Chamber and committees

You are not going to thank me for making this point, convener, but we have just heard a call for us to hear more about the official science and scientific data. It is difficult for us to discuss and argue the issues at this meeting—

No—let me finish, convener.

I am interested to hear, perhaps from Mr Macdonald first, about the science around the decision. As I have conveyed previously, I am slightly disappointed that we do not have Government scientists here today. I would be interested to know the witnesses’ views about the science in this area, in particular regarding the decision to move away from the initial proposals from the Government and how they have been kept informed.

As I understand it, the closure came into effect on 14 February. Can you explain the extent to which fishermen are still able to fish? Are there any compliance issues in that respect?

I have a question for Simon Macdonald. The Government has moved its position to some extent towards, or at least to take account of, what has been put to it by fishing interests. What do you advocate that the Government should have done that it did not do? How would it have done that in a way that would have protected cod spawning?

Epilepsy has now emerged, I hope, from the outright prejudice and superstition that surrounded the condition within living memory, yet people with epilepsy continue to face barriers in employment.

Epilepsy Scotland has carried out research on epilepsy and employment, which I know the Minister for Just Transition, Employment and Fair Work, Richard Lochhead, has already taken an interest in, and on which he commented during his recent participation in the cross-party group on epilepsy. I welcome that interest, and I look forward to hearing the minister’s comments in summing up today.

People with epilepsy are very significantly less likely to be in employment than are the general population, so let me begin by mentioning a few relevant statistics. While the disability employment gap for people with disabilities in general is only slightly higher in Scotland than it is in the United Kingdom, the real differences lie at a local level. The gap ranges from barely 8 percent in some communities to 50 per cent in Na h-Eileanan an Iar, my own constituency. Rural areas appear to face particular challenges.

Only 36.9 per cent of people with epilepsy in the UK reported being in employment, compared with 81.3 per cent of non-disabled people. That represents an employment gap of 44.4 percentage points for people with epilepsy. In fact, the annual population survey for the UK shows that people with epilepsy are one of the least likely groups to report employment relative to all people with a disability of any kind.

Epilepsy Scotland is therefore seeking to challenge and support employers to overcome continuing mistaken assumptions. In case that sounds like a lecture to employers, I should say that I have no reason to believe that employers’ ideas about epilepsy are any more mistaken than those of the population at large. To lump all people with epilepsy together risks completely failing to understand their hugely differing needs and their unique talents.

A great proportion of people with epilepsy have the condition either entirely or virtually entirely controlled by medication—I fall into that category myself—and they may have lived completely free of seizures for many years. Yet it seems that some employers continue to view people with epilepsy as a risk—as being at risk of accidents, with presumed risk of litigation. In fact, as the research highlights, there is no evidence at all to show that people with epilepsy present any greater risk.

Perhaps the most concerning finding presented by the research is that there may be a psychological impact of the ignorance of others on some people with epilepsy themselves. In cases where people experience repeated rejection in the workforce, they sometimes develop a limited estimation of their own abilities.

I am personally very lucky, in that I have had fairly understanding employers. I once had a seizure towards the end of a job interview and still somehow managed to get the job. Looking back to another job—not in politics—I had a less positive experience. I had a seizure at work and I remember my employer complaining, as I recovered, that I was not compos mentis. I did not think of that as much more than a statement of the obvious, while I was groggily coming to. It only later became clear to me that he meant something else entirely: he thought that having a seizure was presumably only one symptom of many more to come of what he misunderstood epilepsy to be—namely, a psychiatric condition. I do not dismiss the possibility that I may not, more generally, always be compos mentis, but I hesitate to attribute that fact to any neurological cause. Public misunderstandings about epilepsy mean that some people have to contend with all the prejudices that surround mental illness when they do not even have a mental illness.

Since I indicated that I would bring the debate to the Parliament, I have heard from people who have encountered varying problems at work. One man who works in a supermarket told me that he does well in his job, which he has held for a number of years. The supermarket apparently forgot that he had a medical condition, although his epilepsy had been previously and formally drawn to the supermarket’s attention. As a result, it failed to take into account his epilepsy when he complained about bullying. He said that new team leaders in his store were not aware that he had a disability.

Such examples show that not all employers are even aware that staff members have epilepsy and far less do they make reasonable adjustments for staff because of that. As a result, people with epilepsy are often underemployed and working in low-skill jobs.

I have concentrated on some of the problems, but I hope that members from across the Parliament will also see the debate as a chance to outline positive ways forward. We could agree on, for instance, the need to improve the detail of the statistics that are available to us for measuring the problem and trying to get to the bottom of the reasons for the huge local variations.

Above all, we can commit to ensuring that a wider understanding of epilepsy permeates our schools, business organisations and colleges. We can highlight and support good practice where it exists. We should recognise that, as a country, we are not drawing to anything like the extent that we could on the talents of people with epilepsy. That means not only that people with epilepsy are missing out economically and socially but that our economy as a whole is missing out, too.

Many organisations across Scotland, such as Neuro Hebrides in my constituency, do great work in empowering people with epilepsy. I hope that the debate and the work that Epilepsy Scotland is doing will help to empower people with epilepsy in one very specific way—in workplaces across Scotland.

Will the member take an intervention?

Will Willie Rennie give way?

By consensus, our committee agreed that the UK Internal Market Act 2020 has raised some troubling questions for the devolution settlement. Our report concludes that the act

“has increased tension within the devolution settlement arising from the UK leaving the EU. UKIMA has been rejected by the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government and by the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Senedd and Northern Ireland Assembly as imposing limitations on devolved competence without consent.”

I am glad that, despite our differing political perspectives as committee members, we were able to draw attention to those facts clearly and unambiguously. Like Mr Cameron, I appreciated the way in which we were able to work together to that end. I realise that committee debates are supposed to concentrate on such consensus where it exists, and I will persevere as best as I can on that front for some moments yet.

In the debate, we have heard about how we should find ways to allow Scotland to give consent in areas of working that are shared with the UK Government. However, the fact remains that we are talking about an act of the UK Parliament to which we, as the Scottish Parliament, have indicated our dissent. Many of those who gave evidence to the committee were very direct about their view on that. The Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture told us that the Scottish Government has

“argued from the outset that”

the act

“represents a fundamental change to the devolution settlement”.

Other contributors, such as Fidra, which is an environment charity, indicated to us their support for the implementation of environmental policy across the UK, but Fidra pointed out that it was nonetheless

“vital that devolved administrations retain the ability to champion new and progressive legislation within their own areas of responsibility.”

Fidra highlighted the ban on plastic-stemmed cotton buds and the single-use carrier bag charge as two useful examples of policy being developed and implemented at a devolved level and then subsequently implemented elsewhere in the UK.

Others came to the committee to express concerns about what the 2020 act would have meant for the minimum unit pricing of alcohol, were we to try to legislate in that area now.

As I think that Mr Ruskell was alluding to, NFU Scotland pointed out that the non-discrimination principle in the 2020 act could in fact constrain both us and its industry. NFUS cited the example of how, were Scotland to legislate on local procurement and the intention to buy local, the 2020 act would quite likely run up against our Parliament’s legislative intentions, meaning that, in its view, Scotland would

“simply have to allow products to be allowed to compete on price in the market for public procurement rather than being exclusive about it.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 16 December 2021; c 11.]

I think that we are all agreed about the importance of trade across the UK—that is not really contentious. What is contentious, and what Scotland’s elected Parliament cannot and has not consented to, is a power that allows the UK Government to constrain our ability to act, whenever we dare to be different.

As members are aware, there was a time, until quite recently, when UK acts of Parliament that touched on the powers of the Scottish Parliament were “not normally” passed without this Parliament’s consent. It is pretty clear either that that polite convention simply no longer applies or that the word “normally” has become bleached of any meaning in these abnormal political times.

That goes to the heart of the matter because, as numerous witnesses to our committee pointed out, the UK Internal Market Act 2020 effectively reduces our room for manoeuvre as a Parliament. It represents a step by Westminster into explicitly devolved areas. It seeks to clip Scotland’s legislative wings.

Ms Murray, you said that it can be hard to measure the benefits of these interventions in terms of culture and health, although we all know that benefits are there. Does either of you want to say anything about evidence from other countries on that? I realise that work has been done very recently—Ms Murray mentioned England—but, more generally, is there any evidence from elsewhere that might be offered to help to make the business case that you describe about the benefits of prescribing cultural activities or closer working on budgets between cultural and health organisations?