Hansard

I was fortunate to be a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee when it began its huge inquiry. At that time, my personal interest was in access to work. When I became a member of the Enterprise and Culture Committee, the cross-cutting issue about this vast pool of under-utilised labour became even more relevant. I found that my time on the Equal Opportunities Committee was very useful in my subsequent committee work.

As Nora Radcliffe said, most people are defined by the job that they do. When we meet people for the first time we most frequently ask them what job they do. A job gives people a sense of purpose, a focus in life, self-respect and the feeling of being valued in the community. Everyone has some talent to offer, as is evident in the supported employment that is provided by many groups. The Scottish Executive has clearly identified the importance of work in moving people out of poverty, reducing reliance on the benefits system and encouraging self-reliance and confidence. A job is therefore even more important for people with disabilities, who have an extra hurdle to overcome.

The Enterprise and Culture Committee has just begun an inquiry into 16 to 18-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training, who are known as NEETs. Because of the barrier that is created by the benefits trap, such young people face similar issues to those that are raised in the Equal Opportunities Committee's report. Dialogue must take place with the Department for Work and Pensions to create a more flexible system.

In a briefing for a debate on moving from education into employment, the Association of Scotland's Colleges identified another group that it defined as WEETs—people who want education, employment or training. Such people may have one of a broad range of disabilities and find that barriers are created not so much by their disabilities but by the lack of understanding on the part of potential employers or education providers.

The Leonard Cheshire report "Discrimination doesn't work" states:

"Disabled people are more than twice as likely to have no educational qualifications as non-disabled people. They are over three times as likely to be economically inactive—and when they are in work, they earn less on average than their peers. By age 30, around a third of young disabled people expect to be earning less than non-disabled people of their own age."

That gives a clear indication of the need for greater educational support as early as possible.

In some of the early visits that the Equal Opportunities Committee undertook, we met disabled people with several degrees—they had excellent qualifications—who were desperate to work but were unable to do so because of the inflexibility of employers. We also met people with increasing disabilities who, after many years of loyal work, were unable to continue working because of the perceived cost of adjustments to workplace facilities.

On the positive side, at a recent well-organised briefing by Psoriasis Scotland I met an amazing lady with psoriatic arthritis who had overcome discrimination in the workplace and unhelpful employers. She was so determined to work that she refused to be deterred. She has found an understanding employer who is willing to provide the necessary specialist equipment and a job that is commensurate with her abilities. She is now a very loyal and conscientious employee. We need that to be the norm rather than an exception that is worthy of comment in a debate, but the example shows how much more needs to be done.

An interesting point is that people with psoriasis suffer a great deal of extremely hurtful discrimination because they have such a visible, disabling and painful chronic skin and arthritic condition. That underlines the fact that many disabling conditions are not always recognised as being disabilities.

Much good legislation is already in place. The Equal Opportunities Committee report highlights that we need not more legislation but greater education to remove unwarranted fear and prejudice among employers. Epilepsy Scotland presents an annual award to the best employer of the year in respect of epilepsy. That is an example of one way forward.

Finally, on the committee's recommendation for a national framework for supported employment, I suggest that such a framework could be progressed by the Enterprise and Culture Committee. Viewing the issue as an employment matter rather than an equal opportunities issue might assist that much-needed education. Given that social enterprises play an increasingly valued role in supported employment and are gaining a much greater profile in enterprise circles, the link between the two issues already exists. Perhaps we, too, need to learn not to create unnecessary barriers.