Seòmar agus comataidhean

On the point about an independent review, you mentioned earlier that the proposals before us are based on OSCR’s perceptions. Are the proposals skewed in that direction?

Sarah Latto, I think that you said that there are aspects missing from the bill.

Good morning, and thanks for the evidence that you submitted in advance and for answering our questions today. My question is similar to what witnesses who were in the room earlier would have heard me ask. I am keen to understand a bit about the consultation process that led to the bill that is in front of us and how you would characterise your involvement in that. I will start with Rami Okasha, if that is okay.

Thank you.

Good morning, panel. Thank you for the evidence that you have given us in advance and for coming here this morning.

I want to explore a little bit the question of how we have got to this point and the review that, as has been indicated, has been part of the bill’s development. The Scottish Government has said that, although it is bringing forward this piece of legislation now, it will carry out a broader review in the future. Have you been involved in the development of the proposals in the current legislation? How would you characterise that involvement?

That question is for Jason Henderson, first of all.

I appreciate that. Thank you. Is there anyone online who wants to come in?

Do any of the other witnesses want to come in on that?

I appreciate that; that makes sense.

I will now go to Shona NicIllinein.

On the previous point, is there a mechanism somewhere in the middle that could be used so that, when people were disqualified, the world and their granny could not find the record of it but the burden on charities when they had to find such information would be reduced? Could there be a register that charities could contact OSCR about that, ultimately, could tell them whether a person appeared on it?

My second point relates to disqualification. I, too, was concerned about that, particularly given the impact that some charities can have on people who want to rebuild their life, part of which can be becoming a trustee. What would a compromise, waivered position look like? We probably accept that there need to be checks and balances in those areas. What would an easy waiver look like?

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.