Chamber and committees

I would just go back to what I said—it is about the enforcement bit of it.

That is exactly what I would want to see in the bill. Exploring that a little further, we can see that there are clear advantages. We have commissioners, so we know that having a commissioner is a possibility; what we are discussing today is whether this particular commissioner’s bill will have the effect that it is intended to have. That depends partly on the powers of the commissioner, which could potentially be used to positive effect to not only focus specifically on the rights of disabled people, but hold public bodies to account and, as Meghan Gallacher said, act on behalf of disabled people. The commissioner could also have a role in highlighting ableism in Scotland and the issues of discrimination against disabled people, so there are clear merits there.

I can try. I think that I have covered most of that already. My concern around the finances is duplication. That is the bit that I am worried about. Would it be an effective use of the money? I refer to the money that it would cost not only to set up the office but to sustain it. We want it to be sustainable. It has to be. We would not want to set an expectation that was not delivered.

I would not want anyone to think that one set of money is taking away from another. That is not how it works. We have to discuss the bill on its own merits. I am not going to get into that question.

I am aware that the issue of costs has been spoken about in previous evidence sessions and that, for instance, at the evidence session on 18 June, when asked whether the proposed costs were an underestimate, Amy Dalrymple from Marie Curie Scotland said:

“The costs of ensuring that disabled people can access services ... are often underestimated”.—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 18 June 2023; c 18.]

I do not think that the establishment of a commissioner can be done cheaply. I welcome Jeremy Balfour’s willingness to look at how administrative aspects could be shared and at how to make the role more affordable. However, you would expect me to be very cautious about that. I have looked at a comparison of similar commissioner roles across the UK. They usually have between 15 and 20 staff. The Commissioner for Older People for Northern Ireland has approximately 18 staff and the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales has approximately 16 staff. Therefore, you have to be very cautious—well, I have to be. I am scrutinising the money that goes into that.

As I said, my mind is open. If there is clear evidence that the best use of the money would be to have a commissioner who could possibly have an administrative team of between 15 and 20 staff, that will be looked at very seriously. However, the disabled people’s organisations want to ensure that the commissioner has teeth, and they can have teeth only if they have a full team of people who are able to execute that work. Therefore, I would worry that if, for example, we thought that we could cut down on the staff and have five or 10 people, the commissioner would not have the reach that was expected. Therefore, we need to be very mindful of that. However, I look forward to getting more facts and figures and evidence and analysis of that.

There has been a lot of discussion of inclusive communication. My initial delving into it indicates that there is no consistency. There are councils and public sector providers that are doing a really good job on inclusive communication but it is not consistent. I hope that we can address that through the bill and by spreading good practice.

Again, intersectionality comes into it as well. There are different layers of communication. We are not just talking about British Sign Language, for instance, but inclusive communication in everything for the hard of hearing—I am not going to list all the groups, because you always forget something, so please forgive me.

The general principle of it is that there are amazing good practices, but people use that term “postcode lottery”, which means that, depending on where you live, you do or do not get something. We cannot have that.

The principle of inclusive communication is important because it goes to the heart of the dignity and agency of those who have communication barriers. Perhaps they do not have the barriers; perhaps it is us who are creating those barriers, so it is on us to deal with them.

We need to ensure that provision is consistent. The public service equity duty is a big part of that. Again, it is about using the carrot and the stick. Currently, I am looking at whether there is a place for legislation. However, remember that we work in partnership with local authorities through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We have to respect that relationship, so we need to consider whether the best way is for the Scottish Government to legislate or whether we need to provide the tools and the frameworks.

Also, ministers have additional powers to strongly suggest—well, more than suggest; I cannot remember the phrase that is in the powers—something. I am considering those at the moment. What powers do we have to enforce that everybody is honouring their duties with regard to inclusive communications?

Despite Scotland receiving the most challenging settlement in the history of devolution in last year’s United Kingdom Government budget, the Scottish Government is doing all that it can to prioritise investment to tackle and reduce poverty here, including investment that will benefit black and minority ethnic households. That includes committing £6.3 billion for social security benefits and payments, investing nearly £600 million to support the delivery of affordable homes and providing more than £370 million to enable free bus travel for more than 2 million people. In addition, our anti-racist employment strategy seeks to reduce income inequality for racialised minorities by supporting employers to address barriers so that people from such minorities can enter, progress in and stay in employment.

I thank Ash Regan for raising such an important point and pointing out the trauma that women are going through.

The Scottish Government is committed to dignity and respect for all. The Equality Act 2010 provides protection for women. The Scottish Government strongly supports the separate and single-sex exceptions that are in the 2010 act, which allow for women to have single-sex spaces.

It is vital that the use of emergency accommodation for women who are experiencing homelessness does not exacerbate any of the issues that may have led to them presenting as homeless, such as domestic abuse, mental health issues, substance use or a disability or impairment.

Temporary accommodation is an important safety net and, when support services are provided, care must be taken to ensure the safety of everyone who is accommodated. Our homelessness statistics show that accommodation in the social rented sector is the most common type of temporary accommodation that is used by local authorities. Social rented accommodation accounts for 55 per cent of the temporary accommodation that is used by local authorities, with hostels being used in only a small number—9 per cent—of cases.

The Scottish Government’s delivering equally safe fund is providing more than £7 million this year to local women’s aid groups for support for services for women and children.

We have introduced provisions in the Housing (Scotland) Bill that, if passed, will put a duty on social landlords to develop and implement a domestic abuse policy that outlines how they will support their tenants who are at risk of homelessness, including protecting the right of women to stay safely in their own homes. We will continue to work closely with the housing and violence against women and girls sectors to develop statutory guidance to accompany that duty.

I have already referred to the Government’s anti-racist employment strategy, which I believe is having an impact. It sets out the actions that the Scottish Government will take to reduce employment inequalities for racialised minorities. They include evaluation of the minority ethnic recruitment toolkit that we published in 2020, and the development of an anti-racist workplace training framework. The impact of those actions will be measured through the evidence plan for the fair work action plan, to ensure that they support our ambition of becoming a fair work nation.