 The next item of business is a debate on motion 5594 in the name of Jean Freeman on a fairer Scotland for disabled people. I can invite those members who wish to speak to press their request to speak buttons now. I also remind members that this has been relayed in BSL and I should have warned myself not to speak too rapidly to allow it to be properly conveyed. I now call in Jean Freeman to speak to and move the motion 15 minutes, please, minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also thank the BSL signers who are here and the significant number of disabled people from organisations across Scotland who have joined us in the gallery for this debate. Last December, we published a Fairer Scotland for disabled people, our delivery plan for upholding the principles of the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Disabled people are one-fifth of our population, one in five. They are husbands, wives, partners, sisters, brothers, friends, but too many disabled people are unable to contribute to society or live the lives that they wish because of the barriers that we allow to stand in their way. Inaccessible facilities and communication are part of the issues that they have to deal with to live as everyone else wants to live. However, the bigger issue is the attitude, the attitude of those of us who are not disabled. Our limited expectations of our fellow citizens are careless ignorance of the barriers that they face. As we have heard only this week, our increasing toleration of the discrimination, abuse and inequality that disabled people face in various places around Scotland. To get Scotland to a place where disabled people have choice, dignity and control to live the life that they choose, that requires transformational change. The scale and extent that is necessary will take concerted action over this parliamentary session and beyond. However, our disability delivery plan, co-produced with disabled people and published last December, sets us firmly on that road. For most of us, having a job defines a large part of who we are. It reinforces our feeling of being part of something, part of society. It gives us some degree of choice and security and affects the quality of our life and that of our families. Disabled people are no different. Time and again, they tell me that what they want is the chance to contribute their talents and their skills through meaningful employment. Today, that is where I want to focus. In doing so, I want to say something about the environment that we are all working in, to give some context to the scale of the task that we are undertaking and, more importantly, the scale of the challenge that disabled people face every day. In 14 weeks' time, our track record on disability, along with that of the UK Government and the other devolved Administrations, will be examined by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Geneva. That is the same committee that concluded that there is, and I quote, reliable evidence that the threshold of grave or systematic violations of the rights of persons with disabilities has been met by the UK Government. Some of our colleagues here chose to ignore or belittle the seriousness of those conclusions, but the facts speak for themselves. The harsh reality is that disabled people are under attack by a UK Government that shows little or no respect for their human rights. Tory members here and in the UK Government tell us repeatedly that the point of their welfare reforms, which will take £1 billion away from people in Scotland by 2021 on top of the £1.4 billion already removed, the point of those reforms is to help people to move from benefits into work. For disabled people—and for others, indeed—but for disabled people, the exact opposite is the case, and anyone with any sense could see that. Cuts to support in the transfer from disability living allowance to PIP, cuts of £30 a week to the work-ready element of ESA, losing your mobility car at the rate of £800 a week at the minute, so essential to your independence and a practical aid to work, reduction in the work allowance on universal credit, a freeze on in-work benefits, abolishing the independent living fund, which we have invested in from our budget to retain in Scotland, imposing the bedroom tax, where our mitigation investment shows that 80 per cent of the households that we help have a disabled member. Outside of the virtual reality inhabited by the Tories, where warm words and robotic sound bites are supposed to substitute for compassionate caring action, none of those could possibly be considered as helping people to move into work. We hear a lot from the Government about people losing their cars. The reason people have lost their cars is because the test change from could you walk 100 yards to could you walk 50 yards? What definition will she have in regard to someone getting a car? 50, 100, a mile, or just give everybody in Scotland one car each? Mr Balfour is, of course, quite wrong. The reason why people are losing their mobility cars at the rate of 800 cars per week is because the UK Government has opposed a completely arbitrary assessment on the basis of how people will be determined as to whether or not they can use a car in order to access the mobility that they require. On the specific answer to your question, let me give you a wee example. I heard last week of a young woman whose leg was amputated in January, who last week was told that she did not need her mobility car. Despite her two children, despite her prosthetic leg not yet being the one that she will use, despite her use of sticks, despite the fact that she lives significantly some distance from any supermarket or any shop, she does not need her car. Tell me, Mr Balfour, that that is a fair system, and I will tell you how we will determine what we are doing. We will determine it on the basis of our experience panels. Over 2,000 people with direct responsibility of the benefits will help to guide us on what is a fair and just system. Let us turn more to that just system. With 65 per cent of PIP tribunal appeals, 68 per cent of ESA appeals and 56 per cent of DLA appeals upheld in one quarter alone, it is not only the UK Government's policies that are wrong, it is the delivery of them too. Delivery that gets it so wrong so often that not only waste public money, more critically, it leaves disabled people feeling, as one put it, crushed by the UK Government. That is the environment that disabled people face and the one that we have to work against. We are determined, nonetheless, to secure the transformational change that is needed, and we know that we can only do that by working directly with disabled people and the organisations that represent them. We will honour our commitment to maintain our current record level of investment to disabled people's organisations this year and work towards introducing a three-year funding model to give a greater degree of certainty for the future with the details set out next month by my colleague the cabinet secretary. Across the UK, we recognise that, with the exception of Northern Ireland, Scotland has the largest employability gap between disabled and non-disabled people, and we know that that is unacceptable. Our plan sets out a number of specific actions to deal with this. We will reduce the employment gap by half, we will work with disabled people's organisations and the public sector to set a target that will increase the percentage of disabled people in the public sector workforce, and we will implement changes, we have implemented changes, to the modern apprenticeship programme to give disabled people the highest level of funding until the age of 30 and deliver important improvements that they sought in terms of part-time and flexible engagement. All of that, together with the significant improvements in our devolved employment programmes, will help, but we need much more concentrated effort on tackling the barriers to employment. We committed to hosting a major congress on disability, employment and the workplace. That congress will take place this December. In order for it to have maximum impact, I can announce today that my colleague the minister for employability and training and I will lead a week-long programme of events with employers, the STUC, disabled people's organisations and others to examine in detail the employability issues and agree additional concrete steps to increase employment levels that we will then take to that congress for their agreement. I am pleased to have the STUC's support for this approach and agree with them that it will, as they said, provide a solid foundation for delivering fair work and equal employment opportunities for disabled people. In the meantime, though, I believe that we all have a part to play to improve the employment chances of disabled people. Some members will be aware of the hugely successful internship programme that ran during the last session of this Parliament. For my fellow MSPs Andy Wightman and Jamie Hepburn, their intern positions translated into full-time employment. Our delivery plan committed us to build on that with a new 120-place internship programme across the public and third sector and in politics. I am pleased to inform the chamber today that we will lead the way with funding for a new Scottish Government internship programme for disabled people. For some businesses and employers, what they believe to be the difficulties of employing a disabled person leads them to lose out on talent and ability that would bring real value to their company's growth and sustainability. Part of that is an assumption of problems on difficulties. Part of it is a lack of awareness of the help and support that is available. All of it leads to a lack of opportunity for the disabled person and a loss to the employer of a valuable employee. Next month, I am delighted to say that the Scottish Government will launch a marketing campaign specifically designed to tackle that head-on and feeding into that congress that I mentioned. A marketing campaign brought together with the support of disabled people, targeted at employers to raise awareness of the benefits of hiring and retaining more disabled people in their workforce and providing disabled people themselves with the information that they need to secure the support for the adjustments that will help them and their employer through the access to work fund. We are six months on from the launch of our delivery plan, but with those commitments and others that I have no time to go into today, already under way, we can drive forward towards the change that we need in the employment prospects of disabled people. Finally, Presiding Officer, let me turn to one other area of progress. Two weeks ago, we saw elections to Scotland's local authorities, the first real test of our access to elected office fund. All of us in this chamber know the challenges and demands placed upon candidates who stand for elected office. For disabled people, those challenges can be almost overwhelming, and the fund was put in place to meet their additional disability-related costs. I am pleased to tell members that, from 39 candidates who received support through the fund, 15 were elected to 12 local authorities, and I was delighted to meet two of them earlier from the Green Party and the Conservative Party. That is, I believe, a tremendous result and a clear demonstration that, with some financial support and cross-party political will, we can make a difference. It is important that this chamber genuinely reflects the population of Scotland. I am grateful to the Inclusion Scotland team who administered the fund on our behalf and delighted to tell members that they have just been shortlisted in the SCVO charity awards for this work. While we have committed to keeping the fund in place until the next parliamentary elections in 2021, I am disappointed that we cannot use the support for the current UK general election. The Terms of the 2016 Scotland Act prohibit us from doing so. A situation all the more regrettable when set alongside the repeated refusal of the UK Government to reopen its access to elected office fund. That fund, the UK Government's fund, has lain dormant since 2015, denying disabled candidates the support they need and that we have demonstrated works to stand in this general election. Nonetheless, I am determined to build on the success of our fund. Over the summer, we will explore options on how we might use them to assist disabled people who want to undertake other forms of public service and will report back on my proposals in the autumn. This Government will do everything that we can to support and advance the human rights and dignity of disabled people in Scotland. I hope that our first six months' work demonstrates the seriousness of our intent and that, despite the additional obstacles that are presented by the harmful policy actions and decisions of the UK Government, our commitment is one that, clearly, we are determined to meet. I move. Thank you, minister. I now call Adam Tomkins to speak to and move amendment 5594.2. Mr Tomkins, 11 minutes are thereabouts, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is the second time that this Parliament has debated a fairer Scotland for disabled people. When we did so on 8 December, the minister made a number of commitments. She said among other matters that she would reform adult social care so that its focus has shifted onto achievement of independent living, that she would consult on the future of long-term care capacity, that she would improve information about an accessibility of self-directed support, especially as regards portability from one local authority to another, that she would improve the transitions for disabled children and young people from education to employment so that it is better to align learning and skills. She would provide the highest level of apprenticeship funding for young disabled people, make public transport more accessible and ensure that local authorities in Scotland set realistic targets for the delivery of wheelchair-accessible housing. That was nearly six months ago, Presiding Officer. What progress was the minister able to report to Parliament today on those undertakings? Substantial, as regards employment, very welcome as regards access to elected office, but on all of the other issues, precious little, Presiding Officer. Let us review them. On the commitment to work with local authorities and other partners to reform adult social care, there has been no discernible progress. On the commitment to consult on long-term care capacity, there has been no apparent progress in the six months since we last debated this issue in a moment. On the commitment to make public transport more accessible, not only has there been no identifiable progress, but the Scottish Government has actually cut funding for concessionary fares and bus services, despite the fact that the Fairer Scotland Action Plan pledges the Scottish Government to continue to support measures such as concessionary travel. On the commitment to increase and improve wheelchair-accessible housing, there is no evidence in any of the Scottish Government's news publications, ministerial statements or answers to parliamentary questions since December that ministers have had any discussions with local authorities about this. On the commitment to set a clear target for employment levels of disabled people in the public sector, again, there has been no discernible progress, no open consultation, no sign of any public consultation, no evidence of any stakeholder consultations either. Worse, one second worse, Inclusion Scotland report that the proportion of disabled people applying for and being appointed to public bodies in Scotland fell last year. As so often with this Government when it comes to social security, when it comes to social justice and welfare, it is all froth and no beer, all talk and no action, shouting and screaming about the Tories and about Westminster whilst ministers sit idly on their hands, preferring the politics of protest to getting on with the day job of exercising the powers at their disposal. Minister, thank you very much. I would be curious to know what evidence Mr Tomkins has for most of what he said. Can I just point out that it is six months? I had 15 minutes. I would happily take a lot longer and take you through the whole Jing Bang of it, but, by the way, yours is a Government, the UK Government, that took 10 years to roll out universal credit. You have still not finished it and you have still not got it right. So do not come here and talk to me about what has been achieved in six months, sir. Mr Tomkins. Well, that was a helpful intervention, wasn't it? What we do know since the 8th of December is that the Equality and Human Rights Commission has published a report warning that 20 years of progress towards real equality for disabled people in Scotland is at risk unless we see what it called concentrated effort around housing, hate crime, mental health, employment and education. According to the commission, 15 per cent of Scottish wheelchair users are inadequately housed at 17,000 people. The EHRC found that disabled people have a much lower attainment rate and are more likely to be permanently or temporarily excluded from school, that disabled Scots are two and a half times more likely to be unemployed than non-disabled people and that the amount of wheelchair-adapted local authority housing has decreased. What we also know since our December debate is that, as the Education and Skills Committee reported just yesterday, Scottish schoolchildren with additional needs are finding that barriers to their success are being erected and not removed under this SNP Government. Last week, we saw the devastating reality of how the SNP are undermining Scottish education with functional illiteracy on the increase and fewer than half of our S2 pupils able to read and write to the expected standard. Yesterday, we saw how the number of teachers and other staff with an additional support needs specialism has reduced in recent years as has the number of educational psychologists. Indeed, the Education and Skills Committee took evidence that the Education and Skills Committee took evidence that the number of teachers working with learning support has decreased by more than one quarter. The committee's conclusions on this are a damning indictment of SNP mismanagement, with children now feeling, and I quote, more excluded in a mainstream school setting than in a special school. With a reduction in the number of specialist staff in classrooms, a reduction in specialist support services and a reduction in special school places, none of this is surprising, but it should shame the SNP, and it gives the lie to their empty rhetoric about treating young Scots with disabilities with dignity, fairness and respect. Bill Scott of Inclusion Scotland said this in evidence to the Social Security Committee on 20 April. I quote, There are disabled children with sensory impairments and physical impairments, but no intellectual impairment whatsoever who are leaving school with no qualifications. That makes their chance nil in the current job market. Unless we change that, we will not change their future and their children will be living in poverty so we have to change the cycle. Excuse me a minute, Mr Tomkins. I hear music. I'm sure I'm not alone in hearing music. Somebody got their phone on. I can also remind members that BSL is trying to follow you, so if you could just slow down a little, I say that to everyone. Indeed, sorry. I'm more worried about running out of time. I apologize. I'll give you time if you just take a little more time. I apologize. That's the end of the quotation from Bill Scott. He was giving evidence, of course, about the child poverty bill, but what provisions are included in that bill, even to address—never mind to tackle—the barriers that Mr Scott was talking about. None, Presiding Officer. None at all, for it is a bill that seeks only to measure child poverty, including poverty among children with disabilities, and not to tackle or reduce child poverty. It's yet another SNP missed opportunity. I don't know if the cabinet secretary still wants to come in. Cabinet Secretary. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It's a bit of a cheek atory talking about child poverty when we know that, under his Government, it's absolutely going to rock it to unacceptable levels and bearing in mind that children living in poverty are more likely to have a disabled parent. In terms of the achievement, I wonder if Mr Tomkins would recognise some facts, but in terms of school leaver destinations, positive school leaver destinations, that that has increased with children with additional support needs. It's now up to 85 per cent. It was 71 per cent in 2010. I also wonder if he would recognise that there is an increasing number of classroom assistants as well. It's quite simply not true to suggest that the number of staffs supporting children with additional support needs has fallen when it's not the case. A long intervention, so I'll give you your time back. The facts that the cabinet secretary wants to talk about are those. There has been a reduction in the number of specialist staff in classrooms. There has been a reduction in specialist support services and there has been a reduction in special school places. All of this was reported unanimously, as I understand it, by the All-Party Education and Skills Committee just yesterday. If the SNP, through its curriculum for mediocrity, are failing all of Scotland's school children, then they are failing in particular Scotland's school children with disabilities. How do we have the cheek to talk about child poverty? There is a child poverty bill in front of this Parliament. On those benches, what we will be seeking to do is to make that child poverty bill a bill with real teeth rather than just the four flimsy paper pieces of paper. Can I ask the front bench to contain itself, please, and not to heckle, but to intervene instead? Of paper exercises that do nothing at all to tackle or reduce child poverty, but simply contain a series of provisions to measure it. Measuring child poverty is important, but tackling, no, I won't. Measuring child poverty is important, but tackling or reducing child poverty are even more important, and we will be putting forward amendments on that bill to give that bill a real teeth for the Government. Can I advise him that you are deviating a little from the motion and your amendment, yes, but to get back to your amendment, please? I was simply responding to the point about child poverty that the cabinet secretary made, Presiding Officer. Instead of focusing on any of the matters that I have referred to, Jean Freeman would rather pontificate and point the finger at the UK Government. So, let's have a look at the UK Government's record, shall we? This is a UK Government that is rightly proud of its long record of supporting disabled people to lead more independent lives and to participate more fully in society. A UK Government from the same party that more than 20 years ago enacted the Groundbreaking and Internationally Celebrated Disability Discrimination Act, a UK Government that spends more than £50 billion on benefits to support disabled people, a more than £6 billion increase on what the last Labour Government spent. That's 2.5 per cent of GDP, more than 6 per cent of all government spending. The UK spends more on disabled people and people with health conditions than the OECD average, more than France, more than Germany, more than the United States of America. Transformational change is needed in order for disabled people in Scotland to realise their full potential. So says today's Government motion, and we agree. If, as Inclusion Scotland and others have said, the fairer Scotland for disabled people action plan is a useful basis on which to build, it's time now for action, not words, from Jean Freeman and her ministerial colleagues. Action on housing, action on public transport, action on employment support and action, urgent action on additional support needs in our schools. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much, Mr Tomkins. You didn't need all your time despite all the interventions. I now call Alex Rowley to speak to and move amendment 5594.1. Mr Rowley, eight minutes are thereabouts. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Moving the amendment in my name, I would want to support the general direction of the motion and I would hope that we can find some consensus in this Parliament this afternoon on this important debate. Scottish League welcomes a fairer Scotland for disabled people and the use of the social model of disability, which states that it is society which disables people and it is our job to remove those barriers. We also welcome the delivery plan's approach and actions. In that delivery plan, the minister acknowledges the scale and extent of the change necessary for real transformation in the experience of disabled people that will require concerted action over this parliamentary term and beyond. This debate today is important, but it is equally important that we are able to be confident that the progress on the delivery plan is measured on a regular basis, otherwise the risk of not making that progress necessary remains. I hope that the minister will answer this point and summon up. I note, for example, that on housing, the plan quotes the chief executive of Glasgow Centre for Inclusive Living stating that accessible housing is the cornerstone of independent living. Without an accessible home, it is clearly impossible for many disabled and older people to live as equal citizens, to work, to play, to have relationships, to be active members of our communities, and all that follows from that. In other words, to do all the things that non-disabled people take for granted. I agree with that, but I have to say to you that I am less than convinced that the current approach from the Government to deliver on the promise of 35,000 social rented houses can deliver on this. Indeed, without any focused forward local delivery planning, I very much doubt that it will deliver the numbers. Never mind the kind of housing that will be required to deliver housing needed for a fairer Scotland for disabled people. Likewise, Enable Scotland points out that, in this learning disability week, there are some key issues, not least in the area of education, where more than half of young people who have learning disabilities and autism spectrum disorders feel that they are not achieving their full potential at school. Inclusion Scotland also points out that, although the Scottish Government has provided £250 million to health boards to pass on to integration authorities to support social care, that has to be seen in the context of the cuts to local government budgets of over £500 million, which is likely to lead to further cuts in social care budgets. They also say that Inclusion Scotland has frequently highlighted the crisis in social care, which has seen the focus moved to meeting only critical and substantial need. It can mean disabled people effectively being prisoners in their own homes, dressed, washed, fed and toileted, but unable to go out to meet their friends or family to take part in the social activities that most of us take for granted. We need joined-up Government, but we also need the resources to be able to deliver on the actions and in education, which means more direct support for teaching and learning. It means more teaching assistance, and it means that I would suggest that we end the cuts at the local level. The same is true for health and social care, where we know that joint boards are struggling to balance the books and to meet the grown demands that are being placed upon them. In all those areas, if we are going to deliver on the plan, we need joined-up Government, and we have to stop cutting local services. In giving support to the plan, I want to see more discussion moving forward on how the progress and outcomes will be measured and monitored. For we should be clear, it is in the interests of disabled people to deliver on this plan, but it is equally in the interests of all of Scotland that we deliver. I hope that we can agree that disabled people in Scotland make a huge contribution to Scottish society, and that said, it is therefore both despicable and unacceptable that over the past seven years the UK Government has ensured that disabled people have borne the brunt of Tory cuts on benefits and services. Not only has disabled people had to bear the brunt of those cuts, but disgracefully it is the Tories who have contributed to the vile narrative that has vilified people with disabilities with divisive rhetoric like scroungers and shirkers. It is in this climate, Presiding Officer, record levels of disability hate crime has sadly increased and continues to increase. The latest report from the Senate Centre for Welfare Reform demonstrates how the burden of cuts fall on minority groups with the greatest impact on disabled people. The fact is exactly the opposite of what Mr Rowley just said. The current UK Government is spending £50 billion on disability benefits, more than £6 billion more than the last Labour Government spent. The money has gone up, not been cut. Simply not the case. Professor Tomkins is just simply ignoring the facts. The fact is that disabled people are bearing the brunt of the welfare cuts. It is just a fact and you need to look at the evidence. The fact is that people are getting poorer. The last Labour Government lifted millions of people out of poverty. The Tories and Westminster, supported by the Tories in this Parliament, are driving millions and millions more into deeper and deeper poverty. That is the fact. In this Parliament, I believe that we must speak up in support of disabled people who are under attack and being driven further into poverty as a direct result of Tory Government policy. We must demand a halt to the current programme of cuts and an independent assessment of the cumulative impact of the cuts on disabled people and other vulnerable groups. It is clear from the Tory amendment today that the Scottish Tories stand four square behind the attacks on the weakest, the poorest and the disabled, so no change there. You would think that the findings of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission would embarrass the Scottish Tories and to stot them the attacks on disabled people, but no just the same old Tories standing up for the few. However, as the green amendment, which was not taken today, pointed out, we do have power in this Parliament to start to address the worst aspects of the Tory attacks on disabled people. I say to the minister that we need to hear more about what can be done and more specific timelines for the transfer and use of powers in Scotland. I know that there are complex issues, but I say to the minister that we must take the powers as soon as possible and we must begin to use those powers in the best interests of Scotland and the people of Scotland. We have had the consultation. We have established the principle that we must build a fairer and more dignified social security system. I look forward to the draft bill and to making the progress that needs to be made. Finally, I am calling on the Scottish Government here in Scotland to launch a nationwide benefits uptake campaign in partnership with councils in the third sector to ensure that all the tens of thousands of people who are not getting the support that they need and are entitled to should be getting that support. We need to do more and we can do more in that area. Actions speak louder than words. In this area, we need actions. I move. Thank you very much, Mr Rowley. I move to the open debate. Mary Evans, to be followed by Jeremy Balfour. Miss Evans, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Before I start, I just remind the chamber that I am the parliamentary liaison officer to the Cabinet Secretary for Communities, Social Security and Equalities. It is a real pleasure to take part in this debate today and to stand here as a member of a party that is determined to create a fairer Scotland for disabled people. Today, I would like to focus on the experience of those with a hidden disability, those who are deaf or have hearing impairment, to highlight the barriers that they currently face both in terms of work and in accessing social security. I really decided to focus on this today purely because of an event that I attended last week that was sponsored by Fulton MacGregor for Action on Hearing Loss, which particularly touched and affected me. It is also quite pertinent to raise that today, given that it is a deaf awareness week. I think that all the points and issues that were raised at that event need wider airing. We all need to be aware of what is happening and understand some of the problems so that we can actively try to change things for the better. I thought that it was also particularly important because, to be perfectly honest, it highlighted my own ignorance in some areas. For example, I feel like it is quite embarrassing to admit it today, and I do not know if anybody else would have been aware, but one of the most basic points that I did not understand until that event was the fact that English is a second language to many of those who are deaf, with British Sign Language being the first. Again, it was just one of those things that I had never fully considered or appreciated. We heard examples of the barriers that that presents when it comes to applying both for jobs and social security, most notably the personal independence payment application. That application itself is long and complex—it is about 40 pages long—so it is not just a case that it is a simple thing to fill out, especially when it is in a different language. There is the fact that inquiring and applying for benefits requires initial contact via telephone calls or extensive written communication, and the obvious pitfalls that that has for someone who is deaf or has an hearing impairment. The face-to-face assessments are no better. Those applying need the support of an interpreter or a note-taker. It was disturbing to hear some of the stories from some of those medical assessments. At one medical assessment, we were told that the assessor stood behind the person and just shouted, "'Can you hear me?' from a distance. We heard another example where a client was asked to spell the word, world, as part of an assessment. When it was highlighted that a note-taker was present and the spelling could be seen on a screen, the assessor simply asked the client to turn around and spell the word backwards because that would make it more challenging. We also heard of improper and entirely inappropriate conversations being held in front of the client because the assessor knows that they cannot hear them. A local council, who, when presented with a deaf client in crisis and in need of support, refused to pay the cost of an interpreter and refused to accommodate their communication preferences and the charity was then forced to intervene and to arrange and pay for their support. Lack of clear communication, downright insensitivity and improper conduct are commonplace, and those are just a few examples that we heard. We also heard directly from Pamela, who suffered from a number of conditions. She is deaf, has Mier's Ireland syndrome, dyslexia and depression and worked until eight years ago when she was forced to stop because of those conditions. She also has a 30-year-old son who suffers from a number of complex conditions and who needs round-the-clock care. Pamela outlined many of the problems that she experienced, as well as some of the changes that could be made, which would make a massive difference to her and her family, as well as to many others. Because one thing is clear, the PIP application and assessment process needs to be fundamentally changed. In terms of those who are deaf, it is a case of education and actually making people more aware. Sometimes it is just something as simple and basic things that need to be taken account of, like communication in plain English and in a format that does not exclude those with certain conditions. Eradicating the process of continual reassessment for those with lifetime conditions that are degenerative offer no chance of improvement or are terminal, but foremost in all of that is making sure that those who need the support from social security get it and that it is enough to enable them and give them a quality of life. All of that means taking a fundamentally different approach to that which has been damagingly implemented by the Tories at Westminster, an approach that has seen a massive increase in the numbers of those living in poverty, and it is quite frankly ruining lives. 39 per cent of people living in poverty are in a household with at least one disabled person. Changes to disability living allowance and the transfer to PIP have seen many people falling through the cracks, either losing their benefit entitlement altogether or significant parts of it, including the mobility element. 51,000 people have lost their mobility vehicles altogether since PIP was introduced in 2013. Vehicles that act as a lifeline, especially to those who live in rural constituencies like mine. The cutting of employment support allowance to the tune of £30 a week, which for some am extra a cut of nearly a third of their income. That is the very deliberate policy approach that has been so utterly condemned by the international community, as highlighted in the UN report on the rights of persons with disabilities last year. A report that is so damning is an embarrassment if it wasn't so downright catastrophic, because it highlights the violations of the rights of disabled people directly because of the policies that are implemented by the Tories. In Scotland we have the chance to do something about it and that is why I welcome the Scottish Government's delivery plan that really has people at the heart of it. Building a system from the bottom up based on the experience of those who have been through the system, no more farming out assessments to the highest bidding private company, no more sanctions, no more dehumanising and humiliating the people who need our support the most. Instead, it is about building self-esteem, building confidence and treating everyone equally with dignity and respect and, quite simply, like human beings. I welcome the opportunity to speak to Mr Bates. I should make clear that I am a registered disabled. I am in the seat of PIP and also was for 20 years a former DLA and PIP Tribunal member. I wonder if I can just start with one comment that I aim not necessarily just at the minister, but at all members of the chamber. We hear a lot in the last number of speeches of disabled people. In some ways, I am not sure that it is the most helpful language to be used because disabled people come from different backgrounds, different experiences and have different disabilities. To categorise us all into one group is sometimes slightly demeaning. I understand why we use the word and I understand the difficulties around that, but I am not sure that we would get away with it if we used that type of language for other protected characteristics. I think that we have to be careful with the language that we use. The reason why I say that is because what I want to talk about briefly is the PIP awards and the former DLA. The advantage of both DLA and PIP is that it does not look at the person's disability. It looks at what effect does that disability have on that individual. Sandra White, I thank the member for taking intervention. Disabled people are the same as everyone else. They have a right to be themselves. I wonder if she can explain to me what advantage there is in taking £30 a week of people who are on PIP. What advantage is that to disabled people? Our class is disabled, but they look at the UK Government. How can you say that as an advantage? Jeremy Balfour If the member will bear with me, I will develop that towards the end of my speech if I have time. I think that it is important that we do not look at disability and say that person has a disability but forget an award. It is much better to say what effect does that have on that person's lifestyle and then say how do we help that. That means that you will end up with people who have a very similar disability in medical terminology getting an award or not getting an award. Going back to the issue of people losing their cars and mobility, the test is very clear. It is how you work, the speed, manner and distance. That is what the law lays out, both for the DLA and for the new PIP. The only change that happened was that the Government reduced the figure from 100 yards down to 50 yards. To answer the minister's question about the lady that she met last week, it would depend on how her working goes with an amputee leg and with sticks. I had somebody a number of years ago who came to my tribunal who had artificial legs but with the use of sticks could walk a fair distance, so she did not get the old DLA. That actually invites me because it is in regard to how somebody walks, not just because they have only one or no ledge. Minister, I thank the member for that explanation, but can he explain to me how, if it is so fair and so clear cut, 65 per cent of appeals against PIP decisions are upheld? That indicates to me that when you get to the business of really looking at what this disability benefit is for and at the real person in front of you, those first decisions that he is talking about are badly wrong. Jeremy Balford. As the minister will be aware, only 6 per cent of people that are refused PIP actually appeal, so the majority of people who do not get PIP obviously accept that the decision was correct. If I can also move on and say that I think that we do need to look at how the assessments are done, I am not saying that on every case assessments are right. I have to say from a personal experience when I went through filling out the PIP form, when I went to my assessment as an individual, I have to say that I was treated with respect and it all went as what it should have gone, but I accept that not everyone has that experience. Again, my slight concern with where this Government is going is that it says that what we need to do is rely on medical records, letters from teachers, letters from social workers. They have value, but again, with 20 years of experience, I can tell the minister, I can tell the chamber that, often at tribunals, we had an exercise where we used to get all the medical records in, but most doctors do not know do I need help peeling a potato, do I need help in a bath, getting in a bath, out of a bath. Those are questions that can only come for direct evidence. What I do not understand from Mary Evans' speech is that she says that we need to reform the system but gives us no idea how we reform the system. Are we going to have no decisions that everybody gets an award that applies for it, or where are the lines going to be drawn? Is it 50 yards, 100 yards, 200 yards for a car? The Government has simply not answered those questions. I think that I might have time, so I… Clare Haughey? I thank the member for taking an intervention. It is on that very point about evidence. Is the member suggesting that healthcare professionals lie when they send in reports to PIP or DLA assessments? Absolutely not. What I am saying is that they simply do not know. I go to my GP because I have got a cough. You are then right to the GP and say, could you tell me how far that person can work or can that person be able to take it? The GP does not simply know that information. If they do not lie, they just do not know. The best evidence is always from the claimant him or herself. That is why the tribunals should be a positive experience because they get to tell their story and can put that forward. I appreciate that my time has gone, but I think that we all agree that there needs to be some set of assessment. What that Government is lacking so far is any clarity in regard to that. I know a lot of disabled people—I use the word myself—a lot of people who have disability who are now concerned because they are worried that anything will take them out of PIP. Will the minister say from now that everybody that has PIP will continue to get it? Can she make that claim? If so, what is the justification? It is fair to say that the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments disagree on many things, but perhaps nowhere is the difference between them clearer at the moment than in their respective approaches to the rights and welfare of disabled people within our welfare system. Today, the Scottish Government is leading a debate on its ambitious plans to deliver on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Meanwhile, the on-going welfare reforms of the UK Tory Government have been condemned as being in grave and systematic violation of the very same convention. Whatever our party politics, that should appall and horrify us all. It might be worth reminding Parliament of some of the conclusions reached by that UN report. Changes to housing benefits and PIP criteria, together with the scrapping of the independent living fund, have disproportionately affected persons with disabilities and hindered various aspects of their rights to live independently and to be included in the community. The bedroom tax was described as failing to recognise the specific living arrangements that disabled people require. Assessments were found not to take into account the support persons with disabilities need to perform a job or the complex nature of some impairments and conditions. Perhaps of most concern, it was found that welfare assessors displayed a lack of awareness and limited knowledge of disability rights and specific needs, forcing disabled people to endure unimaginable anxiety and psychological strain. Testiment to the shambles of the work assessments is the shocking, if not surprising fact, that more than half of disabled people declared fit to work by the DWP have successfully appealed the decision. The successful appeals will have been of cold comfort to those put through Helen Bach to secure the support that they are entitled to. With quite astounding, if not unfamiliar, arrogance, the UK Tory Government has rejected the UN report's findings. As an MSP helping constituents and as a member of the Social Security Committee, I have heard extensive and first-hand evidence about the realities of the horror and the damage of UK welfare reform, particularly for disabled people. Enable Scotland has described the cuts to employment support allowance as devastating. An evidence that was submitted to the Social Security Committee by Inclusion Scotland set out how a disabled person on the Tories work programme was three times as likely to be sanctioned as to be found a job. Just let that sink in, three times more likely to be sanctioned than to find a job. The contrast with the actions, values and plans of this Scottish Government could not be starker. Despite the political and economic confines of devolution, this Scottish Government has diverted substantial amounts to mitigate Tory welfare cuts, including fully protecting households from the bedroom tax, 80 per cent of which have a disabled adult in them. The Scottish Government is building a Scottish social security system based on dignity, fairness and respect for all of our citizens. Listening to the people who use and rely on social security must be at the heart of that. Important first steps have already been taken in making sure that people's experiences are listened to and informed policy through the setting up of social security experience panels. Creating our social security system in consultation with those with real lived experience of it is something of particular importance for disabled people, whose barriers and needs are quite often poorly understood. Inclusion Scotland, when giving evidence to the Social Security Committee, noted that employability services for disabled people down the years have often been flawed due to the limited understanding of the barriers to work that face disabled people. For example, Dr Witcher pointed out that although it is often assumed that the problem is something to do with the person, the individual's lack of skills or confidence or how they manage their condition, in actual fact it tends to be just as much to do with employer attitudes or the fact that employers do not have the information or support to know how to advertise the role in an accessible way. A point that underlines that transformational change is required to shift societal attitudes and remove barriers. For this very reason, I welcome that the delivery plan is based on the social model of disability, which views disability as the relationship between the individual and society as opposed to the medical model in which an individual is understood to be disabled by their impairment. Supporting and enabling disabled people is in all of our interests. Disabled people already make an immensely valuable contribution to Scottish society, and with even better support, an individual freedom will be able to flourish and contribute even more in the future. Each time that we discuss social security in this chamber, in particular where disabled people's rights are concerned, I am torn between feelings of anger and frankly contempt for what the UK Tory Government is doing and comfort and hope that, in Scotland, under this Scottish Government, we can take an entirely different path. In closing, I urge Tory colleagues to take stock of the UN report, which castigates their punitive welfare cuts, which so disproportionately impact disabled people and violate their rights. I would ask them to join with the rest of the Parliament and firmly commit to equality for disabled people, and in striving to create a Scotland that is fair and inclusive for all. I very much welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate this afternoon. I welcome the motion, the later section of which draws attention to welfare reforms and the hugely negative impact that they have had on too many disabled people. I will focus on this issue in my time this afternoon. This is a well-timed debate, as from tomorrow this Parliament will have the power to legislate for disability benefits. From tomorrow Scotland can chart a different course to the one that is charted for it by the UK Government. It can create a fairer and more respectful system of social security for disabled people. I hope to be able to lay out some suggestions as to how that might be achieved. As the motion notes, welfare reform has impacted disabled people very negatively with cuts to benefits that help people with disabilities and health conditions with additional costs being particularly hard hit. Most people receiving such support through the disability living allowance benefit are being transferred to the new personal independence payment. Although some DLA claimants have benefited from the move to PIP through getting higher awards, the opposite is also true. Figures from October last year show that 25 per cent of DLA recipients assessed for PIP being denied support altogether and 23 per cent having the benefit reduced. The Scottish Government's annual report on welfare reform suggests that around 30,000 people will lose entitlement, an average loss of £2,600 a year. The figures for new PIP claims are even worse, with almost 60 per cent of all new applicants to January 2017 being denied help. That risks plunging disabled people into poverty, with 39 per cent of people in poverty in a household with at least one disabled person and costs associated with disability averaging £550 per month. That is not just a matter of recipients having to cut back a little and go without a few extras. Disability living allowance pays for the support that people need to live their lives, to pay for essential care, to see friends and family, to go out to work. That is why the motion is absolutely correct to say that those reforms harm their rights of disabled people, their right to live independently and with dignity and respect. In a week when many more DLA claimants would have lost their adapted car, scooter or electric wheelchair, Ruth Davidson chose to pose on one of trosic mobility's all-terrain scooters for a publicity stunt. Ms Davidson might have been able to go anywhere that she wanted on one of those machines, but many disabled people are stranded in their homes no longer able to get to work, increasing isolation and poverty. Before I move on, I would like to draw attention to the system of testing for the new PIP benefit. Narrow points-based approaches do not capture the real-lived experience of disability and ill health and how they impact on people's ability to live independently. Those kinds of tests, administered by people who do not know the claimant, are doomed to be wrong in many cases and, indeed, they are, certainly. I beg your pardon, I did not bother looking. I apologise to both of you, I do not know whom I have insulted more. Jeremy Balfour. I thank you for taking intervention. You do not like the present test, what would you use in its place? I think that I will get this right. Alison Johnstone. I would listen to the advice from the medical professionals with whom claimants have been dealing with for many years, not your arbitrary 50 or 100 metres. Many conditions, as we have heard, are complex. They change from day to day. The current system, the PIP test, costs £182, Mr Balfour, compared to £49 for the old DLA assessment. Around three and a half times as much, and this £182 is paying for failure. Across the UK, around 70,000 PIP appeals went to tribunal last year, 70,000. The most recent figures show that 62 per cent of decisions are overturned. With tribunal cases costing around £250 each, to hear, this is simply millions of pounds being wasted. Public published stats for Scotland show that, at August last year, there were 170,000 DLA recipients and around 23,000 reassessments being processed each quarter. That is continuing, and it will carry on even after tomorrow, once legislative power over these benefits is passed to this Parliament. The Scottish Government has made some encouraging initial statements on how we might move towards a more dignified and accurate system of testing. It is absolutely right that we move towards long-term awards for conditions that are unlikely to change so that recipients do not have to go through the stressful process of constant reassessments. I was pleased to get a positive response from the Minister for Social Security to my question about bringing GPs and other medical professionals back into the heart of the assessment process. In many cases, medical evidence from GPs and other medical staff should be sufficient of itself to support a claim. That would be a big step towards a more respectful, dignified system. To make those benefits fairer, we need to take urgent action on the mobility element of PIP in particular. According to Inclusion Scotland, 45 per cent of disabled people who were entitled to the higher mobility component of DLA are losing it when reassessed for PIP, and I had asked the Scottish Government to look at what transitional support can be offered to those affected. Older people who reassessed cannot get support from mobility needs through attendance allowance, as it does not contain a mobility component. In the previous session of Parliament, Age Scotland said that it had been unable to find any published official rationale for why that was the case, so I would be grateful to hear the minister's comments on that. Tomorrow is an important day. We can begin to build a fairer system of helping disabled people with the costs of their disability and reject the welfare reforms that are debasing our social security system. The motion refers to co-producing a better future for disabled people with disabled people. That is exactly the right approach. The experience panels are welcome, but let us follow that through to its logical extent. For far too long, under successive Westminster Governments, disabled people have been asked their opinion on welfare changes, and they have been ignored. We can only build a fairer system with the involvement of disabled people at all levels. I warmly welcome the 1 in 5 campaign and Inclusion Scotland's access to elected office funds, which encourage disabled people to get involved in politics. If the Scottish Government is willing to fully and genuinely listen to what disabled people have to say and build a fairer system on that, it will certainly have Scottish Green Party support. I am a great believer in getting emotional about the debate, but I do not get angry when we are in the chamber. However, it is extremely difficult in a debate like this when you hear the Tories defend the undefendable. Sometimes people in the chamber surprise you, but sometimes, and in the case of the Tories today, you see them for exactly what they are. They say that it is okay to attack the disabled. They say that it is okay because it is not part of their grander plan. Thank goodness that we have a Scottish Government that has that vision to include people with disabilities in our society. You will also be thankful that today has not been a sunny day, because, as we all know, the sun glares in here, because the shine that would have come off of Adam Tomkins' brass neck would have been absolutely incredible after some of the things that he said here today. However, I take this very personal in this debate because various disabilities have affected members of my family. As many of you are aware, Stacey, my wife, has multiple sclerosis. As such, she has mobility issues, which sometimes her disabilities can be quite severe. There are 11,000 people in Scotland living with MS, and that condition can fluctuate. Therefore, the PIP assessments can be very difficult when someone with MS goes for an assessment. Members, it might not be 50 or 100, Giles might make no difference, because two days later you will be absolutely fatigued. Members might not be aware that my wee sister, Jennifer, had a brain hemorrhage in her mid-20s, and this left her with mobility problems and constant fatigue. In modern Scotland, with 20 per cent of our populists having a disability, that is not unusual, but I want to talk about what the Scottish Government is currently doing. I will come to what the Westminster Tory Government is doing later on, because that is indeed a tale of two Governments. One Government actually believes that those with a disability are valued members of our community, and the Westminster Government, which clearly does not, has always said that it wanted those in our communities with disabilities to be able to add their talent, diversity and richness to society. I, for one, think that it is extremely important that we maintain a strong focus to address negative attitudes that some have towards disabled people, as those, of course, contribute to many inequalities that disabled people face. The disability delivery plan will be the main vehicle used by the Scottish Government to help to bridge those inequalities. I would like to grow through some of the aspects of that. The disability delivery plan is committed to delivering 120 disability internships in this current Parliament term across the public and third sector. Inclusion Scotland delivered the pilot programme for that in the Scottish Parliament in 2014-15. That gave disabled men and women the opportunity to work within Parliament. I remember one woman in particular who had MS and worked for my colleague James Dornan. I know that that was challenging for her and for James. It proved that it was not impossible, which is great news for those who live with MS as they are most are diagnosed in their 20s, which is key working in educational years. Seven internships were successfully completed and all interns went on to positive destinations. However, something that is a wee bit closer to home for me and has been mentioned before is the Scottish Government's access to elected office fund. The local Government elections a couple of weeks ago was the first proper test of the access to elected office fund. That was created to ensure that there was a level playing field between disabled and non-disabled candidates, providing the support needed by disabled candidates to get as far as putting their name in the ballot paper and to be able to campaign on that level playing field. That is also administered by the Scottish Government by Inclusion Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Government. As the minister has already said, the fund enabled 39 disabled candidates to take part in the local elections, 15 of whom were successful. The 15 were spread over 12 different councils. At that point, I should declare an interest as my wee sister Jennifer was one of the successful candidates, or as she likes to be called now, councillor Adam McGregor. She now joins the ranks of the SNP councillors from throughout Renfrewshire. That is down to her own hard work, her ability, but let us not forget the support of Inclusion Scotland, who were there for her all the way across the whole scenario. When we see the SNP's Government for vision for disabled people in Scotland, it is to treat them with dignity and respect, finding ways to level the playing field and promote the belief that everybody has something to give to contribute to society. That is in stark contrast with the Tory Government's ideals as they continue to harass and pursue our disabled. The Tory's so-called welfare reforms are having a harmful effect on those living with disabilities. Policies that the Conservative Government has pursued are harming the rights of disabled people from abolishing independent living fund and introduction of the bedroom tax to work capability assessment and changes to personal independent payment. Around 800 mobility cars have been taken off disabled people as a result of Tory cruelty. 800 cars a week are vital for disabled people as they deal with their personal disability and try to create a better future for themselves by going to work. It is all right for the Tories to talk about work as the best way forward for people to get out of transport. If they take away their basic transport, there is no way that they are going to be able to achieve that. So far, the Tories have ensured that 48,000 people have had their vehicle taken from them as the transfer from DLA to PIP continues, a process that, ironically, is taking away the independence of many disabled people. Surely there must be a Tory in the Opposition benches that find this difficult to live with. There must be one of you who wants to break ranks and state how disgusted you are with the UK Government's treatment of disabled people. I am happy at this point to take an intervention for that brave Tory soul. You cannot because you are in your last minutes. Well, that is unfortunate because none of them were getting up in the first place anyway. So, Presiding Officer, it appears that we are dealing with the same old toxic Tories who believe that there are no such thing in society and would gladly sell their own granny in pursuit of their own goal. Well, I believe in our communities and the people who make them up throughout Scotland, the type of Scotland I want is one that gives everyone an opportunity, not the select few. That is why I became involved in politics and that, Presiding Officer, is a vision of the future that I intend to continue to subscribe to. Thank you, Mr Adam. I call Annie Wells. Do we follow by Joan McAlpine, please? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on how we can help to build a fairer Scotland for people with disabilities. We also welcome the Scottish Government's fairer Scotland action plan for disabled people and we support its objectives. We want fairer working lives for disabled people and higher incomes. We want accessible public transport and accessible workplaces. We want to confront the stigma and discrimination, low expectations and prejudice that so often holds people back with disabilities in Scotland. That means endorsing the social model of disability and recognising that it is not mental or physical health conditions but the barriers that society constructs around them which drive inequality between able-bodied and disabled people. Those barriers become apparent in education and training. Only 64 per cent of young people with a disability participate in further education compared to 71 per cent of able-bodied youngsters. Many of the buildings of Scotland's ancient universities were just not built with accessibility in mind. It is essential that our universities are serious about widening access that local authorities, the Scottish Government and institutions work together to make campus a place that is truly accessible to all. Although one in five of our fellow citizens live with a disability, Scotland still has work to do in making modern apprenticeships accessible to all. Eight per cent of modern apprenticeships now go to disabled people, and while that represents progress, there is more to do. If the Government is serious about building an inclusive society for everyone, it would not have to cut the numbers of additional support needs teachers and take that level of support away. John McAlpine. I am also concerned about the cutting of additional support needs teachers. Can she explain to me why the Tory councillors in Dumfries and Galloway voted in favour of swinging cuts to teachers for additional support needs in 2015? Annie Wells. I think that you will find that the budgets have been cut to local governments from this Scottish Government. People have to make choices, and they had to make a choice because their budget was cut. Therefore, there is no surprise that disabled people those with learning disabilities or mental health issues can face particular and complex barriers to sustained employment, barriers such as stigma and discrimination or lack of confidence and skills. Those ultimate result in the low levels of employment that we are all too familiar with. I would like to make a bit of progress, thank you. We do, however, have more people with disabilities in employment than ever before, nearly 500,000 more since 2013. And 360,000 more than just two years ago. Despite the progress, the disability employment rate in Scotland of 42 per cent is now lower than when the SNP first came to power and is lower than the UK average. In 2007, the disability employment rate in Scotland was 45.2 per cent. The Scottish Government's 2016 annual population survey shows substantial regional variation in disability employment rates across Scotland. In Shetland, the disability employment rate is 87.7 per cent, but in Glasgow it is a poll to 24.9 per cent. There are many barriers that prevent disabled people from finding work and progressing in employment. Those include negative attitudes from employers and recruitment agencies, inaccessible workplaces and inflexible working practices. Too many disabled people experience a fragmented system that does little to support their ambitions of employment. The UK Government's vision is published in its recent work health and disability green paper to create a society in which everyone has a chance to fulfill their potential, where all that matters is someone's talents and how hard they are prepared to work. Jeane Freeman, I thank Ms Wells for that intervention. Can she explain to me how that ambition in the green paper that she was describing sits against the cuts to, for example, ESA—motability cars—but also imposed by the UK Government? How also does it sit against the UK Government when it was ruled against in terms of its treatment of individuals with mental ill health simply changed the rules rather than changing its behaviour? We spend almost £50 billion a year to support people with disabilities and health conditions, and it will be the Scottish Government's turn to set the rules when it does take control of the powers. The UK Government is determined to remove the long-standing injustices that stop disabled people and people with long-term health conditions from getting work and restricting their aspirations. In order to break down those barriers, it is essential that disabled people have equal access to labour market opportunities and are given any support needed to advance with employers that deliver effective health and wellbeing practices. We must help employers to create a workforce that reflects society and where employers are equipped to take a long-term view on the skills and capability of their employees, managing a buried workforce in order to keep people in work rather than reacting only when they lose employees. We must do more to effectively integrate the health, social care and welfare systems to support disabled people to move into and remain in sustainable employment. Most important, we must change cultures and mindsets across all of society so that we focus on the strengths of the disabled workforce and their capabilities. Let me finally turn to the challenge of mental health. The Scottish Government has made some progress in this area by increasing the investment in the provision of mental health treatment. However, if we are truly to achieve a step change in mental health treatment in Scotland, then additional resources will be needed. The Scottish Government's mental health strategy represents a missed opportunity to really change our approach to this issue for the better. One in three Scots annually are affected by mental illness. There is so much unfulfill potential in our communities because of an adivism. By working hard to achieve the ambitions of disabled people, their aspirations and their needs will be supported by more active, integrated and individualised support. This will help to improve health and wellbeing, benefit our economy and help us to build a Scotland that is truly fairer and more equal for disabled people. Before I start, I would like to put on record that I am the legal guardian of a person who lacks capacity through severe disability. Adam Hopkins and Jeremy Balfour said that the UK Government had a proud record on disabled people. I would dispute that, and I think that most charities for disabled people in this country would dispute that. Last week in this chamber, I raised the issue of motability vehicles and the devastating effect that cuts to those vehicles have on individuals right across the UK. It was those changes that were highlighted yesterday by Kathy in Abington Oxfordshire, who confronted the Prime Minister on a rare occasion when Mrs May met the public. Kathy complained that the move from disability living to pip meant that she had lost her allowance. That is all too typical. Figures from the DWP show that 27 per cent of people transferring from DLA have been rejected for pip since it was launched. We now also know that when those cases are assessed by independent appeal tribunals, 65 per cent of those cases are overturned because the original DWP decision is wrong. The minister who was speaking today has announced that the new system that is being built in Scotland to replace those benefits will have no place for private companies such as Atos who conduct those assessments. That makes me enormously proud to share another example of the contrast between how the SNP does things and how the Tories do things. It is a charity muscular dystrophy that found that between 800 and 900 people a week are losing their disability vehicles in the UK. Many affected individuals use those vehicles to get to work. Without the car, they cannot work and they can lose their job and become, instead of being net contributors through their taxes, they are forced to claim even more benefits, which is a cruel and false economy. The cut to mobility pip is overturned on appeal. Many months may have passed after they have lost their mobility car when the decision is overturned. That is exactly what happened to a constituent of mine recently. The gentleman was employed and works hard. He suffers from scoliosis and is an amputee, meaning that he has a full artificial leg and has a brace attached to his back, which means that walking and standing for any period of time is excruciating for him. I would like to quote to him—it is a pity that Jeremy Balfour is not in the chamber because I think that he may learn quite a bit from that quote. My constituent said, if I had to use public transport, I would need to walk a long way to get it and to get to work. It is not practical, as I would be in agony by the time I got there. Every day is different when you have an artificial leg like mine. You might have a good day when you get on okay, but then, on other days, it can take a long time to get semi-comfortable. Some days I have to force it on because I know that I have to get to work, but at the weekends, when I have problems like that, I will not wear it. The weather also has an impact on me. If it is icy or snowing, I would have a problem going out without a car. If it is windy, I struggle as the wind catches the back of my leg and I struggle to stay upright. The DWP removed his motability car. A man in excruciating pain with an artificial leg who struggled to stay upright in some weathers was deemed not to need the higher rate of pit mobility allowance. After six months, the gentleman won his case on appeal, but by that time he had lost the car, which was his lifeline, and that case is not unusual. Another constituent, a lady this time, was threatened with the loss of her vehicle after losing the higher rate of pit mobility. She has osteoarthritis, lymphoedema and damaged vertebrae. Since first being assessed for disability benefits a number of years ago, her condition has worsened and she developed an additional illness fibromyalgia. The doctor confirmed this. What is the logic when a doctor confirms that a person's illness has got worse, but the DWP ignores it and claims that she deserves less? The lady lived in an isolated rural area and was at her wits end. She said to my staff, I stay out in the sticks, so if I get my car taken away, I will be stuck. Again, that flawed original decision was overturned in appeal, but not before huge additional anxiety had been inflicted on a very sick woman. If I have time, Presiding Officer, I want to highlight one final really heartbreaking case from a constituent that further illustrates the human impact of the Tory party's social security cuts. A husband wrote to me about his wife losing her pip. He had to travel to a city in England for her assessment, which he described as really stressful, conducted by one of those private companies that will have no place in our Scottish system when we build it. The husband explained, no way could she get on a bus. She has had epilepsy from a child, and over the last few years she gets no warning when a fit is coming on. If standing, she just collapses. She has brittle bones now, and as a result, she has broken her hip, her collarbone, her pelvis and three ribs. She has split her head open twice. In the midst of all this, she has lost a great deal of hearing, and I have had to give up my work to look after her. It beggars believe that assessors could claim that this lady does not deserve the full rate of pitmability and does not deserve a motability car. I would love to hear Jeremy Balfour explain why such a decision had been made. Under this Tory Government, that is happening right across the UK. I know that every member of the chamber will be able to tell similar heartbreaking stories or should be able to tell similar heartbreaking stories, because he certainly comes into my constituency office every week. My question to the Tory's Opposite is why are you not moved by these stories from your own constituents? I have Alex Cole-Hamilton to be followed by Stuart McMillan. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I greatly appreciate the fact that the Scottish Government regularly used their parliamentary time to bring us back to this important issue. I commend the motion before us today and assure them of our support, as I do for the Labour Party amendment as well. There have been several moments of great progress in the course of our nation's history, which have marked significant enhancement in the support that we offer people with disability in our society, the creation of the NHS, the introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act and, in the promise shown through things like the introduction of self-directed support and, indeed, the delivery plan that we are rightly debating today. However, the road to full equality is a long one, and while this Government and its predecessors are to be congratulated on those areas of progress, we do those citizens that we represent affected by disability a disservice if we assume that we have met in any significant way the challenge before us and, indeed, before them. Debates like this offer us an important moment of reflection, an opportunity for us to reaffirm our own understanding of all that we still have to do to push ever nearer to realising that equality. New doors, as we have heard, are open tomorrow in that effort, with the empowerment of this Parliament in areas of social security. We do well to encourage each other in the reach of the ambition of their use. We in this place should never, by sin of omission, miss an opportunity to remove an existing barrier to the inclusion of our disabled citizens or, by sin of commission, unintentionally erect a new one. It is absolutely right, therefore, and it is a measure of the progress achieved by this Parliament that each statutory instrument or new law that comes before this place must have an equality's impact assessment on it, which gives light to any unintended consequence. It is right that we take the time necessary to fit out our new social security system in the best, most empowering and humane way possible to meet the needs of those that we represent. Disability from the outset, be it congenital or acquired in later life, brings with it a range of barriers and problems that we have in us to ameliorate through the powers that we possess. It comes in many forms and with a range of implications. It is not always visible and it is not always immediately detectable. In fact, the detection and diagnosis of debilitating conditions can be one of the first such barriers encountered by people with disabilities and their families. The fight—and it is a fight—even to get a diagnosis in the first place is often the initial struggle that disabled people and their families encounter, compounded when the disability is in learning faculties in early life by things like calm's waiting times, that are nothing short of outrageous. That process can take years and without such a diagnosis, that person and the family around them are not entitled even to be assessed for further support, be that through benefits or through social care provision. With that, we are at the end of their struggle. In many cases, families, particularly those affected by learning disabilities, once they finally do get to the races in terms of diagnosis, are met with another protracted delay in terms of support available to them. The support that they are eventually offered can be a lottery in and of itself. Indeed, market conditions for social care provision can make availability or quality of care and support highly variable from community to community. Such a disparity in turn is undermining the roll-out of self-directed support. When I worked for Abel-Ara disability charity, I advised Angus Council on the roll-out of self-directed support in that local authority. The 104 children with disability who require respite support were all served by the authority's own respite unit. I helped them to conclude that with so few service users and existing well-regarded units, they could not hope to attract another provider to the area to offer an alternative facility, as the business case for adventures would not stack up. As such, while self-directed support offered those families the promise of choice, the market realities on the ground meant that there was literally nothing to choose from. The point is, Deputy Presiding Officer, that well-intentioned policies and acts that we seek to lay down in this place and at Westminster do not always meet the challenge for which they were created. The Disability Discrimination Act, for example, has done wondrous things in terms of the compliance for the fabric and construction of new buildings, but that does not mean that we as legislators should imagine that we have somehow cracked the accessibility problem in our society. Earlier this year, a hardy and dynamic constituent who uses a wheelchair as a result of an acquired brain injury came to see me with a report that she prepared about the accessibility of some of our capital's busiest attractions and their accessibility. The results were shocking. In the 66 public premises on Lothian Road and Bredstree alone, 80 per cent of those are completely inaccessible to wheelchair users because of stairs. There are only two disabled toilets in the whole of the grass market and one is virtually unusable. That report is a glimpse of the full scale of just how inaccessible our society is in terms of physicality to those with disabilities. It stands as a crucial reminder that we have barely scratched the surface in the execution of our duty to those impaired not just by the physical limitations of their own condition but by our failure in terms of political will to turn rhetoric in this chamber into meaningful action and material redesign in our communities. Debates like this are important, so I thank the Government again for bringing this forward and for the broadly consensual tone offered by colleagues in this conduct. The eyes of hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens look to this chamber for hope and for change and we hope to them to stretch our ambition and our resolve in the reach of things like the social security system that we begin to construct from tomorrow and the barriers to access that we break down so that we might help to foster an understanding in every child and adult living with a disability in our society, which helps them to transcend any barrier that, through their disability, they might encounter and say to them and of their disability, own this. It is part of you, but do not let it define you and never ever let it be you. I call Stuart McMillan to be followed by Alexander Stewart. Presiding Officer, I wanted to speak in this debate for a variety of reasons, but first of all, just to make the chamber aware, I chair the Parliament's cross-party group 1, Virtual Impairment, which meets tonight at 6 p.m. on committee room 3. I am also a member of the Parliament's cross-party group 1 disability, which met at lunchtime. Joan McAlpine spoke and gave a very moving story of one of her constituents. Joan put the point on the record that quite no doubt every single MSP will have examples of what Joan actually gave. It got me to thinking that, a few years ago, a constituent came to speak to me. This particular constituent had been refused particular benefits and he wanted to appeal. When I questioned my constituent to get further information, I genuinely was gobsmacked that this individual's life was going to change so dramatically because of the rejection of the particular benefits that he was receiving at the time. This individual had a visual impairment and the visual impairment was decreasing and making his life so challenging on a day-to-day basis. However, this particular person was told that he could still work. This individual was told that he could go and work on a computer. This individual had never switched on a computer and had no idea what to do in terms of—the individual was not PC-literate. It was not the type of thing that this individual would do on a day-to-day basis. The person worked on building sites. For over 20 years, this person had a provisional licence so that they could travel to go and work, despite the fact that they had a particular visual impairment. For this person to be told that they were not allowed any more to obtain particular benefits, go and get a job working with computers, go and do something in IT, yet this individual had absolutely no idea whatsoever how to switch on a computer and never do anything else with this type of kit. Thankfully, I assisted with this person's appeal and they were successful. For a welfare system to be so cruel, to take away someone's ability to try and not live a luxurious life but to have some type of life where they can go about some day-to-day business but to know and feel well that, in a very short space of time, they were going to be blind. What type of welfare system, what type of society do we have when that is allowed to take place and that is allowed to happen on a day-to-day basis? There are over 1 million disabled people in Scotland who add talent and diversity to our society and yet far too often they do face the barriers, which actually stop them from making that fuel contribution. I have heard some figures mentioned today and there was one point that I thought was really shocking but Jeremy Balfour's contribution up, I am glad that he has come back into the chamber. Mr Balfour spoke about the PIP and people being rejected and then the lack of numbers of people actually appealing for PIP. I would argue and I am quite sure that many others in the chamber would argue as well that the reason why people are not appealing is because they are probably distraught, they were sickened and humiliated by having to go through the process in the first place and they certainly did not want to go through that bad experience again. I will let you in just two seconds, so therefore it is probably some of the reasons why people did not want to appeal because of such the negative and bad experience that they went through. Jeremy Balfour, you made a fairly serious claim there. Where is the evidence? Stuart McMillan I actually listen to my constituents and I also have an inbox that I read when people actually contact me. I do not know about which planet Mr Balfour is living on, but I represent my constituents and I will certainly do what I possibly can to help my constituents, particularly when it comes to issues of welfare. There is another point that I wanted to touch on. It is regarding the issue of long-term unemployment. Certainly, UK Government's withdrawal of most of the current budget to help disabled and long-term unemployed people to find work leaves us certainly with a level of resource that is totally and wholly inadequate. One of the aspects of the Conservatives in the past was to talk about Huggahoodie and the big society. I do not know what type of big society we actually have when the benefits have been absolutely hugely cut by the UK Government and with a further £12 billion of welfare budget cuts coming, how will that help with the alleged big society that we are talking about in recent times? One final point, because I am conscious of time, and others have commented about the United Nations report. That report stated that persons with disabilities continue to experience increasing hostility, aggressive behaviour and sometimes attacks to their personal integrity. The reforms have resulted in people experiencing increasing reliance on family and kinship carers, reduction in their social interaction, increased isolation and, in certain cases, institutionalisation. I do not think that that is the way forward for Scotland, for the UK or for anybody who is disabled who is trying to seek employment. I am delighted to be able to take part in today's debate. Prior to becoming a member of the Scottish Parliament, I spent over 18 years working closely with those with disabilities and learning difficulties. Therefore, I have a good understanding of the needs and ambitions when it comes to housing, employment and transport. Indeed, that part, involvement and experience, was recognised when I was asked to open making where we live better conference back in February of this year. There were over 100 delegates, carers and supporters all wanting to make a difference for those living with disability. They see it as a right and it is up to each and every one of us here in this chamber to ensure that their ambition becomes reality. A recent survey by Mencap found that one in three people living with disabilities only lives independently and one in four lives in a care home. That is despite the fact that many people who have difficulties and disabilities would like to live independently and with the right support and with more of the capabilities that can be achieved. I have personal experience of ensuring that individuals who are living in a supported unit for a large part of their adult life got the opportunity to become tenants with supported care. I can assure each and every one of you here today that that unlocked their potential in so many ways. From being independent tenants, they then got the opportunity to become part-time employed and that transformed their lives. It gave them the hope and opportunities that many of us have unlocked as I say their potential going forward. That is why it is important that groups across my region and I support them in doing the crucial work that they have done to ensure that those individuals got the chance to progress. Working together, we can achieve so much more to ensure that every disabled person is afforded the same opportunity and that the Scottish Government has its part to play in that. I would now like to go on to employment. At this time, I would like to echo many of the words my colleague Adam Tonkin said in a speech in his chamber merely six months ago in December 2016. One of the greatest stories of modern Conservative Britain is that we now have more jobs in the British economy than ever before. In Great Britain as a whole, we have more women employed than ever before and we have more disabled people employed than ever before, something that should be recognised and welcomed. In December 2016, there were nearly half a million more since 2013 and 360,000 more in just two years. I will take the intervention. I thank the member for taking that intervention. He mentions more jobs. I am wondering how beneficially he thinks that it is for disabled people that there has been an explosion in zero hours contract work and precarius work in poverty wages. How beneficial is that for those with a disability? Alexander Stewart The flexibility that gives individuals the opportunity to work—I can tell the member that I have seen that flexibility—gives them the chance to do something that the opportunities that are there. I look forward to seeing more of that, potentially, for people who get the chance of flexibility. In Scotland, however, the disability employment rate requires—I have taken one already, can I make some progress? In Scotland, however, the disability employment rate is not good enough—42 per cent—and many of those employers seem to be paying lip service to dealing with individuals with disability, so Scotland has to do better. Therefore, it is much more required to be done in areas of education, in training and support that is available for those individuals and those individuals with disability to ensure that they can develop. The reality is that more than half of young people have a learning disability or an autism disorder. They believe that they are not achieving their full potential. That is a very worrying statistic to find that we are in this situation. The reports have come forward from the advisory committee in Scottish secondary teachers association when they asked local authorities to give them an insight into what was happening. The number of teachers recorded as working with learning support and ASN in secondary sector in 2010 and 2016 has decreased by 24 per cent. The number of teachers recorded working in learning support in primary has decreased by 31 per cent. I want to make progress. Between 2010 and 2016, the number of auxiliary care assistants and behaviour support staff has decreased by 18 per cent. However, we must acknowledge the number of classroom assistants over the same period has increased. However, to what extent do classroom assistants, many of them support pupils with additional support needs, is unclear. 62 per cent of class subject teachers have experienced stress or professional anxiety about not being able to meet the needs of pupils who have learning difficulties or disability within their classroom. Deputy Presiding Officer, 60 per cent of people with disability feel lonely when they are out in that situation. There is a lot that requires to be done to ensure that we move forward. In conclusion, I believe that we must do all that we can to protect the vulnerable in our society, at home, at school and in employment. I echo many of the comments made by my fellow Conservative MSPs here this afternoon to provide more support and more training that is required to unlock the potential for those individuals and will break down the barriers. I urge the Scottish Government to tackle the issue as a matter of urgency. I support the Conservative amendment. I call Sandra White. I welcome the members from various disability groups in the gathering and the interpreters who do a fantastic job. I will try to speak quite slowly so that it is easier to catch up in that respect. I want to start with a quotation from a speech that might come as quite a surprise to people—certainly not one person here, but it came as a surprise to me. Just one of the paragraphs from it is that we swear to oppose all forms of discrimination on the grounds of gender, ethnic origin, religion, place of birth, age, disability, sexuality or language. We aim for an independent Scottish Republic in which people may live with dignity and with self-respect. Adam Tomkins, 2004. Let us move on to Sunday Herald's magazine, just on Sunday, 2017. The two policy issues that convinced him, Mr Tomkins, he belonged to the Tory party, where the welfare reforms of Ian Duncan-Smith—now we know—and Michael Gove's education reforms. Now we all know. My goodness me, what a turnaround for the books. I just wanted to put that forward so that we know exactly what we are actually hearing and dealing from, from the Tories. I must admit that I was angry as we all are, but I shake my head and think shameful. That is all that I can basically say in regard to the contributions that have come from the Tory benches. The Tories are really keen—they have been saying this—to mention issues that prevent disabled people from getting into training and work stigma, barriers and discrimination. I absolutely agree with that. I think that we all agree with that. We need to make sure that we break that down. However, what they are not so keen to tell you is the actual facts about why Tory policies in Westminster, supported by the Tories over here—I have heard George Adam say toxic Tories, and I think that that is a pretty good word for them. I am going to call them the toxic Tories over here with their mixed words. Why they are not so keen to tell you—perhaps the previous speaker might learn from this—that the Tory Government's work programme is failing thousands and thousands of disabled and ill jobseekers. Even though the Tory party—and I know that I have heard it from Tory MSPs opposite as well—made a pledge to halff the disability unemployment gap, but its policies are fundamentally failing to support those living with disability into appropriate work under the UK Government work programme. Among the worst-hit and long-term sick and disabled people, unemployment and support allows ESAs who have been ruled fit for work. Stats statistics using claimant self-assessments of disability show that 33 per cent of people without a disability have received a job outcome on the work programme compared to 17 per cent of disabled people, or around 110,000 people. That is a DWP tabulation tool 2016. The UK Government is also cutting support for disabled people, not just through changes to disability benefits but by implementing a £30 a week cut to employment support, allowing us work-related activity. That is in the ESA group as well. I have taken intervention, Stuart McMillan. I thank Sandra White for taking the intervention. I am sure that she is very much just as angry as I am that when the UK Government's work choice and work programme schemes were being devolved to this Parliament, there was an 87 per cent cut to that budget with that particular transfer of power. Sandra White? Stuart McMillan hits it absolutely on the head. I think that people need to remind me that there is an 87 per cent cut from Westminster. That has got to be taken into account, but it is not just the 87 per cent cut of the money. Those ESA cuts, the ones that I was talking about previously, were announced in the summer budget in 2015 and were estimated to reduce welfare spending by £450 million at the UK level, always reducing the cost and never helping the people. That is the way I see it. The cuts will see new claimants to ESA who are in. This is where Annie Wells mentioned, I am sure that the minister mentioned this as well, who were in the work activity related group received £29 less per week, a reduction from £102 to £73 from April 2017. That is significant. There is rightly a huge concern about the significant impact on people's lives that will result from the recent amendments—this is important too—made to the personal and payment regulations by the UK Government. That was also referred to by the minister. The UK Government was challenged about how it would apply in the narrow definitions of eligibility that two cases were taken to the upper tribunal in 2016. The Tory Government lost both cases. As a result, it amended the current PIP legislation through the personal and payment amendment regulations so that they were not required to pay out on the wider eligibility as interpreted by the courts. That is what we are up against—interpreted by the courts, found guilty and yet changed the law to suit themselves. The disability benefits consortium has said that about 160,000 recipients of PIP will be negatively affected by those changes. As Alison Johnstone said in her contribution, PIP helps essential and undeniable costs. In closing, for Annie Wells to raise the issue of mental health, I would ask her to go and contact the black triangle, and she will tell how many people have committed suicide through these absolutely ridiculous cuts. As we have already heard, several of the UK Government's austerity measures have disproportionately and adversely affected the rights of persons with disabilities. Also, before the implemented austerity impact assessments by the UK Government expressly foresaw an adverse effect on persons with disabilities. The UK Government's actions have caused grave or systemic violations of the rights of people with disabilities. This is not me saying this. This is not the SNP saying this. Those were the exact words of the United Nations who were investigating the UK Government. The Conservative Government has actively targeted our fellow citizens with disabilities. Let us reflect on that. In Scotland, one in five of us has a long-term health problem or disability. When we in this chamber attack the Westminster establishment for introducing and voting through measures that violate the rights of people with disabilities, it cannot be brushed off by the Tories as party politics. Let us be clear that this is an aggressive, pointed and systemic attack on those with disabilities. The welfare establishment has colluded under the banner of austerity to wage an attack on the welfare state to undermine the protections and mechanisms that most people have agreed upon this island over the past 70 years. Under austerity, traditional values of collectivism, of social security, of helping the less fortunate have been thrown out by the Tories. However, in Scotland, where we in the SNP of the largest party get a very different picture, instead of being criticised by the UN, we in this Parliament are actively working to deliver on the UN convention on the rights of people with disabilities with the delivery plan of 2021. Westminster looks to attack and undermine those most in need, whereas here in Scotland, as others have said, we fully recognise not only their rights but also value their contributions that people with disabilities can make to our society. As I have spoken about before in this chamber, I accompanied a friend and a constituent of mine to a PIP review meeting that she had been unexpectedly asked to attend in Glasgow. This lady has a degenerative condition, has multiple health problems, takes numerous medications and is under the care of a variety of consultants and health professionals, all of whom had given detailed outlines of the care that she needed to receive and the conditions that she had. Despite having a PIP award in place, she was called in for reassessment nine months before her award period ended. Everything about the experience was bordering on the hostile. With my constituent treated in the manner we have come to expect from a system run by the Tories and slammed by the UN. Since I spoke about her last in this chamber, she has had an outcome to this surprise reassessment. She has had her PIP award reduced. Her award was reduced from December onwards, not from September when her original award period was due to end. That has effectively cut her benefits nine months early, making her face the anguish of having to appeal the decision. Why should people who have lengthy well-documented health issues need to be reassessed? Once they have been through that stressful assessment process, why should they have to be reassessed again? Above all, why should people with serious health conditions live in fear of a fair system? Presiding Officer, the answer is that the system is not fair. It is designed to be hostile. Thankfully, the SNP Government has recently announced that, using new powers, we will ban private companies from running benefit assessments in Scotland. Profit has no place when it comes to life and death. Where the Tories have cut the independent living fund has scrapped various employability programmes. I have slashed entitlements that the Scottish Government has had to use its limited powers to fight a rearguard action on this attack on the most vulnerable in our society. We have had to use our budget to mitigate the bedroom tax, spending money to spare low-income people in Scotland from the grim realities experienced by those in England. Disabled adults live in four out of the five households that spared the bedroom tax by the Scottish Government, showing that we in Scotland value those that the Tories would rather ignore. As the Minister for Social Security, Jeane Freeman, said, our goal is nothing less than for all disabled people to have choice and control, dignity and freedom to live the life that they choose. We are committed to the co-production of services for those with disabilities. No one knows better the challenges and impediments that the system throws at people with disabilities than those people themselves. The Scottish Government wants to empower those with disabilities and not to target them. Fairer Scotland for disabled people is a plan that details 93 concrete actions to improve the everyday lives of people with disabilities. That is 93 more actions than the UK Government has delivered for some of the most vulnerable in the UK. We now come to the closing speeches, and I call Pauline McNeill. Up to seven minutes, please, Ms McNeill. Thank you. One million people in Scotland live with a disability, and because of that, they often live with prejudice, discrimination and attitudes that serve to marginalise and making their lives more difficult than they need to be. The delivery plan that we have been discussing this afternoon, although good, must not just simply be a collection of pledges, because the one million people that we are talking about are a diverse group with various indifferent needs, individuals first and foremost. As others have said, we must be careful and agree upon the language that we use. People with disabilities are underrepresented in virtually all areas of life and in this place, too. I welcome the 15 newly elected councillors that the minister talked about, who have some form of disability. Like others, it is unfortunate that that fund is not live for this coming general election. The number of appointments for people with disabilities applying for public appointments has fallen according to Inclusion Scotland, and I think that the Scottish Government must act on this with urgency and must explain why that is. It was Alec Rowley who said that it is a society that disables many people, which could lead a much better quality of life if some of those barriers and attitudes were transformed. It was Jeremy Balfour who said that we should review our language and our attitudes. Others have said that we must recognise that becoming disabled is something that could happen to any of us. Scottish society needs to make a serious and long-lasting inroad into changing attitudes and creating equality for those 1 million-plus people. I said this before in a previous debate, and I mean it. I think that this is the area of equality that this Parliament has the most to do in this parliamentary session. However, my question for us all and for ministers in particular is what is the big idea for transformational change. I have listened and I welcome virtually all of what the minister said this afternoon, but what is not coming across to me so far is what is the big idea to make the transformational change that we all call for. We have only four years left in this Parliament, and a year has already gone. I listened with interest to the BBC sport report on the Premier League football, and I did that because I think that the debate cannot simply be about the important issue of cutting benefits. Others have talked about the very important areas where we should be making progress. I do not need to say that there are literally millions of football fans in Scotland and many people with disabilities are football fans, too. They find it difficult to support their own clubs, of which they are very loyal. It was the Scottish disability rights campaigner, Ewan MacDonald, to welcome the pressure on all of the UK's football teams to improve facilities at stadiums, where he said that it is not just enough to provide wheelchair access, and he also said that English clubs could learn a thing or two from Scottish teams. Again, on the issue of football, Rangers striker Kenny Miller and the legendary John Brown officially opened Broxy's Den, a facility that will allow supporters with complex learning difficulties and sensory challenges, such as autism 2, to enjoy matches. I think that those are the kinds of things that we should be looking at to transform people's everyday lives. In the midst of the 90s action points, I think that there are some areas that merit a focus as being some of those big areas for transformation. Alec Cole-Hamilton mentioned one of them, which I think should be a top issue, and that is the availability of toilets. There are many people with very broad conditions that would appreciate a bigger campaign on why the use of toilets is really important. I think that the area of employment is fundamental and I am really interested to hear the progress that will be made, I presume, from the Congress that the minister has talked about. It was Miles Briggs who mentioned the issue of transport in the last debate. I think that it should be one of the areas for transformational change. However, it is on the front to any party who has presided over the grave systematic violation of the rights of people with disabilities, which is stated by the UN report. Rather than defending that, I think that the UK Government and Tory members should be addressing how that has happened. Change is the housing benefit and the criteria for parts of the personal independence payment, along with the narrowing of social security and the closure of the independent living fund, have all hindered disabled people's rights. Work and pension secretary Damain Greene rejected those findings of the UN report by arguing that the UK is recognised as a world leader. I have never said that the UK Government has not done good things for people with disabilities, but what I am saying is that failure to recognise what is in that UN report, a failure to recognise what people with disabilities are saying about welfare reform undermines the work that has been done. Sandra White said that why is it fair that ESA claimants will have a cut of £29? Measures intended to cut public expenditure affects claimants with disabilities who will have a lower disposable income as a result, particularly as we now know or should know that the cost of being a disabled person means that your everyday living expenses will be higher. I listened with interest to the exchange between Jeremy Balfour and other members, where Mr Balfour seems to defend the cut to motability entitlement. He says that it is a real change and that the only change is the distance that you can walk. I suggest that it must be a bigger change than that, because the number of people affected by it. He asked Alison Johnstone what type of test she would like. I am sure that she will not agree with me that I would like a test that does not disenfranchise 50,000 people who previously relied on their motability vehicles and now they cannot do it. How can you defend that system that is something wrong with the assessment? Or did they do that by mistake? I am not really clear on what your argument for defending that is. There are a few asks that I have of ministers. I think that you should look at extending the employer recruitment incentive scheme, because it allows employers to retain disabled workers over a period of time. It is a bonus of £4,000, but it only applies to 16 to 29-year-olds. I think that there is a lot of work to be done in ensuring that there is the right assistance for people with disabilities at work. If we made that transformational change, then I think that we would all be proud of what the Parliament has achieved. I call Bill Bowman up to nine minutes, please, Mr Bowman. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I commend the signers who have been working away all afternoon. I hope that we haven't taxed them too much. We are here today in the chamber to debate a matter that is of utmost importance to the million-plus disabled people who live in Scotland. It is in their interest that we have this debate today with new welfare powers coming to Scotland. The Parliament will have control over benefits and support services that can improve the quality of life of disabled people. There is a lot of work to be done to make a fairer Scotland for disabled people. However, it seems that the Scottish Government has used today's debate as an attempt purely to attack the record of the UK Government. The disabled people of Scotland deserve action, not just more rhetoric. I think that, as Adam Tomkins made this very clear in his speech. However, let me perhaps start by trying to find some areas where we did have some agreement. Gene Freeman began talking about the need to remove barriers, change attitudes, remove discrimination, cut down abuse and intolerance, and focus on meaningful employment. She referred to cross-party support, and goodwill can make a difference. Jeremy Balfour made a useful comment about how we call disabled people. Interestingly, from someone who has been through it, he has had a good experience in his tribunal assessment. Mary Evans referred to hidden disabilities, and I think that that is something that we can all learn from. I have suffered from this myself and know that it is a matter that we all sometimes take for granted that because the way that you look is not necessarily the way that you actually are. Many have commented on the UK Government's personal independence payment, which has imposed disability cuts that have caused harm to the rights of disabled people, was claimed. Jeremy Balfour was right to point out that the personal independence payment ensures that support goes to those with the greatest cost associated with their disability. Greater support is going to the most vulnerable with over a quarter of those on PIP receiving the highest level of support. Support for the disabled amounts to 6 per cent of all UK Government spending, and, since 2010, real-term spending on disability is at a record high. Is the member aware that Inclusion Scotland tells us that the change from DLA to PIP will therefore be about £272 million less per annum by 2018? I don't know their figures, thank you. Coming back to something that Alex Rowley said, I think that we have an agreement that local delivery plans need to be measured. Accessible housing for disabled people is a cornerstone to that. Local budget cuts obviously endanger that. However, he doesn't accept that UK spending is much more than the previous Labour Government. There is no change there to use your own phrase. In fact, there seem to be quite a few facts or statistics that one side says and the other side says something else. It would be helpful if, somehow, we could resolve that. Perhaps Adam Tomkins is a good source of the real facts. Alex Cole-Hamilton spoke about a reaffirmation of his understanding of the debate and spoke a bit about sin. It might have been more of a religious experience to him, but I'm glad that we also had a mention about the accessibility of buildings for disabled people as being something that is so fundamental to move on to whatever rights you do or don't have if you can't actually get to the location, then you do struggle. Annie Wells was right to stress the Scottish Government's dismal education record for the disabled. Yesterday, the Scottish Parliament's Education and Skills Committee released a report setting out the dreadful circumstances of those children with additional support needs in our schools. The number of children classed with additional support needs has ridden by about 153 per cent since 2010, but the number of support teachers has fallen. Different numbers were quoted, I have 25 per cent. That is a terrible state of affairs. Without the right numbers of staff, schools cannot provide an inclusive education for disabled pupils. One teacher who was interviewed by the education committee said, we are in a desperate state in letting so many pupils down. Inclusion will only work if we invest in training and professional staff. Our young people deserve better. The Scottish Government is yet again failing to deliver on education. The Scottish National Party will blame anyone but themselves for that, but, in no doubt, the fault lies with the Scottish Government and its dismal education record. A number of Conservative speakers this afternoon have said that they are proud of their record in supporting the disabled people of our country. I wonder in your summing up if you would like to comment on that, because I don't understand how you could be proud of that, when the recent UN inquiry has found credible evidence that the UK Government's treatment of disabled people has led to grave violations of their human rights. Conservative policy seems to me to not be something that anyone could be proud of, in this case, when it is actually violating people's human rights. In terms of numbers, I think that we have £50 billion more spent on that, and the UK Government has robustly rejected that report. I think that the challenges facing people with disabilities are very real. They are serious and they are many. There is always more that can be done. Ambition is vital. If progress is to be made, though urgency is the key. In the forward to the Scottish Government's action plan, a fairer Scotland for disabled people, Dr Jim Elderwood Woodward, chair of the Scottish Independent Living Coalition, made his feelings very clear on the issue of urgency. He stressed that the Scottish Government should never forget the lesson of Gandhi, who wrote, the future depends on what we do in the present. At present, the Scottish Government is showing a lack of urgency. I cannot stress enough that the Scottish Government has the powers that it needs now to make the changes it wants. The opportunity is there to press ahead and bring about that change. The Scottish Government should be grabbing this opportunity with both hands. Urgent action is required to improve the provision, for example, of additional support teaching. I urge MSPs to support the amendment in the name of Adam Tomkins. I now call Angela Constance to close this debate. Can you take us up to 5.30 please, cabinet secretary? Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am delighted to close this debate on behalf of the Government this afternoon. It is encouraging to see that most members have welcomed the opportunity to participate in this debate. It is clear that, from the Tory benches, it is clearly a debate that they would rather not have given the tone and tenor of their contributions, which have been somewhat grudging and curmudgeonly. That is perhaps not surprising when you consider their record and their actions, crystallised by the equality and human rights commission report that gave the verdict of the welfare reforms and austerity agenda by the UK Government as having a disproportionate and cumulative impact, a crushing impact on people living with disabilities in this country. It described the actions and the policies of the UK Government in this regard as a badge of shame. By contrast, we seek debate and scrutiny because that is absolutely essential if we are going to achieve transformational change. We are six months into the new disability delivery plan and we have come to this Parliament to give an update and to be proactive in keeping Parliament informed in that endeavour of scrutiny and to share and debate ideas. We have heard from the Minister for Social Security, who today has focused her remarks primarily on employment, employment gap, modern apprenticeships, future congress, access to election fund and the marketing campaign to persuade more employers of the benefits of diversity to persuade more employers, large and small, to their business of employing people with disabilities, in that it is not just the right thing to do, it is also the smart thing to do for your business and it is the smart thing to do for our economy. One of the issues that I highlighted when I spoke earlier was on housing in the delivery plan. Will the cabinet secretary have a look-up to bring in a report back at some point in the near future that sets out what each local authority in Scotland is doing in terms of their plan to meet that specific housing commitment? Indeed, I was intended to come to the issue of housing because the minister for housing has been reviewing the strategic housing investment plans, which have to be based on local housing needs. Mr Rowley, in his opening remarks, was right to say that it is not just the number of houses that we do indeed have to ensure the right types of houses in the right places for individuals and for communities. However, I will certainly ask the housing minister to take that away and to do that collaboratively with our 32 local authorities and report back to Parliament in due course. Of course, when we discuss housing needs with local authorities all the time, I have visited them. I am somewhat disappointed that Mr Tomkins does not read all my press releases, but I have visited projects that are most recently in my own area in West Lothian, where there is some cutting-edge housing specifically designed for people with disabilities. Pauline McNeill, you will get your chance. Mr McNeill raised the point about where is the big idea in the disability delivery plan. I want to very extrinsely say that that is not about sound bites, because what we have here are 93 actions that recognise that we need comprehensive, systematic and sustained action over the piece. We need an enduring commitment over all aspects of Government, joined up Government in every sense of the word, and we have to demonstrate that our commitment is enduring and that we are in this for the long haul, and that we are in this till we achieve transformational change. I also want to highlight that the disability delivery plan does not belong to me, it does not belong to Ms Freeman, it belongs to the people who co-produce us. That is a very important point to make, because we are absolutely determined to demonstrate that our words will indeed be underpinned by DCS. Pauline McNeill, I am no way of suggesting that the 93 action points are in any way rhetoric. I just feel that sometimes if there is a focus on something big, given that four years is not really a long time, even if it is focusing on employability, for example, you could point to that transformational change in that area and that would then point to the other areas is the point that I was making. Angela Constance Yes, and of course we are going to prioritise the work with disabled people. This takes me on to another point that was raised by Labour benches earlier, who spoke about the need for milestones in the disability delivery plan. We will do that with the disability organisations. It will be those disability, those representative organisations who will set the measurements that this Government will be held to account by, accounted by Parliament and indeed wider civic society. I can also add, because there were comments earlier about the need for benefit take-up campaigns. We have indeed had phase 1 of our general benefit take-up campaign. We are now moving on to a more focused, targeted campaign, but I do believe that the suggestion about having a round table with local authorities is indeed a good one and one that we will take forward. Also, in terms of the access to election fund, given that we are seeing a decline in public appointments among people with disabilities, that is why we will extend that fund to other areas of public life. Jeremy Balfour did something that is quite uncharacteristic for him, I believe. He actually belittled the debates around motability and he belittled, I believe, the experience that personal testimony of many people who have had their motability car removed from them. The purpose of our endeavours is to ensure that, as we move forward with the new powers and the motability scheme that is adapted to a Scottish context, we want to ensure that we can get the right information from the right person at the right time. That may well be doctors and other healthcare professionals, but that personal self-assessment is important. It is also in our endeavours to build a social security system in the manner of co-production to deliver it from the ground up that we do that with the spirit of co-production through experience panels and taking cognisance of the work that the disability carers expert advisory group will do. Will the cabinet secretary agree that whatever scheme is devised, some people will get and some people will not get, and there will always be disappointed people that they do not get? Or is she simply giving a car to everybody? That is exactly what I was referring to, Mr Balfour. It really is a matter of regret that someone who has made some really good contributions in this chamber that you repeat the mistake that you made earlier of belittling this whole debate has been scurrilous saying, will it be 50 yards? I will answer the question, will it be 50 yards? Will it be 100 yards? Oh, are we going to give everybody a motability car? I have already answered the question, as the Minister for Social Security has answered the question, that in terms of the criteria, in terms of the process, we will be doing that hand in glove with our experience panels and with the expert advice from the disability carers advice group. What we won't be doing as demonstrated in the experience of a West Lothian lady called Ann Meecill, who has COPD arthritis, a mini stroke is weakened down one side of her body, is partially blind, has six days, had operations on both knees, has had radiotherapy treatment for cancer that makes her dizzy and makes her prone to collapsing. She can't go shopping around the supermarket without the need of a wheelchair. After 10 years, she's had a motability car taken away from her. It would be much more better if the Tory Benches would just hang the head in shame and condemn this sort of action. What we won't be doing, if you read this article further, is asking people—a six to eight-year-old woman like Ann Meecill—to stand up and balance in one leg and go through a demeaning, pointless interview for 40 minutes. We won't be taking any lessons from the Tories. We've also heard some nonsense, as is usual, from the Tories spoken about education. The facts of the matter are that classroom assistance has increased by 15 per cent, but, crucially, Mr Tomkins, overall, the number of teachers and support staff whose job it is to specialise or support children with additional support needs has risen slightly. 15,888 teachers and support staff are figures that have remained relatively stable since 2008. What we have to recognise, and most certainly we will not do more from, is that the vast majority of children with additional support needs are, indeed, educated and mainstream education. It is the job of all teachers. It is the job of everyone employed in the education system to support those children, because an inclusive education system is, indeed, the basis of an inclusive society. We must recognise the achievements of children with additional support needs. In school leaver destinations, those positive destinations into work, training or employment or further education have improved from 71 per cent to 85 per cent. Yes, they need to improve further so that they are on a par with their peers. However, we have to recognise that our children are now better qualified than they have ever been before. We have more young people going into positive destinations, with fewer young people leaving with no or lower qualifications. Unlike the Tories, we won't do more from the difficulties. We won't dismiss the critiques. We will face up to the reality of that lived experience. As demonstrated in the opening remarks by the Minister of Social Security, there is an employment gap between disabled people and non-disabled people. That gap is bigger in Scotland than it is in England or, indeed, the UK as a whole. It is lower than the north-east of England and it is lower than the gap in Northern Ireland. I am very interested in the work of Professor Colin Lindsay, who talks about the clustering of ESA claimants around west-central Scotland and how he attributes that to the job losses of the 80s and 90s, part of the de-industrialisation process that the Tories provided over. By contrast, we have seen the UK Government dismiss and belittle the damning verdict from the United Nations Committee on the conventions of rights of people with disabilities, who had a very specific inquiry on the impact of welfare reform. They concluded that there was reliable and credible evidence of grave and systematic violations of the rights of people with disabilities. The UK Government's response was that welfare is not the only way to help people living with disabilities. That is true, but it is not an excuse to strip welfare support from disabled people right across the UK. When the UK Government was found wanting by the courts with regard to PIP rules, they did not change their behaviour, they changed the rules, they changed the goalposts, they are writing out people who need support to manage their therapy, they are writing out people who cannot follow a journey route due to psychological distress. It is somewhat ironic that this is learning disability week, and it has only a few weeks past since it was mental health awareness week. When it comes to the Tory rhetoric of supporting people with disabilities into work, I do not know whether we should laugh or greet, because 800 disabled people lose their mobility cars every week across the UK. How on earth does that help people into work? They have cut £30 a week for ESA work-related activity group claimants. How does that help people into work? They have abolished the independent living fund, which we reintroduced. How does abolishing the independent living fund help people to live independently? Then there is the bedroom tax. We have seen what is happening south of the border with that disproportionate impact on people with disabilities. We have seen rent ar rears increase, and we have seen evictions increase. Of course, according to the UN, the bedroom tax curtails the rights of people to choose their place of residence in accordance with article 19 of the convention. By contrast, this Government sends £47 million to assist 70,000 households, 80 per cent of whom have a disability. None of those measures outline none of them are fair, none of them are effective, they are nasty and they are toxic. All of which the Tories still say that this makes them feel proud. I know that disabled people and their families often have to fight for everything that should be theirs by right. That is exactly what this Government is aiming to change with our disability delivery plan. I want to end my remarks where the Minister for Social Security started and to thank all those disabled people and disabled people's organisations who have worked so hard to produce a disability delivery plan that we will implement and put into action. That concludes our debate on a fairer Scotland for disabled people. We move to decision time and there are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Adam Tomkins is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Alex Rowley would fall. The first question is that amendment 5594.2 in the name of Adam Tomkins, which seeks to amend motion 5594 in the name of Jeane Freeman on a fairer Scotland for disabled people, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, we will move to a division and members will be cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 5594.2 in the name of Adam Tomkins is yes, 25, no, 74, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 5594.1 in the name of Alex Rowley, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Jeane Freeman, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, we will move to a vote and members will be cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 5594.1 in the name of Alex Rowley is yes, 74, no, 25, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed. The final question is that motion 5594 in the name of Jeane Freeman, as amended, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, we will move to a division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 5594 in the name of Jeane Freeman, as amended, is yes, 74, no, 25, there were no abstentions, the motion as amended is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time. We will now move to members business in the name of Brian Whittle. We will just take a few moments for members to change seats.