 Gwadifio i'r ffordd yn gweithio i'r Gwadifio, i'r ffordd yn gweithio i'r 7e gweithio gyda'r Gwadifio i'r Gwadifio i'r Gwadifio i'r Gwadifio i'r 23e. Fy hoffi'r unrhyw o'r agenda ym mhwng yma ymlaen i'r eifyrrhefydig gyda'r seson o'r ddysgu chi yn y Gwadifio i'r Gwadifio i'r Transitions to Adolth Scotland byl. I welcome our first panel of witnesses back to the committee. Pam Duncan-Clancy, MSP member in charge of the bill and Bill Scott, senior policy adviser for Inclusion Scotland. We're going to begin with a short statement from Pam Duncan-Clancy before moving to questions from members. You have three minutes. Pam, thank you. Thank you convener and good morning to the committee. It's a pleasure to be back here in front of you today and thank you. I want to thank you for all the evidence that you've taken on the bill. It's an incredibly important bill, as I'm sure you'll all agree, so the evidence that you've taken and the people that this matters to will be hugely appreciative of the work that you've done. I also would like to put on record my thanks to Joanne Lamont for bringing this bill in session 5 and I want to say thank you to all the work that she did on that bill and that allowed me to bring this bill back. Back in session 5, Joanne identified what my own transition has taught me, which is of course that there is a problem and that thousands of young people a year are being failed. We know that disabled people are three times more likely to not be in education, employment or training and that this hasn't changed incidentally since 2008 and there's a briefing that was prepared by Inclusion Scotland in 2008 that I have with me today that says that those figures have not changed since then. There's a five-point gap in the number of disabled people getting grades A to C at hires. Disabled people's economic activity rate is three times higher than the inactivity rate for non-disabled people. They're half as likely to be employed and that's worse in certain groups like people with learning disability. Perhaps the hardest thing to hear is that 16 young disabled people have the same aspirations as everyone else, but by the age of 26 they believe that nothing they can do will change their lives. At a time when they should be excited about their future, thinking about what they want to be and who they want to be, we're stripping them with hope. Convener, at this point in their life it's hardly any wonder that they feel like project managers. They're not focused on their dreams or ambitions but they're project managing their own life and the future that it brings. That is not something that we can continue with and I remember my own transitions when we finally got a plan in place when my mum said to me, I can now be your mum again. And that's never really left me and I think that's one of the reasons why we have to take this forward. Convener, this is not a new issue as I said a moment ago. Inclusion Scotland said in a briefing in 2008 that if the correct support is not delivered during this crucial phase it is likely that disabled people will not enter college to obtain qualifications crucial to prospective employers. If this occurs they'll end up neat and the remain in limbo it becomes increasingly difficult to escape it. They were right in 2008 and they remain right now. We know that progress has been too slow and we can't leave this to chance. If we're serious about the rights of young disabled people their move to adulthood can't be left by chance. This is a matter of equality, human rights and justice. It also shouldn't rest on a manifesto commitment and good faith acting by ministers and we've seen what can happen when they come and go. So when this bill first came the first time round it was noted in committee that the SNP manifesto committed to a national transition strategy and then at that point it had been five years since that commitment and there was no strategy. We also know that things like the deposit return scheme looks like it could be prioritised depending on leadership and I don't say this to be provocative convener. I say this to highlight the transient nature of strategies that are plans and not laws. There is much action already existing I recognise that and I'm sure we'll cover a lot of that today but we really need a bill to address it and you might ask why my bill to that I say this. It doesn't undo current work it adds to it. It creates a legislative structure for the one child one plan approach that the adult support for the additional support for learning review and the co-ordinate support plan review recommend. It requires a transition strategy in law and laid before Parliament protecting it against the change of government or leadership. It provides an opportunity for scrutiny that the additional ASL 2004 act does not and it addresses issues in the Morgan review that says the implementation of additional support for learning legislation is over dependent on committed individuals, fragmented and inconsistent and is not ensuring that all children and young people who need additional support are being supported to flourish and meet their potential. My bill seeks to make that and it also said sorry that it is always someone else's problem. Will my bill seeks to address that and a lot of people agree with me as well and we'll come to talk about that later but the law society, the Children's Commissioner, Enable Scotland, National Autistic Society and a number of organisations believe that this bill in front of you is the bill that will make the change that we really need to see and you might also ask why not wait to see if the current strategy works and I'll draw to a close with this. We've heard this before. I'll be 42 this year, I graduated in 2004 two years after I should have because my transition wasn't planned properly. Despite that blood, sweat and tears I got there in the end and I think we can all agree that if it takes the tenacity of a future parliamentarian, one good worker and I know we've all heard of the worker from Falkirk who did some great work and a fighter mum to get there, something needs to change. Can we move to questions now starting with Ruth Maguire? Thank you, convener. Good morning. Thanks for being with us and I appreciate your opening statement and particularly your recognition of the evidence that committee colleagues have taken. We're also very grateful to the young people, parents and practitioners that shared their expert experience with us. I'd like to ask you about the implementation gap because I know that we recognise that there are policies in place. We've heard from parents, young people and practitioners that the reason for that gap is about capacity, resources, and that parents have talked to us about communication and practitioners in particular spoke about culture and leadership. Your view is about why we have the implementation gap because it is clear that what we have in place at the moment is failing too many of our disabled children and young people. What's your view of the reasons for that implementation gap that young people are experiencing? There are a number of reasons for that implementation gap and you've highlighted some of them. Of course, they include culture, education and support, training, awareness raising and resources, but, crucially, policy is driven by legislation. I believe that the current policy and legislative framework is not driving the change that we need. I'd like to take a moment to talk through the current structures and why I don't think they fit what we need right now. For example, the Scottish Government's own literature review that was published this week recognised that there have been significant failures across guidance and implementation. The Fraser of Allander Institute reflected that transitions do not need to be difficult if they are well planned and well managed, however the evidence suggests that it's rarely the case. The Royal College of Olives told the committee that everyone feels that they are working in crisis mode at the moment, which means that transitions and long-term planning are taking a step back. That highlights one of the serious concerns about implementation. When the going gets tough, it's always disabled people who end up to have to get going. We've seen it through various different economic crises and various different crises, including the Covid pandemic and the current cost of living crisis. We know that the implementation gap exists, but we also know that, when it isn't a statutory duty to provide something for disabled people, it isn't provided. That's the stark reality of society that we're in. We really need the legislation to drive that policy. The Law Society agreed that a national transition strategy would contribute to achieving all the rights accorded by the UNCRPD by ensuring that all relevant policies and planning, as well as individual planning, achieve that purpose. We would suggest that significant improvement is unlikely to be achieved without legislative measures. We have legislation in place. As we all acknowledge, clearly there is an implementation gap. What is it about additional legislation in the form of this bill that addresses those things? I think that we are probably in agreement about what the themes of the reason for the gap are. We agreed there on resources and capacity. What about your legislation will address that, for example? The first thing is that much of that rests just now in the legislative structure that was created by the ASL Act 2004. That act provides that there is the availability of a co-ordinated support plan. We know that very few people get a co-ordinated support plan, but we also know that those transitions plans, which would be covered by that and legislation, are quite limited in nature given the purpose of the co-ordinated support plan, the only focus on education, and they are not deliberately targeted at disabled people who the bill is intended to support. We recognise that there is a significant underrepresentation of disabled people in employment and going on to positive destinations. That bill seeks to address that group of people and support them. The statutory guidance locates the planning process in the ASL Act 2004 within a child's plan, but the part of the legislation that brings the child's plan was repealed in 2019. That, again, leaves a huge gap in provision. The duties in the ASL Act cover all pupils with additional support needs, but that is limited by the words, see fit if any, and the local authority may not see it fit to exchange information or, indeed, to put in place a plan for a young disabled person. It is also a different group of people that we are looking to support here with this particular piece of legislation. We are looking to address the significant discrimination and oppression that is faced by a group of people who have a protected characteristic and are disabled people under the Equality Act. The duties and regulations in the current ASL Act as well are caveated and apply only in relation to such children and young persons as the authority consider appropriate. The review of co-ordinated support plans, which is part of the ASL Act 2004, is also considered that there is a need for clarity on the relationship between those plans, child plans and other plans. In fact, it suggested a one-child, one-plan approach. I would contend that the bill delivers that. A really reasonable question has been asked, which is why will this make a difference? The problem at the moment is that co-ordinated support plans should be given to just about every disabled child that is identified, because they have all got multiple support needs. There are 1,780 school leavers, according to the latest figures released yesterday, left school last year. 1,780 were disabled children and young people. Of those, if we are lucky, between 1 and 2 per cent of them received a co-ordinated support plan, which is what, 30 odd, 1 per local authority, that is a huge, huge failure. If resources are the issue and every local authority at the moment is telling us that their finances are hard pressed, what is the chance that guidance is always voluntary? You are not required to follow it, you just told its best practice if you do that. What is the chance that resources, which local authorities say they have not got at the moment, are going to go to ords giving every disabled child the support that they need before the leaves go and afterwards? Again, the Fraser Islander findings were that support had to be in place until young people were 25. That is because some of them leave school with what looks like a positive destination to go to college and, two years later, are no further on in their journey in life, no better qualifications than when they left school at Sarah. The bill at least says that resources are needed to do that. We might have got our figures wrong in terms of the amount of money that is required, but what we are talking about is somewhere between 10 and 15 million. Is that investment in the future of tens of thousands of disabled school leavers worth well? I would argue very definitely that it is, but if we want it to happen, we have to give the dedicated resources to local authorities to do that. Every child gets a plan, every child is entitled to support, and they might not always opt to get that support, but every child is entitled to support until they reach 25. The Scottish Government's own review of the literature and the research conducted by young people and their parents said that early and sustained transition planning is essential, holistic, co-ordinated wraparound support, services delivered in partnership, a designated key worker, which is what this legislation does, and person-centred family involvement in the preparation of the planet, Sarah. It is all there in the bill. It just needs to be translated into practice, and to do that, you need the resources. Just to say that I think that there is a lot to probe in that, but I do not want to tread on other people's questions. Some of the substance of your response here, Bill Scott, will be interrogated when I will use that as the wrong word. I am struggling later on by my vice-community, but I am going to move to questions firstly from Graham Day to follow on. I will now get a couple of questions. The Scottish Transitions Forum talked last week about legislation salad. There is a view that has been expressed that the landscape is already very congested, as it is. I am interested to explore how easily you think that the proposals in the bill would dovetail with existing duties and avoid this situation, and also the current policy development, the principles and practice trials, so that you would avoid a situation where regrettably perhaps that congestion would simply provide cover for more in action rather than enable what we are all wanting to see here, which is an improvement in the situation. That is my first question. Thank you very much for that, Graham Day. I heard the evidence that you took that referred to the legislation salad. I thought that it was a really good description of where it is. It is a bit of a legislation salad. I cannot disagree with that. There are a number of bits and pieces of legislation that are relevant here, but none of them are delivering the change that we really need to see. We are still in a situation where young disabled people are less likely to be in employment, where they are more likely to be not in education or training. The current legislation salad is not what we need. We need a bit of a different menu, if I am honest. The reasons that I would say that are because of some of the points that I made earlier on about the ASL act, but the Morgan review itself also recognised that, where it said that the adult support for learning legislation is over-dependent on committed individuals. That speaks a bit to Ruth Maguire's earlier question about the implementation gap. It is fragmented and inconsistent and is not ensuring that all young children and young people who need additional support are being supported to flourish and fulfil their potential. Of course, I said earlier that the law society recognises that, too. There is nothing in that particular legislation that says that the principles into practice should no longer exist or not or would not continue. In fact, I would suggest that the work that has been done on the principles into practice and the work that the Transitions Forum is excellent. That could dovetail nicely with some of the powers in the legislation for guidance and support, because, as with any piece of legislation, people will need support, they will need advice, they will need guidance, and we need principles on which to support it. I would also say that, if we want to put principles into practice, we might consider putting some of them into legislation so that that drives the practice that we need to see. There are various different bits and pieces. Some of that salad might include, for example, the self-directed support legislation. The self-directed support legislation itself or the independent review of that said that it needs scaled up, but it is also separate to this particular bill. If I thought that I could bring one bill that would solve every single problem disabled people face in Scotland starting from when they were born until they die, I would do it. However, there are a number of different bits of legislation that are intended to have an impact on disabled people's lives. However, what we do not have is something that is supporting them through a crucial part in their life. From about the age of 14, which the bill suggests, up until the age of 26, as the bill set out early on, it helps people to pull together all of the bits of legislation salad that gives them rights and support at different parts of their life, which pulls that together and becomes a co-ordinating framework for that management. Just now, too many families are distressed. They are struggling to cope. People's transitions are being addressed far too late. My inbox, as I am sure all of your inboxes, is full of people saying, my son or my daughter leaves next week and we do not have a transitions plan in place. We really need something that pulls all of this together, that co-ordinates it, that works well with the different aspects on the salad or on the plate, but that is dedicated to saying that we will have a national transition strategy that will look at what action we need to improve the outcomes of disabled young people, that we will have a plan that is in place for specifically that group of people that is specifically to address their transition, and that there will be responsibility at ministerial level and accountability to make sure that people and families can see clearly what their rights are. I would contend that professionals working in the area also understand what that means to them, so that they can navigate that salad a bit more easily. Thank you, convener. Is not the last thing that we need in our strategy, is not the action that we need? On that basis, what this process has done of interrogating your bill has weighed bear, I think, for all of the committee, the shocking situation that exists. Wouldn't the purpose that we are all committed to be better served by looking very closely at what does not work and not focus on one aspect of it, rather than a couple of aspects, as your bill does, and actually set about changing lots of little things that would make a huge difference? Is not there a bigger picture here beyond the bill that we ought to be focusing on more? Yes, absolutely. I appreciate and thank Graham Day for saying that. There is a much bigger picture, and I hope that through bills that will come to Parliament, including the incorporation bill at some point, a national care service, that all of those areas will be areas where we can start to look at what needs to change, because you are right that so much needs to change. Fundamentally, what we have not got in legislation at this minute in time is a right for children and young people to have a transitions plan from the age of 14 that follows them through to the age of 26 or beyond, and there is regulation making powers in the bill to do that, that really focuses on what they need in order to give them a fighting chance at a future, and that just is not there just now, because when you look at the implementation gap, of course, as Ruth Maguire highlighted, but when we look at the legislation, I am not surprised that there is an implementation gap, because the legislation is not directing and focused on this particular group of people. It is leaving professionals unclear about what their duties are and it is not giving young disabled people that accountability so that they can hold people to account. One of the things that I have learned and I have learned a lot since coming to Parliament in May 21, I think that this has probably been the steepest, fastest learning curve in my life, and one of the things that I have learned is that there is nothing sharpens a minister's mind more than getting them on their feet and having to talk about something that they have done in Parliament and in the chamber. Disabled people do not get that opportunity, because there is so much over the last two decades even. Bill and I have worked together for a long time on issues such as this. I will not embarrass them to suggest how long, but it has been a while. We are constantly told that this guidance will do it. This is the bit that will work. This strategy will work. Just focus on what does not work and change that little bit. I am sorry to say that the bit that does not work is the bit that the bill is trying to address, which is to give people that right in statute to have a plan that gives them a fighting chance at the future. I think that there is a big point on the salad. Part 5 of the Children and Young People's Scotland act, which is where the child plan features, has never been commenced, so it is not part of the salad. The Scottish Government has announced that it will be repealed. I am still waiting for it to happen, but it is not part of the salad. There is no obligation on local authorities to do anything in regard to part 5 at the moment. Then, we have the co-ordinated sport plans. As we know, they are affecting a tiny minority of the disabled children and young people in the school system at the moment. What that creates is one piece of legislation that creates a duty on local authorities to do it. If the Scottish Government agrees, it will provide them with resources to do the planning and to provide the sport after the young people have left school. It is important that it continues after they leave school. Too many young people are being abandoned. We know contact with them whatsoever, so the worklessness rate and the economic connectivity rate, as Pam has already pointed out, is huge. We cannot afford to lose that resource from our economy at the moment. We need those young people to be in and in work and to train and get the skills that they need. Can I move to questions now from Stephen Kerr, please? We are going to ask a similar question about definitions. Why have you chosen to use the definitions that are deployed in the Equality Act 2010, as opposed to a broader definition? That has certainly had an impact on the financial memorandum and the costs that co-cab will move into comment. Faisgavir will drill down more on the finance questions later. Can we start with the issue of the definitions and what your calculation of those definitions is in terms of the number of people that the bill will cover? Absolutely. I thank Stephen Kerr for that question. The definition that we have chosen in the piece of legislation is the definition of a disabled person in the Equality Act 2010. The reason that we have chosen that is because I was content that that is broad. That includes people in the autistic spectrum, people with learning disabilities, people with mental ill health, because it is about how an impairment impacts on your social interaction and the way that you interact with society. If it has a long-term impact on it, you are considered a disabled person. The Scottish Government's own guidance includes definitions of people who can get support at transitions, which I think is provided through a service called Inquire, including the definition of disabled people. To be honest with you, that shows a little bit of inconsistency, because on one hand the current legislation talks about people with additional support needs, but on the other, the Government is giving out information that uses the definition in the Equality Act 2010. I think that it is correct to do that, because it is about specifically addressing the needs of this group of people. The other groups of people that are included in statistics for and people with additional support needs include care leavers, young people who are gifted. That is why it is broader. I am not suggesting for a second that those children do not have additional support needs that they do, or that they do not need support needs that they do. What I am suggesting is that there is a cohort of people that are deliberately categorised as having a protected characteristic in the Equality Act, because it recognises the fundamental oppression and discrimination that they face, and that that group of people is who this bill is for. People worry that that means that it does not include certain impairment categories. Actually, the Equality Act is drawn broadly for that specific purpose. If we look back at the records on Hansard when the Equality Act was being developed, there was a lot of discussion in Parliament at the time about how you would define disabled people. It looked very much at shifting the narrative from a medical model focus to a social model focus. That is why I think that the definition in the Equality Act of a disabled person is the right one for this piece of legislation. There is an element of self-identification in there, as well as in there. There is, but it is also about suggesting that it has a long-term impact on people's life. Actually, that is not new. This is how organisations and schools, I would say, education authorities, universities and colleges, are already identifying some of their disabled young people. I know that it is also being suggested in some evidence that how will authorities identify young disabled people? How will they come across them? How are they going to know who they are? Excellent. I am glad to be on the front for a change. The reason I know that they are doing this is because the data on young people with additional support needs is broken down by large numbers of categories of impairment. They know who those young people and children of young people are. To suggest that teachers and schools do not know the pupils in their classes who need that extra support and who could be considered a disabled person is just not the case, I do not think. I think that they have very good relationships with them. Who ultimately decides? Because there will be some people who feel that they or their children should be included in those who will automatically receive this support in terms of a plan. There will be other people who will say that they shouldn't. So who ultimately decides? In essence, the same way as the Equality Act determines that, if you believe that you are impaired to a significant degree where it impacts on your daily life, you or your parents would claim that that child is entitled to the support and would have an Equality Act claim that they could do so if it was refused. However, as Pam said, around 1800 children are already identified among school leavers as disabled children and young people. The ASN statistics can be broken down by impairment category. There are a lot of people under the ASN who would not qualify as disabled people because the level of impairment they have does not have a significant impact on their daily lives. To give you an example, and I am not by any means saying that there is no impairment involved, but children with dyslexia, for example, have approximately the same number of positive outcomes as children without dyslexia. The level of impairment does not seem to have a significant impact on whether they go to college, higher education or get employment. However, for children with learning difficulties or a motor impairment or a speech or language impairment, 10 per cent of all those children fail to get a positive destination on leaving school four times the rate for those without an impairment. There is definitely something there. I believe that the Equality Act is good enough for the Scottish Government, usually. It is good enough for the UK Government. Why is it not good enough for children and parents? It is the normal way to find a disability. Actually, schools and the structures around young disabled people now are probably contending with this exact question because there is not a situation where, for example, everyone can see that I am a disabled person, so there is no hiding not that I ever want to do that. I am proud of my identity. However, if you cannot see an impairment, there is always the question of, how do we know you are a disabled person? Schools are already asking those questions because they have to be to identify the young people they are working with. There are various different mechanisms that they can use to do that. They can ask about what support people need, and they can look at if there is a diagnosis in place. Of course, that gets us into waiting times and that is a whole other question. It goes back to Graham Day's point about a number of problems that currently exist in how we are going to address them. That is something that ultimately will need to be looked at as well. Those questions are not new as a result of the definition that we have used in the bill. The purpose of the definition in the bill is to give a focus specifically to those people who have that protected characteristic in recognition of the fact that they are significantly oppressed and discriminated against. When the co-cap comes on to talk about the financial implications of how this is defined, they are very significant. My last question is about this. There have been a number of memorable phrases that have stuck with me during the presentation of the evidence in relation to this bill. One of the quotes is the salad that has been much mentioned earlier. Someone said, you cannot legislate for a relationship. What we know from the evidence that we have received, particularly from individuals who are impacted most by young people and their parents and carers, is that relationships are the critical element in all of that. For example, you mentioned in your opening statement, Falkirk, where there was much mention of an individual whose whole job is based around supporting families and individuals through those transition journeys, as you have mentioned to the age of 25. That single point of contact becomes a critical relationship in the management of what you have described as the project. When it comes to resources and the resources that will flow with that, I suppose that my question is, should every local authority have someone like the person that we heard about in Falkirk? What are the implications of that in terms of resources and the direction of resources that are already quite scarce? Thank you again for that question. I will come to the technical detail in the bill on it, which says that a lot of that can be done to sometimes regulation and guidance so that local authorities can decide the model that suits best themselves. I will say about your point on legislating for relationships. You cannot legislate for relationships but you can legislate to put people in the room and build those relationships, and that is what this bill seeks to do. I know that much work has been looking at the action plan that has been published by the Scottish Government on the co-ordinate support plans and also on the ASL review. I know from the minister, Clare Haughey and Christina McKelvie's evidence a couple of weeks ago or last week that the national transition strategy may indeed begin to address some of those questions. That is all really, really valuable. In fact, there is work on going about the creation of qualifications for teaching support and additional support teachers in schools. All of that will add to that. All of that will be really helpful and important but none of it legislates to make sure that people get in the room and somebody takes control of what is happening. That is what I think the benefit of this bill will bring. Thank you. Bob Doris, you have a brief supplementary on this thread. Just briefly, because the thrust I want to come in with is after the Vice-Communist line of questioning, Bill Scott, you have hopefully mentioned the broad definition under the Equalities Act, and you have mentioned dyslexia. I think that you are making the point that there are more, all disabilities have impacts, but there are more profound, complex mix of disabilities where there is a greater need and dyslexia without being sparraging about it may not necessarily be there. Specificly, in the guidance of the Equalities Act, dyslexia specifically mentioned has been qualifying because I was wrestling with, when you are talking, Mr Scott, about more profound disabilities, unless that, I am paraphrasing, so I apologise, I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but more profound disabilities are less profound disabilities, and you mentioned dyslexia. It is potentially being less impactful, but dyslexia is specifically a qualifying disability in terms of the Equalities Act, so I am just wondering if you want to say a little bit more about that. Mental health is also a qualifying disability in terms of the Equalities Act. I myself have a mental health condition, I suffer a periodic depression, and there are times when I would define myself as a disabled person. I don't just now because my mental health is good, and that is the difference. The Equalities Act does not just say that it is the condition that qualifies you as a disabled person, it has to have a significant impact on your daily life for a period of time, unless you are terminally ill, et cetera. You have to move beyond having a person who has an impairment to having a significant impact on their daily life. If the answer to that is yes, then they qualify for support under the spell. If the person says, Mr Scott, that I do not think that I have progressed as smoothly within schools I would have done because of barriers in relation to dyslexia, I think that almost everyone with dyslexia would say that I matter, of course, and that I have a strong case in relation to that. Therefore, you could argue that everyone with dyslexia would qualify for this transition plan. Would that be a reasonable assumption to make? It would be a reasonable assumption if they could show that their progression had not advanced to the same extent. In other words, if their grades were high, et cetera, despite the fact that they said that their progression was not good, then it does not appear to be impacting on their daily life. Of course they can make the case, and if that turns out to be the case that they are not progressing as well, then yes. In the interests of—I do not mean to cut you on that, but I found that going around the circles a little bit there in the response. I come to Stephanie Callaghan now for some questions. Thank you, convener, and thanks for being here this morning, Pam. It is great that you have been highlighting this stuff. It really is fantastic. A couple of things you have said already as well that I thought were really quite powerful about your mum saying, now I can be a mum again. It is so important. You spoke about the legislative salad and said that none of it is actually delivering what it is that we need to see just now. Certainly that having guidance, having strategies, having duties is absolutely fine, but it does come down to those relationships, that advocacy, and people feeling that they have agency as well. We have heard from young people and families in the evidence as well that often professionals will identify positive destinations for them. I suppose that positive destinations are in quotation marks there, but those do not always reflect the canaspirations and the interests and the things that matter to young people and to their families too. We have also heard about data and control, about young people wanting to own their own story, and again have that agency in control and have choices around sharing their data. I am really interested in two quite specific things there. How will the bill bring an approach that is centred around the young person and their aspirations and secondly, improve their outcomes? Thank you very much, Stephanie Callaghan, for that question. I know that you have a really keen interest in this and you are passionate about the rights of young disabled people. I thank you for the work that you have done on it so far. Those questions are key. When you look at the detail in the legislation, which I know the committee has been doing, I thank them for the work that they have done on it, almost at every point, and I have not seen another piece of legislation that has really quite done this, but I have tried to have a look at every point that there is either a regulation duty or a duty on some other bodies, or there is a development of a strategy or a development of a plan. There is also almost the same clause that says, and must consult and must consult and the young person and their family must be involved. Various different sections of the bill, section 7, section 11, section 12, all cover areas of ensuring that this is a person-centred approach. Actually, this is what is most important about it. When I said earlier about not wanting to be a project manager in your own life or the young person you love and care for his own life, it is not that you therefore want to devolve all responsibility and step aside. It is that you want to spend time thinking about where do I want to go, who do I want to be, what do I want to be, do I want to end up in that particular destination, is it positive? Actually, as an aside, I think that there is a bigger conversation about how we define positive destinations for all young people in Scotland, not just for young disabled people, but those kind of questions need to be the focus, as opposed to has somebody contacted social work and let them know that, in a couple of years' time, this person might need self-directed support to be put in place? Has somebody had a look at what kind of accommodation or housing is going to be available if that person goes to that college or university? Those are transactional questions managing a project, as I described. They are not questions about where do I want to go when I grow up. Do I want to go to a college course? I do not want to be disparaging, but I am sure that you have heard in evidence that there are some situations in which young disabled people, because of the aspirations that other people have—and we know that there is plethora of data and research that shows that non-disabled people sometimes have lower expectations of disabled people than they themselves have, and the statistic that I said earlier about people's aspirations has almost been beaten down. Because of that, people do end up parked in certain courses that they might not want to be in. I contend that that might be because we are rushing at the last minute to find a destination of any description, positive or otherwise, to be honest, because what I have heard from people when I have spoken to them about the legislation is that it is all decided far too late. You are often faced with a situation where this young person is going to leave school maybe in a matter of weeks. What are we going to do? We will have to do something—this college course is definitely going to do that—life skills course or otherwise. Those courses—I put on record that I am not suggesting that they are not appropriate for some people. Of course they are, but we should not end up in a situation in which we do not have much time, so we are panic-placing people into situations that are not really positive destinations. They are just destinations. I think that the bill in bringing that planning process in a more streamlined fashion, starting at an earlier point and giving people responsibilities to get around the table and having somebody out with the family being the person that makes sure that, if you have done the bit that you would do, if you have phoned the person you said you would have phoned, if you have been in touch with this, that is so important because it then allows the family to focus on what the destination is. I really do not disagree with much of what you are saying. I hear this stuff myself absolutely. For me, the part of it that really concerns me is that, when we are talking to practitioners, what we are hearing is that transition should not be something quite separate. It should be something that is organic and built in all the way through. I know that Northlandshire Council has done loads of great work over the past 12 years. They have been absolutely fabulous and fantastic. However, we have had comments from practitioners saying that legislation is about the quality that is underneath that. We have heard them say that they are worried about the idea that this is another plan and that the plan is piling up in somebody's desk and that it becomes something to be completed, that it could actually be a reductionist and that it could end up in a bit of a tick box exercise for them as well, so that some of the good practice that they are kind of doing just now in evolving that the plan might get in the way of that. My question is, would it not be better to really focus on that good practice that is happening just now rather than specifically on the bill, look at bringing that forward, really supporting it and actually bringing in legislation to support that and make sure that it is happening if that actually turns out to be needed for it there? Thank you for that question. I think the point that you have ended on there about bringing in legislation to support that and make it happen, I think that that is key. My earlier answer to possibly Stephen Kerr or Graham Day, forgive me, I cannot remember, around the principles into practice. I think that there are opportunities there for us to say that this is working really well, this is not working. There are lots of things that we can do to try and improve the practice on the ground. Of course there is, but ultimately legislation drives policy and policy drives practice or it should. That is how I think we all know it should. That is why I believe that we need to look at that. The points that you have just made about the practitioner saying that this is just another plan in a pile and there will be lots of other plans and there is all a bit much there. Can we not just focus on what he has done? All of the reviews of the ASL legislation that currently exists agree with that practitioner. They agree with that. They say that there is too much almost to an extent that we need a one plan, one child focus. That is what this bill does. Okay, thank you. Are you okay? Is that your finish, Stephanie? Yes. Excellent. Can we move to questions now from Ross Greer, please? Pam, I would like to pick up on just exactly what you said there at the end about legislation drives policy and policy drives practice. At the core of what you are proposing is this premise that we need to mandate this kind of action if we want to see transformational change. I am interested in the comparison between that and I think that you have both mentioned so far this morning the experience with co-ordinated support plans, which are not the same thing, but if we are looking at it in the same space, they are the only kind of plan at the moment that has that statutory underpinning that should result in the kind of compulsion on relevant authorities to actually improve support for a young person, but that does not happen. It does not happen as you pointed out for the 99.5 per cent of young people who do not have a co-ordinated support plan, but even for the 0.5 who do, we have plenty of examples where, despite the fact that they have got it and despite the fact that that is the statutory plan that should give them that ability to pursue recourse if they do not get support, that does not happen. I would be interested in your thoughts on why that statutory approach has not worked for CSPs and that the follow-up to that then is why, if it has not worked for CSPs, this would provide a solution to that or this would result in a different outcome. It would actually result in the kind of compulsion on authorities that you are looking for. Thank you, Ross Greer. I appreciate that and also to recognise the passion that you have for this. In fact, indeed, all members who we have heard from so far have. I welcome the support and energy around it. The implementation gap that one of the first questions that Ruth Maguire addressed is, of course, crucial. There are lots of legislation that we can all point to that still needs to be implemented. I understand that. I would see that. I have seen it when it comes to disabled people for decades. Actually, the question of justice and access to justice for disabled people is a real serious concern. I will talk a bit in a minute about the ways in which I think that this bill addresses some of that and is enforceable. I recognise the work that is on going to look at whether we need qualifications for additional support teachers and how we encourage good practice. There is the award system for schools that recognises the good practice in education but also of young disabled people and the journey that they have travelled. All of that is on going and should continue. I do not think that the bill stops any of that. What the bill does is, and I have seen it time and time again, particularly when it comes to disabled people, but the same is true for all different protected characteristics. If we leave that to accident and default, we end up defaulting in a situation where society is still discriminating against an oppression of a large group of disabled people. We have to fix that by design. We cannot leave it to accident any more. That design, I believe, is looking at the various different bits of legislation that exist. Ross Greer pointed out himself the point about the co-ordinated support plan not being the same as that. It is not. It has a different purpose. It was developed for a different purpose. This is developed for a specific purpose and it is about a transition. If we can get that, there are almost two things here. There is the current legislative framework right. I do not believe so. Neither does a number of organisations, including the Law Society and the Children and Young People's Commissioner. We need to change that. That is what I am trying to do with the legislation, but we always have to change practice because, as Graham Day pointed out, there is good practice in places, but there is also some pretty poor practice that we need to shine a light on and address. I would contend that that sharpens the minds and sharpens the focus on that by putting it into legislation, being much clearer and having that one-child, one-plan approach. I really appreciate that. You do not need to tell you that there is absolute logical consistency in what you are saying, but the conclusion is still that this bit of legislation will result in better practice. Given that co-ordinated support plans are the result of another bit of legislation, there are statutory requirements there and they have not resulted in the change in practice that we want. I set absolutely what you are saying. They are not exactly the same thing as they are. They are not transition plans, but the premise of my question remains there of why will legislation result in a kind of change in practice that we are all looking for here, when there are other bits of legislation in that space that were intended for exactly the same thing, not specifically on transitions, but were intended to force a change in practice. Have not forced that change? What is different here? I suggest that scrutiny is part of the problem here. I will go back to one of my earlier answers on having a minister and having the strategy laid in Parliament, having a reporting period, so that people know that there is going to be a point at which they can scrutinise the development of that. Right now, we do not have a strategy to address that. I know that the Government is bringing one forward and I welcome that, but we need that in legislation because we cannot just leave it in manifesto commitments that may or may not ever be enacted or that only exist while a certain good intentioned, passionate member of the cabinet is driving it forward. We need to do that in legislation and I think that that is incredibly important. We also need an opportunity for people to be able to hold ministers to account for this, and that is what the bill specifically does. That does not exist in the other parts and other pieces of legislation. On specific parts—forgive me a look at my notes a wee bit more for this bit so that I get the sections right—section 1 on the national transition strategy provides, I think, a clear reference point to local authorities and other agencies. It says that the aims and objectives and outcomes need to be set out. Those are important. Also, the actions that the authorities will need to take that ministers think will be necessary to improve transitions. Having something like that in legislation cannot be underestimated. Section 4 says that local authorities and other agencies would have a statutory duty when exercising those functions to comply. That is another point at which you would be able to scrutinise the way in which those have been developed. Section 6 says that a member of Government or minister would have assigned responsibility for that. We have changed the language in this version of the bill from the previous version of the bill to take account of some concerns of previous committees. Section 9 says that local authority must ensure that each disabled child or young people receive the care and support to meet the needs in the plan. Section 14 says that Scottish ministers might introduce guidance about transitions and local authorities and agencies and that they must have regard to it. Section 15 says that they should issue general or specific directions about plans. Section 16 requires ministers to lay before Parliament an annual report on progress. All of those things do not exist yet. I think that they would add the scrutiny that young disabled people and their families really need to be able to go to it, because people can come to me and all of us, indeed, as parliamentarians, just now and say, I'm tearing my hair out. We've all heard it. I'm tearing my hair out. My young person is leaving school next week and nothing's in place. This morning I've heard exactly that story where somebody with significant support needs is now stuck at home. They've already left school and nothing's is yet in place and they don't have an adult social worker in place. We know that this—so they come to us and we say that we'll put pressure on and we do what we can. We write letters, we have meetings, we call people, but actually when we go back to say, well, what are the duties and responsibilities that people have here and they're not clear and they're not as robust, I think, as this bill is, and that's why we need to change that. That's great. Thank you for that. Can I come to some supplementaries on this theme from Willie Rennie first, please? I think that Rossi's question is really quite a powerful question and I think that you've gone someway to deal with it. There's a slight council of despair that because we've not been able to enforce it before, we shouldn't ever try to do it again in terms of statutory nature around about plans, but nevertheless it does beg the question, is this going to be any different from before? It is open to us to scrutinise co-ordinated support plans. We can question them in Parliament, we can do all that stuff just now, so there's nothing stopping us doing it. You're saying by stipulating that a minister is responsible and there is scrutiny angles that that will somehow change it. Is there any parallels in other areas where that's really made a difference? Yes, there is. About seven years ago, the HRC published a study that it conducted into modern apprenticeships in Scotland. Maybe some members will remember it. It identified that 0.5 per cent of modern apprenticeships were going to young disabled people when they made up between eight and nine per cent of the young people in Scotland. Nowadays, if you ask skill development Scotland how many modern apprenticeships are going to young disabled people, it's exactly the same proportion as there are young disabled people in Scotland. That was because the Parliament was scrutiny. Parliament decided that that was an important issue and put their weight behind it. What we are saying is that we are creating a right for young disabled people to have a plan. The Scottish Transitions Forum, which you've heard evidence from, says that planning should start early and continue until age 25 for all young disabled people. Is there any legal duty for that to happen at the moment? No, there is not. It does not exist in the child's plan and it does not exist in the co-ordinated sport plan. Both of them are for education. They stop after the child's left school. That is the only plan that guarantees support after the young person's left school. That is why it is important because we are failing them after they leave school as well as failing them at school. That is why the plan is needed and that is why legislations need to change things. I really appreciate that. I think that that is a really important point that you have made your bill about. That scrutiny is really making a change in that area there. However, I am coming back to the point that has been made by Ross around practice. For example, we heard about a wee boy who wanted to be a pilot to take him along to the airport and he is as interested in the baggage as anything else and ends up with a job in the baggage department. It is about this particular legislation. Is this bill really going to be the thing that changes practice? Would that make that happen for other wee boys? Would there be a similar situation where it changes things for them in that way? I think that that is a nitty gritty of this. That is the question that I am trying to answer with the bill. I guess what I would point to is what the bill has just said in relation to modern apprentices and to add to the answer to Willie Rennie's question, which I thank him for, is to say that, right now, we could, of course, say that this co-ordinate support plan was not put in place or, actually, we would be more likely to say that there was no co-ordinate support plan given the statistics, but we are still dealing with it is like one person, one person, one person in an isolated situation. That is constantly firefighting. There is nothing that pulls all of that together. I think that the bill does two things in that sense. I think that it puts on a statutory footing, and I have already made a comment about the purpose and the need to do that, the need for a national strategy that looks at how are we going to address those issues. It gives individual rights, so it does both of those things at the same time. One of the things that disabled people get told so often—part of that is because I think that nobody really wants to be associated with not doing what is right for disabled people—most people set out every day when they work in this field and do the right thing and do as much as they possibly can. However, we are constantly told that that circumstance was a one-off or that that only happened in this situation. It does not happen in all situations. We really need to have a broader focus on that as well, which I think that the strategy part of this legislation suggests. Then, to finish on your final question, which was there—I am sorry, I am not suggesting that this is your final question. I am not chair of the committee. I am chair of the committee, and I am wanting to move to Michael Marra very quickly, if you do not mind. Excellent, I will do. On that final point, the areas that I outlined in terms of scrutiny, so the ministerial assignment of ministerial responsibility, the lame before Parliament, the annual report, the review of plans, the review of the strategy, all of these things sharpen the focus to make sure that if we are doing the right thing on the ground, we know we are, because we are asking. Thank you. Michael Marra, please. Pam, you have watched the evidence given to us by ministers last week, and I think that the kind of the thrust of that for me was, we have got a strategy coming. Do you think that we should wait, see what is in it, it is published and see whether it works? Thank you, Michael Marra, for that question. No, I do not. I said earlier on in my opening statement that the data that the committee are aware of, the young disabled people, are three times more likely to not end up in education, employment or training. That data was the same in 2008, when Inclusion Scotland wrote the briefing that I have got in front of me today. It probably was the same previously to that, too. We are consistently, disabled people are consistently told, this next strategy will be the thing, you do not need this in legislation. I remember this from working in policy when I worked in that area. It is constantly the next thing will do it, the next thing will do it, and it has not done it yet. Here we are, almost 20 years since we have been working together in this field, sorry, Bill, I would say, I would not out that number. We still do not have the rights of young disabled people delivering the fight and chance that they need. I am afraid that I would say that I do not think that we should wait. I guess that I would ask the committee how long do they think that disabled people should wait? When do they think that it is the right timescale to say that this is or is not working? There are disabled people out in communities right now who are either about to leave school or have already left school with no plan and they cannot wait to see if the Government's strategy, which has not yet been published, is acknowledged fully that they have committed to it. I fully believe that it will be published, and I believe that I take the ministers for their word, but they cannot wait for this. I would urge the committee to look at that question and say, how long do you think that it is acceptable to wait to see whether that strategy works? I think that there is huge frustration, and I can hear that from both yourself and Bill Scott. I think about the committee in terms of the delivery and what is going to make this happen. I suppose that that will probably come to the nub of the discussion today. I had a meeting with a chief executive council earlier this week who said that they are now in a position where they can do nothing that is not required of them by law. Is that the situation that disabled people are facing? Absolutely. That is the situation that disabled people are facing. If you forgive me, I am just looking back to see if I have a quote here from Audit Scotland that speaks to that. They have said in a blog on transitions that it is distressing and frustrating that we repeatedly hear of the barriers that some families fight against to get the right support to help their child to learn. Too often, families are worn down by a prolonged search for the right support by having to manage a crisis that could have been avoided. They then want to note that councils provide support in different ways with a wide variation in spending. That partly reflects the different ways that services are provided and the varying costs of supporting individuals. Crucially, councils may reflect local decisions to prioritise between a wide range of services. Audit Scotland recognises that councils are in a horrific position right now. I do not underestimate that. I do not think that now is the place to get into the point on the budgets. I could be here for another three hours if we touched on that, but you really hit the nail in the head there, Michael Marra, when you make the point about them really struggling to do just the statutory responsibilities. I cannot tell you how often disabled people face the argument that it is not an obligation, so we do not have to do it. Social care is an example. Eligibility criteria get stripped back and stripped back and stripped back till we are literally doing the only thing that we have to do, which is keep you alive. That is what we are trying to avoid with this bill for transitions in young disabled people. Bill Scott, do you want to come in on this? Yes, again, it is how do you measure success? I suppose that there is a strategy developed and published. I have worked with those ministers and I understand fully that they are committed to trying to deliver on that strategy. How do you measure success? One of the ways might be, for example, how many young disabled people are benefiting from the young persons guarantee? Can the Scottish ministers tell us how many young disabled people are benefiting from the young persons guarantee? No, they cannot, because they do not collect any statistics on whether young disabled people are accessing the guarantee or not. We are in the same position as we modern apprenticeships. We do not know and therefore we do not care and we do not act. The statistics that we are presenting to you should tell you that we are failing young disabled people at the moment. We need to act. It has to go beyond guidance, because at the moment local authorities are absolutely so hard pressed that they will only do what they are required to do in law. That requires them to do something in law. It will have to happen and it carries a budget with it and I know that we are going to come on here. Thank you very much. That is a nice segue in to the next line of questioning from my vice convener, Cookeab Stewart. We will have a look at the financial memorandum. Bill, you have already alluded to the fact that you have the figures wrong. I have them wrong. I said that I am prepared to listen to the argument, so I have them wrong. I think that you are in words where we might have got our figures wrong, as what you said. Thank you for the clarification, convener. The approximate cost that you have got down in your financial memorandum was £893,372 in year 1, but the COSLA estimate is actually 11 times that. Can I get a wee bit of an understanding of how you originally came across your figures? To see how COSLA came across their figures, because they do not provide any figures accompanying that estimate to a million. Can I get an understanding of how you came across your figures? We used the figures that COSLA supplied on the gradings of the people that would be likely to be assigned this work, and then worked out the number of hours that, again, based on how many hours were normally done on similar work by local authorities in assisting people through transitions. The hours and the grading are those supplied by COSLA, and then we worked out the number of young people that would require a plan to be put in place and multiplied by the number of hours and the number of people and the grade. We have talked a little bit about the definitions of disability that would be included under the Equalities Act. We have also taken evidence in other sessions about the underestimation of time that is allocated to prepare because of the complexity of arranging and delivering multi-agency meetings. On reflection, do you feel that your figures are an underestimate? There could be an underestimate. I think that the true figure probably lies somewhere between what we have estimated and North Lanarkshire's estimate. North Lanarkshire would estimate about three times the cost, but I have to say that what they are looking at is a transition from children's to adult social care. Those transitions are particularly complex because the young people that go through that transition need a lot of support. The great majority of the young disabled people that would be covered by the transitions plan in this bill are not receiving social care, and therefore that is not part of their transition. The average that we have arrived at is one for a lot of young disabled people who do not have complex needs but do have needs based on their impairment. The average lies somewhere between those at the high end and those at the very low end. As I say, I think that we probably are somewhere between North Lanarkshire's estimate and her own. I say that it is another £5 million on top of the £10 million that we estimate after a year eight. I still think that that is money well spent, and I do not think that we should be quibbling about a few million here or there. I know that every pound is precious, but those are young people's lives that we are talking about. We are talking about the rest of their lives, that investment at that early stage. I agree with previous children's commissioners and the previous policy adviser to the Scottish Government. There are key points in people's lives where an intervention by the state can make a real difference. That is what we are asking for. I am just concerned more about the figures rather than the principle. I do not disagree with what you are saying there. I appreciate that and thank you for your question. I think that, to say at the outset, we have done the best that we can to produce the figures that you have in front of you in the financial memorandum. However, as is the case with the bill itself, we are prepared to discuss those in detail. I have not had meetings with COSLA. There are points of departure where they say that they would need an additional member of staff to do something where I have said that existing staff have duties and responsibilities to do that. There are a few questions about what is an existing responsibility and a cost attached to it. I would argue that, if we are not already putting in the resources that COSLA says that we need to in order to meet the requirements of disabled people to have a fight and chance at a future, then I would say that we are failing them. I would say that that is an admission of failure in that respect. However, when it comes down to the pounds and pens in the figures, let me start with the 4,000 people that we have said in the financial memorandum. That figure has been taken on the definition that is used in the census for disabled people that we would be able to access a plan under that particular piece of legislation, looking at what the number of ASN pupils are as well as the census data. It came to 4,000. The census data uses the definition and the equality act, usually of disabled people. What we have then done is to look at that and to multiply it by the number of local authorities. Of course, the law of averages suggests that we have seen evidence—I know that you have taken evidence—written evidence, I believe, from councils such as Glasgow, which have said that it will be much more, and other authorities who have said that it will be different. I understand that that could happen in the way that you use averages. The most important thing to remember is that, if we are already saying that, if the argument of COSLA and of local authorities is that it will be significantly more expensive to do that, we have to ask ourselves what we are not doing already, that there is such an additional—we have spent a lot of time this morning talking about existing duties, existing responsibilities and existing legislation, but we have also got a situation where organisations such as COSLA are saying that it will cost a lot more if we have to do this, so either they exist now and they should be spending it or they do not exist, and that is another argument for the bill. The evidence received from the Finance and Public Administration committee considered that the financial memorandum was understates the cost of implementing the changes, and you have just alluded to that. What was your rationale behind the expectation that some of the costs would be accommodated within existing resources? We know that young people in schools have access to pastoral care—guidance teachers, they were called in my day—and that they have existing structures that are in place that are there to support them. For example, Skills Development Scotland staff engage with schools, either special schools or state schools, so there are existing structures that are there. Arguably, those existing structures should be treating all young people equally, and that includes young disabled people. However, the statistics show that they are not yet, so what we are saying is that there is a mechanism here in this bill to try to address some of that, to focus attention on it. I would like to provide reassurance to the committee that I am in no way, ears closed, eyes closed, to a different perspective on the finance, but what I will say is—and I say that also on the basis that I go back to my comment earlier about the cost for local authorities—the last thing that anybody wants to do is land local authorities with duties that they do not have financial support to back up. We have to do that. That, I would contend, is the Government's responsibility. I think that what we have to do just now is to remember two comments, one by the national audit office that said that good support—and I would contend that good transitions would be that—can save £1 million per person. Even if we take our estimate and cause this estimate and we take the £5 million extra as five people, we only have to get this right for five people and there will be a longer term saving to the state. Secondly, comments by the law society that said that the wider costs of inaction would be greater in comparison to the cost of implementation. It is the context of those two statements that I approach the question of the financial resolution. Can I ask something specifically on—you mentioned that you used the definition and the numbers from the census. Given that the last census that we have that I can find anywhere is 2011, and we know that there were significant issues around the census that were carried out last, that is quite some time ago the data that you are using. I would just challenge that it might be perceived to be out of date. That is a fair contention, convener. It was the most up-to-date census data that was available to us when we prepared the financial memorandum, but it is also not unreasonable to assume that that is the case because, as I referred to earlier, we cross-referred it with the data on children with additional support needs. When you look at those data, which are updated a bit more regularly, including yesterday, I believe, then when you look at that and then you look at the number of disabled people in the census, you can come to a conclusion about the number of people who would access support under this plan. Go back to the vice convener, please. At last week's meeting, you were aware that the minister for children and young people said that ministers had had discussions with you about the modelling on the financial memorandum and that you were looking to work with stakeholders to better understand the potential costs of the bill. You said that you have not yet met with COSLA. Can you give us an update of which stakeholders you have engaged with or are intending on engaging with? Sorry, I think I said and thank you, co-cab student, for that. I think I said I had met with COSLA. Oh, you had? I have met with COSLA twice, I believe now. I've met with a range of stakeholders, I've done engagement all across Scotland on this bill. Members will have possibly seen the bit of a roadshow that I did during the summer period and that engaged people who work in the field, people who work in the DWP, people who work in Skills Development Scotland. I've also specifically met them separately to that engagement. I've met with teachers on those roadshows, I've met with young disabled people, I've met with their family and their carers. So the extensive engagement that's been carried out, I have met with probably most of the stakeholders that I think you would consider need to be engaged in this particular process, but I'm willing to meet with anyone who believes that they have a stake in this, to discuss with them how best to make it work. Again, I hope that this has come across to the committee. I want to make this work, I want to do the right thing, I want to be able to ensure that things like the financial memorandum are accurate. We've done that to the best that we can. Bill acknowledged that if there are other numbers in it, then we'd be prepared to discuss that. We did spend a lot of time coming to the conclusions that we did, and our rationale is there. I also, that is the way in which I approach stakeholder engagement on it too. So if people want to talk with us, I'd be more than happy to, but I haven't already engaged a large number of groups, including the Transitions Forum as well. Bill, do you want to come in there? It's very quickly, both on the financial audit committee and the COSLA estimates. There is one thing wrong with their assumptions, I have to say, and that is that they assume that every young person, young disabled person who we are planning, will still be accessing support 12 years after, 8 years, 10 years after they leave school. We don't think that that will be the case. A, almost half of them have positive destinations that they managed to maintain. We don't think that they will be accessing support. There will also be attrition, which every service provider knows about, that if you're calling people in for meetings and they don't believe that there's any purpose to them, they'll drop away and they will cease accessing support. You'll also lose contact with people. Some of the estimates that they've made are false, we think, because they don't take attrition into account and they don't take success into account. We actually think that if they're just providing a support in place, we'll increase the number of successes so that there will be less people accessing support later. We did hear about that dipping in and out would be quite important to young people in the transition and engaging in various things. I've got a very short supplementary from Graeme Dey. With respect, we shouldn't be sitting today disputing whether the figures are out by a factor of three or a factor of 11, but can I just go back to something to be queer on? I'm pretty sure that, in evidence that we took last week, the ministers indicated that, following a meeting that they had with you late last year, an undertaking was given to go and talk to COSLA specifically on this issue and get the answers. If that's accepted, has that taken place? That meeting for that purpose, because it sounds to me like it hasn't, because we don't have agreement on this today on the numbers? There's no mechanism for us to replace the financial memorandum once it was laid, but we have met with COSLA and we did meet them to talk about the financial memorandum. The outcome of that was what Bill's described, which is that there is a departure in our agreement on the figures. However, I would like to assure Graeme Dey that I go back to my comments about the national audit office and the law society. Thank you. I was going to say that if there is that departure, perhaps you can share that with the committee. I'm going to stop and move on to questions from Bob Dorris, because I've got my eye on the clock. Thanks, convener, and thanks to self-parmin for the support Bill Scots played in bringing this Bill forward, and I acknowledge Johann Lamont sitting in the following proceedings. Also, sometimes, when there's good wealth of the bill, we still have to scrutinise it pretty robustly, so please take questions in that light. In relation to the financial memorandum, which is the line of questions that has been on, I see from my point of view here that it suggests that each meeting in relation to planning for transitions will require an average of one hour of preparation, one hour of follow-up. The meeting itself will take around two hours, and there's between two to four meetings each year. Andy Miller from SCLD disputed that as been realistic and doesn't take any cognisance of the complexities that could be involved on reflection. Do you think that that's maybe a bit ambitious? I think that in a number of cases that will be accurate, but I acknowledge SCLD's evidence and I saw their evidence. The way in which this has been approached and the hours and the way that we have calculated the sort of support that people will need on this is based on decades of work with disabled people, their organisations, their parents and organisations like, including SCLD and others, to come to the best possible conclusion that we can about it. Those things are always open to discussion, that's the purpose of parliamentary scrutiny. It's really important that it's scrutinised to your earlier point, Bob Doris. I thank you for your question. I would expect nothing less than significant scrutiny from the committee because this is legislation. I hope that that will be at some point on the statutes, and if we put something on the statutes we need to be absolutely sure of that. I've learned that a lot since coming to this place, so I expect the scrutiny and I have prepared as best I can for your—I think that the convener said earlier on that somebody said to me earlier that it won't be an interrogation that will be scrutiny, but either way I'm here to answer your questions and I will undertake to come back to the committee with further detail, particularly on the differences between causal estimations and errors. Thank you. The only interrogation that I'd like to be is the convener moving me on if I asked too much timing questions. No, you're okay at the moment, Mr Doris. I've got lots of time on your approach, so I better keep it moving. I acknowledge your answer. I'll weigh that up when we look at the evidence. I'll also see that in relation to the financial memorandum in relation to the cost associated with much of that work when at school. Those costs are assumed to be no additional resource required if I read from the briefing I have here. Whilst the child remains at school, the cost of the guidance teachers or other members of school pastoral care staff time would fall within existing resources on the basis that the local authority officer will already have existing pastoral duties for and responsibilities for the child. I suspect that some teaching and wider colleagues would think that they're pretty burdened with work just now without all this additional work. Any reflections on those comments? I think that Bob Doris speaks to a very real and live concern and it doesn't escape me that this morning we're meeting as teachers are striking. I think that it is fair to notice that more is being asked of teachers, more is being asked of additional support needs assistants in schools and in fact there are fewer of them than there used to be and that is part of the problem I think. I guess I would go back to my earlier comment, Bob Doris, which is that it is absolutely not my intention to put something in place that burdens people with something that they do not have the resources or capacity to deal with. Part of the problem with the implementation gap that Ruth Maguire started this morning's session on is exactly that. I would argue also that one of the reasons teachers are striking today is because of the additional stress that they have in supporting young people in their classes just now and that's all young people including young disabled people. I suspect that we'd debate that further a bit but a mission drift should be acknowledged. I'm currently a Stirling EIS member at Pam Duncan Clancy. Mr Scott, are you coming in? I just said it will only really be the initial work in the planning that's going to take a lot of time at school because the plan doesn't really take effect until the young person leaves school so the plan's in place at 14. The meetings thereafter will really be is everything still going to plan, are we still on course, have your needs changed, have you, it's a check-in, it's not going to be formulating a new plan every time for the young person and that again is why the average time is significantly less and the costs we believe will be less while the children are still at school. They will rise when the child leaves school. Okay, I've drilled in a little bit more numbers. Scott Richardson reads from Art Scotland was talking about what he thought that the numbers in the system within the school estate could look like in relation to requiring transition plans and like in 2090 there's 128,000 young people capable of leaving school in S4 and S6. 47,500 did, I think, Scott was estimating that he thought about 20 per cent of young people who were leaving school were likely to have some from additional support need potentially qualifying for a transition plan but that 37 per cent so that's 20 per cent known to service, known to education but it could be as high as 37 per cent who'd actually potentially require a plan. Those numbers are dramatically higher than in the financial memorandum and there's quite a significant disparity there. Any comments in relation to that? Did you want to? Well, right, on this if you look at the figures and they are published yesterday I can supply them to the committee later. Every young person who has additional support for learning needs has to have what those needs are identified and of those only less than 1800 are identified as disabled people, young disabled people. We think that that's an under recording. Additional support for learning if you look at it, if you look at the figures in detail you will see that the outcomes for a whole number of those with additional support needs are no different or even in some cases better than the average for students at pupils who know additional support needs. We don't think that, for example, the largest group in additional support needs, 6,000 with emotional and behavioural problems, are young disabled people. That was 6,000 to school leavers for last year. So there's another 1,500 who's learning was interrupted. There's another 400 odd who are especially gifted. There's a lot under additional support needs that do not qualify as young disabled people and there is a disparity between the 1800 and I would say from eliminating a lot of the groups that are classed under the SNP, probably around 7,000 who possibly potentially are impaired, but to the extent they're impaired again we would have to look at it. The best figures we had were the census figures. The census figures identify around 4,000 young people per year who are school leavers. We'll have impairments at a level that they would qualify for protection under the Equality Act. That's the ones that we're aiming at, the transitions plans at. If there's a significant number of young disabled people more than that, then the census has failed to catch them and so in many ways are a lot of other services failed to provide for them. Mr Daws, finally from your side here. So I think rather it's not about arguing about the financial memorandum, that's not the purpose of this. What the purpose of this is without resource to the local authorities and other partner organisations, well intentioned legislation, and that's not a comment, properly well intentioned, thought out legislation, will not drive a difference and there'll be a prioritisation of needs just as they are currently in relation to ASM. We're only 1 to 2 per cent of young people to qualify for the Coordination Support Plan to actually get it. So there's a concern that if this passes, only the most complex disabilities, if you like, that young people have will be on the radar for local authorities and schools and others to provide a transition plan and will end up with a very similar picture to Coordination Support Plan to maybe 1 or 2 per cent of those that might otherwise qualify. Do you think that that's a reasonable concern to have? Briefly, if you don't mind, so I've got one more other question coming in. No problem at all, thank you Bob Doris, no I don't, I think the opposite will be the case. That's brief, yes, lovely, thank you. Can we move to a supplementary please from Michael Marra, thanks. So the government is preparing the strategy that we've talked about and there clearly will be costs associated with delivering that strategy to transform outcomes in transitions. In your meetings with ministers, did they outline what they thought their costs were going to be that could be comparable to your own? So that's a really interesting point, and actually to try and get that information I've had to submit a question because the current budget level 4 doesn't detail specific funding for this, so it's difficult for me to tell what's already being spent on the transitions of young disabled people and how much the strategy will have behind it, and so that's the kind of question that I think is really, really important because some of the things that we focused on just now about the cost of this, that the cost associated with this bill must be specifically associated with the framework that it's put in place to do it, and we specifically detail quite a lot of that in the financial memorandum in a way that I haven't necessarily seen some government budgets look because it goes into significant level of detail and we've all in various committees just scrutinised the budget and I think it's fair to say it's been a difficult process. I'd contend that our financial memorandum, whether we consider the numbers because it's contingent on how many people and therefore how many hours, therefore the cost, we've detailed our rationale in a way that some government bills hasn't. To reach out to Mr Doris, who may have something to ask? I promise it's not just an add-on to the last line of questionings. It was inspired by Mr Scott who at the start of the evidence session was talking about there might not be on-going costs because some young people may have wanted positive destinations in further or higher education, but he'd also said elsewhere in the evidence session that we sign folk offices that have reached positive destinations in further or higher education, but they would not monitor to find out if they are real or not. I'm not trying to catch up, but we kind of can't have it both ways. There are either on-going monitoring to see if those positive destinations are realised for the period of time when the statutory obligations exist or we don't, so I'm generally a little bit confused about that. Not long to answer that one, Mr Scott. If the right exists that you can re-enter the system at any point until you're 26, then you can re-enter the system, whether you were initially written off as having a positive destination or not. You can ask. I want to meet with the person responsible for my planning, the person who helped me to put together the plan, or the person who was designated by the local authorities responsible for the plan being out when. I want to see them now because the initial positive destination didn't turn out to be positive at all, so they can re-enter the system. I'm not denying that some people will re-enter the system, but what I'm saying is that a lot of people who do employment, who go on higher education, get degrees, it won't access support. Does that mean that every young person would have a named person within social work? I wouldn't use the word named person. No, let's not, in fact. Mr Doris? That's got particular connotations, but a key worker, whatever you give it another bit. I'm relaxed with the name person, but there we are. For that evidence, and I would like to thank you all for your time today. That's the public part of today's meeting at an end, and we'll consider our final agenda item in private. Thank you very much and good morning.