���˿���

Excellent. I am glad to be on the front foot for a change.

They are doing that. I know that because the data on young people with additional support needs is broken down by large numbers of categories of impairment. So, organisations know who those children and young people are. I also think that it is not the case that teachers and schools do not know which pupils in their classes need the extra support and who could be considered a disabled person. They have very good relationships with them.

There is no mechanism for us to replace the financial memorandum once it is laid before the Parliament, but we have met COSLA to talk about the financial memorandum.

That is the question that I am trying to answer with the bill. I point to what Bill Scott has just said in relation to modern apprentices, and I will add to the answer to Willie Rennie’s question, which I thank him for.

Right now, we could say, “This co-ordinated support plan was not put in place”—actually, given the statistics, we would be more likely to say, “There was no co-ordinated support plan.” We are still dealing with one person after another, each in an isolated situation. That means that we are constantly firefighting, and there is nothing that pulls all that work together.

The bill will do two things in that context. First, it will put on a statutory footing the need for a national strategy that looks at how we will address those issues. I have already made a comment about the purpose of and the need to do that. Secondly, it will give individual rights. It will do both things at the same time.

Nobody wants to be associated with not doing what is right for disabled people, and most people who work in that field set out every day to do the right thing and as much as they possibly can, but disabled people are constantly told, “That circumstance was a one-off” or “That happened only in this situation—it does not happen in all situations.” We really need to have a broader focus on that, as well. The strategy part of the bill suggests that.

I will finish on your final question, Stephanie. I am sorry—I am not suggesting that it was your final question. I am not chairing the meeting.

In a number of cases, what we suggest will be accurate. However, I have seen and acknowledge the SCLD’s evidence.

The approach to calculating the hours that will be needed to ascertain what sort of support people will need is based on decades of work with disabled people and their parents, and with disabled people’s organisations, including the SCLD. We have come to the best possible conclusion on the issue. Such things are always open to discussion—that is the purpose of parliamentary scrutiny, which is really important.

Thank you for your question. On your first point, I would expect nothing less than significant scrutiny from the committee, because we are talking about a bill that, I hope, will get on to the statute book at some point. If we put something into statute, we need to be absolutely sure about it. I have learned that—very much so—since becoming a member of the Parliament. I expect scrutiny and have prepared as best I can for your interrogation, which I think is the word that the convener used. Someone said to me earlier, “It will not be interrogation; it will be scrutiny”. Either way, I am here to answer your questions and I undertake to come back to the committee with further detail, particularly on the difference between COSLA’s estimates and ours.

I would also like to put on record my thanks to the petitioner for drawing this really important issue to the attention of not just this committee but other committees and, indeed, the Parliament.

I am particularly concerned about the issues that have been raised about people who have been victims of, or witnesses to, crime and who felt unable to present what they had seen or experienced because of a lack of support to communicate in the way that they needed. It is really important that we do a bit of extra work before we close the petition.

I am keen that we explore what the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service is doing, what Police Scotland’s understanding is and what local authorities are doing around the use of an appropriate adult in situations where a person needs support to communicate with the police.

Once we have established those lines of communication and enabled that work to continue, we will be in a position to say that we can close the petition. I feel that we need to do that little bit extra work and then we will get there.

Again, I would like to say thanks very much to the petitioner.

Thank you. I appreciate that. My understanding is that, of the £400 million-odd, about £28 million is coming from your budget and the rest is coming from Barnett consequentials—

Thank you. I appreciate that. I have a further question on this. We know, and Inclusion Scotland has made representations to this effect, that disabled people’s energy costs have doubled and that a number of disabled people access the winter heating payment that the minister mentioned. On that basis, Inclusion Scotland suggested that that payment also be increased. I think it originally said that it should be doubled. What was your response to its request?

Thank you.

As the minister and other members will be aware, the Scottish statutory instrument that we are looking at today raises the carers allowance earnings limit to £139, which in the context of some of the figures that I set out earlier is very helpful. However, in the Government’s consultation on carers assistance, the proposed increased to the amount that carers could earn while receiving that assistance—of course, carers allowance is still being delivered through the DWP under an agency agreement—could be linked to 16 hours at the real living wage, which would be £174. Has the minister considered that figure as opposed to £139? Why has the minister not taken the opportunity to put more money into the pockets of unpaid carers, who are really struggling right now?

I appreciate that there is a live consultation, but does the minister accept that unpaid carers are struggling and that any increase could be helpful? The figure that I have chosen is the one that the minister proposed in the consultation. I am not asking the minister to pre-empt the conclusions, but I think that it is fair to assume that unpaid carers would accept that more money is needed. I am just asking whether that figure was considered.

I do not understand why. The Scottish Government has data on which people are on low incomes in Scotland. We have that through various mechanisms, including from local authorities. If the Scottish Government believes that this legislation impinges on devolved legislation, it accepts that there is a responsibility in devolved legislation to make payments to people in times of hardship. My question is, why have you not done that?