Seòmar agus comataidhean

Indeed. If we go all the way back, we see that the predominant reason why the original payment was brought in was to help disabled people into employment. Do you think that is still the main reason for ADP, or do you think that it has evolved and is now simply a benefit for disabled people because they have extra living costs and that it is not necessarily linked to employment?

That is helpful.

I want to cover another area quickly. When do you intend to introduce regulations that will enable Social Security Scotland to estimate the levels of fraud and error in the devolved benefits system?

I remind members that I am in receipt of ADP.

Cabinet secretary, I fully agree with the comments in your opening statement about the Conservatives. I have written to the Conservative leader to ask why he said what he did, but I am still waiting for a response.

I have a couple of quick questions. You said that you are wrapping up all the reviews in your response. My understanding was that that might happen at the end of January, but we are now into February. When are we likely to see that response?

As always, convener.

I do not want to end on a negative note, but I note that one of the things that was initially cut from this year’s budget was the investing in communities fund. I appreciate that the Government has reversed that cut and that the fund will continue for a year. What discussions did you have with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government on that?

You have spoken about giving support at the earliest point. Two or three of the organisations working in my region that have contacted me are trying to do that. There was no warning. If that decision had not been reversed, they would have had to close a number of programmes before the summer.

What input did you have into putting the whole jigsaw together? The funding is being extended for only one year, so how would you suggest that organisations should go about finding that money somewhere else?

That happened yesterday.

As a teenage boy—a long time ago, in the previous century—I remember my father being approached by another parent of a younger disabled child, who asked, “What one piece of advice would you give to another parent of a disabled child?” Without thinking, my father said, “Never take no as the first answer from a medical professional.”

My father was an educated professional who could stand up to most individuals, and I was very fortunate that I had two loving parents and supportive siblings, and that I went to a good school that supported me through my teenage years. However, from speaking to many disabled people and disabled people’s charities over the past nine years during my time as an MSP, I think that I am the exception, not the rule. That is particularly true for disabled children who are in some form of care in relation to their needs and relationships.

Amendment 7 seeks to ensure that all disabled children receive appropriate support from their local authority to assist their transition into adulthood. They should not be pushed to transition earlier than is necessary, which happens a lot. I have spoken to a number of charities, children and those who look after children, and there is real concern that disabled children are being moved into adult services too early—earlier than non-disabled children are moved into adult services. That is happening because it seems that, from a professional perspective—not from a child’s perspective—it is easier to manage a child’s case in those services. Due to pressure on social workers, disabled children are taken off orders more quickly than they should be, and they do not get the same level of advocacy, either.

Disabled children are perhaps the most vulnerable people in the system. At the moment, many of them are not getting the transition that they require, either in the way that they want it to happen or in the way that would be best for them. I think that we all agree, in principle, that a disabled child should not be treated any differently from how any other child of their age is treated. Amendment 7 would simply put that into law.

I hear what the minister has said, but there needs to be a statutory backbone to this; it is not enough to simply put it in guidance or policy documents. In the light of what she has said, I am willing to not move amendment 7 and seek further discussions with her before stage 3, but I will seek to lodge a similar amendment at stage 3 if those conversations prove to be unsuccessful.

That definition is not necessarily inclusive enough. In fact, it may be the opposite—it may exclude others from carrying out the role. There is a genuine debate to be had. Are teachers, social workers and citizens advice bureaux equally independent?

I absolutely agree, but the definition should be broader.

Why not?

I do not want to speak too much against my own amendment, but why has that not happened already? The bill has been coming for the past two years, and you now say that we need to consult appropriate parties. Why did that consultation not take place earlier, to allow you to include a provision in the bill or lodge an amendment with a clear definition, to which Parliament could have said yes or no? I am not sure why we are having to do that after the bill is passed.