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?

That is the question that I am trying to answer with the bill. I point to what Bill Scott has just said in relation to modern apprentices, and I will add to the answer to Willie Rennie’s question, which I thank him for.

Right now, we could say, “This co-ordinated support plan was not put in place”—actually, given the statistics, we would be more likely to say, “There was no co-ordinated support plan.” We are still dealing with one person after another, each in an isolated situation. That means that we are constantly firefighting, and there is nothing that pulls all that work together.

The bill will do two things in that context. First, it will put on a statutory footing the need for a national strategy that looks at how we will address those issues. I have already made a comment about the purpose of and the need to do that. Secondly, it will give individual rights. It will do both things at the same time.

Nobody wants to be associated with not doing what is right for disabled people, and most people who work in that field set out every day to do the right thing and as much as they possibly can, but disabled people are constantly told, “That circumstance was a one-off” or “That happened only in this situation—it does not happen in all situations.” We really need to have a broader focus on that, as well. The strategy part of the bill suggests that.

I will finish on your final question, Stephanie. I am sorry—I am not suggesting that it was your final question. I am not chairing the meeting.

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.

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.

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.

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.