Chamber and committees

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?

Yes, absolutely. I thank Stephen Kerr for that question.

The definition that we have chosen in the bill is the definition of a disabled person in the Equality Act 2010. The reason that we have chosen that definition is that I was content that that definition is broad. It includes people on the autistic spectrum and those with learning disabilities and with mental ill health, because it is about how an impairment impacts on their social interaction and the way that they interact with society. If a person’s impairment has a long-term impact on those things, they are considered to be a disabled person.

The Scottish Government’s guidance on definitions of people who can get support at transitions, which I think is provided through a service called Enquire, includes that definition of disabled people. To be honest, that shows a little bit of inconsistency, because, on the one hand, the current legislation talks about people with additional support needs, but, on the other hand, the Government is giving out information that uses the definition that is in the Equality Act 2010. I think that it is correct for the Government to do that, because it is about specifically addressing the needs of this group of people. The other groups of people who are included in the statistics for, and those who have, additional support needs are care leavers and young people who are gifted, which is why that definition is broader.

I am not suggesting for a second that those children do not have additional support needs—they do—or that they do not need support—they do. I am suggesting that there is a cohort of people who are deliberately categorised as having a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010, because it recognises the fundamental oppression and discrimination that they face, and the bill is for that group of people. People worry that that means that it does not include certain impairment categories. However, the Equality Act 2010 is drawn broadly for that specific purpose. If we look back at Hansard from the time when the act was being developed, there was a lot of discussion in Parliament about how you would define disabled people, which looked at shifting the narrative from a medical model focus to a social model focus. That is why I think the definition of a disabled person in the Equality Act 2010 is the right one for this piece of legislation.

That is a fair contention. That is the most up-to-date census data that was available to us when we prepared the financial memorandum. However, it is not unreasonable to assume that our data is right because, as I said earlier, we cross-referenced the census data with data on children with additional support needs. When we look at that data, which is more regularly updated—I believe that it was updated yesterday—and the number of disabled people in the census, we can come to a conclusion about the number of people who would access support under the plan.

I think that Bill Scott was going to comment.

Under the technical detail in the bill, a lot of that will be down to regulation and guidance, so that local authorities can decide the model that best suits them.

On your point about legislating for relationships, you cannot legislate for relationships but you can legislate to put people in the room and build those relationships, which is what the bill seeks to do. I have been looking at the action plan that the Scottish Government has published, and I know that much work has been done on co-ordinated support plans and the ASL review. From the evidence that the ministers Clare Haughey and Christina McKelvie gave to the committee last week, it seems that the national transitions strategy might, indeed, address some of these questions. That is all really valuable. In fact, work is on-going on the creation of qualifications for teaching support and additional support teachers in schools.

All of that will add to the approach and will be helpful and important, but none of it involves legislating to ensure that people get in the room and that somebody takes control of what is happening. That is the benefit that the bill will bring.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to the committee. It is a pleasure to be back in front of you. I want to thank you for all the evidence that you have taken on the bill. It is an incredibly important bill, as I am sure you all agree, so the people that this matters to will be hugely appreciative of the work that you have done.

I also put on record my thanks to Johann Lamont for lodging the previous bill, in session 5. I want to thank her for all the work that she did on her bill then, which has allowed me to bring it back.

In session 5, Johann identified what my own transition has taught me, which is that there is a problem and that thousands of young people are being failed every year. We know that disabled people are three times more likely to not be in education, employment or training—incidentally, that has not changed since 2008. A briefing was prepared by Inclusion Scotland in 2008, which I have with me today, and it says that the figure has not changed since then.

There is a five-point gap in the number of disabled people who are getting grades A to C at higher. Disabled people’s economic inactivity rate is three times higher than the inactivity rate of non-disabled people. Disabled people are half as likely to be employed as non-disabled people, and the situation is worse in certain groups, such as people with a learning disability.

Perhaps the hardest thing to hear is that, at 16, young disabled people have the same aspirations as everyone else but, by the age of 26, they believe that nothing they can do will change their lives. At a time when they should be excited about their future and thinking about what and who they want to be, we are stripping them of hope. At that point in their life, it is hardly any wonder that they feel like project managers. They are not focused on their dreams or ambitions; they are project managing their own life and the future that it brings. That cannot continue. I remember my own transitions, when we finally got a plan in place and my mum said to me, “I can now be your mum again.” That has never really left me, and I think that it is one of the reasons why we have to take this forward.

As I said a moment ago, this is not a new issue. Inclusion Scotland said in its 2008 briefing that,

“if the correct support is not delivered during this crucial phase, it is likely that disabled people will not enter college to obtain qualifications crucial to prospective employers. If this occurs, they will end up NEET and remain in limbo, it becomes increasingly difficult to escape it”.

That was right in 2008 and it remains right now. We know that progress has been too slow, and we cannot leave this to chance. If we are serious about addressing these issues among young disabled people, their move to adulthood cannot be left to chance. It is a matter of equality, human rights and justice.

It also should not rest on a manifesto commitment and ministers acting in good faith, because we have seen what can happen when they come and go. When the bill was lodged the first time round, it was noted in committee that the Scottish National Party manifesto committed to a national transitions strategy, but, at that point, it had been five years since that commitment had been made and there was still no strategy.

We also know that things can be deprioritised depending on leadership, such as could happen with the deposit return scheme. I do not say that to be provocative, convener, but to highlight the transient nature of strategies that are plans and not laws.

Much action is taking place already—I recognise that, and I am sure that we will cover a lot of that today—but we really need a bill to address this issue. You might ask why it should be my bill. To that, I say this. It does not undo current work; it adds to it. It creates a legislative structure for the one child, one plan approach that the additional support for learning review and the co-ordinated support plan review recommend. It requires a transition strategy in law to be laid before Parliament, protecting it against changes of Government or leadership. It provides an opportunity for scrutiny that the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 does not, and it addresses issues in the Morgan review, which says that

“the implementation of Additional Support for Learning legislation is over-dependent on committed individuals, 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.”

It also says that additional support for learning is always somebody else’s problem, and my bill seeks to address that.

A lot of people agree with me. We will talk about this later, but a number of organisations—including the Law Society of Scotland, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, Enable Scotland and the National Autistic Society—believe that the bill will make the change that we need to see.

Members may ask why we simply do not wait to see whether the current strategy works. In response, I would say this: we have heard that before. This year, I will be 42. I graduated in 2004, two years after I should have done, because my transition was not planned properly. Despite the blood, sweat and tears, I got there in the end. I think that we can all agree that, if it takes the tenacity of a future parliamentarian, one good worker—I know that we have all heard of the worker from Falkirk, who did some great work—and a fighter mum to get there, something needs to change.

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.

I would appreciate it. Thank you for the question.

I just want to say at the outset that we have done the best that we can to produce the figures in the financial memorandum. However, as with the bill, we are prepared to discuss these things in detail. I have had meetings about this with COSLA, but I note that there are certain points of departure. It has said, for example, that an additional member of staff will be needed to do something, while I have pointed out that existing staff already have such duties and responsibilities. There are, therefore, a few questions about existing responsibilities and the costs attached to them. I would argue that, if we are not already putting in the resources that COSLA says that we need to put in to meet the requirements of disabled people and give them a fighting chance to have a future, we are failing them. I would therefore call that an admission of failure.

As for the pounds and pence in the figures, I want to start with the figure of 4,000 people that we have set out in the financial memorandum. That figure has been based on the definition used in the census with regard to the disabled people who will be able to access a plan under the bill, and it includes the number of ASN pupils as well as the census data. Usually, the census data uses the definition of disabled people in the 2010 act, and we have looked at that and multiplied it by the number of local authorities. Of course, this is where the law of averages comes in. We have seen the evidence, and I know that the committee, too, has written evidence from, I believe, councils such as Glasgow that have said that the figure will be much more, and from other authorities that have said that it will be different. I understand how that can happen with the way that averages are used and the concerns about that.

However, the most important thing to remember is this: if COSLA and local authorities are arguing that it will be significantly more expensive to do this, we have to ask ourselves what we are not doing already that makes this such an additional cost. We have spent a lot of time this morning talking about existing duties, responsibilities and legislation, but we also have organisations such as COSLA saying, “Actually, it’ll cost a lot more if we do this.” Either those responsibilities exist now and councils should be spending money on them, or they do not exist—which is another argument for the bill.

No problem, convener. I do not think that that is a reasonable concern—I think that the opposite will be the case.