Rwyf yn hanfodd, dweud o gweithio ar gyfer y headfyrdd 10 o gyd yn y gweithfyrdd 2023. Fyllaid y第一 bagwn o'r hefyd yma yn y ddweud o funkciwrn Cymru, a gwnaeth fynd i fynd i unrhyw gael y panel yw gweithlo, unrhyw fawr i'r maesfa a'r dim, Ll staffnau Llywodraeth a Grymlogin, director of learning from the Scottish Government. Good morning. Thank you for joining us today and we will begin with a short opening statement from your cabinet secretary. You have up to three minutes. Thank you, convener. As I highlighted previously, this current budget is taking place in a turbulent economic context and the Scottish Government is not immune from that turbulence and we continue to take decisions that will achieve the greatest impact on the outcomes we are seeking to achieve. At a macroscale that means adopting a firm focus on tackling child poverty, creating a wellbeing economy with a just transition to net zero and ensuring the sustainability of first class public services. With those outcomes in mind, you will be aware of my recent statement regarding our commitment to protect teacher and support staff numbers and the current number of learning hours for children. As I said in the chamber, I remain grateful to our colleagues in local government for their dedication to the delivery of a first class education service for our children and young people. For example, we remain close to record levels of teacher numbers and our pupil-teacher ratio remains historically low at 13.2. Last year, we witnessed the biggest single decrease in the attainment gap in primary numeracy and literacy levels since records began. Equally, I understand the difficult budgetary choices local government faces. However, it is my responsibility as education secretary to ensure that we have the fundamentals in place to build on the current success. That is why we have funded new financial commitments around the funding that we have provided for teacher numbers and pupil support staff. In particular, that is to at least maintain teacher numbers at current levels in the year ahead while working towards the delivery of our commitment to increase teacher numbers by 3,500 by the end of the Parliament. Maintaining the number of school support staff at their current levels and continuing to ensure that places are available for probationary teachers who need them on the teacher induction scheme. In addition, you will have seen the reports that some councils were considering a reduction to the length of the school week. There is already a statutory provision that pupils must receive 190 school days per year, but I am concerned that a reduction in learning hours would materially reduce pupil attainment and wellbeing. For that reason, I will commence the provision in the Education Scotland Act 2016, which enables ministers to set the minimum number of learning hours in a school year. Following thorough consultation, I will then bring forward regulations that will specify the minimum number of learning hours per annum and, effectively, provide a statutory basis for the pupil week. There is currently some limited variation in delivery across Scotland, and this is arisen for a range of reasons, and it will need to be fully explored through the consultation and considered before regulations are laid. Those regulations will be subject to affirmative parliamentary procedure. Finally, I wanted to take the opportunity to update you briefly on the teacher pay negotiations, notwithstanding financial challenges that the Scottish Government has demonstrated our commitment to teachers to provide a fair pay offer in 2022-23, and is now providing further additional funding to enable the two-year pay deal offer to teachers. The offer will provide the most experienced teachers at the top of the main pay grade scale—70 per cent of all teachers—a pay increase of over 5,000 compared to January 22. In comparison with the previous offer, the new offer significantly increases the financial envelope with an overall cumulative increase of 11.83 per cent for the majority of staff over two years. Although some other unions are consulting their members at present, you will have seen that the EIS has already rejected this enhancement. Although I am obviously disappointed, it goes without saying that the current disruption is extremely difficult for young people, parents and carers, and I will continue to do everything that I can to secure a deal that is fair and affordable for all. I want to go back to what has triggered all of this, namely how an additional sum of £145.5 million given for the purpose of increasing teaching, when a support assistant number was used or not by local authorities. There has been a lot of muddying of the water that has been attempted over by the cabinet secretary. I think that there are two things that are lost in all of this. One is that we should acknowledge that eight councils and the great grant-aided sector used the money for the purpose that it was given and have increased their numbers, but clearly the majority of councils have not. I want to explore with you what the Government has ascertained in terms of how the monies were used at local authority level. I have knowledge of one council, which is Angus Council, where the sums that were given were deployed to add 28 full-time equivalent teachers and 10 learning support assistants. However, their numbers have gone down by 27 overall, which gives the impression that they have clearly not replaced posts that already existed temporary and permanent. However, it is also an admission that it would appear that £1 million of that money was allocated—a strategic proposal was made, they tell me—to deliver, to meet the costs of a saving that the council has made. Obviously, it is not for that purpose. Can I ask in a pause these for the long-winded intro, convener? Is that pretty typical of what the Government has found most councils utilised the monies for? To point out first of all how the money was allocated in 2223, the money was given over with the understanding that it would be used for teacher numbers and pupil support staff. That was indeed our expectation as we went through the year. We have and continue to receive reassurances from COSLA that it was spent on education and it was spent on issues surrounding education, particularly teacher numbers. However, I would be happy to pass on a copy of that letter from Angus Council to let me see the details of that. Clearly councils will vary, council by council, but the overall reassurance from COSLA that the money was spent on education is something that we had to take on good faith. Clearly, when the teacher census numbers came out, there was a concern that that may not have been the case in every situation. Therefore, that is why, looking forward, we are very keen to ensure that we have further monitoring praise to ensure that we get from that money what we expect, which is at least maintaining teacher numbers and pupil support staff numbers over the year ahead. However, I would be happy to receive that letter and look into it in further detail if Mr Day would wish to pass it on. I appreciate that current set, but it does appear pretty clear when one looks through the list of numbers for each council, the vast majority so that their teacher numbers go down. It clearly was not used for the purpose for which it was given in the majority of cases. The numbers overall went down by 92, and it does vary from local authority. Again, in fairness to local authority colleagues, some of the numbers go down by very small amounts, and some of that may be for genuine recruitment and retention issues, particularly in rural remote areas or on specific subjects. There is a real need for us to look very carefully at that and to work with local authorities and councils as we go through the process to ensure that we are cognisant of some of the challenges that they may face in particular areas or in particular subjects that may lead to numbers going down by quite a small number, but not for strategic decisions made by the council but for genuine recruitment challenges. I think that I would separate those two out. Some of the reductions were small, and some of them may have been due to those practical issues, but clearly that is still a concern. Of course, what we did have to bear in mind was that I accept that there were proposals from officers, not decisions that were made by councils, but some of the proposals that were coming forward were really quite grave in what they would mean for teacher numbers and for pupil support staff numbers. It was on that basis not just looking at the teacher census for last year, which did see that small decrease, that I was very keen to take action. Both looking at it historically for the previous year but also at some of the proposals from officers for the year ahead. I am conscious of our time. I move now to Stephen Kerr, please. Cabinet Secretary, good morning. Sticking with the £145.5 million, you have used words like understanding expectation in relation to the agreement that you and John Swinney made while I used the word agreement. I will come back to that word in the summer of 2021 that this money would be effectively made core to local authorities for the purposes that you have described. Was that simply a verbal agreement? Was there an exchange of memos or letters that anything could be referred to in relation to future accountability? How was that done? I will put it in context. In my previous life, before I became a politician, lots of multimillion-pound deals were done, but they were never done on the basis of a verbal agreement. They were always done on the basis of some pretty solid paperwork. I do not think that it was private in any way how I thought that money should be spent. I can remember discussing it a great deal in Parliament. It was very public how that money was to be spent, and similar discussions with COSLA would go on at that level. I said it in Parliament, I would say it directly to COSLA. Of course, the money then went from the Scottish Government to the settlement distribution group, which had to then decide how it would be divided between the 32 local authorities. I do not think that there is any dubiety about how— Is not there anything substantive in terms of an agreement that you had reached about the hundred and forty? Was it simply verbally agreed? You are referring to the official report of the proceedings of Parliament, etc. I get all that, and I agree with you that your expectations were well described. However, when you are making an agreement with COSLA, surely it has to be set out in some specific detail that that expectation is this, and here is the accountability. Yes, and I would be happy to provide further written detail on that. I mean, I certainly said no dubiety either in public, in private, with Government, with Parliament or with COSLA, how the money would be spent. That is very useful if you are willing to share any documentation around that. Moving on to the £100 million that was announced yesterday in the budget that is going to local authorities, that money is to be used exclusively or is expected to be used—we have to use the right language here. The £100 million is expected to be used to increase the salaries of non-teaching education staff. That is correct, is not it? Yes. And this money is part of the Barnett consequential for the adjustments that come at the financial year end. That is where that money is coming from, yes? The £100 million is part of the settlement for next year, for 23-24. However, the Deputy First Minister made it clear that there were very late changes to the 22-23 budget, which allowed him to use some of that to assist with the 23-24 budget. Yes, so I am correct. I think what is being with each other. Yes, I agree that this is the normal run-of-the-mill stuff, that there is an adjustment at the end of the year. And this £100 million has gone to the non-teaching education staff. So I come back to a question, and I am genuinely seeing to understand this, because one of the great defences that is deployed quite frequently against those of us in opposition who ask questions of government about spending is, well, if you want to spend more money in this area, where are you going to take this money from? So last week, you announced £156 million between this year and next year, which is going to be used to fund the teachers' offer. Where did that money come from? So I think that the Deputy First Minister tried to explain to you yesterday, Mr Kerr, in the chamber 33 million of that comes from the 22-23 budget that has been done with exceptional difficulty and not without consequences to ensure that we could improve the offer for 22-23. So that is £33 million of that. Is that generic savings? It comes from the decisions that we have taken from savings and analysing the money that we have 22-23 to ensure that we can... Is this on the back of the announcement that John Swinney made last year about how he was clawing back money and seeking savings from all of his Cabinet colleagues? Well, there wasn't just one announcement, but there was a series of announcements of the changes that we had to make. So those are the types of challenges that the Deputy First Minister has understandably made to all Cabinet colleagues to see what could be done to initiate savings. And for next year, the £123 million comes from the education and skills budget. So that money was already there? The money is in the budget for next year and it has to now be found to be spent on teachers' pay. So there are cuts in the education and skills budget for 23-24 that money is being moved from somewhere in your budget to local government to pay for this new offer? I will have to find that money in year to assist with it. I go back to the point that I have made all along in the teachers' pay dispute if we increase the capacity for local government to improve their offer as the employers. The money needs to be found and it is not without consequence, so that money will be found from the education and skills budget. Mr Kerr, are you looking for what the consequences are? Yes, I am looking for the consequences. Where is that going to be cut? I will have to analyse that and make those decisions in year to ensure that the education and skills balance will budget. Clearly, Mr Kerr, you have been demanding that I take action to improve the pay offer. I have made clear to you every single time that the only way that that can be done is by the money being increased. I am not sure that I am as powerful as to be responsible for what you just said in government. No, but then you have to understand the consequences of that, Mr Kerr. One small point, Mr Kerr, is that this is deeply concerning, because what you are telling us in the final moments of this budget process is that you are going to cut other education and skills programmes, the tune of £110 million, and we do not know what the details of that are and you do not know what they are either. Well, with the greatest respect, Mr Kerr, for the entirety of this teacher's pay dispute, I have said that if the money is increased, it will have to come from somewhere. I genuinely do not know how that is a surprise to you, because the balance has to be found within the budget. I am hearing all of that, and that is a traditional defence, and I get that. That is your traditional defence. No, it is just new, but you do not have the details of where the money is going to be cut from at this moment. I think that we will have to work through that in year. The cabinet secretary has answered that. I think that the answer is no. We need to know what that means as you go along with it, because at the minute you do not know. Well, and indeed in every single time, Mr Kerr, you demand that I put a new offer on the table, then that has helped the questions as well. Can I move to questions now from Michael Marra, please? Thank you very much. On 18 December, the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, issued his budget circular to COSLA. On 18 January, you, cabinet secretary, were here in front of us, giving details on the budget. On 1 February, you wrote a letter to COSLA to ring fencing one third of their net revenue budget and demanding that they get back to you by 5pm, telling them how they were going to deal with that, whether they would accept it or not. Can you tell us within those periods between your appearance here and your letter on 1 February what changed your mind? Clearly, as soon as the teacher census numbers came out, I was concerned about that and wrote very quickly after the teacher census numbers to COSLA, raising my concerns, and suggesting that we met with urgency to discuss the teacher census numbers to discuss that issue. Clearly, we moved forward with discussions with COSLA on those issues. Now, while private discussions were happening with COSLA to see whether we could find a way of not coming forward in the way that we have with the proposals that I have now, but to see if there was a way where we could find a goodwill understanding where teacher numbers would not be cut, those discussions went on in private. When it became clear to me that, unfortunately, further action would have to be taken, then that was when we changed from the policy that we had in 2022-23, which was an understanding of how that money would be spent to what will happen in 2023-24, which is to ensure that that money is spent that way and to initiate clawback if ministers decide. There was an on-going private discussion. I hope that people would appreciate that we should do with COSLA all the way from the teacher census publication in December through to the letter that was then sent through officially about how that would be done. Your questions on the issues in the chamber and here in committee in terms of the teacher numbers did not, at that point, say that there was any mechanism or push to try and resolve that. As I say, in those days, between the 18th of January and the 1st of February, you resolved to ring fence an entirety of one-third of the net revenue budget of councils across Scotland. The Chief Executive Association saw us in councils and said that, at that point, it was impossible for them at no notice by 5pm on one working day to rewrite their budgets. Do you think that this is a way that the Scottish Government should be running not just education but, frankly, its finances? As I say, the letter was the final piece in a number of meetings that took place between the Scottish Government, both at ministerial level with COSLA spokespeople and also at official letter, before that final opportunity was given to see if more could be done in a different way. That was why we were very clear that we wanted to see progress, but we were very clear with COSLA that that could be done in a number of different ways. Unfortunately, I did come to the conclusion that that was required. The reason that was required was that, from the teacher census, which sparked concerns about what happened in the previous year, we also had local government. I again say for clarity that those proposals are from officers, but we saw a number of councils coming out with proposals for the 23-24 budget that were exceptionally concerning about what it would mean for teacher numbers. If we put those two things together, that is why we were on a trajectory. I repeat the first answer. I want to try to understand how you have moved within that period. You cannot think that this is an optimum and desirable situation. This is chaos in councils where the decision for taking one-third of the entirety of their budgeting options—we could have a discussion about whether we think that that is a good thing and not about teacher numbers—but where they are left is having to make massive cuts in other parts. For instance, if I can, one example, the Big Noise Douglas in Dundee education programme that works with kids in the most impoverished area is about to be cut by Dundee City Council. They are left in that position where they are making this cut. Do you think that that is a reasonable position that you have put them in with just weeks to go, days to go, before setting a budget? A couple of things I would say to that. Overall, local authority spends £6.4 billion on education, so I would put that figure in to give some balance to some of the numbers that you have raised. The other thing that I would say at two points is that if we did not come in as a Government and do something that would protect teacher numbers, I have a funny feeling that opposition parties would be jumping up and down. In fact, indeed they were at First Minister's question. It is precisely my point that could be that. Mr Marriff, you would actually let me answer the question. What was the alternative to protect teacher numbers? We tried very hard with local authorities to find out what that would be, but that was a challenging conversation that we were unable to come to any conclusion that I had to take the action that I did. There is no other alternative than I have in front of me or has been presented to me that would have protected teacher numbers. The final point that I would make on that as well. Again, we have just included the budget process yesterday. At no point in that, did any opposition party come forward with costed plans on if they wanted the amount that was given to local government to increase how that would be done. Again, it is more demands about money being spent but little to none suggestions coming forward about where that money would come from. I am afraid that the reality of the situation is the lack of alternatives, Mr Marriff. I am afraid that it was not an answer to either of the questions that I asked. I think that this is a situation that can only be described as chaos. That is a complete failure of planning on behalf of the Government to deal with a fundamental issue in terms of teacher numbers over the long term to ensure that that was maintained. It strikes me that the one thing that seems to have changed is that the First Minister was challenged on television on this very issue on 30 January. Is that why you changed between 30 January and 1 February? Not when there are letters coming from myself to COSLA straight after the teacher census, so no, Mr Marriff. I think that you are trying to suggest something when the discussions on that started right after the teacher census. I would point out to teacher numbers still being at a near record high in Scotland. Just again on that subject of the timeline, I suppose, I was in discussions with West Lothian councillors earlier on this weekend. They spoke about how they have been consulting on their budgets in September. The last minute change that came has resulted, I think—I do not want to pre-empt anything, but they have got their budget today—could be just down to a council tax increase, given the short notice. They were also concerned that there had not yet been a decision on the schools for future funding, which was meant to be announced in December. I was wondering if you could maybe update us on that. Certainly. In terms of the budget proposals that come from local authorities, I totally appreciate that the work for that goes on for a number of months before anything comes to councils themselves. Again, I go back to the point where the teacher census comes out at the start of December. That was when we had the information that showed that we had the reduction in teacher numbers. I completely appreciate that councils have been working on it, but if the material and the information that we get out is in December, that is when we immediately began to take action. I am very conscious of the fact that we have said previously that we would make the announcement on the leap next stage. I have been looking at that very carefully, and I do hope to make an announcement on that soon. It would be fair to say that a number of local authorities have came forward with a number of proposals—all good-quality proposals—that passed the criteria. Therefore, I am giving it due in serious consideration. I appreciate that it is difficult for councils, but I also hope that they appreciate that it is because I recognise the real significance to them of the decisions that we would take on that that I am taking some more time to look at that, given the number of proposals that came in. Can we move to questions now from Ross Greer, please? Apologies. It is Mr Bob Dorris, please. I am just looking at teacher numbers. I have seen Glasgow. I have been looking at 2021-22 over 100 new teachers positive in using Glasgow, but overall across Scotland a 0.2 per cent dip in teacher numbers across all schools. I am not quite sure what the baseline is for judging progress from, so I would like to take you, Cabinet Secretary, to the non-recurring funds that we are giving to local authorities, which between July 2020, August 2020 and March 2021 came to £140 million for more teachers and teaching assistants at the height of Covid to do all that we could to support schools and education. Of course, we came on to the recurring funds roughly the same total. Do we have data on how many teachers or teaching assistants were employed following the July 2020, August 2020 or March 2021 non-recurring funds? That would allow us to compare where we were before the recurring funds were given and how the non-recurring funds were spent for that one particular year. I would be happy to provide some information about how the money has been spent. There was clearly an increase in the number of teachers that we have had. If you look at 2021, we had 54,285. That was the reduction of 92. However, if you compare that to the previous year where we saw 53,400 teachers, what we have seen overall is an increase from the pre-pandemic levels to where we are now of an additional 2,000 teachers that have came through. On how the money was given to councils, there were, for Covid money—this was before the baseline—two parts of that money. We did see an increase in the number of teachers that we were seeing in employment, particularly from that first batch of Covid money. It is then quite challenging to know whether the second batch of money was spent to improve the number of teachers and people's support assistants, as we might have thought. It was Covid money, and there were a number of ways that that could have been spent. I would say to councils that there was more flexibility for them at that point, but I am happy to provide the information about the breakdown over the years and the breakdown about our expectations about where the money was spent. Thank you, cabinet secretary. A lot in that, and really without seeing it written down, we cannot really analyse it as a committee, to be fair. When we get that information, the Government will be absolutely clear where the baseline is from which the Scottish Government will be judged in terms of maintaining teacher numbers, increasing teaching numbers and leg-wise with teaching support assistants. Will that be crystal clear when we get that information? Yes, it will all be from the census, in essence. The census is the national statistics that come forward on teacher numbers and the numbers on pupil support are not published in December, which I have been referring to previously. They are published in March. When you look at where the baseline is for each of the years and where those numbers came from that I quoted, it is from the teacher census. I look forward to getting those figures in the committee. We want to scrutinise that. Final question. In the early days of the committee, there was discussion around schools and local authorities employing temporary teachers and assistants quickly, as quickly as they could to support education through Covid on temporary contracts. They were not necessarily at the right education facility with the right skill set where they would want them to be going forward. What monitoring does the Government do in relation to temporary contracts in those early days at the height of Covid and where they will be going forward? One of the key challenges—I had a number of discussions in the chamber, particularly with Mr Rennie, on the issue of temporary impairment staff. One of the points that was continuously raised to me by local authorities was that it was difficult to move from temporary to permanent, because the money was not permanent and it was not baselined. That is why we moved from Covid money to permanent. We look at that again through the teacher census to see what happens there. There clearly was not the movement that we wanted in that, because I would have hoped expected that we would have seen an increase in the number of permanent contracts. Very understandably, because the money was temporary and because of the urgency of getting people in, the number of temporary contracts was high during Covid. I would have hoped and did expect for that to change. Again, we have not seen that happening, but it is something that I am keen to work with local government on to see what can be done on that issue as well. I would like to ask about fairness and consistency in terms of local authorities managing localised needs and their changing needs, for example, of falling roles. I will give the example of my local area at North Ayrshire experiencing a decline in population and a declining pupil role. That is reflected through reduction in the grant-aided expenditure. Can I ask if councils with an increasing pupil role would receive additional funding through the grant-aided expenditure but would not have to increase the number of teachers only to maintain them at 2022 levels? Well, certainly what we are looking at for the letter that I have just put out around teacher numbers. Yes, I do recognise that there are some local authorities where pupil numbers have decreased and are expected to decrease. We have some local authorities that will see an increase in their pupil numbers. Clearly, we could therefore keep the pupil-teacher ratio the same in certain local authorities with a reduction in teachers. That would be something that local authorities could look at. The challenge that we have is that we are also looking at improving attainment. It is clear that it would be useful. The research backs that and supports it from the OECD that teacher numbers and teacher quality have an impact on attainment. Therefore, just because the pupil role is going down, it is not necessarily a reason to reduce teacher numbers, particularly if you are looking at how you can support those who are perhaps from the poorest communities and struggling within schools for whatever reason. You can use those teachers in different ways. The pupil-teacher ratio is important, but the overall teaching workforce has been used.  Forgive me for staying with North Ayrshire as an example. Those are the figures that I know. It will be relevant for other areas of Scotland as well. Talking about the attainment challenge, North Ayrshire is one of the areas that lost funding. We have had that debate, and I would absolutely recognise that there is poverty everywhere and attainment challenge funding needs to be provided across Scotland. However, the local authority employed an additional 17 teachers for that. Their funding has been reduced, so they need to find that money from elsewhere. I wonder what assessment has been made by the Scottish Government. I recognise what the cabinet secretary says about teacher numbers. They are important, but when we talk about the poverty related attainment gap for children and families in my constituency having good services such as libraries and leisure centres, those types of things are also crucial for their opportunities. What assessment has been made in that regard? Obviously, when it comes to the challenge authorities, that is why we have parts of the letter from myself to local authorities that recognise that there may be exceptional circumstances that we need to take into account. I mentioned recruitment and retention earlier on. The changes to challenge authorities would be another one of those that we could take cognisant off. When it comes down to the difficult decisions that local authorities have to make, I fully appreciate it. I said in my opening statement that local authorities do have a very difficult decision to take, just as the Scottish Government did as we put our budget together as well. It is a joint understanding of a desire to improve attainment. I have yet to see any suggestions coming forward that reductions in teacher numbers and reductions in pupil support assistance would help to close the poverty-related attainment gap. If we want to get those education fundamentals in place, that is why we have to take the decisions. Particularly if we have a joint understanding of why money has been put into a budget, I do not think that it is surprising that local government would wish to provide further challenge to local authorities to ensure that money was spent in that type of way if that understanding had been there. Clearly, there are decisions for local authorities to make as to other areas of their expenditure. Those are very difficult, but it goes back to the point that we made earlier on when we were discussing the budget that was set yesterday. The Deputy First Minister brought forward additional expenditure for local government now over £700 million for that. That is a substantial increase in real terms for local government. The decisions that we have taken have allowed that to happen. As I mentioned earlier, there were no costed proposals that came forward from elsewhere in the Parliament to suggest how that would be increased. I am conscious of the time, and I know that you have one more. Can the cabinet secretary also keep her answers as concise as possible? I appreciate the cabinet secretary's answer. He mentioned exceptional circumstances. I think that we would all acknowledge that reducing teacher numbers does not evidence that that would assist in reducing the poverty-related attainment gap. I suspect that we might have a case in North Ayrshire where there is a surplus of teachers. Perhaps that is somewhere that the Scottish Government could look to not looking for additional funding but could look to the specific circumstances of the area so that we are taking a fair and consistent approach that benefits the children and schools. There are different ways about how to use a teaching workforce. That can be done in a myriad of different ways. For brevity, it could be for supporting pupils with additional support. It could be looking at smaller group work that assists with numeracy and literacy, so I do not see them as a surplus teacher. I see them as a teaching workforce that can be used by a local authority to assist children in a variety of ways, as the local authority sees fit, particularly to try to improve the attainment. I am interested to get a bit of insight on the communications that you may or may not have had with the teacher workforce planning advisory group on consultations that may have occurred regarding that 3,500 figure. It would be good to know about that. There is a great deal of work that goes on to try and model what happens with the teacher workforce. That is not something that the Scottish Government undertakes alone. There is clearly a lot of work that goes in with stakeholders on this. The model that is used is to look at, for example, the number that has to go into ITE to maintain pupil-teacher ratios. It looks at the number of teachers that are currently in the system, retirements, the number of people that are returning to maternity, and so on. There is a group that looks at that, not just Government, but that involves the universities, the funding councils, the DTCS, and the teachers union. There is a great deal of work, and local authorities are the employers, so I should not forget to mention them. There are a number of stakeholders who sit round and look at the best modelling that can be done. It is modelling and forecasting to see about the number of teachers that will leave the workforce, the number of teachers that may have to come into the workforce. Obviously, groups such as those will also analyse what has to be done to assist Government with the proposals that we have, supported by the bute house agreement for additional teachers. That is why the initial teacher education programmes are sort of like the intake is determined. I think that I get that clearly. Do you think that there is capacity in the ITE courses to meet the Government target? The Government target absolutely remains for that £3,500 by the end of the year. Now, clearly, we have to work with local government colleagues once budgets are set to analyse further projections in the year. We need to obviously look at what the ITE numbers will be as well, so that is not a one-stage process. It is an iterative process that goes on during the year, but the Government commitment remains on those numbers. On that, in terms of recruiting those additional teachers, which, as we say, we are all supporting, there has been a lot in terms of the environment that the teachers are operating in at the moment, in terms of the violence, etc. Do you think that in order to achieve the numbers and really attract people into the profession, series of changes have to be made with their teacher contracts? Well, changes to teacher contracts would be an issue for the SNCT to look at, which obviously the Government is part of, but only one part of, quite rightly. That would be something for the SNCT to consider, and that meets on a regular basis. Now, unsurprisingly, at the moment, the agenda of SNCT is taken up by the teachers pay dispute, but clearly we still have on-going discussions bilaterally with teaching unions, as well as through the SNCT about a number of issues, workforce, workload, the impacts on staff and their mental health and wellbeing and so on. Okay, thank you, cabinet secretary. Can I move to questions now? Are you finished? Yes. Stephanie Callaghan, please. You're on. Thank you, convener. Cabinet secretary, you've already touched on this in your response to Ruth There, and I'm going to roll it into one. I'm quite mindful of time. We're all clear that narrowing the poverty-related attainment gap is a key education priority. So firstly, can I ask you to outline the role that teachers play in narrowing that gap? Secondly, can I ask if we're seeing results from investing in teaching numbers? And finally, what impact would you see cutting teaching numbers have? I think I mentioned earlier on that teachers are one part, but an exceptionally important part, of reducing the poverty-related attainment gap. Again, I said earlier on that we've seen an increase of 2,000 teachers since pre-pandemic levels. Absolutely, as in other countries, the attainment levels overall have been impacted by Covid, but what we have seen, and I think that is in large part due to the exceptional hard work of teachers and support staff, we have seen improvements in the attainment gap, so the biggest single year decrease in the attainment gap in primary numeracy, and literally since levels began. So yes, we still have more work to do, absolutely, on that. But we have seen recovery in place, and I'd say that that would absolutely, in large part, be down to the teachers. There's a number of ways that that can be done. I pointed to some of those earlier. It's not just about one teacher in front of a class, but it's the specialist work that's being done by teachers for small groups of pupils. It's the support for those with additional special needs and so on, so there are a number of ways that that can be done. Importantly, within that is the quality of the teaching and learning, so it's not possible to say that there is one thing that improves attainment. Yes, there are different aspects to that, but I hope that we would agree that teachers are an integral part of that, and that's why the Government has placed such importance on increasing teacher numbers, and obviously the decisions that I've taken to ensure that we don't see decreases in teacher numbers and that those numbers are maintained over the year. So what impact would you actually see cutting teaching numbers having directly on closing the attainment gap? Well again, for brevity, I'll simply briefly restate something I said earlier on. I've not seen any research that would suggest that cutting teacher numbers or indeed learning hours where children are in a school would improve attainment. So I think that obligation with on government is to do all we can to try and ensure that numbers are maintained if not improved. I think our committee report on the attainment challenge made it quite clear that it was a very complex issue and it's maybe not quite as binary as one contributing factor. Can we move now to questions from Willie Rennie, please? Thanks very much, convener. So talk me through this.  What's the process? So as we go through the year, we are working with local authorities to put in monitoring arrangements. So one of the challenges that we had was that the figures came out in December which showed the problem. Because this was an agreement with local authorities without additional monitoring, we didn't have in-year monitoring last year. So we want to improve on that situation. We're all still looking at how that will be done. It's probably going to be on a quarterly basis and that will flag up when we have issues in-year with local authorities. But as I said, those discussions with COS last long gone because what we don't want to have is an over-honorous monitoring process where it's continuous. Also recognising that numbers will go up and down because of recruitment and retention at different parts of the year. So if we see an issue in-year, clearly that will begin at officer, an official level about raising concerns about that, looking at the reasons for that, particular challenges in different areas and if that has to be escalated to myself having discussions with that particular council, then that would happen. If we get to the point where that still hasn't been improved by end of year, then the money can be withheld, last tranche can be withheld from the council at that point. That is absolutely the last case scenario that we don't want to get to and we want to work with local authorities in-year to understand their specific circumstances. So there's no blanket approach to this. Okay, so let's say you've got clear evidence that the council concerned has ignored your warnings, that they've cut teacher numbers, you withdraw the funding, what does the council do next? What happens if they, for instance, decide as a result of that cut, they have to make further cuts in teachers? Will you impose a further penalty on the council? How does that work? I think that it's been very clearly laid out that we would withhold the last tranches of funding if councils don't follow through on that. I think that is an important aspect to that. Clearly there will be implications for councils in that, which is the whole point of having a system where there is something in place to attempt to prevent councils from reducing teacher numbers. Again, that's not a blanket approach and there may be reasons why teacher numbers go down, which in which case we would not have any financial penalties to local authorities. However, we've been very clear right from the start that there would be a financial penalty if there is seemed to be a more strategic decision to reduce teacher numbers and there will be implications for councils for that. So is it possible that we could end up with even fewer teachers at the end of this process if you proceed with penalising councils that believe they've got no other choice but to cut teacher numbers? Is that a possible scenario that could happen? I think that because we will work very closely and very carefully with local authorities in year, there will be a very clear understanding from local authorities about what will happen and the implications for that. It's for local authorities to then weigh up about whether that would be sensible to carry on strategically cutting student teacher numbers because they would know the implications for that. I don't think that we would get to that situation no because I think that through the collaboration that we will have in year, they would be very clear about the implications for that and how that might not make financial sense for the council to do that. I understand that you don't want to get to this and you want to have a collaborative approach. That's what you've been trying to do for years and it hasn't apparently succeeded. However, I'm just curious as to how you think withdrawing more funding from a council will help them to balance their budget and get the appropriate number of staff in the right schools. Will it not end up undermining the objective that you set yourself at the beginning that will end up with fewer teacher, fewer classroom assistants? I mean, those councils don't want to do this.  So I just don't understand why the penalty helps anybody in this scenario. They are not the enemy, they are trying to do their best and your penalty might make it even worse. Well, what I would point to actually, this is something that you said in your question, which is a challenge of a mate. We haven't been doing the 22-23 approach for years. That was one year we tried that actually. What we had up until 2018-19 was exactly the system that we're now putting back in place. During that time, no council got to the stage of actually having a financial penalty and I think that proves that the situation worked and I would anticipate that to be happening again. So actually, when you look at what we have done for years, it is actually what we are just about to reintroduce and I don't want to see this, I would hasten to add, being in place for years. I would want to get to a different situation for the next financial year, but when you look at what happened historically, this was actually what was in place and not one single council in any of those years got to the point for a financial penalty. There's no point in having a threat of a penalty if you're not prepared to contemplate the consequences of that penalty. So you've got to accept that we could end up with a scenario where councils have even less funds and therefore cannot employ as many teachers as they would like, so it would be a further cut in teacher numbers. You've got to accept that that's a possibility with this penalty. Well, you're looking at hypothetical situational future because you've set it out. I'm looking at the evidence of what's happened in the past in that that has not happened in one council in any year in the past and I think that shows that this actually works and has been demonstrated to work in the past. Can I have one final question? Rural areas in particular, some specialities are finding difficult to recruit. Will those councils be penalised if they are unable to recruit the appropriate number of teachers? No. The final question from Mr Marra, please. It's regarding the exceptional circumstances that you laid out to Ruth Maguire for the challenge authorities where you've cut the funding for the poorest communities. So Dundee sets its budget tomorrow. Has there been an application for exceptional circumstances from Dundee or, frankly, from any of the other challenge authorities? Local authority? Well, for a start, we have not cut the funding for the poorest communities. What we have done, as agreed with COSLA, is that we've actually looked at where the poorest communities and the poorest children are and we have put the funding to those and, yes, that is across 32 local authorities. The exceptional circumstances would obviously take place once we are in year and once we are looking at changes either up or obviously down to the teacher numbers and the councils coming forward and suggesting that there are exceptional circumstances for that. So no council would be coming forward with this because they are setting the budget at that point. It would be inappropriate for a council to do that just now. That's what the discussions are for in year, as I've just went through with Mr Rennie, about dealing with any changes, variations to the number of teacher numbers and it's at that point for us to talk about exceptional circumstances. I think it's useful to have clarity on that mechanism that is in year prior to the budget being set. For clarity, Dundee's budget on this has been cut by £4.9 million for the poorest community in the sub-country. Thank you very much and I'd like to thank you for your time today. We are now going to have a suspension of around five minutes to allow a change of witnesses. Thank you. Welcome back everyone. Our next item on our agenda this morning is an evidence session on the disabled children and young people transitions to adulthood Scotland bill. We have two panels of witnesses joining us today, but can I welcome our first panel? We have Tracy Francis, Scott Richardson-Reed and Rebecca Williams, who are all policy and development workers from the Scottish Transitions Forum, Arc Scotland. We have a lot of ground to cover today, so we will move straight to members' questions. The first questions are from Ruth Maguire. Thank you, convener, and good morning panel. Thanks for being with us. I've been asking witnesses previously what they think the key barriers are to a good transition for our disabled children and young people, so I'd like to open up with that question to all the panel there. I wonder if you can, when reflecting back on that, give me your views on where good practice does happen, what it is that you think is driving that, and if I can come to Tracy first. Yes, thank you. One of the problems is that transitions are so complex, and I think that when young people are moving from children to adulthood, it's not just around finishing school and finding the next step, it's around a social life, it's around healthcare, it could be involving social services. There are so many people who are involved, and I think that it's easy to underestimate the complexity of that and how much of an impact that has on the whole life, not just for the young person but for the families and the siblings as well. I think that a lot of the barriers are around its consistency of working, it's around joined up thinking with the services who are trying to support. There's lots of, as you say, there's lots of areas of good practice where good things are happening, but there's not enough connection between the services. Very often they're using different language, they might be using different processes, and the young person and the family who are at the centre are trying to make sense of that, and it's actually a very confusing and it can be quite a scary place to be. Some of the barriers that are coming into, or that we are hearing a lot about, are young people and families not having the information they need. They're not getting the communication from the people who are supporting them either because those people don't really, sometimes they don't have the information themselves. Sometimes it's very easy, I'm sure you'll understand, if you're in a professional role yourself and you're used to working in that environment and you forget that the person who's in front of you is going through this for the first time. So you assume that everyone knows what you know and you don't think to pass something on or you don't think to explain something as clearly as you might do. That can cause difficulties there. There's certainly difficulties around, I guess, the person-centredness of it. It's when you're dealing with an individual and every individual is going to have a different set of circumstances, a different level of complexity, maybe different requirements and different aspirations for their lives. So managing to get a system that's flexible enough to work with all the individuals that come through that process I think can be quite a challenge. Thank you. Can I just ask that flexibility that you're talking about? Is that about culture? Is that about resource capacity? What makes for a good person-centred flexible service? I think it's a little bit of everything, actually, to be honest. Sometimes, as I say, there's the thinking around what needs to happen and having the conversations. I think sometimes it's being open to working—and this is speaking from what parents and carers and young people are telling us. It's listening to what they have to say about what they want and being flexible enough around that to just think out of the box. You may be not necessarily being tied down by only what someone else has experienced or only what you can see happening in your own area, but just being open to being able to be flexible to try and bring about the outcome that the young person is wanting and what their goals and ambitions are happening to be. I'm just focusing on you, Tracey, but if more legislation and guidance assist in being more flexible? In Scotland, I would say that we have a pretty good legislative landscape around this area at the moment. Nowhere is perfect, but we have a good landscape. I think that the difficulty or one of the challenges is that, for a lot of local authorities, particularly but other organisations as well, don't necessarily or haven't necessarily have the practical guidance as to how to put that legislation into practice. They have the statutory duties, they have that framework that they're meant to be working with, but what does that translate to on the front line? That's where we refer to it as the implementation gap sometimes. We've got the legislation there, but it's not actually making it through that the families who need to have that service. I think that providing a little bit, this is one of the things, I know that my colleague Beck is going to talk about this in a moment, but the principles into practice framework that we've been developing through Arc Scotland, which you've had communications about that, a lot of that was very much geared towards providing some of that practical support and guidance to put these things into practice, because we know what works. It just means that we actually have to translate that into how you do that, how do you change those teams, what people do you need to have in place to be able to make that happen. Thank you, that's helpful. I'm happy to hear from any other members of the panel if there's anything to add. Can I just comment on some of the things that Tracy's talked about? As you said, Tracy, we know where the barriers are, we know where the problems are, we probably know what the solutions are too. Why transitions are complex is also a bit of a meta issue as well, and it's probably useful to define what we talk about when we talk about transition. A lot of people seem to think that transitions is simply a step into education, employment and training, but for the young people and the families that we work with, transitions is a whole life change in everything, not just going to college and getting a job, but it's a change in benefits, a change in human rights, it's a change in how siblings might relate to the young person, it's a change in how the family might have to quit their job to support their young person because there's no support for them to step into. When I talk about transitions, I'm talking about that like moving into young adulthood. As Tracy said, we have a really robust but complicated legislative framework that sits around that, and that is a framework that we created. We created the transitions framework to support people, and it's got more and more complicated, and there is different legislation sitting on top of different legislation. To come in on the point that Tracy was talking about in terms of the communication, you could even argue that transitions is an education for professionals issue too, because my background is a social worker, I'm also a trained psychologist, I've also worked in schools, I've also been a support worker for young people with complex and challenging behaviour. I didn't ever know what other people knew, sorry that might sound a bit weird, but I was trained to be a social worker, so I knew my social worker rules, I never really knew what teachers had to do when it came to helping young people move on, so I could only be singly accountable for my element as a social worker. I didn't know what the accountability were for teachers or healthcare professionals or OT or allied health professionals and how that all tied into careers and benefits and housing and transport, so when we look at transitions in a more of a wider meta definition of stepping into young adult life, you suddenly see why it gets really complicated because there's all these different professionals that come together for a meeting and nobody really knows necessarily what other people should be doing, so one of those solutions and the barriers I think definitely are that kind of joined up training and that joined up approach potentially starting pre-graduation in terms of kind of getting transitions on the map and the radar and that's some of the work that we do with Napier University actually with student nurses and you would have met the DIs previously and a lot of those go in and speak to the young student nurses about their experience and how they had to become the key driver along with parents of holding all of that information, so another barrier I think in terms of transitions is professionalising parents, so you suddenly have to be like you have to know all the things right, you have to know all the stuff, it's not their job like it's their job to be parents in this kind of situation, so one of the issues that can happen is parents get flustered and burnt out and they don't get the support that they need, so a solution to transition is bringing that all together and helping people understand the whole picture that sits around in the legislative framework and it is robust and it does on paper do the job that it should potentially be doing, so the question for us is does adding more legislation to that legislation salad solve a problem in the round? Sorry, is legislation salad okay to say it? Is it the least tasty salad ever? Very tasty, but Beck, I'll offer that to you too, sweet titty. I think just further to what Scott and Tracy have said, I think one of the things that makes it tricky just like Scott said you know as a professional in a particular role you know what you're meant to be doing most of the time actually not all the time because transitions often just a tiny bit of someone's job there's not many people in the country where it's their complete focus so actually we do find that sometimes people don't know what their role is in terms of transition and we do a lot of work trying to make sure people understand what their role is and then able to carry that out but if you know what you're meant to be doing the timeline for transitions that's set out quite clearly in the additional spot for learning act for example has a clear timeline of when things should be happening and then there's other bits of legislation that's set on top but if one person isn't able to do what they're meant to be doing at a certain point of time there's a knock-on effect for the others being able to do their statutory duties or best practice so sometimes what we often and we have done for a number of years run training for people across all sectors and parents and carers to come together together to really unpick this and you know that can be really quite challenging dynamics in the room because there's a lot of emotion when it comes to transition because when it goes badly people know it's awful for all involved so there's often heightened anxiety but when we start unpicking okay why isn't it working and we say well you know education should be doing this at this time but we can't do that because we're not really aware of this case so you know they say well social work can't get involved until this point in time because we've got restricted capacity and and we just see quite clearly then the knock-on effect that happens and this is one of the reasons we say that transition needs to be given to be the planning has to begin with enough time to allow for this to all take place thank you those are really helpful insights i think our experience of speaking with parents your reflection about them having to become professionals and take all that on it certainly resonates i know there's lots of other colleagues want to come in so if i leave it there just to pick up on something that you guys were talking about there as well something we've heard in evidence quite a lot is that where there's been a transition lead where there's been someone who has been working with families all the way through they've built those long-term relationships they've built up trust that actually that has been the thing that has made the difference really to the family and they've been able to reach out and to all those other organisations and really pull everything together so i suppose what i'm wondering as well is you know certainly you're welcome to comment on that and i'm wondering as well does the bill take us any further forward does it provide the potential to resolve any of this bit i think to be honest yes you know the role of something like a transitions coordinator or a designated person that can be a point of contact actually is incredibly valuable and i think going back to professionalising parents and so on you know people when you're starting this process people don't know what they don't know so they don't know what questions to ask and if you're talking to a range of professionals who are each saying something slightly different it's very different difficult to bring that together so having one point of contact that you can turn to i think is hugely reassuring but it's also making it it's that kind of commitment that makes you know transitions is important we're going to invest in this we're going to make this a role that it's somebody's it's somebody's responsibility to be on top of the information that is shared to parents and how that's and young people and how that's done so you know yes certainly where we've seen that kind of commitment made and again this is something that has been trialled through principles into practice there's one local authority area that's trialling having a designated person and it has actually made a huge difference to the parents who are going through that process now you know they will talk very passionately about how how valuable that's been for them i think one of the key things around having the designated person is who that happens to be and it has to be somebody i think that the young people and the parents in care is feel they can build that relationship of trust with i think you know we've seen in the past in another context with with named person and so on you know if it's somebody that the young people and the parents in care is don't have confidence in and don't particularly feel you know it's it's maybe encroaching on their family life or their responsibilities or whatever it happens to be then it can be counterproductive so i don't know scott if you want to say anything about what the bill has to say the transitions bill has to say about this yeah i kind of want to come in on your point as well about a key person and for me and the young people that i work with and the parents i talk but it's about aspirational stuff it's not necessarily like you go to the job center every Tuesday and do a thing in terms and i'm kind of talking about the planning element in the bill here and it kind of links to that key person in terms of for me who does the planning and what does the plan look like and can you legislate for a relationship really um and i very much have a thrust that the work that we do must be relational and it must be when i say person centered but that sounds like a jargon word but it means that you've got to at least get on with the person and they've got to be in the middle of what you're talking about so where um there hasn't been a key person and and there's examples that we can kind of give post this if they would be useful um the key person has kind of risen out of need and that sounds very dramatic but um it could be for instance a person in the church is one example that i know or a teacher that goes the extra mile that pulls it all together through personal experience or a particular social worker or a kind of support worker who's got a really good relationship with somebody and it's that pedagogical i can't say that word for the pedagogy yeah you know what i'm saying hopefully you'll spell that right in the minute um of that young person and the family that helps that relationship move forward so can you you can probably legislate for somebody to be in that role but the the values that they come into that role with can't necessarily be legislated for so it would be a employment focused thing is this the right kind of person to fill a role that can sit as a as a coordinator in the families and they will have a particularly key role to play in the planning and in the in the transitions bill that we're talking about is the planning is really problematic for me in the way that it's written in the bill because it doesn't make any sense really to me how that's going to work who does the plan who's the plan for what's the plan about is it if we go back to that definition of transitions being a whole life change and i'm like a social worker who's yours and i'm limited by resources time we all know the kind of situation that's happening in in social care at the moment my plan might be that you go to the job centre every tuesday and i have met the legislative requirement of that plan right versus i've sat down and worked with scott will use me as an example for six months and i know that scott wants to be a surgeon down the line not that i do but um what does that mean then in terms of planning and what that to me is kind of really good planning and we have such brilliant examples in scotland already of really good planning like the big plan that you've if you've heard from this all um and also you would have heard some of that from kieran one of the young people that i work with talking about this effective planning also through the ilf fund there is a grant from 500 pounds to allow really good person centered planning to be happening but we're going back to that issue of what chasis says people don't know what they don't know so they don't necessarily know to access that or why they need planning because they think actually transitions is maybe fully supported so we go back to the key person again being really key sorry that was a bit can i just check as well then so am i getting this clear then is is the issue that actually what matters to the individual needs to be central to that plan and that that's missing yeah sorry and it's like how do you how do you legislate that into legislation when we have similar issues with plans around the child where the young person should be included but it becomes a very statutory framework and the young person's voice and aspirations come at the bottom of that list of concerns i guess sorry i've taken up a lot of airspace on that i've known michael wants to come in on that thread there scott if you don't mind and michael marra sorry let me yeah i appreciate that and it's really useful scott but i suppose i'm worried a little bit about you're talking about essentially the quality of the plans there could be a plan that's pure or but you recognize at the moment that many many young people just don't have plans and the current approach in that regard doesn't really work so would it not be a step forward to insist that those plans and then we can work on quality you know after that event is that not yes and no i would like personally and this is an in is as representing sdf but personally is me to see the legislation recommend the kind of planning that should happen in the legislation not just to our plan and just to kind of reflect on a plan could be you go to the job center every tuesday or a plan could be you will work with somebody to help you achieve your aspirations wherever they are so i would like to see that in the legislation because what will happen is we'll go and i'm cynical but we'll go to the lowest common denominator of what planning it is due to resource restrictions and i don't necessarily mean budgets but also mean staffing time resources and that kind of more general sense Tracy do you want to come in yes if you wouldn't mind it's just to make a point that what we don't want to do is have a plan to be something that's done to a family or done to a young person i think you know what the key for me is not necessarily who is responsible for the plan as you were saying scott it could be somebody in the church that you trust it could be somebody in it could be a trusted teacher whoever but it's got to be led by the young people and by the parents and carers and i think you know so often and i'm speaking here as a parent of a young woman who's got autism herself and she's she's in her 20s now so i've kind of been through this as a parent and sometimes you know i've been in a situation where the person who has been allocated to work with me around something is somebody we don't know there's a group of people that is supportive for us and then we're actually having to include somebody else into this process that we don't know that's coming in from the outside and maybe it's somebody that doesn't mean to say that they're a bad person or they don't know their stuff but you know it's kind of going well who are you you know why are you here and i think that's one of the things that can can cause planning sometimes to feel a little bit distance it's arm's length it's not actually connecting with your real life because it's involving people that you've been allocated rather than people that you've been chosen so i think that's something that we yeah i would like to see addressed if we can it's coming as well just one quick point about the key point of contact um we talked about totally um you know agree with scott around it has to be the person with the right values but also i think and i'm thinking about the area in particular that we know have been trialling this really successfully it's also about the um that role i believe the person in that role has done such a fantastic job for a lot of reasons one of which the link she has to the different teams involved so the social work teams children and adult teams as well and with the schools so those relationships are really strong and we know that to support the planning support the young person moving through that someone who's in that position is really key we also know and and it became quite obvious and probably could have guessed it in that area that one person is not enough and that person is working well over when they you know the amount they should be um their needs actually a team and a team with those strong links and that also not just provides a go-to person for the young person in their family it provides a go-to person for people working in other teams other sectors around involved in the care of young people to be able to form that relationship with as well which just is important that's certainly something we recognise and what we've heard so far Rebecca i would say for sure Stephen Kerr do you have a supplementary scott's contribution so has been very interesting especially when we refer to the legislation salad you were describing so when you talk about the plan am i picking up that you don't think this is something that can be legislated for or is it just that as the bills presented you want it to be more prescriptive because in the same in the same vein i mean you rightly said i think it's probably the question of the morning can you legislate a relationship and of course you can't so your thoughts can the legislation yeah i think you can legislate for a robust methodology of planning so you can put that into legislation and we know that there are ways of planning that are evidence to be really good and young people and parents and carers tell us what these are so you can potentially put that into legislation and i think at the moment how the legislation has presented as written in law and i'm not talking about the rhetoric that comes with the guidance and stuff but as the written in law which would be challenged is not is it more than we already have it's just kind of like somebody by the age of 16 should have a written down transitions plan that kind of already happens in school through the additional support for learning acts they should have a transition they should have should i'm going to say should have a transitions plan by that age will this legislation saying the same thing you should have a transitions plan by that age make any difference if they already should have a transitions plan with an additional support need and the additional support for learning act and all of those processes so i i also am not naive to just because something is law doesn't make it actual happen on the ground it can take a lot of time so looking at the bill as as stands i don't think it's strong enough in terms of the planning element if i was to look at that i would want to legislate for the kind of enhanced planning that young people with additional support needs would need would be this person centred big plan maps and paths really effective planning i think a realistic approach to what legislation can and can't do is it is it an area that should be legislated on can i sorry can i interject we are about to move into a section on that sort of legislative element just mr caron i was just curious that we've got other members that we're going to lead the questioning on that it just seems logical to ask it carry on and then i'll be with you later i think knowing the legislation that i do and knowing how people struggle to get things met in the legislation i guess it's a bigger question does law make a difference to practice yes it does but actually the system doesn't necessarily change very fast because there's a law you have to embed the training and the change of culture into all of that so by putting that into legislation does it allow that culture change to start to move through maybe it's going to be my answer to that but we know working with the legislation that we already do across health like the nice guidelines that sit and the additional support for learning and all of that stuff that actually new people coming on the ground need retrained in that and what that means so it's going to be an ongoing challenge i think if that makes sense thank you that's no no problems at all school i'm going to move over some questions to kick start the discussion around the legislation from the vice convener co cab stewart thank you thank you convener so you might find that some of the areas have already been touched on by my colleagues however i just i just want to drill down a little bit further so i suppose what i'm interested in is that ultimately will this bill this legislation be required to create better outcomes do you feel that this bill would actually have the impact that it's trying to achieve or do we already well you've already mentioned a load of good practice that's required you've mentioned relationships i was also thinking can you legislate for cultural change and good leadership because that is also part of having good transitions and supporting our young children so yeah thank you scott you can does the legislation do there would there's been two versions of this legislation and i had the first version which was then tied it up into the second version so the first version i would actually say absolutely not there's the second version why it's changed is the idea of the definition of disability under the equality act that the bill brings in which i think it's a really really important consideration so we're not just talking about disabled people we're talking about anybody with a moderate and severe enduring condition because it's the equality act definition i think i've got that right if i haven't tell me so that opens up the demographic to a lot of young people potentially in scotland so 30 i'm pulling figures out my head 37% of young people in scotland at the moment have an additional support need potentially in some local authorities that's something like 43% so we're almost like one in one round about one in two one in three young people so this bill might impact them in terms of transitions planning so if it doesn't they can then potentially have a case of like i'm going to have to prove that i'm disabled enough to get the support that i need so this bill can help me under the equality act definition which is a huge shift because when young people are in school they have an additional support need when they're adults they have disabled because there's a transition the language suddenly changes and they go through diagnostic processes to access services and all of this kind of stuff so that's kind of within this bill um another question is how does it align with existing legislation there's nothing in this bill that talks about the additional support for learning act or the tribunal structure there's nothing in this bill that talks about what happens if this doesn't happen who do i go and complain to like i have a right to live the life i want it's like a rights-based bill in my mind and there's no kind of consideration of that rights-based approach in the bill really and if my rights aren't being met who do i go to under this piece of legislation like where's the complaints basically if you don't have accountability in legislation is there a point in having the legislation if it's not accountable um the planning stuff we've already touched on um which i think is the the meat and potatoes of this bill and i should say i really really agree with the aims and objectives of the bill and i'm not i can totally see where they're coming from i'm just really concerned that by introducing more legislation into the legislation salad which is the word of the morning we're going to have a more complex situation and then there'll be people using this as an avenue to get support and the other avenues of support won't be as funded or won't be as focused on um gosh yeah so like also how do we identify what the extra entitlements of this bill will be um we already have uh if we think of a spectrum of young people this sounds awful but and the spectrum of young people with additional support needs you have the people that will have more complex needs and the people that you kind of know are going to be all right but then there's all of the young people in the middle that are just missed by the legislation that we have at the moment and this bill potentially does a similar thing because i think it was originally drafted with the focus on learning disability only which is a very strict diagnostic IQ under 70 all of that kind of stuff and this has expanded the definition which i think is the right thing to do and i'm not anti that at all but that opens it up to like mental health and autism and the numbers and the financial memorandum don't really really kind of reflect the amount of young people so if we're like 120 000 we know that 20 of those 20 percent of those are known to like social work it's not many i'm not taking the maths in my head but if you go through the semis list of the different conditions you can probably say about i don't know two-thirds to the three quarters of those young people would potentially fall under the premise of this bill which is roughly what 75 80 000 in one year so if it's 80 000 in one year and you're talking from age 16 to 26 that's 800 800 000 young people that would be suddenly fall under the premise of this bill if it was enacted that would need transitions plans and support don't shoot me with the numbers but we won't that's quite a quite a large number um i don't know if anyone else wants to come in and contribute on that question from coca not on the numbers i don't want to add that just to say um i guess so if we get the say we got the planning right um we need to also be obviously that has to be properly resourced so people can achieve what they want to and what's in their planning um but we need to also be looking at you know how do we increase the opportunities for young people beyond um beyond education um out in the world in the communities um you know has to be happening at the same time because we could end up with all these fantastic shiny new plans but they're not able to be acted upon and that could be potentially even more devastating for families um that built up expectation you know really being listened to of what you want in your life and and really being imagining that and that's hard for a lot of young people then um and then for it not to come about could be quite devastating for me within the bill it it assumes that if a young person is um under the age of 16 that it's education who are going to be responsible for the plan and taking the plan forward but as as we said you know transition we we take it up to 25 26 if someone is is care experienced um so you know i the question for me is who is responsible then for that plan if this bill goes through for those young people who have already left education and you know may be a further down the line um so you know there's the there's the question there about it I think the assumption is social work but we know that in practice very many families are really really struggling to have um be allocated a social worker because you know the resources there are not as good as they should be at the moment and um I think you know there's a whole question there of well who is responsible for that planning and supposing a plan um is put together while someone is in education um but you know two years down the line they've done their college course or they've gone on to whatever it is but then they've changed their mind or that's not worked out or circumstances have changed who then takes that plan and adjusts it and makes it relevant to their situation at that point um you know because the plan is not something that's set in stone it's something that what we talked about flexibility earlier it's something that should be flexible enough to follow that young person through whatever life um life throws at them during that period of time so I'm not sure I remain to be convinced that the bill actually speaks to that as strongly as I would like to see it do yeah I think that I sort of um you've given some great examples there and talked us through it um I'm sensing that there is no overwhelming feeling from you that this legislation would actually guarantee any better um outcomes um so that that is quite clear there um I think uh one quick well it's maybe not a quick question but maybe you could try it's just uh which aspects of the bill um as it is at the moment that's in front of you um would you change um well I think to be honest for me that that would be one it would be you know what happens after someone is out of formal education um you know who is the person that they would go to if if things start falling apart if that plan needs to be changed if you know and at the moment um it tends to be the parents and carers and families who pick that up and carry that forward and we said again earlier about professionalising parents you know that's something it's it's it's not a fair responsibility to put on to parents that have got other other responsibilities and so on at that stage in their lives so that for me would be the bit that yeah okay thank you anyone else wanted to what one bit would you change you don't need to if you can't say planning because that's already been done but you don't need to if you don't I guess just um greater clarity in terms of who would be uh responsible for the planning I'm not going to go into the details of the planning um but also you know I mean the financial memorandum a really robust look at the figures and and um ensuring that the planning gets enough time I think it's four hours that's written in the bill which we know if the young people to even engage in the process that's nowhere near what's needed um so just a more thorough look at that and how it interlinks with the other piece of legislation that are already there and the other plans that are already within those bits of legislation. I don't have loads to add. The bill is on the surface is trying to make sure people have the life that they want right and I totally appreciate that but life is more complex and legislation doesn't just make that happen. One of the things I would like to see the bill address and it doesn't do that is how it's going to deal with the stigma in the workplace for young people that are coming through so you can make the best plan in the world but if the the company organization holiday resort isn't accessible or don't know anything about disability additional support needs the plan isn't going to happen anyway because there'll just be no jobs or there'll be no access or there'll be discrimination and it's kind of like the best planning in the world doesn't remove the barriers of discrimination that young people with additional support needs disabilities not and so they'll face on a daily basis. Mr Dey if it's a short supplementary before I come to Ross Greer. I appreciate it please. So we've talked about the bill and how it could be improved but imagine the bill wasn't there and in a short time we've got two Government ministers in front of us if you were sitting with them what would you say to them is needed to improve the experience of these young people in transition and how would they go about it as briefly as possible? I think a lot of the things that we've actually touched on to be honest I think it's Scott mentioned the training you know sort of joined up training across services and across professionals we've talked about having that designated you know sort of co-ordinating role that doesn't have to be in the role of a named person but it is somebody holding that together the communication and the information to everybody involved the professionals the parents and carers the young people I think that's that's one of the other things that I think I would actually like to mention is around you know sort of data and evaluation of what works and how how we track improvements and how we you know sort of look at what's making a difference what's not and adjust practice accordingly so that it's actually evidence-based because I think at the moment there isn't really and we can we can talk about this a little bit about the tool that we've been developing through our Scotland with Compass that's going to produce some of that evidence but we don't have an evidence base we have anecdotal evidence around what people's experiences so it makes it very difficult then to make an argument for shift and for change that we know is going to be effective so I think you know there's something there about trying to get a better and a bigger picture you know the full picture of what transitions is like in Scotland at the moment and I think that's that's our baseline that that's where we should really start and so you know perhaps rather than rushing to more legislation establishing that baseline finding out you know what what the facts are what can we evidence what are people actually experiencing then giving time to some of embed some of the things that we've been talking about around good practice around training and then you know maybe if that doesn't work if that doesn't you know that that then still we're not seeing improvements sure maybe we need to revisit legislation have a look at that and say well is it fit for purpose but give those things time to embed first good thank you and just for clarification the first version of the build did reference the equality act so just make sure but that's fine can I now move to questions from Ross Greer please thanks community I thought that that was a really really useful answer from Tracy so I just wanted to see if Scott and Rebecca had any thoughts on that and without wanting to put words in your mouth Tracy and just cut me off if this is an unfair representation and you were essentially saying that there are other things that we could prioritise first and if they don't work then perhaps a legislative approach similar to this bill would be appropriate but we should prioritise those non-legislative approaches first Scott and Rebecca would that be your view or would you like to see legislation at this point I would agree with Tracy that's probably no surprise that there's a lot that we're focusing on currently but that will be you know it's not quick fix if there was a quick fix for transitions we would have fixed it so that's going to take long I guess without without focus there's always this kind of tension between you know knowing that's what needed is long-term systemic change and these things are going to take time but also knowing that young people are still going to transition at the rate they currently are they're not going to wait for us to get it right for them so this isn't quite what you were asking but if I had a magic wand I would say yes let's keep investing and follow through with the approaches that we've got to really embed the current the full extent of the current policy that we have framework but at the same time I'd say that you know if I could I'd say that every young person and family who are approaching transition and going through transition would have that single point of contact someone that they can that can support them through this if I was you know given that power again I think it's the systemic change versus fast things that things need to happen now to support young people and again it's that people need a coordinator they need a place to go they need the information they need the support that they're entitled to families and carers need support all of this stuff has to happen but then versus the systemic change I live in a bit of a dream world where I would like to see legislation like this actually co-produced by the people that are actually impacted by it so starting with the young people and the parents and carers and moving into the local authorities to actually get their view on what would be the best way to support the people who are in it to do it having tried all the other bits and pieces that like there are mechanisms potentially that would be useful such as changing the adult social care criteria to allow adult social work to step in earlier those kind of things minor changes would be interesting conversations to have I think and that's how I'd like to see this legislation be developed in terms of that really on the ground ups well rather than a kind of yeah has it has been produced at the moment. Thanks very much on that last point then Scott just to be clear would you prefer if rather than Parliament proceeding with the legislation in its current form right now are you suggesting that maybe a little bit more time is taken to do that co-development work with those who are directly experiencing this and then perhaps come back to us with this bill or something similar to at a later point with a bit more work having been done. Yeah I would probably there's two parts of the bill we haven't discussed which is the minister in charge of transitions which personally I think that's a massive manifesto if we go into that the definition of transition not being just education employment they would actually have to hold everything that the scotch Parliament do but also the strategy I think that the bill mentions and I know that there's a strategy under way which the bill doesn't mention would potentially lead down that route actually Ross so yeah. Thanks for action just one more question from myself that part of the premise of the bill is that we'll improve transitions if we compel public bodies to take on these duties so that compulsion is that core premise there I think we cannot understand the thinking behind that that if we simply mandate this then it should therefore happen and that'll resolve some of the inconsistencies because there are some good experiences of transitions out there but the comparator there has co-ordinated support plans that they are the one statutory plan that exists in this broad space at the moment. There's two problems with them one is that almost no children and young people within the support need to have them and the second is that for a lot of those that do that still isn't actually resulting in what's in the plan being delivered so be interested in your thoughts on that the question of is compulsion for public bodies the solution here bearing in mind our experience with CSPs or is the problem with CSPs not really related to that at something else. I'll come in really briefly Ross CSPs were replaced a bit by the child's plan through the children and young people act so there was a bit of a conflation in practice I think that we don't need a CSP anymore because we have a child's plan actually no you need both but they both said similar things so people were a bit confused in terms of practice what has happened when people have had a complaint it has gone to a commission and the commission has taken so long to deal with the complaint the young person has transitioned out of school already and it's actually a kind of retrospective you shouldn't have done that but actually my life is no better than it was after I made or made the complaint so we do a lot of work with people about realising early on if you're not getting the support that you need and what you're entitled to as a parent young person I have a feeling this will be similar in terms of what happens with that if you don't get a plan there's no mention as I've already said in the bill about the accountability for that like Hubert does the accountability sit and how does it sit alongside a coordinated support plan an IEP or a child's plan and all the other plans that people have one of the things that we are eager to see is for young people to just have one plan that involves all of the other plans that is plans around the plan if that makes sense to streamline all of that and again that's like a huge systemic issue and it could go into that for hours I think but yeah so is compulsion the right way does giving somebody a route to complain it works sometimes but what is that what's the outcome like if I complain do I get what's in my plan or is it like a litigative year and a half struggle that will be settled outside because we don't want to set case law on this to set a president but then I'll get what I want because I wrote to my MSP you probably all get went into about this stuff often and then you know is it that is that the process that people have to go through and does that just end up really exasperating the problem I don't know I think there are also issues around eligibility as well because you know we know that it can be it's quite long waiting lists to get diagnoses these days for certain conditions or certain disabilities you know some of them are very evident and obvious but others of them are not so obvious so you know I'm hearing more and more from your parents and carers who are being told that their children are not eligible for a formal planning process because they don't meet those criteria and yet it's evident that those children still need support and are still very vulnerable and possibly are not going to make a smooth transition that it's going to be a bumpy ride for them but because they don't fit the neat little box then they're not they're not getting the support even basic support around things like signposting services and so on so I think you know there's an issue there as well about people actually just struggling to whenever you make something compulsory you have to draw you know sort of boundaries as to who's in and who's out and how many people are going to be struggling to get in who really still you know definitely needs some form of support and planning thank you I need to move on now to questions from Michael Marrow please thank you convener you said that I think it might be in scott who said that you must should prioritise non-legislative approaches first how long would you give that very good question I think there are fast things that you can do in terms of and I think this is a kind of principles into practice question with the the trials that we've been running in terms of compass and the data and how that kind of comes through so there are quick wins that you can do that mean that people get the information and support that they want which Beck can speak to you more on but then there are long systemic changes how long does it take to change a culture like let's look at the rollout of self-directed support or the Children and Young People's Act or the UNCRC how long is it taking to embed with that and there's the implementation gap that Tracy was talking about so how long is the piece of strength Michael I couldn't really say I suppose what I mean to take answers to that question from colleagues as well but I suppose what I'm trying to reflect is the frustration that you know we're talking about and Ross is talking about CSPs but looking about one percent of people with ASN have these plans the evidence we've taken from families tells us that this is you know an awful situation for an awful lot of people so we're not just talking about small tweaks you know and so what can we do to drive that change because at the moment it doesn't feel like it's it's happening a little bit about what we've been doing for the last two years and the kind of progress we've made today in terms of principles and to practice so I know you've got communications about this so principles and practices that a framework a national framework that we've developed that supports a practical implementation of those seven principles of good transition and also crucially as Tracy mentioned it gives local authority areas the tools and the means to kind of assess how well they're implementing each of those principles and each part of those principles as well so that they can ensure that the improvements they're making are based on the lived experience of people in their area not just what they think they're doing well you know we've got to shine a new policy that's fine too it's actually like is it working on the ground so we've been working over the last two years with 10 local authority areas across the country two of which we were what do we call our enhanced trial areas Volcker and D and we've been working with them quite intensively I guess over the last two years and then we've got eight other what we're calling universal trial areas who are largely independently trialling the framework with support from ourselves and all 10 areas are making progress that progress looks different the pace of change looks different across every area there's been I don't need to tell you what's happened in the last two years has been the major changes that have had massive impacts on this work however all 10 areas are still positively engaged with us and as I said making progress we're coming to the end of that two-year trial programme end of next month end of March so at the moment we're working really hard with the areas to reflect back and gather what we're calling spotlight examples so examples of good practice think back of what they've learned and how we capture that and share it across the country so at a timeline at what point would you be able to assess whether this work has worked or not well some of the changes we can see right now but we are looking for like long-term systemic change I think the problem is a lot of time transitions because it is such a hot issue it attracts project funding because we it's a big issue we need to do something let's and there's loads of good project work happening but then the project funding comes to the end it's not embedded within the system and then a lot of that progress is lost yeah I'm trying to um sorry I can bear that it's my frustration in this is that you're describing a chronic situation and you're describing short-term actions and you're telling us perhaps that this legislation doesn't deal with that um but what the Parliament is trying to do is try and find a mechanism to accelerate that and make it work and at the moment it doesn't seem to be happening so but I'm not being offered a kind of a timeframe where we should use professionals would make a judgment as to whether the current approaches that you're putting in place work would 18 months would that tell you whether the we were on a path would six months these are pilot programmes you know let the panel respond thank you so I guess this is never this has never been done before you know this is the first time this has happened that areas have had this kind of guidance that pulls together or everything that everyone must be doing and provides them all the way forward we are at the point now where there's critical point we start to see really good changes good practice happening and we can give you some of those examples if you like and I think if we stop now we're going to risk and the areas have no intention of stopping beyond the trial they're going to continue we're going to risk going backwards I think you know within some of the areas of us for an extra year an extra two years and we're saying well you need to continue the work you know we'll still be there in the background because of the delays that coved in particular put on the programme I think you know in the next year two years particularly with the uptake of compass that will give us that really rich data from young people from parents and carers we're going to have a much better idea of the state of play of transitions and what is working and how we can then improve on that it's been trialled during these two years the national launch of compass is scheduled for april so at the moment it's obviously relatively small users for the trial but once it goes across scotland as a whole it will be available to all young people and to parents and carers so we are hoping that the sign up from that and the numbers that are coming through within the next six to 12 months you know will actually increase substantially and that means that then we're starting to collect evidence from people as to what their actual experience is so whereas at the moment the spot a lot of the spotlight examples are around you know the changes that local authorities have made some of the restructuring some of the trials and things like that but in terms of the actual impact on people's lives I would say with probably a year as Bec says a year to two years we will have a lot more information around that to be able to say whether this is really making a substantial difference or not there's a lot of content we're hearing from you and I know I've got a list of supplementary things that I'd like to ask but we're not going to have time the very last question that we're going to have today is from my colleague Mr Bob Doris yeah hopefully just the one question convener really fascinating during the the discussion we seem to be talking about whether we have a mechanism to make sure young people who are already entitled to a good quality transition get the transitions they're already entitled to or I think Scott suggested within this bill opening the door to a much wider broader range of young people who currently maybe don't have that entitlement and that tension between those who are already entitled and not getting it and those who will become entitled so if this bill was to pass would we need quite clear guidance that local authority and other bodies would have to prioritise based on the resources available in other words might this be an entitlement on paper but never realised in practice unless there's a massive substantial increase in resource yes it's the same there's one pie and you are potentially looking at a bill that means that more people are going to eat the pie how do you get the pie from disappearing you're going to have to put some kind of restriction on it I don't know how the bill is talking to that but it says in as written every young person should have a plan and what is written in that plan they are entitled to have basically that's as written in the law in the moment I think sections 9 11 and 13 or something I don't know um but that's potentially if I have a plan and it says that I should get a job in Tesco it is the local authorities job to get me a job in Tesco do you know like what is the what was stuck on that idea of a plan but um what does what does the plan entail if it's saying like I have a plan and I'm entitled to exactly what's written in that plan I personally feel like this was written in terms of daycare service provision and not actual community provision so I will go to a daycare community and I want to do that at 16 therefore the local authority has to provide that versus I want to live with my girlfriend to have a family in a house near my mum and dad have a job in the local newspaper walk my dog and have pals how can you legislate how can the local authority then be responsible for making that plan happen if it's not within their gift scott I think you've made that point really well Rebecca and Tracy I suppose what I'm trying to get this may absolutely be the right thing to do but we don't want to give people rights in principle but the reality is they can never be exercised without substantial increase in resources that I'm not sure where they're coming from would that be concerned that either of you may have I mentioned before that transition's often just a little bit of people's jobs and I think the the resourcing issue is not just about supporting young people to achieve what they want to in their lives of course that's essential but it's also about supporting those around them to be upskilled and have the time to be able to dedicate to this planning and the support all the way through so that that experience is well supported I think for me you know working with we don't want to professionalise parents we've mentioned that but working with young people and with parents and carers is essential because I think you know you could increase the resource I don't know 300% and you still there would still be need you know you wouldn't be able ever be able to meet all that need so you actually have to connect with the people who are around that young person whether it's friends family community you've got to involve them in the process and the support process as well but not to the extent that you're actually putting professional responsibilities on them but it's like the you know the classic it takes a village to raise a child you know you need you need that bigger picture and that's something that really I think needs to be in there because the resource is never going to meet the need that's that's going to be there I think one up sorry I was just good I know Nick Hanna has a specific question to you Tracy and I was going to give Stephanie the opportunity to ask that looking at the clock it kind of touches on exactly what you said there just now but it was just for clarity you spoke earlier on today and you spoke about there not being or needing a coordinator when it's out with school and earlier on you had spoken about actually when we were talking about leads about families having the choice you spoke about the church etc there as well so it was just to be really can I clear on that it's what you mean you know that you have someone that can come in and do a light touch and just make sure everything's going okay a lead or a coordinator for families or they can get more involved should the family need that further support so it was just to get that clarity and be kind of like I was a wee bit worried about the family choice but that it's like oh yeah I just don't need any support and I didn't think that's what you were seeing no no I think it's it's knowing what the root into services is when you need it because if things are going well you don't want to have you know a social worker on your back telling you what to do or whatever but there may well be times that come when you do need that level of support because circumstances have changed so where do you go when that happens and I think for a lot of people you know who I'm hearing from parents if they have support through that process they're then actually quite afraid to let go of it because they fought long and hard to get it they don't really need it right now but they can foresee a time in the future when they might and they're afraid if they give it up now they won't be able to access it again so there's something there about you know ways in and out of services that reflect changing circumstances in families lives that that's that's kind of I guess not pretty much what I'm referring to thank you yeah well as I said it's been a really really useful session we've probably got lots of things that might come out we might ask you after the to respond in writing but closing I think was that you know we as you can tell we have reservations some reservations around the bill but whatever happens if the bill goes through we will still be working with it that's the setting that we're working in thank you very much for that clarification there as I said we've covered a lot of ground today so we are now going to go into suspension for about five ten minutes allow for another change of witnesses for our next panel and thank you very much for such great evidence this morning thank you so much welcome back we will now move on to our second panel of witnesses giving evidence on disabled children and young people transitions to adulthood scotland bill can I welcome clear hohe minister msp sorry minister for children and young people christina mckelvey msp minister for equalities and older people seara hamson unit head supporting disabled children and young people and finally venessa redmond team leader supporting disabled children and young people scotish government thank you for joining us today and we will begin with a short opening statement from the minister for children and young people minister over to you you've up to three minutes thank you and good morning convener and committee and thank you for your invitation to miss mckelvey and I today I'd like to start by recognising and thanking the member Pam Duncan-Gunsey for the attention that she's drawn to the important topic of transitions for disabled young people through this bill we know the importance of good transitions planning and preparing children and young people for life beyond school we know however that for many disabled young people the transition to young adult life still presents challenge we also recognise that disabled young people leaving school and transitioning to young adult life is a complex area requiring multiagency collaboration and cooperation and a person centered approach we therefore wholeheartedly share the members ambitions to improve the experience and outcomes for disabled young people as they make the transition to young adult life however we also share some of the questions raised by those who responded to the committee's calls for views and those who have already given evidence to the committee and these include the potential duplication or overlap of provisions in this bill with existing policy and legislation considerations around implementation and the proposed duties on local authorities clarity around definitions data sharing eligibility and resources and fundamentally whether the bill is drafted could have its intended impact I therefore welcome the committee evidence sessions to consider the details of the bill's provision it's essential that we consider all of the evidence and options to ensure that we meet our shared aspiration of improving transitions for disabled children and young people as I set out in the Scottish Government's response to the committee's call for views there are already a range of legislation plans and policies in place that support the objective of improving transitions to adulthood and we're committed to doing more we have already given non statutory effect to two of the main provisions within the bill we have done this through the joint ministerial leadership for transitions which both Ms McElvie and I are taking forward and through our programme for government commitment to introducing the first national transitions to adulthood strategy for disabled young people in this parliamentary term and there are other important developments across Scottish Government that support our shared outcomes of improving transitions for disabled children and young people and these include refreshing the planning guidance under getting it right for every child, developing a new approach to getting it right for everyone, continued support to the arc Scotland principles into practice trial and to the independent living fund Scotland's transition fund, continued investment in employment support including through the young persons guarantee and important legislative developments which include the incorporation of the United Nations convention of the rights of the child and the United Nations conventions on the rights of persons with disabilities and of course the national care service. Ms McElvie and I would be happy to provide more details on any of these today and I look forward to the questions that you may have. I thank the minister for that statement. Can we now move to members' questions and to Ruth Maguire to kick us off please? I have been asking this morning and in previous sessions about panellists' reflections on what the key barriers are at the moment to achieving better outcomes for our disabled children and young people as they leave school. We have heard reflections around resources and capacity. This morning we spoke a little bit about communication and information, both between practitioners and for families and the young people. Can I hear from you what you think the issues may be and can you also talk to why there seems to be little progress in the area, despite the pretty robust framework of legislation that we already have? As the committee has heard, the landscape surrounding transitions is a complex one, it is a multi-faceted one. To achieve the full potential, young disabled people may need help and support in a number of different ways and in a number of different areas. They might seek that from many different agencies. That support could include the move from the school or college or the transfer of a child to adult services, in addition to helping them to identify and achieve employment, education, training, managing welfare, housing requirements, reviewing the healthcare needs, providing information and accuracy. The principles of good transitions tell us that there needs to be in place for young people transition at the adult, tells us what needs to be in place for children transitioning to adulthood. However, as we have heard from the previous panel members, that is not always happening on the ground for a variety of reasons. That is why we have been supporting ARCOO here at the previous session to pilot and trial projects of principles into practice, to share best practice around what works and, just importantly, to encourage the continual improvement of what does not work. I think that the strategy that we envisage will certainly assist with transitions and assist with their learning in terms of how we improve the lives of children and young people as they move through the various stages of their life. I am happy to add to that. A lot of the issues that Ruth Maguire raised in our question are issues that we are very recognisable to us, and that is the reason why we have taken forward the work that we are doing around the national strategy. The evidence that the committee has heard so far echoes the issues that we have as well. We will know that we have commissioned a literature review of both UK and Scottish evidence, which we hopefully will publish soon. All of those issues are all common challenges that have emerged from that. Some of the key concerns around stress and uncertainty for young people, particularly when leaving friends, environments, teachers and care people that they know, and the difficulty of transferring them into the adult world and the services that are available at that point. We are very mindful of all those issues. We have recognised them and we echo those concerns. The principles of good transitions and principles of anti-practice work are working specifically on all those areas, in order to ensure that we make a difference when it comes to putting all of that into practice as we move forward. Part of the bill is asking for a minister with specific responsibility for the cohort of our citizens. Obviously, you have joint responsibility—that is the right term, but you both have responsibility for those children and young people. Why do you think that people are calling for a specific minister and if that was your priority? What do you think is the first thing that needs to be done for those children and young people? As the committee has heard in evidence, it is not a single portfolio issue. It touches on all areas of health, social care, education, early years and equalities. Taking a joint ministerial responsibility where the minister for equalities and older people can work with their colleagues across Government is a much more—I do not want to say that it is sensible, but it seems like that is the more reasonable way of going forward rather than having it sit within one particular portfolio of responsibility. If you want me to pick up on the particular issue that is raised within the bill in terms of designating a single minister as that bill is drafted, I am happy to do that now, or if you want to do that again. I set out in my response in the call for views that we believe that there are legislative competence issues with the proposal and, so far, as the Scottish ministers are being assigned with a special responsibility, those powers are vested in the First Minister in sections 47.1 and 49.1 of the Scotland Act 1998. That could also modify the operation of section 52.3 of that act in breach of the restrictions in schedule 4 of that act. As the bill is drafted, it would make it, we believe, legislatively incompetent. We think that having joint ministers leading on transitions is a much more effective way of delivering good transitions for children and young people. One of the things that we get accused of often in Government is sitting in more silos and not working across Government when it comes to issues like this. One of the great benefits of the role that I've got is that I get to work right across the whole of Government, and it makes sense to do that as a joint approach in taking forward those issues, because it's not the only piece of work that's on-going to support particularly people with disabilities, but we have an on-going refresh right now of our Fairer Scotland for Disabled people work. We have the proposals to incorporate the UNCRPD into Scots law, so there's a number of areas here, including the review of the public sector equality duty, which basically places specific duties on local authorities and other public authorities to ensure that people's rights are respected. Other key pieces of work are working alongside that to underpin the rights when it comes to a good transition, and that's why it's important that both of us are with you today. Reflects the evidence that we heard earlier on about it being a whole life change, and it's not just a transition. I move to some questions from Stephen Kerr, please. Good morning, ministers. In the memorandum that you lodged, you clearly support the intent of the bill. That's a pretty universal feeling. We've heard lots of evidence about how there is a breakdown in the process through which these young people go and how they often very badly let down. In relation to the bill, you've raised one concern there about the designation of a minister. Are you at a point now where you can talk about other concerns that you have about the provisions in the bill? In relation to the fundamental question that we all have to answer in that, is it an additional piece of legislation such as this to improve the prospects that the transitions for young people from one stage of their lives to another? Will they improve? Will they have a better experience? What's your assessment? We believe that implementing the strategy that Ms McKelvie is leading on is a more effective way of enabling change. We don't believe that we need legislation to do that. We believe that we are able to work alongside COSLA as we do on numerous strategies and local authorities and ADES to implement change and to work co-operatively to achieve the aims that we all collectively, including the member who lodged the bill, want. That's better transitions between school, university, college, education or whatever. I think that working with the agencies and the representatives of the organisations such as COSLA and local authorities is a much more effective way of delivering the outcomes that we want. That's very clear. The Government's position is that you don't see this legislation as being helpful to the objective that we all share. We absolutely support the intentions of the bill, but we had, in our manifesto and as a party and also in our programme for government, we've committed to improving transitions. We recognise that transitions do need improvement. I think that we also need to recognise that, as the convener alluded to from the evidence that he had heard earlier on, transitions are not one point in time. Whereas the bill as drafted refers to a plan, transitions happen through lots of different people don't leave school and then go to a destination or move from one school to college and not then move on to something else. We need to be person-centred in our planning. We need to be holistic in our planning. So, well-intentioned but ultimately not going to change much for the actual experience of the young people who are the focus of our concern? It's certainly highlighted to the committee and to wider stakeholders that certainly we need to improve transitions. As I say, we have already committed to doing that. We would obviously look to see whether the bill adds value to that. Is there any aspect of the bill, as it has been presented, that you do see some value as legislation, as law? I think that we have a lot of questions as I outlined in my opening statement about the bill as it is drafted currently. That's not to say that the bill could not be amended or changed. But as it stands, there's nothing in it that you think that that absolutely would be a good piece of legislation. That would be very helpful to the young people concerned or helpful to the Government in focusing the efforts of the Government working with COSLA to deliver a better experience. I can come in on that particular point that you all have heard from Ms Hawke's open remarks. There's two areas of the planned bill that we are currently working with. We welcome that. We absolutely welcome the intention. We know that we are all on the same page on this about we want to make life better. There is already a bit of a cluttered landscape when it comes to other pieces of legislation. If you think about we have the Digital Support for Learning Act, we have Social Care Service Directive Support Act as well as the refresh getting it right for every child. We have a bit of a cluttered landscape. I think that what the proposal for the bill has done is allowed us to step back and look at that and see the landscape as it lies and think, right, where are the areas where we think we need to do some work? Where can we pull it together into one tangible process, whether that's a plan? I think a plan is too siloed to use them, but I think whether it's making the process better. I think that's why we picked up two areas that are in the bill already. We were already working on those as well. We can see the merit in all of that, but it is a bit of a cluttered landscape, and I think that we need to tidy that up. Minister, I welcome your observation that we have a clutter in many policy areas, and this is certainly one of them. One of our earlier witnesses described this as a legislative salad, and there seems to be an awful lot on the plate. I think that's part of our problem. Salad is good for you sometimes. I'm going to move to supplementary from Mr Marra, please. Thank you, convener. You've talked a little bit about the current accountability structures both to ministers and seem to be saying that these are working, and you feel that it's the most effective way for these to work. We've talked about the existing policy regime, but you would recognise the scale of failure 4,000 young people a year by some estimates. A previous evidence said that perhaps up to 800,000 young people are requiring action. People falling off a cliff, they tell us, feel like they're going to an abyss. They're half as likely to be employed, 44.4 per cent economically inactive against 16.1 per cent. I mean, the statistics are really stark. I suppose my question is in short how long do we persist with the approach that you're taking before you decide that something different needs to happen? Previous evidence said that a year would be enough to evaluate that. Would you agree? We're already doing that. We've already recognised that issue. We have taken forward a number of pieces of work, including that analysis, which will be published in the next few weeks. We have recognised some of the issues arising from the bill and picked that up. We have decided to do some work around what it does a good transition look like, because some people do have good transitions and we're using that experience in order to create a standard where people will have that. We're working very closely with ARC, who you heard from this morning on the work that they're doing. We are very much taking the approach of, we understand those challenges here, we know those issues, we know there's excellent practice out there, how do we make that much more consistent, and I think that's where we're moving forward. We recognise all of those challenges. We don't shy away from them and we are working towards doing that, but the key part of that is working with organisations like ARC and the key stakeholders, because unless the process is informed by that lived experience, we may be back here soon. My question was how long. The principles into practice work is that pathfinders are finishing in March, just a short few weeks away, and we should be in a position to publish the analysis on