Seòmar agus comataidhean

We absolutely support the intentions of the bill. However, in our party manifesto and in our programme for government, we have committed to improving transitions. We recognise that transitions need improvement. We also need to recognise that, as the convener alluded to and as you heard in evidence earlier, transitions are not one point in time, whereas the bill as drafted refers to “a ... plan”. Transitions happen in lots of different ways—people do not leave school and then go to a destination, and they do not move from one school to college and then not move on to something else. We need to be person centred and holistic in our planning.

The bill has certainly highlighted to the committee and wider stakeholders that we need to improve transitions but, as I said, we have already committed to doing that. Obviously, we would look to see whether the bill would add value to that.

Good morning, convener and committee, and thank you for your invitation to Ms McKelvie and me today.

I will start by recognising and thanking Pam Duncan-Glancy for the attention that she has drawn to the important topic of transitions for disabled young people through the bill. We know about the importance of good transitions planning in preparing children and young people for life beyond school. However, we also know that, for many disabled young people, the transition to young adult life still presents challenges.

We recognise that disabled young people leaving school and transitioning to young adult life is a complex area and that multi-agency collaboration and co-operation and a person-centred approach are required. We therefore whole-heartedly share the member’s ambition to improve the experiences and outcomes for disabled young people as they make the transition to young adult life.

However, we also share some of the questions that were raised by those who responded to the committee’s call for views and those who have already given evidence to the committee. The issues include the potential duplication or overlap of provisions in the bill with existing policy and legislation; considerations around implementation and the proposed duties on local authorities; clarity around definitions, data sharing, eligibility and resources; and, fundamentally, whether the bill as drafted could have its intended impact.

I therefore welcome the committee evidence sessions to consider the details of the bill’s provisions. It is essential that we consider all the evidence and options to ensure that we meet our shared aspiration of improving transitions for disabled children and young people.

As I set out in the Scottish Government response to the committee’s call for views, there is already a range of legislation, plans and policies in place that support the objective of improving transitions to adulthood, and we are committed to doing more.

We have already given non-statutory effect to two of the main provisions in the bill. We have done that through the joint ministerial leadership for transitions, which Ms McKelvie and I are taking forward, and through our programme for government commitment to introduce in this parliamentary term the first national transitions to adulthood strategy for disabled young people.

There are other important developments across the Scottish Government that support our shared outcome of improving transitions for disabled children and young people. Those include refreshing the planning guidance under getting it right for every child; developing a new approach to getting it right for everyone; continued support to the ARC Scotland principles into practice trial and to the Independent Living Fund Scotland’s transition fund; continued investment in employment support, including through the young persons guarantee; and important legislative developments, which include the incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and, of course, the national care service.

Ms McKelvie and I would be happy to provide more details on any of those things today. I look forward to any questions that members might have.

I met Ms Duncan-Glancy late last year, in November or December—I cannot remember exactly when it was—along with Ms McKelvie. At that meeting, we raised our concerns about the financial memorandum as presented. Ms Duncan-Glancy said that she would do some further work on that. If my memory serves me correctly, at that point she said that was continuing to engage with COSLA on some of the figures.

That is a really important point and is where planning comes in. We need to look at planning at all stages of a child’s or young person’s life to ensure that they have the opportunity that they want, as opposed to our using the Government term “positive destination”. The positive destination is that that young person gets to where they want to be, rather than our envisaging that as a higher or further education college course or work. You make a really important point. That is why that planning through school, giving people opportunities to experience different things and make choices in their life, is really key.

I absolutely recognise that that is an area that Mr Rennie and I have had correspondence on for some time. I am delighted that we got the data-sharing arrangements in place. I think that the legislation went through the UK Parliament in October. We are working with local authorities and COSLA to help them to make maximum use of that data, and we hope that they will be able to access it by the end of this financial year.

I am happy to talk Mr Rennie through the process of how that will work, if that would be helpful to him. In relation to the two-year-olds, local authorities will get access to a limited amount of Department for Work and Pensions data three times a year. Local authorities will only be able to access the amount of data that they need to identify those families who would be eligible, which will give them the opportunity to write to those families to make them aware of that offer. They will only be allowed to use that information for the specific purpose of targeting those groups. We will continue to publicise the offer through the Parent Club and other Scottish Government channels.

I will be happy to come back to the committee on that next year. We anticipate that there will be an increase, and there is funding in next year’s financial settlement to fund those eligible two-year-olds. The rate has gone up again. It has gone up to 14 per cent, but I appreciate that there may well be more children out there whose parents are not aware of the offer. I am sure that I will come back to the committee on that issue.

I do not recognise what the convener said about top-slicing.

We are engaging with the SSSC on the possibility of having the scoping and mapping exercise. I am more than happy to write to the committee with updates on that.

The sustainable rates that local authorities pay take into account investment in staff, investment in training and paying the real living wage. We have influenced pay in the PVI sector—that has been evidenced in the pay rates that staff in that sector have received since funded ELC has expanded. We are carrying out another financial sustainability check, and I believe that the survey went out last week. We will be in a position to report on that in the spring, when we will have a much more up-to-date picture of where private, voluntary and independent providers are.

Mr Rennie talked about flexibility. I draw his attention to the parent survey that was published just last month—I appreciate that that was a busy month for all of us. In the survey, 88 per cent of parents of three to five-year-olds and 92 per cent of parents of eligible two-year-olds reported that they were satisfied with the flexibility that was offered to use their funded hours to meet their family’s needs. That is evidence that families feel that they are getting the flexibility that they need. Overall, 97 per cent of parents said that they were satisfied with the quality of provision. That is a great tribute to the services that ELC providers offer to our children and families.

Does Eleanor Passmore want to add anything on the pay differential and the work that we are doing with the PVI sector to help it to retain staff?

As a Government, we provide the funding to ensure that we can provide 1,140 hours of ELC to all eligible children, which is what we do. A huge amount of money is provided to local authorities to sustain and fulfil their statutory obligations to provide the 1,140 hours of ELC. As I mentioned in an earlier answer about the parent survey, parents are satisfied with that.

In the past year, there has been an increase in the number of three to five-year-olds who are accessing early learning and childcare. It is now up to 99 per cent, which is almost universal coverage.

Our responsibility as a Government is to ensure that we fund those 1,140 hours of provision and that we allow local authorities to have the funding to pay sustainable rates to the PVI sector.