Chamber and committees

Is there time for me to ask a further question?

I am confused. Last week, when Lady Dorrian was asked directly about what engagement there had been over the proposed amendments, she said that

“high-level suggestions have been made to us”

and she spoke about being “presented with a paper” that the senators felt that they

“could not respond to, because it was lacking in detail. Another paper was submitted to us that had more detail, but at a very high level”.

The senators had

“not looked at detailed proposals for amendment. Insofar as we were able to, we responded to that in as ... helpful a way as we could.”

Crucially, Lady Dorrian said that

“the devil is in the detail”,—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 28 November 2023; c 13, 7.]

and explained that it is not possible to comment on detail that is not there. I am trying to understand why we are in this position.

I am trying to understand why we are in the position of having to amend the bill at stage 2. The committee does not have the detail on that and nor do the Lord President and the senators of the College of Justice. The minister would accept that it is highly unusual for the most senior judges in the country to come to a committee of the Scottish Parliament to give evidence. Will she outline clearly what consultation took place with the Lord President and what information he was given about the amendments?

I appreciate the degree to which we want to find consensus, and the Lord President and other stakeholders are obviously keen to make a contribution, but would the minister accept that it is for the committee to make a judgment on the amendments, that any changed nature of the bill will once again need to be scrutinised, and that that is a real challenge for the committee in carrying out its democratic function in the timescales that we have?

I am pleased to participate in the debate and to speak about the experience of disabled people in Scotland so soon after the international day of persons with disabilities. It is important that we take time in the chamber to continue to highlight, engage with and support everyone who has a disability in Scotland and to ensure that we continue to move towards a future in which we keep tearing down the barriers that disabled people face.

I add my thanks to parliamentary staff and all MSPs involved with the events in Parliament to mark that international day, particularly the organisation of the summit on 25 November. Bringing more disabled people into their Parliament keeps the spotlight firmly on the issues and compels all of us to refocus our efforts on the ambition for Scotland to be a world leader in human rights and disability equality.

There is a clear consensus on the first line of the Government’s motion, which calls for ambition. However, I struggle a little to see in the rest of the motion the scale of action that is required to hear what disabled people are telling us and to act accordingly.

I refer colleagues to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a member of Enable Scotland and a former member of its staff.

In September, prior to the announcement of the programme for government, disabled people’s organisations wrote to the First Minister calling for clear action to support disabled people, lift them out of poverty and ensure that they are involved in the development of policy that has a huge impact on their everyday lives. The letter said:

“A lack of focus and attention, combined with no accountability or political leadership and a genuine gap in disability competence politically and in your Government, has resulted in disabled people and our DPOs feeling dehumanised and deprioritised.”

The Scottish Human Rights Commission has starkly highlighted the scale of the challenges in saying that there is an

“implementation gap between intentions and good laws and policy”.

The Scottish Independent Living Coalition has concluded:

“the situation for disabled people overall in Scotland has not got any better since the 2016 Inquiry”

by the UNCRPD into the impact of austerity.

Those are serious comments, and they are hardly ringing endorsements of action on disability rights. We must reflect on them and think about how we will act accordingly.

I recognise that, as the motion says, the Government has reopened the independent living fund—although in a phased way—but that action alone is not enough. Organisations have made it clear that they want that fund to be fully reopened and resourced in order to make the progress that they hope to see.

As we have heard, less than two weeks ago, the Government voted against the member’s bill that my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy introduced to support disabled young people into adulthood. That bill was supported by many disability advocacy groups. We had a strong debate in the chamber about the landscape and what needs to change more broadly in Scotland. Indeed, the Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise said in her opening speech:

“we absolutely recognise that, at the moment, too many disabled young people are not getting the support that they need.”

She went on to reaffirm that in her closing speech, saying:

“it is clear that the current situation in respect of disabled young people’s experiences of their transitions needs to improve.”—[Official Report, 23 November 2023; c 73, 97.]

As I said, members spoke in that debate about the cluttered landscape and the lack of policy interventions to improve access to support—particularly non-residential care support. Given what Ms Don said, we have to ask ourselves who has had the power to change those things over the past 16 years. The responsibility for that has been at the door of this Government. It has had the opportunity to deal with the cluttered landscape and to make the policy interventions that would have the most impact.

The Feeley report, which was published two years ago, contained a strong suite of recommendations, but they are yet to be implemented. The Government has not fulfilled its manifesto commitment to implement them. It promised an immediate priorities plan and said that that would be published in June, but it was not. We have repeatedly been promised a national transitions strategy since it was included in the SNP’s 2016 manifesto, but that has now been pushed back to the end of next year. Those repeated delays and failures to act on promises to disabled people are hardly a strong demonstration of progress on the aspirations that are laid out in the Government’s motion. Labour is clear that we want bolder and quicker action from the Government to deal with the issues that disabled people and the organisations that support them and advocate for their rights raise with us all.

We were pleased to see the references in the Conservative amendment to Frank’s law, Calum’s law and Anne’s law. As we have heard, those legislative provisions or proposals draw support from members across the chamber. However, the challenge often lies in the implementation and delivery of such things, and in ensuring that progress is made that will have the impact on people’s lives that we all want.

Very often, such proposals come to Parliament by way of disabled people and their relatives and friends campaigning for changes. A few months ago, I was outside the Parliament with members from across the chamber when a group of disabled people were calling for action on non-residential care charges, which was included in the Feeley recommendations. They were very clear that they cannot wait for that. They are frustrated by the lack of action from the Government to move that agenda forward. Crucially, those are the sorts of things that give people who have a disability independence and the freedom to choose what they want to do in their lives and when they want to do it.

It is a real shame that many of the things that I have mentioned are missing from the Government’s motion and that we are still waiting for a large range of support and interventions in response to the proposals. Ultimately, we want to see ambition on human rights and disability equality. Scottish Labour will always work for the furthering of both wherever we can. Unfortunately, after 16 years of this Government, there has been a failure to show tangible action towards both ambitions.

I hope that we will hear more detail in the debate, including on people’s experiences, and I hope that the minister will respond to what I have said when she sums up. This debate will continue.

I move amendment S6M-11537.2, to leave out from “recognises” to end and insert:

“acknowledges that the Scottish Human Rights Commission has warned that the Scottish Government has not done enough to ensure that disabled people’s human rights are fully realised; is deeply concerned that disabled people’s organisations believe that the gap in political leadership has led to disabled people feeling deprioritised and dehumanised; notes the Scottish Government’s commitment to develop and implement an Immediate Priorities Plan for Disabled People, which was promised in June 2023; believes that the repeated delays in addressing the disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and cost of living crisis have hampered the ability of disabled people to recover from the effects that they have suffered; notes that the Scottish Government has failed to implement the recommendations of the Independent Review of Adult Social Care in Scotland in full, and urges the Scottish Government to belatedly provide its Immediate Priorities Plan with the political resource and leadership that it has, until now, lacked.”

Does the minister recognise the significant challenges in relation to delays in the administration of ADP and the challenging wait times to get through to Social Security Scotland to get the support and advice that people need?

The minister will have heard me say that I welcome the reopening of the independent living fund, but I am keen to see it go further, and I think that disabled people’s organisations are keen to see it go further. She has also mentioned a number of policy priorities that I brought up in my speech, particularly the ending of non-residential care charges, to which the Government has made a commitment. Can the minister give a clear timescale for when that will happen? People have been waiting for years since the Feeley recommendations for that to happen.

I will continue from where Katy Clark left off.

The committee has heard significant criticisms of IIDB. For example, Ian Tasker told the committee that it is

“no longer fit for purpose”.

Given those criticisms, is it still an option to introduce EIA largely unreformed? Does the cabinet secretary recognise the criticisms of IIDB and does she view it as acceptable to introduce a benefit in that state?

It is interesting that the cabinet secretary talks about timescales and the length of time that it will take to do things in this space. The Scottish Government has made repeated commitments to bring forward the consultation, but it has been continually delayed. The committee was told in September that the consultation would happen this year. The last month of the year starts tomorrow. Therefore, where is the Scottish Government in the process of formulating the consultation? Why have there been such repeated delays? What has prevented the Government from providing clear timelines on this?

The cabinet secretary has made that point a number of times. The issue is that the pledge to carry out a consultation is now three years old. Can the cabinet secretary give the committee any sense of the timescale for the consultation? As I said, the last month of the year starts tomorrow. Clearly, you are not going to deliver a consultation this year, so is there any indication of when it is going to happen?