Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

We touched on the workplace equality fund earlier, and there is going to be an independent evaluation of it. A number of different projects were supported over a number of years, and there is learning to be taken from that, which can be applied, and that will inform future policy initiatives that we pursue collaboratively and in partnership. That was a piece of work that we can learn from and which can inform future policy development.

We have spoken about the fair work evidence plan. Part of the process around evidence and data gathering involves informing future policy development.

Yes. In response to a question from Kevin Stewart about the range of funders, I may have touched on ensuring that funding structures incentivise the right kind of outcomes. You have expressed a concern that that is not taking place. I reiterate that I have asked officials to consider the specific instance that you raised and I will be happy to update you. On the broader point about considering any wider issues, again I give a commitment to you personally, Mr Smyth, and to the rest of the committee, that I will look at that and give it detailed consideration, and I will be happy to follow up directly with you.

My first meeting with the convention since my appointment is coming up in the next few weeks. I will be looking to discuss that issue directly with the convention at that opportunity, and I will be happy to update the committee about any outcomes from that.

Absolutely nothing that we can consider within the whole gamut of public policy or how society operates has not been impacted or touched on by the pandemic. I appreciate that that is a statement of the obvious, but the point that you made is that we can move on quite quickly.

I am conscious of some of the evidence that the committee took about concern that some of the flexible working practices—the home working practices—that were developed during the pandemic are not as readily available as they once were. If I recall correctly, one witness described to the committee the pre-pandemic perception that home working was simply not possible until it was required, and it then worked quite effectively and created opportunities for a range of individuals and groups to sustain employment. A concern was expressed that perhaps those options are not as readily available as they were.

We have provided some resource on flexible working. I ask Stephen Garland to pick up on that, to give the committee some information.

Convener, I am conscious that, in responding, I touched on just one very narrow aspect of the impact of the pandemic on workplace practices. In taking forward my engagement with people who have lived experience, I will pose that question directly to them, so that I can develop my understanding of the impact that the pandemic has had. Through that—to touch again on the evidence plan and being informed—we can capture the strongest evidence base for future policy development.

I accept all the points that have been made but, to use an oft-used phrase in Scottish politics, it is important to remember that this is a process and not an event. Quite a lot has happened in the employability landscape since 2018—as we all recognise. The figures—both the disability employment gap and the percentage of disabled people who are now in work—speak for themselves. I do not want to play down the challenges. Throughout this morning, I have sought to recognise that we still have to undertake a significant amount of work to achieve our 2038 target, but progress is being made. It is important that we do not lose sight of that.

The process will be iterative. We will continue to learn and we will continue to apply that learning. We have touched on the reviews that have taken place previously on how the supported employment and IPS reviews are informing our approach and how they are informing no one left behind. There will be further responses to that forthcoming and further consideration.

I reassure stakeholders that we are continuing to consider all the recommendations and that we are working constructively with partners to ensure that we can maximise the impact on the ground and maintain the flexibility that comes with local delivery. I do not know whether Claire Renton wants to add more on the specific point about the 2018 report.