The next item of business is a debate on motion 1537, in the name of Emma Roddick, on championing disability equality and human rights. I invite members wishing to participate in the debate, to press the request to speak buttons, and I invite Emma Roddick to speak to and move the motion. Minister, around 13 minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm very glad to be here speaking to this motion because it is an important time of year for us to mark for many reasons. First, we are just five days away from the 75th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which set out for the first time fundamental human rights to be universally protected. We have just marked the international day of disabled people, the theme of which was united in action to rescue and achieve the sustainable development goals for, with and by persons with disabilities. As many people of faith and none celebrate various holidays and events this time of year, it is a good opportunity to reflect on where we are as a society, as humans across the world, and how we are delivering on our principles and supporting people who have less than we do. Creating that fairer and more equal society is a priority for this Government. We know that a fairer Scotland can only be realised when we secure equal rights for everyone.  Despite great steps forward, we know that disabled people in many areas of life are often furthest from having their rights realised. The core principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights include that human rights are universal and inaliable. They belong to everyone equally. We are all free and equal in dignity and rights. Dignity is a familiar word to disabled people from that perception that requiring support is undignified to suggestions that showing any kind of vulnerability, be it social or medical, means that you are not living with dignity. So much pressure is placed on people to present a certain way, mask feelings and pain and suffer in silence. As a disabled person, I know how strong we often are because we have had to be. I know how often we have been ignored because we are often easy to be ignored. I know how much work is needed across the board not just to improve the visible practical issues that we face but to undo the systemic inequality that stacks everything up against us. Not only do we face discrimination and prejudice in the workplace, we have to listen as Conservatives down south suggest that disabled people only have value as human beings if they are able to work. Relying on social security, which keeps many disabled people alive, is somehow a failure of character. The changes to work capacity assessments proposed by the Tories concerns us greatly because we know that that would lead to people with long-term health conditions or people who are disabled being at risk of benefit sanction. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice wrote to her counterpart in the UK Government on 2 October to seek assurance that any changes would be evidence based and in the interests of those that they are there to support. Research from the DWP itself has found that the move from legacy benefits to universal credit has resulted in more and more disabled people being subject to sanctions, including those who are waiting for work capability assessments. We are opposed to the widespread use of sanctions. It is clear that they do not work. However, the vilification of disabled people and the message that is being sent that there are less worth than others and that harm done to our community by welfare cuts is some kind of necessary evil continues to show up again and again. It betrays a view of disabled people that is inaccurate and degrading. I'm very grateful indeed for the Minister giving way and I don't disagree with anything she said thus far in an excellent speech. Does she agree with me that the best gold standard we have for protecting the rights of people with disabilities is actually enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities? Given that this is the week that we reconsider our attempts to incorporate the UNCRC into law, what steps will her Government take to do something similar with the UNCRPD? It's an excellent point. The member will be aware that the UNCRPD is one of the four treaties that we're seeking to incorporate into Scots law as part of our forthcoming human rights bill, which I will get on to talk about shortly. Tressa Burke at the Disability Summit held a week and a half ago from the Glasgow Disability Alliance. She noted the recent comments by the UK Government on disabled people working from home and very rightly pointed out that currently there are many work-at-home opportunities available to disabled people. We see things differently in Scotland. We reject the notion that everyone is able to work and that those who can't or haven't received the support that they need in order to don't deserve help from the Government. We also accept that many disabled people can work, want to work, but changes are needed to open up the job market to them. While employment law remains reserved to the UK Government, we use our fair work policies to promote fairer work practices across the labour market in Scotland. This includes our fair work action plan, which takes an intersectional approach to minimise structural barriers that disabled people racialise minorities and women in particular face. The action plan also reinforces the Scottish Government's ambition to at least have the disability employment gap by 2038 from the 2016 baseline of 37.4 per cent. We work closely with disabled people and their representative organisations to ensure that their voices and experiences help to shape our policy and the actions that we take to meet our ambitions. Through a combination of locally designed services, such as No One Left Behind and our National Employment Service Fair Start Scotland, we are delivering all-age, person-centred, tailored employability services, including in-work support to those furthest from the labour market. That includes disabled people, certainly. I thank the minister for taking the intervention. That is not the feedback that I often get from young people in my constituency. Those living in rural areas find these programmes very hard to access and good services that are there that have cross-party support, like the usual place in Dumfries, do not meet the criteria to get funded. Is that something that she would look at again? I know that the members asked me very recently about the service in particular. I am more than happy to reach out and speak again about what is happening. Our qualities in human rights fund is under review at the moment, so we will always work and see what more can be done to achieve the shared ambitions that we have. The services that we have are entirely voluntary and have no threat of benefit sanction. The cost of living crisis, Covid, inflation, these things impact on everyone and every Government in the country. Where equality comes into play is that the impact is not the same or felt the same by everyone due to systemic issues. Both last year and this, we have allocated almost £3 billion to support policies that tackle poverty and protect people as far as possible from the cost of living. That includes our £30 million insecurity fund, tripled this year, and our new winter heating payment, which is targeted to low-income households, including those with a disabled adult or with responsibility for supporting a disabled child. We have invested almost £2.7 billion into our adult disability payment, which replaces PIP in Scotland, and from the beginning we were committed to delivering a benefit that was centred on treating people with dignity, fairness and respect. From keeping assessments in-house and compassionate to not using brown envelopes to write to people in receipt of ADP, disabled people co-designed the system with us. In the Scottish system, nobody is subject to the DWP-style assessments or degrading examinations and we never use the private sector to carry out health assessments. Social security, yes. I'm very grateful to the minister for taking the dimension. Would she, however, recognise the significant challenges in delays to administering ADP at wait times and challenges to get through to Social Security Scotland to get the right support and advice that people need? Absolutely. I would point out that Social Security Scotland has taken urgent action around decision making to speed it up. In the last quarter, we processed the highest number of applications since the benefit launched. That was almost 55 per cent more than the previous three months. From April to July, the median average processing time reduced by eight working days. We know that some people are still waiting too long and speeding up those processing times remains an urgent priority. I will reassure the member and anybody out there who has applied that eligible people will have their payments backdated, because we know disability costs money. From care to the often named disability tax that is applied on simple adaptions and household items for disabled people, disability benefits are vital to keeping people safe and well. Our funding to support people with energy bills recognises the extra energy costs that being disabled often creates and how much more at risk many people are from having to self ration their energy. For some it means putting on an extra jumper, putting on the slow cooker, being quite uncomfortable and for others it can take years off your life. That disabled people can access our winter heating payment and the fuel and security fund is so important for that reason. That is why we need to increase awareness of those difficulties across Government, across public bodies so that when we look at where to focus spending we do so with disabled people's needs and priorities at heart. In my role as Minister for Equalities, I of course work very closely with disabled people's organisations who play such an important role in championing disabled people's rights across Scotland and keep the Government right on disability competence. I am currently working with them to develop and implement an immediate priorities plan which will deliver actions to help tear down those barriers faced by disabled people, focusing on the things that need to change immediately if any future strategies and plans are going to have the impact that we need. It has never been a given that disabled people's voices are at the core of decisions about disabled people. It still is not. Many people still try to speak for us and so I recognise that importance of continuing to work with DPOs and putting lived experience at the heart of decision making, nothing about us without us. We will always be fighting against the tide if we cannot pull society forward, create that human rights culture and to steal a line from the LGBT poet laureate make equality fact. That is why it is so important that within our forthcoming human rights bill we will be incorporating the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities into Scots law as far as possible within devolved competence. Scotland has the potential to be a world leader in human rights, both in the implementation and realisation of them. We are doing that in an extremely difficult context, a context where the UK Government is trying to roll back on those very same inaliable rights. The Scottish Government strongly opposed proposals to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights. The Lord Chancellor's decision in June not to proceed with that regressive Bill of Rights Bill was widely welcomed across the political spectrum but there are still serious and legitimate concerns about the UK Government's current trajectory. Swella Braverman advocates withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights. She has been sacked, yes, but her views are shared by many others in the UK Government. Of course, it is also International Human Rights Defenders Day on 9 December. As a Scottish Government, we wholeheartedly support the work being done by human rights defenders. As we see breaches across the globe, it is always important and serves as a great reminder, certainly now, to stand up for human rights and challenge when they are not being met and not take for granted that they will always be there. The Scottish Human Rights Defender Fellowship is funded by the Scottish Government and delivered by the University of Dundee. The fellowship enables human rights defenders in difficult conditions from other countries to spend several months in Scotland where they can rest but also continue their work, further develop their skills and expand their networks in a place of safety. Just as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was not the final step towards universal realisation of those rights, our bill will not be the end of our journey. It is an important and big step, which will then require the right effective implementation and work on behalf of people across society, across public, private, third sectors and the intangible acceptance of a human rights culture from everyone in Scotland. It will not give disabled people equality overnight. Nothing could, but it will give us the chance to educate people about what their rights are, provide them with routes to justice when they are not being realised. It will force duty bearers to treat us with dignity, fairness and respect, creating that structure that allows potential for equality and it will send a message that Scotland is a place where everyone matters. I hope that MSPs from all parties will join us when that bill is passed in being part of that movement and part of the campaign to educate on and ensure rights. I am really looking forward, Presiding Officer, to this debate because I know there are people in every party here who care deeply about human rights for disabled people, including many disabled people themselves. It was only two Saturdays ago that this chamber was full of disabled people and our allies for the first summit to mark the international day of disabled people. That was a wonderful feeling. Presiding Officer, I hope that today is a similar show of solidarity. While we may disagree on the finer points of implementation and perhaps who is most to blame for our rights not currently being met, I am sure that today will also offer a chance for all parties to be united in agreement on the need to uphold and progress human rights. Thank you. Can I just check that the minister has moved her motion? I have moved my motion. I now call on Miles Briggs to speak to and to move amendment 11537.1. Mr Briggs. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. My apologies for delay attending the chamber before business started. I wanted to open today's debate with the words of Natasha Hamilton and Duke's daughter who gave evidence to the Scottish Covid inquiry last month. Natasha told the inquiry how she did not have a chance to say a final goodbye to her mother as she was and I quote, waiting her turn while her father and sister were in Ann's room. Even though the family knew Ann was hours away from passing, Natasha wasn't able to enter the care home until a certain point. Natasha told the inquiry, I had to take a CPR Covid test, I got to my mum's room, I opened the door and my dad was frantic, and I looked at my sister and my sister just nodded at me. I'd missed being with my mum by seconds because we had to stagger who was coming into the care home. Presiding Officer, as campaigners have said, arguably the practices which were put in place during the pandemic were far worse than the virus itself in denying many elderly and vulnerable Scots the comfort of their loved ones in their final hours of their lives. Throughout the pandemic and since, I've worked and supported families who want to tell their own stories and I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to Ann's husband, Campbell Duke and daughter, Natasha Hamilton, for the campaign that they have led to see Ann's door put in place, to ensure that people living in care homes have the legal right to visits from loved ones and that shared care decision making if, in any case, we see further restrictions having to be put in place. It has become common for ministers and officials to use lines about taking a human rights-based approach. We, across this chamber, agree with that in responding to questions and also discussing future policy development, but we really need to see at the heart of policy what that means. I wanted to look at some of the evidence in which the Covid inquiry has been told and where that wasn't the case, because care home residents were neglected and were left in many cases to starve because of restrictions imposed during the Covid pandemic. Today's debate is not about the Scottish Government's handling of the pandemic but the lessons around human rights, which we should make sure we learn. It just hasn't been mentioned, but six in ten people who died with Covid-19 in Scotland were disabled people. I want to open the debate this afternoon by returning to the decisions taken during the pandemic. Three years on from the restrictions being put in place, many of the people in care homes are not alive today, those who lived through the pandemic. The stories and experiences that their families and friends want to make sure are never forgotten is something that we should always be bringing our discussions around human rights policy back to. Like the case of my constituent Mr Rudger Lane, who, against the wishes of his family, had his power of attorney overruled, was transferred from Midlothian community hospital to a care home. Mr Lane developed coronavirus and died from it, and his daughter Gail has said that she will never be able to forgive them for her dad. Someone needs to be held accountable. As part of SNP ministers' Covid 19 response, 1,090 additional care home places were purchased, and patients were, in many cases, moved without the shared decision-making of their families. I am looking at the amendment that was selected, although it was not yet moved. I note that there are references in the amendment pertaining to the title of the Government's debate on disability and disabled people, and I was wondering if the member was intending to address those points in his speech? I absolutely am. Those cases are individuals who have had complex needs and care needs during the pandemic. The first line of my amendment makes this very point about investigations during failings of the pandemic around human rights, and that is something that is important that we consider today. Another constituent of mine who has also raised their concerns, and specifically around human rights breaches, was my constituent Heather Goodair, who had a do not attempt cardio resuscitation notice placed on her during her stay in hospital. She did not discover this until she left hospital and found it buried within her notes. Her daughter, Rosanne, had refused to sign a do not resuscitate order when she was first asked to when her mother was admitted to hospital. Campaigners are raising those concerns because they want our human rights legislation in Parliament to make sure that vulnerable patients across Scotland do not face those practices in the future. I have raised those with current First Ministers, because I do not think that we have seen the full investigation by Government into those practices taking place during the pandemic. There are many examples of where ministers need to look at these arguably breaches of human rights in Scotland during the pandemic. Having their care packages suspended are also in the area that we need to look at. Young people with disabilities have in their independent support packages removed or cut and having to move home with their elderly parents. The Government motion for today's debate states that Parliament notes the ambition for Scotland to be a world leader in both legislation and the realisation of human rights. I agree, but we need to take this opportunity to consider the consequences of a pandemic and human rights violations. Last Sunday marked United Nations International Day of Persons with Disabilities, and today aims to promote the rights and wellbeing of persons with disabilities in all spheres of society and development, and to increase awareness of the situation of persons with disabilities in every aspect of political, social, economic and cultural life across the world. The disability employment gap in Scotland remains too high, and we all recognise that. In 2022 it was 31.9 per cent percentage points, with 82.5 per cent of non-disabled people in employment compared to 50.7 per cent of disabled people. The Government motion today notes the recent consultation on the human rights bill and the incorporation to incorporate economic, social and cultural rights into Scotland. I think that there is cross-party welcome of that opportunity. Many colleagues across the chamber have looked to undertake where they can bring forward their own bills in this area. I note particularly Pam Duncan Glancy and Jeremy Balfour for their work that they have done on private members' bills to do just that and to advocate and advance rights for disabled people in Scotland. Ministers do not seem to want to engage necessarily with opposition parties' bills on that. I hope that today we will present an opportunity for ministers to think again on that. I know that members outside of the Government SNP and Green Benches want to see progress and are doing that with private members' bills in Parliament but have not had the engagement from the Government who maybe do not need the numbers. However, I think that there are ideas from across this chamber which the Government is missing. As the Scottish Human Rights Commissioner director, Jan Savage, stated, the Scottish Government has not done enough to ensure that disabled people's human rights are fully realised and we are pushing for protection of disabled people's rights to employment, independent living and adequate standard of living as well. I hope that the minister, in relatively new role, will take on board the opportunity with other members' private members' bills. I want to close with a bill that I brought to Parliament in the last session. That was Frank's law, the extension of free personal care for those under 65. Parliament united and helped to deliver that, but we still need to see many councils follow through to deliver that policy in full. I hope that the Scottish Government can choose to work with Parliament to make progress on all those issues of human rights in this session and that we will also see Government work to fully deliver Anne's law, as I outlined earlier, and also Callum's law to look specifically at young people in disabled services and some of the work that Daniel Johnson is doing on a private member's bill. To conclude, evidence and experience shows that when barriers to inclusion are removed for people with disabilities, they are empowered to fully participate in our society and our entire community's benefit. Barriers faced by persons with disabilities are therefore a detriment to society as a whole, and accessibility is necessary to achieve progress and development for all. I hope that today's debate gives us an opportunity to look at many of the things that still need to change in Scotland, and I move the amendment in my name. I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate and speak about the experience of disabled people in Scotland so soon after the international day of persons with disabilities. I think that it is important that we take time in this chamber to continue to highlight, engage and support everyone who has a disability in Scotland, ensuring that we continue to move towards a future where we continue to tear down the barriers faced by disabled people. I want to add my voice to thanking parliamentary staff and all MSPs involved with the events in Parliament to mark that international day, particularly the organisation of the summit on 25 November. Bringing more disabled people into their Parliament keeps that spotlight very firmly on the issues and compels all of us to refocus our efforts on the ambition for Scotland to be a world leader in human rights and disability equality. The first line of the Government motion calling for ambition is where I think there is clear consensus today. I struggle a little in the rest of the motion to see the scale of action that is required to hear what disabled people are telling us and to act accordingly. At this point, I refer colleagues to my register of interests as a member of Enable Scotland and a former member of staff. In September, prior to the programme for government, disabled people's organisations wrote to the First Minister calling for clear action to support disabled people, to lift them out of poverty and to ensure that disabled people are involved in the development of policy that has a huge impact on their everyday life. The letter said, "...a lack of focus and attention combined with no accountability or political leadership and a genuine gap in disability competence politically and in your government," "...has resulted in disabled people and our DPOs feeling dehumanised and de-prioritised." The Scottish Human Rights Commission has starkly highlighted the scale of the challenges in saying that there is, and I quote, "...an implementation gap between intentions and good law and policy." The Scottish Independent Living Coalition has concluded, and I quote again, "...that the situation for disabled people overall in Scotland has not got any better since their 2016 inquiry." Those are very serious comments indeed, and I think that they are hardly ringing endorsements of action in this area. I do think that we have to very clearly reflect on those and think about how we will act accordingly. Of course, I recognise from the Government's motion that they have reopened the independent living fund, although in a phased way. I do not think that that action alone is enough. Organisations have been quite clear that they want to see a full reopening and a full resourcing of that intervention in order to make the progress that they would hope to see. As we have heard referred to already this afternoon, less than two weeks ago, the Government voted against the member's bill, which was brought by my colleague Pam Duncan-Glan State, to support disabled young people into adulthood. That bill was supported by many disability advocacy groups. Indeed, we had quite a strong debate in the chamber about the landscape and what needs to change more broadly in Scotland. Indeed, the minister for children and young people in keeping the promise in her opening said, "...we absolutely recognise that, at the moment, too many disabled young people are not getting the support they need." She went on to reaffirm that in her closing saying that it is clear that the current situation and respect was disabled young people's experiences of their transitions need to improve. As I said previously, we spoke about a cluttered landscape in that debate and a lack of policy interventions to improve access to support, particularly that non-residential care support. Given what Ms Donne has said, we have to ask ourselves who has had the power to change these things over 16 years. The responsibility for that has been at the door of this Government. The Government has had that opportunity to deal with that cluttered landscape and to make those policy interventions that would have the most impact. Indeed, I reflect, Deputy Presiding Officer, on the Feely review that was published two years ago and was brought forward with a strong suite of recommendations yet to be implemented. A manifesto commitment from the Government is not implemented. It has promised an immediate priority plan. It said that that would be published in June, but it was not. We have been repeatedly promised a national transition strategy since it was included again in a 2016 manifesto, and that has now been pushed back to the end of next year. Those repeated delays and failures to act on promises to disabled people are hardly a strong demonstration of the progress on the aspirations that are laid out in the Government's motion. We on this side of the chamber are very clear about our desire to see bolder action and quicker action from the Government to deal with the issues that disabled people and the organisations that support them and advocate for their rights raised with us all. We were pleased in the Conservative amendment to see those references to Frank's law, Callum's law and Anne's law. I think that they are, as we have heard already, pieces of legislation or proposals for legislation that draw support from across the chamber. The challenge, very often, is about the implementation and delivery of many of those things and ensuring that progress is made that will have that impact on people's lives that we would all want to see. I was reflecting about all those pieces of legislation or proposals, and very often they come to this Parliament by way of disabled people themselves, campaigning or their relatives and friends with them to make that change. Just a few months ago, I was outside of this place with people from across the chamber, with a group of disabled people calling for action on non-residential care chargers as part of that fealy recommendation that I referred to. They were very clear that they cannot wait for that action and that they are frustrated by the lack of action from the Government in order to move that agenda forward. Crucially, those are the sorts of things that give people who have a disability independence and the freedom to choose what they want to do in their own life and when they want to do it. I think that it is a real shame that much of that is missing from the Government's motion and that we are still waiting for a large range of support and intervention on all of those proposals. In doing to a conclusion, we want to see ambition on human rights. We want to see ambition on disability equality. On this side of the chamber, we will always work for the furthering of both wherever we can, but unfortunately, after 16 years of this Government, I think that there has been a failure to show tangible action towards either of those ambitions. I hope that we will hear more detail on the debate in terms of people's own experiences. I hope that the minister will be able to respond to much of what I have said in her summing up and that this debate will continue, but I will move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. I am very grateful to the Government for bringing forward this motion today. When I think back to my time as convener of the organisation known as Scotland's Disabled Children, we have travelled a great distance. I recognise the goodwill both in the minister's remarks and the Government's intent, but our legislation is only as good as the implementation behind it. That is often where legislation falls down. I will come on to that. As I said in my intervention to the minister, this is a timely debate, not least as it comes the same week that we debate a legislative reconsideration of our attempts to incorporate the United Nations Convention of Rights of the Child into Scotland. I know that those disabled people who are watching our proceedings this afternoon will have also watched on as we take steps to incorporate that convention into law with a hunger and a desire for us to follow it with the incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. I am gratified by the minister's restated commitment to that and her timeline for doing so. Disabled people matter. Their rights matter. It matters a great deal that we do all that we can to include them in our society in every possible way. We take steps in this place to see people with disabilities prosper, to achieve their potential and not by active either a mission or by commission make their lives harder than they already are. Sadly, in many ways, we are still missing the mark. The Scottish Government's equality evidence finder reported that, in 2018, the employment rate for disabled people was 45 per cent compared with 81 per cent for those without a disability. That represents a huge disparity in employment. It comes as no surprise that rates of poverty are far higher for households in which somebody is living with a disability compared to those where no one is disabled. In fact, half of those in poverty live in a household with at least one disabled family member. That is bear in mind that people with disabilities, of course, sometimes have additional strains on their budget. For example, due to reliance on assistive technologies, higher fuel bills, higher electricity costs and other essential expenses, that poverty that they face can often mean that people are not able to meet their most basic needs due to having a disability. It is just not humane. I will certainly give way to watch that. I am grateful to Alex Cole-Hamilton for giving way on that point. Isn't one of the stark statistics about this relate to the trust food banks, where three out of four users have a household that contains a disabled adult or child? Alex Cole-Hamilton? I think that something is fundamentally wrong in our provision, in our safety net, that we would seek in this place to provide families affected by disability if such a disproportionate number of them have to rely on food banks. In August this year, the Scottish Human Rights Commission said that the Scottish Government has not done enough to support the human rights of people with disabilities. In a report to the UN, the commission also raised concern about what it calls a crisis—their word is a crisis for disabled people's rights. The executive director, Jan Savage, said that the Scottish Government has not done enough to ensure that disabled people's human rights are fully realised and that the situation for disabled people overall in Scotland has not got better. That is a damning indictment. I recognise that there is progress to come with the forthcoming incorporation bill on UNCRPD, but we must go further. Those remarks speak to a Scotland where a mental welfare commission is all too ready to appoint a curator to act to speak for a person who is deemed not to have the capacity to communicate when they actually do, when a small amount of effort could have put their voice at the centre of a process that could determine the rest of their lives. It speaks to a Scotland where our built environment and even new developments that are coming on stream present unnecessary, ill-thought-out physical barriers to our constituents with mobility difficulties. It speaks to a Scotland where children, who during an episode of behavioural flare-up as a result of a neurodiverse condition, are still being restrained and subdued in ways that leave lasting trauma. The Government has real work to do in protecting disabled people's rights and in our efforts to include them in employment and wider society. They are in part still failing the test set to all of us and it is a test that we understand full well because of debates that we have like these with regularity. I welcome the reopening of the independent living fund and I welcome that we are having this debate, but we are still miles away from where we need to be. For example, when it comes to social security, the minister referenced a lot of that in her remarks. We know that those applying for adult disability payments are facing longer waits than they should be. In fact, they are facing longer waits than people who are still under the DWP system for personal independence payments. When somebody who is in receipt of PIP and living in Scotland reports a change in circumstances, they are forced to wait three months to be moved over and only then did Social Security Scotland start to work on that change in circumstances, if during that time their condition worsens and they are entitled to a higher rate. They are currently missing out. I welcome the minister's clarification on that, but there is still a massive cash flow issue for those families right now. Something that should happen at the touch of a button is simply taking months and denying disabled people the support that they need it when they need it. This lady bears the Scottish Government's lack of foresight in removing the dedicated Social Security Minister to properly oversee this transition at its most critical juncture. The Government promised fairness, respect and dignity under the new arrangement. We all signed up to it. Instead, people are still being left to wait in uncertainty for months while a decision is being made. That is just not good enough for families across Scotland. The writer and neurologist Oliver Sacks once wrote, I wish for a world that views disability, mental or physical, not as a hindrance, but as unique attributes that can be seen as powerful assets if given the right opportunity. That is something that we should all wish for. It is something that we as a society should strive for and the realisation of the rights of people with disabilities is the only way to go about it. I remind all those members who wish to speak in the debate to please ensure that they have in fact pressed their request to speak button. The aim that is captured in the Government's motion for all disabled people is that they have freedom, dignity, choice and control over their lives. I certainly would hope that all of us can unite in agreeing that those are extremely laudable aims and objectives, and that they are essential. We can also use those objectives to test their reality for many disabled people in Scotland today. I want to start by making a key point, which I think is the source of everything else that we might debate today. It is that human rights are based on the concept that everybody is equal, but true equality is rooted in the inherent dignity and worth of every human being, irrespective of who they are, how they contribute, where they live, or whether they conform to some sort of nonsensical, invented societal norm. Quite obviously, nobody can speak fully for others in this chamber. That is why it is so important that we hear directly from those who live with disabilities themselves. They should be at the very heart of policymaking and critiquing and feeding back on where we are falling short and where we are getting it right. However, I am also delighted to speak for those who cannot speak. That includes fellow citizens such as my uncle. Born in the 1960s with Down syndrome, he was not expected to live for very long. Despite that, he will be celebrating his 58th birthday in February next year. His MSP is John Swinney. The first time I ever met the Conservative MSP Alexander Stewart was at my uncle's 50th birthday party. It was probably one of the most exciting birthday parties that I had ever been at. My grandmother had to fight tooth and nail over decades to give him the very objectives that the debate calls for. She wanted him to have freedom and to have freedom required education facilities to invest in teaching him, giving him skills, ensuring that his educational experience was at the same standard and offered him the same dignity as for those who did not have a disability. In equipping him with those skills, he would then go on to have greater freedom throughout life. She also cared about him having control over his life, to work in any job, to do sports, to pursue hobbies. He must be one of the biggest St. Johnston fans I have ever met, which was unfortunate when all of his family were required to join him for dinner at the St. Johnston stadium. We would meet various team members and not really knowing terribly much about St. Johnston at the time.  She also wanted him to have dignity, not just in how he saw himself, but also in how other people treated him—that he would be treated as an equal, not patronised. So often, some of our discussions and debates about disabled people are full of that patronising language, as though we must ensure that they are protected and so on, not realising that they have far more to teach us and to equip us with than the other way round. I am very grateful to Kate Forbes for giving way. I have very much enjoyed listening to the story of Kate's uncle. Before she told us that story, she talked about giving people with disabilities a voice and then went on to describe the assumptions that society makes and the patronising assumptions that society makes about people with disabilities. Does she recognise that one of the criticisms that is levelled at Scotland by the UN Committee on the Rights of People with Disabilities is that, all too readily, mental welfare commissions rush to a point of curator when it seems just too difficult to hear the voice of the person at the heart of that. Even when that is not impossible and with a bit more effort, we could hear their voice rather than giving that judgment over to somebody else. Kate Forbes. That is absolutely fair and right. It is not just about listening to disabled people, but it is about having the courage to introduce policies that reflect the diversity of people's experience and not treat disabled people as a homogenous whole. The last point was about choice over where to live. He has lived in various places, sheltered living in Perth as well as residential care. When I look back on the narrative of his life, it is very clear that the level of fighting and battling for these basic rights, in this particular example, did get easier over time as Governments worked to ensure that policies reflected disabled people's human rights. We have made progress, but, a few weeks ago, I was meeting with some visually impaired pupils in the Highlands who are being held back at school through a total lack of British Sign Language teachers. That reminded me just how essential it is that, at the youngest of ages, we do provide that choice, that freedom, by focusing on young people's education. As I close, my point in the speech is that, of course, to reach those objectives requires more than sentiment and rhetoric once a year. It is about embedding that human rights approach in all of our work. I think that success will be reached when nobody feels the need to fight against the system to get what we believe should be rightfully theirs. I advise members that we have quite a bit of time in hand, and therefore interventions can easily be taken without any reduction in speaking time. I call Annie Wells to be followed by Kevin Stewart. I welcome the chance today to talk about the challenges that disabled people face in Scotland. There is much in the motion today that we can welcome. We agree that Scotland can, and should be a world leader on protecting human rights. We recognise incredible difficulty that many disabled people have faced during the pandemic and the global cost of living crisis, and we believe that disabled people must be at the centre of decisions that affect them. We think that there must be more attention on the disability employment gap and disability payment gap. There should be no discrimination in our economy or society, and we must work harder to root that out. However, many key human rights issues and important issues for disabled people have been left out of the motion entirely. It paints an overly positive picture of this Government's actions, and it glossies over many crucial aspects of this administration's policies. It neglects to mention terrible failings of this Government. It wants to focus on the limited amount of positive work with no attention to the negatives. It ignores many issues that ought to receive much more focus of Scottish ministers, and that is what my party's amendment seeks to address. In the motion itself, it says, secure a life of dignity for all, including the most marginalised and disadvantaged. I fail to see how this Government cannot mention Scotland's drug death crisis when that is part of the motion. That is an issue that is close to home for me, literally. In springburn and communities like it across Glasgow, Dundee and Scotland, drug deaths have caused devastation. On this Government's watch, drug deaths spiralled to the worst level in Europe, several times worse than anywhere else in the UK, and we lose more than 1,000 people each year to drugs in Scotland. Alcohol deaths, too, have hit record highs. We also lose more than 1,000 people each year to alcohol in Scotland, and those, upon statistics, are not just for a year, but they have been at close to record levels for many years. For all that time, the Government has failed to act with enough urgency and enough resources. By Nicola Sturgeon's own admission, the SNP took their eye off the ball. The neglected people's human rights, including the rights of some of the most vulnerable, the lack of action from the Government has left whole families and communities in grief. Today, even now, years after the crisis has begun, the SNP is not doing anywhere near enough. The UK politics was drug and alcohol deaths. Instead of trying to save lives, they focused on creating division within the UK. Any discussion on human rights must include the SNP's horrendous failure to tackle the shameful numbers of lives lost to drug and alcohol addiction, but the motion overlooks and ignores some of our most vulnerable communities. Drug and alcohol deaths are not the only glaring emissions from today's motion. It cites the impact of the pandemic and the cost of living crisis on disabled people. The motion is right to do so. Disabled people have suffered far more than most from Covid and the global cost of living crisis. Where is the mention of human rights failings of the Government during the pandemic? I appreciate the member's contribution. I am not sure that drug and alcohol deaths are specific to the disabled discussion that we are having right now, but, in all seriousness, if we are going to improve the lives and services for disabled people, it takes all parties to come to the table and make suggestions. What have the Tories done for disabled people in the past few years? Balfour has lodged the disability commissioner bill. We support the current adult disability payment motability descriptor to 50 metres. We believe that all people with disabilities should be entitled to the Scottish Government's winter heating payment. We are coming to the table with things, but I think that this is important when we are having a debate as well about human rights today. That is something that is very close to my heart as well. We are talking about the most marginalised and disadvantaged people. I think that people with drug and alcohol addiction are part of that, and we need to support them and show them human rights. Where is the mention of people who had life-saving treatments thought? Where is the mention of the many vulnerable disabled people who were moved out of hospitals without proper respect to their wishes or their family's wishes? Where is the mention of the impact on the transfer of Covid-positive patients to care homes? As my colleagues have said, and as more of them will continue to outline in greater detail, the motion today also neglects to mention the huge numbers of disabled people in Scotland's temporary accommodation. It does not bring up the need to deliver the coming home implementation recommendations for people with complex care needs, and it does not mention the delays and huge number of issues with social security to Scotland. It does not focus on the Government's lack of action to tackle homelessness for disabled people. Those are all gliding emissions of key issues that are well within this Government's power, and too often the SNP wants to praise for the limited amounts that they have done while deflecting all criticism for all the things that they have failed to achieve. In conclusion, today's debate is welcome, but it is a missed opportunity to address key issues facing disabled people and vital elements of human rights law in Scotland. The Government has brought forward a motion that neglects to mention the many instances of failings that disabled people have felt at the hands of this Government. It ignores so many human rights issues in Scotland that deserve to be debated in this Parliament. While we agree on much of the positives in the motion, we are disappointed that it merely seeks to congratulate the Government instead of taking a serious look at actions and how it could improve. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Worldwide, over a billion people are disabled in Scotland, it is well over a million. That is a quarter of our population whose day-to-day activities are limited by disability or a long-term health problem. That is double the world's wide average, but that is actually something to be celebrated. That is hundreds of thousands of children born with disabilities who a few generations ago would not have made it but have. That is hundreds of thousands of adults who have suffered injury or disease who a few generations ago would not have made it but have. That is hundreds of thousands of older adults who would have died of heart disease, stroke or cancer a few generations ago but who are still here. The increase in disability as time goes by is all too clear in the numbers. 11 per cent of children are disabled, but that doubles to 23 per cent for working-age adults. By pension age, it doubles again to 46 per cent and by the time you hit 80, it is over 60 per cent. Many often think about disability as a them and us issue, but it is not. Disability could happen to any of us. Disability is not an exclusive club. You can join it any day and eventually most of us will. For many of us, it is more of a question of how many years we will spend disabled and how many of those years we will spend able-bodied. During your disabled years, do you want to make a meaningful and productive contribution to society? Half of disabled people do not have employment, even though many people want to work. During your disabled years, do you want to be treated with dignity and respect? The half of disabled people who are employed are twice as likely to face discrimination, harassment and bullying in the workplace. During your disabled years, do you want to be warm and well fed? Half of disabled people cannot afford their heating and three quarters of households who use a food bank have a disabled family member. We all know what we want for ourselves now and in our futures, but what we should be doing is looking to improve the lives for today's disabled people and getting it right for all in the future. The upcoming human rights bill, which will include disability rights and will seek to incorporate the UN convention of the rights of persons with disabilities into Scots law, is a good thing. That is a vital and urgent step, shown by the comments of the UN's special rapporteur, who said that the UK is failing its international obligations on fundamental economic and social rights. Although we are limited by the failing UK framework, we must do all that we can within the limits of devolution. Social security is a human right, it is here for all of us, or should be here for all of us, should we need it. Disabled people should have access to the support that they need to lead full and independent lives. Although the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament cannot shield disabled people totally from the UK Government's plans to cut benefits by £4 billion, things such as the adult disability payment, the child disability payment and the carer support payment from Social Security Scotland are making a real difference. We also need to focus our efforts on those who need it the most. 41 per cent of children living in poverty come from a household with a disabled family member. The Scottish child payment provides targeted help to those families. The independent living fund provides focus support for young adults making the transition from childhood to adulthood. The fund, since opening, has delivered £12 million via 6,500,000 transition fund grants to more than 5,000 young disabled people. It is not just about funding. We need a joined-up system, and the Scottish Government will soon publish the first national transitions to adulthood strategy, making the transition journey a smoother and more positive one. We have heard in this debate about listening to the voices of lived experience, and that is something that we must all do. As a minister, I did so and spent a lot of time listening to disabled people, hearing about the difficulties that they faced and what they needed to make their lives better. I am quite sure that Ms Roddick is doing exactly the same. I want independence for my country, but I also want all Scots to be able to lead independent lives, including all of our disabled citizens. We must make their independence a reality. The Scottish Parliament rightly always recognises the international day of disabled people, and we should be very proud of that, but this year has a marked and significant change for two reasons. Firstly, for the first time, this day of recognition is not just celebrated as a member's debate, but instead as a full Government debate. I want to put on record my thanks to the Government for bringing it forward and ensuring that this Parliament has a full afternoon to address the issues of key importance, not just to disabled people but to Scotland. The significance of doing so cannot be understated. Secondly, last weekend we held the first-ever summit, celebrating the international day of disabled people here in the chamber. It was an absolute privilege to look out to the Benches and see them filled to the brim with disabled people, their organisations and their allies, with many more running online. It was an incredibly special moment, and I cannot express my thanks enough to my colleague Jeremy Balfour, the presiding officers and their team, and the staff of this Parliament for making it happen and ensuring that it was a warm, welcoming and celebratory event that everyone enjoyed. I have always said that there should be nothing about us without us. Indeed, we have heard it this afternoon, and I have fought to make sure that that is the case during my time in this Parliament. The event made it clear to the disability movement and that this place belongs to them too—our Parliament belongs to them too, and I hope that in years to come we will see more of that. Colleagues, the international day of disabled people was first declared back in 1992, when I was just 11, just over 30 years later, and the world has changed in some ways quite significantly. Barriers, structural ones, have been torn down by legislative change, and I want to take a moment to recognise the work of my party in this context, and specifically the Labour Government of the early 2000s, which introduced working tax credits to support disabled people to get back to work, the quality act, which enshrined our rights to be treated equally in domestic legislation, and, of course, signing us up to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled People. The Scottish Government, too, has made progress, including in the Self-Directed Support Act, which gave us a right to direct our own care in 2013, reopening of the ILEF, although it has taken too long to do so, and signing up to the definition of independent living that recognises that living independently is not about living on your own or fending for yourself, it's about having the rights to practical assistance and so forth to lead an ordinary, or indeed extraordinary, life. Those changes have been a life changing for disabled people, and I say that from my own experience, as well as from what I've heard from the movement. But the job is not yet done. Too many barriers still exist, and there is much more work to do. There is never time to be complacent or self-congratulatory. Disabled people are still disproportionately more likely to be in poverty, have lower incomes but higher living costs, and the consequences of not being able to make ends meet can be life limited, not just threatening our right to thrive but to survive. It's becoming increasingly harder for disabled people to pay for care that they rely on, too. In April this year, Glasgow City Health and Social Care partnership hiked up charges for people requiring norm residential social care, with Government law centre estimating that some people could face a 65 per cent increase. One woman from Glasgow said to researchers that I always feel like the damnically sword is above my head as my care plan has not been reassessed since July 22, and I have had many care changes. My care contribution has been increased by £42 a week, but my increase with working-tiles credit and PIP is only £18.93 a week. I already cut my budget in half because of utility bills, and now I am very stressed. That should not be happening, least of all in Scotland, but the Government said years ago that we would end non-residential charges. An accessible transport means that we cannot move freely around either. In accessible transport means that we often have to rely on cars or taxis instead, putting ourselves significantly out of pocket. Even where we can afford it, taxis and cars are becoming more of a struggle. Members will have heard me talk about concerns from Glasgow where disabled people feel left behind in the journey to net zero. The subway is not accessible for wheelchair users. Buses can only take one wheelchair or a programme at a time, and train travel requires a lot of forward planning. Now, as a result of a hastily implemented emissions zone in the city, black cabs that we turn to instead are now slowly disappearing from the streets. It is not just a freedom of movement where travelling is a problem. There is a lack of properly accessible affordable homes too. The challenges that we face as a group have been called the human catastrophe by the UN Committee on the UNCRPD. The Scottish Human Rights Commission has warned that the Scottish Government has not done enough to realise disabled people's human rights. All of us in this chamber and other chambers should heed that today, tomorrow and every day thereafter. Against this backdrop, we and those benches are deeply concerned that disabled people's organisations believe that the gap in political leadership has led to disabled people feeling deprioritised and dehumanised at a time when there should be a focus of our Government. It is why I do not think that the Government's motion today goes far enough in recognising the challenges that we face. That backdrop is also why I make no apologies for being disappointed that failure has not been implemented, frustrated at delays to the immediate priorities plan, which are no longer immediate, overdue and angry that the Government has not yet ended non-residential charges. It does not have to be this way. With bold and swift action, we can make Scotland the land of opportunity for disabled people. I know what it can be. That starts on school, yet, of course, we are failing at large numbers of disabled pupils. More than a third of pupils in Scotland identify as having an additional support need, yet ASN supports in decline. We need to fix that, and we need to ensure that children have the support that they need to thrive and reach their full potential. That also means that we have to help them properly to prepare to leave education, and we heard how badly we are failing them during the debate on my transition bill last month. I cannot express my disappointment that the Government and others chose not to support that bill and give all young disabled people a right to a transition plan, but I said then that I will reiterate it now. I will not let the issue be forgotten. I will continue to hold the feet to the fire on this, and I will not stop fighting for change until we make a difference. It is on that note that I would like to close. Despite all of the negative odds, over the past 30 years, disabled people and our allies have shifted the dial. We have pushed open doors, and we have changed laws when Governments have been bold enough to do so. Sometimes the fight can feel endless. Our achievements come despite the challenges. The wins have come because we have refused to give up. We will keep pushing forward for our goal of human rights and transformation, and we in this place have to have the courage and ambition to stand beside them. I want to end with a message to disabled people right across Scotland. Be proud, be vocal, you have rights, keep fighting. It might take time, it will take effort and you can be sure that it will take a lot of hard graft, but I know that our movement is not scared of that, and I promise that for as long as I am in this place, I and my party, for you, your fight will be our fight. There will be nothing about us. Thank you, Ms Duncan-Fancy. I now call Karen Adam to be followed by Martin Whitfield. It is a privilege to be able to talk on this subject today. It is no secret to this chamber that campaigning for human rights is a deep passion of mine, mostly because of the experiences that I have had throughout my own life and in the lives of those that I love. I honestly have to pinch myself some days in the knowledge that I have the privilege of being a member of the human rights equalities and civil justice committee, a role that I deeply appreciate having. I wholeheartedly support this motion, and in particular the importance to understand the dire consequences that the Covid-19 pandemic and the cost of living crisis have had and continue to have on human rights for all of us, but the impact is exceptionally significant on the lives of those living with disabilities. Therefore, the reopening of the independent living fund, along with a commitment to develop and implement an immediate priorities plan for disabled people, marks a significant step forward, and it is heartening to see the Scottish Government taking concrete actions to address those pressing issues, reinforcing our ambition to lead the world in human rights realisation. The challenges faced by people with disabilities are not just financial, they are societal. They affect access to public services, general mobility and connectivity, community cohesion and consequently the basic human interactions that we need for our health and wellbeing. It is a challenge that without adequate support can leave a person feeling isolated and abandoned in a world in which they should feel belonging. There is one aspect of this motion that resonates with me in particular, and it is the acknowledgement of the need for social and cultural rights for people with disabilities. As the Parliament knows, my father is deaf, and this has shaped my understanding of specific aspects needed for a whole person approach to disabilities. I was raised alongside deaf children and codas children of deaf adults like myself. I have to agree with my colleague Kate Forbes in her comments on dignity and having less patronising attitudes as an interpreter for my father over the years that has been enlightening and not in a great way when faced with ignorance in many aspects of society. I was surrounded by a community that was visually vibrant and expressive. To paint a picture of the deaf club in Aberdeen, it was a place of drama clubs, sports clubs. It was held in an incredible building with shelves of trophies and pictures of successes adorning the walls. There was an integrated church in a large kitchen that was used regularly for events, snooker tables, bowling mats, a stage in a hall where signing musical shows and comedy shows were held and performed by deaf people and hearing people alike. Deaf people from all over the UK would come to visit and participate in these events, and I particularly loved meeting deaf Santa there one year as a wee girl. This was a haven for deaf people where they weren't just supported, they were given the tools to support themselves and they ran with it. It was a thriving community with a beautiful language. Sadly, this club had to close its doors over a decade ago, and I hope that we can realise the importance of community spaces like this, that inclusion in the wider world is important, but equally so is ensuring safe spaces where communities can gather and organise. The beautiful language that I speak of, Presiding Officer BSL, was one that my dad would be physically punished for using when he was a wee boy in the 1950s. He was forced to conform to the idealised version of an able-bodied person, a language that his parents and peers supported him to learn and watched him thrive, often being one of the funniest actors in the comedy shows, according to me. I often think of what it must have been like for my wee dad back in the 1950s. And with my interactions with deaf charities and stakeholders, the conversation often revolves around the need for early and effective support for deaf children. Ensuring that those children have access to the necessary language and communication skills is crucial for the development of future success. That aligns with the broader goal of disability equality, where equal opportunities are provided to all children regardless of their abilities. Today's motion with its emphasis on equality of opportunity and the inclusion of social and cultural rights is a step towards bridging the gap between the disabled and the able-bodied. By incorporating international human rights conventions into Scots law, particularly those recognised in sign languages and deaf culture, we are making our society more inclusive and richer. As we move forward, it is crucial that we continue to engage with and listen to the disabled community. Their insights and expertise are invaluable in shaping policies that truly address their needs and aspirations. This approach ensures that our efforts are not just top-down but informed by those who are directly impacted by our decision. Enshrining those rights will not only make our society and culture more accessible, but all together richer from the inclusion of deaf people, of people with experiences different to our own, from which we can learn and appreciate. I am sure that all of us in the chamber have a keen desire to be a part of the solutions for improving the lives of disabled folk in Scotland. It is certainly one of my own core aspirations for being here. In closing, I am proud to support this motion and the principles that it stands for by celebrating disability equality and human rights. We are not just complying with international standards, we are working towards a society where every individual is valued, respected and given the opportunity to thrive. This motion is a testament to our commitment to creating a Scotland that is inclusive, just and equitable for all. Most important of all, realising those rights will help to deliver dignity for all those living with disabilities in Scotland. After all, my childhood was not impaired by having a deaf father. It was enriched, and I hope that that enrichment can be felt across Scotland and beyond.


Good morning. Welcome to CMC Markets on Friday the 6th of October and this quick look at the week ahead beginning the 9th of October with me, Michael Hueson. It's been a tough week for markets, concerns, over rising yields have kept investors predominantly on the back foot this week. And I think the big question at the moment is whether or not this continued sharp rise in long-term yields is likely to continue. Well, that certainly seems to be the big question that has been basically dominating market sentiment this week. Obviously, US economic data has probably been more good than bad. And ultimately, I think it's a good idea if we look at why markets have been freaking out so far this week. So let's start with the US 10 year yield. Now US 10 year yield has been predominantly moving higher for quite some time now. You can probably predate the rises from the changing guidance on the Fed minutes all the way back at the end of September around about the 21st of September. When the Fed altered its guidance round about here for the number of rate cuts, it was pricing in for 2024. And it revised its Fed funds rate expectations up from 4.6 percent to 5.1 which obviously prompted a big move higher in the longer end of the yield curve. If we look at, say, for example, the 10 year here, we've gone pretty much from 4.5 percent to 4.75 percent on the 10 year and to the highest level since 2007. Compare that to what's happened with the two year and while we have made marginal new highs, the move up hasn't been anywhere near as extreme relative to the previous peaks of earlier this year. So if you then basically extrapolate that out into the inversion, the current inversion in the yield curve, which we've seen pretty much for all of this year, at some point that yield curve will need to un-invert. And I think it's basically how it un-inverts, which has really been driving sentiment so far these past few weeks, because obviously we've got we've seen much higher oil prices. Oil prices have gone significantly higher since the lows in June gone from around about $70 a barrel to $95 a barrel. And that obviously has also started to get priced in to the way yields have started to move over the course of the past few days. On the basis of the fact that I think people are thinking that inflation is likely to remain not only higher for longer, but also become an awful lot more entrenched. Even though the evidence that we've seen thus far is that the rising oil prices that we've seen over the course of the past three months has been fairly limited. Certainly, I think at the front end, in terms of when I say the front end, at the coal face as regards to consumers, obviously they feel at the first in terms of filling up the petrol tank. And obviously that erodes disposable income over the course of the past three months and probably will continue to do so as we head in. But the hope is that might wash out. We've seen a big, big fall in oil prices so far this week. And I think perhaps the fact that we've seen that big fall in oil prices may be accounts for the fact that we've seen this sharp fall in the 10 year yield from levels just below 4.9 percent to current levels, 4.74 percent right now. So I think the main question, I think the main question is, how does this here un-invert? Because it will un-invert and for a stock market friendly scenario for this to un-invert what we would ideally like to see is a fall in the two year yield and not a sharp rise in longer term yields. So essentially what markets are concerned about is this. If we start to move towards 5 percent, go to 5.25 percent and two year yields also continue to go higher. There is a concern that that can increase financial stress in the financial system. And in so doing obviously un-invert the yield curve, but not in a way that is likely to particularly be market friendly. To be market friendly, we'd want to see a sharp fall in the two year yield back towards the 10 year yield. But without the 10 year yield going up significantly above where two year yields currently are at the moment. So a softening in two year and resilience in five and 30 years is an ideal scenario. If they remain around about 5 percent and two year drops to around about 4.75, 4.80. That would probably be a fairly benign scenario for stock markets. Anything other than that. And you're going to find that the markets are going to be very sensitive to that. So we've got non-farm payrolls later today. The jobs data thus far has shown little sign of a significant slowdown. And obviously that's raising expectations. The Fed's going to go by another 25 basis points on the 1st of November. And that's predominantly I think why we've seen the dollar move higher this week. And we've seen yields move higher this week. It's basically higher for longer. And that obviously is that's obviously helping in the context of the U.S. economy being probably the better of all the economies out there right now. So let's look at some of the key support levels on the markets this week after the declines that we've seen in the first part of the week. Once again, FTSE 100, pretty much nothing to see here. Still fairly decent support at around the 7200 area. Obviously, we have a little bit of interim support around 7375. So keeping an eye on that in terms of valuations, I'm certainly much less concerned about a big slide in the FTSE 100, even accounting for the big fall in the oil prices that we saw earlier this week. Let's have a quickly look at Brent, because I think what we've seen so far this week is encouraging, I think, not in terms of obviously the outlook for demand, but in terms of affordability when it comes to consumer incomes, I think consumer spending. I think if this trend lower continues, we could see oil head back towards $80 a barrel, which is probably eminently more bearable than, say, 95 or 100. Though OPEC Plus is probably going to have a great deal to say about that, given the fact that they've extended their production cuts and confirmed their production cuts until the end of this year. But there are concerns about demand destruction. And I think part of that is behind the reason that we've seen this sharp fall over the course of the past few days with oil posting its biggest one day fall this year and since September last year. So have a keep a close on the 50 percent retracement of this up move, which is around about $84 a barrel and below that at $81.50. But the hope is that potentially we've seen a short term peak in oil prices. And consequently, we could well see us start to range trade between 80 and 90 dollars a barrel over the course of the rest of the year. In terms of the DAX, nothing much has changed here. Last week, I talked about the fact that we broke below the 200 day moving average and we broke below $15,480 that has continued to act as resistance. We've traded below it towards $14,800. Obviously, we haven't come back to the lows that we saw back in March. But there is a risk that we could continue to do so, particularly if rate expectations continue to remain at their currently elevated levels, what's also a little bit concerning is that we are starting to see a roll over the average for the 200 day. I'm not overly concerned at the moment of a crossover here. We're going to get a crossover here for the 200 day moving average. It's still pointing upwards. And ultimately, when we see a death cross on the 50 and 200 ideally, what we want to be seeing is the 200 day either flat or starting to slope lower at around about the same time as the 50 day. This is not a strong signal of negativity. But that's not to say that we're not in a downtrend now. We are. We've got major resistance of $15,480, $15,500. And we need to break above that to break the current negative cycle on the DAX. The S&P 500 is at a big level as well. This week has touched a key level, the 200 day moving average. I'm keeping a very close eye on that. The 4,200 area, if we break below 4,200, there's a fairly decent chance we could see a sharp move lower down to around about 4150. And certainly, I think the levels that we saw at the end of May have around about 4,100. So we're on the cusp of a potential breakdown here. Again, 4,300 is the resistance level on the upside that we need to overcome to break the cycle of negativity when it comes to the S&P 500. And a lot could depend on today's non-farm payrolls report. A good report could actually be negative for stocks positive for yields. So ultimately, I think what we're hoping for is a fairly softish report for non-farm payrolls in line with the softish report that we got from ADP. OK, looking at quickly have a look at the NASDAQ. Similar sort of story, very decent support in and around 14,340. Is this the potential irregular, head and shoulders, reversal, triple top, whatever you want to call it? There is a decent chance that if this support level breaks, we could see a test of the 200 day moving average. It's interesting to know how well the NASDAQ 100 has managed to hold up given the rise that we've seen in yields. But a large part, I think, of the resilience around the NASDAQ 100 is largely around the resilience of the Magnificent Seven, those Magnificent Seven stocks of Amazon, Facebook, Meta Platforms, as is Alphabet, Apple, Tesla, Nvidia. They still remain fairly resilient. Certainly earlier this week, 60% of the NASDAQ were actually down on the day. But the NASDAQ actually managed to finish in positive territory. So that sort of tells you something in terms of how the NASDAQ is being supported.  So that's certainly worth keeping an eye out for, particularly if we get a break to the downside. So we've got obviously payrolls today. Next week is also a big week for markets because we have the US CPR report for September. And we have started to see a tick up in headline inflation in the US. We hit lows in June of 3%. We're currently at 3.7%. But don't get too hung up on the headline number. A large part of the reason the headline number has been higher since June has been as a consequence of the rally that we've seen in crude oil prices and gasoline prices at the pump. Core prices are still trending lower. And I think that's really where you now need to start to focus your attention if you haven't already been doing that. Core inflation is still trending lower. And in August, that fell to 4.3%. And that is expected to slow to 4.1% in the September numbers. We've also got USPPI next week. So pay particular attention to that, given the fact that that has also started to show a little bit of a pick up in the past few months on the headline rate, but on the core rate still remains trending lower. We've also got Fed Minutes. Fed Minutes likely to be fairly interesting in the overall scheme of things, just as a quick reminder as to what the Fed decided at its last meeting. They raised their 2024 rate guidance but a Fed funds rate to 5.1 from 4.6%. So we talked about that earlier. It also revised its guidance for 2023 GDP higher to 2.1%, as well as it's revising its unemployment guidance lower to 3.8% for year end. So against that much more resilient economy, that is essentially why we've seen the move higher in yields. And really now it's becoming ever more incumbent on what the data does as to whether or not we can expect to see a Fed rate hike in November. Next week's CPI reports. Today's payrolls report are going to be very, very key in that regard. And at the moment, markets are pricing in around about a 25, 30% possibility of a rate hike in November. So the data over the course of the next few days is likely to be critical as to whether or not that number goes higher or lower. We've also got China. China is back in the markets this week. They've been off for Golden Week holiday. Which means that we haven't really had any sort of steer when it comes to the resilience of Chinese equity markets. Yes, we've had the Hang Seng. The Hang Seng has been under pressure this week and is probably likely to remain so. And we've got China trade and China CPI this week for September. And certainly in terms of China CPI inflation, that has been very weak in over the course of the past 12 months, slipped into deflation in July, although we have seen a modest uptick in headline CPI then since then to 0.1%. PPI on the other hand has been a negative territory since October last year. So we'll see whether or not that trend starts to change in the September numbers. Exports and imports are likely to remain in negative territory. And I think the ability for Chinese authorities to stimulate further is being, I think, fairly is being limited by the fact that their property sector, they still need to deal with the problems inherent in that. Let's have a quick look at the currencies. Euro dollar still very much in a downtrend. We can see that here. Found a little bit of a base in and around 104.50. There's big, big support at 104.06. What I've done is I've taken the lows back in September 2022 from the highs earlier this year and calculated some FIB levels for you. So the 50% at 104.05 is likely to be a very, very big number, as is obviously this downtrend line from those peaks back in July. And this peak from last Friday, Friday the 29th of September, at 106.11, 106.20. So we need to break above 106.20 on Euro dollar to break the downward cycle. But we also need to break this downtrend line here to signal that perhaps we are probably going to see a turnaround in sentiment at the moment. The sentiment for the dollar still remains predominantly positive going forward. Let's quickly talk about dolly yen, because dolly yen saw a really big plunge lower earlier this week on purported intervention from the Bank of Japan. Thus far, we've seen no evidence that the Bank of Japan did intervene. Certainly, I think in terms of the data published by the BOJ, there's no evidence that they actually sold dollars. But sometimes intervention is less about the actual physical act and more about just picking up the phone and checking levels. And I think that's probably what happened when we moved above 150 this week. Someone at the Ministry of Finance, somebody at the Bank of Japan picked up the phone to various banks to check levels on dolly yen. Well, it was certainly effective because we saw a big spike down to 147.35, coinciding with those series of lows in and around there. That's the next key support for dolly yen. If we break below that level there, then we could well signal that a top is in. But the fact that we rebounded so strongly would appear to suggest that at the moment, the bias remains for buying dolly yen on dips irrespective of what the Bank of Japan might be looking to say or do. Until they actually come in and clump the market, it's going to be it's going to make for a very difficult calculation to make as to whether or not we've seen a top in dolly yen. We've also got UK GDP for August next week. Again, we've seen a fairly decent rebound on cable from these series of lows around about 120, 120.35. 120 is always going to be a little bit of a support level round number on what have you and has acted as a fairly decent pivot in the past. So, you know, I think as long as we can hold above 120, we can certainly get a squeeze back to 123. And that's what we really do need to overcome. 123 to signal that a short term base is in. If we can get back above that, then we can certainly retest the 200 day moving average. But again, the trend here for sterling is probably less positive than it was, say, for example, a few weeks ago. As I say, the UK economy is in much better shape than perhaps an awful lot of people thought it was in light of the recent updates from the Office of National Statistics to their GDP methodology. We've discovered that actually the UK economy is outperformed both Germany and France since 2020, which is obviously undermined a political narrative that the UK economy had been a basket case since Brexit. I mean, you know, I'm one of the first to criticise the current numpties in charge of fiscal fiscal policy, the politicians and what have you. But the challenges facing the UK aren't that much different to those being faced in Europe in coherent energy policy. Is Germany shutting down its nuclear power stations? I mean, what's all that about and reopening coal power stations? Yeah, you know, really joined up thinking there. But we haven't got off to a good start in Q3. And when it comes to monthly GDP, we saw a contraction of 0.5 percent in July, the hope which of which reverse the 0.5 percent game we saw in June. So I think what we've got to see here for August is hopefully we'll see a modest rebound of, say, for example, 0.2 percent. At the same time, is obviously we saw a sharper than expected slowdown in headline CPI. So maybe that offered a little bit of a modest boost to consumption patterns during the summer holidays. In terms of earnings, it's going to we're kicking off US earnings season. We've got the banks, the US banks, which are all out on Friday. There have been concerns, obviously, about the US banking system, particularly the regional banking system, since the blow up in March. Those haven't gone away. There are still concerns about that. JPMorgan notwithstanding, which, you know, and JPMorgan has continued to set itself apart from its US peers. But even here, we're at a fairly key support level on the JPMorgan Chase share price, holding above the 200 day moving average for the time being expected to announce Q3 numbers is Q2 numbers were a record. Record revenues of 42, just over $42 billion blowing through expectations, $39.3 billion. And profits of $4.75 cents a share or $14.5 billion. That was a 67% increase from a year ago. The bank at the time also raised its guidance for net interest income for the year to $87 billion as the gap between loans and deposits margins blew out even further. For simply, JPMorgan has more deposits than he knows what to do with. And so far, it remains the biggest winner. But you can from the from the the March regional banking crisis compare that, however, to Citigroup and it's a completely different story. Citigroup is undergoing a major restructuring process with just above this series of lows back in October 2022 and could be on the cusp of breaking lower. CEO, Jane Fraser is in the middle of yet another restructuring program. Job losses. Let's not forget she's been in charge since 2021. The bank has already shared 5,000 positions year to date and probably is going to be shedding a hell of a lot more. She's stripping away layers of senior management. Last year, Citigroup said they would focus on five key business areas, including wealth management, investment, banking, five senior managers will be overseeing these two areas along with trading services and retail, all of which would report to her. Q2 revenues weren't great. They slow to nineteen point four billion dollars. That's one nine point four billion dollars and profits of dollar thirty three cents a share decline in revenues was down one percent from a year ago and was a nine percent decline from Q1. So the business is definitely struggling. And staff costs is probably the first area where Fraser is probably going to be taking a scalpel to and is taking a scalpel to. There's certainly higher staff costs as a percentage of income than the likes of JPMorgan Chase. Anyway, Q3 revenues, the forecast to come at nineteen point two billion profits of a dollar twenty one cents a share. And at the last set of numbers, Citigroup reaffirmed its four year forecast of seventy eight to seventy nine billion dollars in revenue. And expenses of fifty four billion dollars. So it'd be interesting to see whether or not those numbers get tweaked. Last but not least, we've also got Wells Fargo. So keep an eye on that. But we've got easy jets numbers, fairly light on numbers when it comes to UK earnings. We've got easy jets, fourth quarter numbers. Love them or hate them. They've actually been doing fairly well over the course of the process. Last few quarters, easy jet holidays is continuing to generate some fairly decent profits. Group revenue in Q3 rose thirty four percent, two point three six billion dollars. Fuel costs were higher by forty percent, while costs were also higher by seven percent. So the expectation for Q4 is revenues to come in three point two billion pounds. Did I say dollars in the last one? I think it should have been pounds. Three point two billion pounds, while pretext profits are expected to surge to six hundred and ninety one million pounds. So all in all, the numbers look good. Shame about the trust pilot scores. But hey, never mind. Anyway, that's that's a quick summary of what's coming up over the course of the next few days. As I say, non-farm payrolls is likely to have a big say as to what happens next with two equity markets, but a resilient payrolls report and a sticky inflation number could well see stock markets move lower. We want to see a softening of the labor market and a softening of inflation. Anyway, that's it for this week. Thanks very much for listening. It's Michael Cusin talking to you from CMC Markets.