Chamber and committees

When I read the Official Report of your initial evidence session on 1 May, I was concerned by the references to the conversations that the committee had recently had with young people about their experiences. I accept that there was variation, but I know that a number of members in that meeting highlighted concerns that young people who had given evidence had expressed to them.

The first point that I will make is that I take that very seriously. I am also acutely conscious of the importance of a young disabled person’s first engagement with work and employability, as well as the importance of discussion of work. It is extremely important that we get that right. Therefore, where approaches are identified as being effective and successful and are leading demonstrably to material improvements and good outcomes, we absolutely want to ensure that they are widely disseminated and understood.

I ask Claire Renton to comment on the existing structures that we have in place to ensure that best practice is shared as widely as possible.

I cannot give you a specific timescale for that because, ultimately, that will be determined by the progress that we make with the consultation. I anticipate that we will consult over the summer and into the early autumn. That will be followed by the usual process that we go through with a consultation and the publication of a response. At that point, the regulations would follow. I hope to be in a position to introduce regulations in the late autumn. I do not want to overqualify every remark that I make this morning on the matter, but that will be contingent on the progress that we make.

Our aim is clear: we want to be in a position to bring a revised code into force early in 2025. I hope that that is an aspiration that everyone shares. Naturally, I would want to do that sooner, but I am conscious of the need to have focused engagement, because part of what has led us to the circumstances that we are in is the fact that we have not had the number of opportunities for further engagement that we would have liked to have had, because of the processes that intervened following the passing of the Tied Pubs (Scotland) Bill three years ago.

On that last point and the direct challenge that you have put to me, how I listen, as a minister, is absolutely crucial. My approach is that I will, of course, engage directly with the various representative bodies and non-governmental organisations, but I also want to engage directly with people with lived experience to hear—unmediated—their views.

With regard to how we are achieving that within the broader structure of delivery, I come back to the local place-based approach that we have spoken about. We want to ensure that the voices of lived experience are at the heart of that approach. That is consistent with the Scottish approach to service design, which is focused on the priorities of fairness, dignity and respect, for which Mr Stewart has, I know, been the staunchest of champions in all the roles that he has had.

That is of the utmost importance to me, because bringing that expertise to bear allows us to ensure that we have a culture in Scotland that is inclusive. It also leads to better outcomes. On many occasions, involving people with expertise and experience allows us to arrive at the right answer—the correct conclusion—far more quickly than we would have if we had relied on people who do not have such lived experience.

I do not underestimate the challenge involved in getting a complex series of services to operate in such a way that the experience for the user is seamless, holistic and person centred. That is what we must deliver across all our public services, and that is what I want to be delivered in employability.

I think that we are making good progress, but I am not complacent or ignorant of the challenges that we still face. To face them will require engagement from the top down, and I will lead by example in ensuring that that engagement takes place and, indeed, continues. I know that it takes place locally, and I will want to see it built on to ensure that the voices of lived experience are to the fore in how we design, develop and evolve our services.

I come back to my earlier point that, although “Employment” is part of my ministerial title, I have a listed set of responsibilities underneath that title and I might be speaking on behalf of the Government on halving the disability employment gap, delivering that will require—and this is happening—action from across Government. In taking forward this agenda, I will be engaging closely with colleagues in the education portfolio, particularly in the area where Skills Development Scotland sits, and colleagues with responsibility for children and young people, health and transport, just to name some areas, as well as engaging directly with business as part of our broader fair work agenda.

This is a priority for Government and for me, and I will be engaging constructively not only with all of my ministerial colleagues, but with Parliament and members. I want to ensure that all the learning that the Parliament can bring, with individual members sharing knowledge of the services that are available in their part of Scotland and the experiences of constituents who use them, is drawn to my attention, so that we can meet the ask that you have put to us, Mr Stewart, of ensuring that best practice is shared. Where things are not operating in the way that we would expect or in the way that they should be operating, we can work constructively and collaboratively to address the matter.

I will not repeat my comments about our work on data, but with regard to unmet need, in particular, we will be looking at those areas closely. I want to ensure that we can get as comprehensive a picture as possible; after all, we have set ourselves a target and we need to be able to measure it clearly.

We also need to be able to understand some of the driving factors underneath all this. I recognise the Fraser of Allander’s excellent work on the matter, but nevertheless it can be quite difficult to define and understand some of the factors at play. It is a process, and we are committed to constructive engagement to deepen our knowledge and recognise the roles that other organisations and stakeholders play in the process, too.

On the issue of variation, what is described as a postcode lottery is always an inherent risk when, in order to allow for a tailored response to the needs and circumstances of a particular area, we have local variation. We want to ensure that that variation is used in a way that is additive and positive, that it makes use of opportunities that are unique to a local area and that it does not lead to a situation in which people are losing out or missing out. We do that by taking a partnership approach, recognising the important lead role that local authorities have in each of their areas, while ensuring that, through the existing forums—Claire Renton mentioned the role that SLAED has in this—we take forward consistency and share best practice.

Again, we are engaged in a process. Parliament’s power over devolved employability services is still relatively new, and the no one left behind programme is still a relatively new policy initiative, although it is already delivering benefits—I know that the committee will have heard that in the evidence that it has received. However, there is still significant work to be done.

There is always an inherent risk of variation in having a devolved local approach, and we can work to address that. However, we all recognise that there is also a risk when we try to have a standardised one-size-fits-all approach, because that cannot maximise use of local opportunities and can sometimes lead to unmet need, because there can be a particular model that works for the majority but does not respond for other parts of Scotland. As you have heard, that is a particularly important issue in the context of the delivery of services in rural communities.

You highlight one approach that could be considered in helping to address the issue, as it sets the outcome but recognises that delivery will reflect local circumstances. I do not discount the point that you raise, but the priority for me right now, given what we have in front of us and the current legislative framework, is using the tools that we have at our disposal—the delivery vehicles such as the local employability partnerships and the no one left behind programme—to deliver employability in Scotland. I want to ensure that we continue to progress that collaborative, integrated approach, so that we can realise the strong and positive outcomes that will come from having a system that ensures that the individual who is using the service is treated holistically in a person-centred way and has wraparound support that recognises their multifaceted needs. That is what we have at the moment and I will work to ensure that we can continue to take that forward.

I will reflect on your point, and I will be keen to understand what the committee’s views are on the evidence that it has received and on how we can achieve consistency without stifling or restricting local innovation in practice. That is the balance that we need to strike.

One thing that struck me from an earlier evidence session arose from a question that Kevin Stewart asked. He raised something that was not directly related: the carer positive accreditation scheme. I have been a champion of that in my capacity as a constituency MSP. Carer positive recognises employers that have workforce practices that support people who are balancing care with work by providing flexibility to enable them to meet their caring responsibilities while retaining employment.

One thing that I have picked up in engagement with employers is that there can be a bit of hesitancy, initially, as they are not sure what the scheme means, what it requires and what they have to do. When it is explained, people realise that they are doing a lot of it anyway. They might say, “We have this in place—I didn’t realise that. We can just make one or two tweaks.”

It has been reflected in some of the evidence that the committee has heard over the past few weeks that there are already some very good examples of what employers are doing. There are others who could become very confident with only a limited or small amount of support and information. With that, they could realise the significant opportunities that arise for them as employers, both in having an inclusive and diverse workplace, which is a key principle of fair work, and in improving productivity, with the tremendous economic contribution that disabled people can make to their business.

I say without prejudice to my earlier remarks to Maggie Chapman that, first and foremost, this is about ensuring that people have the opportunity and the right to have rewarding and fulfilling employment.

There is a cultural shift to be made. Examples of practice can be powerful and compelling—those are certainly more powerful and compelling than a minister or any politician talking about things.

When it comes to asks of employers, it is for those employers who are already doing excellent work in delivering fair work and opportunities for disabled people to participate fully and have rewarding and fulfilling work to carry on speaking up and highlighting and sharing best practice. They will find in me someone who is more than willing to work constructively with them, to engage and to ensure that that best practice is as widely understood and shared as possible.

I assure Colin Smyth and the committee that we gave very careful consideration to that. I was very grateful for the meeting that I had with the Scottish Licensed Trade Association and Neil Bibby two weeks ago. We gave detailed consideration to those matters, but it is the Government’s view that, given the nature and scale of the proposed changes and the interests involved, consultation would be required. That is why we have taken the approach that we have.

I had hoped to have been in a position in which we could identify a way forward so that the code could come into effect when it was originally intended that it would. However, I have arrived at the view that we need to do further consultation. I am sure that the committee appreciates the context in which we are operating, in which significant interests are involved, and the importance of ensuring that we have a robust process of consultation.

However, I assure Mr Smyth that I gave the course of action that he described serious consideration, and I hope that he understands and appreciates the reasons that I have set out as to why we were not able to proceed in the way that he suggests.

My understanding is that, if Parliament were to determine that it did not wish to approve the regulations that the Government is seeking approval of, such a decision would create a different dynamic, because we would not be working with regulations that we were going to amend.

In practice—to cut to the point—I would still embark on the process that I am proposing to take. That is how I would want to take things forward. For me, what is important is ensuring that we give effect to the will of Parliament. The 2021 legislation was passed unanimously. There is a strong interest among tenants’ representatives in its coming on stream. They want it to be proportionate and effective legislation that delivers on what they understand the policy intent of the act to be. We are not in that position right now because—to be perfectly candid with the committee—people do not have confidence that the regulations will deliver on the policy intent.

That is why I am asking the committee to endorse that approach. If the committee chooses not to approve the regulations, the view of Parliament will prevail. However, I will still seek to engage with the sector over the summer in order to be in a position to introduce a revised pubs code at the earliest possible opportunity, so that we can give effect to the legislation.

In terms of the direction in which we have been moving with the no one left behind programme, we have been creating the structures and approach that will get us there. However, I am conscious that there are challenges in delivering integrated approaches—not just in the realm of employability, and specifically supporting young disabled people into employment, but right across our public services. However, progress has been made.

A number of structural challenges can exist, which we can work to break down. There can also be cultural challenges, such as ways of working that have become ingrained. One of the things that I will consider is how the funding landscape operates and whether it works in such a way that it fully incentivises the level of collaboration that we would like to see. I will give careful consideration to such matters.

As an aside, in response to Mr Stewart’s previous question, I put on record the fact if any member wishes to share with me directly any examples of best practice, I would be grateful to hear from them and would be happy to engage with them directly in their constituency or region. I want to see examples of best practice in operation on the ground, because I recognise that, as a minister, I have responsibility and a role to play in ensuring that we share best practice as widely as possible.

On the question of how we incentivise the most effective collaborative approaches and how our broader work and, more specifically, the move to the no one left behind approach are helping to facilitate that, I invite Claire Renton to comment.