Seòmar agus comataidhean

For once, convener, it is just a supplementary.

I will go to Anne-Marie Sturrock first. The committee is trying to wrestle with what you and Mike Corbett have talked about. Mike said that, although a statutory right to a co-ordinated support plan exists, those plans are not produced consistently or regularly.

Anne-Marie, you suggested—I hope that you are right—that the framework means that there will be a more consistent, streamlined approach to ensuring that all young people get all the rights and transitions to which they are entitled. If that is not happening with co-ordinated support plans, however, why would it be different under the bill?

You do not have to answer to that; I am simply reflecting a point that the committee is wrestling with, which is why I want to give you the opportunity to say a little bit more about it. That is all.

I am not remotely trying to be awkward. Just because additional resource may be required does not mean that it is not the right thing to do. I am just trying to tease out the realities of the legislation.

Dr Whelan, will you answer from a university perspective?

That is reasonable.

Louise Storie, I apologise if I am misquoting you—I have got mixed up with the scribbles in front of me—but I think that you said that schools will have different priorities in relation to transitions, young people with more complex needs and the resource implications and resource pressures. You are generally supportive of the legislation, but, if resources are finite, might that prioritisation mean that some young people have plans on paper without the resources to make them meaningful, and that other young people with more complex needs get a more significant transition? Do you have any concerns about that?

That is helpful. You want more consistent capturing of those with disabilities. We will talk more about that later.

Okay.

Sure.

Could you come back to us on that?

Thank you. That is helpful. Those are very reasonable points.

Dr Whelan, you have spoken quite a lot about the real challenges for universities, such as the lateness of identifying which young person is going to which institution, the building of early transitional relationships and transitional plans being more difficult with higher education. Who should take the lead? This might be your opportunity to say that there is something that we could change, irrespective of the bill, to give universities more of a chance to build deeper, stronger, quicker and more meaningful relationships with young people before they go to university.

I found the correspondence to be informative in relation to the ambitions of the Conveners Group and the wider Parliament to embed the scrutiny of net zero into the work not just of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee—I acknowledge its convener, Edward Mountain, who is with us today, as he is a member of this committee—but of all parliamentary committees as we scrutinise legislation.

However, the letter also said:

“The Group noted that it was important that the Scottish Government was able to provide essential data to facilitate this scrutiny work. With this in mind, you will have seen the correspondence that I have had with the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero requesting better information on this; the Group will return to this at our meeting later this month.”

I have not seen that correspondence, and I am unaware of whether the Scottish Government has replied to it. I would like to see those two essential pieces of evidence before we make a specific commitment to do further work, or even decide what such further work might look like, in relation to our approach to any changing of standing orders or rules in the Parliament with regard to net zero.