Seòmar agus comataidhean

I heard the evidence that you took in which reference was made to the “legislation salad”. That was a really good description of where things are.

There is a bit of a legislation salad—I cannot disagree with that. A number of bits and pieces of legislation are relevant here, but none of them are delivering the change that we really need to see. We are still in a situation whereby young disabled people are less likely to be in employment and more likely not to be in education or training.

The current salad is not what we need. We need a bit of a different menu, if I am honest. I say that because of some of my earlier points on the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. The Morgan review also recognised that. It said that the

“Additional Support for Learning legislation is over-dependent on committed individuals”—

that speaks a bit to Ruth Maguire’s earlier question about the implementation gap—

“is fragmented, inconsistent and is not ensuring that all children and young people who need additional support are being supported to flourish and fulfil their potential.”

As I said, the Law Society of Scotland recognised that, too.

There is nothing in the bill that says that the principles into practice framework should no longer exist or that it would not continue. I think that the work that is being done on principles into practice and the work of the Scottish Transitions Forum is excellent, and I suggest that that could dovetail really nicely with some of the powers in the bill for guidance and support. As with any piece of legislation, people will need support, advice and guidance. We need principles on which to support it. Furthermore, we might want to consider putting principles into practice into the legislation, so that it then drives the practice that we need to see.

There are various pieces of legislation. The salad might include, for example, the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013. The independent review of the legislation said that self-directed support needs to be scaled up. However, that is separate from the bill. If I thought that I could introduce one bill that would solve every problem that disabled people in Scotland face, from when they are born until they die, I would do that.

A number of different bits of legislation are intended to have an impact on disabled people’s lives. However, we do not have something that supports them through a crucial part of their life—from about the age of 14, which is proposed in the bill, up until the age of 26—that, as Bill Scott set out earlier, helps people to pull together all that legislation salad, that gives them rights and support at different parts of their life and that becomes a co-ordinating framework for that management.

Right now, too many families are distressed and are struggling to cope. People’s transitions are being addressed far too late. My inbox is full—as, I am sure, all your inboxes are—of people saying that their son or daughter is leaving school the following week and they do not have a transition plan in place. We really need something that pulls everything together, that co-ordinates things and that works well with the different aspects of the salad that are on the plate.

However, it must also say that we will have a national transitions strategy that will look at what action we need to improve the outcomes of disabled young people; that we will have a plan in place specifically for that group of people, to address the transitions; and that there will be responsibility and accountability at the ministerial level to ensure that people and families can see clearly what their rights are. The professionals working in the area also need to understand what that means, so that they can navigate that salad a bit more easily.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 have now met twice with COSLA.

I have met with a range of stakeholders and have done engagement on the bill right across Scotland. Members may have seen the roadshows that I did during the summer, which engaged people who work in the field and those who work for the Department for Work and Pensions and for Skills Development Scotland. I also met them separately from that engagement. During those roadshows, I met teachers, young disabled people and their families and carers.

I have carried out extensive engagement and have probably met most of the stakeholders that you would think should be engaged in the process. I am willing to meet anyone who believes that they have a stake in this and to discuss how best to make it work. I hope that this has come across to the committee: I want to make this work; I want to do the right thing; and I want to ensure that, for example, the financial memorandum is accurate. We have done that to the best of our ability. Bill Scott acknowledged that we would be prepared to discuss other numbers. We spent a lot of time coming to our conclusions. Our rationale is there.

That is how I approach stakeholder engagement. If people want to speak to us, I would be more than happy to speak to them, but I have already engaged with a large number of groups, including the Transitions Forum.

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.

I am struggling a bit, if I am honest, because the child payment was announced a few years back and eligibility for that payment was clearly to be from 0 to 16. I appreciate that it was rolled out initially to under-sixes and then to over-sixes on 14 November last year, but that is something that the Government should have been planning for. I am not sure that I accept that it is fair to say that Social Security Scotland was overstretched because of a surprise payment. It was not really a surprise. It surely would have been in the making.

I take the point about this year not having that same pressure but, again, there are other benefits that are not rolled out yet in Social Security Scotland. Are we just going to keep seeing pressure on timescales? It feels as though there was not much planning for that. I suppose those were questions about the planning.

My final question is, when did you ask the DWP for the data? When the minister appeared at committee before Christmas, my understanding was that, if the data had been shared by 31 January, the payments would have been rolled out in a timely fashion as preferred. When did the Scottish Government ask the DWP to provide the data at the beginning of January?