Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have deliberately not broken that down, because we are not here to write individuals’ job descriptions. Once the disability commissioner was appointed—if that were to happen—it would be for them to decide, first of all, what their own strengths and weaknesses might be and then what strengths would be needed in bringing the team together. Nevertheless, that would be the budget that they would have to play with. We are not saying that one person will be a researcher, say, or that one will do this and another do that; it will be up to the commissioner to decide what they think that they will need, once they are appointed.

That is a good question for the Finance and Public Administration Committee to address. My view is that if, as a Parliament, we believe that having a disability commissioner is the right way forward, it has to be appropriately funded. I think that that should come from an increase to the Parliament’s budget, but that debate can happen elsewhere.

In an evidence session on the bill at the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee last week, it was interesting that one of the speakers powerfully said that a disability commissioner is an investment in our society. If an investment is worth making, it is worth making. I think that we would be making an important investment in a group of individuals—ultimately, it is individuals who we are looking at—who, in many cases, are marginalised and left behind in society.

I would hope that that would not be the case. That would be a choice for the Parliament and, ultimately, the Government to make when it sets its annual budget. I would be very disappointed if that were to happen.

You are right in that regard, Mr Mason. It is about what our priorities are as a Parliament and as a society. I am sure that I could reasonably easily find an amount of money that could be better prioritised. That is a decision that we have to make, but if we see it as an investment in society, I think that it is a justifiable amount.

The figures are robust and, because we already have commissioners, they are not figures that we simply plucked out of the sky. This is probably one of the most robust finance memorandums produced for a non-Government bill.

I would argue that 20 per cent of the population is simply not being heard, and we need that voice to be heard. We can say, “Let’s get rid of all commissioners and have no voice,” but we must not pick on and pull up the drawbridge on one of the most vulnerable parts of society.

You have raised a really important issue, which I would like to reflect on. When we get to stage 2, I would be open to those types of discussions and amendments.

No, they could come from a number of sectors. They could come from many different backgrounds, but they would see this as a role that they could play. They might come from the third sector, or they might come from other professional backgrounds; indeed, they might not have a professional background at all, but still have the skills that are set out. If this happens, we will want to throw the net as wide as possible and not limit ourselves with regard to who can apply for the job.

No, I hope that that would not happen. As you said, many third sector charities are quite well resourced, and they will still see such issues as for them. Some of the issues are quite complex. Disability is not like some other protected characteristics, in that there is no one answer.

The example that I always give relates to dropped kerbs. A dropped kerb is really helpful for individuals with certain disabilities—for someone in a wheelchair, it means that they can get across the road. However, for someone with a guide dog, a dropped kerb is a nightmare, because the dog does not know when they are coming to the edge of a pavement. Those are two slightly conflicting interests, and it will be for the disability commissioner to work through such issues. Not every issue will be the same for every disabled individual, so we might want the disability commissioner to advocate in two areas, whereas a charity with a particular interest will advocate on only one issue.

I have heard that suggestion and I have read the submission on that. My concern would still be that disability would be left behind compared with many of the other protected characteristics, because of the reasons that I have outlined. Many disabled people find it very difficult to engage and to have the energy and the ability to advocate for themselves. There are many good third sector charities that work in the space already, but the approach is not often holistic and sometimes, there can be conflicting views—and rightly so. I would be deeply concerned, if we simply gave more powers to a commission that already has a lot of powers and has not focused on disability, that disabled people would be left behind again. That may not be the case next year, but we have to future proof this for five, 10, 15 or 20 years down the road.

I absolutely agree that MSPs, MPs and local councillors should be advocating on behalf of constituents, but that does not deal with the broader policy issues that come out of the Government and the Parliament. We need a co-ordinated voice—somebody who can bring together the disability community so that it can speak to the Parliament.

In the eight years that I have been here, it has been noticeable how very infrequently you hear the disabled community speaking as one voice. Part of that is because it is very difficult for disabled people to find that energy—or even the availability and accessibility of places.

I am not here to write the job description of a disability commissioner, but there will be a role for them beyond just advocacy. They have to look at where policy is and where it should be going, and engage with Government, Parliament and other public bodies to produce that—in a similar role to that of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland.

I absolutely welcome your review of commissioners. We as a Parliament have to address that. However, it needs to be done holistically and in a way that goes back and looks at what previous commissioners have done and are doing. Also, I am slightly concerned that, due to timing, we are now saying, “Let’s pull up the drawbridge and stop at this point.”

Let us have a holistic review. Within the past year, the Parliament has created a commissioner for patients’ rights; probably before the end of this year, legislation will come through to give victims and witnesses a commissioner for their rights. As a Parliament, therefore, we are not necessarily saying that having commissioners is wrong. My concern is that we need to do things holistically and come up with an all-round approach. The Government itself has at least one or two other commissioners planned before the end of this parliamentary session.