Chamber and committees

People never come with one issue. There are always underlying ones.

Most of us have such connections, although sometimes we do not realise it.

Good morning to you all. Charlie McMillan mentioned listening. I have spent quite a lot of time listening, not just during the course of this inquiry, but over the years, including listening to the voices of lived experience—including Project Search in my constituency, as Carmel McKeogh well knows. During the course of this inquiry and previously, the young folk I have listened to have been able to point out clearly what does not work.

Charlie, again, I think, talked of a disjointed system. Carmel talked about the difficulties with access to work. I have heard previously from Scottish Autism and others about that inability to bring budgets together to make something work for an individual. In all this, should we take a person-centred approach to dealing with individuals to meet their needs and aspirations? Moreover, should access to work be devolved and made less bureaucratic?

However, we had better not get into that.

I now want to concentrate on opportunity. All our witnesses have said that there are really good examples of initiatives that work. You are all involved in organisations that have helped people aspire to and achieve their goals.

The young folk to whom we have talked in the course of our inquiry are also pretty fair, in that they have told us both what has and what has not worked for them. I have to say that Project Search was seen as a real boon by some of the folk that we talked to from The Usual Place, including those who had not had the opportunity of working with it. However, many of the young folk saw education as being poor, with college seen as a bit of a tick-box exercise. At the same time, though, I know of schools and colleges that go the extra mile to ensure that young folk with learning disabilities and neurodivergent folk have an immense start.

What do we need to do to ensure that best practice is exported right across the board? I am sure that you will tell me that the approach should be about not just legislation or regulation but people. What are we not doing to get best practice happening in certain places? Perhaps Alan Thornburrow could start this time.

I will bring in Alan Thornburrow.

Thank you.

We won that argument in Aberdeen with you and Norma Curran from Values Into Action Scotland. Is there a lack of understanding among some funding organisations—let us not name any—about the additional costs that they will face to deal with folk when they reach crisis point because they canna live the lives that they want to live. Do we all have a job to do to ensure that folk look at the preventative spend agenda, rather than spending lots of money in crisis, with the human cost that goes along with that?

So that hardwiring prevents folks from even being able to consider the question that you asked earlier, which is “Where do you see yourself?” As Carmel McKeogh said earlier, that hardwiring can actually lower the expectations of parents, too. Is that a fair comment?

Angela, do you want to comment on how we get rid of those perceptions?

My final question basically requires a yes or no answer—I think that I can guess which one it will be. There has been a lot of talk about the difficulties with the access to work system. It sounds as though it is very clunky and bureaucratic and that it does not take into account individuals’ needs. Do those who are involved in the access to work system need to listen to the voices of lived experience—whether they be employees or employers—in order to shape a more personalised system that would work much better for all? What do you think—yes or no?