���˿���

I will add to that before Stephen Kerr comes back in. Schools and the structures around young disabled people now are probably contending with that exact question. For example, everyone can see that I am a disabled person, so there is no hiding—not that I would ever want to do that, actually; I am proud of my identity. However, with impairments that you cannot see, there is always the question of how we know someone is a disabled person.

Schools are already asking those questions, because they have to identify the young people in order to work with them. There are various mechanisms that they can use to do that. They can ask what support people need and they can look at whether a diagnosis is in place. Of course, that gets us into waiting times, which is a whole other question, and it goes back to Graeme Dey’s point about the number of current problems and how we will address them. Ultimately, that will need to be looked at.

Therefore, those questions are not new as a result of the definition that we use in the bill. The purpose of the definition in the bill is to put a focus specifically on people who have that protected characteristic, in recognition of the fact that they are significantly oppressed and discriminated against.

Excellent—I will be quick.

On that final point, all the things that I outlined in relation to scrutiny—the assignment of ministerial responsibility, the laying before Parliament of the annual report, the review of plans, and the review of the strategy—will sharpen the focus to make sure that, if we are doing the right thing on the ground, we will know that we are, because we are asking people about it.

We know that young people in school have access to pastoral care teachers—they were called guidance teachers in my day—and that existing structures are in place to support them. For example, staff from Skills Development Scotland engage with special and state schools. There are existing structures, which should be treating all young people equally, including young disabled people, but the statistics show that they are not doing that yet. We are saying that the bill contains a mechanism to focus attention on and address some of that.

I reassure the committee that I have not closed my ears and eyes to a different perspective on finance. I say that on the basis of my earlier comment about the costs for local authorities. The last thing that anyone wants to do is land local authorities with duties that they do not have the financial support to back up, but I contend that such support is Government’s responsibility.

We must remember two comments. I contend that good transitions would be a form of good support, and the National Audit Office said that good support could save £1 million per person—I repeat: £1 million per person. Even if we take our estimate of the cost and COSLA’s estimate and the £5 million extra, we would only have to get it right for five people to make a longer-term saving for the state.

Secondly, the Law Society of Scotland said that

“the wider costs of inaction would be greater in comparison to the costs of implementation”.

It is in the context of those two statements that I approach the question of the financial memorandum.

I suggest that scrutiny is part of the problem. It goes back to one of my earlier answers on having a minister with special responsibility for transitions, having the strategy lead in Parliament, and having a reporting period so that people know that there will be a point at which they can scrutinise the development of the process.

Right now, we do not have a strategy to address transitions. I know that the Government is producing one, and I welcome that, but we need it in legislation because we cannot just leave it in manifesto commitments that may or may not ever be enacted or that exist only while a certain well-intentioned, passionate member of the Cabinet drives it forward. We need to legislate. That is incredibly important.

There also needs to be an opportunity for people to hold ministers to account on that. That is what the bill would specifically provide. That does not exist in other pieces of legislation.

Forgive me for looking at my notes for this bit so that I get the sections right. Section 1, which is on the national transitions strategy, would provide a clear reference point to local authorities and other agencies. It says that the aims and objectives and outcomes need to be set out—those are important—as well as the actions that authorities will need to take to meet the aims that ministers think will be “necessary to improve transitions”. The effect of having something like that in legislation cannot be overestimated.

Section 4 says that local authorities and other agencies would have a statutory duty when exercising their functions to comply with the strategy. That is another point at which you would be able to scrutinise the way in which the plans were being developed.

Section 6 says that a member of the Government or a minister would be assigned responsibility for the act. We have changed the language in this version of the bill from the previous version to take into account some concerns of previous committees.

Section 9 says:

“A local authority must ensure that each disabled child or young person ... receives the care and support necessary to meet the needs ... in the ... plan.”

Section 14 says:

“The Scottish Ministers may issue guidance”

about transitions, and that local authorities and agencies “must have regard” to it.

Section 15 says:

“The Scottish Ministers may issue general or specific directions about ... plans”,

and section 16 would require ministers to lay before Parliament an annual report on progress.

All those things do not yet exist, but they would add the scrutiny that young disabled people and their families really need. People can come to me and to all of us as parliamentarians and say—we have all heard this—“I am tearing my hair out. My young person is leaving school next week and nothing is in place.” This morning, I heard exactly that story. Somebody with significant support needs is now stuck at home. They have already left school, and nothing is yet in place. They do not have an adult social worker in place.

People come to us, and we say that we will put pressure on. We do what we can—we write letters, we have meetings, and we call people. However, when we look at what duties and responsibilities people have, we see that they are not clear and that they are not as robust as those in the bill are. We need to change that.

I appreciate that question, and I recognise your passion for the subject. In fact, all the members from whom we have heard so far have that passion. I welcome the support and energy around the subject.

The implementation gap, which is one of the first matters that Ruth Maguire asked about, is crucial. We can all point to a lot of legislation that still needs to be implemented. I understand that. I see that and, when it comes to disabled people, I have seen it for decades. Justice and access to justice for disabled people are a serious concern. I will talk in a minute about the ways in which the bill addresses some of that and is enforceable.

I recognise the work that is being done on whether we need qualifications for additional support teachers and how we encourage good practice. There is also the awards system for schools that recognises good practice in education and the journey that young disabled people have travelled. All of that is on-going and should continue. The bill does not stop any of it.

I have seen, time and again—particularly when it comes to disabled people, but the same is true for all the different protected characteristics—that, if we leave improvement to accident and default, we end up defaulting to a situation in which society discriminates against and oppresses a large group of people: disabled people. We have to fix the process by design. We cannot leave it to accident any more, and that design, I believe, should involve looking at the various different bits of legislation that exist.

Ross Greer pointed out that the co-ordinated support plan is not the same as the transitions plan. It is not. It was developed for a different purpose. The bill is developed for a specific purpose, and it is about transition.

There are two points here. The first is whether the current legislative framework is right. I do not believe that it is, and neither do a number of organisations, including the Law Society of Scotland and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, so we need to change that. That is what I am trying to do with the bill, but we always have to change practice because, as Graeme Dey pointed out, there is good practice in places, but there is also some pretty poor practice that we need to shine a light on and address. I contend that the bill sharpens the mind and the focus on that by putting it into legislation, being much clearer, and taking a one child, one plan approach.

Absolutely. That is the situation that disabled people face. I have a quotation from Audit Scotland that speaks to that. In a blog on transitions, it said:

“It’s distressing and frustrating that we repeatedly hear of the barriers that some families fight against to get the right support to help their child to learn. Too often, families are worn down by a prolonged search for the right support, and by having to manage a crisis that could have and should have been avoided.”

It went on to note:

“Councils provide support in different ways, with a wide variation in spending ... This partly reflects the different ways services are provided and the varying costs of supporting individuals—but”—

this point is crucial—

“may also reflect local decisions by councils to prioritise between a wide range of services.”

Therefore, Audit Scotland recognises the position of councils.

I should put on record that councils are in a horrific position right now—I in no way underestimate that. Now is not the time to get into the budget, because I could be here for another three hours if we were to touch on that. However, you hit the nail on the head when you made the point about councils really struggling to meet just their statutory responsibilities. I cannot tell you how often disabled people face the argument that “It’s not an obligation, so we don’t have to do it.” Social care is an example of that. Eligibility criteria get stripped back and stripped back until people are literally doing the only thing that they have to do, which is keep people alive. That is the situation that we are trying to avoid with the bill for transitions for young disabled people.

Bob Doris speaks to a very real and live concern. The fact that we are meeting this morning as teachers are striking does not escape me. It is fair to note that more is being asked of teachers and additional support needs assistants in schools and that there are, in fact, fewer of them than there used to be, which is part of the problem.

I go back to my earlier comment: it is absolutely not my intention to put something in place that burdens people, with them not having the resources or capacity to deal with the issue. Part of the problem with the implementation gap, which Ruth Maguire mentioned at the start of this morning’s evidence session, is exactly that.

I also argue that one reason why teachers are striking today relates to the additional stress that they experience from supporting all young people, including young disabled people, in their classes.

I thank Ruth Maguire for that question.

There are a number of reasons for the implementation gap, and you have highlighted some of them. They include issues around culture, education and support, training, awareness raising and resources. Crucially, however, policy is driven by legislation, and I believe that the current policy and legislative framework is not driving the change that we need. I will take a moment to talk through the current structures and why I do not think that they are what we need right now. The Scottish Government’s own literature review, which was published this week, recognised that there have been significant failures across guidance and, indeed, in implementation.

The Fraser of Allander Institute reflected that transitions do not need to be difficult if they are well planned and well managed. However, the evidence suggests that that is rarely the case. The Royal College of Occupational Therapists told the committee:

“Everyone feels that they are working in crisis mode at the moment, which means that transitions and long-term planning are taking a step back.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 1 February 2023; c 32.]

That highlights one of the serious concerns about implementation. When the going gets tough, it is always disabled people who end up having to get going. We have seen that happen through various different economic crises, including the Covid-19 pandemic and the current cost of living crisis. We know, therefore, that the implementation gap exists, but we also know that, when it is not a statutory duty to provide something for disabled people, it is not provided. That is the stark reality of the society that we are living in. We really need the legislation to drive the policy.

The Law Society agrees. It has said that a national transitions strategy would contribute to achieving all

“the rights accorded by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by ensuring that all relevant policies and planning—as well as individual planning—achieves that purpose.”

It went on to say:

“we would suggest that significant improvement is unlikely to be achieved without legislative measures.”

Much of that rests in the legislative structure created by the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. The 2004 act provides for a co-ordinated support plan to be made available. We know that very few people get a co-ordinated support plan, but we also know that the transitions plans that would be covered by the legislation are limited in nature, given the purpose of the co-ordinated support plan. They focus only on education, and they are not deliberately targeted at disabled people, whom the bill is intended to support.

We recognise that there is a significant underrepresentation of disabled people in employment and those going on to positive destinations. The bill seeks to address that group of people and to support them. The statutory guidance locates the planning process within the 2004 act and within a child’s plan, but the part of the legislation that contained the child’s plan was repealed in 2019, which left a huge gap in provision. The duties in the 2004 act cover all pupils with additional support needs, but that is limited by the words “think fit (if any)”, and the local authority might not think it fit to exchange information or to put in place a plan for a young disabled person.

It is a different group of people that we are looking to support under the bill. We are looking to address the significant discrimination and oppression faced by a group of people who have a protected characteristic and who are disabled people under the Equality Act 2010. The duties and regulations in the 2004 act are caveated in that they apply

“only in relation to such children and young persons as the authority consider appropriate.”

The review of co-ordinated support plans, which comes under the 2004 act, considered that there is a need for clarity in the relationship between those plans, child plans and other plans. In fact, the review suggested a one child, one plan approach, and I contend that the bill would deliver that.

The point that you ended on, about bringing in legislation to support that and make it happen, is key. As I said in my earlier answer, possibly to Stephen Kerr or Graeme Dey—forgive me, I cannot remember who it was—about putting the principles into practice, there are opportunities for us to say what is working really well and what is not working. There are lots of things that we can do to improve the practice on the ground—of course there are. However, ultimately, legislation drives policy and policy drives practice—or it should, as I think we all know. That is why I believe that we need to look at this.

On the points that you have just made—about the practitioner saying that it is just another plan in a pile, that there are lots of other plans and that it is all a bit much, so we should perhaps just focus on what needs to be done—all the reviews of the current ASL legislation agree with that practitioner. They say that there is too much, to an extent, and that we need a one child, one plan focus. That is what the bill provides.