Official Report 98KB pdf
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the 13th meeting in 2005 of the Equal Opportunities Committee. I remind all present to turn off their mobile phones.
Just that I read it all before; I can read it all again, but I have no problem with it.
It is a very good paper, particularly the section in which the issue of employers and disability awareness is addressed. I spoke to some people at the weekend—social workers and people who work in the voluntary sector—who, I understand, also spoke to you on the matter, convener. They mentioned the importance of disability awareness training for employers.
Yes. We will work through it.
As a general comment, I like the suggested approach of highlighting good practice in phase 2. Instead of just pointing out problems, we should highlight good practice so that other people can take note of and emulate it.
It is a very good paper. It reminds us of the evidence that we heard and have lived with over the past year. It is good to see it in print.
My first comment relates to disability awareness training, which is mentioned in paragraph 20. The recommendation that we are asked to consider is a good one.
No, you are fine.
Perhaps we should look again at the issue of benefits when we consider further and higher education.
Obviously, people raised the subject of benefits during phase 1. Although the issue is reserved, it is difficult for us to ignore. We will record the evidence that we take on the subject and ensure that Westminster ministers get the information, either formally or informally. If benefits are a barrier, we need to pick up on that. I am sorry for interrupting.
No, you are right, convener. I just want to ensure that we mention benefits to the legislators, as they have a knock-on effect on access to education.
We have a wee bit to go in our inquiry. You are right, however: if people cannot get transport, it is difficult for them to participate in any of the areas that we are looking at in our inquiry.
Some people from whom we took evidence, such as those from Capability Scotland, said that although they welcomed the bill, they would have preferred a separate Scottish Parliament bill, rather than the use of a Sewel motion to address issues such as the timescale for transport improvements. We should highlight that.
We will take evidence on transport. That will give you the opportunity to raise those issues with Capability Scotland and with organisations that are involved in delivering transport. Notwithstanding the timescale for the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, we will need to look at the provision of transport and whether people in the organisations that are involved in delivering transport are aware of the needs of disabled people. We will return to the issue. As you rightly said, wherever we went in our phase 1 evidence taking, we heard that transport is an issue. When we sit down to consider whom to invite to give evidence for phase 2, we will ensure that transport is covered.
Thank you.
As a latecomer to the committee, I am impressed with the way in which the committee keeps harping on about topics until such time as it becomes the norm for people out there to take it all on board in their everyday lives. Once that happens, we will have done our job.
You are absolutely right. One of our tasks is to try to encourage people to do just that.
I welcome the fact that we will continue to concentrate on transport. I have a couple of points on the subject of further and higher education. I repeat that it is a good idea to highlight best practice so that other people can pick up on it.
I had an opportunity to speak to the funding councils separately, but we need to take on board what you said. Members will remember that we visited colleges and universities and looked at provision, but there are still issues to consider, such as how funding can follow disabled students. I agree with your final point on the 2004 act. It is fine having policies, but we need to know about what happens in practice.
Members have raised issues that they want to explore during phase 2. Are there any further issues that members want to deal with during oral evidence-taking sessions?
I suggest the further education issue, to which Marlyn Glen referred. I also like what the paper says about "pretendy" courses. That issue is important. The paper recommends that we should take evidence from colleges about their courses, and I am happy with that.
Are members happy with the recommendations?
Are members happy with the proposed timescale for phase 2?
Are members happy that the clerks and I select witnesses to give oral evidence for phase 2?
An issue has arisen about supported employment. When someone with a disability leaves school or goes to college, their life changes and their expectation that they will get employment often seems to go out the window. We have looked at examples of good practice in supported employment. In addition, we heard from Mike Evans at our away day and we visited Dundee to see what was happening there.
It is an excellent idea to look at how other countries and other areas overcome the kind of difficulties that we are also facing. That is not to say that practices in other countries are perfect, but we can learn from one other. We could learn a lot from the proposed trip, and I support it.
It would be a worthwhile visit. We will leave till later consideration of who will go.