Our next item of business is to take evidence from Scottish Government officials on the Education (Scotland) Bill’s financial memorandum. I welcome to the meeting Douglas Ansdell, Laura Meikle and Scott Wood. Members have received copies of a briefing paper along with all the written evidence that we have received, so we will go straight to questions from the committee. As normally happens, I will ask the initial questions and we will move on to questions from committee members.
In its evidence, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities says:
“The Bill proposes new duties on Local Authorities and these require to be fully funded by Scottish Government.”
Given that there will be additional burdens on local authorities, why has the Scottish Government not agreed to fund them?
Does your question relate to a specific set of provisions in the bill? There are different arrangements for each of the parts.
The bill seeks to impose new duties. During the first session of Parliament, about 15 years ago, I remember that the general view was that, if the Scottish Executive was imposing new burdens and new duties on local government, it should fund them rather than expect local authorities to miraculously fund those burdens from their own resources.
Here we are in the fourth session of Parliament and we are still seeing the Government introducing a bill that will have an impact on local government and saying that it will fund the bill partially but local authorities will somehow have to find resources from their existing budgets. That is the wider issue. We could look at a specific measure, such as the expectation that capital funding for Gaelic provision will be 75 per cent from the Scottish Government versus 25 per cent from local government, but the general question is why the Scottish Government is proposing to put new duties on local authorities but not proposing to fund them.
May I answer this one from the Gaelic point of view?
Sure.
COSLA has taken the line with us that a new duty needs to be fully funded. I bat that straight back; we do not recognise that. The duty on local authorities has been in legislation since the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which provided that children should be educated in line with their parents’ wishes. Many parents who wanted Gaelic-medium education have used that provision. There are provisions in the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000 and in the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 under which Gaelic plans containing commitments can be prepared.
With the Education (Scotland) Bill, we are putting in place a transparent, consistent and timed process for parents to make their request to local authorities for Gaelic-medium education. I do not see that as a new duty. It will put a new structure or shape on the duty that is already on local authorities to provide education and to provide Gaelic-medium education if that should be the parents’ wish.
Paragraph 38 of the financial memorandum says that local authorities are expected to cover 25 per cent of the costs of that. The question remains about why they are expected to provide additional funding.
We have two grant schemes to support, in principle, Gaelic education in local authorities. Before describing those schemes, I will say that it is reasonable and legitimate to expect Gaelic education to be funded from the local government settlement because, after all, it is just the education of young people in schools, which is legitimate.
We have two grant schemes—one for revenue and one for capital funding. We are open to—indeed, we welcome—bids from local authorities for capital or for revenue to help with the expansion of Gaelic-medium education.
The support that local authorities need if they want to advance or expand Gaelic education varies greatly. Sometimes a local authority simply says that it could benefit from capital help to buy portakabins or renovate rooms for Gaelic-medium classes, so sometimes the request is for capital and we look towards our resources to assist with that.
Sometimes the request is for revenue. The local authority asks whether we can help with support for a teacher’s salary, for example, or for other things such as that. Sometimes a request does not come, because a local authority is content to proceed to establish Gaelic-medium education in its area from the resources that it has already received.
Paragraph 41 of the financial memorandum says:
“The process for a local authority to respond to a parental request could be managed by two local authority officers as part of their workload over a period of about fourteen weeks. This cost has been estimated at £25k p/a per request.”
Why is that such a huge amount of money? It seems an awful lot to spend £25,000 per annum on each request.
This is a tricky one. The figure involves us stepping into someone else’s working life and guessing how much time the process would take. The provisions put in place a process that will need to be managed in the local authority. The process will involve the local authority working with the parents who have made the request. We tried to work out what percentage of the officials’ working day it would take to do that and what salaries the officials would be likely to receive.
In talking to local authority colleagues, we tried to establish the burden, the time that it would involve and the amount of work that it would take to follow through the process. We based our estimate on that and we came up with the figure as best we could from those elements.
It seems to be a colossal amount of money to process a request for someone to get Gaelic-medium education, unless I am missing something.
We are costing the percentage of the salaries of the individuals who do the jobs.
What is the colossal bureaucratic nature of the process for it to take £25,000-worth of salary? How many countless hours are the officers spending on it? I do not understand why it would take so many hours to process a request.
You are saying that it will take two officers 14 weeks to process someone’s application for their child to get Gaelic-medium education. I would not have thought that processing such a request would take that amount of time and money. That has made COSLA nervous, because it is saying that, although the estimate is based on there being one request a year, there could be half a dozen or a dozen—who knows? Why is the amount so much? What do these people have to do?
Reports will need to be written, which will take the officials time to do. Information will need to be brought in from education bodies such as Education Scotland and from Gaelic bodies such as Bòrd na Gàidhlig. Officials will work with elected members in local authorities by giving advice and preparing papers. That will all take a percentage of the officers’ time. We tried to calculate the percentage of their salary that that would amount to.
It is worth mentioning that, if we put in place a process that is over in, for example, 10, 14 or 15 weeks, it will be much shorter and less burdensome than the current process. In some areas of the country, there have been examples—the Scottish Parliament information centre paper on the bill refers to them—of parents who have been knocking on local authority doors for six, seven, eight, nine or 10 years asking for Gaelic-medium education. That takes up a lot of time in relation to local authority business. If we added up the cost of officials’ time for that, the figure could be much higher. There is an argument that the bill will lead to a timed and transparent process that will be much cheaper in terms of local authority time.
I will not explore that further, although colleagues may wish to do so.
I know that we have had corrections to the figures, but I notice from table 4 in the financial memorandum that the funding for children’s rights will be £187,000 in the 2016-17 financial year and will stabilise at £330,000 from 2017-18 until 2020-21, whereas you expect a year-on-year increase for Gaelic-medium education. Why is that? Will that sum continue to increase ad infinitum, or will 2020-21 be the last year in which the sums continue to increase?
We suggested the increases on the Gaelic side because, if a local authority opens Gaelic-medium provision, it will look for support with things such as a teacher’s salary or the transport of children to school. If the local authority looked for that support in 2018-19, for example, it might look for the same support in the following year—2019-20—when another local authority might look for similar support for a teacher’s salary or the transport of children to school. Therefore, we see the figure going up as other authorities open Gaelic-medium provision.
Other things go on in the background. A local authority might often look to the Scottish Government for support with a Gaelic teacher’s salary, for example, but a few years down the road, the local authority might mainstream that salary. There is movement in the support that the Scottish Government gives local authorities, and sometimes something that might be considered a burden, or a bit of additional support for one, two or three years, is mainstreamed by the local authority after a few years.
I have a final question before I open up the session to colleagues. There are concerns about the availability of teachers, which the financial memorandum mentions. What constraint is there on implementing the policy vis-à-vis the availability of teachers?
The lack of availability of Gaelic teachers has always been a serious concern, and it affects some areas more than others. A number of new measures are being put in place to increase the number of Gaelic teachers who are attracted into the profession and placed in Gaelic classes. Over the past three years, the numbers of teachers who have gone through the system have been higher than they have ever been, and we have more routes into Gaelic-medium teaching than we have ever had before.
We are making good progress and the numbers are better, but there remains a serious concern. We must continue that work and ensure that all parties—local authorities, the Scottish Government, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, universities and Bòrd na Gàidhlig—work together as positively as possible to address the issue.
If someone in the Scottish Borders wanted Gaelic-medium education for their child, one would not expect a surplus of—or any—Gaelic teachers in that area. What process would have to be gone through? The council would have to recruit a teacher. What timescales are we talking about for rolling out the policy in such a case? I know that it is difficult to be precise, because an individual would have to be recruited and persuaded to move to that part of Scotland, but what concerns do you have about that? How would they be addressed?
We would approach that as we would approach a need in any other area of the country. Even some areas that we might think would be more familiar with the Gaelic language still need to recruit Gaelic teachers.
The local authority could approach the matter in the standard way by putting an advert in the press or going to Bòrd na Gàidhlig, which keeps a register of teacher needs. It could look for a probationer coming through the system to step in and support Gaelic teaching, or try to grow its own, if you like.
Teachers who live and work in the Scottish Borders Council area may be Gaelic speakers and may consider transferring to teaching in Gaelic. There is a one-year course available known as GIFT—Gaelic immersion for teachers—for which local authorities can put forward teachers who can speak Gaelic but are teaching in English. Local authorities can retrain their teachers and place them in Gaelic-medium classrooms.
The local authority could follow different routes—the standard route of advertisement, retraining a serving teacher or selecting a Gaelic-medium probationer teacher. The Scottish Government or colleagues at Bòrd na Gàidhlig would be happy to advise and support in any way that we could.
The supply of teachers remains a concern.
11:45
Indeed. I used the Borders just as an example; I do not know the situation in that area—I picked it randomly.
You are saying that, even if there is a duty on local authorities to provide Gaelic-medium education, it could still be a year or two before a child was able to be taught in a Gaelic unit. First, capital has to be found to build a unit, and secondly, a teacher has to be recruited and so on. We have to go through a process. Is that correct?
If there were a parental request in the Scottish Borders for Gaelic-medium education, and if we followed the process through and there were sufficient parents in the Scottish Borders who wanted their children so educated, there might be a school that was suitable and had adequate accommodation for Gaelic-medium classrooms. An advertisement could go in the press and a teacher could be recruited. There is not necessarily a delay in the process.
We have constructed the provisions in the bill to provide for an initial and then a full assessment. We hope that, in the full assessment, the local authority will have the opportunity to explore the issues in depth and come to a judgment as to whether it is reasonable to establish Gaelic education in the area.
To follow on from what we have talked about in relation to Gaelic, I got the impression from some of the submissions that the organisations hope—I presume that the Government also hopes—that there will be quite a serious expansion of interest in Gaelic through the bill. Bòrd na Gàidhlig talks about the proposal
“in all likelihood giving rise to additional requests beyond ‘normal’ levels”.
COSLA talks about the Government expecting
“the Bill to lead to faster growth in GME throughout Scotland. This statement does not seem consistent with the estimate in the FM for the number of additional units which will be created.”
The submission from Fife Council says:
“The potential for expansion in the period covered by the FM (2016-2021) is modest and potentially understated.”
Are we being too cautious and pessimistic about how much interest there might be?
All that we can do is look at the growth that we have had in the past and the interest that we believe is out there. I can tell you what growth we have had, for example—the information is in the papers that relate to the bill. There has been growth in Gaelic education generally: the numbers are going up; the numbers going into primary 1 are increasing; and, in a number of areas, Gaelic units are expanding to be Gaelic schools.
As for the question of how many units have been established, three new units have been established in the past six years. We expect the bill to lead to an increased rate of growth. As you picked up from the papers and responses, a number of respondents have said that they expect the bill to lead to an increased rate of growth. Bòrd na Gàidhlig has said that it will probably lead to a rate of growth above normal.
Our estimate is not that the lid will come off or that the bill will lead to requests everywhere. We still think that growth will be modest. If at the moment we have three new units every six years, which is in effect one unit every two years, an increase in growth would be one new unit every year. For Gaelic-medium education, which is a very small sector of Scottish education, that would be a good result—it would lead to significant growth in the Gaelic education sector. Our best estimates come from looking at what growth we have had over the past six or seven years and estimating that the bill will lead to an increase, but our estimate is that there will be nothing more than modest growth of perhaps one request per year.
That is helpful.
I will move on to the idea of compulsory registration. In its submission, the General Teaching Council for Scotland questions the figures. For example, compulsory registration would not just involve a one-off cost at the beginning—there would be on-going costs. The Scottish Council of Independent Schools talks in its submission about the training that existing teachers might need. It quotes as an example a figure for a course at the University of Buckingham, which I assume is not the cheapest place in the world, of £3,995 per person. I wonder whether we have built in enough for costs.
There are a couple of issues to respond to. First, on some of the costs that the GTCS evidence highlights for preparing for the commencement of the provisions, it is important to recognise that the independent sector has a long-standing commitment to working towards voluntary registration. We understand that some activity that is described in the GTCS submission has been on-going and forms part of the programme to support the transition towards registration. However, we recognise that the imposition of timescales through the bill could impact on how and when the money is spent. We are more than happy to have a conversation with the GTCS about how we can support it in the transition, in advance of commencement. That is our position on the GTCS costs.
On the costs that are associated with training for teachers who are working towards registration, we need to take as flexible an approach as we can for the purposes of the transitional arrangements. We have discussions scheduled with the GTCS and the SCIS to agree the transitional arrangements and we do not want to pre-empt those discussions. However, we want to be as flexible as possible. Options include teachers securing additional qualifications, but we are also looking at establishing alternative categories of registration. That might allow existing teachers in the independent sector to continue working in their current posts or in that sector without the need to secure an additional qualification; the focus could instead be on assessing an individual’s existing skills and knowledge.
Am I right in saying that some teachers will be closer to what they need for registration than others are?
Yes. We expect the policy to impact on around 700 teachers in total. They hold a range of qualifications. Ultimately, the best route to registration for each of them will depend on the qualifications that they have, their skills, knowledge and experience, and their longer-term plans—whether they intend to continue working in their current post in the independent sector or plan to work in the state sector in the future, for example.
I want to touch on the attainment of pupils from the most deprived backgrounds. South Lanarkshire Council has made an interesting comment about how this all ties together. There is the Scottish attainment challenge fund with £100 million, but the council says that there is a lack of transparency about how that money has been allocated and about whether the money is connected to the bill and the getting it right for every child agenda. There are three aspects there—are they all related to each other?
They are related. They form part of a broader package of measures that we are taking forward to narrow the attainment gap. An awful lot of focus has been placed on that in recent times. I understand that the Scottish attainment challenge funding has been directed to education authorities with the highest concentrations of deprivation. However, we are also actively considering how we can support disadvantaged communities elsewhere in the country; those discussions are on-going.
As I said, the provisions form part of a package of measures. You will be aware that we are looking to recruit 32 attainment advisers to support local authorities across the country. We are also looking to establish literacy and numeracy hubs, and we have an on-going programme of work for the raising attainment for all programme, which is designed to help us to understand what works and to develop our evidence base on narrowing the attainment gap. The due regard duty that is included in the bill forms part of a broader package of measures and a universal approach to narrowing the attainment gap.
That is what I was going to ask about, so you have already answered my question, but that is the bit of the bill that I was most interested in and I think, without being dismissive of the other sections, that it is by far the most important part, promoting equity of attainment for disadvantaged children and closing the attainment gap. I was therefore surprised that there was absolutely no sum of money attached to it. That seemed rather odd, although some money has been announced for seven local authorities, so I suppose that that will help in those areas. In a way it rather downgrades the duty if there are no resources consequent upon it.
We would not necessarily agree with that. It is important to reflect on the increased priority and resource that has been directed towards addressing that challenge in recent times. I have touched on some of the developments that have taken place. You referred to the £100 million that is being invested through the attainment Scotland fund but, as I have already mentioned, we are also committed to the appointment of 32 attainment advisers across the country and to the establishment of the literacy hubs, and we have been delivering the raising attainment for all programme for some time now.
Given the level of priority that is now being attached to the issue, it is our view that, if we were placed under a duty of this nature at this point, we would satisfy it. The purpose of the duty is to ensure that the level of priority that has now been placed on the issue is maintained and that the momentum that we are developing is sustained.
It raises interesting general issues about the nature of financial memorandums. If the bill had come out a year ago, would you have attached some money to it? Is the reason why you are not putting money into it the fact that you have already announced money for it, or is there no intrinsic necessity for more money in order to achieve this objective.
We need to make an assessment of the investment that is currently being made and the range of initiatives in place at the point at which we are drafting the financial memorandum and, based on that evidence, we must form a view about whether we think that additional investment would be required to satisfy the duty. That is the process that we have gone through to prepare the financial memorandum.
It is particularly interesting in this case because, although there is a substantial sum of money, it is going to only seven local authorities. Somebody working for another local authority might say, “How are we supposed to achieve this objective?”
I return to the point that the attainment Scotland fund is only one part of a package of measures to support every local authority across the country in narrowing the attainment gap. I reiterate that we are supporting the appointment of the 32 attainment advisers and the raising attainment for all programme, which involves 23 of the 32 local authorities and more than 180 schools at the moment. We are taking a universal approach to the issue, but we have also targeted some resources towards those local authorities with the highest concentration of deprivation. As I said, discussions are on-going about how we can support the other local authorities that also face challenges.
I would have expected some of that to be described in the narrative of the financial memorandum. It is striking that the most important part of the bill gets five lines and a one-off cost of £50,000.
I hope that the evidence that I have offered today provides some clarity about the approach that we are adopting on the issue and why we have set out the figures as we have in the financial memorandum.
I want to pursue a similar issue but on a slightly different specific point. The financial memorandum states that the estimated total cost of the bill’s provisions is £254,000 for the financial year 2016-17, which is the first year, rising to £560,000, and by 2020-21 the figure is £736,000. Those figures are amended slightly—by about £50,000 or so—by the addendum that you have sent today, but they are broadly in the same ball park.
You are saying what the total costs of the provisions will be in the financial memorandum but, obviously, you are not going to narrow any attainment gap by investing £736,000. That will not have any impact, but you have also brought in this £100 million. Can you tell me whether that £100 million is an annual figure, or how many millions we should add to those columns for each of the five years covered by the financial memorandum, so that we can see how much is being invested?
The £100 million from the attainment Scotland fund is being invested over the life of the fund, which, I think, is five years, or perhaps it is four years. I can write to the committee to clarify that.
A range of activity is going on in local authorities that seeks to narrow the attainment gap. I have touched on some of the national activity, but local authorities are delivering services all the time in ways that address the challenges. For the purposes of the financial memorandum, we are focusing on the costs directly associated with the new legislative proposals.
12:00
When you write to us, will you say how much additional money is going into each of the financial years set out in the bill?
We can certainly write to you with further information on the attainment Scotland fund, if that would be helpful.
That would be very helpful.
To follow up Malcolm Chisholm’s question, you are saying that we need not worry about the figures in the financial memorandum being low, because the Government is throwing in an extra £100 million. However, initially at least, literally zero pounds will be going through the attainment fund to anyone other than the seven local authorities. What additional money will go to the other 25 local authorities, which will have a legal duty placed on them under the act but which, at least in year 1, will not get any of the £100 million.
I say again that it is important not to focus solely on the £100 million attainment Scotland fund. We are taking a range of measures in partnership with all local authorities with a view to narrowing the attainment gap.
We have set out in the financial memorandum the cost associated with the duty that we are placing on local authorities. Given that we are taking a broad package of measures, which are designed to support local authorities in narrowing the attainment gap, we are not of the view that there necessarily will be any costs associated with the legal duty, so long as the level of priority that we are placing on addressing the issues is maintained. Indeed, the duty’s purpose is to ensure that that priority is attached to the issue.
Let me phrase my question in another way. If the bill is passed in its current form, which, I guess, many would anticipate happening, part 1 places a duty on local authorities to reduce inequalities of educational outcomes and narrow the attainment gap. Therefore, once the act is in force, which would appear to be in 2016, that duty is imposed on local authorities.
Yes.
Seven local authorities will benefit from the attainment fund, which will presumably be in 2016. The duty will be placed on the other 25 local authorities from 2016. You say that other measures are in place, but it is not clear what they are. What additional money is linked to the bill that the other 25 local authorities will require in order to fulfil the duty? My question is really the same as the one that the convener asked right at the start of the session. I cannot see how the other 25 local authorities will get any extra funding to deliver a duty that we all want them to deliver.
The purpose of the duty is to ensure that due regard is given to the desirability of addressing this issue and to ensure that, where resources are allocated, the decisions that are made attach priority to narrowing the attainment gap. We recognise that local authorities work in a financial envelope and that they have a limited budget to allocate. Indeed, the duty takes account of that. A due regard duty suggests that priority must be attached to an issue but that other factors can also be taken into account when reaching decisions. A factor is the finances that are available to local government. We recognise that local authorities are working with a budget; the issue is about how they use that budget to place particular emphasis on the need to address the attainment issue.
I have touched on some of the other activity that we are taking with local authorities across the country, which is designed to support them in progressing their work in the area. There is not much more that I can add at this point.
Not here today, anyway. However, you are going to let us know about the attainment fund.
Certainly.
You talk about other things that are happening. You do not need to mention what all those are right now, but could that information be given to us, too? At the moment, I just cannot see how local authorities that are not to get the attainment fund money can make progress on what will be a statutory duty from 2016. On the face of it, aside from the attainment money, the 32 local authorities are, between them, getting £67,000 in year 1 and £104,000 in year 2. I am sure that more work must be being done and that you will be giving them more through other measures, but it is not clear to me what those other measures are.
The local government settlement provides funding to support a range of public services, which obviously includes education services. Money is going to local authorities, but they need to attach a degree of priority to education provision in their area, and at national level we are taking forward a package of measures to support them in achieving that. I will not run through the range of activities that we are undertaking again, but I am happy to write to the committee to set that out in more detail and talk about our plans for the attainment Scotland fund.
That is what I asked—that is fine.
On that point, you talked about 32 attainment advisers, but is raising attainment not already the job of teachers, heads of department, headteachers and directors of education? Surely if there is an issue of attainment, they should already be focusing on that at classroom, department, school and local authority level.
Absolutely. Through the appointment of attainment advisers we are trying to support local authorities in identifying what works best to address the attainment challenges that some children will face, and it is about providing additional capacity, knowledge and expertise to support their considerations. Through our discussions on the Scottish attainment challenge, and the participation of a significant number of local authorities in the raising attainment for all programme, we get a clear sense that local authorities are currently attaching a greater degree of priority to addressing the issue. A degree of urgency is certainly being attached to the issue, and our challenge is to ensure that that priority is maintained, and perhaps to put in place more robust measures to allow us to measure our progress.
Is there no sharing of best practice at the moment within schools and across local authorities? Is that part of the work of the attainment advisers?
We expect that there is. One key purpose of the raising attainment for all programme is to share best practice—to test models for change and improvement and to share that practice across local authorities and schools. Twenty-three local authorities are currently involved in that programme, and 180 schools. We are looking to build on that activity and provide dedicated support and resource to every local authority across the country, so that they can implement what works to narrow the attainment gap.
Thank you.
This is really just on a point of information. Mr Ansdell, you mentioned that local authorities could mainstream what we referred to in the past as the Gaelic-medium education unit. What are the financial implications for that? Is there a tipping point? I know that, in a couple of schools now, the majority of children registering will be taught in the medium of Gaelic. Does that mean that the school is a Gaelic school with an English-medium unit?
There are a couple of things in that. The mainstreaming of Gaelic costs sits with local authority officers. I am aware of conversations—for example, local authority officers might say, “In a Gaelic school we have five, six or seven teachers. Three or four of them are paid for by local authority money, so their costs are mainstreamed, and we look to the specific Government grant to support the other two, three or four.” Local authority officers work with Gaelic costs. For example, they might think about opening up new provision, and within a local authority discussions will go ahead about the mainstreaming of another teacher salary, and perhaps diverting a bit of specific Government grant to some new provision. The question of the mainstreaming of costs and where a local authority might look to the Scottish Government for support is largely a discussion that takes place within local authorities. As requests for support come to us we get involved in those discussions to an extent.
When Gaelic starts, it is seen as something additional and there is often a request for support. In some areas of the country, the Gaelic side of a primary has increased to the extent that it is the majority. There is recognition being given for that now, and the phrase used is “Gaelic-status schools”. We currently have nine primary schools that are recognised as Gaelic-status schools because a significant majority of the pupils receive their lessons through the medium of Gaelic. That significant majority could mean that 60, 70, 80 or even 90 per cent of the pupils are Gaelic-medium pupils.
Of course, there is an argument that 80 per cent of the pupils in a school receiving their education through the medium of Gaelic does not seem like something that needs additional support but sounds like the mainstream activity in that school. Gaelic-medium education is a feature of our education system that is part of the discussion that we are having with local authorities as some of them move toward recognising some schools as Gaelic-status schools. We are discussing that matter with local authorities and discussing what support is needed in that context.
I went to Bellahouston academy in Glasgow, where everyone in the first year of secondary did Gaelic. I was one of 19 out of 350 who chose Gaelic over French from there on in. However, Gaelic was just part of the main stream at the time for anybody who lived in the school’s area. It was not that the school was a special one for people who were interested in Gaelic; it was just an ordinary school in south Glasgow. We took Gaelic because the education authority at that time decided that it was part of our culture, but apparently we were the only school in Glasgow that did that—it was a tradition. Unfortunately, that no longer happens.
An area in which I have a particular personal and political interest is additional support needs. I note the bill’s proposed extension of rights to cover children with additional support needs. Paragraph 48 of the financial memorandum states:
“some costs may be associated with these rights, which are currently unknown.”
Paragraph 47 states:
“It has not been possible to accurately assess the cost of extending rights and an estimated amount has not been included in this memorandum.”
In its written evidence, East Lothian Council states:
“as a result of increasing ASN rights, this will increase ASN referrals as a whole.”
The council also refers to an 88 per cent increase in ASN referrals over the last five school sessions.
I should point out that Fife Council and South Lanarkshire Council have estimated that there would be minimal cost involved in extending ASN rights, but that is based simply on the tribunal process and perhaps not on decisions on placings and so on that might have to flow as a result of that. Are the costs that you looked at based purely on the tribunal process, or have you also considered the knock-on effect of additional ASN places potentially having to be allocated in schools?
The process that we went through to establish the costs was based on costs across all the rights and not on the tribunal alone. Obviously, I am aware of East Lothian Council’s position. However, it may be premised on the belief that both children and their parents will use their rights, but in fact it will be one or the other and not both. Our position in the financial memorandum of not expecting a significant amount of costs is based on the experience of the Welsh tribunal, whereby children had rights in Wales only for the tribunal for a pilot period but they were not used at all; and on the experience of our own tribunal, whereby children with capacity—generally, when children are about 12—have been able to make disability discrimination claims but, again, those rights have not been used at all.
We recognise that there might be some additional costs, but we are not expecting the level of requests or use of the rights to be of the order that East Lothian Council has suggested. The estimates in our calculations might be on the high side. We have been unable accurately to tie down exactly how many children may use those rights in future, partly because we were unable to establish the cost of the rights and partly because of the experience of other jurisdictions. We have not been able to build a model for that, so we have erred on the side of caution. The issue is mentioned in paragraph 48. As you would expect, we have had to indicate that we will review the situation. I recognise that that is not a brilliant position to be in, but it is genuinely not for the lack of trying to nail the costs down.
12:15
In paragraph 44, you say:
“parents currently have the rights to make these requests on behalf of their children”.
One could ask how many parents are aware of the rights that they have in this respect. There is the potential that extending this right will focus people’s attention on this area, which means that you might have underestimated the number of requests. By definition, any legislation that creates or extends a right draws attention to that right. Parents who may not previously have been aware that they could exercise those rights may now choose to do so.
The follow-up question is this: how early in the process will you look at what is happening and judge whether the behavioural change that you anticipate has played out?
In our discussions about the calculations, we anticipated that exact point—the fact that there is a bill will draw attention to those rights and may result in an increase in requests from parents. It may be that children will use the rights who would not otherwise have done so, or it may be that they could not do so before but they now may wish to use the rights instead of their parents. We factored that in.
We will review immediately. The Scottish ministers are under a duty to report to Parliament each year on a number of elements, including the cost of provision. That formal duty will conclude next year, but we will continue to report and to record this type of information right the way through, so that we have a current picture and a future picture. We will review the provisions one year on from the commencement of the bill.
I am pleased to say that that concludes our deliberations on the issue. Thank you for your contributions.
12:18 Meeting suspended.Previous
Fiscal Framework