Chamber and committees

I agree with that, and I thank you for taking it forward on that basis. Sometimes, politicians as a class are not particularly seen as having self-awareness. Given the fact that, in effect, we are looking at our working conditions, we should show a degree of self-awareness as we take things forward.

This is specifically on the variation to the proxy voting scheme that the Presiding Officer is suggesting. Can I just check—I am sure that the answer is yes—that annex A, the letter from the Presiding Officer, is a publicly available document?

I ask that because it refers to two colleagues who had a loved one nearing the end of their life and sought to use the proxy voting scheme in those circumstances. It is unanswerable that that would be the right thing to do, but I had not realised that the pilot scheme that our committee agreed to did not build in such flexibility and discretion for the Presiding Officer. That is okay, because we always said that it would be an iterative process and that we would shape the scheme as we went along to reflect circumstances as they developed. I am keen to clarify that such a use would be allowed under changes to the proxy voting scheme.

If I am allowed to share them, my personal circumstances were that when my mother was approaching the end of her life, the Scottish National Party’s whips were wonderful and I got to spend my mother’s final week with her. There was no pairing and no proxy but, even as I sat at my mother’s bedside, I was still on my phone, doing my work and clearing emails. I would have liked to have had a proxy, which would have meant that I did not feel excluded or remote from the Parliament but instead had that link. That would have enabled me to avoid having to log on to vote virtually by permitting me to have a trusted colleague to vote on my behalf.

I think that the proxy scheme should cover such circumstances and that, if the Presiding Officer does not think that the scheme is suitably flexible at present, we should agree to change it to provide that flexibility.

That is very helpful and brings us back to resources—but I will not go there. Nicole Kane, do you want to add anything?

Good morning. I thank the convener for the seamless transition to the next line of questioning.

There has been a bit of chat about whether the bill is needed, but we are scrutinising what we have in front of us. I am very conscious that there is already lots of legislation out there. For example, in 2004, legislation was passed that requires local authorities to put in place additional support needs plans for children. Where other agencies are involved, co-ordinated support plans should be put in place. In 2018, transition care plans were introduced for young people moving from child and adolescent mental health services to adult services.

There is a lot out there, but the bill that is before us will put an obligation on local authorities to identify children and young people who are eligible for a transition plan. How should they do that? The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s submission says that greater clarity is needed in that regard. What are your thoughts? I see that Dr Joshi is nodding his head, so I will take him first.

Dr Joshi, before I bring you in—the convener will like this, because it will help with time—I will mention resources. Perhaps you could refer to that as part of your answer. Dr Stark made the good point that we are not getting it right for all the people who are on our radar and in the system. Although eligibility criteria are important in identifying those who are not getting the services that they should get, that has double resource implications. Meeting the needs of the young people we know about has resource implications, but meeting the needs of the other young people who might have milder but, for their families, profound and important needs has additional resource implications. There is a spectrum of needs, is there not?

The only part of the bill documentation that considers resources is the financial memorandum, which estimates that 4,000 school leavers need to go through the transition process each year. Is that an appropriate way to measure resources in the context of the bill? Could there be a tension between getting it right for the young people who are already on the radar and who need good-quality services during their transition and the other young people whom we do not yet know about?

I apologise again to the convener, because there were a lot of questions in there. Dr Joshi, could you come in first, please?

Thank you.

That is helpful, because I wanted to follow on by asking about eligibility. The definition of eligibility is based on the Equality Act 2010 definition of disability. Is that an appropriate and correct definition?

Of course, it is open to interpretation who qualifies under the definition. Simply having a definition does not, in itself, allow people to trawl through data or individual circumstances at the local level and to work out who qualifies.

We heard earlier—from Dr Stark, I think—about a young person who was not known to any service and who was demonstrating behaviour issues and learning disability issues that had been undiagnosed. There will be a lot of young people who are not known to services. How do we address that? Please do not—dare I say it?—go off on a tangent. Just say yes or no. Does the national care service have a role to play? Nicole Kane spoke about a postcode lottery. Are the eligibility criteria sufficient? How do we interpret the criteria, and how do we make sure that there is not a postcode lottery?

I am sorry for throwing those three things in, convener—I can see you glowering. Dr Stark, do you want to go first?

Resources have been a recurrent theme. I will not take up the cudgels on that, simply because I have a specific line of questioning, but I acknowledge the comments that have been made.

I am interested in the cross-party group, although I have not explored it in any great detail. I should declare an interest in that the West of Scotland Science Park is in my constituency of Maryhill and Springburn, where we have a number of very successful technology companies that are actively involved in the space sector. Therefore, Maryhill has a footprint in space.

I may join this cross-party group if it is afforded recognition, but the time constraints that I am under are such that I would not take on an office-bearer position and I might only come to an occasional meeting that had a particular constituency interest. I understand the time constraints that MSPs are under. You are the convener of three cross-party groups already, and you want to become the convener of a fourth. That is a significant time commitment. Do you feel that you have sufficient time to commit to being convener of four cross-party groups?