Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that my proposed commissioner should be 70 per cent proactive and 30 per cent reactive.

I will give a quick example. Let us say that a disability commissioner is appointed. In their first year, that individual will have to go out to the disabled community. The commissioner should not expect that community to come to them, but should go to it. They should spend six to nine months meeting as many people as they can so that they can understand the priorities of the disabled community. Most of us know what those priorities are, but let us make sure that they are right.

The commissioner would need to work out how to advocate for those priorities. They would need to consider whether a particular priority is a local government issue, a Scottish Parliament issue or a health board issue. The commissioner would have to talk not only to you—or, rather, to your successor, as you will not be here—but would have to talk to the local councillor in Dundee to find out why, for example, there are no accessible toilets in that area. There might be accessible toilets in the Dundee area—I am just inventing an example.

The commissioner would have to go to the health board and ask it, “Do you know the effect of what you are doing is having on disabled people?” If the commissioner were to talk only to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, they would not be doing their job: they would need to talk to other bodies, as well. It is clear that the next Government will introduce legislation that will have an effect on disabled people. The commissioner would need to react to that legislation and to put across their points to MSPs.

I say this very carefully, but a person who is not disabled will not know what effect certain things will have on individual lives. I have no idea what it is like to have a visual impairment, nor do I have any idea what Pam Duncan-Glancy goes through as someone who is a wheelchair user. The disability commissioner would need to represent many different voices. It would not be as easy as going to one or two people in order to understand how the disabled community feels. They would have to get the views of people with different disabilities, some of which are hidden and some of which are very obvious. They would need to bring that information together and to ask the health boards and the Government, “Do you understand what effect this will have?”

Therefore, I think that the role of the disability commissioner would be a very proactive one, which would involve listening to the disabled community and advocating on its behalf.

I will address your second question first, but I will reverse it. Why are we pulling up the drawbridge now? In the current session of the Parliament, it has already voted to have a patient safety commissioner. Depending on how the votes go on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, we could also have a victims and witnesses commissioner. In this session, the Parliament has said that commissioners still have a role to play, and that position has been supported by all parties. Therefore, I reverse your question and ask why we should pull up the drawbridge now and leave behind 20 per cent of the population.

In response to your first question, in an ideal world, we would not need any commissioners at all, because MSPs, the Scottish Government and the third sector would all be doing the job. However, we have seen that that is not the case. The work of the children’s commissioner has resulted in changes in the law—some of which I support and some of which I do not support—that would not have been made without the commissioner advocating very loudly to us as MSPs and to civic society that such change should happen.

We are all inundated with requests from people who have contacted us with their issues. There are lots of different issues around disability, in particular. Someone who has a visual impairment will—depending on how they deal with that visual impairment—want certain changes to be made, but two disabled people with two different disabilities might want very different things. Therefore, there is not the sort of unified voice that we get with other protected characteristics, so my suggested commissioner’s role would be to bring people together so that we can have that more unified voice.

In the disability world, that voice is fractured for lots of reasons. The commissioner would be able to speak with such a voice not only to the Government and MSPs, but to health boards, local authorities and other statutory bodies. Let us be honest: it is a voice that is not really being heard in the Parliament. How many debates on disability have there been in the past nearly four years of this Parliament, even though 20 per cent of the population have a disability? We discuss other protected characteristics far more. They are all important, but 20 per cent of the population feel that their voice is not being heard.

We asked the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to give evidence, but it has not submitted evidence to us. Obviously, many people go through local authorities. I put this question to Louise and Kyle, although others can come in. In your experience, are local authorities taking digital first too far in relation to older disabled people or older people in general? A lot of services and information are found through local authorities. Do you have any experiences of digital first there?

Good morning, and thank you for coming along. I was interested to read that 49 per cent of pension-age disability payment applications are made online, compared with 91 per cent of Scottish child payment applications. What is the link between pensioner poverty and the digital by default approach? Is that a fairly large issue in Scotland?

That is helpful. I wonder whether I can dig a wee bit deeper. It was interesting to read that 69 per cent of disabled people aged 60 and over will use the internet, compared to 83 per cent of non-disabled people aged 60 and over. Do you think that older people with disabilities are being left behind more than other older people? How do we address that particular group of individuals?

Jillian, in your report, you say that the most affected people are people in poverty, older people and disabled people. Based on your report and your thinking, are there different things that we need to do for disabled older people compared to older people in general?

That is interesting.

My final question is on the child disability payment. You are right to say that there seems to be an increase in child disability payment expenditure across the whole of the UK, but there seems to be a larger increase in Scotland percentage-wise. Have you or Social Security Scotland done any analysis to find out why that is happening? Is it to do with the people who are applying? Is it to do with people in Scotland having health conditions that are not found in other parts of the UK? Is it to do with the way in which people are being assessed? Has any work been done in relation to that particular benefit?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. Again, for the record, I point out that I receive adult disability payment.

I will follow on from Mr MacDonald’s question about the direction that the Scottish Government might take, if, as we have read, fairly major cuts to social security are likely to be announced at Westminster. Obviously, with regard to this year’s winter fuel payment, you had to go along with what the UK Government did and follow suit. If a change were announced at Westminster to benefits such as the personal independence payment, would the Scottish Government have to mirror that in this financial year, or is there any way that that could be mitigated so that it would not have to be passed on in Scotland?

Like Liz Smith, I welcome the instruments that we are considering today and will vote for them.

I understand that the money is a social investment in Scotland, as you have said on a number of occasions, but that investment comes with a cost that has to be met in the Scottish budget. You will have seen the forecasts for 2026, 2027 and 2028, which are figures of more than £1 billion. I presume that that money will have to come from other budgets, so what work are you doing with your colleagues in that regard? Which budgets are you looking at taking that money from, so that that social investment in social security can be made? I do not think that there would be any other way of finding the money, except by raising taxes. Would you raise taxes, or would you take money from other budgets?

I will push you a wee bit on that. You might have heard this morning’s evidence from a GP, who said that she had spoken to colleagues who were unaware of some of what she was talking about. At a strategic level, who do we hold responsible for that? You said that things are different from what they were two or three years ago, but if some medical professionals are still not aware of certain routes and information, there must be gaps. I am not sure whether responsibility for that falls to the health boards or to you. How do we ensure that there is joined-up thinking between statutory bodies, non-statutory bodies, local government, national Government and the NHS?