Chamber and committees

We touched briefly on the role of the Mental Welfare Commission in some of those spaces; the Scottish Human Rights Commission has given evidence; and we have spoken more broadly about the need for that intersectionality as well as the need not to become too siloed but to work across that space. Is there a sense that those organisations need more resource or input from people who have a disability, is there more that we can do in the broader landscape without a commissioner or is it a bit of a mix of all those things? Going back to Jenny Miller’s original point, I think that, across the board, we need to improve what is on offer and what we are moving through. Do any members of the panel have a view on that?

PAMIS raised concerns in its evidence that the Disability Commissioner (Scotland) Bill could jeopardise the LDAN bill, or its success. Do you share that view or do you not see that risk?

Good morning. I will expand on the theme of potential duplication and related issues. I am conscious that there is a proposal for a bill on learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence. Related to that, there is a question about whether there should be a commissioner in that space. Many of the organisations that are represented here today support those proposals, although some have raised different views and concerns.

My first question is on the growing landscape of commissioners, which Jenny Miller touched on in one of her previous responses. I am keen to understand whether you are concerned that that landscape will begin to fragment within the wider disability sphere. Seeing as I mentioned her, I will start with Jenny.

Would anyone like to give a broader view on the possibility of there being too many commissioners in the landscape?

Before I ask my questions, convener, I will just say that it was remiss of me earlier not to declare or draw attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests as having been employed by Enable Scotland until 2021.

I am keen to expand on the previous discussion. Obviously, your organisations have been across the detail of or have been involved in the campaign for a learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence bill and, potentially, the establishment of a commissioner as part of that process. Building on what has been said about the interaction of commissioners, what are your views on how a disability commissioner and a potential LDAN commissioner might interact? Do you have concerns about siloed working, which I think has been referred to, or about things becoming so broad that we do not have the specialism that is required?

I do not know who wants to respond to that large question. Suzi?

Would Eddie McConnell like to add something?

Does anyone else want to comment?

I thank my colleague Neil Bibby for lodging the motion and securing the debate, and for his eloquent opening speech, in which he laid out in detail the challenges that exist and warmly paid tribute to all who have been involved in the campaigns to protect the services.

I say to Rona Mackay—I would have said this earlier, had she accepted my intervention—that, although she made a valiant attempt to defend the Government’s position, it is disappointing that there is no local knowledge of the matter from members on the Government benches. The local SNP members for Paisley, Renfrewshire North and West and Renfrewshire South are not in the chamber this evening to contribute or to hear the debate, and that is very regrettable indeed.

I declare an interest, as I was an employee of Enable Scotland until I was elected to Parliament in 2021. I mention that not only because it is right to do so but because, in preparing for the debate, I have been thinking about many of the experiences that I had when I was working there and supporting people who have learning disabilities and their families. All too often, it is the most vulnerable people in society who have borne the brunt of decisions such as the one that we are debating today.

In the case of the campaign to save Milldale and Mirin day centres, like my colleagues Neil Bibby and Russell Findlay, I had the opportunity to spend time with many of the parents and carers and, indeed, with service users. The meeting that I attended, in Renfrewshire carers centre, was on a Monday morning. I am sure that everyone will know that a Monday morning meeting can often take a while to get going, but that was absolutely not the case in this situation. They are a fiercely passionate, dedicated and inspiring group of people, who are making the case for their children to have choice and control over the lives that they lead.

The group wanted to speak to me about that because, as we have heard reflected already, they felt that although we often talk in council chambers or in Parliament about choice and control and people having the freedom to choose how they live their lives, the reality is often very different and is driven by financial decisions—and by the cuts agenda, which is under way across Renfrewshire. They spoke to me with righteous anger about their feeling that there had been a lack of consultation with people who have learning disabilities and their families during the process. Many of them felt that their views had been disregarded. I think that it was Russell Findlay who said that they felt that lip service had been paid to their views.

What is clear tonight is the tenacity of campaigners across Renfrewshire who have a stake in the services or who either attend them or have a family member who does. It is their tenacity that is making decision makers sit up, think again and take stock. Everybody who has spoken tonight and has signed the motion is standing beside them—not least my colleague Neil Bibby, as can be seen by all the work that he has done in the campaign.

All of that is about a wider issue as well. Too many people with learning disabilities or physical disabilities and their carers say that everything in their life is a battle and has to be fought for, and that nothing is ever straightforward. The motion rightly points to the other experiences of those at Montrose care home and at the Quarriers Renfrewshire head injury service. Many of the people in the gallery would have similar experiences of everything being a battle. We have to acknowledge that.

We must also acknowledge that the decisions that we make and that are made in HSCPs are directly impacting on people’s lives. We know from what we have heard already and from the motion that it is not always in the hands of local decision makers to be free to make the choices that they want to make, because of the cuts that are passed down to them by the Scottish Government and the £14.7 million black hole that has been created by underfunding in Renfrewshire.

We must stand with the families and listen to what they have to say. We must also listen to the people who use the services. I call on the Government, in its response to the debate, to tell us how it will support and stand with those families in Renfrewshire to ensure that those vital services can be protected for the future. [Applause.]

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the member give way?