going to go back and forward to college. However, day students cannot access the college from the front entrance. There is no reason why the college cannot put in a stair lift. I know that the building is old and that the law states that people cannot do this, that or whatever to old buildings, but the college should make a point of making the building accessible to disabled students.
I have some examples of good and bad practice—unfortunately, more bad than good. Motherwell College is one of the worst, I am sorry to say. Coatbridge College is bad for accessibility and has no learning support. I found out from a friend at John Wheatley College that he was told he was a health hazard and was forced to leave.
It is good to hear about the good practice—and about some of the bad practice.
We say a lot about lifelong learning. People may undertake degrees, but we know that it is important that they have access to lifelong learning because practice changes, such as in information technology. That links into Sandra White's comments. What issues are there around accessing lifelong learning? Can you get supported learning in the workplace?
The better government for older people partnership, which no doubt you all know about, asked some colleges to promote lifelong learning. That work was funded in England, but the Scottish Executive refused to put funding into Newbattle Abbey College. The aim was to assist older people to pursue lifelong learning. Why was funding not provided?
Lifelong learning is important. There needs to be more funding so that support can be provided. The Executive should not be saying, "I'm sorry, but there's not enough funding"—that is the problem. Funding should be provided no matter what. Information needs to be provided so people know that they have rights. That would mean that if, for example, they come up against barriers in the workplace or in further education, they would know that they have the right to do something about it. If they need help to do so, they should be given it.
It is important to raise awareness of lifelong learning courses and to ensure that people know that they are accessible to everyone and that there is a variety of courses. Further, it is important to emphasise to people that, as Sarah Jane Allan said earlier, the courses do not just repeat something from school but are meaningful and useful.
You have talked quite a bit about good and bad practice but I would like to know whether you are aware of any gaps in opportunities in relation to higher education that the committee should investigate.
There is not a lot of opportunity out there. To be frank, there is more bad than good, as I said earlier. The committee needs to investigate why that is the case and why colleges offer support to prospective students but do not provide it. I was kind of promised a lot of support but was not given it. If I had been given even a little bit of support, I would have been able to learn at college. You should investigate why colleges that claim to have adopted good practice have not done so.
Do you think that colleges should have more courses that are tailored to the needs of the student rather than expecting the student to conform to the institution's way of doing things?
That would be helpful for some disabled people but not for others, such as me. I would love to do a normal social science course. However, to do that, I would need additional support. That is what I was promised, but it was taken away from me. I had additional support when I was at high school but it was taken away as soon as I went to Motherwell College, which I had been told was the best one for me and other disabled people. Every disabled person is told that, even though it is actually one of the worst.
The committee needs to examine the ways in which users can gain the confidence and motivation that are necessary if we are to reach a position in which we would want to engage in learning again. Further, you should examine the ways in which the system can be made more flexible to deal with the fact that what we go through is varied and changeable.
The committee should ask the institutions what they do to build relationships with disability groups and to nurture students to enable them to develop the confidence that would enable them to apply for those courses in the first place. Before they can consider applying to a further education institution, students need to be able to feel sure that the institution will make them feel welcome. They need to have connections with people in the institution in order to believe that it will put the right support in place for them. People need to feel sure that the institution will have a mentoring scheme or dedicated support staff who will work with them. Long-term programmes need to be put in place to develop people's confidence. As Graham Morgan said, people might not have a lot of confidence, and the institutions need to invest in winning them over and encouraging them to apply.
Sarah Jane Allan talked about seamless progression through high school and into further education and about mainstreaming. What questions should we be asking further education institutions about those areas? What barriers should we deal with in that regard?
You need to ask further education institutions about the seamless progression from secondary school to college. You should also stress that there should be proper courses. Lifelong learning courses are fantastic for people who need them, but people who covered certain areas in high school feel that they are repeating work that they have already done. On the lifelong learning course that I was on at Motherwell College, I basically repeated what I did in home economics and other high school classes. However, if some disabled people want those courses, they should be able to do them.
What work is being done to fill the gap that Graham Morgan talked about in relation to someone who has had time out from high school and needs to get back into the education system? The situation that they are in is different from that of someone who is going into further education straight from high school, whose circumstances are known. I am thinking about seamless progression not only in terms of the planning that is done to enable people to move from secondary school to further education but in terms of support work to fill in any gaps that people might have in their education.
What you are talking about is exactly what happened to me. Ashcraig School was brilliant—I was sent to college every Wednesday to ensure that the move from the high school to the college would be seamless, as the college would be able to get everything set up for the next year and I would be used to the new place. I knew the support that I needed; all that the college needed to do was ask me. Ashcraig also gave the college a booklet on the support that I needed, what was in place and what the college would have to put in place to enable me to do the course that I wanted to do. When I got to the college, however, it was decided that all of that would be scrapped and that I would be reassessed. That happened because people there thought that it looked as if I could do certain things that the school said that I could not. That is why, while I think that your suggestion is good, there is no guarantee that that support will be provided. You would need to ensure that colleges were working in the way that you describe rather than just putting the mechanism in place and leaving it alone.
We will now move on to questions relating to participation in leisure and arts and barriers to that.
Our question paper defines leisure and the arts somewhat differently to the way that I would have done. It talks about
I will answer by talking first about a recent experience of accessing leisure and the arts, and then about what I think the priorities should be. I was very lucky and was given, as a 40th birthday present, the chance to go on a writing course. Of the 16 people on the course, at least five were open about having had stays in psychiatric hospitals. That was good, because we were accepted and welcomed. We had a great time; there were no barriers. However, having said that, one of those five people found it very hard to cope with the attitudes of some of the other people. People were generally very nice, but were not particularly pleasant to her. She left the course prematurely because she could not accept those attitudes towards her. There were a lot of us there, we were accepted, and people were very open—there was no hiding of what we had been through. However, to give you a balanced view, although there were more of us there than you would normally expect, one of us had to leave.
I am younger than some of the other people here and leisure and the arts are a really important part of my life. However, a lot of the time I am excluded and isolated. I would love to be able to socialise with people like me; I am more comfortable with people who are disabled than with people who are able bodied. It would be nice to go into a place and think, "This is where I belong. This is where my mates are." With disabled people, I do not need to explain my disability. However, disabled people are scattered all over the place. Inclusion is a great thing, but you should not take away the other side of the argument—the need to belong. I would like to meet up with the friends I went to school with, and not necessarily with the people who live in my area, because I might not consider them my friends.
I would reiterate what Graham Morgan said about cost, which is one of the biggest barriers to people taking part in leisure and arts activities. At the Edinburgh festival, there are concessions, but the tickets are only a couple of pounds less than the full price—they cost about £12 this year, which is outrageous.
That happens a lot. If you go to a gig, you are put at the back of the arena or on a podium and you cannot actually see the act.
The person at the gig I was at probably had the best view, but she was not part of the audience at all. I do not know how much specialised organisation went into providing access and ensuring adequate fire arrangements to allow that woman to go to the show.
To find out how to improve things, you should ask disabled people, "What barriers are there? What assistance do you need, if any?" You should ask them for examples, and ask them where they would like to go but are not able to, and why that is. You should ask them what issues arise. You would often have to get facilitators in, because some disabled people might not be able to get their point across very well. You should also ask whether people need transport. I love going to gigs, but I need my mum to take me, or I need transport.
Finances play a big part in what people—especially disabled people—can and cannot do. There are examples of good practice in the leisure and arts world. I am an actor and a vice-chair of North Edinburgh Arts. We work with people with mental illnesses, people with learning difficulties and disabled people, who take part in our shows, but that is only one good example compared with 100 bad examples. Many disabled people cannot access leisure and arts simply because they do not get the information. Adverts showing what places are doing can be seen on street corners and in shops, for example, but they are not being seen by the right people. Adverts must go to places that disabled people frequent, to the organisations that they use and the clubs and venues that they go to. As I said, cost is the biggest consideration, especially if people have to get taxis. That is the worst thing.
The priority in leisure and the arts is facilitating groups and clubs. There are not many about. There should be better access to concerts, football matches and many other events. I am talking about the normal places to which young people and disabled people want to go. Many people need to have personal assistance provided, which comes into costing considerations, and community co-ordinators so that things are seamless.
Thank you. What you have said will be in the Official Report, which is good. Nanette Milne has a question.
Sorry, but I was—
I am sorry—I thought that you had indicated that you had finished.
I did.
You should be brief, as time is short.
I just wondered what the other members of the panel thought about what Sarah Jane Allan said about groups of disabled people meeting together rather than engaging with the wider population.
Many of us have common experiences. In the mental health world, people often talk about drop-in centres in which people feel safe and among their own. That is where people want to be. There is a distinct culture. There are links with other disabled communities, but we often have a great need to be among people who have had similar experiences and with whom we feel safe, as well as to be able to reach out into the mainstream.
It is a matter of having both options. Other minority groups do such things, so why are we prevented from doing them and why should we feel that we are doing something wrong by wanting to do such things?
I reiterate what Graham Morgan and Sarah Jane Allan said. It is important that people should have a choice.
People seem to agree with that.
Members of the panel have given us a fair insight into their own experiences—good and bad—and the barriers that people with disabilities face. We must roll things out across the country and continue our investigations, so I want to focus on the committee's visits programme.
Getting to all of Scotland's remote areas is quite difficult as a result of the country's geographical spread, but if the committee is to be totally inclusive—which I gather it wants to be—it must go to all the remote areas, such as the Highlands and Islands, and indeed everywhere, and down to grass-roots people, as they will tell the committee exactly what it wants to know. The whole of Scotland must be covered, or else the committee will not be inclusive.
Yes. The whole of Scotland must be covered—where, when and how does not matter. If the committee goes out to speak to disabled people, many of them will wonder what the point of doing so is and will think that nothing will get done because similar things have happened previously. Those people will wonder why they should believe the committee. The committee must go to organisations that disabled people are in, as we said earlier, but should not get the organisations to do things themselves. The committee must employ facilitators and disabled facilitators, where possible, because disabled people relate to other disabled people. More will then be got out of those people and more will be found out about what they need, which can be fed back to the committee. As I said, the committee must lead by example and employ disabled facilitators.
It is important that the committee goes right across the board. Sarah Jane Allan mentioned disabled communities. It is important to get into the different interest groups, for example. The black and minority ethnic groups are going to be a minority within a minority and quite easily hidden away. It is important to target specific groups and to use community groups and different activists to access different groups.
It should be remembered that, apart from the user groups, there are voluntary organisations, the professions, the statutory sector and carers. From a mental health perspective, there is a network of user groups across Scotland that can be easily contacted. There are also specialist groups, such as the hearing voices network and Depression Alliance Scotland, that might have a perspective that the committee might not otherwise get. There are self-help groups and art groups. Perhaps the committee could go to the very grass roots, such as drop-in centres or training centres, or to hospitals where members can meet people who are not already engaged in the process. In order to give fresh perspectives, making contact—perhaps through general practitioners—with users who have never come into contact with any such exercises would also be good. It was said that the remote and rural are important. Even speaking to only one or two people in a remote area would be fine, but the committee could also contact other minority groups, ethnic minorities, single parents and the homeless for their perspectives.
I would like to repeat what Sarah Jane Allan said. It would be good if the committee took a couple of disabled people around with it because they would see what the committee would not see and would know what it would not know.
That is helpful. I think that the committee has felt strongly that it should get into all parts of Scotland and it is good that you have endorsed our view. We are thinking along the right lines. Using disabled people to help us to set up meetings and so on is also a helpful suggestion.
That is the right approach. The committee should ask voluntary organisations and local groups to help identify venues, but before you even think about using a venue, you should send in a facilitator a day or two before the meeting. He or she must be aware of the audience needs that are to be addressed and ensure that everything is in place. All too often, meetings are held in a place that somebody has said is fully accessible, but when people get there, there are no large-print documents and no signers or interpreters; there is nothing at all even though somebody has said that the venue is fully accessible. We need to ask: accessible to whom? The committee must have a facilitator who knows what they are doing and who checks out all those points.
Many people think that putting in a ramp or a lift will pave the way, but it will not, because, for example, assistance must be provided for disabled people who also have learning disabilities. The facilitators that the committee employs must advocate for the people for whom the investigation is being carried out. The committee must ensure that it gets the right facilitators. To reiterate an important point, many barriers are created by organisations, helpers and families of disabled people. Many disabled people are quiet and inward looking and the committee must find a way of getting them out and talking to them because they know themselves best. If the committee wants to understand, it must ask disabled people.
It is important to choose the venue carefully because, as Irene Garden said, many venues claim to be accessible when they are not. It is important that somebody visits the venues before the meetings. I usually take a tape measure to measure the width of doors and ramps. That work must be done well in advance of meetings. It is also important to ask the delegates about their needs and to take into account the number of supporters and advocates, which will affect the number of people with disabilities who can attend.
You will also need to get people to the venues, perhaps by providing transport or expenses, because some people might not be able to afford to come. Many different issues will probably crop up. The committee will have to go to all areas in Scotland and to the most suitable venues. As Irene Garden said, the best idea is to employ disabled facilitators to check out venues in which the committee is thinking of holding a meeting because those people will be able to see what you have missed or not caught. Disabled people are the ones who can say, "You never thought about this—so and so won't be able to manage that." Disabled people must be included in the process of organisation if the inquiry is to be done properly.
The organisation Grapevine, which is based in Edinburgh, conducts accessibility audits on venues and buildings and it could provide information to the committee.
Do not hold meetings with people with mental health problems early in the morning, because we will not make them. Provide smoking areas; loads of us smoke, unfortunately, and if we cannot we get frustrated. Provide breaks. Provide expenses. Make the meetings informal, ideally with small groups, or even meet individuals to get particular testimony. There should be no huge documents, no short timescales, and the meetings should be based in the world of the people who are being consulted.
We would have to be able to get the information in all different formats, such as Braille, tape, e-mail, CD and large print. A lot of the parliamentary documents that I read have an awful lot of jargon in them. Perhaps you could try and get rid of a lot of that to make it easier for us. I suffer from learning difficulties and I have a physical disability, so I would need the information on tape and some of my friends would need it in Braille. It would have to be in all different formats.
We will be going to visit various groups. Would it be easier for us to visit the groups of people who have similar disabilities in their own premises rather than bringing groups of people with differing disabilities into one place?
We will need to go out to a mixture of different venues.
I was just asking whether it would be beneficial to the people themselves.
No, you should have everyone together. Sarah Jane Allan was talking about there being different places for disabled people and perhaps because I am older, I believe in everyone being as one. It is a good idea to mix people who have different disabilities. I am a trained facilitator and that is what I do. When you go out to talk to people, one of the most important things to do is to ensure that your facilitator knows their audience. If there are any people from ethnic minorities coming to the meeting, they might have to have special meals. Do not have a meeting on a Friday because that is a prayer day for an awful lot of people. You have to take all those aspects into consideration.
You should bring us together; you do not want to isolate us and put us into wee groups. At Ashcraig School, I had the privilege of seeing every disability that you could name, and we all got on like a house on fire. However, if you really wanted to speak to a particular group, you could try and do both. There is nothing wrong with bringing us all together, but you would have to make sure that there was good planning in place.
There are times when people want to be in groups with their people. However, there is also a value in getting us all together, which gives out a nice positive statement. You need to do both at the same time.
We had anticipated that we would need to use a variety of venues and to talk to different combinations of people. We are looking to be as consistent as we can in what we do. Once we have selected the venues and the groups of people to whom we will speak, would it be best to have one organisation facilitating the meetings or should we work closely with different local groups in each area? Would the facilitation be better done by one organisation to achieve consistency?
If your facilitator knew his or her job, it would be possible to have one facilitator all the way through, which I believe in. I believe in continuity and consistency, and that would mean having the one facilitator. However, that facilitator would need to know exactly what he or she was doing, who the audience was and how to go about ensuring that venues are suitable for everyone.
I think that you need different facilitators with different experiences. If a person is trained and knows exactly what he or she is doing, that is fantastic, but I doubt that you would get that. You need to involve as many people as you can, but you have to get facilitators and train them up and let them know exactly what they have to do. I would say that you probably need more than one. A group of facilitators would perhaps be better, but it should be a small group rather than a big group and they should all work together to organise everything.
You have to be aware that, if you choose one organisation or one facilitator, that person would probably have to go through a range of local organisations to set up the meetings in the first place, and you must ensure that you are not overdoing things.
Graham Morgan mentioned the timing of meetings and the need to avoid early morning meetings. Is that what the rest of the panel thinks? Are there any other aspects of the organising of meetings that we should consider?
Meetings do not always have to be held during the day. There are other groups that meet in the evenings and you could access them. It is a question of being creative in looking at consultations. Meetings do not always have to happen between 9 and 5.
If you want to include as many people as you can, you have to facilitate everything that people need. If it is better not to have meetings during the day, do not have them really early in the morning. If you want to include as many disabled people and organisations as you can in the consultation, you just have to do what you have to do to get to them. If that means having meetings at night or in the middle of the day, it should not really matter. If you want to ask us what we think and if you want to have a lot of people, perhaps you should not have meetings during the day or early in the morning.
Thank you very much. We could probably have gone on for at least another hour and a half. I apologise to Elaine Smith, who has not had a chance to ask her questions.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I put on the record Marlyn Glen's apologies, as she is unable to make it to this morning's meeting.
The written statement that we submitted to the committee stands, but I underline an important general point that I know we will come back to during the session. From the Disability Rights Commission's point of view, it is important for there to be a clear strategic focus on what the committee wants from the inquiry. We went through a similar exercise with the previous Equal Opportunities Committee's work on taking stock on disability, so there is a body of evidence that we can draw on to guide the work. The important question is: what value will the committee's work add to what we already know?
I do not have a lot to say. Having listened to the previous panel, I think that one of the difficulties that the committee will face is the need to focus on specifics; the fact that the issue is so broad is a danger. I find that a problem arises when people say, "Disabled people want this," because we do not have a common identity or culture. There is no benefit to coming out as being disabled, whereas there is a benefit to coming out as being gay. There is no disabled community in the way that some people suggest and there is a danger in presenting the situation in that way. There are people with learning difficulties and there are different communities within that—even if we talk about a specific impairment group, we run the risk of homogenising it. We must recognise the breadth of kinds of disabled people and we must recognise the life course approach. The vast majority of disabled people are over 65 and we must somehow ensure that their needs are covered in the committee's work.
As members will be aware, I am here as an independent consultant. I am not wearing my disability employment advisory committee hat, although I chair that committee in my spare time. The disability employment advisory committee is a Westminster Government committee that is responsible for giving confidential advice to ministers and officials on disability employment issues.
We have all been sitting thinking about where we go with this. There is just so much there. It is important that the committee has outcomes that we are clear about and that we can take forward. We also need to be clear about the process and we need to record some of our experiences as part of that.
Disability is a social construction. The fact that someone has an impairment or long-term sickness does not in itself make them disabled; the issue is about how society reacts to that condition. That is our experience and it is why we have legislative rights for disabled people and why the commission exists. We are here to address barriers to participation for disabled people and to consider what prevents disabled people from contributing. Those are key areas on which the committee might wish to focus, to follow up on the good work that was done in that regard as part of the European year of disabled people.
I agree with all that Bob Benson has said. In some ways, the issue is less about coming up with a clear definition of disability and more about having a clear understanding of disability. I want to throw the question back to you and ask what it is that you want to know and why you want to know it.
I echo what Bob Benson and Sally Witcher have said. Many people in the disabled people's movement see the DDA definition as being too medical; they say that it is founded on the notion that, to be a disabled person, someone must have an impairment. However, we have to use that definition, because if we do not we will just end up with a general anti-discrimination piece of legislation.
Listening to the discussion, I think that Sally Witcher is saying that we might already know what the barriers are and that perhaps the most important thing is to determine what practically we can do to knock those barriers down.
Poverty is a central issue for many disabled people, mainly because many disabled people are denied access to jobs. Despite current advances in technology, some disabled people still cannot work because of their impairment. They depend on benefits and those benefits keep them below the poverty line.
"Poverty" is another word that we could spend a long time trying to define. Households with a disabled person are very likely to be poor. There is no doubt that that is a key issue; a lot of research evidence and statistics would support that. However, although it is a key issue that you will come up against throughout your inquiry, I would ask you what it is that you want the Executive to do about it. I suspect that you will not get very far if you go to the Executive and say, "Poverty is a problem, so we recommend that you eradicate poverty." It is not quite that simple.
There are huge links between inequalities and health, as can clearly be seen among disabled people. The poorer someone is, the more likely they are to have an impairing condition and the more likely they are to become disabled. Some people work in industries that are likely to cause illness. In Glasgow, lots of people come out of the shipyards with asbestosis.
I do not want to go into the definitions of poverty, but the issue for us is the hopeless and vicious cycle for many disabled people. From childhood onwards, it can be very difficult for people to get into the main stream of earning capacity and, ultimately, of pensionable capacity. That is because they have had a lack of education and a lack of employment opportunities. Many disabled people who are in employment are in very low-paid jobs. Some people are stuck on benefit entitlement and cannot move into other jobs because the regulations do not easily allow them to do so. Those issues are difficult for the Scottish Parliament to deal with because they touch on benefit entitlement and conditions for access to benefits.
You are right to point out that poverty is a huge issue. People who live on low wages in damp houses are susceptible to asthma and bronchitis, which can be viewed as being disabilities, depending on how you define the term. The committee will examine the issue of poverty. Although aspects of the issue such as benefits, therapeutic earnings and so on are reserved matters, I am sure that we will deal with them. We cannot get away from the fact that, although those matters are reserved, they have something to do with the inequalities that relate to disabilities.
I think that the proposition related to work as opposed to employment. That means that we have to consider not only paid work, but unpaid work, which is an important element of civic participation and can take the form of voluntary work, board membership and so on.
A lot of the points about barriers that were made by the previous panel were familiar and absolutely accurate, but there is a range of other issues. At the disabled person end of it, there may be issues to do with the way in which community care services are delivered. It can be difficult if the home help or whoever gets you up in the morning does not show up, or they show up at different times during the week. There may be skills gaps, which may link back to discrimination in education.
You should also examine the issue of supported employment, including the operation of schemes for people with learning difficulties such as The Engine Shed shop and cafe in Edinburgh. Perhaps you could also examine the role of the disability employment advisers and find out how they are trained, where they come from, the model of disability that they use, whether they see the disability in the person or the employment and—this links back to Sally Witcher's comments—how they collaborate with other agencies such as the social services, health care and education. Finally, the issue of transport is central. Public transport must be accessible, easy and good—indeed, for many people, it should take them from door to door.
We should highlight and promote approaches that are already working and Sally Witcher has already outlined some ideas in that respect. However, it is important to highlight areas in which disabled people are already working and to show what is possible for many people. Most employers have unfounded fears about disability, but the reality is that disabled people who work in organisations are much more loyal and steady than non-disabled people might be. As I have said, we need to consider and highlight existing models of good practice and compliment these employers as they should be complimented.
We will now consider the education aspect.
I will try to ask only one question.
A couple of years ago, I did quite a lot of research work on disabled people's experiences of FE. I do not want to be too critical of FE, but some of the comments that I hear are quite critical. There is a danger at the moment that FE is becoming the day centre of the past. I have heard people say that computing is the new basket weaving and that disabled people go from one computing course to the next. In fact, the notion of lifelong learning for disabled people is not a problem, but getting the job that goes between the periods of lifelong learning is a problem. The notion of lifelong learning is that someone goes and works, comes back and does a course and then gets a better job. For disabled people, it is just a matter of doing one course after another, and many disabled people whom we interviewed would say things such as, "Well, this is my ninth course. If I don't get a job at the end of this, I'm not coming back." There is a danger that FE is not lifelong learning and that all that people do is go from one course to the next.
Nick Watson is far better placed to talk about education than I am, in many ways. My experience of education is in my current capacity as a part-time PhD student at the University of Edinburgh. Many moons ago, I was an arts student.
I will not go over all the points that have already been made, which I agree with. Again, the issue is what education is for. Obviously, education is for all, but it also has a very real purpose and must often address serious skills and knowledge gaps in our work force. Therefore, it should also be placed within wider strategies relating to what Scotland needs. Disabled people want to be involved in those strategies as much as anyone else. Planning within our wider strategies to fill the skills and knowledge gaps that we require to fill is important so that we do not train up the supply side when there is no demand for certain roles. That applies to many other people too.
Shiona Baird has a question, but I am worried about the time. Would you make your question on the arts brief, Shiona?
I was going to be quick.
Answers should also be brief.
We heard that cost was one of the biggest barriers, which takes us back to the question of poverty. What would the panel advise us to consider? Specifically, I would like to hear something about access to facilities and the participation of people with disabilities in leisure and the arts.
That is a difficult issue, as it is about changing the whole culture. All sorts of issues are involved with the arts. There is a class issue. We have already discussed the fact that the majority of disabled people live in poverty. We do not get many people who live in poverty going to the theatre. Obviously, we must address that issue. Focusing on disability could be a danger because the real mainstream issue is about widening access to the arts for the whole Scottish population rather than just for disabled people. That is a big issue.
We must decide whether the people about whom we are talking are to be passive spectators or active participants. That is important, whether they go to the theatre or to a community event. Clearly, unless they can get physical access to certain facilities, they will not be able to be even spectators. However, we should acknowledge the good things that already happen, particularly in theatres, in terms of general access and assistance—for example, audio description. Obviously, that work will go on and access to goods and services will continue. I envisage that being further reinforced by the public sector's duty to ensure that people can access events.
I do not have much to say on this. There is tension between a desire from some quarters to develop a disability culture that is separate from the mainstream, and a desire to ensure that disabled people can be part of the mainstream and are fully included. That tension is not necessarily destructive.
I have been thinking about how we are going to get the genie that we have released back into the bottle. We have obviously opened up a huge range of issues. I was particularly interested in a couple of things that Sally Witcher said right at the beginning, including that impairments do not necessarily disable people and that we should focus on the non-disabled. Obviously, attitudes are the key when we discuss barriers to people with disabilities. We need to ensure that people across the country always have in their subconscious an awareness of issues that may arise. Deaf people may miss hospital appointments because they do not hear the announcement and there is no visual display. When people with dyslexia go to a job centre or any public building, they are immediately given a form to fill out, which they find very difficult. Bearing in mind all the issues that you have raised, do you have any suggestions for the design and structure of our programme of visits? Whom should we contact and how should we go about facilitating meetings?
I am happy to say something about our experiences, which the committee may find useful. When we undertook to find out what the issues for disabled people were, we embarked on a large number of road shows throughout Scotland, even as far away as Orkney. Our aim was to find out not just what people's immediate needs were, but how to implement certain legislation.
The committee has set itself an almost impossible task. There is a danger that in all such inquiries the most vocal groups will come forward. Traditionally, the most vocal groups in the disability movement are seen to be male spinal-cord-injured people. Other people are now coming forward, but those who end up being under-represented are people with learning disabilities, especially those with profound learning difficulties and very complex needs. How will the committee ensure that their needs are met?
Thank you very much.
You need to be strategic. It all depends on what you want to know, because that will determine who you ask and where you go. You cannot expect to discover what you want to know by asking everyone and their dog. You cannot expect something to just emerge spontaneously from the process. You need to be inclusive but targeted—which I do not think is a contradiction in terms.
That depends.
That is probably the busiest time of year, so it is possibly not great timing.
I thank the witnesses very much for their evidence this morning. You might be invited to come back to speak to us. Feel free to submit any written evidence that you feel might be helpful.
Meeting continued in private until 13:00.
Previous
Item in Private