 The next item of business is a debate on motion 2948 in the name of Gene Freeman on creating a fairer Scotland, our disability delivery plan. Members may wish to note that British Sign Language interpreters are present in the chamber today and will be signing this afternoon's business. Would members who wish to speak in the debate please press the request to speak buttons and I call on Gene Freeman to speak to and move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to open this debate on a fairer Scotland for disabled people, our disability delivery plan to 2021, published last week to coincide with the UN international day of persons with disabilities. Over a million disabled people contribute to Scotland's communities, bringing talent, energy and ability, all adding richness to our lives. 2016 is the 20th anniversary of the Disability Discrimination Act, but for many disabled people too many, their ambitions, their dreams and their promise is denied to them because of the barriers in their way. Inaccessible communication, negative attitudes, low expectations, discrimination and inequality affect the lives and the chances of disabled people every single day. The disability isn't the problem, it's the barriers we allow to stand in their way. Removing those barriers and achieving equality of opportunity is the transformational change this Government wants for Scotland. Two months ago we launched the fairer Scotland action plan, setting out specific actions that we need to take to move Scotland towards where we need it to be, a fairer and more economically and socially just country. The fairer Scotland action plan is there to work for everyone in Scotland, but not everyone starts from the same place. For disabled people we need to tackle the particular barriers that they face. Those barriers to living the independent life that every disabled person has a right to are barriers that we who are not disabled either put in their way or allow to stay unchallenged. Our homes, our transport our workplaces, our public services and our local environments are all too often designed or operate in ways that exclude disabled people. We have to change that with a genuine transformational change in our attitude and our approach. Disabled people and the organisations that represent them have worked incredibly hard with us to identify the critical actions that we need to take to secure that change across Government, across the public and the third sector and including the private sector too. Many are here today in the public gallery and have contributed directly to this plan. I want to thank all of you and the hundreds more who took part in the consultation events for your continuing help and support to us. The plan outlines five clear long-term ambitions. Support services that meet disabled people's needs, decent incomes and fairer working lives, places that are accessible to everyone, protected rights and active participation. They are all achievable, but we know that the scale and extent of the change that is necessary in the experience and the life chances of disabled people will take concerted action over this Parliament and beyond. Together with disabled people, we have set out the 93 specific concrete actions that need to be taken to make significant progress towards those ambitions by 2021. We are not starting from scratch. We have made significant advances in important areas of policy and service delivery, including self-directed support, supported employment, strengthening building standards and our new accessible travel framework. I hope that the action that we have taken in response to the United Kingdom Government's policy decisions, including welfare cuts and in our clear principles of respect and dignity that we will build in to the establishment of our own social security system in Scotland, show that we are serious about protecting disabled people's human rights. As members in this chamber will know, this Saturday, 10 December, is human rights day, and this year the UN has drawn particular attention to the need to stand up for the rights of disabled people. The call to action, the theme for human rights day 2016, challenges us all to do more. This Scottish Government will take on that challenge, and our delivery plan commits us to increasing the pace and the depth of change. Let me draw out some of the key commitments that we have made. We will work with disabled people, local authorities and providers to reform adult social care so that we shift its focus to achieving independent living, and next year we will begin work to consult on the future of long-term care capacity. In self-directed support, we know there is more to do to make the information about it and the rights it brings more widely available and understood and to improve access and reinforce its focus on the individual's choice and control. With COSLA and disabled people, we will improve the portability of care and support packages between local authorities. We will promote independent advocacy so that people know about and can claim their rights in mental health. We will work together to improve the best possible provision and support so that all our young people can grow up to meet their full potential through our new national framework for families with disabled children and the commitment that we have made to improve the transitions from education to training and employment. I will. Alex Cole-Hamilton I am grateful to the minister for taking the intervention, and we are very supportive of the introduction of a framework for families affected by disability. The title would suggest that that might not include those young people affected by disability who are on supervision order or are looked after. Can she confirm that those people will be included in this new strategy or framework? Jeane Freeman Yes, I can. The strategy itself will be worked through with disabled people and those who care for children with disabilities, and it will include all children because we are talking about the rights of all disabled people and young people. We know that we need to align learning and skills better, so we will look to promote the project search model, introduce our own voluntary and person-led pre-employment support programme, deliver on the specific improvement targets to make our modern apprenticeship programmes genuinely accessible to disabled people, including part-time and flexible engagement, and, with immediate effect, provide young disabled people with the highest level of modern apprenticeship funding until the age of 30. To help employers to see the employee's potential and not the barrier, we will actively promote the department of work and pensions access to work scheme, and from next year, providers of our devolved employment services will be required to make sure that disabled people are supported to claim and receive the access to work money so that they can sustain employment. Disabled people's organisations tell us that it is getting the first opportunity to work that is the barrier that can affect future work and life chances. A new work experience pilot for young disabled people, together with the 120-place internship programme across the public and third sector, shows our intention to make a real difference in removing the barriers to employment that many young disabled people face. We need all of that in place to transform employment opportunities open to disabled people, because we want to at least have the employment gap between disabled people in Scotland and the rest of the working-age population. We will consult on setting a clear target for employment levels in the public sector, where only just under 12 per cent of employees are disabled. Disabled people have as much creativity and enterprise as anyone else and as many good ideas and business brains, so we will stimulate more pre-start activity for social enterprise and provide support for the setup of micro and social enterprises. In transport, the new accessible travel framework, developed with disabled people and transport providers, carries a number of specific steps to make public transport more accessible and, importantly, to involve disabled people in key areas of decision making. Disabled people should be supported in or out of work. Our approach to social security is to build a rights-based system founded on dignity, fairness and respect. In stark contrast to the UK Government, whose abolition for the independent living fund and welfare reforms have already been internationally judged as delivering grave and systematic violations of disabled people's rights. Housing has been described as the cornerstone of independent living, and yet many houses are not designed or built to be homes for disabled people. Working with disabled people, local authorities and other housing providers, we will make sure that each local authority sets a realistic target within its local housing strategy for the delivery of wheelchair-accessible housing across all tenures. We will take a number of other steps to improve housing for disabled people, including carrying out research into creating tailor-made wheelchair-accessible mass-market homes and producing new guidance on timescales for installing adaptations. Stigma and discrimination continues to blight the lives of disabled people, and we agree with those who have called for a publicity campaign to tackle negative attitudes. I am pleased to confirm that we will do that next year in 2017 as part of the One Scotland campaign. One measure of how far we have come will be when disabled people are fairly represented in public life as our leaders and our elected politicians. Earlier this year, I announced the access to elected office fund, providing support for the 2017 local government elections. I am pleased that now we will maintain that fund, so it is there for those who want to stand in the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections. Our shared goal is nothing less than for all disabled people to have choice and control, dignity and freedom to live their life that they choose, with the support that they need to do so. The reason for that is simple. Equal rights for disabled people are about human rights, and none of us can enjoy our human rights when even one of us doesn't. I commend a fairer Scotland for disabled people to the Parliament, and I ask members across the chamber to join us in committing Scotland's Parliament to giving full effect to the rights of all disabled people. As Dr Sally Witcher, chief executive of Inclusion Scotland, has said, the challenge now is to transform ambitions into actions that will in turn transform disabled people's lives and the country that we live in. There is much to be done and no time to lose. I move the motion in my name. I now call on Adam Tomkins to speak to and move amendment 2948.2. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I particularly welcome the fact that this debate is being signed, and I hope that that is something that we can repeat much more often in this Parliament and indeed in public life in Scotland more generally. There is much that I agree with in the speech that we have just heard from the minister. In fact, I think that nearly all of it, apart from one or two unnecessary sentences, I particularly and very strongly agree with what she has to say about skills, about work and about transport. So let me start on this theme of where we agree. We welcome the Scottish Government's fairer Scotland action plan for disabled people, and we agree by and large with the Scottish Government's stated ambitions for it. Like the Scottish Government, we want support services that promote independent living, that meet needs and enable a life of choices, opportunities and participation. Like the Scottish Government, we want decent incomes and fairer working lives for disabled people, as we do for able-bodied people. And like the Scottish Government, we want places, we want workplaces, homes and transport that are fully accessible. And like the Scottish Government, we want to see society do everything it can to ensure the fullest and most active participation in all aspects of public life and, indeed, also of commercial life of people with disabilities. And we, Conservatives, are proud of our long record of supporting and promoting people with disability. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which the minister mentioned, was passed, of course, under a Conservative Government. William Hague described the passage of this legislation as his greatest political achievement. And who are we to disagree? As our amendment states—I will give way to the convener in a few moments—as our amendment states, the act has long been regarded internationally as a model of effective anti-discrimination legislation. It went considerably further than the non-discrimination legislation passed under Labour Governments in the 1960s and 1970s, invaluable and essential, although that legislation was in it today, in its requirements that reasonable adjustments be made by employers and service providers. Have you taken a way to Sandra White? Sandra White, I thank the member for taking intervention and, hopefully, continue on the agreement that you have already mentioned. Do you agree then, in the report of the UN, which mentions the fact that, basically, the UK Government's treatment of disabled people has led to grave or systematic violations of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities? Adam Tomkins? No, I don't, and I shall explain why in a few moments. It's not a matter just of lawmaking, however. It's a matter also of public expenditure. Under the Conservatives, the United Kingdom spends £6 billion more per year on benefits for people with disabilities and health conditions than it did when we came to power in 2010. That is to say, under the Conservatives, the United Kingdom spends more on disabled people and people with health conditions than the OECD average—more than France, more than Germany and more than the US. I'd like to point out, too, that the UK has an internationally leading record when it comes to supporting the rights of disabled people elsewhere in the world. Last year, for example, DFID, the Department for International Development, collaborated with International Disability Alliance to create the global action on disability group with the aim of stimulating further action on disability inclusion. Unfortunately, little of that was recognised in the recent report that Sandra White just referred to of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which is referred to today in the Government's motion. That is an exceptionally poor quality report, riddled with error and misunderstanding. It's mistaken. I don't know why members seem to think that this is humorous. It's mistaken about the public sector equality duty. It's wrong about legal aid. It misunderstands hate crimes and it gets the Care Act 2014 badly wrong. All of that is set out in detail in the UK Government's comprehensive response to the UN Committee's report. This is unfortunate, since the United Kingdom strongly supported the development of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and was among the first countries to sign it in 2007. As our amendment today makes plain, the convention is aligned with the UK approach to disability equality, which focuses on inclusion and mainstreaming, which brings me to work and employability, a section of the minister's speech that I particularly welcome, and if I may, without doing either of our political careers' damage indoors. It is one of the great success stories of modern Britain, modern conservative Britain, that we now have more jobs in the British economy than ever before. We have more women in employment than ever before. We have more people with disabilities in employment than ever before. Nearly half a million more since 2013 and 360,000 more than just two years ago. Despite this progress, however, employment rates among disabled people continue to reveal what the UK Government recently called one of the most significant inequalities in the United Kingdom today. Only 48 per cent of disabled people are in employment in the UK, compared with 80 per cent of the non-disabled population. The figures are even worse in Scotland—I want to develop the point, if I may. The figures are even worse in Scotland, where the disability employment rate is a shocking 42 per cent. That is an injustice. That is why the Conservatives have a long-standing commitment to halve the disability employment gap. Yesterday, at question time, the Minister for Social Security said that this is now Scottish Government policy 2, and I welcome that. Yet another Conservative policy, copied and borrowed by the SNP, does not do everything wrong. Mr Tomkins acknowledged what I said yesterday, which was the Westminster cross-party working group assessment of how long it would take the UK Government to meet that target of having the employability gap on the basis of its current actions, which it says will take it to 2065. Will the member therefore agree with the actions proposed by that cross-party group, as actions that the UK Government should address with some speed? I agree that it is taking too long to close the disability employment gap, and that is why our amendment welcomes not only the Scottish Government's fairer Scotland action plan but also the UK Government's recent green paper on work, health and disability, which addresses a number of those points head-on. Article 27 of the aforementioned UN convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recognises the importance of work and the dignity, fairness and respect that comes with it. The UK's commitment to that is underscored by the new approach that is set out in the green paper, which I think addresses a number of the concerns that the minister just raised. It is illustrated, for example, by the establishment of the new work and health unit. Like the Scottish Government's action plan, the green paper was developed in collaboration with disabled people. Among its features are the following. Significant support for people with disabilities or health conditions in the form of a new personal support package, reform of the current scheme supporting employers and plans to increase access to psychological therapies and to more than double the number of employment advisers in those services. There is increased funding for those with mental health conditions. There is increased assistance for small employers, providing in-work support, advice on disability issues and workplace adaptations as well as additional funding. Those are measures that we need to see across the whole of the UK, including in Scotland. The United Kingdom and Scottish Governments can and in my view should work in harmony together to provide and to facilitate that support. For those reasons, I move the amendment in my name. I now call on Mark Griffin to speak to and move amendment 2948.1, up seven minutes, please, Mr Griffin. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thank you to your good office and the corporate body for again making this Parliament an exemplar of access to people who are deaf and use British Sign Language and carrying on the good work from the last parliamentary session. We support the publication of Fairer Scotland for disabled people and the five key ambitions. We feel that they reflect some of the commitments that we made during the election campaign to disabled people. That included promises to enhance their ability and freedom to work or set up a business, to get more involved in civic life, to ensure that they can access justice, in particular when they are a victim of hate crime, and to make sure that public services, in particular education, the NHS and transport are truly accessible. Joseph Rowntree Foundation just released a report showing that, while Scotland has the lowest poverty rate in the UK, there are still a massive 960,000 people living below the poverty line, and it has provided shocking detail on the poverty that is faced by disabled people. In particular, 26 per cent of people in poverty in Scotland are disabled, the second highest rate in the UK after the north east of England. They have said that, across the UK, modern poverty is also increasingly linked with disability. Due to the higher costs of being disabled, half of people in poverty are either themselves disabled or are living with a disabled person in their household. Disability Alliance Scotland built on that assessment, saying that 39 per cent of people in poverty live in a household with at least one disabled person, and that costs associated with a disability average at around £550 per month. A key thrust and ambition of the delivery plan is to provide decent incomes and fairer working lives, and we absolutely support that. In November, it was announced that Scottish Government control of welfare powers, including disability benefits, will not happen until 2020, and those powers will give us the chance to restore dignity and respect to the heart of the social security system. During that time, the Tories will continue to make their savage cuts, and the most vulnerable will continue to suffer. In a letter to the social security committee, the cabinet secretary said, for so long as executive competence remains reserved, the UK has the ability to administer the existing benefits and to adjust the detail of their delivery. Just now, the UK Government is moving disabled people from disability living allowance to personal independence payments, which will lead to Scots losing a collective £198 million a year according to Sheffield-Hallam University research. In the social security debate last month, we revealed that up to 150,000 people in Scotland currently on DLA remain at risk of going through the new PIP assessment process. As long as those powers stay with Westminster, we cannot stop those PIP reassessments taking place and we cannot meet the calls of the stock PIP campaign. During that debate last month, Alison Johnstone called on the Scottish Government to ask the UK Government to halt reassessments in Scotland, and we support that call to protect up to 150,000 DLA recipients. Our ministers should use their next meeting with the Joint Ministerial Working Group or individual meetings with DWP ministers to make that call. Until those powers are devolved or until changes are made, until those changes can be halted, the Tories will continue to make their cuts and the most vulnerable will continue to suffer. Rightly, expectation is building once again that we will take different choices to alleviate that suffering. Building on the light of the challenges that are still faced by disabled people, the challenges that campaigners are fighting against every day, campaigners who will be watching closely how we approach those new powers. It is an expectation, not just for those directly affected by the powers, but for the country as a whole. An expectation of a system that does not tie disabled people up in red tape. An expectation of a system that preserves people's independence and provides not just that safety net to allow them to survive but a springboard to play a full part in society. An expectation of a system that moves us beyond the idea of social protection, a social security system that many people in Scotland just cannot wait for. I said earlier that one of our priorities for disabled people was to ensure that they can access justice, in particular when they are a victim of hate crime. One in five people in Scotland live with a disability, but they also live with prejudice and discrimination. That plan is a good start. One in which support in the Scottish Government must now deliver its promises, build on them and cut through the discrimination that people face. Since 2010, hate crime towards disabled people has travelled an increase of 319 per cent in six years. The legislation for the newer categories of hate crime came into force on 24 March 2010. That legislation was put forward by Patrick Harvie and gained cross-party support when it was introduced. Disability Alliance Scotland is calling for the Scottish Government to fund a significant national campaign to raise awareness of disability and to reduce stigma and discrimination, including education and training and the necessary evaluation. Parliament passed an amendment last month that proposed a zero-tolerance approach to hate crime across Scotland. That is a good opportunity to commit to action today and welcome what the minister has said in the opening speech in committing to that necessary awareness-raising campaign to tackle stigma and discrimination. We support the Government's ambitions for a fairer Scotland for disabled people and simply ask members to recognise that the new Scottish social security system will be a vital tool to ensure that disabled people have independence, decent incomes and fairer working lives. I have some time in hand so I can give extra time for interventions or if anyone has something very special that has to be said. George Adam is pleased to be followed by Jeremy Balfour. I welcome the debate, and I am glad to be taking part in it. Many of you will be aware that my wife Stacey has multiple sclerosis and as such has mobility issues. Because of that, in her day-to-day struggle with access, I am aware of some of the issues that disabled people face in Scotland. The minister, Jeane Freeman, is correct when she says that disability is not the problem. The barriers that we put up for disabled people are the actual problem. During my time as a councillor, I became a member and I am still to this day of the Renfrewshire access panel. During so much so that I became involved in the national campaign and became the patron of the Scottish disability equality forum, which is a national forum for all Scotland's access forums. Until you have a disability or a member of a family with one, you are completely unaware of the many challenges and barriers that disabled people face. I remember a disability awareness day that I attended in Paisley town hall many years ago. The asked us to either use a wheelchair or a specially designed pair of glasses that gave you an example of how it would be with a visual impairment. We then progressed over from the town hall to Renfrewshire house to see how it was to access services in the council building. I was stuck with the visual impairment glasses and I was shocked to see how difficult it was to access the building. I had difficulty with the depth of perception on the actual stairs. There was also a situation where I stood at one of the information monitors and the council had never expected I'd visually impaired person to be six foot three because I banged my head off of a monitor because I was unaware of it and couldn't see it. Now, the whole idea was that it was myself in the then Provisalia Lawson that did that. Everything was changed, but not in 21st century Scotland that shouldn't be the case. We should be able to make sure that disabled people get access to all buildings whenever we can. That's why I welcome the Scottish Government's disability delivery plan and applaud its ambitions. The key ambitions are that the support services that promote independent living meet needs and work together to enable life choices, opportunity and participation. That gives us a start to make sure that people get involved in public life in general. Two, to ensure that there are decent incomes fairer working lives, make sure that disabled people can enjoy full participation with an adequate income and participate in learning. Three, places that are accessible to everyone, one that we really need to work on. Housing and transport in a wider environment are fully accessible to enable disabled people to participate as full and equal citizens. Four, protect the rights of all disabled people. Five, active participation. Disabled people get the opportunity to participate actively as citizens in all aspects of life in Scotland. All those ambitions can and should make a difference in the lives of disabled people in Scotland. Susan McGinley, disabled person and member of the Glasgow Disability Alliance, Drivers for Change, said that the Scottish Government disability plan is much needed and the particular commitments around both establishing a strategy to tackle social isolation and loneliness and fund opportunities for disabled people to volunteer are backed by thousands. She continued, I firmly believe that with the right support and connections we can make our important contributions. That is what this debate is all about. The right support and contributions so that Scots with a disability can make that contribution in life in Scotland. That support can take many guises such as access to transport. Stacey and I have been at the other end of various public transport journeys from hell. We need to ensure that people with disability get the support that they need to be able to access employment, volunteer and social activities. That is why I welcome the Government's commitment to accessible travel framework in particular, which is action number 66. The idea to create and develop an accessible travel hub scope requirement for training with disabled people and transport providers and operators is that you have no idea how that would be a simple case that would be easy to do and would make it so much easier for people and families living with disability. Specifying agreed common standards of service for disabled people if their public transport journeys are disrupted and producing information about bus layout designs that improve accessibility. That is another example of where we have to make sure. It is almost like when you have a mobility issue, it is almost like Normandy D-Day landing when you want to go out and organise a night out, and you have to make sure that the individuals have to be confident that the facilities are there for them as well. Morhun Brooks, the CEO of the Scottish Disability Quality Forum, stated that accessibility and accessible transport is vital to disabled people being able to enjoy the rights as citizens of a fair society. That is all a step in the right direction, and the important point to make is that the delivery plan is based on a social model of disability. Unlike the medical model where an individual is understood to be disabled by their impairment, the social model views disability as the relationship between the individual and society. The delivery plan recognises the human rights of disabled people and must underpin all of our activities across a whole range of policy and legislation that affects disabled people. The Law Society of Scotland praises the Scottish Government for this for taking a ground-breaking approach. Incidentally, on the Conservative amendment, it is quite telling that it has dropped everything that mentions human rights. The whole point of this debate is the main differences between the ideologies of the Scottish Government and those of the UK Government. While here in Scotland we try to find a better way forward for our people, the Government and Westminster continues to pursue its failed austerity agenda and do not care whose lives they destroy in the process. For me, Presiding Officer, this is about standing up for disabled people in Scotland and making it forward and protecting them from the dark cloud of Westminster and their attack on the disabled. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I apologise to you and to the minister for arriving slightly late, nothing to do with disability, I just can't read a watch. Since I was elected to the Scottish Parliament in May, I met a number of disabled groups. All the groups have identified the same three priorities. Firstly, removing the stigma associated with disability. Secondly, preventing bullying. Thirdly, getting more people with disability into unemployment. I welcome the Government's delivery plan aimed at improving employment of disabled people, particularly young disabled people, especially as our record here in Scotland is not particularly good. Since 2008, the proportion of Scottish working age disabled people in employment has fallen from 49 per cent to 42 per cent. Just 2 per cent of the working age disabled people in Scotland get support from access to work, proportionally a lot less than the rest of the UK. There are many reasons for that. One of them, I suspect, goes back to education. I attended, along with other members, lunchtime a briefing on mainstreaming at school. The clear message that came out of that was that mainstreaming does not mean inclusion. We need to make sure that, if we are going to follow a policy of mainstreaming for most people with disability, that includes everything in regard to their education experience. After one year, school leavers with impairment-related additional support needs are more than twice as likely to be unemployed as workers through with no additional support needs. Although disabled people make up 11.6 per cent of our 16 to 24-year-olds, only 3.9 per cent of modern apprenticeships went to disabled people. That needs to change, and it needs to change quickly, I would suggest. My experience of meeting individuals with a disability is that many of them want to work but cannot find employment. Studies show that work is good for your health, gives you financial reward, self-esteem, companionship and a sense of purpose. Further evidence suggests that participating in internship schemes improves the future hopeful employment areas. For example, 10 of the 12 disabled graduates who participated in the Scottish Parliament internment scheme, run by Inclusion Scotland, moved into employment of full-time academic research. The findings of a report equal, still not, why not, published by Disability Agenda Scotland at the end of last month identified that most people with a disability still experience stigma, prejudice, harassment and bullying in the workplace. Part of the report brought together case studies. Capability in their workgroup came across one individual who said this. I did a work placement and the first day the person I was sitting next to was asking me all sorts of questions, which was fine. The second day I went in, I was on my own and was told that I would have to sit beside myself because the woman sitting next to me had called me a spastic and she did not want to work with a spastic or be close to someone like that. It is clear that here in Scotland we have a long way to go in all areas. It is clear that all parties have to support efforts to raise awareness of disability, reduce stigma, discrimination, improve equality and look at why discrimination is taking place. I suggest that we have to look at what type of jobs disabled people are going into. I wonder whether there is still a glass ceiling on certain jobs that simply are not open to those with disability. Are there certain jobs that people think that disabled people should go into rather than having a whole spectrum? What kind of development do people have? I was talking again to a lady at lunchtime who had been in the same job for 30 years, not because she wanted to, but she was scared to move on because there was no training for that. Disability comes in many different forms and we need to make sure that the appropriate training is there. I was pleased that earlier this week the Scottish Parliament held disability equality training to help MSP researchers better engage with disabled constituents. I think that we, as parties in government, have to do more. As parties, we are underrepresented. If my maths is right, there should be 23 disabled people in this chamber who have not been elected. Clearly, part of that is to do with the electorate on who they vote for, but are enough disabled people to give them the opportunity to stand. Scotland has a vibrant and vocal disabled movement, and I think that we should welcome that and encourage them as they seek to lobby us all. I hope that the outcomes of the Scottish Government delivery plan are felt not just in this Parliament but more importantly across the disabled community. It is good to have nice words from politicians, but what makes a difference is a job and a security and a purpose. I wish it well, and I hope that that can be achieved. I would also like to thank the hundreds of people who responded to the fairer Scotland consultation. One of the most important lines in Jeane Freeman's motion is the determination to continue to engage with disabled people as the experts in the continued actions that need to be taken to ensure that rights and independent living can be enjoyed. The fairer Scotland report defines disadvantage not in terms of an individual's disability but in terms of the barriers created by society, and I would like to quote in full from the report. Unlike the medical model of disability where an individual is understood to be disabled by their impairment, the social model views disability as the relationship between the individual and society. In other words, it sees the barriers created by society such as negative attitudes towards disabled people and inaccessible buildings, transport and communication as the cause of disadvantage and exclusion rather than the impairment itself. The aim then is to remove the barriers that isolate, exclude and so disable the individual. As the minister said, disabilities are enormously varied and we are each unique. One policy for all is not the answer, but I welcome the fairer Scotland report because its focus is on giving people the means and the opportunities to live as independently as possible and make their own choices. In the spirit of celebrating uniqueness, if you will indulge me, I would like to tell you about my uncle, who works in a cafe and as a gardener. He is a St Johnston football club fan, probably their biggest fan. He goes to the football almost every Saturday and to church almost every Sunday. Throughout my childhood, the happiest parties that I ever went to have been with him and his friends, and he recently celebrated his 50th birthday with a massive karaoke night with friends and family, including Tory MSP Alexander Stewart, who knows him very well. Though sadly for both of us, and I will say this very, very quietly, he is a Labour supporter through and through and will not be persuaded to see the light. Every Christmas, he still dresses up as Santa and bestows presents on his nieces and nephews, which almost makes up for the fact that he spent most of the year telling us that he was the boss and sitting in the front seat of the car. He has been an avid swimmer and horse rider in the past and he lives on his own in a house in Perth with a small garden, and he has Down syndrome. Life works well. He makes the choices. That is until his environment stops working. Recently, traffic works meant that the pelican crossing was out of action immediately outside his house and life completely stopped for the simple but transformational reason that he couldn't cross the road. Work, football, shopping, visiting friends stopped. Independent living gone. Not because of who he is or what he can do, but because of a simple matter of traffic works and who's fault is that, his or ours. We're all dependent in some way, some more obvious than others, some more freely admitted than others, but we must see people, not disabilities, each of us being unique. People then make community and that community is all the richer, the happier and the stronger for including people like my uncle. But real community is also the means of support to individuals. I think that this debate is about how our national community removes the barriers to independent living, opens up employment opportunities, improves accessibility to buildings and institutions both the physical and the virtual and promotes active participation. I'd like to briefly mention two ideas from the fairer Scotland report, which I think provide great examples of doing just that. They are based on the belief that the hurdle to participation is caused not by the disability but the challenges of our environment. The first is the access to elected office fund, which aims to improve representation in democratic institutions by meeting the additional costs disabled people face when standing for election, and Jeremy Balfour has already made a comment on that. The second is the forthcoming 2017 strategy to tackle social isolation and loneliness, which promises to address the issues in forming and maintaining relationships which many people can struggle with. A few weeks ago, an older gentleman who could not walk easily cycled into my office straight from the job centre. He was in a genuine state of shock that his income was being more than halved. However, his fears were not about his bank balance but about what that money meant. It meant a warm home. It meant transport to get out of the house and spend time with others. It meant the difference between more independence or more dependence between having choices or not having choices between participation in society or not participating in society. The burden on us as representatives of this national community we call Scotland is to ensure that disabled people exercise choice, live independently and participate fully in society and that we do not put up the barriers that causes them to make a choice between any of those things. I would like to join the minister in thanking everyone who has been involved in the consultation and pulling together this document, which, as Mark Griffin said, we absolutely support. I think that there needs to be a level of honesty from the Tory party in this Parliament about the impact of welfare reforms on disabled people. I think that it is really important that, if we have to be taken serious as politicians, and I take the point that Jeremy Balfour makes when he says that we need more than warm words for politicians, but if we are to be taken serious, we have to acknowledge the problem that is out there. I think that Adam Tomkins does the Tories in Scotland no service when he is in complete denial about the impact of welfare reforms on disabled people. The disability agenda Scotland sent through a brief event for this debate today. Let me first say what disability agenda Scotland has to say about that. It says that the changes to the social security system in recent years have undermined disabled people's right to live independently and their right to family life in the controversial article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities and the article 8 of the United Nations Convention on Human Rights. That affects disabled people, carers and others around them and the wider society and economy. Mr Tomkins is grateful to the member for giving way. Will the member not accept the fact that £6 billion a year more is being spent on disability benefits in the education system now than was the case when the Labour Party were last in government? Mr Rowley? I just heard from Kate Forbes who talked about the constituent that went into her constituency. I had a constituent that spoke to me just last week along with his mother. I had a constituent who has been suffering over a period of time and getting support from NHS 5 for mental health issues. His benefits have been pulled as a result and he has been told that he is fit for work. There are case after case after case. The evidence that you need to look at is the evidence that those organisations who are there to advocate on behalf of disabled people and support disabled people. Adam Tomkins and Ruth Davidson's Tories in Scotland can play around who did what when they were in power. The fact is right now that the welfare reforms that are being put forward and brought into place by a Tory Government are having a detrimental impact on disabled people and others in Scotland. Mark Griffin pointed out that the foundation report that came out yesterday was worth repeating what Mark Griffin said. He said that 26 per cent of people in poverty in Scotland are disabled. The second highest rate in the UK, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, goes on to say that modern poverty is increasingly linked with disability. If you are working hard in life, you are paying your taxes, you are getting on in life and for whatever reason you become ill, you are not able to continue to work in life, then be sure that one thing—this current Tory Government—will penalise you and will make you feel much worse and, in some cases, drive you towards starvation. However, if I could move to the Government itself and the issues that Inclusion Scotland raised, it would talk about social care being part of an essential infrastructure that is required to enable disabled people to participate in family, community and economic life. It would go on to talk about cuts to social care packages, whether that is a result of the eligibility criteria or reductions in services directly to people. That, too, is a key point. It is great to be able to have those strategies and commend everyone who has been involved in it, but the fact is that what we need in Scotland is joined up government. If we are seeing massive cuts taking place to local government and as a result of that, health and social care packages being cut, we begin to see health and social care packages being cut. One of the first things when a budget is under pressure is the eligibility criteria changes. Suddenly, people who were eligible previously for the care packages are no longer eligible, and that is one of the techniques that is used. However, the impact on people in the area that I live in, I know that it is not just the numbers of people who are trying to get out of hospital, currently standing around 90, being described as bed-blocking that are waiting for a care package. However, there are massive waiting lists out there in terms of people waiting for assessments to get to the point of getting a care package. When they have assessed, there is another waiting list, so the fact is that our health and social care services are not being properly funded. Community care was never about care on the cheap. I think that the Government—I am not doubting the commitment to be able to try and deliver that—need to recognise that we need joined up care, we need joined up government, and unless we fund health and social care, there will be a massive gap there, and disabled people will pay a higher price in terms of how that goes. Inclusive Scotland also talks about care charges, and that has been in many parts of Scotland one of the answers to the cuts in local authority budgets. I know that, under the minister's own party, they took the home care charges and put them up for £4 a week to £11 an hour. When the next administration came in, which was with myself, we abolished the charges, but that is not true across Scotland, is it not? Joan McAlpine, for taking the intervention. I assume that I am concerned about care charges, which is why I spoke in the member's debate earlier this week. You mentioned five council. Are you aware that your colleagues who run the Freeson Galloway Council have increased the threshold this year for care charges from £132 a week down to £132 a week, even though they were given additional funding by the Scottish Government? That is under the Labour administration. Not another speech. I am sorry, but you are in your last minute, so you can finish in a nice second. I will. I just say to Joan McAlpine that, having served and been proud to serve as a Labour councillor over many years, the fact is that this year local councils across Scotland are facing a £500 million cut in their budgets. They will not be able to do that without looking right across services and social care will take its share of that. That is why, if we are serious about this and delivering it, we need to fund local services properly. That would be my message. Labour stands alongside the SNP Government. We want to work beyond that, but we need to fund local services. Thank you very much, Mr Rowley. I call Sandra White to be followed by Alison Johnson. Ms White, please. I welcome the publication of Affair of Scotland for Disabled People, our delivery plan, to give its full title. I believe that the plan will bring positive change for disabled people. The Scottish Government's goal is for every disabled person to have choice, control, dignity and freedom, which reflects the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which we had raised earlier on with Mr Tomkins's contributions. The plan marks the culmination of two and a half years' intensive engagement with the disabled people and their organisations to establish their views and priorities. The work that is led by independent living in Scotland project—I believe that it is called Inclusion Scotland now—worked with disabled people's organisations and through them engaged directly with disabled people to identify their priorities for action when it comes to making their human rights a reality. We did that. The Scottish Government engaged with those people. They listened to them and took their thoughts forward in the consultation process that went ahead and, obviously, cumulating in the fairer Scotland for disabled people. Unlike the UK Tory Government, the Scottish National Party Government is taking action to enhance the lives of disabled people. The Tories are violating their rights by punishing them with disproportionate welfare cuts. The ambitions around the five themes and 93 actions will support the ultimate aims of disabled people to gain their human rights. I can make a couple of points that have already been made by various other members. When the Tories talk about sticking up for disabled people, they would really like to ask them, how is it that taking £30 a week cutting from ESA, how will that help disabled people getting to work? How will it help the DLA going over to PIP taking £30 a week off of disabled people going from DLA to PIP? How will that help disabled people? I will take your intervention. Mr Tomkins. Sandra White would care to reflect on the fact that there are now 360,000 disabled people in work in the United Kingdom who were not in work two years ago. Is that not an achievement of a Conservative Government or is that something else that she would like to condemn? You said the word condemn, Mr Tomkins. I think that you should speak to the disabled people. You see exactly who has been condemned by the UK Government. I will go on to explain that. Maybe you do not get these people at your constituency offices, but I certainly do. Young people and older people cut £30 from DLA to PIP. Who cannot work long-term disability? If I could clarify, you talk about Damian Greene's green paper. Let us clarify and remind ourselves of paragraph 114 of the consultation paper that went out that said that people who are long-term disabled, who are in a certain category, can be mandatory assessed for work. Let us think about that. You do not tend to talk about that, do you, Mr Tomkins? I think about the time that disabled people know exactly and the people of this country know exactly what the Tories are up to in this particular Parliament and in the UK Parliament as well. I am going to go on to something which I know that some of you actually were there. I do not know if that was a thank you smile. John Mason, please. I wonder if she would agree that cutting three out of four of the job centres in the east end of Glasgow is not going to help disabled people. Ms White? Absolutely. Mr Mason is absolutely correct as are others as well. How are they going to afford to transport? We have raised this issue before, but that is the caring. The caring is supposedly the Tory Government for you in the UK, and the people here are actually doing their work for them by actually promoting that as well. I absolutely agree with you, Mr Mason. I wanted to go on to a performance that I sponsored in the Parliament just last week. Annie Wells was there. A number of people were there, and 11 MSPs turned up from all parties. It was absolutely fantastic. The purple poncho players are called, and the minister also attended as well. The performances were absolutely outstanding and they were hard-hitting, but they were truthful. All performed by Glasgow, the GDA, Glasgow Disability Alliance, whose purple poncho was born out of a shared experience at a March and Rally in 2011. They listened to disabled people's experiences. They got together and created the purple poncho people. The performance was hard-hitting. I am reminding myself what happened there. The scenarios that they enacted were not figments of the players' imagination, and I am sure that Annie Wells can reflect on that, because Annie Wells was there and we spoke about it later on. There were real-life experiences. It was a damning indictment of how the UK Government has systematically treated disabled people. Their performance was absolutely fantastic. It was individual experiences from those people who were told by the GDA if they could walk, even though people had day walking sticks that they could not walk properly. How did you get here for an assessment? Well, actually, I got the bus, and you are all right then. You are fine, you can work, and that was then taken off at DLA. However, the performances were absolutely fantastic. I have to say that people are taking intervention. Mr Balfour. How far does the member think that you cannot walk before she gets benefit? Where would she set it or would it be? What line did she draw? I really feel that perhaps you were there, you saw, and no number of the Conservatives were there, but to ask people how far you can walk, as people have said previously, one of the performances was people who had mental health problems. They may feel all right one day, but not necessarily the next. Because they felt all right that day, they were taken off at DLA, but here is the caring Tony's once again. I will have to support the approach that the Scottish Government is taking and involve disabled people and organisations in promoting and planning the strategy. This is a big problem with the Tony's over there. They are listening to nobody. Listening to the people on the ground and disabled people who are going through this day in, day out. If you look at the figures of people who perhaps may be back at work, are forced back to work, I do not like to talk about people who have died or anything else. I am not going to raise it in this chamber, but I can certainly send the figures to people who are sent back to work. I am talking thousands, not hundreds, who have died since they were taken off the DLA and told they were fit to work. They should get out in the real world, the Tony's, and stop pontificating for the benches over there. I very much welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and to broadly welcome the Government's Affairer Scotland for Disabled People plan, which lays out an ambitious approach to achieving disability equality. In the short time that I have, I would like to address some of the very positive recommendations that will help disabled people to achieve economic security through employment and the benefits system, as well as highlighting how some of those might go further. With non-disabled people almost twice as likely as able people to be in work and that figure barely changing in more than a decade, the Government's aim to halft the disability employment gap is welcome and could not be more urgently needed. As a supporter of the 1 in 5 campaign, which seeks to promote the involvement in public life of the 20 per cent of Scots who experience a disability or health condition, I very much welcome the pledge to support new job opportunities for disabled people in politics and the third and public sectors. So many of the actions listed in the plan will come to fruition only when disabled people are properly represented at all levels of policymaking. That is a positive step. I ask ministers to consider whether 120 posts over four years is sufficient or whether we can be more ambitious. Perhaps the debate will serve to encourage interest. Having stood on a manifesto pledge to increase opportunities for disabled people to access modern apprenticeships, I was really pleased to see actions 36 and 37 widen access to modern apprenticeships for disabled people and to pay them the highest rate of funding until the age of 30. Helping people with disabilities and health challenges to stay in work once they have found it is important too and I'm glad to see that this is recognised by the plan. As much as work can be a positive force in our lives, too many Scots work in jobs that don't promote healthy working practices or an appropriate work life balance and so we're faced with a significantly increasing number of people who leave work for health reasons, particularly poor mental health. Integrating health disability and employment support in Scotland to ensure that people can stay in work is laudable and I look forward to working with the Government to achieve that when the full devolved employability schemes begin to operate in 2018. To Conservative colleagues who place a focus on keeping people in work, I would ask them perhaps to speak to their UK colleagues about the cuts to moatability schemes as they have had a devastating impact on the ability of many to attend work. I would also like to question however whether the disability plan takes into account the broader economic transformation Scotland needs for all Scots, both disabled and non-disabled. We have an economy where too many jobs are low paid with highly variable hours that don't protect people from poverty and disabled people are more likely to work in those jobs than non-disabled people. Haffing the disability employment gap will not be the achievement that we all wish it to be if it's achieved by encouraging disabled people into work that doesn't offer the economic security that we would wish. The quality of all jobs must improve. After years of slow but steady progress, the move towards equality for disabled people has gone into reverse in the past few years, particularly as a result of disability benefit cuts. Those cuts, as the motion notes, have been criticised by the United Nations as a grave and systematic violation of disabled people's human rights. I accept that the Scottish Government recognises the terrible impact of those cuts and has made some positive first moves in response to them, stepping in to save the independent living fund when it was axed by the UK Government, has helped over 2,000 people and the proposed expansion will help many more. Implementing the Green Manifesto pledge for a national healthier, wealthier children project could, based on the evidence from the original scheme in Glasgow, help disabled parents and children to access disability living allowance and personal independence payments. I am concerned that the disability plan doesn't demonstrate a clear strategy for responding to those cuts and the many more cuts still to come. By 2020, for example, 70,000 Scots will be losing up to £900 a year in cuts to employment and support allowance, and another 70,000 will be losing as much as £2,600 each in the move from DLA to PIP. I would welcome if the Scottish Government would take a clear position on whether it is willing to fully use the new devolved benefits and tax powers to mitigate the impacts of welfare cuts on disabled people. A fairer disability benefits system, which I have no doubt the Scottish Government seriously wishes to establish, must recognise that some of the users of that system will previously have lost thousands of pounds with negative impacts on their health, wellbeing and likelihood of being able to access employment. If it doesn't, the Scottish Government will be tacitly accepting the cuts. After years of cuts that have eroded the human rights of disabled people, a fairer Scotland for disabled people puts those rights at the heart of the strategy to create a more inclusive society. The plan to achieve that is appropriately ambitious, but the Scottish Government must recognise the weight of expectation that disabled people will have because of that ambition and the dreadful extent to which some disabled people have suffered in recent years as a result of Westminster's welfare cuts. They will rightly be looking for bold radical change. If the Scottish Government is willing to pursue the plan that it has laid out to the radical extent that is needed to achieve equality for disabled people, then it can be assured of Scottish green support. The Deputy Presiding Officer Whilst I take many opportunities to offer this Scottish Government robust criticism and honest scrutiny, to try to score points in this debate would be to do a disservice to the tens of thousands of children, men, women and their families who look to us as legislators to work across the benches to find a better quality of life and a better inclusion for people affected by disability in our society. In that spirit, I take this opportunity to thank the Government for this debate and this excellent motion. Their work in the last session to reverse the iniquitous DLA takeaway, which saw DLA suspended from families whose children went into hospital for 84 days or more. For the work that they did to support carers in the most recent carers act and, indeed, in the nascent movement that they have taken in defining Scotland's new social security system, which is quite well deservedly gathering cross-party support, I also welcome the publication of a fairer Scotland for disabled people and, with it, five recommendations, something that the Liberal Democrats are proud to actively support. I want to use my remarks and my time today, Presiding Officer, to offer some reflections on every stage of life's journey for families, children and adults who are affected by disability in our society. Obviously, that process begins with diagnosis. Many physical disabilities will be self-evident or clearly apparent at birth, but many others may take months, years and sometimes even decades to identify. I have raised a couple of times the case of Ila Mackenzie, the school girl in my constituency, who took nearly a year to get a diagnosis on the autistic spectrum. It was my great pleasure to finally meet Ila Mackenzie in this Parliament yesterday at the cross-party group on children and young people, but she is not alone. Last week alone, I met three different families at various stages in the diagnostic journey, who are still waiting for support and still struggling until they get a definitive answer as to what they can expect from the state. Inable Scotland published evidence last year that it can take up to three years to obtain that diagnosis. Not even getting to the starting line means that we deprive a family and the children of access to support. Even once that has been given, you would hope that various sectors of society in whose gift statutory support is would helicopter up with a suite of options and packages of help, but it is sometimes not that easy either, and some health boards are better than others. We all know families who are stunned and devastated by a diagnosis and wondering what life might have for them, have been left in the wind and only by chance come upon state support. I know one family in particular who attended an appointment for treatment two and a half years after their daughter was diagnosed with a complex condition. A chance encounter with a family who had another child with the same condition only then did they realise that they were entitled to any form of support at all. I think that we, as a country, are doing families like that a profound disservice if they are not even aware of the support that could be available to them. Even after a diagnosis, families can face a brick wall of availability if they are in rural locations and, depending on their living circumstances, many may find it difficult to access rest-by-care or struggle to obtain a care package that they deserve if we are talking about travelling great distances to access support. All of those can be captured in what I hope will be a profound movement towards realising a strategy for families affected by disability. It is a long time coming. In 2007, Aming High for Disabled Children was a UK strategy that saw with it a consequential come north of nearly £40 million, but because of the presumption against ring ffencing, that did not make it to disabled children in Scotland and went into the local authority expenditure. However, I am grateful that, 10 years later, we are now on the verge of the strategy. I hope that it will encompass things such as diagnosis, provision, transitions into adult services and, most important, inclusion in work and in learning. I am also grateful to the minister for her confirmation that it will not be restricted to families, but it will also cover children who are looked after or on supervision orders who do not fit the normal definition of family support. We also, in the last session, passed a very laudable act of social care in the Self-Directed Support Act. My party absolutely supported that, and we still do. It is a very liberal and empowering agenda to give people and families choice over the care that is directed for them, but that has been met by challenges in its own respect. We still see some local authorities not applying it in the way that this Parliament intended that it should be, and families are not aware that they have four choices and four options available to them. Indeed, in some cases, where provision is patchy, we do not have the choice that we would have expected or hoped for the families to whom that act was extended. Act has to employment. We have heard a lot about it in this debate, and I think that it still remains one of the abiding challenges of our Parliament and our society that we still have so many hurdles for disabled people to cross before they enter the workplace. In 2011, a major metropolitan local authority in this country published an outcome in its single outcome agreement, which said that it wanted 216 to 17-year-olds who had a disability in the workplace a year later. A year later, it reported on that and it had only achieved 11. Such is the crushing gap between rhetoric and reality in this agenda. We cannot rest on our laurels. We must work harder together. In terms of end-of-life provision and working with those families affected by life-limiting conditions, we want to see parity between child and adult hospice care and, as the Scottish Government takes administration over the DS 1500, ensuring that there is no arbitrary cut-off as to when patients with terminal conditions can access disability benefits. I will finish with this. Our disabled citizens are our friends, our neighbours, our family friends and our colleagues. They are part of the rich diversity that makes Scotland great. They have so much to offer, and we must work together in this place to ensure that there is nothing in their way to do so. First, I would like to welcome and commend the Scottish Government's delivery plan for creating a fairer Scotland for disabled people. I believe that that gives us a comprehensive blueprint for the work to be undertaken over the next five years to ensure that we remove the barriers that can often exclude disabled people from living as independently as possible. There are many commendable points in the plan, and I welcome in particular the undertaking set out in the section on decent incomes and fairer working lives. The right to work is as important to a person with a disability as to those who are not disabled, and yet only about half of those who are of working age are in work, compared with 80 per cent of non-disabled people of working age. There are still too many barriers to employment for people with disability, and I am pleased to see that targets will be set to increase the numbers of people with the disability employed in public sector workplaces. Alongside a work experience scheme for young disabled people, helping them to adjust when they find work, there will be employability programmes to help people into a job and a social enterprise strategy to help disabled people set up their own businesses. We must do all that we can to ensure that the barriers currently in their paths are removed for those who can and want to work. However, what of those who cannot work? How should we treat our fellow citizens who are unable to work, whether for prolonged periods or not at all? The motion before us notes that the welfare cuts of the UK Government have led the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to conclude that there have been grave and systemic violations of disabled people's human rights. How we design our social security system to ensure that it supports, rather than condemns, will define the kind of society that we aspire to be. I would like to give an example of the kind of social security system that we do not want. I was recently asked by a constituent and friend to accompany her to a PIP review meeting that she had been unexpectedly asked to attend in Glasgow. My constituent is a lady who has a degenerative condition. She has multiple health problems, is on numerous medications and under the care of several hospital consultants, physiotherapy and podiatry, as well as regular GP contact. She is also currently awaiting surgery. Despite her not being due for a PIP review until September 2017, she had received a text message asking her to call the DWP. She was asked questions about her illness and whether her conditions had deteriorated or improved. Following that telephone call, she was asked to attend a review. She is currently 12 months into a two-year award. No reason was given for why she was being interviewed early. We arrived at the office 25 minutes early as my constituent was worried that she would be re-sanciant if she was late. Her appointment was at 1 pm, however, by 1.15 pm, she has still not been called. The manner of the receptionist to a polite inquiry from myself about the delay was brisk, cold and verging on hostile. It became very apparent that I should not be making such an inquiry. I was informed that the reviewer would be reading my constituent's notes and that this can sometimes take some time, depending on the complexity of her condition. That begs the question. If notes need to be read prior to appointments, why not schedule appointments for later? Lest time waiting in a reception might alleviate some of the anxiety those called for review experience. At 1.20 pm, we were collected by a reception by the reviewer. There was little explanation of the process and the reviewer had no idea why my constituent had been called in early. Her attitude was definitely one of, prove to me, you're unfit. As the interview progressed and the complexity of the disability that my constituent lives with became more apparent, the reviewer's attitude changed dramatically. She became more empathetic in her questioning, her body language changed, as did the tone of her voice, and I was quite taken aback by this discernible change. My constituent's conditions are well documented. Consultants and healthcare professional reports are helped by the DWP and had apparently just been read by the reviewer. Why were those comprehensive notes and assessments evidently not believed? Why did she have to demonstrate her disability? Why did she have to disclose very personal and intimate details about her conditions to a stranger? When the medical evidence had already been submitted to the DWP, does the DWP think that healthcare professionals lie or exaggerate in their reports and letters? Do they not trust their clinical judgment? Throughout the interview, the reviewer typed information into a form in the computer. My constituent had no way of checking if the information recorded was accurate. She wasn't shown what was recorded and it wasn't read back to her to verify. Remember, this information will decide if she continues to receive benefit or not. This can be the difference between her having some quality of life or merely existing. Mistakes in recording information can be made. Information can be misheard or misunderstood. The wrong box can be inadvertently ticked. In no other situation would this occur if, for example, you made a statement to the police, you would get to check it and sign that the information had been recorded accurately. My constituent is a very forthright and assertive lady, but she was cowed and disempowered by this process. She felt unable to speak up for herself as the balance of power was definitely against her. Her fear was that, by questioning or challenging anything during the review, she would be treated less favourably. She cannot afford to lose her pit payments. After the review, when I fed back to her my experience and concerns, she became tearful. She was so relieved that I had witnessed the same as she had and that her perception of what had happened was validated. More concerning, though, was that she informed me that the review had been much better than the last one, which she had attended alone. At that review, she felt that the reviewer was openly hostile and had treated her with a complete lack of respect. I can honestly say, Presiding Officer, that it was one of the most eye-opening experiences that I have had for quite some time. We in Scotland can do so much better than this. Whether it is ensuring that people can enjoy fairer working lives or where working is not an option providing fair and appropriate support to enable them to live as independently as possible, we must ensure that dignity, respect and inclusion are at the heart of what we deliver through this plan. By continuing to engage with disabled people, we can better understand the challenges and barriers that they continue to face. The Government's plan for creating a fairer Scotland for disabled people seeks to tear down those barriers and deliver a society where every citizen is valued and their rights are fully recognised. Thank you very much. I call Miles Briggs. We are followed by Joan McAlpine. Mr Briggs, you are the penultimate speaker. I say this in hope. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am pleased to take part in today's debate. All of us in this chamber can agree with the Scottish Government's key aim of ensuring disabled people have the same equality and rights as non-disabled people. The challenge for the Government and for all of us as elected representatives is to remove the practical barriers that can often be put in place for disabled people and allow them to have the same opportunities as all other citizens in Scotland in order to realise their potential. I also agree with the minister that the direct involvement of disabled people is essential as it takes forward its delivery plan. Its views and input must be sought every step of the way. Accessibility is rightly a key theme in the delivery plan, and accessibility to transport for disabled people has been an issue that I have been campaigning and working on with Lothian constituents since my election, specifically in relation to access to Waverly station. I commend the Edinburgh access panel for the efforts that they have made in campaigning to improve the current inadequate pickup and drop-up arrangements at Waverly station. I have to say that for two years since taxis were banned from the station, disabled people in Edinburgh feel that they have been effectively made second-class citizens when accessing Waverly station. That is totally unacceptable and must be addressed at the earliest opportunity. I believe that operators may have broken disability discrimination legislation, and I hope in responding that the Scottish Government and the minister will outline whether or not they would agree to look into that. I recently held a member's debate on that issue, and I look forward to meeting with constituents and the transport minister, Humza Yousaf, at the station in the new year. From the headlines that I have read this week, he may also be using Waverly station more often in the future. I will continue to do all that I can to support constituents to achieve a more accessible station for blind and disabled people. As has been mentioned, reducing barriers to employment is critically important. I think that we heard a first-class speech from my Lothian colleague Jeremy Balfour and that, hopefully, this plan can work to smash any glass ceiling faced by disabled people accessing employment in Scotland today. Disabled people have so much to offer employers, and if employers are able to make reasonable adjustments, they can allow them to join the workforce. The fact that disability employment rate in Scotland is lower than the rest of the UK is something that we have to address. I welcome the comments that the minister has made on apprenticeships and business start-up schemes. Good work is already being done in my region by a number of third sector organisations, both local and national, including all in Edinburgh service and Remploy. Their efforts are to be commended, and there are some real success stories based on support being provided to disabled people both to find employment and to receive on-going continued guidance and assistance while in employment. More widely, I would like to pay tribute to the many voluntary organisations in my region that work with and on behalf of disabled people. Their work is immensely important to people, and the volunteers who help those organisations do so much to improve the quality of life and are to be commended. Kate Forbes is not in the chamber at the moment, but I thought that she made a very good contribution. I hope that the delivery plan should also look at access to sport, both for disabled people to watch and also to take part. My colleague Adam Tomkins talked about mental health. As my party's spokesman, I would like to back up the comments that he made. Next week, Scottish Conservatives will publish a new mental health policy statement with a broad range of detailed policy proposals that I believe can help people with mental health challenges and inform the Scottish Government's forthcoming new mental health strategy. It is important that the Government's disability and delivery plan aims to support those whose lives are affected by mental health disabilities, as well as physical challenges. It is disappointing that the Scottish Government's motion for today's debate, which is, after all, about its own delivery plan, includes the now obligatory attack on the UK Government. I would suggest to the Government that it might be better to focus on the areas where it has direct responsibility and could make a difference to people's lives. If SNP ministers are trying to build consensus on the issue in Parliament, they seem to be going about it in the wrong way. Alex Cole-Hamilton mentioned pallative care, and I am pleased that Scottish Conservative pressure on that has meant that the Scottish Government has now agreed to deliver parity for pallative care between children and adults. Earlier this week, I also met a number of young constituents with severe physical disabilities who have to pay for their social care and who want to see the Scottish Government look at how they can better support them. On Tuesday evening, the Cabinet Secretary for Health agreed to my request to widen the feasibility study into extending free social care for dementia sufferers under 65 to consider those under 65 who also have terminal illnesses. Young disabled people who do not have a terminal health condition but life limiting ones would also like to have a debate about this and see how they could benefit. I hope that we can have these discussions as the Government looks to improve care packages and set up its independent living fund. To conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, I again welcome today's debate and look forward to the practical improvements that disabled people want to see being delivered by this Government. I support the amendment in my colleague Adam Tompkins' name. Thank you very much, Mr Briggs. I call Joan McAlpine, who is the last speaker in the open debate. Ms McAlpine, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am delighted to support the motion today. There are a million people with disabilities living in our country, Scotland, and the delivery plan recognises that the human rights of disabled people should underpin all of our activity across a whole range of policy and legislation. I want to endorse what Alex Rowley and others have said about the UK benefits changes under the Conservative Government. I do not think that we should avoid pointing out the problems that those have caused to disabled people. Welfare reforms touch on our direct experience as MSPs. If the Tory benches do not recognise that, perhaps people whose disability benefits have been cut altogether do not go to their Tory MSP as a first port of call. However, they can perhaps learn a little if they turn to a blog run by one of my constituents, Mark Franklin, who operates the First Base Food Bank in Dumfries. He told the story in his blog of a man called Donald, who came to First Base looking for a food parcel because he had received an 86-day benefit sanction. Donald had learning difficulties. He asked for a non-cooking parcel because he had no money to pay his electricity bills. We could not cook. He had no heat and light in the middle of winter, and he had learning disabilities. Mark Franklin was so worried about Donald that he started a crowd funder to pay his £160 electricity bill. Within a few hours, Mark had raised much more than £160. The fund has now reached £6,000 at the last count. Donald will have his electricity bill paid, and the extra money that Mark says will help other Donalds. Sadly, there are too many other Donalds. The report into sanctions, which was conducted by the welfare reform committee in the last Scottish Parliament, took considerable evidence of sanctions against disabled people. I sat on that committee and went on to take evidence on the shape of the future social security system, which will largely affect people receiving disability benefits. To address the point that Mark Griffin made earlier, I recall very clearly at that time shortly after the Smith commission, the minister at the time, Alex Neil, asked for the PIP not to be rolled out in Scotland. I certainly remember us questioning the Scottish Secretary in Committee at the time and asking that the PIP was not rolled out since those benefits were being devolved to us, but the point blank refused to consider that then, as it is doing now. I wanted to raise another point, which is perhaps a little bit more controversial, which disability groups raised with us in committee when we were talking about designing the new social security system. They were absolutely opposed to the new social security system being devolved to local authorities, which is what some politicians wanted. I seem to remember quite vividly in taking that evidence that they said that that would equate to the parish system, the old parochial system that preceded the welfare state. They warmly welcomed the Scottish Government's decision to set up a national system, which is what the minister is doing. I think that it is excellent that she is taking the time to consult carefully with the people who will be using that system so that she gets it right, because the reason why those disability groups were so opposed to local authorities having control of the new social security system was because of their experience with local authorities in the provision of services at the moment. They simply did not trust councils to protect them because they had too many negative experiences. I am sure that there are lots of good examples in councils where they are doing things right, but that is certainly in my experience of dealing with constituents with disabilities and also listening to those groups. There is clearly a problem at local authority level with the way that some disability services are delivered. Alex Rowley raised the issues of charges earlier. I cannot see how those charges are commensurate with human rights. Although Alex Rowley said that it was a financial issue, I would point out that, as he knows, those cuts are coming from the UK Government and local authorities are receiving the same level of cuts that the Scottish Government is receiving from London. I do not think that that is just a financial issue, because that does not explain why those charges for home care vary across local authorities and, as he said himself, vary from administration to administration. I am so sorry, Mr Rowley. Alex Rowley. To John McAlpine for giving away. In terms of the cuts that are coming from Westminster, the fact is that, as well as some of the social security powers in this Parliament, we have other powers. Does she agree that many people out there are saying that what will this Parliament do, despite the failed austerity tories in here, and what will the Scottish Parliament do? Should we use the powers to invest in those services? As I mentioned during the debate on home care this week to his colleague Colin Smyth, who is in the council that has hiked up the charges most in Scotland and in Freeson Galloway, there are choices within local authorities. For example, they are creating a whole new layer of bureaucracy that is called ward support workers who are not front-line staff and who are there to support councillors. I think that there are choices within local authorities about the way that they do things. The charges themselves, to get back to the point in hand, are starting in some cases at £132 per week, which is the causala minimum, the threshold. I want to point out that the income tax is not levelled on people at £132 per week, so I do not see why disabled people should be penalised in that way. I am pleased that the Government is reviewing the charges and extending its review. I know that it is looking at the charges to people who suffer from dementia who are under 65. I personally think that it should not just be as Miles Briggs raised people with terminal illnesses. I think that all disabled people should come into the review because many of the people who are affected are the most vulnerable people in society. I also wanted to reflect on the points that have been raised about self-directed support. The way that some local authorities are administering it is very worrying. For example, in Dumfries and Galloway, people are given cards and their accounts are monitored very closely by council officers. They are not allowed to build up too much of a balance, so that means that they cannot plan ahead to pay for respite and family holidays. I do not think that that was the intention of self-directed support when this Parliament passed it. I think that the idea was to empower people. I believe that Spice is doing a bit of work on self-directed support and how it is rolled out across local authorities, but I look forward to reading that when it comes out. I move now to the closing speeches. I call on Pauline McNeill. Around six minutes, please, Ms McNeill. One million people in Scotland live with a disability, and because of that, they often live with prejudice, discrimination and attitudes that set to marginalise them, making their lives more difficult than they need to be. Of course, as we all agree, they are people first. It is time to make serious and long-lasting inroads into changing attitudes and creating equality for that one million-plus group. I welcome the fact that we are discussing the delivery plan today, and in my opinion, it is the area of equality in which we have the most to do in this Parliament. However, I do believe, as others have said, that UK welfare reforms, affecting hundreds and thousands of disabled people across Scotland, was a very serious setback to the agenda. Claire Hawke spoke eloquently about her constituent, how disempowered she felt in her experience, the hostility that she felt and, ultimately, the lack of respect—sad to say, I do not think that it is a case sitting on its own. However, the UK has been a signature to the UN convention on the rights of the disabled people since 2007, and, yes, there are many things to commend the UK Government for doing in relation to disabled people. However, I think that it is important to document in the debate today some of the detail of the UN report, based on an 11-day inquiry in 2015, that reported that austerity policies introduced into the welfare and social care amount to systematic violations of the rights of people with disabilities. It is also withering about the manner in which ministers conducted those reforms. According to the report, the worst aspects of those actions contained therein is that the UK Government pushed ahead, even though it knew that it would have an adverse impact on disabled people. On page 26, the report says that the impact assessments conducted by the state party—that is the UK Government—to the implementation of several measures of its welfare reform expressly foresaw an adverse impact on people with disabilities. It says that the core elements of the rights to be independent living, being included in the community, an adequate standard of living and social protection, and their right to employment has been affected by recent policy changes. Those changes have resulted in the restriction of disabled people's freedom of choice and control over their daily activities. If you make a 20 per cent cut to welfare expenditure, you must have some idea that it will have that kind of impact on the group who rely on them. The extra cost of disability has been ignored and income protection has been curtailed as a result of benefit cuts, while the expected goal of achieving decent and stable employment is far from being attained. The bedroom tax cuts to personal independence payments, notorious fit for work tests that we have discussed in the Parliament many times, creating high levels of anxiety and stress. It is a huge backward step, I believe, in the times that we live in, where we should have been able to build on the progress that had been made since the convention of 2007 and the 1995 on discrimination against people with disabilities. In setting our commitments to eradicating barriers to employment, I think that there has been very important contributions this afternoon, made by Miles Briggs and others, about travelling and public transport. We know that we have a job here to fundamentally change people's attitudes to people with disabilities, because the organisations that we have been hearing from who brief us on a regular basis are currently fighting too many rear-guard actions, fighting for the most basic rights, the right to live and be supported by the welfare state. Alex Cole-Hamilton and many others have talked about the disability delivery plan and its focus on young people. I believe that this is a very important area for the delivery plan. Young disabled people have a similar level of career aspiration at the age of 16 to their wider peer group. That gives us optimism that, at that age and stage in life, young people with disabilities have the same aspirations. The sad thing about that is that, at the time of each age of 26, they are nearly four times more likely to be unemployed according to disability agenda in Scotland. As Jane Freeman, the minister, says, this is where dreams are dashed and this is where a delivery plan must focus on ensuring that those dreams become your dreams for those young people. Amongst those who were in employment, earnings were 11 per cent lower than they were for non-disabled counterparts with the same level of educational qualifications. That is no doubt quite a high level of discrimination in that group. The impact of young people's frustrated ambition becomes clear as they reach their 20s in terms of their confidence, their subjective wellbeing and their belief in their ability to shape their own future. According to Inclusion Scotland, the plan's 93 actions still remain to be clearly defined in terms of who is and who is to do what and when. They say that the plan is helpful, but more remains to be done to turn the delivery plan into something that can be implemented and monitored. I know that we all agree that there is a much broader context for our work on disability discrimination. I wholeheartedly support the minister's statement today that she will ensure that there is a public information campaign conducted by this Government. In many ways, I think that the most important aspect of the plan, because a public information campaign is designed to fundamentally tackle everyone else's attitudes, because without changing attitudes, we will not have done our job. The stigma that discrimination is faced by people with disabilities from ordinary members of the general public, from health professionals, as we have been reading about in our briefs, and in fact every level of service. We must do better at every level of service, every aspect of public transport. We must take decisive and progressive action in this parliamentary term, because we owe it to the 1 million-plus people who look to us for action. Thank you very much. Deputy Presiding Officer, my voice might be a bit croaky about just being with me. I would like to thank those who have already spoken in this debate today. I would also like to thank everyone who participated in the consultation for social security. It is in the interests of the 1 million-plus disabled people who live and contribute to Scottish life that we deliver on this issue and reach some consensus on how best to do so. Whilst I recognise slamming the opposition as part and parcel of the debate, the Scottish Government's motion misses the point. It may be an inconvenience for those who want to take every opportunity to dam and bury Westminster, but this kind of rhetoric is slowly becoming redundant. New welfare powers, as part of the Scotland Bill, are coming. The Scottish Parliament will have full control over the benefits associated with extra costs of living with a disability. It will also have the ability to top up any reserved benefit that deems necessary, including employment support allowance. I would like to make some progress. Maybe the motion should at least acknowledge that. Adam Tomkins is right to stress the achievements of the UK Government's response to the UN report. The UK Government spends £50 billion a year on benefits, supporting those with disabilities and health conditions, specifically. If we just let me make some progress, I will take an intervention. The figure has risen by £6 billion since 2010, and that is by no means insignificant. That is a near-14 per cent increase. I will take an intervention from Sandra White. I thank the member very much for taking an intervention. I just want to know whether she agrees that she mentioned the UN report. Do you agree with Mr Tomkins that he does not believe that the UN report was correct? Do you agree with that? Annie Wells? What I believe is that we can see that the UK Government has put in £6 billion extra spend a year since 2010, a 14 per cent increase. We need to see that the UK Government takes people with disabilities and health conditions seriously. We are spending £50 billion a year. I do not think that laughing is probably the right thing to do. Promoting the best opportunities in life for those living with disabilities— I actually just want to make some progress, thank you, Mr Adams. Promoting the best opportunities in life for those living with disabilities should not solely focus on welfare, however. Welfare, health, education, employment all have important roles to play. The best opportunities for anyone living with a disability or not start with good health, or, at the very least, to have confidence that you are on the path in trying to achieve this. With one in four Scots experiencing mental health issues, Miles Briggs is right to point out the need to tackle the issue. I am proud that we have recognised the importance of mental health and look forward to the publication of our policy next week and how that will be fleshed out. I should point out that the best opportunity for anyone living with a disability or not also starts with education. It is concerning to see that only 64 per cent of young people with a disability participate in education as compared to nearly 73 per cent of evil-bodied people in Scotland. We should do our utmost to ensure that those with disabilities and those with learning disabilities are supported through primary, secondary and higher education. The Scottish Conservatives have always supported additional funding to follow pupils with additional support needs. That is why I would note a slight error of caution about the enable report this week that showed concern among parents, teachers and carers over the Scottish Government's flagship policy for pupils with learning difficulties in mainstream skills. Of course, I recognise that the Scottish Government has pupils' interests at heart, but I urge it to look specifically at the reported lack of specialist support teachers, lack of training for mainstream teachers and feelings of isolation among ASN pupils. The best opportunities for anyone living with a disability or not start with employment for those who can and want to. I think that it is right that we try to eradicate the myths around the UK Government's work choice programme. People receiving ESA are never sanctioned for not finding work or for not applying for jobs. Adam Tomkins was right to emphasise the relationship between health and work as stated in the UK Government's work health and disability green paper. Work is as important to health as health is to work. That is why I commend the Scottish Government for mimicking our policy to half the employment disability gap, as well as the announcement of a £14 million work first programme. As Jeremy Balfour pointed out, the current rate of disability employment in Scotland is 42 per cent. That is lower than when the SNP first came to power and is lower than the UK average by nearly 6 per cent. I am pleased to see initiatives like that of the Glasgow Centre for Inclusive Living, an organisation that equips disabled people with skills needed to break down barriers and seek employment. However, looking ahead, I urge the Scottish Government to take into consideration regional differences. In Glasgow, the disability employment rate is less than 25 per cent. That contrasts starkly with the Shetland Isles, for example, which is a rate of 88 per cent. That is more than 250 per cent higher than Glasgow. I believe that that underlines the need to look into further devolution of employment services and the range of disability benefits more locally, whether that is to be health boards, local authorities or new partnerships. Will the Scottish Government look further at that so that individuals can receive tailored packages to suit their own needs? I want to again stress the need to move the debate away from the magnifying glass-type scrutiny that we currently see with regards to UK Government welfare benefits. The rhetoric on sanctions and cuts is becoming redundant. The Scottish Government will have the powers that it needs to make the changes it wants. I know some of my friends with disabilities who are watching this debate on TV at home would want to know the ins and outs of the legislation that has been put forward in the coming years. They would want to know not just what is off the cards but what is going to be on the table. I call on Jane Freeman to wind up the debate around nine minutes. I thank, as I did earlier, those individuals and organisations who have joined us in the gallery today to listen to the debate, particularly Inclusion Scotland and Dr Sally Witcher, who I quoted earlier in my opening speech. The Glasgow Disability Alliance, Disability Agenda Scotland and Jim Elder Woodward, who wrote the forward to the disability delivery plan. I also want to thank colleagues from across the chamber for their contributions. Although it is true that we may disagree and I will come on to that on some matters in this area, and indeed in our assessment of the impact of the UK Government's policies and actions, I want to focus on the determination that we share to increase the pace and depth of our efforts to win the transformational change that Scotland's 1 million disabled people deserve. We have had a number of interesting and important contributions during the debate from George Adam, the point that disability is not always visible, and the fact that we are founding our delivery plan on the social model of disability, which I believe is critical to our approach. From Jeremy Balfour, I could not agree more in terms of the importance of stigma, and I want us to focus on raising awareness about the potential that disabled people have and the fact that we are losing that when we ignore them, as we have been doing in terms of their rights. I would say that, in terms of the modern apprenticeship point that he made, although there is a great deal more to do, I can point out that, in the first six months of this year, the number of disabled people on the modern apprenticeship programme has risen by 4.1 per cent to 7.6 per cent. Absolutely more to do and fine words are not enough, but I think that we should recognise progress when it is made. Kate Forbes made an important point about communities and importantly about our responsibility as leaders of a national community that is Scotland to remove barriers, and I am telling the point about what an adequate income actually means and what happens when that adequate income is withdrawn and the degree of social isolation and loneliness that can then be imposed on individuals. From Alex Rowley, I am grateful to Alex and to Labour benches for their approach to this debate and for their support. I would make the point, of course, that cuts to local government expenditure that he is alluding to are indeed in the same proportion as cuts being made to our own Scottish Government budget. I would also make the point that there has been a 29 per cent increase in expenditure for adult and social care from 2007-2008. Yes, we absolutely agree and support the need for joined-up health and social care, and that will be why we have allocated substantial funds—£3 billion—over the course of this Parliament precisely to achieve that, and we will work with COSLA to make the improvements outlined in the disability plan in terms of the focus of social care towards independent living and the steps that the cabinet secretary for health and wellbeing took in terms of care charges. There are difficulties, of course, and there are differences between us, but I think that we would both accept that there are political choices to make. Although we might not agree on the final choices, I think that we are as one on the need to make them and the intention behind what we want to do. Alison Johnstone from the Green Party, I am grateful to Alison and to the Greens for their support and would have welcomed their amendment had it been accepted for debate. I think that she makes an important point about the 120 internships that we are proposing, and indeed there could be more. The point that I make to every member across this chamber is that each and every one of us has a responsibility to be champions for this disability delivery plan. Therefore, if any member can assist in increasing the number of internships that we can deliver, then I would very much welcome that assistance. I think that she also made an important point in terms of working to help disabled people who are in work to stay in work, but I have to say that already we spend £100 million a Scottish Government in mitigating the worst effects of the Conservative Government's welfare cuts, and I do not accept that the fact that we cannot address every unfairness that is caused by the imposition of UK Government policies means that we are indicating a tacit acceptance of them. I think that that is an unfair charge to put on this Scottish Government. I want to thank Alison Johnstone. Alison Johnstone, if the minister agrees with the new powers coming to this Parliament, we will be in a position to top up existing benefits and create new benefits in devolved areas. Jeane Freeman That is an actual statement, but the fact of the matter is that we have those powers in the overall context where the Scottish budget—and I am conscious that the finance secretary is sitting right beside me—has itself been decreased by just under 10 per cent in the last period. The choices that we have to make as a Government over all the areas and demands on our expenditure are difficult ones, and I assure the member that we will make the best possible choices that we can for the people of Scotland. Alex Cole-Hamilton, I thank Alex very much for his support and for his recognition of the steps that the Scottish Government has taken in this area of work. For the important contribution that he made to the development of the national framework for families of disabled children, I look forward to his continued engagement as we develop that framework. I am also grateful to Claire Hawkey for bringing real-life experience to the debate this afternoon, and for describing not only the impact that it had on her constituent going through that assessment process, but the impact that it had on her as a member of this Parliament, and understanding how it demeans and diminishes people as a process that is unnecessary. No, I will not. I need to keep going. I am going to power through everybody and not miss anyone out. I think that the points that he makes about transport are very important. Given that he is meeting the Minister for Transport at Waverly, I think that he can take it as an assurance that we are taking the issue that he has raised with respect to Waverly's station seriously, and I am grateful to him for the important points that he also made with respect to mental health. Joan McAlpine and Sandra Osborne contributed to the debate. I think that self-directed support at a local level is issues that we need to address. There are differences and discrepancies that need to be ironed out, and I am grateful to the Minister or the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Well-being for the commitment that she has made to work with us in tackling those. Finally, let me turn to Mark Griffin and Adam Tomkins. I want to recognise, before I go any further, the pivotal role that Mr Griffin made in seeing the British Sign Language Bill approved in this Parliament in the last session. I would agree with him and, indeed, with Mr Tomkins that signing in this Parliament is something that I hope we will see a great deal more of. I should remind him that we did, as a Government, a call on many occasions on the UK Government to halt the transfer of PIPP in Scotland. I am happy to keep on repeating that to them, and we will take the opportunity of our next meeting to do so again. Unfortunately, in this regard, as in some others, the UK Government is not listening to us, but we would share its intent that the PIPP transfer should not have been carried out in Scotland and should be halted if that is at all possible at this stage. I recognise his point about the expectation on this Government and, indeed, on this Parliament in terms of our social security system, and I am sure that we can work together, although we may have points of difference in building that rights-based social security system for Scotland. Let me turn to Mr Tomkins and his opening speech. I welcome the significant areas that he outlined where we agree. I would gently suggest to Mr Tomkins and to his colleagues that our concerns and our criticisms of UK Government policy, with particular respect to the welfare reforms, are not unfounded, they are not redundant and they are shared by many particularly disabled people across this country. The credibility, if I may gently suggest, of my colleagues in the Conservative Party in this chamber would be greatly enhanced if they would recognise that reality for many people across Scotland and, indeed, recognise that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Mr Tomkins, is much fond of quoting them in this instance that they said, as colleagues from the Labour Benches have pointed out, that 26 per cent of people in poverty in Scotland are disabled. That comes directly from UK Government welfare reforms that were, in their own terms, deliberately intended to save money, including the employment support allowance cuts, which are part of a £450 million cut in UK Government spend on welfare. It will not do to dismiss the UN report, which accurately says that the UK Government is guilty of grave and systematic violations of the rights of disabled people simply to say that we do not like the authors and we do not like how they wrote the report. That will not do, Presiding Officer. We need to recognise those realities and not pick and choose. Can I finally commend to this Parliament this disability delivery plan, the transformational change that we absolutely require and say to every member in this chamber that I look forward to their active engagement with me in the delivery of the rights that disabled people need to have, should have and that make the rights of all of us so much more meaningful? Thank you. That concludes the debate on creating a fairer Scotland, our disability delivery plan, and it's now time to move on to the next item of business.