Official Report 586KB pdf
The next item on the agenda is evidence on a statement of reasons that has been lodged to accompany the draft proposal for a member’s bill, the disabled children and young people (transitions to adulthood) (Scotland) bill. I welcome Paul O’Kane, who is attending as a substitute for Pam Duncan-Glancy for consideration of this item. I invite Paul to declare any relevant interests.
I draw attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am a serving councillor in East Renfrewshire Council and a member and former employee of Enable Scotland.
Thank you.
I welcome back to the meeting Pam Duncan-Glancy MSP, who is supported by Kate Monahan, co-founder of Because We Matter; and Robert McGeachy, policy and engagement manager with Camphill Scotland. You are all very welcome. I refer members to papers 5 and 6. We also have correspondence from three organisations asking that the draft proposal be allowed to proceed to the next stage.
I invite Pam Duncan-Glancy to make a short opening statement.
Thank you, convener, and thank you all for inviting us here today.
I start by putting on record my thanks to Johann Lamont, who served as an MSP in the previous session of Parliament and who introduced the bill during that time. As members will be aware, the bill was very well supported but, unfortunately, it ran out of time. I thank my colleague Johann Lamont very much for the considerable work that she did on the bill. I also thank Inclusion Scotland and Camphill Scotland for their support along the way with Johann Lamont’s bill and, in the current session, their support for me. We could not have got here without the work that those organisations have put in.
I am really excited about the proposed bill. I think that we have a real chance to make a difference, and members around the table can play their part in that today. I remember my transition from school to adulthood. It was stressful, drawn-out and confusing and, more worryingly, every one of my aspirations was met with countless barriers, inaction and delay. My family and I spent years as project managers of our own lives, co-ordinating various services and systems rather than living our lives.
That was almost 20 years ago—although I know that you would never think it. Everything that I have heard since then from young disabled people and their families suggests that things have not improved and indeed have in some ways got worse. I do not want another young disabled person to be held back for another minute because of our inability to plan for them or support them. That is why I am proud to bring the proposal for a bill to Parliament today.
11:30Empowering and supporting young disabled people at this point in their lives is not just something that I care deeply about because it will mean that people will be able to play their full part in the community; it will open up employment opportunities for them and it will create a fairer society. It is also something that I believe we have to do to create a Scotland where everyone has a fighting chance to live up to their potential.
For me, the facts speak volumes. Young disabled people are five times more likely than non-disabled young people are to leave school without any qualifications. The disability employment gap has widened from 32 percentage points in 2019 to 33.7 percentage points in 2020. Over the year, the employment rate for the non-disabled working-age population decreased by one percentage point to 80.6 per cent, whereas the same rate for disabled people decreased by 2.1 percentage points to 46.9 per cent.
At the age of 16, the aspirations of disabled and non-disabled people are broadly the same but, by the age of 26, disabled people are more likely to be out of work, more likely not to be in education and three times more likely to feel hopeless, believing that, whatever they do, it has no real effect on what happens to them. It is clear from the statistics that we have to take action. It is clear from the people who spoke to us during the development of the previous bill and throughout the process that we must act now. We are failing people at a crucial point in their lives, and I believe that we have a duty to give them a fighting chance to achieve their goals. The proposed bill will go some way to doing that.
We are stripping people of their hopes and dreams, even before they have started to make those a reality. They deserve better. Young disabled people cannot wait. They have been consulted for years and have been saying the same things for years. That is why I ask the committee to support our statement of reasons and not to ask us to go back out and consult the same people and ask them the same questions, so that they can tell us the same stories that, sadly, they have been telling for decades.
Thank you very much for hearing about the bill. I hope that members will support our statement of reasons and will allow us to move quickly to give young disabled people a fighting chance.
Thank you for those opening remarks and for the statement of reasons. The committee’s role today is to decide whether we agree with your statement of reasons not to consult. I have taken some time to look at the responses to the previous consultation. As you mentioned, a lot of them involve people telling their personal experiences, which is hugely powerful. I guess that one argument why the committee should accept your statement of reasons is that those experiences stand and, as you said, if you were to consult again, you would hear the same stories again. That is almost certainly true.
However, one purpose of consultation is to guide the drafting of proposed legislation. What timescales are you working to in bringing a bill to the Parliament? As part of that process, even if you did not formally re-consult, how would you get views from people with lived experience on the specifics of delivery rather than hear their very important life experiences?
You are right that it is incredibly important that we listen to people with lived experience. As a number of the previous consultation responses highlighted, legislation is key, but it is not the only part of the issue. It is therefore important that we keep talking to people and asking them what will make this a reality for them.
I want the legislation to be passed as soon as possible. Because of the decades of failure that young disabled people have faced, I do not believe that any delay would be fair or just. I hope that I can reassure the committee that I want the best possible bill, so that, after the Parliament passes it, as I hope it will, generations of young disabled people can benefit from strong legislation that gives them a fighting chance and underpins their rights to an education and employment opportunities after school.
In that vein, since lodging the intention and the statement of reasons, during the summer, I have spoken again with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and with various lawyers about different parts of the bill to see whether it needs strengthening, and if so where. I have also spoken with a number of organisations, including cross-party groups, and other members of the Scottish Parliament to seek their views, because it is incredibly important that we get this absolutely right.
Thank you very much for your opening statement, and for bringing the proposed bill to us. As you know, the Scottish Greens supported Johann Lamont’s bill in the previous session, and we are pleased to see that you are taking up the issue this session.
Without prejudicing our consideration of your statement of reasons today, we have to determine what is different between the approach that Johann Lamont took and what you intend to do. Could you outline some of the key differences between the previous bill and what you intend to introduce?
I will do that and, if it is okay, I will also defer to my colleague Robert McGeachy, who will be able to talk about that in a bit more detail.
Some specific changes have already been made, partly as a commitment and a response by Johann Lamont to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in the previous session. They concern section 4, on the duty to comply with the legislation; section 8, on the other duties; section 13, on dispute resolution; section 14, on guidance; and section 15, on directions. Specifically, we have strengthened the draft legislation by adding the need to consult people who are representative of the people on whom the provisions will have an impact, as well as bodies that will have duties and that will need to act. That consulting element will be really important, so that we get the right legislation and so that it is delivered in real life and on the ground, where it affects young disabled people.
Do you have anything to add on that, Robert?
Pam Duncan-Glancy has covered the main changes to the previous bill, which were requested to address points made by the previous Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. There is only one other provision that has changed slightly: we have added section 12(2) to ensure that the review of the transitions plan keeps under review that the disabled child or young person is receiving the care and support necessary to meet their needs. The differences between the bill introduced in session 5 and the bill that Pam Duncan-Glancy is proposing to introduce are fairly minimal and are of a technical nature.
Good morning. Just like the convener, I want to say that I am supportive of the statement of reasons. I also wish to say that I signed the bill in the previous session, before we finished up. While there could have been advantages to having further consultation to get more information, we probably have enough information from the original consultation and within our own work.
I am working with a number of families from my constituency, who have come together. They have children and young people in the very age group that we are talking about, who have complex additional support needs and who are finding it very difficult to access support in leaving school and making the transition. If the proposed bill goes ahead and comes before the Parliament, I would like to get those people and their voices involved, and I would do that through my role as their MSP and representative. I think that further support is needed there.
I am happy to say at this stage that I agree with the statement of reasons that Pam Duncan-Glancy has put forward. I do not have any specific questions at this point; I just wanted to put those views on the record.
Thanks. I do not think that there was a question there for Pam Duncan-Glancy, but I saw a smile come on her face as Fulton showed his cards.
Thank you for your opening statement. How do you see the Scottish Government turning the proposed bill around with full support and engagement from all the necessary organisations? What organisations do you think that the Scottish Government should be working with to ensure smooth delivery?
Before I answer that question, I just want to thank my colleague Fulton MacGregor for showing those cards; it is much appreciated. I am happy to work with him to seek the views of the people in his constituency at any convenient time.
On the question about organisations, one of the things that strikes me most about the problems with transitions is how chaotic they can be, because people are working with so many different organisations. I honestly cannot explain adequately how that role of project manager of one’s life becomes almost overwhelming in that moment. Sometimes, the only people who know what any one organisation does at any time are the disabled person and their family, which is really hard work when they should be focusing on what the young person wants to do in the future and on ensuring that that support is in place.
I hope that, as is the case for most legislation when we seek to implement it, the Government will engage with all those different agencies and that those agencies will engage with the Government, as well as with young disabled people and their families. To name a few important organisations in this regard, it is important that education authorities, local authorities, health and social care partnerships as well as housing authorities can work together, as all those areas have an impact on a young disabled person’s transition.
I believe that the introduction of the bill is a unique opportunity to take the confusion and complication out of some of the process, by saying: “These are the organisations at play; these are the different responsibilities that they each have; and this is how we can work together in one single co-ordinating point, in the plan for the young disabled person.” It will be transformative.
I declare a bit of an interest here, in that I have lived experience with regard to transitions, so I am grateful to you for bringing the issue to the attention of the committee.
There is a real sense of urgency behind your opening statement. Can you be certain that the balance between the information that you have from the previous consultation and the urgency of the situation is proportionate? What discussions have you had with the Scottish Government in relation to any possible policy intentions?
I thank you for your question and for sharing that you have experience of transitions. It is incredibly important to do so. Sometimes, we assume many things about who disabled people are and who has experience of disability, so it is important to say it out loud. I thank you for doing that.
I have had many conversations with the Scottish Government, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government, in which I indicated that I would be really keen to talk with them about how to make the bill a reality. I have also said to the Government that if it thinks that we could strengthen any area of the legislation, I would be happy to work with it on potential amendments as we go through the process. That is what that process is about—we have three stages of the bill for a reason. It will be important to get all of Parliament to talk about the bill and to work together, including with the Government, on areas in which we need to make any changes.
I have been really clear and said that the policy intention of the bill is to improve the outcomes for young disabled people and, in so doing, to ensure that the responsibilities of ministers, local authorities, and all the actors of which I spoke earlier, require them all to work towards that specific aim. A national transition strategy that is set out in legislation would underpin or overpin—if that is even a thing—that aim, so that it did not come and go with different Governments but always had to be there, because young disabled people will always need that support. I hope that the Government will engage in dialogue so that we can get the bill through, because we really need to do that.
On the point about the previous consultation responses and the urgency of the situation, although, as one would expect, the consultation responses went into some detail about legislation, the overarching message was that the transition process was chaotic, stressful and difficult, and that it held people back. We see the outcomes now for young disabled people and older disabled people into adulthood. Let us not forget that what happens to young disabled people at school stays with them for a long time, which is one of the reasons why the employment gap is what it is.
All the bits of evidence that we got at that stage, and that the Education and Skills Committee took, were really clear that we cannot continue to let that situation roll on longer, and that we need to draw a line in the sand.
I know that the committee has had representation from People First Scotland, which has said, “You have asked us—please now just listen and act.” I ask that we do that. We have done the asking, and we now need to do the acting.
11:45
Thank you for your passionate opening statement. You have lived experience and you know exactly what the issues are. As you rightly identified, individuals’ dreams, aspirations and hopes can be dashed if the transition is not seamless—I have worked in the sector and have seen that. It can have an impact on people for the rest of their life. There are real opportunities to try to manage and support the process of transition.
Is there a possibility that, by not carrying out another consultation, opportunities might be missed? Another consultation might strengthen the case and give more opportunity for individuals to express their views. As you say, every time that we progress, some things are left behind and do not progress, for various reasons. Do you believe that, if you do not do another consultation, you might miss something out?
Honestly, if I thought that we needed more information to help us to take forward the bill, I would seek to gather it. Between now and when the bill goes through the various stages in Parliament, I want to continue to engage, consult and talk to people. That is just how I do things, and it is also how I think Parliament should work. It is not that we draw a line in the sand today and never again shall we hear another piece of evidence about the proposed legislation. Actually, there will be numerous opportunities to hear from people, and that is important.
If I thought that we had not heard the same things from largely the same groups of people for an awful long time, I would say that we needed more consultation, but I do not believe that we need to do more. This might sound twee but, honestly, the bill means too much to me to not get it right. If I thought that we needed to ask more and do that through a formal consultation, I would suggest that, but I do not think that we do.
Thank you for presenting your statement of reasons. I serve as convener of the cross-party group on learning disability, where the previous iteration of the bill, under Johann Lamont, and the current version have been discussed at length. Many of the stories that colleagues have alluded to about the lived experience and the struggle and battle around transitions have been aired thoroughly in the cross-party group. Similarly to Fulton MacGregor and other members, constituents have been keen to get in touch with me to share their lived experience. Therefore, there is a compelling argument that we have done a lot of talking about the proposal and that we are perhaps now coming to the point where we need to act.
Your statement of reasons refers to the 91 responses to the previous consultation, which were broadly supportive of the bill. It is fair to say that, as I referred to, other people have fed in through correspondence and the CPG. Are you content that the bill has been shaped by those responses and experiences? In essence, we all want to know that the bill has been influenced strongly by that consultation and that people have been listened to in the process.
I take a lot of comfort from the fact that the bill was drafted with the support of the user-led organisations Inclusion Scotland and Camphill Scotland, which literally put pen to paper. I am confident that the views of the people who we listened to during the consultation are reflected in the bill. In developing the bill in the first place, those organisations, along with my colleague Johann Lamont and now me, have benefited from years and years, and sometimes decades, of experience of what would make a real difference to people’s lives. Therefore, I am confident about that.
I reiterate that, if there are any ways in which we can strengthen the bill, the parliamentary process allows us to do that—that is why it is the way that it is. However, I am confident at this stage that the bill takes account of not just the responses that we heard in the previous session of Parliament but the long-held views of organisations that were involved in helping to draft it.
That concludes our questions.
We are now required to make a decision on whether we are satisfied by the statement of reasons. I remind members that our decision should be based solely on whether we agree with the reasons that are set out in the statement as to why a further consultation on the proposal is not necessary. I am satisfied with the reasons that are set out, and I know that Fulton MacGregor is satisfied, too. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy, Robert McGeachy and Kate Monahan for joining us. The committee is satisfied with the statement of reasons, and we will put a note into the system to ensure that Parliament is aware that you can go ahead with the bill without further consultation. Thank you all very much. We now move into private session.
11:51 Meeting continued in private until 12:46.Previous
Petition