Seòmar agus comataidhean

I hope that I am on the right instrument—I am sure that you will keep me right, minister. I have a technical question. As much as I always welcome the appearance of ministers before our committee, is there a technical reason why we could not automate this process, instead of having to go through the process when we all agree and have always all agreed with the measures?

Are school dinners covered by this instrument as well?

I will come back to that, then. I ask my question about the technical aspect.

[Inaudible.]—minister.

I cannot ask a question, but I have put on record my concern. A number of grants and provisions, including those for school uniforms, are not taken up to anything like the level that they should be. We need to do a lot better at making people aware of the support for families.

It is unfortunate that the minister is not here, because my comment is not directed at the regulations; it is made in the same spirit as that in which Willie Rennie offered his questions to the minister. My concern is that the take-up of school meals is not what it should be. Although the provision exists, we know from the reports that we have that we can do better at encouraging children to take school meals. I wondered what the minister’s thoughts were on what we could do with our partners in COSLA to deal with that, but she is not here.

Is it possible to amend the legislation so that that happens automatically? There would have to be a change to the legislation for that to happen.

But who ultimately decides? Some people will feel that their children should be included in the category of people who automatically receive a support plan, and others will say that they should not. Who ultimately decides?

Kaukab Stewart will talk about the financial implications of the definition, which are significant.

I will move on to my last question. In the evidence on the bill, we have heard a number of memorable phrases that have stuck with me. One was about the salad that was much mentioned earlier. Another was when someone said, “You can’t legislate for a relationship.” We know from the evidence that we have received, particularly from the individuals who are the most impacted—the young people and their parents and carers—that relationships are the critical element in all this. For example, you mentioned in your opening statement the individual from Falkirk, who has been much mentioned and whose job is based around supporting families and individuals with the transition journey right through to the age of 25, as you mentioned. That single point of contact therefore becomes a critical relationship in the management of what you described as a “project”.

When it comes to the resources that will flow with the bill, should every local authority have someone like the person we heard about in Falkirk? What are the implications of that for the direction of resources, which are already quite scarce?

Kaukab Stewart and I were going to ask a similar question about definitions—why have you chosen to use the definitions that are deployed in the Equality Act 2010 as opposed to a broader definition? That has certainly had an impact in terms of the financial memorandum and the costs, which Kaukab will maybe comment on.

That was going to be my next question.