Removing Barriers and Creating Opportunities
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5293, in the name of Cathy Peattie, on behalf of the Equal Opportunities Committee, on its second report in 2006, "Removing Barriers and Creating Opportunities".
Before I begin my remarks on behalf of the Equal Opportunities Committee, I welcome Dr Jones's comments on diversity and his previous remarks on this important issue.
It gives me no great pleasure to open the debate. This slot should have been taken by Cathy Peattie, the convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee, who has done a great deal of work on the issue. Unfortunately, because of a family bereavement, Cathy Peattie is unable to be here. I am sure that all members join me in sending our sympathy to her.
The removing barriers and creating opportunities inquiry was the major piece of work carried out by the Equal Opportunities Committee in this session of the Parliament. I look forward to debating the issues that the committee raised in its report and to hearing the Scottish Executive's response to our recommendations. I thank all the people who were involved in the inquiry, which lasted almost 29 months, during which time the committee travelled the length and breadth of Scotland. Many people gave up their time to speak to the committee at consultation events or in formal evidence-taking meetings. Without those important people, the report would not have been possible. I know that some of them are in the public gallery and I welcome them. I hope that they enjoy the debate.
I feel something of a fraud, because I rejoined the committee only recently, although this is my third stint as a member. I thank Cathy Peattie and my fellow members of the committee for their hard work. I also thank my Liberal Democrat predecessor as deputy convener of the committee, Nora Radcliffe, for her contribution, and all members of the committee, past and present, for their time and effort on the inquiry. I also pay tribute to the clerking team for its considerable input.
The inquiry was launched in 2004, although its foundations were laid in 2003, which was the European year of disabled people. Someone will no doubt correct me if I am wrong about this, but I think that the inquiry was the longest ever undertaken by a parliamentary committee—I am sure that it felt like that to the people who undertook it. The reason for that was the inquiry's extensive scope. The committee agreed to look at the barriers that disabled people face in accessing work, further and higher education and leisure, but during the course of the inquiry it became apparent that other, cross-cutting issues permeated all those areas. The committee therefore decided that barriers to disabled people that are caused by negative attitudes, poor transport availability, lack of accessible information and poor physical access should also be investigated. Each issue could have merited an inquiry in its own right, but the committee thought that an integrated approach was necessary.
The committee started by speaking to and taking advice from disabled people on how it should conduct the inquiry, to ensure maximum participation and accessibility. Those people advised the committee on how to consult effectively with disabled people and on the key issues. Between February and July last year, the committee embarked on a series of consultation events throughout Scotland, from Melrose to Kirkwall. It listened as disabled people explained the barriers that they face in accessing work, further and higher education and leisure.
The committee issued a call for written evidence and heard oral evidence over 17 meetings—I am sure that that is another record. Such extensive evidence taking was necessary if the committee was to get to the heart of the issues that disabled people had told it about, and if it was to identify solutions.
The consultation on recommendations in the committee's draft report, which took place between July and September this year, was a first for a parliamentary committee. The committee wanted to ensure that it had got things right and that its recommendations had the support of the disabled people who had participated.
The committee received more than 30 responses commenting on the draft recommendations, which allowed the recommendations to be refined into the final versions in the report that we are debating. I hope that, as a result of all that work, the voices and aspirations of disabled Scots echo through the pages of the report, which is very much a product of collaboration between Parliament and people.
Another first for the Parliament is the accessibility of the report, which was the first committee report to be published in larger 14-point font and with easy read, Braille, audio tape, Moon and British Sign Language DVD versions of the summary of recommendations being available on the day that the report was published. The committee hopes that other committees and the Parliament more generally will consider the work that it has done and identify opportunities for adopting similar practices.
Before I talk about the committee's recommendations, I will touch on the work of the Scottish Executive's disability working group, which also reported in November. The committee had hoped to comment on the group's recommendations in our report, but the publication dates did not permit that. Unsurprisingly, some of the disability working group's recommendations overlap with those in the committee's report. The recommendations are mostly complementary; for example, both groups recommend that public sector staff should have equalities as a performance competency in their job descriptions. The committee believes that that is crucial if we are to embed equalities and provision for disabled people into the work of the public sector.
However, on some issues, our report goes further than the working group's report. For example, our recommendation on independent living is much more proactive. The committee listened carefully to evidence on the issue from the Disability Rights Commission and agreed that the Scottish Executive should set up a cross-departmental working group to establish mechanisms that allow the independent living agenda to be developed in a co-ordinated way. If my case load is anything to go by, all members will know about that issue. The committee felt that the issue is of such fundamental importance to disabled people and their families that our stronger stance was more than justified. I urge the minister to look favourably on that recommendation.
I will highlight some of the committee's main recommendations. My committee colleagues will cover the recommendations on each specific theme of the inquiry in more detail as they speak during the debate. In total, the committee made 156 recommendations for change. Those recommendations are extremely wide ranging and call for action from more than 100 service providers in Scotland, from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to the Scottish Arts Council. The convener, Cathy Peattie, has written personally to all the organisations that are tasked with implementing the report's recommendations, requesting that they take due cognisance of them in their work.
The committee found that support for disabled people in employment is critical to their ability to access work and to retain it when their circumstances change. In "Workforce Plus: An Employability Framework for Scotland", the Scottish Executive admitted that the current system of employment support is not working, that services are not person centred, and that the £500 million that is currently allocated is not being spent appropriately. The scheme for supported employment that our report recommends aims to work alongside "Workforce Plus" to address those concerns. Crucially, we seek to support those disabled people who are furthest from the labour market, which is something that the committee heard "Workforce Plus" will have difficulty in delivering.
The committee considers that the enterprise companies are too focused on economic growth and may not be doing as much as they could do to encourage and support the employment of disabled people. We therefore recommend a fundamental review of the services that Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise provide to disabled people and employers. I feel strongly about the need for smaller employers to have access to good information about what support is available to them if they employ somebody with a disability.
The committee found that young disabled people are being let down by the careers service. Many of them do not receive adequate careers advice and many receive advice from people who have no real understanding of how a person's impairment may impact on their education or career choices. The committee thinks that Careers Scotland and the other bodies that are involved in the provision of careers advice should take a fresh look at the services that they provide, because it appears that not enough support is being provided at present.
The committee considered how it might provide greater opportunities for disabled people to participate in community and public life. As an example, I highlight the important role that political parties can play. We are all responsible for making our meetings and selection procedures as accessible as possible. Do we, as members of the Scottish Parliament, advertise the availability of BSL interpreters for public meetings? Do we make our literature available in accessible formats? Does the Parliament assist us in that? I make a plea to all members that we consider our systems and procedures to ensure that they are as accessible as possible. It would be helpful not only to disabled people, but to our society as a whole, if we encouraged more disabled people to become involved in grass-roots and representative politics, so that they became involved directly in making decisions and shaping our society.
Many disabled people cannot access work, further or higher education and leisure activities because suitable transport is unavailable. They told the committee that they want certainty of service from door to door, so that they can be confident that they can complete their journey without difficulty. For example, although the Executive's concessionary fares scheme is a massive step in the right direction, many disabled people find it difficult to get to a bus stop to take advantage of it. Alternatively, they may find that an accessible bus is available but that, when they arrive at a train station for the next part of their trip, the platform is inaccessible. Until disabled people have confidence that accessible transport is available for all stages of their journey, they will be discouraged from travelling. The committee's report contains a large section on transport issues, which are important. Given the publication of the Executive's national transport strategy, now is an ideal time for the issue to be not only discussed, but addressed comprehensively.
I want to mention attitudes. It is extremely regrettable that other peoples' negative attitudes are often the biggest barrier that disabled people face in accessing services. I want the Parliament to reflect on that and the message that it sends about the country in which we live. I hope that the committee's recommendations go some way to providing a Scottish solution to the problem. The committee has suggested actions to combat negative attitudes, from training to increase awareness and understanding in every workplace, to awareness raising through a national campaign.
Many people will ask about the cost—I asked about that when I read the report. It was not the committee's job to give a fully costed breakdown of what it would cost to implement the recommendations. There would be a price tag attached, but we must ask not only about the cost of implementing the recommendations, but about the cost to our society if we do not do so. For too long, disabled people have been left behind and in poverty. I am talking not only about poverty of income—although a disproportionate number of disabled people suffer in that way—but about poverty of opportunity and choice. Disabled people are the poor relations in our society and have for too long been fobbed off with second-class services. By producing the report, the committee says that that time has ended and that it is time that disabled people in Scotland were treated as equals. It is no longer good enough in Scotland to tolerate discrimination on the ground that it is too expensive to tackle.
Along with the report, which is important, there are the changes in legislation that are coming into force and the Scottish Executive's on-going work. I hope that the Executive, the partners with whom we worked in producing the report and those to whom the convener has written to ask them to implement the recommendations will work together to make those recommendations a reality for disabled people throughout Scotland. I commend the report to the Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Equal Opportunities Committee’s 2nd Report, 2006 (Session 2):
Removing Barriers and Creating Opportunities (SP Paper 677).
I thank the Equal Opportunities Committee for the fantastic job that it has done in the past two and a half years in its disability inquiry. I commend the thorough approach that was taken, particularly the engagement with disabled people throughout the country to ensure that the findings were properly informed by and correctly reflect disabled people's views and experiences. I am delighted to have the opportunity to explore the issues in the debate. I will deal with essential general issues in my opening speech and with specific policy areas later on. A full response to the committee's report will be available in the new year.
The committee's focus is on removing barriers and creating opportunities for disabled people. I acknowledge that we still need to do significant work on that, but it is important to recognise that the Scottish Executive, which has a long-standing commitment to disability equality, has an appetite for and a commitment to the agenda. We believe that disabled people should have the opportunity and choice to play an active part in Scottish society, to improve their quality of life and to be respected and included as equal members. These are essential ingredients in achieving a just and inclusive Scotland and in forging a successful, civilised and fair society in which we all feel proud to live.
To achieve that, we all need to make changes in the way we work and become more responsive to disabled people's needs. The public sector has a major role to play in securing improvements in the lives of disabled people, whether that is done through delivering services, shaping the nation's infrastructure or protecting and providing for our citizens. In particular, the new public sector duty to promote disability equality, which came into force on 5 December, will help the public sector to deliver the changes that are needed to improve people's lives.
The Scottish Executive also has a key role 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's needs and experiences. Since 2000, we have been pushing forward activities to embed equality, including disability equality, into all our activities. We established an equality unit, which has been working to encourage all departments to think about equality issues in the development of their policies and programmes and to ensure that the systems of the Executive are geared to supporting staff in this. That mainstreaming approach, where disability equality is integrated into the everyday work of the organisation, has allowed us to make significant progress on disability equality through a number of routes, including legislation introduced through the Scottish Parliament, such as the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004; improving data, information and research through initiatives such as the "Social Focus on Disability 2004"; increasing consultation and dialogue with equality groups through our support for Inclusion Scotland and the Scottish Disability Equality Forum; and raising awareness of equality through campaigns such as the see me campaign to tackle stigma and discrimination in relation to mental ill health.
However, there is more to do and this is an important moment for setting the agenda for the next phase of work. Not only do we have the introduction of the disability equality duty, we also have the committee's disability inquiry and the Executive's disability working group report.
The disability working group was established by the Scottish ministers at the end of 2004. The group determined its own remit, which was
"to establish priorities for the Scottish Executive and partner organisations to promote equality for disabled people in Scotland".
The group reported in November 2006, making 48 recommendations aimed at changing institutions, tackling attitudes and promoting participation. The final objective of all the recommendations is to achieve improvements in disabled people's lives so that they can participate in society as equal citizens. That does not just mean tackling issues in particular policy areas, because some barriers are strategically significant and cut across initiatives. Addressing those barriers has scope to make a particularly positive difference in wide-ranging ways. For example, independent living is about disabled people having the same choice and control in their lives that non-disabled people take for granted; accessible and inclusive communication is clearly essential to social inclusion and empowerment and is an integral part of day-to-day interactions and relationships; the promotion of full citizenship demands tackling negative public attitudes and ensuring access to public life in its widest sense; and we are keen to develop disability equality training.
The working group's recommendations include many on specific policy areas such as employment, education, health and community care. However, all are set in the context of the need to move towards full citizenship in which disabled people can access information and services and live independently. In the main, we have accepted its recommendations. We have also announced £1 million to make a start on delivering some of the key strategic changes that were called for by the working group.
I am pleased to see that the findings of the working group are consistent with those of the committee's inquiry, which also stress the importance of tackling the strategically significant barriers that prevent full participation. However, the committee's report goes further than the disability working group's report. It encompasses a much broader range of issues and makes detailed sets of recommendations across employment, further and higher education, transport, access to leisure, information, awareness raising and physical access.
The minister said that the committee's report goes further than that of the disability working group. Will he thoroughly consider the Equal Opportunities Committee's report and not just go along with the working group's report?
Absolutely. As I said earlier, we cannot give a full response at this point. Members of the committee will accept that the report has been available to us for only four weeks and contains what is probably the largest set of recommendations that has ever been presented to the Executive. Further, it cuts across the work of many departments. Clearly, we will need more time in order to present members with a detailed response. However, in general terms, I am responding positively to the report and am acknowledging that it has a wider reach than the report of the disability working group. Of course, we will deal with its recommendations in our detailed response in the new year.
Both reports emphasise the need for joined-up working across a range of services and on the part of a host of providers in order to deliver solutions that respond effectively and coherently to disabled people's needs. There will certainly be challenges in implementing the findings of the reports, but what is heartening is that the separate pieces of work are clearly moving in the same direction and both clearly fit well with the aims of the disability equality duty, which establishes a framework that will help us to measure progress. Public bodies will report in December 2007 and every year thereafter on the progress that they are making towards equality of opportunity for disabled people.
The specific duties set out in the Disability Discrimination (Public Authorities) (Statutory Duties) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/565) require the Scottish ministers to publish reports by 1 December 2008, and every three years thereafter, giving an overview on the progress that public authorities have made towards equality of opportunity for disabled people. That duty also requires ministers to set out proposals for the co-ordination of action by public authorities to progress disability equality. The Scottish Executive will work with the Scottish public sector to develop a strategic approach to that.
Of course, there is much to do to realise our goals for disability equality. The new duty will increase the pace of change on disability equality and will make a real difference to the lives of disabled people. It will begin to shift the disadvantage and discrimination that can occur when organisations and institutions fail to take account of disabled people in the development of policies and services.
The committee's report and the 156 recommendations that it makes will also help to set the agenda for the coming period. The inquiry will have found areas where we—that is, the Parliament, the Executive and the public sector—need to improve, become better attuned and deliver more effectively.
I am enthusiastic about meeting the challenge and understand the need for long-term, sustained commitment and hard work. Our close relationships with disabled people and their organisations will help us and the committee's detailed inquiry will provide opportunities for us all to focus our energies and work together.
Again, I commend the committee's approach and the extensive and far-reaching recommendations that it has made. It will take some time for the Executive to develop a full response to the report and we will submit this to the committee early next year. Through our response, we will aim to maximise the opportunities for the full participation of disabled people in Scottish daily and public life and to remove the barriers to that participation.
I, too, offer my condolences and deep sympathies to Cathy Peattie.
I welcome the people in the public gallery who helped the committee with the report and gave evidence to the committee.
I thank everyone who was involved in the production of the report, particularly the clerks, who worked extremely hard, and the members of the committee. I joined the committee a year and a half ago, which was about six months after it started its inquiry. However, I am able to say that the hard work that was done by members from all parties does credit to the Parliament's committee system. I pay tribute to the people from various organisations who we heard from as the committee travelled round the country; they told us a lot about the experiences of disabled people. Sometimes we take it for granted that we can access leisure facilities, education, work and transport, but some of the people whom we met found it difficult to do so.
As the title of the report suggests, many of the difficulties that are faced by disabled people relate to access to leisure facilities, education and work. We looked at the issue in considerable detail. It was heartening to see that some of the problems are being recognised and that action is being taken on them in various areas. However, many people expressed their great disappointment about the fact that, although the solutions had been recognised, too little had been done to rectify the situation. That feeling echoes the research that the Executive undertook this year, which set out that
"despite solutions being known, a clear problem still remains"
and that many recommendations that have been made
"continue not to be implemented."
I hope that the report acts as a catalyst to bring together all the previous and current research that we looked at, and that it will make a difference.
As I said, one of the main issues was access to services. That is particularly true in the case of transport, on which I will concentrate in my speech. As we heard, each committee member took on an area; mine was transport. As our report identifies, transport is one of the most important cross-cutting issues; it has great influence on many of the other areas that the report addresses.
If people are unable, or feel that they are unable, to get from A to B, it does not matter whether B is accessible to them if they cannot get back to A. That situation was raised many times in our evidence taking. People asked the question: what is the point of making places accessible if disabled people experience barriers to accessing them? In such situations, much of the work that has been done on accessibility is wasted.
We took evidence from the providers of leisure facilities who are increasingly aware of the need to cater for disabled people. Obviously, people want to belong to society and to participate in leisure activities. In our evidence taking, it became clear that some people found it very difficult to access leisure facilities. They told us that that had a big effect on their lives. We have to look at the accessibility not only of leisure facilities—other committee members will address that—but of transport to and from those facilities.
The report highlights that point and identifies the fact that, in this and other areas, a joined-up approach is needed. As we said, it is not good enough for us to concentrate on one thing or to change one thing; we need to look at the big picture. The two previous speakers mentioned that, too. A key recommendation on transport is that the Scottish Executive should develop a Scotland-wide strategy for achieving equality of mobility for disabled people. The committee believes that the work that is being done on the national transport strategy offers an ideal opportunity in that regard. I am heartened by what the minister said.
The report identifies a lack of regular, reliable, fully accessible public transport and the need for staff to be trained in identifying the needs of disabled passengers. In addition, we need to address the misuse of disabled parking bays. If able-bodied people abuse that provision, it is not helpful to disabled people.
Having a reliable public transport system is fundamental if disabled people are to feel confident that they can go out and about. If someone has been immobile for some time but finally gets out and about only to find that public transport does not work for them, the progress that they have made will suffer a setback.
The committee was given a simple example of that, which concerned a transport provider using a mix of accessible and inaccessible buses on a bus route. Disabled people could go somewhere on the route using an accessible bus, only to find that they could not make the return journey because another bus on the route was not accessible. That example demonstrates how much need there is for joined-up thinking. Able-bodied people naturally assume that, if we can get on to a bus to go somewhere, we can also get home again. Unfortunately, disabled people have to plan their journeys carefully. That should not be the case nowadays; people should be able to access transport as and when they wish to do so.
As we heard, the committee recommended that the Executive should ensure that transport providers offer effective pre-journey information in which the accessibility levels of their services are made clear. Providers should ensure that they produce their information in all formats. In that regard, the committee heard a particularly crude example of how transport providers should not communicate with disabled people. The person in question, who was carrying a white cane, asked whether they were on the right bus only to be told by the driver that they should read the timetable. That illustrates the need for staff to have disability training. The evidence suggests that such things happen because staff are not made sufficiently aware of the issues. The committee recommends that all staff should attend disability equality training. The minister mentioned that training.
The committee welcomes the fact that the Scottish Executive has given a commitment to improve train stations and to make them accessible to disabled passengers. However, I would like the Executive to set targets to make all our railways accessible within a given timescale. The Executive could look at that in greater detail.
One major issue to emerge from the inquiry is demand-responsive transport. Although DRT is not so much of an issue in our big cities, many people to whom we spoke in the rural areas believed that they could get about if only they were given access to a door-to-door bus or taxi service. Witnesses pointed out that the reduced availability of the transport that has traditionally been made available to take people to hospital appointments and so forth makes DRT increasingly important.
The Presiding Officer is indicating that I must wind up. In conclusion, I am heartened by the fact that many of the problems and potential solutions have been identified, although I am also slightly wary as a result of that—it makes the job easier in one way, but more difficult in another. We must look closely at the recommendations in the report and ensure that they are implemented. That must not be done in a piecemeal fashion.
We must remember that the problems exist and that they do not exist in isolation. We must take a joined-up approach. There is a golden opportunity to ensure that everyone—without discrimination—can become involved in and participate in society. I sincerely hope that the Executive will take on board the recommendations that the committee has made.
It is poignant and perhaps appropriate that we are discussing disability this morning, following the sad death last night of Lord Carter, who was a remarkable public servant and champion of the rights of disabled people. I pass on the sympathies of the Scottish Conservatives to his friends and family.
I am pleased to speak in the debate on the Equal Opportunities Committee's report "Removing Barriers and Creating Opportunities". The Scottish Conservatives support the report. We believe that disabled people's rights must receive the highest level of promotion and protection in Scotland, the United Kingdom and across Europe. We also believe that the barriers that are inherent throughout many facets of our society must be removed in order that we can all benefit from the wide range of skills and talent that disabled people have to offer.
As David Cameron said on 16 October to Capability Scotland, 5 million people are
"left on the scrap-heap while British firms deal with the resulting labour shortage by employing migrant workers."
There is nothing wrong with employing migrant workers but, as David Cameron went on to say, that is
"economically stupid and it has to stop … We have a social responsibility to help disabled people into the workforce."
I welcome the committee's report and I am glad to be a signatory to it. I also welcome the committee's recommendation that
"the Scottish Executive establish a task force, along the lines of that suggested in evidence, to consider all the recommendations of the report in a Scottish context".
One of the main issues that was raised in our consultation events was that, although a lot of information is available, much of it is not always easy for disabled people to find or access. Many disabled people therefore miss out on the things to which they are entitled, and something needs to be done about that. The committee proposed a central source for information and recommended that much more accessibility should be built into websites. Disabled people need better access to information and better signposting of services.
I am proud to be the honorary president of Highland Disabled Ramblers. The group is based on the Black Isle and has made great strides in increasing the ability of disabled people to benefit from leisure activities. Members meet regularly for rambles in the Highlands and Islands, using robust electric scooters that are carried from place to place in a bus. I have been on some of those rambles, including one along the footpath of the Caledonian canal, where I was forced to run to keep up. The group, which has been helped greatly by generous local businesses, is a glowing beacon. The Executive should consider that model when it looks at ways of helping disabled people to access leisure and the great outdoors.
I agree entirely with Margaret Smith's remarks on transport. The Executive should take on board all our recommendations in that regard. We need to have an integrated transport system that includes provision for disabled people. Much of our transport infrastructure, including many of our train stations, is difficult enough for enabled people to access, but poses a nightmare for disabled people. That has to change: we need to give more help to, and focus customer care on, disabled people.
The Executive must address the current abuse of disabled parking spaces. There should be more adequate provision of spaces and severe punishment should be meted out to those who misuse the spaces.
I presume that the member will encourage the Conservative group to be among the early signatories to my bill proposal to make all disabled parking bays in Scotland legally enforceable.
I am sure that we will do so.
The committee welcomed the proposed changes to building regulations, which, if properly utilised, will bring great improvements in accessibility. Those new measures must be closely monitored, and advice from disabled people must be used to ensure that improvements are being generated.
The Scottish Conservatives wish to help disabled people work whenever possible. We feel that the benefits system should be simplified, because the current system is complex, relies too much on Government agencies and often does not provide sufficient incentives for work. What is needed is a radical simplification of the benefits package for the disabled, replacing all the various forms and conditions with a single assessment and possibly a single benefit that is easier to access. It is good that we are debating this important subject. Let us all strive for a real difference for disabled people in Scotland.
I am glad that I had the opportunity to participate in the work on the report, which was thorough, wide ranging and in the best traditions of the Parliament and how it works. The direct involvement of disabled people and their validation of the report strengthen the report's recommendations. I hope that what we have done together will result in better appreciation of the issues and greater willingness to tackle them.
I will focus on access to work; it will be difficult to condense everything that I want to say into a few minutes, but what I refer to necessarily briefly is covered in the report in much more detail. Work is important for many reasons. It brings in the money to pay the bills and fund leisure pursuits. Work is often what defines us in our own eyes and in the eyes of others. Work is where we interact with other people; the people with whom we work are often the people with whom we socialise. Work is where we satisfy our need to feel useful and effective. Whether we are old, young, black, white, able bodied or not, all of that applies. Paid work is the main route out of poverty and dependence for many disabled people, but too many of them find it difficult to obtain and/or sustain employment. Why is that the case, when a great deal of money is spent by Government trying to get people into work through myriad public, private and voluntary sector schemes? What the Institute of Directors described as "clutter" may be part of the problem. I shall return to that. What came out of the committee's discussions, however, was that there are a number of problems with the schemes, how they are funded and their limitations. Those problems can be condensed into lack of information; lack of support; and lack of flexibility.
Those on both sides of the work equation—workers and employers—suffer from lack of information, or lack of access to information. Disabled people often do not know what their rights are or where to find the support that they need. Employers are sometimes hazy about their rights and responsibilities, which can inhibit them from seeking information and support to help them employ people with disabilities. We found evidence that employers may be reluctant to contact potential sources of information in case they found their recruitment and employment practice being investigated and found to be at fault. It might be useful to highlight to any potential employers who are listening that helpline advice can be sought anonymously. There is also a lack of readily accessible information about good practice to help employers overcome their fear factor and their lack of confidence about employing disabled people.
I turn to lack of support. More could be done to fund adaptations to enable disabled people to hold down a job and to encourage employers to take them on. Some equipment is very expensive, but quite minor aids and adaptations can often make all the difference. Funding is available, but there is not enough of it and it is not sufficiently publicised. There is a need for more people to be employed to work with the disabled person, the employer and the disabled person's workmates. Such advocacy can be extremely effective in getting people into work, helping them to stay in work and helping people to advance in work. Too often, disabled people can be left in entry-level jobs when they could and should make progress in the same way as anyone else, as their experience, skills and confidence develop. Training is another type of information. There is a lack of good-quality training for agencies and employers.
The third area of concern is lack of flexibility. There is a lack of flexibility—or, to be fair, in some cases a perceived lack of flexibility—in the benefits system. People are restricted in the number of hours or rate of pay that they can take on, because it affects their benefits. People are terrified of coming out of the benefits system in case they cannot get back into it if their employment does not work out. Lack of flexibility in recruitment practice can be a barrier. It is ironic that the very mechanisms that have been put in place to protect equality of opportunity can be a barrier to people who, for example, find it difficult to do themselves justice in a half-hour interview but could prove their abilities if they were allowed to demonstrate them in a trial working period. This is perhaps the appropriate point at which to mention that the committee found concerns about the two ticks scheme, which was seen as too often being no more than a tick-box effort by employers. Lack of flexibility in working hours is a barrier to people who, for a variety of reasons—physical, mental or family—have what I will loosely describe as good days and bad days. For many people—not all disabled—flexible working hours to accommodate good days and bad days are essential, or at least enormously helpful.
Another area in which many good schemes fall down is lack of flexibility in the time that can be spent with an individual. Some people need more support, or support over a longer period, than others, and most schemes cannot cope with delivering that. Concerns about the schemes that exist revolve around the fragmented nature of the sector; short-term funding; disparities in quality; the postcode lottery; and lack of knowledge among potential clients on the side of the worker and the employer about who the service providers are, where they are and how to access them. A fundamental concern was the lack of co-ordination and partnership working among all the many agencies and organisations. All those concerns must be addressed; if the recommendations in the report are taken on board, they will be.
I was impressed by what the committee found in Norway, where what was being done was characterised by co-ordination and continuity. It is perhaps easier when one Government controls all aspects, but there seemed to be much more stability there; the main official bodies carried on their work adapting as they went, in contrast to the piecemeal landscape in Scotland of different bodies and a succession of pilots. We could learn a lot from the Norwegians.
The importance of work is well recognised, and both the UK Government and the Scottish Executive are doing a great deal to get people, including disabled people, into work. The information and recommendations in the committee's report can make that work more effective. I commend the report not only to the Parliament and the minister, but to all agencies and organisations that have a role to play.
We have come a long way in Scotland in our work on equalities. Equal opportunity is a founding principle of the Parliament, and the Equal Opportunities Committee is one of the Parliament's mandatory committees. While equal opportunities legislation remains reserved to Westminster, the promotion and encouragement of equal opportunities are devolved. We take each of the six strands very seriously in striving to make our society fairer and equitable. However, there is a need to check and measure our progress towards equality. Removing barriers and creating opportunities involves a comprehensive examination of where people with disabilities have told the Equal Opportunities Committee they are now. I hope that that is a useful benchmark against which to measure future improvements.
The report's 156 recommendations mark out the many ways in which life could and should be improved for the almost 20 per cent of Scotland's population identified by the Disability Rights Commission as living with a disability. There is an expectation, rightly, that the Parliament will not just note the report's conclusions but act on the recommendations to remove the barriers and create opportunities so that people with disabilities can access work, further and higher education and leisure services.
The social model of disability emphasises that the barriers that disabled people meet arise mostly from unchanged attitudes and outdated thinking. The DRC describes such barriers as still endemic and as still marginalising 20 per cent of our population. Disabled people want to be viewed not as clients who receive the benefits of social services but as citizens who have the right to participate in their communities and in community decision making. However, in the evidence that the Equal Opportunities Committee took throughout Scotland, we kept hearing about feelings of personal and social isolation, which is totally unacceptable in the 21st century. Everyone wants to be recognised and defined in positive terms that describe what they do and can do. People do not want to be described in negative terms.
Although disabled people make up 20 per cent of Scotland's population, they account for only 3 per cent of public appointments. We welcome the disability working group recommendation that the targets for disabled people in public appointments should be reviewed. Further, we expect the Scottish Executive to work with the commissioner for public appointments in Scotland to make progress in meeting the improved targets through innovative ways of encouraging participation such as by setting up shadowing schemes—they are already in use in Wales—to help diversify public appointments.
Access to leisure is covered in the report by recommendations 71 to 93. The committee recommends that VisitScotland should review its disability access scheme and incorporate within it a single quality assurance scheme. We also recommend that all tourist attraction and visitor accommodation providers should provide disability equality training to their staff. Excellent training that is delivered by people with disabilities is available from organisations such as Capability Scotland. We need a general move away from simply awareness training to something much more robust. Disability training should be included in the training action plans of tourism and accommodation providers.
Recommendation 77 calls for creative Scotland to have inclusion in the arts at the core of its agenda. We know from evidence that there are champions of inclusion, such as the Birds of Paradise Theatre Company in Glasgow and Artlink Edinburgh and Lothians. Inclusion should be standard across Scotland.
Going to the cinema, visiting a club or pub or attending a leisure centre should be ordinary, regular outings for everyone, but the committee heard evidence of the barriers that people with disabilities meet regularly. Those can be simple things, such as disabled facilities being used as storage space or other things such as centres using health and safety regulations as an excuse to refuse access. Even when access is organised properly, the experience can still be frustrating, particularly for young people, because of timetable restrictions.
Much more could be done across the board. I had wanted to say a little about subtitled cinema and audio-described cinema, the provision of which is limited in Scotland and should be expanded, but I must conclude.
This month has been important internationally because of the adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Inclusion Scotland has stated that the convention
"represents a historical moment for the European disability movement … the first official recognition of disability as a Human Rights issue … also … the first Human Rights Treaty to be signed by the European Communities as a legal entity, since the beginning of the European integration process."
In the spirit of that convention, I support the motion.
I was fortunate to be a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee when it began its huge inquiry. At that time, my personal interest was in access to work. When I became a member of the Enterprise and Culture Committee, the cross-cutting issue about this vast pool of under-utilised labour became even more relevant. I found that my time on the Equal Opportunities Committee was very useful in my subsequent committee work.
As Nora Radcliffe said, most people are defined by the job that they do. When we meet people for the first time we most frequently ask them what job they do. A job gives people a sense of purpose, a focus in life, self-respect and the feeling of being valued in the community. Everyone has some talent to offer, as is evident in the supported employment that is provided by many groups. The Scottish Executive has clearly identified the importance of work in moving people out of poverty, reducing reliance on the benefits system and encouraging self-reliance and confidence. A job is therefore even more important for people with disabilities, who have an extra hurdle to overcome.
The Enterprise and Culture Committee has just begun an inquiry into 16 to 18-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training, who are known as NEETs. Because of the barrier that is created by the benefits trap, such young people face similar issues to those that are raised in the Equal Opportunities Committee's report. Dialogue must take place with the Department for Work and Pensions to create a more flexible system.
In a briefing for a debate on moving from education into employment, the Association of Scotland's Colleges identified another group that it defined as WEETs—people who want education, employment or training. Such people may have one of a broad range of disabilities and find that barriers are created not so much by their disabilities but by the lack of understanding on the part of potential employers or education providers.
The Leonard Cheshire report "Discrimination doesn't work" states:
"Disabled people are more than twice as likely to have no educational qualifications as non-disabled people. They are over three times as likely to be economically inactive—and when they are in work, they earn less on average than their peers. By age 30, around a third of young disabled people expect to be earning less than non-disabled people of their own age."
That gives a clear indication of the need for greater educational support as early as possible.
In some of the early visits that the Equal Opportunities Committee undertook, we met disabled people with several degrees—they had excellent qualifications—who were desperate to work but were unable to do so because of the inflexibility of employers. We also met people with increasing disabilities who, after many years of loyal work, were unable to continue working because of the perceived cost of adjustments to workplace facilities.
On the positive side, at a recent well-organised briefing by Psoriasis Scotland I met an amazing lady with psoriatic arthritis who had overcome discrimination in the workplace and unhelpful employers. She was so determined to work that she refused to be deterred. She has found an understanding employer who is willing to provide the necessary specialist equipment and a job that is commensurate with her abilities. She is now a very loyal and conscientious employee. We need that to be the norm rather than an exception that is worthy of comment in a debate, but the example shows how much more needs to be done.
An interesting point is that people with psoriasis suffer a great deal of extremely hurtful discrimination because they have such a visible, disabling and painful chronic skin and arthritic condition. That underlines the fact that many disabling conditions are not always recognised as being disabilities.
Much good legislation is already in place. The Equal Opportunities Committee report highlights that we need not more legislation but greater education to remove unwarranted fear and prejudice among employers. Epilepsy Scotland presents an annual award to the best employer of the year in respect of epilepsy. That is an example of one way forward.
Finally, on the committee's recommendation for a national framework for supported employment, I suggest that such a framework could be progressed by the Enterprise and Culture Committee. Viewing the issue as an employment matter rather than an equal opportunities issue might assist that much-needed education. Given that social enterprises play an increasingly valued role in supported employment and are gaining a much greater profile in enterprise circles, the link between the two issues already exists. Perhaps we, too, need to learn not to create unnecessary barriers.
I declare my registered interest as a member of the Transport and General Workers Union.
As others have said, the debate is the culmination of more than two years of hard work by the committee. Like others, I thank the clerks, the Equal Opportunities Committee's disability reporter—Marilyn Livingstone—and the many other people who contributed to our inquiry over that time.
At an early stage, the purpose of the inquiry was set out as being
"to identify the issues that create barriers to the participation of disabled people, in particular in relation to accessing:
• work;
• further and higher education; and
• leisure."
We felt it necessary to have a limited remit. Now that we are at the end of the inquiry, we can see why.
It became clear at the beginning of the inquiry that there are a number of cross-cutting issues, such as transport, information and physical access, which we have heard about this morning and which permeate the experience of disabled people and create barriers for them. Perhaps the most fundamentally pervasive issue—which was touched on by Marlyn Glen—is attitudes. Obstacles to equality and participation can take a number of forms, such as structural, organisational and physical difficulties, but it is attitudinal barriers that can cause the most profound damage because they effectively underpin inequality by supporting the continuation of discrimination and inaction.
Negative perceptions have a significant impact on the lives of disabled people. They range from apprehension about responding to, and interacting with, disabled people and limited understanding of the nature of disability and the capabilities of disabled people, to more extreme forms of discrimination and harassment, such as that which is encountered disproportionately by people who have mental health problems, learning disabilities and visual impairments.
The Executive has a strong record in trying to effect attitudinal change through high-profile campaigns such as the see me campaign and one Scotland, but the Equal Opportunities Committee identified a number of key actions that would help to bolster that work, including the need to support and develop the quality and availability of disability equality training as a potentially effective solution to tackling negative attitudes. Many members have mentioned that vital measure already this morning. The report particularly suggested that DET has a major role to play in securing equity of treatment for disabled people both in the workplace and as consumers and service users. Unfortunately, many employers lack knowledge and experience of working with disabled people, and they sometimes have misguided perceptions that employing disabled people is expensive.
Our research found that the only disability training that senior managers often receive is limited to the legal requirements and the compliance of their organisation. That translates into a lowest-common-denominator approach and a can't-do attitude to disabled people. One illustration of that is the frequent citing of health and safety considerations as the reason why disabled people cannot participate in certain activities or workplaces. The value of having more widespread DET would be that it would cultivate a more responsive and open can-do attitude.
The committee found that a number of factors would be crucial to ensuring that more people receive DET and that it is of an appropriate standard: all equality training should include disability equality training; disability equality training should be devised by disabled people; and people who work directly with disabled people should have high-level disability equality training, which should also be available to people who work in medicine, health, education and the wider care sector.
As Marlyn Glen mentioned, there are a number of DET providers whose approaches and capabilities are quite diverse, which can be confusing. Our research suggests that there is a need for a central point in Scotland where trainers can register and where organisations can go to seek appropriate DET trainers. The committee recommends that the Scottish Executive develop an accreditation scheme and a quality assurance framework for DET, with a register of accredited providers. That would help to raise the standard and profile of DET, and it could help to ensure its more widespread delivery.
The relative invisibility of disabled people in public life was frequently mentioned in the inquiry—Marlyn Glen mentioned public appointments. There is a lack of realistic role models. Disabled people make up 20 per cent of the population, but are seldom represented as such. Consultees felt that, although high achievers such as Scotland's paralympians have a role to play in raising people's expectations, it can be unhelpful if they are the only public role models whom disabled people encounter. We need to take that on board. The committee believes that there is a need for a long-term strategic campaign led by the Executive that is aimed at tackling negative attitudes and at promoting the visibility of disabled people in society. We feel that the Scottish media should work more closely with disability organisations to present more positive images and role models.
We spoke to a number of people who feel that citizenship education has great potential to reach young people and instil positive attitudes, so I am pleased that the minister mentioned that in his opening speech. The committee recommends that disability equality training should be included in citizenship education in schools. There are many good sources for educational materials—for instance, there is the Zero Tolerance Charitable Trust's respect campaign. We need to adopt a more coherent approach to ensuring that such materials are used in Scottish schools.
I was going to discuss the role of trade unions, but I do not have enough time. I will just say that I am pleased that the Transport and General Workers Union has launched a new disability negotiators' guide
"to promote rights at work and encourage participation in the union."
Devolution was always intended to be a process rather than an event. The Equal Opportunities Committee's inquiry has shown us how much scope we have to effect change in ways that are specific to Scotland in areas of policy that are often seen as being largely reserved to Westminster. Coatbridge College in my constituency has been following the progress of the inquiry and has responded by setting up an access and inclusion group to tackle the perceived and real barriers for prospective students. The principal of the college commented:
"The committee's report and supporting recommendations provide the College Board of management, staff and students with clear direction on how to improve access to further and higher education. It will have immediate and sustained implications for the College by informing and influencing its strategic aims and objectives, organisational structure and estates strategy."
That shows the influence that the committee's report is already having and what we can achieve. I urge the Scottish Executive also to embrace that approach by adopting the committee's recommendations. I commend the report to Parliament.
I record my admiration for the amount of work that went into producing the report and the long process that was required. I joined the Equal Opportunities Committee only recently. My colleague, Frances Curran, participated in the process more than I did, so I do not profess to be an expert on the inquiry.
The report demonstrates just how big the issues are. Although the committee focused on particular aspects, the fact that there are so many recommendations even on those aspects demonstrates how big an issue the exclusion of disabled people in our society is and how much work needs to be done. I hope that the 156 recommendations and the appeals to more than 100 organisations to act, which the report contains, will be implemented. That will require the Executive to put leadership and resources behind the recommendations and it will require proper mechanisms for holding to account various organisations and public bodies as well as the Executive for delivering—or not.
I will speak about a couple of particular issues that the report touches on and other issues that it does not. It should be accepted that we sometimes generalise too much when we talk about disabled people; among them are a whole lot of individuals in very different situations and with very different disabilities and needs. Many people who have specific conditions need specific approaches to be taken by organisations and some attitudes need to be challenged—I am thinking specifically of people with autistic spectrum disorders. The adoption of the European convention on human rights in relation to disabilities, with the specific commitments that it contains for people with autism, has set the bar very high for government and public bodies. Such people are a section of the community who, in particular, are not being served well in any respect, including in relation to employment, transport, education and health.
Among those whom we call disabled people are people who have complex problems of ill health and morbidity, along with their disability. Our public services do not do very well when they are presented with people who have complex needs. The overcentralisation of specialties in particular means that the national health service is not set up to deal with a person who presents with a number of chronic conditions and disabilities. I speak from experience, with regard to my mother. I sometimes wonder whether it would be easier to chop up people like my mum into different bits and send their bits to all the different departments and organisations to be catered for. There is no can-do attitude in respect of examining people holistically and bringing to them everything that they need, instead of their having to chase around for services in every nook and cranny of the health service, their local authority, the voluntary sector or wherever. It is a huge issue. The report touches on some of the issues and we really need somebody to take responsibility for bringing everything together and driving things so that people with disabilities and people with complex morbidity and illnesses do not have to chase the services themselves.
The other big issue that underpins the problem is poverty. A hugely disproportionate number of disabled people are in poverty. Only 45 per cent of disabled people in Scotland are in work—about half the rate for enabled people—and Scottish households with one disabled person or more are twice as likely to live in poverty as is a household with no disabled people. It is not only disabled people who are discriminated against; those who care for them and others are affected by the disability. More than 40 per cent of the households in Scotland that contain at least one disabled person have an annual income of less than £10,000.
The benefits system and ability to get into work are huge issues. The benefits system is reserved to Westminster, but the Scottish Parliament has a duty to comment on such issues and to push them. I would like us to have the powers to do something about the situation because I have no illusions about Westminster delivering. Arbitrary age limits for access to benefits such as disability living allowance are completely inappropriate. They represent the state's rationing of access to those benefits in a completely discriminatory way. That must change because it is not compatible with the European convention on human rights. I agree with the DRC chairman, Bert Massie, who said earlier this year:
"Our vision is of a future where having an impairment or long term health condition is considered an ordinary aspect of human experience, not an extraordinary sign of human failure; where the link between having an impairment or long term condition and living a life of restricted opportunities, poverty and unfulfilled potential is broken forever."
That will take massive resources.
Recommendation 119 of the report concerns transport. I support it whole-heartedly, but it is a challenging recommendation. I hope that, when the Minister for Communities takes the recommendations to all the Executive departments, he will speak specifically to the Minister for Transport, who published his transport strategy and bus action plan the week before last. The bus action plan has more quangos than buses and they have all come along at once, including some that are to be called punctuality improvement partnerships—really. We need more buses and more transport and we need it all to be accessible and integrated; we do not need more quangos.
I ask the Minister for Communities to speak to all the ministers when he implements the recommendations. I hope that he will come back to Parliament with a real plan that has goals and timetables for when the recommendations will be delivered. That would be a real improvement.
I will concentrate on the problems that many disabled people face with regard to physical access. The main obstacle to be overcome is complacency among people who do not have daily to overcome access problems. Until such time as we or one of our family or friends are confronted with those problems, our general attitude is one of sympathy but, sadly, that sympathy is at arm's length. The complacent attitude agrees that there is a problem but, as it only affects other people, simply turns a blind eye to the situation.
Most progress on disability awareness is down to the sterling work that is done by campaigning groups, many of which have appeared before the Equal Opportunities Committee to air their grievances. One morning, the committee heard evidence from architects, followed by evidence from wheelchair-bound constituents. The highly-qualified architects made their presentation first, and next up was a retired gentleman from Dumfries in a wheelchair, who promptly shot them all down with an extremely well-articulated tirade that culminated in a statement to the effect: "Architects—these people haven't a clue." That man implied that it is difficult for somebody who is not disabled to approach problems from a disabled person's standpoint and that, unless one is confronted daily with the problem of physical access, one cannot fully appreciate its complexity. I am inclined to agree with that point of view.
We have a mountain to climb in Scotland in that regard: we have only to consider transport as an example. Free travel for the elderly is a brilliant concept, but we must never forget that thousands of people are excluded through no fault of their own. I refer to people who cannot gain physical access to their local buses. However, the problems multiply rapidly when we examine access to trains. Most of us are familiar with the standard loudspeaker announcement that crackles and booms out, "Please mind the gap when boarding or alighting from this train." At my station in Stewarton, the step up is about 15in to 18in, plus a gap. That will have to be addressed—it is certainly not wheelchair friendly. South Ayrshire Council has set an admirable example by raising the pavement at all bus stops. That simple solution to the access problem will last for many years.
Our report contains many recommendations on physical access, so I will highlight some of them. Recommendation 140 asks that the impact of new building regulations on accessibility be closely monitored to ensure that the regulations are implemented. Recommendation 142 states that applications under the new planning laws that Parliament has considered should carry an access statement that should be closely scrutinised to ensure that it is being strictly enforced.
Recommendation 144 highlights the need for long-term resourcing for members of access panels, while recommendation 147 calls for training and guidelines for those people. Such training should be updated and scrutinised by disabled groups.
Recommendation 150 suggests that the Scottish Executive should establish national accessible-design award schemes and that local schemes should be encouraged, with the involvement of disabled people. Recommendation 155, which concerns historic buildings, states that agencies should co-operate to achieve consistent policies on physical access for disabled people, while recommendation 156 looks to Historic Scotland to lead by example in respect of ease of access for people who have disabilities.
It has been a pleasure to be a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, but I would prefer it to have been given more power to end all sorts of inequalities. It is my considered opinion that the most unacceptable inequality in Scotland today is the gender inequality that women accept meekly in respect of pensions. Pension credits for a man are £114, but are only another £60 for his spouse. That is pensions inequality and it is not fit for purpose. Pensions provision is not a devolved issue, but surely the Scottish Parliament should be able to let our Chancellor of the Exchequer know that such downgrading of women to second-class pensioners is not acceptable in the 21st century. We should all bow our heads in shame as we pass in Parliament's public hall the exhibition on suffragettes. They got women the vote but seemed to ease up a bit instead of seeking true equality with men in every area, especially pensions.
The root of all inequality is poverty and, until the Parliament manages to eliminate poverty, we will continue to thole unacceptable inequalities.
I congratulate the committee, the convener—Cathy Peattie—and the clerking team for a comprehensive report on the barriers that disabled people face and, importantly, on identifying some solutions. The report is a seminal piece of work on which we will draw for years to come.
I join committee members in acknowledging all those who gave evidence, the organisations both of and for disabled people and, most important, disabled people themselves. They have directly shaped the report, and I suggest that that degree of ownership means that interest in its implementation extends well beyond the walls of the Parliament. That is as it should be.
It is not often that Sandra White and I agree, but she is right to say that delivery matters. I hope that when the Scottish Executive responds formally, it will provide us with a robust framework with timetables for implementing each recommendation and a monitoring system that charts progress transparently and openly. That will instil confidence and will serve to underline that we want to do more to move from warm words to practical action that makes a difference to the everyday lives of disabled people.
I want to talk about transport and access. If members ever thought that transport and access were a marginal issue, I commend to them the Sunday Mail access for all campaign, which highlights in a straightforward and practical way the implications of someone being denied access simply because they are disabled.
Let us imagine for a minute not being able to get into our local newsagent or shop for a pint of milk, or not being able to get into our library, housing office or even—for goodness' sake—our local hospital. There are real barriers, and basic opportunities are denied. I know that minimum standards are required by law, and I welcome them. New public buildings will be accessible in the future, but we need to do more now with existing buildings.
Constituents come to see me about a range of issues. I will mention a selection. On buses, they say, "Jackie, we've got a wonderful concessionary scheme but we can't get on the bus because it's not low floor." As others have pointed out, timetable information does not indicate which buses are accessible, never mind when they will arrive. Surely that is easy to fix. Some bus companies do well in extending and improving their fleet and ensuring that they have more low-floor buses, but others just do not bother. One suspects that they do not care.
My challenge to the Executive is to examine accelerating the requirement for vehicle accessibility before the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 deadlines. That could be done by encouraging those who contract with our bus companies, for example for school transport, to ensure that there are minimum standards across the whole fleet—but I am sure that the minister will have more imaginative ideas.
When it comes to travel by train, we know that some platforms are inaccessible and that there are challenges because of the geography surrounding stations, but I have learnt from my constituents that even when people can gain access, they cannot get their mobility scooters on the train because they are too big for the entrance areas of certain trains. I hasten to add that I am not to be confused with a trainspotter and I do not possess an anorak, but I now find myself looking at trains with renewed interest.
On advice and assistance, I commend to the chamber the thistle travel card scheme, which we have debated before. Launched by a range of disability organisations and the Executive, it is designed to help people with a disability by alerting transport staff, on trains and buses, that the traveller might need some extra help.
Finally, I will mention the abuse of disabled parking bays and the report's recommendations 126 and 127 on accessible parking spaces, which I support. Members will be aware—I hope—that I have launched a consultation on a proposed bill on disabled persons' parking. Essentially, it would make all disabled parking bays legally enforceable.
I will pause and ask those present how often they have parked in a disabled person's parking bay because they wanted to nip into the supermarket or a high-street shop for a few seconds. After all, what harm could that do? As someone put it to me starkly, "If you want my disabled parking space, please have my disability too."
The consequences of our unthinkingly occupying a disabled parking space can be extremely distressing for a disabled person with acute mobility problems. I know from disabled constituents the frustration that they experience when they are unable to park near enough to the shops or their own home. In many cases, because they are unable to walk any distance, they end up driving around for hours on end until a disabled parking space becomes free.
The problem is that the majority of disabled parking bays are not legally enforceable—in other words, someone who does not have a disability is not penalised for parking in one. The reason that is often cited is the long, complex and costly process that a council has to go through to designate a legally enforceable parking bay. The purpose of my proposed bill is to sweep that aside and simplify the process to ensure that any disabled parking bay, whether it is on street, in a private car park or in a residential area, can be enforced. I hope that I get support for that across the chamber; I can tell members that I am getting support for it from disabled people across Scotland.
I congratulate the committee and commend its recommendations to the Executive.
I pass on our condolences to Cathy Peattie and her family.
I congratulate the committee on a comprehensive report. This has been a good debate that has clearly illustrated how attitudes to the disabled have changed. There was a time when disabled people felt marginalised and largely dependent on others. Now, with our inclusive society and modern technologies, they are performing key roles in the workplace and starring internationally in the sports arena. However, there is still a long way to go.
As my colleague Jamie McGrigor mentioned, when David Cameron last came to Edinburgh in October, he made the central point of his visit a meeting with Capability Scotland, and he delivered a speech on disability rights. Like many others, he is only too aware of the limited opportunities for disabled people and the discrimination that they still face, and he is committed to addressing the issue constructively.
Elaine Smith and Marlyn Glen referred to equal opportunities. I would like to think that there will come a time when there is no need for equal opportunities for the disabled to be enshrined in statute—employers and businesses will automatically appreciate the value and contribution of those with a disability, they will wish to make their premises as accessible as possible, they will encourage anyone and everyone to seek their full potential, and they will actively remove any obstacles in their way. Unfortunately, we are not yet at that point, but I feel that we have made great strides towards it in recent years.
As I live in and represent the Highlands and Islands, I am aware that disabled people there are often at a greater disadvantage than people in the central belt because the topography of our area can present added difficulties. Our infrastructure also tends to be older.
Jamie McGrigor rightly highlighted the need to streamline the benefits system. It often concerns me that many disabled people are denied access to services, providers and resources. It is for that reason that I am pleased the committee report goes such a long way to address those points.
John Swinburne referred to access requirements and a constructive dialogue with disabled people. The report suggests that VisitScotland should strengthen its disability access scheme. I strongly support that suggestion. Tourist attractions in Scotland are among the best in the world, so it is only right that they should be opened up to the largest possible number of visitors.
It is remarkable how much has been done. One of my constituents, who offers tourist accommodation at Melfort pier in Argyll, recently won a prestigious award in recognition of the work they have done to create a set of inclusive and accessible accommodation units for able-bodied and disabled people alike. That was accomplished despite a mountain of bureaucracy and regulation, and it sets an example to our tourism industry. Castle Urquhart on the shores of Loch Ness is another fine example of disabled access being given the utmost priority.
Nora Radcliffe and Shiona Baird rightly mentioned access to work. I was most encouraged to read the recommendation that the number of disabled people actively participating in public life should be increased. That will lead only to a greater awareness of disability issues, and I trust that it will only be a matter of time before they are participating fully in this place.
Carolyn Leckie, Sandra White and Jackie Baillie highlighted transport issues. Access to public transport, while supposed to be improved, often still has a long way to go. The report is right to suggest that the Executive develop a coherent strategy to address that issue. Having dealt with a number of similar cases involving constituents, I shall monitor the Executive's action on that with great interest—I am sure that we will return to the matter in due course.
I was interested to read the recommendations on the adaptation of existing buildings, both modern and historic, to improve their accessibility. Although it is obviously only right for new buildings to be made fully accessible—I fully concur with the committee that changes to the building regulations will improve the situation thoroughly—existing buildings can often present greater problems. I understand that the costs for small businesses and the impact on listed buildings can be high, but I hope that the committee's suggestions will go some way to overcome those problems.
I was interested to note, on the recent opening of Kew Palace in London, that a tasteful disabled lift has been built on the side of the building, to improve access greatly. That was done without detracting from the building's style or age. Just such initiatives and ways of thinking need to be considered more and more.
The report is broadly to be welcomed. I am pleased that the committee has undertaken such a thorough investigation into equality issues for disabled people and produced a wide-ranging list of proposals. It is important that we take the matter seriously. Far too many disabled men and women are kept out of employment, the arts, media, businesses, visitor attractions and public transport. Those people could introduce a valuable contribution into society, but we are losing the opportunity. We must never lose sight of the ability in disability.
Although I am not a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, I congratulate it on its disability inquiry and on the publication of such a comprehensive and far-reaching report. The committee has fulfilled its duties and obligations many times over in reaching out across Scotland to meet disabled people and service providers to seek their views, to inform its deliberations. As a consequence, the recommendations in the report have gained added weight and relevance.
I suggest that the Parliament has a duty to ensure that this is one committee inquiry report that is not allowed to lie on an Executive shelf gathering dust. A concern is that the Executive has been slow to follow up the establishment of the independent living review project team in England, which the Prime Minister's strategy unit initiated. In its briefing for the debate, the Disability Rights Commission makes it clear that it regards the committee's recommendation that the Scottish Executive establish an independent living task force as the key proposal that underpins every other aspect of the report. The task force's objective would be to ensure co-ordinated policies and the delivery of services that will allow all disabled people to have the same choice, control and freedom as any other citizen at home, at work and as members of the community.
A lack of interdepartmental co-ordination has been a weakness of the Executive, and Parliament will require to see the flesh on the bones of any commitment to the independent living agenda before it will be convinced by any Executive pronouncement, especially at the present stage of the parliamentary session. The minister acknowledged that the disability working group's recommendations do not go as far as the committee's recommendations on independent living. When the Executive's response is issued in January, it will be scrutinised keenly on that matter.
As befits the inquiry's scope, the debate has been wide ranging. Many members have made pertinent speeches. Sandra White, John Swinburne, Shiona Baird and Jackie Baillie highlighted the importance of transport as a cross-cutting issue. Without accessible public transport and secure door-to-door services, disabled people can be excluded from access to leisure and other services. Disability equality training for public sector staff is clearly important. As the minister says, the advent of the disability equality duty must become much more evident in planning services.
Nora Radcliffe, Jamie McGrigor and Carolyn Leckie emphasised the barriers that people who seek work or who are being supported in work face. We all know that paid work is the main route out of poverty, which afflicts a much higher proportion of disabled people than of the general population. Inadequate information for potential employees and employers, the need for more support at work through better funding for aids and adaptations and a lack of flexibility in working hours and in the benefits system add up to fragmented and patchy support services to help people access and retain employment. We can and must do better. The solutions are known, but they are not being implemented.
Perhaps the biggest challenge that we face is the need to change attitudes to disability and to disabled people. It must be recognised that people should not be defined or categorised by the impairment or long-term illness that they have and that such people have an equal right to participate in society without having to overcome barriers such as discrimination or false assumptions about what they can and cannot do and about what they can expect from services.
It is clear that the impact of disability is affected greatly by environmental, attitudinal and cultural barriers to full participation. Our task is to remove those barriers.
I congratulate the committee again on the significant contribution that the report represents to the future direction of disability equality in Scotland. I pay particular tribute to Cathy Peattie for her leadership in driving the work forward and express my condolences to her on her recent bereavement. As I said in my opening speech, the Executive will respond to the report early next year, but now I will reflect on some of the issues that have been raised in the debate.
Nora Radcliffe and Shiona Baird focused on employment issues. The report highlights the important role of work in assisting disabled people out of poverty and in many other ways. The Executive agrees. "Workforce Plus—An Employability Framework for Scotland" asserts the Executive's belief that, for most people and their families, work is the surest way of raising and sustaining people out of poverty.
Many who depend on welfare benefits face a range of barriers to employment, including disability, poor mental and physical health, low levels of qualifications and caring responsibilities. The workforce plus strategy establishes local partnerships, which are being required to take action to ensure that the services that are needed to help people go into work and progress in employment are available. That involves mapping local provision and addressing gaps and duplication.
We value the committee's investigation into supported employment. The Scottish Union of Supported Employment received funding from workforce plus to develop a "Blueprint for Supported Employment in Scotland", which was launched in October 2006. In addition, the workforce plus team has seconded a learning disabilities co-ordinator to lead on matters that relate to learning disabilities, which will include the role that supported employment can play.
We will consider further the detailed supported employment recommendations in the committee's report. Our support for the blueprint shows that we recognise the part that supported employment can and should play in helping disabled people and others into the labour market.
Sandra White, Carolyn Leckie and Jackie Baillie highlighted transport. The Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland advises the Scottish ministers on matters that relate to accessible transport for disabled people. I thank MACS for the work that it has done and the contribution that it has made since its establishment in 2002.
The new regional transport partnerships will be key to helping to deliver disability equality. They are subject to the general duty to promote disability equality and, in addition, guidance has been issued to all regional transport partnerships about undertaking an equality impact assessment as part of the development of their regional transport strategies.
We note the committee's findings on the abuse of parking spaces for disabled people, about which Jackie Baillie and Jamie McGrigor spoke. We are aware that the issue is frustrating and needs to be tackled. We are conducting research on the subject of tackling the abuse of off-street parking for disabled people and the report of that research will be available in the spring.
I move to leisure and public life, on which Marlyn Glen majored. We want Scotland to be a tourist destination for disabled people. VisitScotland produces an accessible Scotland guide that lists almost 1,000 attractions and accommodation providers that are members of its disability access scheme. It is also establishing a focus group that will help to inform it how it can further develop the content and delivery of its information service in order to continue to promote and market Scotland as an accessible destination. We shall, of course, consider the committee's recommendations relating to VisitScotland, including those that seek to expand its activities.
The culture (Scotland) bill and guidance will strengthen access to culture. Consultation on the draft bill was launched on 14 December. Among other things, the bill and the guidance will highlight the need for local authorities to engage and consult equalities groups, including disabled people, throughout the process of determining the provision of culture in their area. In preparation for the legislation, the Executive will match fund cultural entitlement pathfinders in order to explore approaches to developing cultural entitlements and cultural planning activities. Yesterday, we announced our support for cultural pathfinders focusing on particular communities and sections of society that are known to be underrepresented in cultural participation and our support for a pathfinder programme for disabled people.
We accept the committee's recommendation, to which Marlyn Glen and Elaine Smith referred, that the Executive should work with the commissioner for public appointments to develop mechanisms to increase the participation of disabled people in public life. Indeed, I have already started a dialogue with the commissioner for public appointments on the development of her diversity strategy.
More generally, the Executive accepts the social model of disability and the principles of independent living. We want to work with disabled people to develop our approach and identify the best ways in which we can support independent living. We said that in our response to the disability working group's report and will say more about it in our formal response to the committee's report next year.
Elaine Smith majored on attitudes. She referred to the highly successful see me campaign, with which I was pleased to be associated in my previous portfolio. She emphasised the importance of disability equality training. We recognise the value of such training and will establish an expert group of disabled people to work with us to develop our approach to it.
I am pleased to hear the minister's comments. However, I want to ask about wider trade union issues. In evidence to the committee, Des Loughney of the Scottish Trades Union Congress said that he was surprised about
"the lack of contact between the trade union movement and what I call the world of disability."—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 10 January 2006; c 1307.]
Will the minister comment on the STUC's one workplace equal rights campaign, which is part of the one Scotland, many cultures campaign? Furthermore, will he congratulate the T&G on its recent initiative?
I certainly congratulate the T&G; we have also had a successful partnership with the STUC on the campaign that Elaine Smith mentioned. Obviously, the matter to which she referred is a matter for the trade union movement to deal with, but I am confident that it will respond positively.
John Swinburne mentioned physical access. We expect that the revised building standards regulations that will come into force in May 2007 will improve the accessibility of buildings. The committee recommended that the impact of the new regulations be closely monitored and that disabled people should be involved in that process. We will do that; indeed, the Scottish Building Standards Agency is currently looking at how best to achieve that aim.
We are committed to supporting the Scottish Disability Equality Forum and, through it, the access panel network. Access panels have an important role to play. We look forward to discussing the committee's recommendations with the forum in the new year.
How much time do I have left, Presiding Officer?
You have enough time. I will tell you when you are running out of it.
I should say something about lifelong learning, which has not featured too much in the debate, although I am sure that it will feature in Marilyn Livingstone's closing speech. Lifelong learning is an important part of the report. We agree with the committee that unequal access to lifelong learning is a major issue. Our current lifelong learning strategy seeks to promote the mainstreaming of equality in the development of policy and the shaping of legislation.
Will the minister acknowledge the grand work that is being done by the people in the gallery who are using sign language? Their conveying of what is being said to the people in the gallery is admirable.
I acknowledge the invaluable sign language work that is being done in the Parliament and throughout Scotland. We have recently sought to support and expand the training for that work.
To help support the mainstreaming of equality in the further and higher education sectors, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council has launched the equality forward unit, which will support the FE and HE sectors in delivering the equalities agenda. The unit includes a specific disability strand that will work to support disabled students and disabled staff. In addition, "Partnership Matters: A Guide to Local Authorities, NHS Boards and Voluntary Organisations on Supporting Students with Additional Needs in Further Education", which the Executive published in 2005, helps to promote understanding of disability in FE institutions and sets out the roles and responsibilities of all the agencies that are involved in providing support for students with disabilities. We will work to extend guidance to HE institutions; indeed, recommendations on that have been made. Everyone acknowledges that the publication has resulted in improvement in the FE sector.
We are committed to ensuring that appropriate support is provided to enable students to undertake their studies successfully. The funding council is currently considering developing and implementing a needs-led approach to identify students with additional support needs and is progressing a needs-led assessment model in a pilot project involving 11 colleges.
The report makes important points about transitional support. Our work includes addressing the needs of young people who are not in education, employment or training through our more choices, more chances NEET strategy. We aim to understand fully who those young people are and to put together the right package of learning and support for pre-16-year-olds and those who are 16 and over. Our NEET strategy identifies young disabled people as one of several key groups that local partnerships should target in implementing the strategy. I heard what Shiona Baird said about WEETs. Obviously, what she said must be addressed in the context of considering the report.
Again, I commend the committee for its work. Its report will form part of the legacy of this session of Parliament, inform policy for years to come and help to drive far-reaching change across Scottish society. The Executive will respond to the report in detail early next year. However, I hope that we have signalled our appreciation for the contribution that the committee has made and I hope that we have made it clear that we will work with it to realise our shared goals for disability equality. The new disability equality duty, the disability working group report and the committee's inquiry report will help to increase the pace of change and deliver equality of opportunity for disabled people throughout Scotland.
I thank Cathy Peattie for her first-class convenership of meetings in which evidence was taken for this important inquiry and for her commitment to ensuring that disabled people's issues would be raised and disabled people would be given a voice so that they could help us to reach the solutions that are reflected in the committee's recommendations. I am sure that all our thoughts and prayers are with her and her family.
On behalf of the committee, I also thank all the people from throughout Scotland who have given informal and formal evidence, and the clerking team, whose hard work is reflected in today's debate. I thank it for all its help and support in producing the groundbreaking report that we are discussing.
In the time that is available to me, I will try, on behalf of the committee, to cover as many of the points that have been raised as possible. I will deal with those points under the headings that are included in the report. I hope that doing so will make what I say easier to follow.
Margaret Smith, whom I thank for stepping into the breach and eloquently opening the debate, highlighted the importance of transport. She spoke about the common issues that disabled people face, which our witnesses raised time and again.
Malcolm Chisholm recognises that there is still significant work to be done, but he has an appetite to move forward. I say to him that we will continue to check his appetite. However, we welcome his support and the work that he has done with us in producing the report. He talked about the public sector having a major role to play and the Scottish Executive's key role. The committee would certainly support what he said in that respect. He said that there is much more to do and that our report will be fundamental in setting the agenda, which is important.
As the minister said, our report goes further than the disability working group's and sets many challenges. However, I am sure that the Executive will meet those challenges. The minister has given a positive response in general today, but we look forward to a more detailed response from the Executive in the new year and will continue to work with the minister. Like him, we have enthusiasm for a sustainable, long-term solution and commend the committee's report as an opportunity to remove the barriers to participation that are faced by disabled people the length and breadth of Scotland.
Recommendation 4 is that
"the Scottish Executive establish a task force, along the lines of that suggested in evidence".
I point out to Adam Ingram that the recommendation also says that we would like the Executive to
"bring forward proposals on how to advance the independent living agenda in Scotland".
I am sure that that will satisfy everyone who believes that to be a key recommendation.
Nora Radcliffe, who acted as the deputy convener throughout the majority of the committee's evidence taking, talked about work and the importance of interaction with other people. That is a key point that came over strongly in the evidence that we took. Carolyn Leckie and other members also mentioned paid work as a route out of poverty.
Carolyn Leckie told us that only 45 per cent of disabled people are in work. During evidence, we heard that only 6 per cent of people with ASD are in employment. Will Marilyn Livingstone join me in congratulating the National Autistic Society on the work that it is doing with employers to try to change that?
Yes, I will. That work is an exemplar of best practice and the National Autistic Society is to be congratulated on it. I know that Elaine Smith has done much in the cross-party group on autistic spectrum disorder to help take that work forward.
Nora Radcliffe also talked about adaptations, which the committee heard a lot about. Often, it is not about spending a lot of money but about providing minor aids that can make a huge difference to whether people can participate in work. She also mentioned the importance of advocacy, which is a key issue.
The lack of flexibility in the benefit system and in recruitment practice needs to be addressed. The committee had concerns regarding the two-ticks scheme. Basically, we say that it is a tick-the-box exercise that it needs to be looked at. Nora Radcliffe used the word "flexibility" a few times earlier. Instead of talking about education, education, education, today we should be talking about flexibility, flexibility, flexibility. The need for flexibility came over loud and clear in evidence. We need to consider fragmentation, short-term funding and the lack of co-ordination between agencies.
Recommendation 10 says that the enterprise companies should refocus the work that they do in assisting disabled people into work. We also believe that more information should be given to employers to assist them in employing disabled people. We feel that the public sector in Scotland should set an example in the recruitment of disabled people.
I turn to further and higher education. Shiona Baird talked about the NEET group. Recommendation 37, which she mentioned, says that the needs of disabled people should be integral to the implementation of the NEET strategy. That is crucial. Many of us feel that the strategy should be focused on the students. We would like more soft indicators to be in place and the journey travelled to be measured, instead of the hard indicators that are currently used by Scottish Enterprise, in particular. We would like the careers guidance that is given to young disabled people in schools to be improved. We believe that Careers Scotland should fundamentally review the service that it provides to disabled people.
We also think that familiarisation visits to, and early starts at, colleges and universities would be beneficial. It is a big step to move from school to higher and further education, especially for disabled people, and we feel that such initiatives should be promoted, supported and encouraged. We would like the provision of key workers to be evaluated with a view to rolling out good practice, as that came out again and again in evidence.
We would like the Executive to reconsider funding and what is happening in SAAS. It came over again and again in evidence that pretendy courses should be eliminated. Some people feel that there is a revolving door into further and higher education, whereby they just go from one course to another. The committee feels that courses should have a benefit and should lead on to the next step, not just encourage the revolving door. We think that the teachability project is very good, and we hope that it will be continued and extended to colleges.
Marlyn Glen said that 20 per cent of Scotland's population is disabled. We should think about the importance of disabled people within our communities, in all walks of life, and to our economy. The disabled pound has been talked about. In recognising the rights of our citizens to participate and not face personal and social isolation, access to leisure is very important. We would therefore like the minister to consider the active schools co-ordinators. We believe that all local authorities should recruit an active schools co-ordinator; at the moment, only 50 per cent have one.
We believe that the number of disabled people who participate actively in our communities and in public life should be increased and that measures should be put in place to support disabled people in doing that. That is fundamental. Access to leisure can be just going to the pub with one's friends or whatever. One young lady in Wick told us that, after 5 o'clock at night, there was no public transport to enable people to get into Wick. She had a taxi pass, but she could not use it because there were no taxis that were suitable for her after 5 o'clock in the evening. There needs to be a joined-up approach. All that that young girl wanted to do was meet her friends and do all the things that we take for granted. Access to leisure is very important.
Elaine Smith talked about attitudes and raised the issues of attitudinal barriers and negative perceptions. The need for disability equality training and the citing of health and safety concerns as barriers to participation are big issues. That is why we have recommended that they should be taken on board and that we should co-ordinate a long-term, strategic campaign to tackle negative attitudes. Elaine Smith talked about positive role models.
Sandra White talked about access to transport, which was a theme throughout the committee's evidence taking. We welcomed all the examples that Jackie Baillie gave us from her constituency casework. I am sure that many of us agree with her and have had to deal with such cases as well.
I have run out of time, but I note that poverty was a theme running throughout the debate. We need to tackle all the issues, including work, further and higher education, leisure, attitudes, information and physical access. We need to look at all those issues.
In conclusion, I welcome the constructive debate that we have had on the committee's report this morning and the commitments that the Executive has given to look favourably on the report's recommendations.
As others have done, I emphasise the value to our inquiry of the input by disabled people. From the outset, the committee took the view that it was their inquiry and I am pleased that so many disabled people and organisations have been so vocal in their support for our recommendations.
Although this debate is the end of a lengthy and worthwhile process, I am sure that all members of the committee will agree that it marks the start of the next stage of our work in the area. It is now up to the Equal Opportunities Committee and its successors to monitor the implementation of the recommendations and to ensure that they make a real difference to disabled people in Scotland. Disabled people want to see action from the committee and it is our duty to ensure that that happens.
We know from our inquiry that disabled people look to us to make a difference to their lives as equal members of society. I hope that all members of the Parliament and Executive and all service providers will share our commitment to do all that we can in the years to come to match the words in the report with concrete, effective action. I thank everyone who has participated in this morning's debate and commend the report to Parliament.
Meeting suspended until 14:00.
On resuming—