Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. I thank the witnesses for coming to the meeting and for your testimony, which is incredibly powerful. I also appreciate the strength of passion and feeling that you bring with it; that is really important for the work that we are doing.

I declare an interest: like other members in the room, during the election campaign, I supported a full and comprehensive ban on conversion therapy. I remain committed to that—the more I hear about conversion therapy, the more I want to introduce a ban as quickly as possible.

My first question is about human rights, although some of it has been answered by what has been said already. I also have a question about the children and young people that the witnesses have worked with.

As you are aware, the committee has heard from a number of faith-based organisations about the human right to religious belief, and your testimony this morning highlights where that interplays and where the line is. What specific human rights are at play in relation to people’s religious rights and people’s right not to be discriminated against on the grounds that they are LGBT+? Can you help us with ways in which we can provide reassurance to people who have those concerns?

Finally, the Rev Elder Maxwell Reay made a point about his work in the children’s hospital. I am keen to hear more about the work that you do around conversion practices in hospitals and the conversations that are taking place, because it is also incredibly important that we work with young people on that.

I will do that and, if it is okay, I will also defer to my colleague Robert McGeachy, who will be able to talk about that in a bit more detail.

Some specific changes have already been made, partly as a commitment and a response by Johann Lamont to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in the previous session. They concern section 4, on the duty to comply with the legislation; section 8, on the other duties; section 13, on dispute resolution; section 14, on guidance; and section 15, on directions. Specifically, we have strengthened the draft legislation by adding the need to consult people who are representative of the people on whom the provisions will have an impact, as well as bodies that will have duties and that will need to act. That consulting element will be really important, so that we get the right legislation and so that it is delivered in real life and on the ground, where it affects young disabled people.

Do you have anything to add on that, Robert?

I thank you for your question and for sharing that you have experience of transitions. It is incredibly important to do so. Sometimes, we assume many things about who disabled people are and who has experience of disability, so it is important to say it out loud. I thank you for doing that.

I have had many conversations with the Scottish Government, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government, in which I indicated that I would be really keen to talk with them about how to make the bill a reality. I have also said to the Government that if it thinks that we could strengthen any area of the legislation, I would be happy to work with it on potential amendments as we go through the process. That is what that process is about—we have three stages of the bill for a reason. It will be important to get all of Parliament to talk about the bill and to work together, including with the Government, on areas in which we need to make any changes.

I have been really clear and said that the policy intention of the bill is to improve the outcomes for young disabled people and, in so doing, to ensure that the responsibilities of ministers, local authorities, and all the actors of which I spoke earlier, require them all to work towards that specific aim. A national transition strategy that is set out in legislation would underpin or overpin—if that is even a thing—that aim, so that it did not come and go with different Governments but always had to be there, because young disabled people will always need that support. I hope that the Government will engage in dialogue so that we can get the bill through, because we really need to do that.

On the point about the previous consultation responses and the urgency of the situation, although, as one would expect, the consultation responses went into some detail about legislation, the overarching message was that the transition process was chaotic, stressful and difficult, and that it held people back. We see the outcomes now for young disabled people and older disabled people into adulthood. Let us not forget that what happens to young disabled people at school stays with them for a long time, which is one of the reasons why the employment gap is what it is.

All the bits of evidence that we got at that stage, and that the Education and Skills Committee took, were really clear that we cannot continue to let that situation roll on longer, and that we need to draw a line in the sand.

I know that the committee has had representation from People First Scotland, which has said, “You have asked us—please now just listen and act.” I ask that we do that. We have done the asking, and we now need to do the acting.

Honestly, if I thought that we needed more information to help us to take forward the bill, I would seek to gather it. Between now and when the bill goes through the various stages in Parliament, I want to continue to engage, consult and talk to people. That is just how I do things, and it is also how I think Parliament should work. It is not that we draw a line in the sand today and never again shall we hear another piece of evidence about the proposed legislation. Actually, there will be numerous opportunities to hear from people, and that is important.

If I thought that we had not heard the same things from largely the same groups of people for an awful long time, I would say that we needed more consultation, but I do not believe that we need to do more. This might sound twee but, honestly, the bill means too much to me to not get it right. If I thought that we needed to ask more and do that through a formal consultation, I would suggest that, but I do not think that we do.

I take a lot of comfort from the fact that the bill was drafted with the support of the user-led organisations Inclusion Scotland and Camphill Scotland, which literally put pen to paper. I am confident that the views of the people who we listened to during the consultation are reflected in the bill. In developing the bill in the first place, those organisations, along with my colleague Johann Lamont and now me, have benefited from years and years, and sometimes decades, of experience of what would make a real difference to people’s lives. Therefore, I am confident about that.

I reiterate that, if there are any ways in which we can strengthen the bill, the parliamentary process allows us to do that—that is why it is the way that it is. However, I am confident at this stage that the bill takes account of not just the responses that we heard in the previous session of Parliament but the long-held views of organisations that were involved in helping to draft it.

You are right that it is incredibly important that we listen to people with lived experience. As a number of the previous consultation responses highlighted, legislation is key, but it is not the only part of the issue. It is therefore important that we keep talking to people and asking them what will make this a reality for them.

I want the legislation to be passed as soon as possible. Because of the decades of failure that young disabled people have faced, I do not believe that any delay would be fair or just. I hope that I can reassure the committee that I want the best possible bill, so that, after the Parliament passes it, as I hope it will, generations of young disabled people can benefit from strong legislation that gives them a fighting chance and underpins their rights to an education and employment opportunities after school.

In that vein, since lodging the intention and the statement of reasons, during the summer, I have spoken again with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and with various lawyers about different parts of the bill to see whether it needs strengthening, and if so where. I have also spoken with a number of organisations, including cross-party groups, and other members of the Scottish Parliament to seek their views, because it is incredibly important that we get this absolutely right.

Before I answer that question, I just want to thank my colleague Fulton MacGregor for showing those cards; it is much appreciated. I am happy to work with him to seek the views of the people in his constituency at any convenient time.

On the question about organisations, one of the things that strikes me most about the problems with transitions is how chaotic they can be, because people are working with so many different organisations. I honestly cannot explain adequately how that role of project manager of one’s life becomes almost overwhelming in that moment. Sometimes, the only people who know what any one organisation does at any time are the disabled person and their family, which is really hard work when they should be focusing on what the young person wants to do in the future and on ensuring that that support is in place.

I hope that, as is the case for most legislation when we seek to implement it, the Government will engage with all those different agencies and that those agencies will engage with the Government, as well as with young disabled people and their families. To name a few important organisations in this regard, it is important that education authorities, local authorities, health and social care partnerships as well as housing authorities can work together, as all those areas have an impact on a young disabled person’s transition.

I believe that the introduction of the bill is a unique opportunity to take the confusion and complication out of some of the process, by saying: “These are the organisations at play; these are the different responsibilities that they each have; and this is how we can work together in one single co-ordinating point, in the plan for the young disabled person.” It will be transformative.

Thank you, convener, and thank you all for inviting us here today.

I start by putting on record my thanks to Johann Lamont, who served as an MSP in the previous session of Parliament and who introduced the bill during that time. As members will be aware, the bill was very well supported but, unfortunately, it ran out of time. I thank my colleague Johann Lamont very much for the considerable work that she did on the bill. I also thank Inclusion Scotland and Camphill Scotland for their support along the way with Johann Lamont’s bill and, in the current session, their support for me. We could not have got here without the work that those organisations have put in.

I am really excited about the proposed bill. I think that we have a real chance to make a difference, and members around the table can play their part in that today. I remember my transition from school to adulthood. It was stressful, drawn-out and confusing and, more worryingly, every one of my aspirations was met with countless barriers, inaction and delay. My family and I spent years as project managers of our own lives, co-ordinating various services and systems rather than living our lives.

That was almost 20 years ago—although I know that you would never think it. Everything that I have heard since then from young disabled people and their families suggests that things have not improved and indeed have in some ways got worse. I do not want another young disabled person to be held back for another minute because of our inability to plan for them or support them. That is why I am proud to bring the proposal for a bill to Parliament today.

Empowering and supporting young disabled people at this point in their lives is not just something that I care deeply about because it will mean that people will be able to play their full part in the community; it will open up employment opportunities for them and it will create a fairer society. It is also something that I believe we have to do to create a Scotland where everyone has a fighting chance to live up to their potential.

For me, the facts speak volumes. Young disabled people are five times more likely than non-disabled young people are to leave school without any qualifications. The disability employment gap has widened from 32 percentage points in 2019 to 33.7 percentage points in 2020. Over the year, the employment rate for the non-disabled working-age population decreased by one percentage point to 80.6 per cent, whereas the same rate for disabled people decreased by 2.1 percentage points to 46.9 per cent.

At the age of 16, the aspirations of disabled and non-disabled people are broadly the same but, by the age of 26, disabled people are more likely to be out of work, more likely not to be in education and three times more likely to feel hopeless, believing that, whatever they do, it has no real effect on what happens to them. It is clear from the statistics that we have to take action. It is clear from the people who spoke to us during the development of the previous bill and throughout the process that we must act now. We are failing people at a crucial point in their lives, and I believe that we have a duty to give them a fighting chance to achieve their goals. The proposed bill will go some way to doing that.

We are stripping people of their hopes and dreams, even before they have started to make those a reality. They deserve better. Young disabled people cannot wait. They have been consulted for years and have been saying the same things for years. That is why I ask the committee to support our statement of reasons and not to ask us to go back out and consult the same people and ask them the same questions, so that they can tell us the same stories that, sadly, they have been telling for decades.

Thank you very much for hearing about the bill. I hope that members will support our statement of reasons and will allow us to move quickly to give young disabled people a fighting chance.

Good morning, minister and others. Thanks very much for joining us, and thank you for setting that out; it was helpful.

I start on the point that you have just discussed: the role of SCOSS. I, too, put on record my thanks for the helpful work that it does in getting through what is quite complex material. However, what worries me slightly is that we are again in a circumstance where SCOSS has felt that it has not had the time that it needed to properly scrutinise the regulations. In fact, it has said that that has meant that there has not been significant stakeholder engagement, which I think is of concern.

In the past, I have written to the Government asking for details of the timetable for delivery because, since I came to the Parliament in May, on everything that we have looked at in this committee in particular, we have been told that there is not much time. I seek reassurance that you are going to plan for that delivery, that you know at what stages things are going to be done and that you will try to give the appropriate time for scrutiny rather than rush things through. We have had control of these benefits since 2018, and it is unhelpful if we are always being told that there is not much time to scrutinise things. Will you confirm that there is a plan for the further roll-out and that there will be time for scrutiny?

I am reassured in relation to the work around SCOSS, but not so much in relation to planning for future regulations and ensuring that there is enough scrutiny and time for scrutiny, so that we do not have to continually rush. As I said, we have had control of the benefits since 2018, but it feels as if we keep getting a set of regulations or a piece of primary legislation that we are told has to be done quickly. I want to do as much as possible, as fast as possible, because we need to get money in people’s pockets, but can you reassure us that the Government has a plan to ensure that everything is on schedule and that we know at what point things will come to the committee so that we are not continually rushing?