Seòmar agus comataidhean

This has been a helpful debate, and I think that we will come back to it again and again. I agree, for once, with the cabinet secretary. The UK Government’s decision to take away £160 million for the winter fuel payment is deeply disappointing. For your first big policy decision to attack some of the most vulnerable people in society is not a great way for any Government to start.

I point out to Mr Stewart that, under the previous Conservative Government, the block grant has gone up every year ahead of inflation—

My apologies, convener, I cannot read my own notes. I again bow to your superior knowledge.

The cabinet secretary has raised quite a number of issues. At a high philosophical level, the issue—which I think that the cabinet secretary and others will come back to time and again—is about the divergence were we to do things differently in Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom, and how the DWP would respond to it. However, at some point, we will have to see how that challenge works in practice.

I see no point in having a devolved social security system that simply mirrors what happens in the DWP all the way through—that seems to me an administrative cost for Scotland to be carrying. I accept that, because of Social Security Scotland, we can introduce new benefits, which we will come to in a moment. However, if we are not going to, at some point, change our approach from what happens in the DWP, why do we have Social Security Scotland here, as it is set up at the moment? At some point, this or a future Government will have to see how the DWP reacts to it.

I am pressing it hard, convener.

These are technical but important amendments in regard to how cases are determined. Proposed new sections 61A(2) and 61A(4) of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, as drafted, will mean that, if the First-tier Tribunal decides that further information is required before an application or a redetermination request can be deemed to have been made correctly, Social Security Scotland must first try to obtain that information, and, if the information is not obtained, it must make a decision to reject the application or redetermination request and notify the individual of their right to lodge a process appeal to the First-tier Tribunal again. My amendments would mean that, if the First-tier Tribunal decided that further information was required before the application or redetermination request could be deemed to have been made correctly, Social Security Scotland may seek that information and, whether or not the information is obtained, it must make a decision on entitlement based on the information that it has.

I will give an example. An individual claimed adult disability payment and submitted parts 1 and 2 of the form, but Social Security Scotland could not verify the identification. The First-tier Tribunal decided that more information was required before his ID could be verified. The individual was unable to provide the information that was required, so Social Security Scotland rejected his claim again and advised him of his right to make a process appeal again. The amendments would introduce a right of appeal to the Upper Tribunal for Scotland in process appeals, which would allow the development of case law in this area. Case law develops precedents about how legislation should be interpreted and applied. Developing case law on process appeals could contribute to the continuous improvement of the social security system, which is one of the principles that is set out in the 2018 act.

Section 8 of the bill provides further clarity for the First-tier Tribunal on how to respond to process appeals, which suggests that the current legislation is not clear. Further clarity might be required, which would not become evident until more process appeals were requested. The Upper Tribunal could consider issues of ambiguity and develop legally binding case law, preventing the need for further amendment to the primary legislation before this can be addressed.

I move amendment 116.

I am delighted that we have had nearly half an hour of consensus, although that might not continue.

I welcome what the Government has proposed, but it leaves a bit of concern about third-party representation. It is often very hard for people to find somebody who will represent them, and much representation is done on a voluntary basis. I am still concerned that the provisions will put people off giving assistance. When CPAG provided evidence to the committee, it said:

“We would not want to discourage people from being representatives”.

I appreciate that the Government is proposing to amend the bill, but I do not think that it has gone far enough.

Glasgow City Council and CPAG pointed out that it might be difficult in practice to disentangle how much liability rests with the individual and how much with the representative. Although there has been movement in that regard, the issue still arises. When will the representative get the benefit and when will the person who is making the claim get it? I am unable to support amendment 29. I ask the Government to think about the matter again and provide greater protection to third-party representatives, otherwise I fear that we will see people who volunteer not being willing to give their time.

For that reason, although amendment 30 is not perfect, we will vote for it in order to allow the Government to reflect again on the issues. I have some concerns about amendment 33 on the liability of a person’s estate.

Perhaps it is my lack of understanding, but I am interested to know for how long a period a claim could be made against someone’s estate. We could end up with families who want to distribute assets to other family members being unable to do so because the assets are held up in some kind of claim from Social Security Scotland. If we are going to include that in the bill, will the Government reflect on having some kind of timescale for it? What protection would be given to residue benefits?

Will the cabinet secretary also clarify that representatives will have a right to review, as individuals have? Amendment 39 removes that right. I think that that is covered by amendment 29, but it would be good to get that on the record.

We all have the same intention, which is that we want people to be represented in a way that we feel would be best for them. There is often representation by a third party who, in practice, is often a volunteer. I am concerned that, as the bill is drafted, people will be put off doing that. I think that there is an opportunity for us to reflect and see whether we can give greater protection to third parties.

With due respect to the cabinet secretary, I disagree with her reasoning. I accept that the First-tier Tribunal can seek guidance in that regard, but that guidance is not binding. It would be helpful if we in Scotland could build up case law that would give certainty to the First-tier Tribunal in making decisions.

I also come to a different view on amendments 118 to 125. I press amendment 116.

Thank you, convener. Good morning, colleagues. I thank the committee for all the work that it has done to date in considering my bill. I have been following the evidence sessions with great interest, and I welcome the views of all who have contributed. I was pleased to hear continued overwhelming support for the bill being expressed during the evidence sessions, particularly by organisations that work with and for disabled people. I think that everyone who has given evidence to the committee, including public bodies and the Minister for Equalities, accepts that the current situation that disabled people face, particularly in the aftermath of the Covid pandemic, is simply not good enough.

There was cross-party consensus that, in relation to understanding, representing and actioning the needs of disabled people in Scotland, change is needed and is needed now. Disabled people cannot wait any longer for a disability commissioner. I introduced the Disability Commissioner (Scotland) Bill in response to such concerns, with the aim of ensuring that disabled people have a champion—someone whose sole focus is on disabled people.

I acknowledge that not everyone thinks that a commissioner is the solution, but I believe that a commissioner can only have a positive impact in improving the lives of disabled people. In developing my bill, I drew inspiration from the work of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner, as that role has shown the positive impact that an advocating rights-based champion can have. I also note the work of the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales and the Commissioner for Older People for Northern Ireland. The commissioner model is popular for a reason—it works. A disability commissioner could play a similar high-profile role to those that I have highlighted by advocating for disabled people at a national level.

I note that some witnesses raised concerns with the committee. For example, there was a view that there are already a number of existing commissioners and public bodies that have a remit in helping disabled people, and that the creation of a disability commissioner might lead to duplication of work and overlap of remits. I firmly disagree.

I acknowledge the important and wide-ranging work of public bodies such as the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, but those organisations’ remits are split between multiple protected characteristics and the impact can therefore be diluted. Only a disability commissioner would be able to be laser focused on disabled people, as is urgently needed.

Moreover, I believe that the work of a disability commissioner would complement that of existing bodies. For example, currently, protecting the rights of children in Scotland falls within the remits of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, the SHRC and the EHRC, but that has not prevented those organisations from being able to carry out their roles and, as far as I can see, it has not led to any problems or duplication of work.

I note that the majority of those who have raised concerns about the establishment of a disability commissioner, particularly regarding the potential for overlap of remits and the costs involved, are in positions of authority and power, such as politicians and public bodies. Very few, if any, disabled people or third sector organisations have raised those issues as major concerns.

Yes, public bodies that help disabled people already exist at a national level, but we are being told by disabled people that they are not meeting their needs. I will quote Heather Fisken from Inclusion Scotland:

“If the landscape is so busy, why has there been no change so far?”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 11 June 2024; c 8.]

We must listen to what disabled people are telling us, rather than to the public bodies that are currently not having the necessary impact.

I note that the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s report on the commissioner landscape was published yesterday, as the committee is probably aware. The report calls for

“a moratorium on creating any new SPCB supported bodies, or expanding the remit of existing bodies”

until a review has been undertaken. I understand the instinct to have a review—I would even encourage that to happen—but it should not take place until disabled people have been given the same chance as other groups to benefit from a champion who speaks on their behalf at all levels of government. Pulling up the ladder on disabled people at this point would send a clear message that they are less worthy of an advocate than others. It is also worth noting that the recommended review would conclude by June 2025, which would, in effect, end any chance of further legislation on the proposal for a disability commissioner being introduced in this parliamentary session.

I note that other concerns have been raised about the potential cost of a disability commissioner. I emphasise what I said when I gave evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee: I consider the costs that would be incurred in establishing a disability commissioner to be relatively modest in the context of the Scottish Government’s total budget of £30 billion, and those costs should be seen as an investment in disabled people that is long overdue and very much needed.

It is my firm belief that establishing a disability commissioner will ensure that disabled people have a champion who will give them the prioritisation that they need and deserve. The commissioner’s overarching purpose will be to promote and safeguard the rights of disabled people. The bill sets out various functions that will help the commissioner to achieve that goal. Those include promoting awareness and understanding of the rights of disabled people and promoting best practice by service providers. That could be carried out in a multitude of ways, but it is important that the views of disabled people are central to that work.

For that reason, the bill provides that the commissioner must consult disabled people and organisations that work with and for disabled people on the work that the commission is undertaking and must publish a strategy for involving disabled people in their work. The commissioner must ensure that those who have difficulty in making their views known or in accessing information have the means to do so when engaging with the commissioner. That could be done through the provision of information in different formats, such as Braille and easy read.

The recent programme for government was yet another bitter blow for disabled people in Scotland, with the news that the Scottish Government will not be pursuing a human rights bill in this parliamentary session, as was previously planned, and that the proposed bill to create a learning disability, autism and neurodiversity commissioner has been shelved.

On top of that, many disabled people’s organisations believe that the Government’s disability equality plan falls short of its promised intentions. Glasgow Disability Alliance stated that it

“lacks ambition, meaningful actions or commitments needed to improve disabled lives blighted by #Poverty #Trauma #Inequality”.

Inclusion Scotland stated that it was disappointed that the draft plan does not include the actions that it had discussed at a meeting with the First Minister. The Scottish Government’s disability equality plan is therefore not an effective or credible alternative to establishing a disability commissioner, so if a disability commissioner is not the answer, what is?

We know that disabled people need action now. They cannot wait any longer. The bill seeks to make positive changes for disabled people and is in front of the Parliament now. No viable alternative is currently on the table to ensure that disabled people have a champion who will ensure that their rights are respected and enforced. The proposed learning disability, autism and neurodiversity commissioner bill is being dangled in front of us, but, for the foreseeable future, it will remain out of reach. We are being asked to trust existing institutions to provide a voice for disabled people when they previously have not provided that voice, even though they already have that mandate. The reality is that they will never be able to prioritise disabled people because they have such broad remits. Only a disability commissioner will be able to focus their full attention on disabled people.

If the bill falls, we risk this parliamentary session ending without our having passed any meaningful legislation to improve disabled people’s rights, which would be shameful. We know that disabled people need action now. They cannot wait any longer. I therefore urge the committee and the Parliament to ensure that this opportunity is not missed and to support the bill. I am afraid that disabled people will not forgive us if we do not pass it.

I am happy, as always, to answer questions.

We have to look at what powers a commissioner can choose to enforce. Many people who are better legally qualified than I am will tell you that there are restrictions in that regard, even on the powers of commissioners. However, we can probably go further and I am certainly willing to work with the Glasgow Disability Alliance, other charities and MSPs to see how far we can go and still keep on the right side of legality.

I have put forward some powers for the commissioner, and we will just need to make sure that they are legal. If they are, I am certainly happy to have discussions with you and others about that.

Interestingly, there was an argument for a disability commissioner before Covid, but, as a consequence of Covid, disabled people have been left behind by public bodies and funding organisations far more than people with any of the other protected characteristics.

When I was doing my consultation on the bill, one of my big concerns was about how to balance the commissioner’s job in relation to dealing with people in wheelchairs, people with hidden disabilities and people with hearing loss. How would one commissioner be able to do all that? What became very clear to me—all the evidence points to this—is that the same issues relating to education, employment and benefits affect people in wheelchairs, people with hearing or sight loss and people with hidden disabilities. The commissioner would not be spending, say, 20 per cent of their time dealing with people with one type of disability and 10 per cent of their time dealing with people with another type of disability. They would be looking at issues such as education and social care provision.

Interestingly, the City of Edinburgh Council has still not introduced the care measures for the parents of disabled children that were available before Covid. In fact, based on a meeting that I had with the council a number of months ago, it has no intention of introducing those measures again. That is true not just of the City of Edinburgh Council but of many local authorities. Who is advocating for those people? Who is telling MSPs that that is happening? Who is putting the message out there? Frankly, at the moment, no one is, so local authorities and other public bodies are getting away with it. That is why disabled people need a voice and why the bill is so important.