Chamber and committees

I agree with that, but anyone looking at that snapshot in time could go, “Oh, my goodness, there were 700 complaints. What on earth is going on?” I also accept that you are bound by very clear rules in statute and guidance about how you can interpret the data and what you can say publicly about it. Without dwelling on the matter—there are other matters that I want to move on to—would you take on board that, if one MSP were to allegedly err in some way and 200 complaints came in about it, all a wee bit different, the consistent way you report that, which is to say that there are 200 complaints, might give a false impression to members of the public, given that you are bound by confidentiality and cannot say that it is in effect one complaint about one MSP? Seeing that snapshot, members of the public might think, “What on earth is going on here?” Is that a reasonable point and would you look at ways in which you could say more about the number publicly and report more clearly? Where there are constraints, perhaps you could share with the committee how we could overcome those constraints.

I am pleased to accept that as a relevant matter that should be addressed.

I would like to move on to the complaints about MSPs: 738 in 2020-21 and 760 in 2021-22. Those have melted away, and I think that we all know about the reality there. Let me give you an example, rather than talk about specific cases. If I were to err somehow—not that I would do that, you understand, Mr Bruce—and a complaint came in, that would be one complaint. However, if 30 people complained about me slightly differently, that would be logged as 30 complaints. If 100 people complained about me slightly differently, that would be 100 complaints. Could you say a little bit more about the numbers for 2020-21 and 2021-22 and why they have melted away? An outsider looking in might think about those numbers, “Oh, my goodness, what on earth is going on with those MSPs? The place is an absolute riot. Look at all those complaints.” It is a wee bit unfair on MSPs. They absolutely should be held to high standards, but the data that is given by your office needs to reflect the reality, not just the raw data. Any information that you can give on that would be very helpful.

I may come back in after Edward Mountain’s line of questioning about welfare, but I will end for now as I started, by thanking you and your team for the improvements that you have made to the organisation so far in a relatively short time. It is important to put that on the record.

I apologise for cutting across you, convener. I would never normally do that, but Ms Callaghan made an important point about automatic enrolment. We might want to draw the matter to the attention of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. When I sat on the Social Security Committee and convened it previously, it looked at the automation of benefits. Given the connection between our interest in the issue and that committee’s interest, it might be worth making it aware of any correspondence that we have. Apologies again.

The comments have been helpful, although they do not relate directly to the statutory instrument. It is helpful to highlight the fantastic work that the Scottish Government has done on free school meals and the approach to universality. The substantial increase to the school clothing grant has made a massive difference to constituents across the country.

Mr Kerr is right that we need to maximise uptake. Any correspondence to the Government that draws attention to the successes of those policies and asks what we can do to enhance take-up will be really welcome. We always welcome the qualifying criteria, which Mr Marra referred to, being kept under review—budgetary considerations to one side. On that basis, I am happy for us to write to the relevant minister.

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.

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?

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?

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.