Education, Culture and Sport Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 1, 2001

Official Report 109KB pdf

---

Special Educational Needs

We move to item 3 on the agenda. Unfortunately, Brian Monteith is not here, but I shall provide the committee with an update. It is expected that the committee's report, and the Executive's response to it, will be scheduled for a committee debate in May—probably Thursday 17 May. That is a useful slot, and it will provide a welcome opportunity to clarify some points.

Nicol Stephen, the Deputy Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs, had a helpful and productive meeting with schools' representatives last week. He is now due to visit the schools to discuss their specific needs in more detail. I have asked him to keep us informed of developments, which he has said that he will do.

That is extremely helpful. A number of us regret the way in which the matter was handled when the committee first reported on it. The fact that the committee's views were misrepresented by a member of the committee was immensely regrettable and caused a great deal of upset. All the schools have been in touch and all committee members have tried to reassure them.

I am grateful for the minister's actions, which follow assurances from the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs. We were led to believe that the schools were not under any threat. When we have the debate, I hope that committee members will not only stick to the recommendations of our report, but will make clear the fact that the committee's report was mainly unanimous, and that, where it was not unanimous, all other members were united against a single member. Each of us spoke strongly in praise of the tremendous work that the special schools undertake, making the case that they need to be supported and developed. The row surrounding the report has not helped those schools and is much to be regretted.

I understand that a three-hour debate will be dedicated to the committee's report. The committee will be able to appoint a member to make an opening speech for 20 minutes and one to make a closing speech for 12 minutes—usually the convener and the deputy convener. Are we agreed that that procedure should be followed?

Given the consensual nature of the report, we might want to involve members from more than one party in opening and closing the debate.

We will consider that option and return to the issue at our next meeting.

That would symbolise the cross-party unanimity of the report.

Yes. We will return to that. We will want to welcome the fact that it is a three-hour debate. That is a positive step. The motion will be a note motion.

The Executive's response, which we have received, will form part of the debate. I hope that it will be added to, following Nicol Stephen's meeting with the schools.

Yes. A possible motion would be:

"That the Parliament notes and calls upon the Scottish Executive to act upon the recommendations contained within the 3rd report, 2001 of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, on its inquiry into Special Educational Needs."

That is slightly more than a note motion, but I hope that it will be the one that is chosen. I will try to gain more information and will report back to the committee at the next meeting.