Official Report 255KB pdf
On item 2, the clerk has circulated a paper outlining the issues relevant to special educational needs. Are there any questions?
I have read the paper all the way through and there are a number of points that I would like to mention. I still foresee a difficulty that I have spoken about before. One of the recommendations that the Scottish Executive has already accepted is for a change to the funding method for the national centres of excellence. The Executive is quite entitled to accept that recommendation, but I am concerned that it has already decided to make that change from 1 April next year—before this committee will have reached any conclusions on the whole issue of special educational needs. It would be useful to invite one of the ministers to a committee meeting to explain why they are keen to move so quickly and whether it might be possible to delay that change to the funding mechanism.
Members of the committee share your concerns. Although the Executive indicated during the consultation process that the change would be implemented in April 2000, that has not been affirmed and that time scale may slip. I think that we should take up your suggestion of inviting the minister to respond, either in writing or as a witness to the committee, to our concerns.
Although the Executive has made a fairly firm proposal, it is still consulting on it and will have received representations from the schools and from other interested parties. The best time to hear from the minister might therefore be at the end of the consultation process, which will be in January.
That is rather worrying. If the consultation process is to end in late January or early February, April is not far away if the Executive decides to proceed. I certainly support the convener's idea of inviting the ministers to write to us or to appear before the committee as witnesses. We should also write either to all the schools or to a representative body of the schools, to ask about the time scale. We can discuss the change of funding separately and in a more dispassionate way, but the timing particularly concerns me.
We should write to the minister seeking clarification. If we feel that the response is not satisfactory, I will be quite happy to ask the minister to attend the committee to discuss the matter further. We should ask specifically about the time scale at this stage, but we may want to go on to discuss the issue more widely later. Is that agreed?
Are there any other questions?
Under the heading "How the reports relate to the proposed inquiry", the final sentence reads:
Gillian, would you like to give us an outline of the timetable?
We still do not know the timetable for the bill, because the bill has not yet been introduced. If, as we expect, it is published in January, stage 1 would be complete by the written evidence deadline, but stage 2 would barely have begun. There will therefore be an opportunity for the clerks and the information centre to take from the written evidence the information that is relevant to the committee's consideration of the bill.
So that information may not be available at stage 1, but it will be available at stage 2.
That is right. Some confusion has arisen because we are not sure of the time scale for the bill.
Nor, it would seem, is the Scottish Executive.
The timetable has already slipped somewhat, so I am sure that we will be able to comment on the bill at stage 2.
That is a helpful answer. However, amendments at stage 2 might be ruled out of order if they challenged the principles of the bill. An amendment that challenged the principles of the bill would be deemed a wrecking amendment, as the principles would already have been passed at stage 1. We may fall foul of the slip in the time scale, and I do not see how we could do anything about that.
It is also open to the committee to take evidence specifically on special educational needs at stage 1. There is no need to wait for the inquiry.
Are there any other questions?
Under the heading "Diversity", the document states:
We are nothing if not ambitious.
I am pleased to hear it.
There are inconsistencies across Scotland and that is part of the reason for holding an inquiry. We can learn from best practice. I hope that that will be one of the outcomes of the inquiry.
If that is our ambition, there may be resource implications of which we will have to be aware and to which we will have to commit ourselves.
We need to discuss that now. We previously discussed the possibility of appointing an adviser to assist us with the inquiry. My understanding—and Gillian may correct me—is that we have to approach the Parliamentary Bureau for permission to do that, although, at this stage, we do not have to identify any individual or organisation.
That is right.
Would it be appropriate, Gillian, for committee members to make suggestions on advisers?
Shall I tell the committee how the process works?
Please do.
In principle, the bureau has to give its approval before we can appoint an adviser, but it does not get involved in choosing the person who is appointed. That is a matter for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, although the committee will want to make recommendations and influence the decision. If the committee agrees today to appoint an adviser, we can then get the agreement of the bureau and go ahead with drawing up a specification and putting together some names. The aim would be to have someone in place in time to start assisting with the written evidence.
I have one concern. Although it may be an advantage to have a person with a great deal of experience, to avoid a conflict of interest, that person should not have worked on either of the reports that we are considering.
Yes, I agree.
Do you mean that the person must not have worked on those reports exclusively?
Indeed.
When would the adviser be required? We are setting dates for looking at written evidence, and the cost of the adviser could come mostly out of next year's budget. However, there is some money available this year, and it might useful to spend money now to allow the adviser to tee up the process.
Yes.
Any request to the bureau would therefore have to straddle two financial years. The bureau does not make the financial decisions—that is for the SPCB—but it has to make the administrative decisions. Gillian Baxendine is right to say that the bureau has no involvement in the decision on who the person will be, but a well-structured application that considers the use of resources across the two financial years would be useful.
Could Gillian Baxendine—or, as he is here, Mike Russell—tell us whether the adviser would work on a consultancy basis, or would he or she be seconded from another organisation to which we would pay the cost of the salary?
All the advisers who have been appointed so far have worked on a consultancy basis, and have been paid a daily rate for a certain number of days. The advantage of doing that has been that we have been able to get people who might not have been willing or able to work full time, but who could make some time available. However, we are open to discussion on that, because as yet we do not have much experience in appointing advisers, and different committees will have different needs.
I would be disappointed if the Scottish Executive, or the Parliament, went down the road of simply appointing consultants every time a special adviser was needed. I would much prefer short-term secondments to be considered as another possibility.
I think that great care would have to be taken that the organisation from which the person was seconded did not have a material interest in the outcome of the inquiry.
Of course.
I am sure that what Ian Welsh suggests could be done, but obviously there is a clearer relationship with a consultant, especially as he or she can be appointed speedily. However, as there is no particular rush—we are talking about February at the earliest—I think that the suggestion of seconding someone should be considered sympathetically.
All right. Does the committee agree to ask for permission to appoint an adviser?
Next
Visits to Schools