Chamber and committees

Yes. The witnesses are giving me a sense of the criteria that should be put in place for SEIAC. People will want timescales to be attached to an expectation of reporting back or to work being done in order to keep the thing on track. Is the 20-year period about IIAC going at its own pace, as Ian Tasker said, or is it about there being a lack of accountability in the process?

What is current interaction with IIAC like when trade unions make requests for research or want to look into certain conditions? The word “pushback” might be too strong, but is there a lack of interaction in looking at issues and trying to move forward on them? Norman, you are nodding.

I will continue in the vein of looking at what value might be added by having a Scottish compensation body. I know that NASUWT commented on how long IIAC can take to make recommendations and we heard more about that in response to my first question. How could SEIAC work faster to make decisions that will make an impact? Mike Corbett may want to come in, because it was NASUWT that commented on the time taken at the moment.

That is an interesting point, because concerns have been flagged about how duplication might occur. Do members of the panel have any views on how they might foresee the two organisations interacting and collaborating? Pre-emption is possibly a good example, but I guess that that would need some form of engagement between IIAC and SEIAC. Does anyone also foresee a way of avoiding duplication when it comes to how we set those things up?

Good morning to the panel. We have touched on this in previous answers. In previous evidence, some of the trade unions spoke about the length of time that it often takes for IIAC to make decisions or advise. I wonder whether there is a sense of what SEIAC could do in order to make those processes quicker and perhaps more streamlined, if possible. Folk may want to give a general view of what would speed things up.

I appreciate that we have just had an exchange on resourcing and research, and I think that John Mason will come on to talk about finance more broadly. Ian Tasker also mentioned the challenges in broader resourcing. My question is about the funding of research. Does Professor Watterson have a view on the level of investment that will be required for research to be carried out under the proposals for SEIAC?

For more than a decade, the Government has pledged multiyear funding settlements for the third sector and the First Minister repeated that commitment at the most recent Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations gathering. When will the cabinet secretary be able to update Parliament on that and, more important for the third sector, when that will be delivered, or is it just more warm words from the First Minister and his Government?

I am pleased to close this very important debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. I begin by reminding members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which says that I am a member and former employee of Enable Scotland.

I pay warm tribute to my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy for her work on the bill, which is a sentiment that we have heard in speeches from all parties. Bringing a member’s bill can be challenging. I have seen at close quarters her Herculean effort over two and a half years. As we heard in her opening speech, her work is based not only on her personal experience but on her fierce advocacy for other disabled young people and their families.

Pam Duncan-Glancy speaks with authenticity on these issues, and today she has taken another step in using her hammer to break the glass ceilings and glass staircases that she said she would break when she came into this place. We all owe her a debt of gratitude for her work on the bill.

It is clear from the debate that there is frustration about how we can move the agenda forward, find a way to ensure that transitions for disabled children and young people become far more comprehensive and easier to manage, and ensure that they are able to get the life chances that we would want for everyone across Scotland. We heard from several colleagues—Carol Mochan outlined this clearly—that there is frustration that non-legislative interventions have not worked and are not working, and there is a sense that there has been resistance to change over a long period.

I will speak about my experience. I had the good fortune to work in the learning disability sector, for Enable Scotland, for more than seven years. For much of that time, I worked on issues such as the one that we are discussing, and particularly in relation to Johann Lamont’s bill in the previous session of Parliament. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to her for her efforts in that regard. Labour is particularly proud of the efforts of our members to advance these issues and to drive them forward.

When working at Enable Scotland, I heard conversations time and time again—members across the chamber have also recounted this today, in different ways—about the fact that families felt that it was an absolute battle just to get the right support services when their young people were moving into adult life. I met countless families who were on the brink and found it really difficult that they had to be a manager of all the issues in someone’s life. Pam Duncan-Glancy spoke about that in her speech.

Liam Kerr picked up on a number of issues and highlighted some really stark statistics, which Willie Rennie also referred to. It is worth reflecting on the fact that, according to Enable Scotland, 9 per cent of school leavers who have a learning disability progress to university, compared with 45 per cent of all school leavers. Only 50 per cent of disabled people are in employment, compared with 82 per cent of the overall population, and, for every £1 that a non-disabled person makes, a disabled person earns just 83p. We can see some of the really stark barriers and challenges that exist for young people who have a disability and are entering their adult lives. That is why these issues are so important and it is why everyone is united in wanting change.

It has become apparent—this is no secret—that the bill does not enjoy majority support in Parliament and it will not pass stage 1. That is disappointing. I recognise the issues that members have raised. The convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, Sue Webber, and other members of the committee have outlined their concerns. They wanted more detail on the financial memorandum, on what the bill sought to do and on the definition of disabled people, as Ruth Maguire, Stephanie Callaghan and others outlined.

It is crucial that we respect the fact that the member in charge of the bill has been willing at every stage to engage on those issues in a very serious way. She has offered to amend the bill and find the space to improve the definitions and to make them clearer and, indeed, to investigate and look again at the financial memorandum. I return to a point that Carol Mochan made: it is important to respect the fact that, at stage 1, we are asked to agree to the general principles of a bill, and we can develop it at stages 2 and 3.

I thank Liam Kerr for his intervention and for his kind words about my speech. I hear what he says. However, I have heard that throughout my professional life, and I think that it comes back to the challenge of the cluttered landscape. Regardless of whether the bill progresses—as I said, it is clear that it will not—we will have to deal with that cluttered landscape. There have been opportunities to begin to deal with it, and the Government has to reflect clearly on its role in that regard.

I am conscious of time, so I will go back to where I started. Many people are frustrated because they feel that we should legislate because it would hold people’s feet to the proverbial fire, force the issue and make it clear that we must have statutory requirements on people to deal with some of the barriers that I described in the really stark terms and statistics that I read out.

There is much more that I could say, but time is against me. Labour will support the bill this evening. Once again, we pay tribute to Pam Duncan-Glancy. Whatever happens from here on, we as a Parliament must be serious about getting these issues right, because many young people depend on that.

Today is carers rights day, when we should all express our appreciation for what unpaid carers do. The state of caring report that has been published today makes for harrowing reading. In particular, 51 per cent of carers who are struggling financially have not had a break. Why was the First Minister’s carers strategy of last year so thin on respite commitments? Does he agree with calls, including those from Labour members, for at least two weeks of respite to support carers who are in such need?