Hansard

I have come late to the bill, consideration of which was well in train by the time I joined the Education, Children and Young People Committee right before the summer recess. My initial thoughts were very positive. Improving outcomes for disabled children and young people in the transition to adulthood is absolutely the right thing to do, particularly given the poor experiences of transitions that many disabled young people have, which I heard about through the committee. Statistics from Inclusion Scotland showed that, one year after leaving school, young people with impairment-related additional support needs are more than twice as likely to be unemployed and that—Pam Duncan-Glancy brought this up earlier—by the age of 19, young people with impairments are three times as likely to be not in employment, education or training. In addition, the committee’s conclusion that there is currently no systematic data on children and young people’s experiences of transitions to adulthood is deeply troubling.

I commend Pam Duncan-Glancy for introducing her bill and for fighting to give people a voice. She has highlighted the fact that, yet again, it has been left to the Opposition to proactively seek solutions to the challenges that the people of Scotland face and to force action from the Scottish Government.

However, we must get this right. We owe it to the people who gave evidence, to those who have lived experience of what is not going right and to those who, one day, will need to make such transitions. My coming late to the bill allowed me to ask myself several questions. The first question that I asked myself was whether legislation per se is the best way to improve transitions for disabled children and young people. The evidence that was provided to the committee’s inquiry seems to suggest that it might not be.

At yesterday’s meeting of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, members heard from people impacted by the failure to make more progress on the Promise, as well as the agencies that have been charged with delivering it. They told us that the addition to an already cluttered landscape, where financial clarity and resources are lacking, of ever more legislation that has challenges in how it interrelates with pre-existing legislative frameworks has led to the current difficulties with the Scottish Government’s achievement of what are laudable aims.

That was exactly what the National Deaf Children’s Society seemed to be saying when it told the committee that there might be duplication between the outcomes of the bill, the co-ordinated support plans, the individualised educational programmes and the child’s plan under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. It also flagged up its concerns about duplication between the national transitions strategy and part 3 of the 2014 act. That is in a context in which, as the committee heard, the current complex, cluttered landscape is already difficult to navigate for young people and their families. Indeed, the Scottish Transitions Forum told the committee that

“the Scottish Government’s resources would be better deployed in clarifying, simplifying and supporting the full implementation of its existing policy framework”.

I then asked myself whether, if I was wrong and more legislation is needed to improve outcomes for disabled children and young people in making transitions, the bill before us is that legislation. Will the bill achieve the changes that Pam Duncan-Glancy highlights are needed and that she rightly demands?

Although I have come to the bill later than colleagues, I come to it as a solicitor who has spent the best part of 20 years interpreting legislation—in particular, aspects of the Equality Act 2010—as well as drafting complex legal documents.

From the report, the evidence, the Law Society of Scotland’s submission and my own analysis, among that of others, it is clear that, alongside the concerns raised by the likes of COSLA on the financial memorandum and those raised by the NASUWT on the workload and burden on teachers, there are significant concerns around definitions and drafting. For example, as we have heard, the need for a diagnosis of disability for young people to access support feels retrograde to me, as well as potentially difficult to achieve in the current situation in Scotland, given the interplay with section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.

I come back to some of the organisations that, like me, unequivocally support the intention of the bill but have concerns about implementation. The Royal College of Occupational Therapists raised concerns that poor information technology systems will have a negative impact on transition planning, and, under this Government, those IT systems will not change any time soon. Enable Scotland flagged a risk that the bill might lead to the

“imposition of a ‘one size fits all’ approach”.

Scottish Autism felt that the bill risked diverting attention and resources from a broader whole-life approach. Crucially, the National Deaf Children’s Society raised concerns that the bill might have a “detrimental” impact on transition support in early years.

If that is right—or, more accurately, if the witnesses and the committee’s conclusions, following extensive examination, on what the bill proposes are right—I cannot help but conclude that, even if we accept that legislating is the proper way forward to achieve what we all hope to achieve, the bill might not get it right for the people who need our support.

That brings me back to the Scottish Government. As I said, I admire Pam Duncan-Glancy for introducing the bill, for giving people a voice and for forcing the Government’s hand. Earlier this week, we received a detailed letter purporting that the changes needed and the committee’s recommendations will be implemented. Although, like Pam Duncan-Glancy, I remain deeply wary of anything that the Government says it will commit to, it strikes me that the best way to achieve the important, worthy principles and intentions that she rightly demands is not through the bill but by continuing her proactive and positive engagement with the committee and the Government and by holding it to account to deliver the much-needed reforms that it has promised and have been legislated for but which have failed to be delivered. That will achieve all that we all want to see.