Chamber and committees

I appreciate that. Colleagues will possibly press some questions in that particular area later. I have nothing further to ask at this point.

I appreciate that. Thank you. I want to explore the review that has been mentioned. What does that need to take into consideration? We have heard a bit about the independence of that. What would the review look like in order to be sufficiently broad and to be independent?

Do you think that there is a need to pull some of that work together into one regulatory framework, or is there a need for those organisations to come to an agreement between themselves but still play their own significant part?

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Those of you who heard what was said in the earlier session will have heard my supplementary question. I noted Vicki Cahill’s answer about proportionality—I am sorry; it could have been Mridul Wadhwa’s answer—and there already being some mechanisms around finances.

What do the witnesses think is the appropriate compromise, so that there is not an onerous burden on charities to do checks on bankruptcy or disclosure? Mridul, your comments on that were really helpful. How do we balance that with not putting people off from applying? The default “no” came up earlier. How do we balance that with the need to protect the integrity and reputation of charities?

I know that there is a lot in there. It is tricky—I feel that we might need to do something, but I would like to know what that is. If the witnesses want to come back to the committee on that in writing, that would be fair.

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.

Yes, absolutely, and I thank Graeme Dey for saying that. There is a much bigger picture here. I hope that, through bills that will come to the Parliament, including the incorporation bill at some point, along with a national care service, we can start to look at what needs to change in all those areas, because Graeme Dey is right—so much needs to change.

Fundamentally, what we do not have in legislation is a right for children and young people to have a transitions plan from the age of 14 that follows them through to the age of 26 or beyond. There are regulation-making powers in the bill to do that. It is about focusing on what they need in order to give them a fighting chance at a future, and that is just not there right now. Ruth Maguire highlighted the implementation gap, but I am not surprised that there is an implementation gap, because the existing legislation is not directing professionals and it is not focused on this particular group of people. It is leaving professionals unclear about what their duties are, and it does not include that element of accountability so that young disabled people can hold those people to account.

I have learned a lot since coming to Parliament, in May 2021, and I think that this has probably been the steepest learning curve of my life. One of the things I have learned is that nothing sharpens a minister’s mind more than having to get on their feet in the chamber and talk about something that they have done. Over the past decade—over the past two decades, even—Bill Scott and I have worked together on similar issues. He and I have worked together for a long time—I will not embarrass him by suggesting how long, but it has been a while—and we have constantly been told, “This guidance will do it. This is the bit that will work. This strategy will work. Just focus on what doesn’t work and change that little bit.” However, I am sorry to say that the bit that does not work is the bit that the bill is trying to address. It is about giving disabled people an opportunity—a right in statute to have a plan that gives them a fighting chance at a future.

I will add to that before Stephen Kerr comes back in. Schools and the structures around young disabled people now are probably contending with that exact question. For example, everyone can see that I am a disabled person, so there is no hiding—not that I would ever want to do that, actually; I am proud of my identity. However, with impairments that you cannot see, there is always the question of how we know someone is a disabled person.

Schools are already asking those questions, because they have to identify the young people in order to work with them. There are various mechanisms that they can use to do that. They can ask what support people need and they can look at whether a diagnosis is in place. Of course, that gets us into waiting times, which is a whole other question, and it goes back to Graeme Dey’s point about the number of current problems and how we will address them. Ultimately, that will need to be looked at.

Therefore, those questions are not new as a result of the definition that we use in the bill. The purpose of the definition in the bill is to put a focus specifically on people who have that protected characteristic, in recognition of the fact that they are significantly oppressed and discriminated against.

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

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.