Official Report 238KB pdf
The next item is the Scottish Executive's review of children's therapists. There are two rather heavy reports—a summary report and the general one. I asked that they be put before the committee, because it seemed to me that the review is highly germane to the subjects that we are discussing. We do not need to have a lengthy debate on the issue this morning, but members can raise any points that they have. For example, the review highlights issues about the adequacy of staffing levels in some therapy services, which would be relevant to our consideration. Does anybody want to make any observations on the reports?
The review's recommendations are germane to what we discussed earlier. It would be interesting to get feedback from the Executive about the extent to which the report's recommendations will have implications for additional support for learning.
Should we make a formal approach to the Executive at this point, or should we just bear the matter in mind for questions to Executive officials and ministers when we begin our proper scrutiny of the bill in due course?
It would do no harm to ask the questions.
It should be pointed out that the review document is out for consultation. The Executive is asking for comments by the end of October, so we should give our response after that. I imagine that the Executive will not want to pre-empt anything before then.
That is probably right.
We cannot go into the review in detail, but it is clear that the Executive needs to consider the issues that are raised.
I was interested to note that the Executive will examine the way in which therapy services are managed. There is potential conflict between the health professionals and the education professionals, who are managed in entirely separate ways. Teachers have a more structured timetable with perhaps less freedom to control their own time. That can be quite an issue for the way in which therapy services are delivered in schools. There is a real clash of cultures that does not get picked up on. I would not mind asking a question on that issue.
Last week the Auditor General's people touched on management. I was struck by the theme that showed that inclusiveness of service was a bit more advanced in rural schools, and that a lot of the provisions are being put in place in community schools—obviously, there are other schools that do not fit either of those categories terribly well. There are quite a lot of issues that we will want to consider, such as how the services are provided and managed, and how the professional standards impact on the teachers.
You mentioned, for obvious reasons, the greater number of people who are in mainstream education in rural locations. At the same time, the report flags up issues such as the lack of therapists in remote and rural areas.
The timings might fit quite well. If the consultation period finishes in October, we will get the bill at around that time. By the time that the ministers give us their evidence, we might be in a position to ask them about the responses they have had to the consultation and whether the Executive has formed a view. That is probably the proper time to pursue such questions.
I agree with that, but we also want to consider co-ordination between the provision of health services and education—if the CSPs last the pace after this morning. That might be a useful aspect to consider when we take evidence from the health boards. As part of stage 1 consideration of the bill, I hope that we are going to examine how health boards think the CSPs will work. We could then pick up on some of the issues and recommendations that the health boards make as opposed to just taking the ministers' points of view. That is how we can usefully draw out some lessons from the review for the bill.
Subject to the committee's agreement, we have it in mind to take evidence from a panel of therapists from different specialties during stage 1 of the bill. We can then explore some of the issues directly with representatives of the different professions.
Yes—we want to take evidence from the therapists, but Ken Macintosh's point was that management of the services is the key. We want to find out how health board managers see themselves working in co-ordination with local authorities in providing those services.
We are moving towards the idea that the review is a major contribution to the debate on the provision of the services. We want to explore the issues with ministers, as well as with the key professionals and managers. It is probably best that we do that through the formal evidence-taking sessions at stage 1 of the bill.