Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I have now met twice with COSLA.

I have met with a range of stakeholders and have done engagement on the bill right across Scotland. Members may have seen the roadshows that I did during the summer, which engaged people who work in the field and those who work for the Department for Work and Pensions and for Skills Development Scotland. I also met them separately from that engagement. During those roadshows, I met teachers, young disabled people and their families and carers.

I have carried out extensive engagement and have probably met most of the stakeholders that you would think should be engaged in the process. I am willing to meet anyone who believes that they have a stake in this and to discuss how best to make it work. I hope that this has come across to the committee: I want to make this work; I want to do the right thing; and I want to ensure that, for example, the financial memorandum is accurate. We have done that to the best of our ability. Bill Scott acknowledged that we would be prepared to discuss other numbers. We spent a lot of time coming to our conclusions. Our rationale is there.

That is how I approach stakeholder engagement. If people want to speak to us, I would be more than happy to speak to them, but I have already engaged with a large number of groups, including the Transitions Forum.

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.

Excellent—I will be quick.

On that final point, all the things that I outlined in relation to scrutiny—the assignment of ministerial responsibility, the laying before Parliament of the annual report, the review of plans, and the review of the strategy—will sharpen the focus to make sure that, if we are doing the right thing on the ground, we will know that we are, because we are asking people about it.

We know that young people in school have access to pastoral care teachers—they were called guidance teachers in my day—and that existing structures are in place to support them. For example, staff from Skills Development Scotland engage with special and state schools. There are existing structures, which should be treating all young people equally, including young disabled people, but the statistics show that they are not doing that yet. We are saying that the bill contains a mechanism to focus attention on and address some of that.

I reassure the committee that I have not closed my ears and eyes to a different perspective on finance. I say that on the basis of my earlier comment about the costs for local authorities. The last thing that anyone wants to do is land local authorities with duties that they do not have the financial support to back up, but I contend that such support is Government’s responsibility.

We must remember two comments. I contend that good transitions would be a form of good support, and the National Audit Office said that good support could save £1 million per person—I repeat: £1 million per person. Even if we take our estimate of the cost and COSLA’s estimate and the £5 million extra, we would only have to get it right for five people to make a longer-term saving for the state.

Secondly, the Law Society of Scotland said that

“the wider costs of inaction would be greater in comparison to the costs of implementation”.

It is in the context of those two statements that I approach the question of the financial memorandum.