Seòmar agus comataidhean

I promise that it is not just an add-on to the previous line of questioning. My question is inspired by Bill Scott’s earlier comment that, in some cases, there might not be continuing costs because some young people will move on to positive destinations in further or higher education. However, at another point, he said that, once we have signed folk off as having reached a positive destination, we do not monitor the situation to see whether those positive destinations are realised for the period of time for which the statutory obligations exist. You cannot have it both ways: there is either on-going monitoring or there is not. I am genuinely a little bit confused about that.

I suspect that, if we debate that issue further, there will be a bit of mission drift. I should acknowledge that I am an Educational Institute of Scotland member.

Perhaps I had better keep things moving.

I acknowledge that answer, and I will weigh that up when we look at the evidence.

I see in the financial memorandum that it is assumed that many of the costs associated with the work in school will not require any additional resources. I will read from the Scottish Parliament information centre’s briefing:

“while the child remains at school, the costs of the guidance teacher’s, or other member of the school’s pastoral care staff’s, time would fall within existing resources on the basis that the local authority officer will already have existing pastoral duties for, and responsibilities for, the child.”

I suspect that teachers and their colleagues think that they are pretty burdened with work already, without all that additional work. Do you have any reflections on those comments?

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for introducing the bill. I also thank Bill Scott for his support, and I acknowledge the work of Johann Lamont, who I see is following the proceedings.

Even when we are dealing with a good bill, we still have to scrutinise it pretty robustly. I ask Pam please to take the questions in that spirit.

Members have asked about the financial memorandum. It suggests that each transition planning meeting will take, on average, two hours and will require an hour for preparation and an hour for follow-up action. It is suggested that there would be between two and four meetings a year. Andy Miller, from the Scottish Commission for People with Learning Disabilities, disputed those numbers and said that they were unrealistic and did not take account of the complexities that could be involved. On reflection, do you think that the numbers are a bit ambitious?

I want to drill down into the numbers a bit more. Scott Richardson-Read, from the Association for Real Change Scotland, talked about what the number of young people in the school estate who require transition plans could be. In 2019, 128,000 young people were capable of leaving school between S4 and S6, and 47,500 did so. He estimated that about 20 per cent of young people leaving school are likely to have some form of additional support need and, therefore, potentially qualify for a transition plan. That 20 per cent would be known to education and other services, but up to 37 per cent could require a transition plan. Those figures are dramatically higher than those in the financial memorandum—there is significant disparity. Do you have any comments on that?

Does that mean that every young person will have a named person within social work?

I am relaxed about the term “named person”, but there we are.

The purpose of what we are doing is not to argue about the financial memorandum. The point is that, without the necessary resources within local authorities and other partner organisations, this well-intentioned legislation—that is not a glib description; I mean that the legislation is properly well-intentioned and thought through—will not drive a difference, and there will be a prioritisation of needs, just as there currently is in relation to ASN, with only 1 to 2 per cent of young people who qualify for a co-ordinated support plan actually getting one. There is a concern that, if the bill passes, only the most complex disabilities that young people have will be on the radar of schools, local authorities and other players that would be involved in the provision of a transition plan, and we will end up with a similar picture to the one that pertains in relation to co-ordinated support plans. Do you think that that is a reasonable concern?

It is very brief, because the thrust of what I want to talk about is on the deputy convener’s line of questioning.

Bill Scott helpfully mentioned the broad definition under the Equality Act 2010. He mentioned dyslexia, and I think that he was making the point that all disabilities have impacts but, with a more profound and complex mix of disabilities, there might be a greater need. I do not want to be disparaging, but dyslexia might not necessarily be at that level. However, in the guidance on the Equality Act 2010, dyslexia is specifically mentioned as qualifying. Mr Scott, you talked about more profound and less profound disabilities—I am paraphrasing, so I apologise and I am not trying to put words in your mouth—and you mentioned dyslexia as potentially being less impactful. However, dyslexia is specifically a qualifying disability under the Equality Act 2010. Will you say a little more about that?

The person might say that they do not think that they progressed as smoothly in school as they might have done because of barriers in relation to dyslexia. I think that almost everyone with dyslexia would say that as a matter of course, and they would have a strong case for doing so. Therefore, it could be argued that everyone with dyslexia would qualify for a transitions plan. Would that be a reasonable assumption to make?