Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is okay, convener. I have a couple of questions. Thank you for answering our questions so far, minister.

I want to go back to the numbers of people who are in regulated roles but not in the scheme. In particular, what financial impact has there been for organisations in helping them to comply? How can there be any understanding of the financial impacts if we do not understand how many people who should be on the scheme are not yet on it?

Sorry. I get the point but, ultimately, the Government made a commitment to such provision, so what has it done to take into account the pupils who have not been able to access that provision? What is the Government’s assessment of who is missing out? What will the Government do about it?

That is appreciated, but the minister will know that most of the income that she has just described that can be used for those purposes is being stretched in different directions and that local authorities are really struggling. If this is not the bill to provide improvements for the pupils who we have heard are missing out, what is the Government’s alternative?

It is important that we reflect that back. If we do not have a full understanding of the numbers, I cannot see how, for example, the role could be regulated, as we do not know how many people we would be regulating. That aspect is fundamental and it is important that we reflect that in the report.

Moving on to a final point about delays, the data that I have from March shows that the PVG scheme record update in 2016 took just over two days. That was up at nearly nine days in 2023. Do the minister and Disclosure Scotland think that the changes will resolve some of the delays and make the updates quicker, or do they expect the time required to continue on that trajectory?

That is a great story and it is reflective of my experience as well. It is incredibly important—absolutely. Local places do not always give that support to children and young people, so it is crucial. What is the ceiling and what would you need to break it?

Good morning. I thank the witnesses for joining us today.

I will pick up on the point that Tara Lillis made about inequity in the system. Do the witnesses think that there is inequity in the current system?

Thank you. I have one other question, if there is time, convener. What is happening now to support pupils with additional support needs? Will the bill help that or make it more difficult? Is there anything about the bill that should change to support those pupils?

Good morning and thank you for your evidence so far. I want to pick up a little bit on John Mason’s points about the buildings but also to go back to the point that Ms Fallon made earlier about pastoral care and, specifically, the provision for people with additional support needs. The committee has received evidence on this. For example, PGL Travel said:

“the issue really arises around the ability to house young people with more severe disabilities overnight, facilities simply do not exist in enough numbers currently”.

Glasgow City Council said:

“The bill also needs to take into account children with ASN, who have complex needs and would require significant support, adaptations to centres, specialist equipment and adapted beds, as well as the additional costs”.

So you get the picture. I would be very keen—and I say this as someone who has been to outdoor residentials at school, which was obviously only last week. I really enjoyed it, and I am pleased to hear that we are not putting people in canoes now and seeing how they get on, because it is safe to say that I did not do well in a canoe. What is your response in general to the concerns about the reality of supporting the wide breadth of pupils you need to support?

I have one more question for you—I am sorry, but the story was so compelling. Who pays for the person to support Nevis, for example?