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.

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.

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.

That is an interesting point. I have had to submit a parliamentary question to try to get that information, because the level 4 information in the budget does not detail specific funding for that. It is difficult for me to tell what is being spent on the transitions of young disabled people and how much the strategy will have behind it. That is the kind of question that is really important.

The costs associated with the bill must be specifically related to the framework that it is putting in place. The financial memorandum specifically details a lot of that in a way that I have not necessarily seen in some Government budgets, because it goes into a significant level of detail. All of us, in our various committees, have just scrutinised the Government’s budget, and it is fair to say that it has been a difficult process. I contend that, because the figures in our financial memorandum are contingent on a given number of people, which relates to a number of hours and, therefore, the costs, it details the rationale for the costs in a way that some Government bills have not done.

Thank you very much for that question. I know that you have a keen interest in the subject and that you are passionate about the rights of young disabled people, and I thank you for the work that you have done on it so far.

The questions that you asked are key. I know that the committee has been looking at the detail of the bill, and I thank it for the work that it has done on the bill. I have looked, but I have not seen another piece of legislation that has done this: at every point in the bill where there is mention of a regulation or a duty on a body, or reference to the development of a strategy or a plan, there is also a provision, almost in the same clause, that says “and must consult”, and that requires the young person and their family to be involved.

Various sections of the bill—sections 7, 11 and 12—cover the issue of ensuring that a person-centred approach is taken. In fact, that is what is most important about the bill. Earlier, I talked about people not wanting to be project managers in their own lives or in the lives of the young people whom they love and care for. It is not that young disabled people want to devolve all responsibility and step aside; it is that they want to spend time thinking about where they want to go, who they want to be and what they want to be. That involves thinking about whether they want to end up in the destination that has been proposed and whether that destination is positive. As an aside, I think that there is a bigger conversation to be had about how we define positive destinations, not just for young disabled people but for all young people in Scotland.

The focus needs to be on those kind of questions, rather than on whether someone has contacted social work and let them know that, in a couple of years’ time, the person might need self-directed support to be put in place or whether someone has had a look at what kind of accommodation or housing will be available if the person goes to college or university. Those are transactional questions about managing a project, as I described. They are not questions such as, “Where do I want to go when I grow up? Do I want to go on a college course?”

I do not want to be disparaging, but I am sure that you have heard in evidence that, in some situations, because of the aspirations that other people have—a plethora of data and research shows that non-disabled people sometimes have lower expectations of disabled people than they themselves have, and I earlier gave a statistic about people’s aspirations being beaten down almost—young disabled people end up being parked on certain courses that they might not want to be on.

That might be because, at the last minute, we rush to find a destination of any description—positive or otherwise, to be honest. What I have heard from people when I have spoken to them about the legislation is that everything is decided far too late. People are often faced with a situation whereby a young person is going to leave school, maybe in a matter of weeks, and they ask, “What are we going to do? We will have to do something. Right, here’s a college course. You can definitely go and do that life skills course,” or whatever.

I am not suggesting that those courses are not appropriate for some people—of course, they are—but we should not end up in a situation in which, because we do not have much time, we are almost panic placing people into situations that are not really positive destinations—they are just destinations.

The bill will bring in that planning process in a more streamlined fashion, starting at an earlier point, giving people a responsibility to get round the table and having somebody outwith the family as the person who makes sure that people have done the bit that they are supposed to do, have phoned the person they said they would phone and have been in touch with whoever. That is important, because it allows the family to focus on what the destination is.

No, I do not think that we should wait. In my opening statement, I said that the data that the committee is aware of—young disabled people are three times more likely to end up not in education, employment or training—was the same in 2008, when Inclusion Scotland wrote the briefing that I have in front of me. The data was probably the same prior to that, too.

Disabled people are consistently told, “This next strategy will be the thing. You do not need this in legislation.” I remember that from working on policy when I worked in the area. There was a constant refrain of “The next thing will do it,” but it has not done it yet. Here we are, almost 20 years since we started to work together in the field—I am sorry, Bill; I said that I would not out that number—and the rights of young disabled people still do not deliver the fighting chance that they need. Therefore, I do not think that we should wait for the strategy.

How long does the committee think that disabled people should wait? What does it think is the right timescale to say whether the strategy is or is not working? Right now, there are disabled people in communities who are about to leave school or have already left school with no plan. They cannot wait for the Government’s strategy, which is not yet published.

I fully acknowledge that the Government has committed to that strategy, and I fully believe that it will be published. I take the ministers at their word, but those disabled people cannot wait for that. I urge the committee to consider that question and say how long it thinks that it is acceptable to wait and see whether that strategy works.

I appreciate that question, and I recognise your passion for the subject. In fact, all the members from whom we have heard so far have that passion. I welcome the support and energy around the subject.

The implementation gap, which is one of the first matters that Ruth Maguire asked about, is crucial. We can all point to a lot of legislation that still needs to be implemented. I understand that. I see that and, when it comes to disabled people, I have seen it for decades. Justice and access to justice for disabled people are a serious concern. I will talk in a minute about the ways in which the bill addresses some of that and is enforceable.

I recognise the work that is being done on whether we need qualifications for additional support teachers and how we encourage good practice. There is also the awards system for schools that recognises good practice in education and the journey that young disabled people have travelled. All of that is on-going and should continue. The bill does not stop any of it.

I have seen, time and again—particularly when it comes to disabled people, but the same is true for all the different protected characteristics—that, if we leave improvement to accident and default, we end up defaulting to a situation in which society discriminates against and oppresses a large group of people: disabled people. We have to fix the process by design. We cannot leave it to accident any more, and that design, I believe, should involve looking at the various different bits of legislation that exist.

Ross Greer pointed out that the co-ordinated support plan is not the same as the transitions plan. It is not. It was developed for a different purpose. The bill is developed for a specific purpose, and it is about transition.

There are two points here. The first is whether the current legislative framework is right. I do not believe that it is, and neither do a number of organisations, including the Law Society of Scotland and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, so we need to change that. That is what I am trying to do with the bill, but we always have to change practice because, as Graeme Dey pointed out, there is good practice in places, but there is also some pretty poor practice that we need to shine a light on and address. I contend that the bill sharpens the mind and the focus on that by putting it into legislation, being much clearer, and taking a one child, one plan approach.

We know that young people in school have access to pastoral care teachers—they were called guidance teachers in my day—and that existing structures are in place to support them. For example, staff from Skills Development Scotland engage with special and state schools. There are existing structures, which should be treating all young people equally, including young disabled people, but the statistics show that they are not doing that yet. We are saying that the bill contains a mechanism to focus attention on and address some of that.

I reassure the committee that I have not closed my ears and eyes to a different perspective on finance. I say that on the basis of my earlier comment about the costs for local authorities. The last thing that anyone wants to do is land local authorities with duties that they do not have the financial support to back up, but I contend that such support is Government’s responsibility.

We must remember two comments. I contend that good transitions would be a form of good support, and the National Audit Office said that good support could save £1 million per person—I repeat: £1 million per person. Even if we take our estimate of the cost and COSLA’s estimate and the £5 million extra, we would only have to get it right for five people to make a longer-term saving for the state.

Secondly, the Law Society of Scotland said that

“the wider costs of inaction would be greater in comparison to the costs of implementation”.

It is in the context of those two statements that I approach the question of the financial memorandum.

Bob Doris speaks to a very real and live concern. The fact that we are meeting this morning as teachers are striking does not escape me. It is fair to note that more is being asked of teachers and additional support needs assistants in schools and that there are, in fact, fewer of them than there used to be, which is part of the problem.

I go back to my earlier comment: it is absolutely not my intention to put something in place that burdens people, with them not having the resources or capacity to deal with the issue. Part of the problem with the implementation gap, which Ruth Maguire mentioned at the start of this morning’s evidence session, is exactly that.

I also argue that one reason why teachers are striking today relates to the additional stress that they experience from supporting all young people, including young disabled people, in their classes.