Additional Support for Learning (Code of Practice)
Item 3 is the additional support for learning code of practice. Members will have received a note as a result of the evidence that the committee took from the former Deputy Minister for Education and Young People on the draft additional support for learning code of practice on 25 May 2005, and a copy of the draft code. The Scottish Executive launched its final code of practice on 25 August.
We have before us a letter from the current Deputy Minister for Education and Young People to the committee's deputy convener, which outlines ministers' response to the points that the committee raised in its report. Do members have any issues that they wish to raise?
I thank the minister for the adjustments that have been made to the code, which have been most helpful.
It is quite marked how the minister and the Executive have responded. Most of the points that we raised have been addressed in the code, and that is an example of the Executive making use of a committee's advice and making changes that might not necessarily have been made under previous practices. That is a good sign.
The only point of concern that I suspect we might come back to is paragraph 26, on personal learning plans and individualised educational programmes and how they would be implemented under the draft code. I am quite satisfied with all the other points, but that is still an area of concern. I understand the Executive's point about not duplicating guidance on IEPs and PLPs in an already substantial code, but the committee recognises that the operation of IEPs and PLPs will be critical for a significant number of children. If the code does not even include a cross-reference, we will have to continue to monitor that area very closely. If many children are relying on IEPs, and if IEPs are not part of the code of practice, that gives them a secondary status. That was our concern. I am content with the rest of the code, but I still have concerns about paragraph 26.
I share the concerns that Fiona Hyslop has expressed about paragraph 26 and I hope that we can monitor the situation, especially with regard to IEPs. Most schools use the key format that has been piloted. In most—probably all—local authority areas, schools use an electronic format; I am sorry that there is not a wee bit more emphasis on that.
I was concerned about paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 of the Executive response, on co-operation between local authorities where children have a placing request outwith their local authority. There are already issues around resources and things falling through the net. One of the major issues is assessment. I have had casework in which the local authority that the child was in passed responsibility back to the local authority that the child had come from for an educational psychology assessment; that involved enormous amounts of time and red tape. We may have to look closely at that, because issues will arise. It is right that children should have placing requests, but who is responsible is a bit of a muddle.
That is an important point, but the minister has indicated that he intends to write to the committee again on the issue. When that letter comes, we will have a chance to consider the matter again.
I would like to pick up on Rosemary Byrne's point. I am quite disappointed by the failure to amend the code to address that specific concern, to which the former deputy minister was obviously sympathetic. I have discovered since then that although my own area, East Renfrewshire, has a large number of placing requests from Glasgow, Glasgow City Council intends from 14 November not to pay for the additional support that it currently pays for. On that date, when the act is implemented, there will be a cut-off and an expectation that East Renfrewshire Council will immediately make up the difference.
That prospect is alarming, but I have been shown in writing that that is exactly what will happen. In East Renfrewshire, that would mean that the funding for about a dozen special needs auxiliaries, who are currently paid for by Glasgow, would end immediately. On top of that, the implication is that, for all other additional support needs, the support that is supplied by Glasgow—for educational psychologists' services, items of equipment and so on—will end and that the burden will fall on East Renfrewshire Council from now on.
I am not saying that there is not an argument to be had in relation to this matter or that it is not necessary to ensure that the issue of funding for children in relation to the school that they go to is clear. The fact that funding does not follow a child at the moment makes it difficult for local authorities to work out what is happening in relation to such matters.
Taxpayers' money pays for the services and parents and children are not interested in squabbles between local authorities. I have to say that I do not particularly want to get dragged into the matter when a parent comes to see me, as their MSP, to say that they are anxious about what will happen because no one is picking up their case. The current situation is not a great example of good governance and I think that, through the code, the Executive is in a position to do something about it.
I am extremely worried. It is clear what will happen on 14 November. Several authorities, not only East Renfrewshire, will be affected and, if the committee agrees, I would like us to write to the minister in strong terms—and perhaps send him a copy of the Official Report of this discussion—to say what we think will happen on 14 November and ask whether the Executive will take an interest in resolving the matter.
I will give a further example of why there is a problem. Rosemary Byrne said that the mechanism that exists to resolve the matter is not satisfactory. An on-going dispute between East Renfrewshire and Glasgow about one child was raised with the Executive two years ago and has still not been resolved. If there are 2,000 children on placement request in East Renfrewshire and 20 per cent of them have additional support needs, we are talking about 400 children.
The code is a good document. A lot of work has gone into it and it would be damaging to take away the benefits that it will bring to parents, families and local authorities by reducing confrontation. It would be wrong if that were to be overshadowed or damaged by cross-authority squabbles. I would like that point to be drawn to the attention of the minister if that is possible.
I am sure that the minister will read the Official Report. He has indicated that he intends to respond to us again on this issue. We should emphasise the need to resolve this matter urgently to reduce any potential anxieties or conflicts on the implementation date. It is important that we have an assurance that children will not be made to suffer as a result of bureaucratic squabbling.
I want to say something positive about the fact that the sections of the code concerning transitions from school to further and higher education were developed in consultation with the Association of Scottish Colleges, Universities Scotland and Careers Scotland. Reference is made to that fact in the papers for agenda item 4. The duties of the higher education institutions, in particular, were a matter of concern. I am pleased to see that the Education Department has worked closely with the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department, Universities Scotland and so on in drafting the code.
Subject to the comments that we have made, which will appear in the Official Report, are members happy to note the response that was received from the minister?
Members indicated agreement.
We will return to the issue when we receive a response on cross-authority payments.