Seòmar agus comataidhean

As the committee has heard in evidence, it is not a single-portfolio issue; it is a cross-Government one. It touches on all areas of health, social care, education, early years provision and equalities. Therefore, taking joint responsibility whereby the Minister for Equalities and Older People and I can work with our colleagues across Government is a much more reasonable way of going forward than having one particular portfolio of responsibility.

I am happy to pick up on the proposal in the bill to designate a single minister. I set out in my response to the call for views that there are legislative competence issues with that in so far as the power to assign a Scottish minister a special responsibility is vested in the First Minister under sections 47(1) and 49(1) of the Scotland Act 1998. The proposal could also modify the operation of section 52(3) of the act in breach of the restrictions in schedule 4.

We believe that that would make the bill legislatively incompetent. We think that having joint ministers leading on transitions is a more effective way of delivering good transitions for children and young people.

A number of stakeholders, including COSLA, have queried the proposed estimate of the uptake and costs in response to the calls for evidence, and they have suggested that the costs in the financial memorandum underestimate the cost of implementing the bill. Some of those stakeholders have provided evidence to the committee that has highlighted that.

I know that earlier witnesses raised concerns about attrition assumptions in the financial memorandum in respect of young people having a transitions plan in place. We also note that the financial memorandum costs on-going support plans only for disabled young people who are not in education, employment or training once they have left school rather than all disabled young people. That is contrary to how the bill is drafted.

We would therefore welcome further evidence and analysis of the figures provided and the estimated uptake of transitions plans to inform the Government’s position on the financial implications of the bill.

We believe that implementing the strategy on which Ms McKelvie is leading is actually a more effective way of enabling change. We do not believe that we need legislation to do that. We believe that we can work alongside COSLA, as we do on numerous strategies, as well as individual local authorities and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland to implement change. We can work co-operatively to achieve the aim that we all collectively, including the member who has lodged the bill, want—that is, better transitions between school and university or college, or wherever.

I think that working with agencies and representatives of organisations such as COSLA and local authorities is a much more effective way of delivering the outcomes that we want.

We absolutely support the intentions of the bill. However, in our party manifesto and in our programme for government, we have committed to improving transitions. We recognise that transitions need improvement. We also need to recognise that, as the convener alluded to and as you heard in evidence earlier, transitions are not one point in time, whereas the bill as drafted refers to “a ... plan”. Transitions happen in lots of different ways—people do not leave school and then go to a destination, and they do not move from one school to college and then not move on to something else. We need to be person centred and holistic in our planning.

In October 2020, in response to Angela Morgan’s review, we published our action plan with COSLA and ADES, which set out the actions that we would take to implement the additional support for learning review’s recommendations. In November last year, we published an updated action plan and a progress report, which highlighted that 24 of the actions had been fully completed.

Through the additional support for learning project board, we continue to work closely with local government partners to deliver the remaining actions that we have committed to taking by the end of the current parliamentary session—in other words, by March 2026. In addition, we have committed to providing an update on progress again in spring 2024, so that we can evidence the fact that we have been taking action.

We recognise that there is much more that we need to do to ensure that the current legislative duties in this area are implemented consistently and effectively for disabled children and young people. Angela Morgan’s review did not consider that new legislation in this area was necessary and, during the current parliamentary session, we are focused on the delivery of non-legislative solutions. The work that we are doing in the ARC pilots is absolutely key in that respect, but we are also doing other strands of work under the strategy for improving transitions for disabled children and young people. Therefore, we are not resting on our laurels.

This is on the back of what Christina McKelvie just said. The bill looks at disability, whereas the other plans that we have on transitions look at additional support needs, which might be short term and acute, such as in response to family bereavement or for a child whose first language is not English. As things are now, those children would be supported through transitions, but the transitions bill does not look at those issues. Its definition, wide though it is, narrows down who would have a legal right to a transitions plan.

Yes, convener, if that is all right.

Under the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, local authorities have a duty to plan for a young person’s transition as they leave school. In addition, the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013 aims to ensure that care and support are delivered in a way that supports a young person’s choices and ability to have control over their own life.

When it comes to other areas, we have heard from Stephanie Callaghan about Independent Living Fund Scotland’s transition fund and the opportunities that that presents.

In previous evidence sessions, the committee has heard about opportunities in further and higher education and employability services to support delivery of the no one left behind approach, including the local delivery of the young persons guarantee and, through that guarantee, our ambition to provide all young people, including disabled young people, with opportunities for work, training, education, enterprise or formal volunteering.

During the past year, we have invested £23.5 million in the delivery of fair start Scotland, which provides intensive and personalised pre-employment and in-work support for unemployed disabled people and those with health conditions or other barriers to progress in work.

The developing the young workforce programme begins in schools and is facilitated through Skills Development Scotland and careers advice.

It is important to recognise that support is different for everyone, including young people, who have different needs, ambitions and wants. It is about having a tailored approach to that young person’s ambitions for their life.

I can start on that one. With regard to the work that the Scottish Government is doing, I know that the committee has heard about how GIRFEC can be used to support transitions for disabled children and young people. We are committed to fully embedding GIRFEC—as the committee will know, that approach is internationally recognised and has been internationally replicated, locally embedded and positively embraced by practitioners. I know from my own previous practice how valuable GIRFEC is in providing for a shared language and shared plans across health and social care.

We refreshed the GIRFEC policy and practice guidance materials last September, and we are starting to refresh GIRFEC guidance on transitions. I am happy to keep the committee updated on that work, because it will be relevant across the committee’s remit.

The Scottish Government has also started to do work on GIRFE—I know that the committee heard about some of it during the session on the national care service. Work is on-going in other areas in relation to supporting not only disabled children and young people, but everyone. It is about being person centred and having a universal offer.

As I outlined in my opening statement, we have a lot of questions about the bill as drafted. That is not to say that the bill could not be amended or changed.

Can I just come in briefly?