Official Report 452KB pdf
With members' permission, we restart this meeting of the Education Committee.
Members indicated agreement.
We will start with the paragraphs on transitions. Paragraph 163 of the report is where we finished at the previous meeting. Paragraphs 163 to 171 are on transitions. There are two suggestions for amendments to the draft report from Elaine Murray and myself. There is also a small suggestion from Fiona Hyslop in the new paper. Those are the changes from the previous draft. Are there any observations on those suggestions?
I have no problem with the amendments suggested by you and Elaine Murray. They both capture what we were discussing last week.
Do members agree to those amendments?
Members indicated agreement.
Fiona Hyslop's amendment would come in at the end of Elaine Murray's amendment—it is a sort of addendum. What are members' views on that?
The amendment strengthens our concern.
I seek clarification. When we discussed the age at which planning should begin for transitions post-school, did we not discuss the possibility of the secondary 2 to secondary 3 transition point?
I thought that that had been dealt with, although perhaps not the specific point about the change between S2 and S3.
Our report should state that the transition between S2 and S3 is critical for children who have additional support needs and that consideration of post-school transition should take place before the move to S3.
Consideration should specifically take place at that point—it is a trigger point.
My amendment states that consideration could begin at that point.
Yes. The difficulty is that some children at that age are not as mature as others are. I would be reluctant to say that the process must begin at that stage, but I am trying to capture the point that a decision should be taken at that stage about when to start the process. In complex cases, the process might start at that point.
That is a helpful suggestion. Where should we put that?
Perhaps it should go in the middle of Elaine Murray's amendment in paragraph 170.
No; it is really an observation rather than a recommendation. What is it?
We should say that it is essential to have in the code of practice the fact that the transition between S2 and S3 is critical for all youngsters with additional support needs and that, for some of them, it might be appropriate for that point to be the start of the process.
Right. I suggest that we put that after Elaine Murray's amendment, which is the logical place for it. The more I think about it, the more I think that it is really a recommendation. The initial wording that you gave seemed to me to pretty much encapsulate the idea, subject to tidying up.
I thought that the point should go in the middle of paragraph 170, before the last sentence. The paragraph should state: "The committee therefore notes that, under the legislation, planning for transitions could begin at the age of 14 and, in particular, notes the importance of the transitional stage from S2 to S3. It therefore suggests that this information should be included in the Code of Practice."
We could go with that. Are members happy with that addition?
Members indicated agreement.
What about Fiona Hyslop's amendment about moving things on to the face of the bill?
Elaine Murray's suggestion will help to clarify matters. However, given that everybody who gave evidence during the process was confused by the measure, we have a duty to try to ensure that the bill is as clear as possible. Ministers have an opportunity to try to find a form of words that would make clear what Elaine Murray is saying.
I accept that there has been confusion because the duty is actually that an education authority must comply with the duty in section 10(6) no later than 12 months before a child leaves school. I am not sure whether that needs to be clarified in the bill, but perhaps it needs to be clearer in the accompanying policy documents, which are intended to clarify the bill's intention.
The issue was raised by many individuals and organisations. Putting the point in the bill may help to clarify the situation.
I would prefer it to be in the bill.
I am trying to work out how we would put that point in the bill, because we are talking about interpreting what is in the bill. In other words, the point is already in the bill but it has not been interpreted properly.
Fiona Hyslop's amendment uses the word "clarify". There is a sense in the committee that the issue is important and that it should be clarified in the bill. Would it be acceptable to make a slight alteration and suggest that the minister should consider clarifying the wording in the bill?
Members indicated agreement.
Do members have any more comments about the section on transitions? It is a very important section and I think that we have reached unanimity on it.
Members indicated agreement.
My amendments relate to consultation with the civic community and my first suggestion is that the requirement to consult should be in the bill. I make the suggestion for the committee's consideration and I would not want to go to the wall on the issue, but it seems so important and so many issues are arising about the code of practice that I do not think that we should ignore the matter.
I do not think that the committee would disagree that consultation will be needed. In his letter—I think in the letter that we received the week before last—the minister gave a specific assurance that he was committed to consulting on the code of practice. Indeed, I think that the minister said this week that he had started to set up an advisory committee. Are there any examples from legislation in the past that might lead us to expect that consultation would not take place?
Obviously I accept the minister's assurances, but the difficulty is that ministers can change, Governments can change and all sorts of issues can arise. Because of the importance and the extent of the code of practice, consultation will be important.
I support Robert Brown's proposed amendments. To answer Kenneth Macintosh's question, the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 provides a good example of legislation in relation to which there was an issue about consultation on a code of practice that was an integral part of the legislation.
Was the requirement to consult included in the legislation?
I understand that it was. Our report should certainly mention the minister's commitment to consultation and I think that it would be helpful if the requirement to consult were in the bill. Members might want to check the 2003 act to establish what it says, as I cannot say whether consultation on the code of practice was an integral part of the bill, but I know that the question of consultation was essential to the passing of that legislation, so in that context the 2003 act is probably the piece of legislation that is the most similar to the one that we are considering.
I suppose that our report could recommend that the minister consider including the matter in the bill—or words to that effect.
I am not convinced that the bill is the appropriate place for that. The bill should direct the statutory process after the legislation is passed.
You might argue about that both ways—
I am not sure that the question of whether there is consultation on the code of practice should be dealt with in that part of the legislative process.
I support the convener's amendments. Would it please everyone to change the wording, so that we recommend that the commitment to consult on the code of practice should be "considered for inclusion in the bill"?
We are recommending that the code of practice should be subject to the affirmative procedure. Does that mean that consultation would automatically take place?
I am not sure. That is a good point. Can we have advice on that?
If the power is exercised under a statutory instrument, consultation would inevitably form part of the process.
Consultation with the public?
Yes—consultation with interested parties.
In that case, I withdraw my amendment, as the question of consultation would be covered by the recommendation to use the affirmative procedure. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
Apparently someone's mobile phone is switched on and is interfering with the equipment. Could everyone check their phones and ensure that they are switched off?
I agreed with the idea in the previous draft that the Executive should clarify how it expects other authorities to abide by tribunal decisions and work with education authorities. The code of practice is probably a good place to do that.
Perhaps that should be our suggestion.
However, I am slightly worried that the code of practice might become an unwieldy document. Perhaps the considerations that we are discussing could be dealt with in Executive health circulars instead of in education circulars. I do not have a firm view that the Executive's clarification should be in the code of practice.
Perhaps we should suggest the wording "Code of Practice or other guidance."
I do not think that that would be strong enough. We need something more than the code of practice for other bodies. We should ask the minister to consider how other bodies can be tied in. I do not know whether that is the best way to describe it.
Do you mean in terms of tribunal orders? Or do you mean in some other way?
Tribunal orders might be a possibility, but I am not sure how that would be done. Perhaps using the code of practice to clarify the situation for other bodies is okay. However, I am not sure whether using the code of practice for other aspects is a sufficiently strong approach.
My problem is slightly different. There is an issue about tribunal orders that are made in relation to other agencies, but there is also an issue about the procedure in terms of identification, assessments and, indeed, the whole ball game in so far as it involves outside agencies. That is not a matter of instructions but of procedures, guidance, orders or an arrangement that ensures that other agencies know how they fit into the set-up. That is the kind of thing that I have been trying to get at.
I appreciate Rhona Brankin's concerns, but suggesting using the code of practice for clarification in this instance does not preclude us from suggesting other steps elsewhere in the document.
I support the convener's suggested amendment. Including the clarification in the code of practice rather than having endless, different pieces of paper would make it simpler for practitioners. The convener's amendment does not prevent Rhona Brankin from suggesting a strengthening amendment.
Is that all right?
It would be stronger to say that there should be one code of practice that would include advice to other agencies.
Yes, there should be a paragraph in the code of practice that is headed "Health service" or whatever.
Keeping everything in the one document is a stronger suggestion.
Is that all right? Does Rhona Brankin have a further suggestion?
No. We discussed the wording with regard to outside agencies at last week's meeting. When I initially considered the convener's suggested amendment, I could not remember what we had said on the matter at our previous meeting, so I felt that we must ensure that we had more than a code of practice. However, having remembered last week's discussion, I think that we probably have an adequate form of words to ensure that the minister considers ways in which the health service, colleges of education and higher education can be tied in. We dealt with that issue adequately in our previous discussion.
We certainly dealt with paragraph 68.
Fiona Hyslop has suggested a slight amendment to that that might resolve the problem.
Members indicated agreement.
A further, relatively minor amendment is suggested in paragraph 177. I do not think that we got a full explanation of the timescales for the code of practice and I think that we should have that. Is that fair?
Members indicated agreement.
We move on to implementation issues, which are dealt with in paragraphs 178 to 183. I am sorry to take up members' time with this, but I have suggested three amendments towards the end of the section. I do not think that anyone else has suggested amendments. I also suggest an amendment to my own amendment—if I can put it that way—in paragraph 184, where it says:
I have no concerns about the amendment, except about the wording of paragraph 184. I do not remember the Executive saying that it was making resources available only for "best practice schools". I am not quite sure why you have—
No, the Executive did not say that; however, we visited lots of best-practice situations. My concern—which I have expressed once or twice—is whether that reflects the position in all schools, the majority of schools, or what have you. I cannot remember whether it was a comment that was made to me personally or evidence that the committee received, but somebody certainly said that in about 50 per cent of schools there were issues about the adequacy of the resources going into the proposals, although obviously that would improve over time.
Did we get that in evidence to the committee?
I think that it was something that we picked up in discussion, rather than in formal evidence.
We got it from the unions. My point is that the training is not just for all schools, but for all teachers. We heard that training is required not just for traditional special needs teachers, but for all teachers, so that they will have an awareness of personal learning plans and individualised educational programmes and be able to help. My concern is about the breadth of coverage rather than the specifics. We heard about that from the unions and on our visits. We heard from the directors of education about initial teacher training, which is an obvious issue; however, my concern is the continuous training of existing teachers and how they will relate to the new system.
Would it help if we left out the phrase
Yes, we should take that out.
I did not understand. I was trying to clarify what you meant by that.
Do you have a phraseology to suggest? It would probably come after the first sentence of my amendment.
We could add, "This should include senior management training and training for all staff." It is not just a question of support staff.
We could say, "The committee also noted the particular importance of training and support for management staff within schools."
"And all teachers."
We have got that already.
We have not.
Managing the new system adequately also has a resource implication and we need to recognise that it will take time to manage the system properly. That was one of the problems with the previous system.
Right. So is the point that you are making that there should be additional wording after
Or, "the management resource required to adequately manage the system."
It is the management time that is the issue, is it not? It is about managers having the time aside from their other remits.
I do not think that we have a clear view on that, have we?
It is about how we word that to protect their position.
I suggest that, for the avoidance of doubt, when we are finished with this, the clerks e-mail round to members the final versions of the amendments—not so much the detail of the paragraphs but the recommendations—for agreement within 24 hours or whatever? Would that be doable?
It would have to be done today.
Given the fact that the financial memorandum seems to concentrate only on the costs of the production of CSPs and so on, we might also ask the Executive how that resource is to be provided. The supporting resource is not really clear in the financial memorandum.
Yes, okay. There seems to be agreement to that.
Let me clarify this, so that I understand what is happening. We are saying that, as well as the training of specialist staff, there should be a requirement for all staff to be given training in the importance of identifying and assessing additional support needs.
That is covered by the current wording. I do not want to over-complicate matters.
If that is what we have agreed, that is fine.
We are talking specifically about management staff and about their having time for that training. We are saying that the financial memorandum—
It does not necessarily have to be in the financial memorandum. The argument could be that the financial memorandum is about only the administrative costs of the bill. Although the resources that will be made available for the training of staff have to be identified, the financial memorandum might not be the appropriate place to do that.
So we are asking for clarification from ministers.
It is about people knowing where the money to do some of these things is coming from.
I do not want to make any assumption about the management of the support system in schools. The system will be managed by a senior member of staff but, more important, it will be managed at principal teacher level as well. Quite often, that is where the time is needed for managing—
I think that "management" can cover both those areas, if the recommendation is phrased correctly. I am slightly doubtful whether the clerks have a clear view of what we have agreed.
I think that we understand what is meant. We will circulate the agreed wording to members and get comments back before the end of the day, if that is okay.
Is that all right?
Members indicated agreement.
My next point is on paragraph 185 and is linked to the previous issue. I propose that new paragraph 185 should read: "The Committee calls on the Executive to undertake a survey of councils on the adequacy of staff resources." I do not know whether that is appropriate, but it seems reasonable to think about it. Members will remember that we took evidence on child therapy reports. I think that it is important that we get an update on where we are at with that.
I do not think that we should prescribe that the way in which the adequacy of staff resources should be assessed is necessarily a survey. We could ask the Executive to assess the adequacy of staff resources and leave the method to the Executive.
Yes, that is fair enough. We will call on the Executive to assess the adequacy of staff resources. I think that we have reached agreement on that. Are there any other implementation issues?
No.
Okay. The next section is on transitional arrangements and includes paragraphs 187 to 189. An amendment has been suggested by Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, which is a reference back to an earlier part of the report.
Yes. It is just factual.
Is the amendment agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Does anyone have any other comments on that section?
No.
Okay. The next section is on "Provisions within the Disability Discrimination Act 1995" and includes paragraphs 191 to 196. There are one or two suggested amendments, which we will address in the order in which they come. The first has been suggested by Fiona Hyslop and is a textual amendment rather than an amendment to the recommendation.
Yes, it is just technical and designed to leave more options open to the ministers regarding how they execute the bill's provisions. There are different ways in which services can be provided; for example, we have had orders in council on about 40 previous occasions. I am suggesting a more general wording that would allow the Executive more options.
Is there any disagreement to that?
Are we talking about paragraph 192 or paragraph 195?
Paragraph 192—the textual bit. It is additional text to give a bit of context, perhaps.
Is that the one that I just said? Paragraph 192 seemed to imply that only one witness said that, but it was said by lots of witnesses. I wanted to strengthen the point that it was a central point that was made by a number of witnesses. My amendment is just background.
Okay?
Members indicated agreement.
There is a joint suggestion on paragraph 195, although I do not think that Fiona Hyslop's amendment totally echoes my amendment. Let me just read it.
You have suggested that Westminster should legislate and Fiona Hyslop has suggested that it does not have to be Westminster legislation.
That is the point, yes. I have some wording that I would like to add to that, which I can give to the clerks: "Alternatively, the Minister might consider whether this objective could be achieved by parallel provisions within the current Bill." I do not know whether it can, but if it can, that is probably simpler.
Yes, I think that we can do that. Euan Robson talked about reverse Sewel motions.
The central point is that we want to have the matter dealt with. The question of how it is dealt with is for the minister. Is that fair?
Yes.
If you could widen the wording of your amendment, I would be happy with that.
I hear mutterings from the sidelines.
What are you suggesting?
I am suggesting that my amendment should be agreed to but that we should add the sentence, "Alternatively, the Minister might consider whether this objective could be achieved by parallel provisions within the current Bill." That is all about the aids and adaptations and things of that sort.
I am happy with what you suggest. The Disability Rights Commission was emphatic in its written submissions that a change would be required at Westminster. It may be right or wrong, but if all these paragraphs could be included, that would help.
It may be one of the things on which we asked for legal guidelines, along with anything that we asked of the minister—was it?
All that I am saying is that the report should not be prescriptive, but should leave it open for the minister to decide.
It is also a matter for the Presiding Officer, as he is not entitled to submit a bill for royal assent on a reserved matter.
What was the minister's view when we discussed the issue with him? Did he say that it was covered?
I think that he was sympathetic.
He was sympathetic. Euan Robson said that there might be the opportunity of using a reverse Sewel motion, for example. There is the order in council idea. I am simply saying that we should not be prescriptive. I am happy. We can move on. If we agree to Robert Brown's amendment and add what he suggests, the scope will be widened.
Are members happy with that suggestion?
Yes. That was what the Disability Rights Commission requested.
Fiona Hyslop suggested another amendment.
I withdraw the amendment to paragraph 195.
Has the amendment to paragraph 196 been included? That should not have been highlighted. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has suggested an addition to paragraph 196, which is fairly straightforward. Do members agree to it?
Members indicated agreement.
As members have nothing further to add about that section, we will consider paragraphs 197 to 212, which concern financial issues. There do not seem to be any suggested changes until paragraph 206. The amendment to paragraph 206, which Fiona Hyslop proposed, relates to the NHS Confederation. We will take a moment to consider it.
There is a central issue about whether we should acknowledge that the only financial implications of the bill are administrative and will concern CSPs and tribunals. I have read the Official Report, which showed that the minister's assurances relate to the number of CSPs and tribunals. If members agree to my proposals, paragraph 208 will be moved up to refer to CSPs and tribunals only. Witnesses have said that there might be greater demands on services. If we accept that, it should be reflected in the financial memorandum.
I suggest that we deal with the matter in two parts. First, there might be general agreement in the committee for including paragraph 206 as a statement of a problem.
We have received such a statement in evidence.
So we agree to that.
We have discussed the matter at various stages and there is no doubt that the bill could create additional demands. It is not simply that there is unmet demand out there—therapists, the NHS Confederation, Argyll and Bute Council, COSLA and various bodies have made that point. I do not think that limiting what is said to therapists implies that there will not be consideration across the range.
There are two problems. One is that although this is an education bill, it is making provision for health services, and I do not know whether that is competent. Secondly, although we noted that there would be increased demand for a whole range of services, there is no evidence on the extent of that demand, so even if it is competent to put the relevant figures in the financial memorandum, what figures should be attached to that need? It is more an issue of recognising that significant additional resources will be required to meet the intention of the bill in a number of areas, but they cannot be categorised numerically at the moment.
I agree. We should find a form of words that recognises that there may be greater demand on health services. That cannot be put in the financial memorandum to an education bill, but maybe we should recommend that ministers consult other ministerial colleagues on the financial implications for their budgets. I do not know how that should be stated. Somebody on the Finance Committee might be able to give us advice on that.
I will suggest an amendment that I hope meets our objective. We know that it is difficult to say, "You must put in the financial memorandum how much extra this is going to cost," because local authorities and health services have told us that they do not want us to hypothecate tiny sums of money for them and tell them what they should spend it on. That is a dilemma that we will struggle with for the next four years, because if we demand that the figures go in the financial memorandum, the implication is that that sum is hypothecated but, as we have heard, that is not how local authorities and health services want to proceed on the ground. Nevertheless, I take the point that we cannot make legislation that has financial implications without acknowledging them.
That is helpful. Have you written it out?
Yes, but it is unintelligible. I will rewrite it.
I am happy with that amendment in that context. Similar points about the financial memorandum arise on the following page.
Does that have the agreement of the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
There may be a slight ordering issue, to do with paragraph 208 coming before paragraph 205, which Fiona Hyslop touched on. It is fair to say that the minister regarded the financial memorandum as being narrow in scope and related to the administrative costs of the bill rather than to the service demands. We need to ensure that the ordering is correct. Paragraph 208 logically should go back in the ordering. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Let us move on to Fiona Hyslop's proposed amendment to paragraph 209. Fiona, given the agreement on the other amendment, is your amendment needed?
It emphasises the point that the long title of the bill refers to widening support and improving support services. It emphasises why it is relevant.
It is a good debating point, but I do not think that it adds anything to the sense of what we are saying, does it?
I am not saying that it does; I am saying that it reinforces our point of concern about the bill's wider implications, whether or not it is needed to describe that concern.
I might be wrong, but I detect that there is not agreement on that amendment. Can we leave it out?
Members indicated agreement.
Should the monitoring of financial demands as the bill is implemented be reflected in this section? I do not know whether Wendy Alexander's amendment covered that. The committee should obviously consider it in its budget scrutiny.
Perhaps the amendments that we have just agreed—the amendment to paragraph 206 plus Wendy Alexander's amendment to paragraph 207—should follow paragraphs 208 and 209. Paragraph 209 strikes me as being the transitional paragraph.
Yes. I agree with that. Let me be clear that we have recorded that correctly: we have paragraphs 205, 208, 209 and then the changes.
Yes, paragraphs 206 and 207.
That makes logical sense.
Wendy Alexander's amendment covered that, but she was going faster than some of us could write, as not all of us can do shorthand.
Her amendment focuses on local authorities and the Executive. It does not give the Parliament, this committee or the Finance Committee responsibility to monitor.
It is fair to say that it does not deal with monitoring.
It is more about scrutiny.
It might be possible to add that the committee might want to write to the Finance Committee highlighting the difficult issue of the scoping of financial memoranda when we want to avoid hypothecating all the resources that go to other bodies, such as health services and local government. We will not resolve it, because it is a wider issue. I could write an amendment saying that the committee will write to the Finance Committee asking it to consider the issue.
That is a different point, but it is also relevant. Do we agree Wendy Alexander's additional point?
Members indicated agreement.
Secondly, should there be some reference in the report to the issue needing to be monitored further and the committee returning to it in its budget scrutiny?
Members indicated agreement.
I am sorry that I am going back slightly, but there is a slight phraseology issue in paragraph 209, where it says in the second sentence—
Can I make an additional point? I do not know whether it is necessary to add something about monitoring. It takes us back to the point about how we scrutinise the resourcing that will go into the bill's successful implementation. We can return to it in our budget scrutiny, but the Health Committee would have to consider it as part of its budget scrutiny as well. Perhaps we should make that point in the report.
We could draw it to the attention of other appropriate committees.
Yes, I suppose that is right, because what we said about post-school transitions concerns the Enterprise and Culture Committee. That committee and the Health Committee would be the other two committees with responsibility.
Okay. I think that that is agreed.
Members indicated agreement.
We move on to paragraph 211. Bear in mind that we have not agreed the original wording of that, so it is all up for grabs.
When we considered the original draft, we had not had COSLA's letter or the minister's latest letter. There are two issues. One is the general point about recognising that cost implications will come with the general duty, even if those are sourced from mainstream budgets. The question is whether those costs ought to be in the financial memorandum or otherwise included, noted or appended. The second issue is that of the narrower administrative costs on which the minister is focusing, and which have been the subject of discussion with COSLA. Are we satisfied that we have sufficient information on those costs?
Let us return to the COSLA issues in a moment. We need to ensure that the report's wording reflects our new position, but let us put that to one side for the moment and examine Fiona Hyslop's suggested amendments to paragraph 211. I suggest that her first amendment has been dealt with by Wendy Alexander's earlier amendment.
I still feel strongly that a revised financial memorandum would be helpful in progressing the bill. Wendy was considering the bill's longer-term implementation; my amendment is about the progress of the legal provisions over the next few weeks. It would be extremely helpful if the Executive could make that revision. We know that the Executive has the information, which we have seen.
We need to think about the need for more debate by the Finance Committee on the purpose of the financial memorandum and on what should and should not be included in it. That touches on Wendy Alexander's point. There are two particular issues to do with the financial memorandum before us. One is whether the number of CSPs is correctly identified. Should the financial memorandum reflect the fact that the minister has stated that additional moneys will be made available if more CSPs are required than are currently detailed in the memorandum? That would be an appropriate revision.
The minister said that he was going to announce additional resources for that general area. We could ask him to clarify what those are in the context of the bill.
If the minister said that in a letter, then those additional resources should be included.
I suggest an amendment to Fiona Hyslop's amendment to paragraph 211 to capture that point. We could stop Fiona Hyslop's amendment after "general duty" and then add: "the itemisation of these additional resources should be available to the Parliament in advance of Stage 2 consideration and, if it is appropriate, a revised Financial Memorandum should be made available." That would cover both points, and it does not lock the Executive into making the financial memorandum the appropriate vehicle for that, although it requires information on the totality of the global resources to be made available before stage 2.
That is helpful. I see Fiona Hyslop nodding; are other members in agreement with that?
Members indicated agreement.
I do not think that it is appropriate for those resources to be included in a revised financial memorandum.
Perhaps Wendy Alexander could go through her amendment again.
I agree with Rhona Brankin's point. There are two issues here. We are trying to get the Executive to make known the total, global amount of resources. I do not think that that should be included in the financial memorandum to the bill, although it should be available to Parliament. Within the totality of our consideration, other, more administrative areas at the margins might require the financial memorandum to be re-examined. We should consider that on a narrower definition. That leaves open the option of reconsidering the financial memorandum, but it is not about including figures for the global resources. As Elaine Murray rightly points out, those figures could get double counted. It is the narrower areas that we need to consider.
Will you read out your amendment again, Wendy?
Yes. I suggest that, after "general duty", we insert "these additional resources should be itemised to Parliament in advance of Stage 2 consideration and also, if appropriate, a revised Financial Memorandum prepared." I am trying to say that we need to know the total global resources and that there might be a need for a wider financial memorandum. However, the implication is that the memorandum is more of an administrative matter than something that is tied into the global resource issue.
I feel very strongly about this point, but in the spirit of consensus I am prepared to go with the suggestion.
I sense that Wendy Alexander has put the committee's main view into words. Does anyone disagree?
The suggestion is absolutely acceptable and I strongly support it. I should point out that paragraph 209 says:
Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
We move on to the next paragraph of Fiona Hyslop's amendment to paragraph 211, which begins,
I am quite happy to withdraw that, because it was meant to justify my preceding point.
I am sorry. I am trying to work out which paper Lord James Douglas-Hamilton referred to.
I quoted from paragraph 209 in the revised document.
In the blue document?
Yes, it was the last sentence of that paragraph.
I think that Lord James was simply making the point that the committee had already dealt with the issue of resources for services and so on.
I am sorry; I am getting completely confused. I have put a line through amendment 209. Is it the amendment to paragraph 209 that we have not agreed?
That is right. Paragraph 209 is still in the report; Fiona Hyslop has simply withdrawn her amendment to it.
We are not doing the amendment about the long title. [Interruption.]
I ask members not to speak all at once, because the official report will not be able to get everything down.
Members indicated agreement.
My amendment to paragraph 212 is a factual note more than anything else. I think that it is important to add it to the paragraph. Are members happy with it?
Members indicated agreement.
Do members have any other comments before we return to the issue of COSLA and the minister?
Do we need to make changes to reflect the new position with regard to the issue of COSLA and the minister? COSLA's revised representation very cleverly omits any comment on this matter, which I think means that it has withdrawn its position. However, that might or might not be the case.
We asked for the position to be clarified. Although I appreciate the responses that we have received, we are still in the dark about who means what. It is quite clear that the minister holds the same view, but given that we do not know—
Which paragraph are we talking about?
Well, the question is where we fit all this in.
Probably paragraph 211.
I think that it has more to do with paragraphs 204 and 205.
Yes, it follows on from the administration of the system and the number of CSPs and tribunals.
We have already made a general observation on the matter with the amendments that we have agreed to. Indeed, I wonder whether we need to say any more about it, other than to refer to the fact that the minister and COSLA have had exchanges and appear to have resolved their differences. I think that that is the current position.
The committee is still not clear about the numbers.
Careers Scotland also submitted evidence in which it totally changed its position. It revised the special educational needs figure from 20 per cent of pupils down to 10 per cent; it also accepts that only 2 per cent will have a CSP, based on the current record of needs level. Careers Scotland has accepted the minister's reassurances.
In paragraph 3 of its letter, COSLA said:
The important point is that, if the estimate that the number of CSPs would be 50 per cent of the number of records of needs—a figure that was obtained through consultation with a number of local authorities—is incorrect, the minister has reassured us that the finances are available to support the number of CSPs that will be demanded.
The clerk reminds me that the issue was dealt with way back in paragraph 82 and that we said that we would come back to it; we may want to do that shortly. I not convinced that we need to do anything more at this point, because we have made observations about the uncertainty of the evidence and the variation of the figures and about the need to tighten up the information in the financial memorandum. I wonder whether we need to do anything more than consider whether paragraph 82 reflects what we want it to when we come back to it.
That is reasonable.
We will do that, then.
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes consideration of that section. As I have already indicated, I would like to avoid consideration of the general principles and to come back to them in conclusion. Let us go back to the beginning of the paper, where Fiona Hyslop has suggested a minor amendment at the end of paragraph 7.
I was being nice to the Executive by pointing out that Jack McConnell volunteered the information that the Executive had been due to publish the bill in May 2003 but had delayed it to consult parents.
If there is no difficulty with that, we will add it.
I raised the point in the summary of evidence, because it is important to the groups concerned. I thought that there was a strong articulation of concerns in the written evidence from Shawlands Academy. It felt strongly that pupils with second languages should not be included in the bill. When we discussed the matter, we realised that Shawlands Academy's concern about the bill related to the deficit model, which we appreciate that the bill is trying to move away from. I am not desperate to have my amendment included, but I think that it reflects witnesses' concerns. What I am recommending is straightforward, but I am happy for the committee to decide whether to include it. I must leave temporarily.
Are there any objections to Fiona Hyslop's bid?
I think that including that point in the report would give credibility to Shawlands Academy's view that the bill represents a deficit model and that people with second languages or gifted children should therefore not be included in it. I would be against putting that point in the report, even though we received it in evidence, because it introduces confusion about the bill's intention.
I think that the same point came from the Scottish Association for the Teaching of English as an Additional Language. I suggest that the committee's view is that it could be left out, as we have included enough in that area.
Did the point not relate to pupils whose first language was not English?
Yes. I think that the point has been reflected in paragraph 43. We will agree that Fiona Hyslop's amendment is not accepted, especially as she indicated that she would not press it to the wire.
This is a drafting amendment. The background is the disruption caused by frequent movement from one education system to another, such as those in different countries.
That seems a reasonable point. I am not quite sure what the implication would be.
It means that the children of members of the armed forces should be regarded as having similar needs to those of travelling people.
Are we talking about the sentence in paragraph 45 that contains the words
We are talking about the principle that applies to paragraph 45. That seems to me to be okay.
I have no problem with the inclusion of the sentiment, but I am not terribly happy with our saying, "the principle is", as that is open to misinterpretation. The second sentence of paragraph 45 could be amended to read: "RONA highlighted the needs of children of armed forces personnel, who might be adversely affected by disruption caused by frequent movement and should be regarded as having potentially an additional need or needs." If we did that, we would take out the words
The difficulty is that it reflects on Gypsy/Travellers as well. That is why we phrased it in a more general way.
I suggest that, after the first sentence in paragraph 45, we insert, "Since children can be adversely affected by disruption caused by frequent movement, they should be regarded as potentially having an additional need or additional needs."
That is a good decision, which looks as if it has the committee's agreement.
The important words are "may have". We do not want to label groups of children.
I think that that point is agreed.
The word "require" needs an "s" on the end of it. That is a minor detail, though.
No, it says, "will still require". It does not need an "s".
There is a missing "s" somewhere else, but it is not that one.
Let us not get too hung up on that. I suggest that anyone who has technical amendments of that sort give them to the clerks after the meeting. We should not hold up the official report staff or ourselves with such matters.
We discussed this last week. When I first saw the addition, I was sympathetic to it, but, when we discussed it, I realised that it was not that helpful.
I think that that is correct. I do not think that we agreed Fiona Hyslop's amendment. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Can you clarify what has happened with paragraph 55?
We have agreed to follow the view that we took last week, which was not to include the amendment. The suggested words are a statement of fact, not a committee decision.
They are a reflection of the views of Capability Scotland.
We thought that it might be a useful addition to the areas that we are dealing with rather than a recommendation.
I am not quite sure what we are saying in paragraph 59 or how we agreed the wording. To be honest, I should probably have checked in the Official Report of last week's meeting. I did not do so, however; I just made a wee note. We seem to be saying—
I can remember what we were saying, as it was I who made the point. The concern is not whether someone gets a CSP, because that is only a document. The concern is that people who do not have a CSP might not have their needs met. That is what the wording is supposed to reflect.
We are at risk of confusing people with paragraph 59 and I am not sure that it adds a huge amount to the report. As it risks confusion and undermining the report, I propose that we delete paragraph 59.
My point was that we should not highlight eligibility for a CSP because we do not want to reinforce the idea that a document needs resources. Removing it altogether is another option.
Do members agree to remove paragraph 59?
Members indicated agreement.
We move over the page to paragraph 61, which we considered last week. Fiona Hyslop suggested an amendment.
Fiona Hyslop feels that the quote is misplaced in that paragraph. It does not address the three concerns that we had in the area, which were that eligibility is dependent on the supply of local services, that there are potential differences in how the definitions are applied locally and that legal rights will flow from a definition that could vary throughout the country.
I am not sure that the amendment adds much.
Paragraph 61 states that eligibility for a CSP
We have been given some information about how the local authority, the education authority and outside agencies are constituted in relation to the bill. We have examples of where speech and language therapists could be employed by the local authority, but there are other cases in which therapists would be employed by the health board. That point is raised in the paragraph.
That is correct, I think.
We return to the problem of definition. I do not accept that what Rosemary Byrne says is an issue. The bill states:
I am not convinced that that is right with regard to CSPs. You seem to be talking about co-ordination within the local authority but outwith the education department. It depends on where the service comes from.
It depends on the purpose of the service.
I suggest an amendment to which I hope everybody will agree. The paragraph should say: "Eligibility for a CSP will depend on how the definitions are applied to individual cases." That is a statement of fact and it takes out the stuff about—
Would that replace all of paragraph 61?
I propose that the first sentence of paragraph 61 should start: "Eligibility for a CSP will depend on how the definitions are applied to individual cases." I propose to leave the second sentence unchanged. I have some sympathy with Fiona Hyslop's position. I would take out the last sentence and then carry on: "In order to ensure uniformity of application across the country, the Committee recommends that the Executive carefully monitors the application and reports regularly to Parliament and that the Code of Practice clearly sets out what is expected in practice." In that way, we would not give credence to the notion that legal rights will flow from the applications in practice, because we contradict that elsewhere in the report. Moreover, we would not suggest that the issue is about local authorities. I hope that everybody can unite to support that suggestion. Eligibility will depend on how the definitions are applied to individual cases. We accept that the minister's intention is child centred, but we need to monitor that. That captures what we are all trying to do.
I want to be clear that the clerks have got that.
I have written it down. I will pass it up to the clerks.
I would like to go over the paragraph once more.
Shall I read out what I think it is?
Yes.
I have: "The Committee is concerned that eligibility for a CSP will depend on how the definitions are applied to individual cases. It accepts the Minister's point in his letter to the committee that the system for CSPs being established by the Bill is child-centred and is concerned with individual needs and circumstances of the individual child. In order to ensure uniformity of application of the definition across the country, the Committee recommends that the Executive carefully monitors application and reports regularly to the Parliament and that the Code of Practice clearly sets out what is expected in practice."
Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you, Wendy. That was helpful.
I think that the jury is out. We do not know how many children who have records of needs will not have CSPs. We think that it might be several thousand. If we used the word "must", we would make a clear expression of intent.
Many of the most vulnerable children do not have records of needs at the moment.
The present system is ripe for reform—nobody disputes that.
Is "must" agreed?
No. We should use the word "could". I thought that the whole issue is that we agree with the intent of the bill and that we accept that whether that intent is realised depends on others. I think that "could" or "can" would meet the desire of the committee to say that the bill could potentially meet the aspirations that it is intended to meet. It is obvious that that depends on how the system operates in practice. We cannot guarantee that it "will" or "must" do that.
Wendy Alexander is right. I would be content with that.
You are content with "could".
Yes. Can I go on to the next sentence?
Yes.
The point that I want to make is that, as you made clear, convener, there are additional rights. Those who want a CSP have the right to appeal to a tribunal. Additional rights are associated with CSPs. The sentence is not absolutely necessary and, as stated at present, it is untrue.
Which sentence?
The second sentence.
I agree with Lord James. I thought that last week we agreed to delete the sentence entirely.
I have a vague feeling that we did so. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
The next amendment, which is to be found further down the page, is just textual.
The difficulty is that it implies that all parents are in a position to insist on having a CSP. There may be many cases in which a CSP is the right thing. We are trying to improve equity and fairness in the application of the system. The trouble is that the suggestion could lead to a replication of what we have at the moment—one local authority will use the measures for 1 per cent of children and another will use them for 4 per cent.
Is the general view that we will not include Fiona Hyslop's amendment?
Members indicated agreement.
We will knock that one out.
Are we at paragraph 68?
Yes, paragraph 68—with Fiona Hyslop's suggested amendment.
So the suggestion is to leave out "and whether" and say "bring forward … to strengthen the Bill". Is that right? She wants to strengthen—
She wants to compel the Executive to bring forward an amendment. I do not think that we should do that.
So, rather than "seeks … clarification … on … whether the Bill could be strengthened"—
She wants to put, "demands that the Executive brings forward further measures."
Exactly. I do not know—
I am not convinced of that.
It is contradictory later on, with the code of practice perhaps being the mechanism for that, or another code of practice being the mechanism for it.
Yes. I suggest that the wording as it stands reflects what we agreed last week and that we should not agree to Fiona Hyslop's amendment.
I am slightly concerned about that, because I think that we need to strengthen this area, which was mentioned by a lot of witnesses. If we do not feel that Fiona Hyslop's wording is appropriate, we should address—
Well, there is wording in there, Rosemary, if you look back. At the moment, the paragraph says the committee seeks clarification from
The wording is quite loose though, saying
May I suggest a compromise? We could have the words "to consider bringing forward measures to strengthen the Bill in this regard." That does not bind anyone.
Will we go with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Right. Okay. Thank you very much.
May I explain what lies behind this? The paragraph is all a quote from the minister and I would prefer the committee to note it rather than to endorse it. The quote says:
I do not think that we are implying that we endorse it; we are just saying that that is what the minister said. We are quoting from him and it is important that that quote be included in the report, because that message needs to go through to local authorities.
I wonder whether the point comes more at the end, when we look at the recommendations rather than the factual statement, James.
I would be content if we added the words, "The Committee notes that the Minister", at the beginning of paragraph 73. I think that that meets the point.
"The Committee notes that the Minister gave assurances"?
Yes.
I do not feel very strongly about it, but is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
All right. Let us do that then.
Yes.
I think that the point was mine. What I was trying to get over is that, with children who currently have a record of needs, and where there is concern from the parents—I mean that the parents need some reassurance—the children's needs will be looked at as a matter of urgency.
As I remember, the point was more specific. It was about the parents of those pupils with a record of needs who will not get a CSP.
Yes, it was. That is right.
Those who have a record of needs and a CSP are—or rather, we have not heard from them that they are—concerned that they are somehow going to lose out. Those who feel that they may have rights—although I do not think that we accept that they do have rights, but we certainly recognise that they are extremely anxious—
Would the phraseology that I suggested, with the slight amendment to the point about the record of needs, cover the committee's view? We will expand on it later, depending on what we agree.
I accept that "may" should be substituted for "will". We should run paragraphs 75 and 76 together so that we acknowledge the piece of evidence and go on to say in the same paragraph, "However, the Committee welcomes the Minister's reassurance." We should change the next "however" to "nevertheless". That gives a slightly difference nuance.
That is helpful. Is that change agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I just want to clarify that. We are just adding to paragraph 75. We are talking about those with a record of needs who do not qualify for a CSP. Is that right?
The wording is, "The Committee notes the concerns of parents of children currently with a Record of Needs who do not qualify for a CSP. These children may be disadvantaged by the legislation." Then we are amalgamating that with paragraph 76 with the slight additions of the helpful conjunctions that Wendy Alexander suggested. That is okay so far.
I have nothing against the two suggestions, but the implication is that they are the only two suggestions and that one or the other has to be followed.
We could say, "The Committee calls on the Executive to consider options to achieve this, such as".
No. This is stage 1. It is not our job to solve everything for the Executive. The only thing on which we can reach agreement is to flag up the concern and ask the Executive to come back to us. We can revisit the issue at stage 2 after we have heard the Executive's response, but, by offering only two options, we close down what the Executive could say.
Does that bring us to saying, "The Committee calls on the Executive to consider whether any further reassurance in the legislation or otherwise can be given to the parents"?
No. The wording should be, "The Committee calls on the Executive to consider how these anxieties can be addressed and report back."
I am quite happy to go along with that as long as we are emphasising the fact that those concerns have been expressed and we are asking the minister to respond to them. We can then revisit the issue if we need to.
We are using that phraseology.
The point is that there is great concern about transitional provisions for those with a record of needs who will not have CSPs or are likely not to have CSPs. There needs to be some recognition of that problem. I do not really mind how it is written in, but it needs to be considered.
It is up to you whether you agree with Wendy Alexander, but her suggestion covers that point, particularly given the comments that we make at the beginning of the paragraph.
The point needs to be made clearly. We have not heard from the Executive how many thousands of children will be affected, because it is not able to give an answer.
My other concern is that I do not think that the answer will necessarily be the same throughout Scotland. Some smaller local authorities are providing an excellent special needs service, for which full transition might be possible right away. In other areas, there might be less good will and less trust and the transitional arrangements will need to be more complex. We need to tell the Executive that it has to address the issue, but I do not want to lock it into an all-Scotland answer.
I suggest that Wendy Alexander formulates wording and we go through it afterwards with the clerks.
She has done that. Perhaps we can reread the wording after we have had the debate.
I agree with the proposition that we should not make the suggestions, partly because there are problems with some of them in relation to setting precedents for the future on who is eligible for a CSP. It is possible for any member to lodge amendments at stage 2, which could address such issues, and for the Executive to respond, but we should not make the suggestions in a stage 1 report.
Wendy Alexander's amendment has hit the nail on the head. I ask Martin Verity to reread it.
I have: "The Committee seeks reassurance for parents that appropriate service will continue to be provided. It therefore calls on the Executive to consider how these anxieties can be addressed and to report back."
That is right.
Is that agreeable?
Towards the original last page of the report, we have added a chapter to emphasise the concern.
That is right. Is that acceptable to Lord James?
I think that it was especially for those with records of needs—
No. That is what the new paragraph is about. We have agreed what we will mention that issue at the beginning of paragraph 75. The new paragraph is about children with records of needs who will not have CSPs. Is that okay?
I would like to see the wording before endorsing it.
That is reasonable. We agreed that we would circulate bits and pieces for clarity.
Members indicated agreement.
We return to the section comprising paragraphs 79 to 82 on the number of co-ordinated support plans, which we have discussed before. Fiona Hyslop has suggested an amendment at the end of the section.
She does not suggest wording; she flags up issues.
Does Adam Ingram know what Fiona Hyslop is getting at?
The reference is to the concerns that were expressed about how we will deal with the financial memorandum.
We have dealt with that.
I have a question about paragraph 80. As COSLA appears to have retreated from its original position, should we say that, initially, COSLA
That would provide clarification. Something else is needed.
Paragraph 82 needs to be changed.
We will change paragraph 82. Do we need an addition to say that the Minister for Education and Young People and COSLA have had further exchanges and have reported the outcomes of those discussions in letters that appear to show that they agree about the basis of calculation?
That might be a bit strong. COSLA's letter says:
That is a slightly different point, which is about the continuing pressures of a greater number of people, rather than the procedures in the bill, which was what the numbers argument concerned.
Nowhere in the letter does COSLA address directly the numbers question. Are we assuming that because COSLA did not mention it, it is no longer an issue?
That is why I suggested using the word "appear"; I was describing my understanding of the position. We need an additional paragraph to say that the situation has moved on. Will the clerks do something about that? The issue is factual. A paragraph can be circulated to members.
That is mentioned somewhere else in the report.
It might be sensible to repeat that. Could that be done?
That would be helpful.
Would that be an acceptable way to conclude the paragraph?
Members indicated agreement.
We will move on to IEPs and PLPs. They are dealt with in paragraphs 83 to 91, which concern one or two emerging issues.
I am not clear what the wording is.
It is all in draft, because it reflects last week's discussion. It is the clerks' rendering of what they think we agreed. I think that that it is okay.
I would like somewhere to clarify the situation with PLPs and IEPs. Given that IEPs have been piloted and are under way in a lot of schools and that PLPs are just coming on stream now—
Is that not dealt with by the last sentence?
The point that I want to make is about the work load for teachers. We want to say somewhere in the report that eventually it must be established which of the two plans all children will be working from. If all children are to have a PLP, will some need to have an IEP as well? That needs to be clarified. Yes, there will be a crossover time and a transitional time, but it may well be that the planning process that is currently in an IEP ought to cross over into a PLP rather than doubling up the paperwork or having another tier of different planning mechanisms. It is important to clarify that.
Have we not already dealt with that? That moves on from what we had agreed before, and I think that it is reflected in the last bold sentence of paragraph 90.
I agree whole-heartedly, and I think that that section should end at paragraph 90, because paragraph 91 actually contradicts paragraph 90. If we do not want a plethora of plans, we cannot sit here and try to legislate for a system that has not even been trialled yet. We would attract criticism for trying to—
Let us deal with that point just now.
What I am saying is that we should leave that section at paragraph 90 and take paragraph 91 out, because it contradicts paragraph 90. For the same reasons, I do not support the amendment. Paragraph 90 captures last week's discussion.
I thought that we had had an explanation from the minister about how the Executive envisaged IEPs and CSPs operating. He gave that explanation in his letter, so I do not know that we need to seek further explanation. He has given us that clarification. I do not support Fiona Hyslop's amendment at all, I am afraid. I also agree that paragraph 91 should be taken out.
Let us take those various points and see if we can narrow down the area of agreement. Wendy Alexander's suggestion is that paragraph 91 be cut out. Is that agreed?
I would be happier if we could add at the end of paragraph 90 some form of words that asks for a clarification or explanation of which of the plans will be the format in the future. If we leave it the way it is, it seems to me—maybe this is just my interpretation, but I do not think so—that we will be running with IEPs and PLPs as well as CSPs.
Yes, that is what the minister said.
That leaves us with three layers of unnecessary paperwork and management. However, if we are not agreeing to that just now, I shall just sum up by saying that that is an area that I have concerns about.
You will come back to that general point anyway, I think.
I know exactly what Rosemary Byrne's concerns are and I think that we have encapsulated them. The minister said that the proposed plans were not intended to be bureaucratic but a light-touch working tool. He also said that development should be done in an integrated way. What we are trying to capture is the fact that it is not a question of having mounds of separate forms. It will be an integrated system, but at some point in that system there will be results, assessments and targets in addition to the working targets that might have been used in a PLP. Something more is required by virtue of having an IEP and something more is required by virtue of having a CSP. What we are trying to say is that it is an integrated system, not that every child should have only a PLP.
Let us not go too far on this point; we have debated the matter before.
Yes. I think that Fiona Hyslop's suggested amendment to the text of the report would add to our understanding of the situation by including the minister's views on where PLPs fit into all this. I think that it is a helpful amendment that would flesh out what we are saying in paragraph 90. We are concerned about two aspects. One aspect is bureaucratisation, if you like, and the burdens that IEPs and PLPs will place on teachers. The other aspect, which is more important in the context of the bill, is about trying to create what Fiona Hyslop calls an integrated system, which, elsewhere, we call a universal system. The matter is, as the quote from the minister acknowledges, at the heart of the legislation. We must get it right.
I do not agree. The reason why PLPs and IEPs are not in the bill is because the bill does not introduce them as statutory duties on local authorities. The bill introduces a statutory duty on authorities in respect of the co-ordinated support plan and provision for people with additional needs. That is the intention of the bill. To be honest, if members believe that the suggestion that has been made is what should be in the bill, they should vote against the bill altogether.
Okay. Let me try to bring the debate to a conclusion. The first point is whether we knock out paragraph 91. I think that there is probably broad agreement on that, subject to the reservations that Rosemary Byrne expressed. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
The second point is whether we agree to Fiona Hyslop's amendment, to bits of it or to none of it at all. Members' views are probably divided on that, but I get the sense that the majority of committee members do not support her amendment.
It would help if there was an additional sentence at the end of paragraph 90, along the lines of Rhona Brankin's suggestion. We should add that the committee wants development in an integrated way. It would be helpful if Rhona could give a form of words for that to the clerk.
We have said that already in paragraph 89 and to some extent in the early part of paragraph 90. Those points are reflected in the report because we have raised them before.
Perhaps, to strengthen the point, we should put the additional comments in a separate sentence, rather than add them on to the end of a sentence about good practice on IEPs.
Do you want the additional sentence about development being done in an integrated way to be made into a recommendation?
If we reverse paragraphs 89 and 90, that would give a clearer sense of the anxiety that people feel, followed by the minister's assurance and then what we think should happen. The recommendation is at the end of paragraph 89. We should reverse the order of the paragraphs.
That is very helpful and may take some of the sting out of the discussion.
And to change paragraph 90 slightly.
I am sorry. I have just realised something about paragraph 89, which states:
No, it is not—but a universal system would be desirable. We should miss out the qualifying clause in the middle.
It is a slight change to paragraph 89.
It is the bit about "seeks a clear explanation". I do not think that this is the place to seek a clear explanation of how IEPs and PLPs will be used; we state that they need to be developed "in an integrated way." The final sentence of paragraph of 90 should read, "However, the Executive should ensure that adequate and appropriate support is provided for children who are not eligible for a CSP." We cannot ask for a clear explanation of something that is under development. We have had as much explanation as can and should be given at this stage, and the legislation is dealing with something else.
I have to say that I am not convinced about that. This is a very important point. I know that we have been given examples of different documents and so on, but I would prefer to keep the sentence as it stands. I accept that the minister has gone some distance towards satisfying our needs.
I think that asking for "a clear explanation" might be a bit tricky, but it certainly would be appropriate to ask for "further information".
Yes. We will use the phrase "further information".
Members indicated agreement.
We now come to Fiona Hyslop's amendment. I got the sense that the amendment was not supported, although I do not think that anyone disagreed with the longer-term issues that it raises. Are we content to leave out the amendment?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank members for their reasonable consideration of that matter; it is a tricky area.
Do you mean the clarification of Sense Scotland's point?
Yes.
Did we clarify whether it was Sense Scotland or the DRC that suggested the term? I asked for that to be clarified.
Sense Scotland e-mailed to say that it had suggested the term, but with certain reservations.
Did not the suggestion come from both organisations?
Sense Scotland e-mailed us to say that there had been confusion.
Does the issue matter much? We are concerned with the quotes.
The quote is in there now. Sense Scotland was slightly worried that its remarks had been taken out of context, but we have put that right.
I agree. Do members agree to the paragraph?
Was the wording suggested by the DRC?
Yes.
Fine. That is all I wanted to clarify.
We move on to assessment, which is another complicated matter. It is covered in paragraphs 100 to 114, if I remember rightly. We have one or two points to consider. The first part is all right, so we come to paragraph 110. At the beginning of paragraph 110, I suggest that we add in: "The Committee supports the ending of compulsory assessments and welcomes the Minister's assurance". It seems to me that we should say that we support the measure.
I am not sure that I would go as far as expressing support. I note the reasons for the ending of compulsory assessments, but the jury is out on the issue. I am prepared to show good will as to what the Executive is trying to achieve.
Almost all the evidence that we received supported the measure, although issues arose about ensuring that integrated assessment in suitable places still takes place.
I still have concerns about that issue. The National Autistic Society did not welcome the measure.
I would be happy for that comment to be left out because parents expressed grave reservations about the measure.
It is not unimportant that we say what our view of the ending of compulsory assessments is, because the measure is a central point of the bill.
The important point is that there must be a programme of assessment for the majority of the kids. The existing approach is almost a bureaucratic approach, with a compulsory assessment. We should be careful that we do not say that, in supporting the ending of compulsory assessment, we do not support having some assessment regime. We must be careful with the wording.
It might be better if we said that we support the ending of compulsion in assessments. We go on to mention the minister's assurance on the issue, which puts the matter in context.
Is it necessary to add that other bit in? Can we not just leave the paragraph as it stands?
I am in the committee's hands. I just thought that the issue was quite important.
The reason why the convener is making the point is that some of the organisations will look to us to say exactly what our views are. The NAS has suggested an opt-out provision rather than an opt-in one. We should be clear about our view, which is that we recognise that argument, but that we do not agree with it.
All we can do is note the evidence, which is that although the professional organisations supported the ending of compulsory assessments, many of the parents had great reservations about it.
I agree.
We need to check the evidence. The organisation that represents parents of children with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties welcomed the measure—not all parents organisations were against it.
All parents welcomed the end of statutory or compulsory assessments, but they were concerned that, in the process, they might lose rights to assessment.
They were worried that some children would fall through the net. That was the basis of their reservation. It would be safer simply to note that.
But the point is that we are saying:
I am sorry, but I dissent from that. Parents have strong concerns about that issue. I would not be prepared to put my name to that.
Nor would I.
Two members are against it.
I support what the convener said. It is not the case that all parents are opposed. Yes, concerns were raised, notably by parents of children with autistic spectrum disorder. What we are saying recognises that there needs to be adequate assessment, but we certainly welcome the abolition of compulsory assessments.
We need to take a vote although, to an extent, a vote is unnecessary, because we are not that far apart, but—
On a point of order. My understanding is that if several members of this committee wish to dissent from the committee's position, they should have the right to do so. It is not a question of a majority vote. If the report is to be unanimous, members of this committee have the right to dissent from—
I do not disagree. We need to ascertain the view of the committee first, before we arrive at that point. You may attract support. I do not know.
Adam Ingram's reflection on that—
—helps.
There is a difference between supporting the abolition of compulsory assessment with nothing in its place, and therefore being concerned about what will replace it, and recognising concerns about compulsion—
That is helpful.
Adam Ingram phrased it particularly well. I hope that that addresses members' points without having to push it to a vote.
Let us see if we can get a phraseology out of that. We could say, "The Committee supports the ending of compulsory assessments, but notes the concerns of some parents that this might lead to difficulties or gaps in the assessment procedure." How is that? The report would continue with:
I am prepared to accept that.
I am glad that you agree, because there is no need to disagree on this issue: we are of one mind.
Have we got a phraseology on that? The committee would probably accept the point.
Paragraph 110 states:
I suggest, "on how disputes between education authorities and parents as to the appropriate professional be resolved." Is that the point?
Yes. We could state, "on the right of the education authority to decide how that assessment is conducted." The issue is not just about refusing to conduct an assessment; it is about how that assessment is conducted.
Is there support for that suggestion?
I just think that we have to tread a little bit warily on that issue. If a parent thinks that their child should go to the USA—
Ken Macintosh is only seeking clarification at the moment.
I can imagine a situation arising that is similar to that which relates to experts who are used in courts but whose professional expertise is subsequently called into question. Some people become professional experts because they always give the same diagnosis. There should be clarification for both sides. The parents and the local authorities would benefit from knowing who has the right to decide whether one person's opinion is accepted.
This is an important point. I have experience of this from my legal practice, in which I dealt with insurance company witnesses and the pursuers' witnesses. The situation is similar.
We are not clear on it.
It was, "on the right of an education authority to refuse to conduct an assessment and also to establish how that assessment is conducted."
I think that, because of the code of practice stuff, we will have to have a new sentence. I suggest that we say, "The committee also sought clarification" on whatever.
Yes, it should read: "The committee also sought clarification on the right of an education authority to decide how an assessment is conducted".
Are we agreed?
Can I get a review of what we have agreed to now and how it would look when it was all together?
That is all that we have agreed to, bar my addition near the beginning, on the ending of compulsory assessment and worries relating to the rights of parents to be recognised. Again, we will circulate the suggested text, but I think that we have arrived at agreement on that point.
I am not sure that we have captured the concern in paragraph 111. Have we moved on to that paragraph yet?
We are about to. What I have to say by way of introduction might reflect the point that you are about to make, Rhona. I am not sure that the wording that is underlined is quite right. I suggest that we change it to, "The Committee is concerned about how the process of the identification of a child's need for assessment would operate in practice and urges that the need for early identification and assessment of certain specific conditions and for timely investigation of more complex needs be recognised either in the bill or in the code."
Yes. I was going to make a point about the code. I wondered whether we should specify that some of the concerns about the abolition of the statutory medical bit of the assessment relate to youngsters who might have dyslexia-type difficulties or who present with behavioural problems that turn out to be related to underlying medical conditions. Perhaps we ought to be specific about that. Perhaps we should say that advice on those potential issues should be included in the code of practice.
I am not unsympathetic to that idea, but it would be helpful if you could suggest some wording. I sense that we all agree that that point should be included. I suggest that, after the meeting, you should give the clerks some text that could be circulated to members. Is that all right?
Members indicated agreement.
Rosemary Byrne has a suggested amendment to paragraph 114.
The amendment asks for further scrutiny of and discussion on assessment—by the way, I have just noticed that, in the second line, the words "this will" should be "this should". The area is a complex one and I have been concerned from the start about whether the bill improves current practice. I am concerned that we are not making identification through assessment any easier for parents; I do not see anything in the bill that will help a parent who has been struggling for many years to have their child's problem identified. I have given examples of that before, including children with autistic spectrum disorders or dyspraxia, who might be identified and labelled as badly behaved in the early stages of their education.
Is there support for that point? I think that there might be, but what are members' views? For the avoidance of doubt, we are considering the second of Rosemary Byrne's suggested amendments, which reflects an issue that is of concern to the committee.
I am certainly sympathetic to Rosemary Byrne's comments. I agree that there is a problem with diagnosis, but I am not sure that the amendment deals with it. We are talking about trying to improve professional practice; we talked about the need to train not just specialist staff but all staff throughout the system, so that they are more sympathetic, aware and expert in the area. I am not sure how the bill can help to solve the difficulty, which will continue until the process of diagnosis becomes easier. I do not think that diagnosis is prevented deliberately, although there might be professional obstinacy or different ways of thinking.
Is there not an important issue here about the code? I am not unsympathetic to Rosemary Byrne's comments.
I was talking about this issue when I said that we should strengthen paragraph 111.
It is the same point.
Assessment is vital and I welcome the new rights in that area that are included in the bill. However, we must ensure that the code of practice gives guidance on the need for appropriate assessment.
Does the wording that Rosemary Byrne suggests meet your needs? With the possible exception of the last sentence, which we would need to change if we want to refer to the code of practice, it is not far from the point that you are trying to make.
My amendment would get the appropriate people to do the assessments. There will be times when assessment has to be done through a multidisciplinary or multi-agency approach.
If the last sentence said something like, "This matter must be carefully dealt with in the Code of Practice," would it reflect the consensual view of the committee? I rather think that it would.
That is what I was trying to capture in paragraph 111.
Is that change agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Does that mean that I do not have to produce amended wording?
Yes.
I did not know where to hang it—
I point out that, in paragraph 113, the word "exists" is not right. The paragraph says:
It should say "will exist" or "is introduced by the bill".
I did not know where to hang my amendment in the report, so I referred to the bill itself. It is a matter of general tone: I feel that the bill should be child centred and that we should add the words "take into account the best interests of the child" to section 3(1).
We might be getting into detailed amendments, which are for stage 2, but, in so far as we are not, the proper place for that amendment is under our consideration of the general principles, to which we will come back. Let us defer that amendment; the point is not invalid, but it is dealt with elsewhere.
What about paragraph 112?
I beg your pardon.
I presume that it refers to all children with additional support needs, not only those with co-ordinated support plans, but it would be helpful to make that explicit.
Will you say that again, please, Fiona?
I think that paragraph 112 refers to all children with additional support needs, but we should make it explicit in case it is interpreted in future as referring only to children with CSPs.
We are not only talking about CSPs, in other words.
Yes.
That was the nature of the discussion that we had last week.
That seems reasonable. Can we agree on that?
Yes, because there is provision in the bill for CSPs to be reviewed annually. The point was that all children with additional support needs should have their provision reviewed.
Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Paragraphs 115 to 118 concern pupils outwith the education system. I think that that section of the report is okay; no issues have been raised on it. Likewise, there is no cause for concern in paragraphs 119 to 127, which are headed "Children"; our comments on children under three are included in that, and there is nothing new on it.
Members indicated agreement.
Fiona Hyslop's amendment to the end of paragraph 142 suggests a national framework of mediation.
After reading COSLA's recent letter, I thought that the convention's recognition of the need for a national framework was a positive step. I presume that that framework would also be for standards. It might be helpful to reflect that in the report.
I thought that we had agreed that last week.
Is it not already mentioned in paragraph 143 in a slightly different form? The paragraph does not call it a national framework, but it is the same thing.
The difference is that, since last week, we have had the letter from COSLA that makes reference to its support for a national framework. That is helpful, because it shows that local authorities are willing to embrace a national framework.
Do we agree to the amendment?
Members indicated agreement.
Paragraphs 144 to 148 concern advocacy. That is quite a strong section, but we have an amendment from Lord James to consider.
Do you want me to speak to it?
The point is relatively straightforward and you have made it previously, although it was not taken up. You are saying that we should reorder the sections in the bill to ensure that advocacy and mediation appear first and dispute resolution appears later. We have already agreed to that.
I do not think that anybody disagreed.
No, they did not.
I am sorry. Where would that go?
At the end of paragraph 159. The paragraph says:
I want to suggest a different wording for paragraph 159. The paragraph could say, "The Committee notes that some children with additional support needs will be excluded from the type of legal recourse that is available to those children who also have CSPs."
What have you changed?
The paragraph says:
But the issue is legal recourse, not support.
That is absolutely right.
As far as legal recourse is concerned, the bill recognises only people who have CSPs.
I do not know whether it would help if I spoke to my amendment now.
Let us get rid of this matter first, Rosemary. We will come to that in a second.
I think that my amendment is related.
Is it?
Perhaps Rhona Brankin can explain which children will have legal recourse.
I take your point. However, my point is that the paragraph mentions the committee's concern about the matter. Surely it is a simple fact.
I think that the paragraph reflects the fact that under the bill some children will have legal recourse.
I am not arguing that, Fiona. Indeed, I absolutely accept that some children will have legal recourse and some will not. However, I want to change the start of paragraph 159, which says that "The Committee is concerned" about the issue. The issue is not a matter of concern for me; it is a simple fact and I accept that it is part of the bill. I do not know whether that reflects the committee's views.
The point is that we are concerned about the anxiety that some parents might feel about being disadvantaged by the provision. I agree that the wording implies that the committee does not accept that the division is fair.
That certainly reflects my views.
I suggest that changing the phrase "is concerned" to "notes" would be fine, because the issue of reassuring parents is referred to in paragraph 160. That might change if Rosemary Byrne's amendment is not agreed to.
I agree with the suggestion. After all, it is a fact.
Is that all right, Rhona?
Yes. That was my only comment.
I ask Rosemary Byrne to speak briefly to her amendment to paragraph 160.
My amendment reflects my concern that not all young people will have access to the tribunal system that the bill seeks to introduce. I want a single Scottish educational tribunal system that encompasses all young people and covers all areas of concern to parents as they plan their child's education from establishing the personal learning plan to nominating someone to co-ordinate support and placing requests and to deal with school exclusions and so on. We are in danger of creating an adversarial system under the bill, especially given that some people will be left out. It would be nice and neat if we could tidy up the wording in the way that I suggest.
I have some sympathy with part of that. It would deal with the point about legal aid and placement requests. However, the bill is not about education in general; it is about additional support needs, so I am not sure that to suggest an amendment of that width would come within the scope of the bill. I am not sure whether members agree. I know exactly where Rosemary Byrne is coming from, but I do not think that such an amendment would be competent under the bill. Do you follow my point?
Yes.
I, too, have sympathy with what Rosemary Byrne is suggesting and my amendments try to address the matter. In my view, the duties of the tribunal should be as wide as possible. How they fit in with the duties and responsibilities of the various education authorities is something that we will have to sort out—
So that is an issue for later—
We will have to sort it out in the bill and other legislative provisions. That is the nub of what is a key argument on a key issue. I am not sure that we will get agreement round the table on it, but we should reflect it as a key issue.
I suggest that the point goes too wide for the scope of the bill.
On consideration, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment in favour of Fiona Hyslop's.
That is helpful, Rosemary, thank you. Let us move on to paragraph 160 and another amendment from Fiona Hyslop.
We clearly want to ensure that the system works on the basis of good will, so that recourse to dispute resolution, mediation or a tribunal will not necessarily be required. We should, however, recognise that those situations may arise and we should give comfort to those who currently think that they will lose out by not having access to a tribunal. I think that we should call for an extension of the jurisdiction of the tribunal. I suggest just one change to paragraph 160. I think that it was Robert Brown who came up with the wording and I am very comfortable with the contents of the paragraph, which captures our previous discussions, but I suggest that we omit the words
Would the wording "perhaps over a period of time" achieve that effect? This was a difficult matter on which to get agreement last time. I do not particularly want to unpick it.
If we put "perhaps", that would enable us to decide one way or the other at stage 2. I think that the matter will be subject to an amendment at stage 2. If we say "perhaps" now, we could get unanimous agreement.
We did not finalise agreement on paragraph 160 last time; we agreed to return to it today. If we can get agreement on it, so much the better.
I fundamentally disagree with the notion of widening access to legal rights under the tribunal system. Parents have expressed their concerns to me about the matter. They think that their children have profound, complex needs and should have statutory rights; in their view, widening those rights to everyone would in fact reduce their children's rights. I would be very much opposed to that. It would result in the system being absolutely unmanageable. The system would break down; it would be overly bureaucratic. It would become based far too much on confrontation. Ideally, we would wish to arrive at the best solution in order to meet the needs of the child, through mediation and, in some situations, conflict resolution. I am fundamentally opposed to the proposal to widen access.
As I said last week, I am sympathetic to the idea of extending access. I have two concerns. My first concern relates to the group of parents who have had experience of the record of needs and of conflict with local authorities. They are looking for a way of enforcing their rights against the local authorities, if I can put it that way. They are looking for the succour or comfort that a right of appeal to the tribunal system would give them.
I think that they do. Yes, they have that right.
In which case, everybody has access.
By itself, that goes some way towards reassuring me. It means that every child with additional support needs has access to the tribunal. If that is the case, there is no need for us to make the suggested change. As I said, I am sympathetic to what has been said. I do not think that the issue is black and white but—
Let us keep that thought in mind and see whether we can move forward on the issue.
I remember that you made the original suggestion, convener. I agree with Ken Macintosh. The point can be met if we change the wording of the second sentence, so that it reads: "It therefore suggests that the possibility of widening the jurisdiction should not be ruled out." All legislation is reviewed in the light of experience. The bill is bound to be reviewed. There is no doubt that that is the time to decide how best to deal with the issue.
I have listened to the conversation and I suggest an amendment that might capture the essence of it. I suggest that we delete the first sentence and insert the following: "There is a self-evident need for the new legislative framework and tribunal system to bed down. However, in the subsequent operational reviews and monitoring of this legislation in practice, consideration should be given to widening the jurisdiction of the tribunals over a period of time." That puts the issue on the agenda but at the same time acknowledges that the matter should be looked at five years down the line and not when there is a brand-new legislative framework that introduces a tribunal system into the area for the first time. We would be making an error if we tried to solve the issue before the system is in place. We would meet our obligation by putting the issue on the agenda and asking our successors to return to it.
What the wording misses, however, is the possibility of giving additional reassurance to those who lose the record of needs and do not gain a CSP.
With respect, convener, they have no reassurance. For the moment, there is only one tribunal system. That deception is one that we should not be party to. We are not saying that, for the first two years in which the system is in operation, we want a tribunal system for everyone; we are directing future policy makers. Our recommendations do not give further comfort to the parental desire to access a tribunal in the short term. We will not be able to do that because the bill does not provide for it. However, our report seeks to ensure that the bill represents an advance in a variety of other ways.
I deeply disagree with that. I think that the tribunal provisions are a fundamental part of the bill. Currently, those with a record of needs have legal recourse to an appeals committee in an education authority. However, that will no longer be the case if the bill is enacted as it stands. The nub of the issue is whether the tribunal system's scope is extended immediately or later. Members have different, genuinely held views on that point. I think that my perspective reflects Rosemary Byrne's suggested amendment. It is crucial that, from the outset, the tribunal issue is right, because that would allay parents' concerns that a legal right is being taken away from them.
I am not unsympathetic to trying to build on the good points that Ken Macintosh has made. Perhaps we cannot get consensus on the issue. I accept that there are question marks about the pressures that might be put on the tribunal system and its bureaucracy. I tried to reflect that in my suggested wording, which is—rightly—full of "mights", "woulds", "ifs" and so on. It is arguable that we have not got the wording right in paragraph 160. I must accept to some extent the criticism of the first sentence.
I would accept the convener's suggested wording for paragraph 160, except for the words
That is not totally the issue.
I hoped that we might get clarification from ministers about the recourse open to parents who, because their children do not have a CSP, feel that their children's additional support needs are not being met. I am not convinced that that problem could be resolved by extending the tribunal system. Perhaps ministers could be asked to comment on that suggestion. However, I want to know what ministers believe parents can do if they think that their children's additional support needs are not being met.
That is the central point and I think that we should focus on it. The problem is getting wording that will satisfy all members, but I do not think that we are that far apart at this stage.
Wendy Alexander's suggested amendment is helpful and I propose that we consider it.
I do not think that her suggested amendment is fully satisfactory. The first part of it is helpful, but I am not sure about the rest of it. Can you read it to us again, Wendy?
I suggest leaving the first sentence as it stands and adding: "There is need for the new legislative framework and tribunal system to bed in. Hence, in the subsequent operational reviews and monitoring of the legislation in practice, consideration should be given to widening the jurisdiction of the tribunal system over a period of time. The committee seeks the minister's response to this suggestion."
I do not think that that quite does it.
There are two issues. First, my suggested amendment expresses my view that we cannot prescribe extending the tribunal system just now. Secondly, I agree with Elaine Murray's view that we should ask ministers what can be done for parents whom the tribunal system will not cover.
On procedure, we have a right to comment on whether we think the tribunal system should be changed now or subsequently. The fact that we might believe that the system should bed in does not preclude us from making such comments. We are perfectly entitled to make a judgment on the tribunal system now.
Do you believe, Fiona, that a tribunal system for parents whose children were not covered by a CSP would be better than a system of appeals to education committees?
With respect, I do not think that that is the issue. I do not think that we should go down that road. The issue is whether it is appropriate for us to do anything in connection with the tribunal system. I am not trying to make our comments prescriptive. There is an issue about the tribunal system. I am not entirely satisfied with the proposals. I think that ministers should certainly consider—among other ways of dealing with the issue of the record of needs and, more broadly, with children with additional support needs—whether there should be a strengthened legal provision. That is what I am after.
I have difficulty in endorsing the view that we should extend access to the tribunal. We should explore the issue further, but stating on the record that the tribunal is the solution is not something on which I have totally made up my mind. By extending access to the tribunal, we might undermine the whole point of the bill, which is not to regard CSPs or access to the tribunal as a vehicle for asserting parents' rights to resources. Many disputes are not just about the complexity of the service, but about the level of service that is provided. I therefore have a slight difficulty with extending access to the tribunal, although I am sympathetic to doing something. I am particularly sympathetic to not having two systems.
Interested.
Yes, exactly. "The Committee would be interested in exploring this issue further. It is sympathetic to their concern but is aware of the difficulty of introducing a tribunal that is endorsing—" That is where we would get into the matter of intervention.
I do not think that we should go into any of that.
No. We should just say, "but is aware that there are many difficulties in endorsing this and would welcome further explanation from the Minister."
I think that that is the nub of it.
For the purpose of unanimity, I would be willing to go with that as long as we did not rule out the requirement for the widening of access to take place over a period of time. Your compromise perhaps leaves it open. We will take different positions later on, but I think—
Sorry. Let us just try to build on the agreement that we have got.
I would not agree with that. Extending access would undermine the bill fundamentally. The bill is intended to meet the needs of children with additional support needs. For some of those children, a CSP will be required; for some of those children, there are additional legal requirements. That is absolutely as it should be. As a parent of a child who had a record of needs, I would not want all the other children in her school who had additional support needs to have the same access to legal rights because the system would be in danger of becoming over-bureaucratised and over-legalised. The whole system would be in danger of grinding to a halt. The children who should have access to these legal rights should be the most vulnerable children in our system, and we should fight to protect those children.
I do not disagree with that entirely. Unfortunately, the CSPs concentrate on the co-ordination issue rather than on the most vulnerable children. That is one of the difficulties with the system.
With respect, that is the whole point. Some children have complex needs but do not have a CSP. The CSP was introduced because the record of needs failed in the co-ordination of the system. That is one of the main reasons why the bill has been introduced.
Yes. I am not sure whether that is the whole picture, but that is the argument.
I would be in favour of the wording that has been proposed as long as we keep in—
Do you mean the wording that has been proposed by Ken Macintosh?
Yes. As long as we keep in
Okay. Let us have one final comment from Lord James Douglas-Hamilton before I try to bring this discussion to a conclusion.
I support Ken Macintosh's recommendation. We need to cater for the many people who are on the borderline.
That is a valid point. I think that Ken Macintosh's suggestion reaches the nub of the committee's viewpoint. I accept that some will disagree with his suggestion one way or the other. Some people have already compromised a bit to reach agreement on the matter. I accept that Ken's suggestion does not represent everybody's view, but I suggest that we run with it, provided that the committee finds that acceptable. We can circulate the precise wording afterwards so that we can be sure about it.
I think that the majority would accept Ken Macintosh's suggestion, although I would like to see the wording that he suggested. However, if Rhona Brankin has a fundamental difference, there should be room for that to be expressed in some way in the committee's report. The report could state that the view was held by the majority of committee members.
I disagree with Ken Macintosh's suggestion. The concern of parents should be recognised in our report, but widening access to the legal right to go to the tribunal will not necessarily meet the needs of the children concerned.
I want to ascertain whether Rhona Brankin is entirely on her own in taking that view. I accept that there will be wider issues when we come to stage 2 but, for the purposes of our stage 1 report, does anyone else share Rhona Brankin's view?
I have some sympathies with Rhona Brankin's view. Personally, I am not convinced that widening access to the tribunal will necessarily address the concerns of parents whose children have additional needs but do not have a CSP. It is important that we acknowledge those concerns. Ministers must make clear how those parents would exercise their children's rights, but I am not convinced that widening the tribunal system would address those concerns.
I think that we are agreed that the minister must come back to us, but we are split after that point. When the minister comes back to us, he could say that such parents may make no further appeal; that they may appeal to a local authority committee in the way that they do just now; that they may appeal to a tribunal in the future; or that they may appeal to a tribunal right away. The only way in which the committee will hold together is by agreeing to seek the minister's view on how the issue will evolve and be dealt with.
That is what Ken Macintosh has suggested. His amendment may have been designed precisely to get at that point. I judge that the majority of members are heading in the direction of accepting his suggestion—although there may possibly be one or more dissentients. Do we need to take it to a vote?
Can I hear Ken Macintosh's suggestion again?
That is the trouble. We do not have a precise wording for it.
Let me reassure Rhona Brankin that, like her, I am not convinced that widening access to the tribunal is the solution. I want us to ask that the matter be explored further. In particular, I want to hear from the minister whether he would seek to move to a unified system in the long term, provided that that is a practical proposition that would not undermine the whole system.
If it is helpful, let me clarify that I am prepared not to insist that our report should contain something that commits the committee to a view on whether the tribunal should be widened or extended. We should say simply that such an idea, which enjoys considerable support, is not out of the frame and has some advantages, but we also consider that there are problems with it and we want the minister's view on it. That is essentially what we are trying to say. Can we encapsulate that in a way that does not go against any member's concerns? I doubt that we can do that today, as we would just go round in ever-diminishing circles, but I think that Ken Macintosh's phraseology got the beginnings of it.
I will need to try a new phraseology, but my suggestion was something along the lines of—
Just a minute. Martin Verity may be able to tell us what you said.
We got the basic points, although we perhaps did not get the precise wording. The suggestion was, "The Committee notes that many parents would be reassured if they had the same access to the tribunal system as children with CSPs. The committee would be interested in exploring the issue further. However, it is aware that there are difficulties in endorsing the proposal and it seeks the minister's views on this issue."
If I am not interpreting people wrongly, I think that that is the essence of what the committee is trying to get at, although there may be the odd view off to one side or the other. Can we live with that broad approach and find the phraseology to nail the matter afterwards?
I suggest that the first sentence should be the one that Elaine Murray suggested, which was about the fact that there is a group of parents who are concerned about what to do. I do not think that the starting point should be tribunals; it should be parents' concerns about what to do.
I agree. Have we arrived at agreement on that? Rhona Brankin is probably the member who is most unhappy with that.
I am happy, as long as there is no suggestion that the committee is endorsing the view that there should be a widening of access to legal rights at this stage. Although we recognise that there is a concern about that, we also recognise that there are major issues around it.
I endorse the suggestion, on the basis of ensuring that the committee has a collective view. It is a reasonable compromise to say that we are interested in the widening of access and want to explore it. We will split at a later date, but the point is that we are putting the issue on the agenda.
Will Wendy Alexander clarify her suggestion for the first sentence of paragraph 160?
My suggestion is that we should say: "The Committee recognises that there are parents whose children will not be eligible for a CSP who are concerned about what legal recourse they will have in circumstances in which they feel that the local authority is not responding to their needs." That is the statement of the problem.
It is a statement of part of the problem but not the whole problem. I think that we can work something up on that. It would be helpful if the clerks, Ken Macintosh and I could try to agree on some form of words to put to the committee, based on that suggestion. We could take matters forward in that way. It is not the intention to commit anyone to a widening of access to tribunals at this stage; we simply want to keep the issue open and to ask for the minister's comments on it. We will make the phraseology as neutral as possible; I think that the clerks have got the gist of what we want to say. Is that okay? Does anyone want to dissent from the suggestion that we go that far?
No.
Thank you very much. That was a tricky subject. What we have agreed is useful.
As a non-practising Queen's counsel, I believe that the guidance not to use lawyers routinely is extremely wise counsel.
Is that suggestion agreed to?
Members indicated agreement.
That takes us to the end of the detailed section and we must now flick back to "General views on the Bill", which covers paragraphs 18 to 35. We are left with what is in the draft report, as well as Rosemary Byrne's amendment to paragraph 35.
And my amendment.
I think that yours is already in the document.
Members indicated agreement.
Are there any other points on the first two or three pages of the report before paragraph 34? I have a minor point on the middle of paragraph 34, which should say something like, "The Committee notes this Bill represents a significant move towards an inclusive approach"; I think that a bit has been missed out. Is that all right?
Members indicated agreement.
I have a point about the expression
It was me, but I agree with using the phrase "in practice".
In paragraph 35, we have the original changed text and an amendment by Lord James that we should insert
The point is about the several thousand people who have a record of needs but who are unlikely to get co-ordinated support plans. Depending on how that issue is dealt with, I reserve my position on whether I support the principles of the bill.
It seems to me that Lord James's amendment relates primarily to the issue of appeals about records of needs.
There is no doubt that, in legal terms, there will be a diminution of the existing rights of parents of children who currently have a record of needs but who will not get a CSP. However, the concern should surely be that there should be no diminution of existing services, not rights.
I am not sure that there will be a diminution of existing rights. The bill extends rights to children who did not have them before. I agree that people who have a record of needs have a certain right, but—
They have a bit of paper that they will not have any longer.
The record of needs has been used in a way of which we should disapprove. I do not think that the ability of parents who currently have a record of needs to appeal the record of needs gives them many more rights than they will have under the system that the bill will introduce.
What is your suggestion?
I am not sure that the amendment is necessary.
Would you be happy with Elaine Murray's suggestion about using the word "services"?
Yes.
Does Elaine Murray's suggestion meet your point, Lord James?
No, it does not. I will have to reserve my position on the bill on this issue. There is no doubt that the record of needs can be founded upon effectively in court. Without that document, parents believe that they would not have the same rights if there were a dispute. Depending on how that issue will be dealt with—which is still not absolutely clear—I wish to reserve my position.
Lord James's suggestion is that the committee should set that objective for the minister. I suppose that the minister could say that adding the alternative dispute resolution procedure—strengthened or otherwise—might meet the point because it is an equivalent procedure. That might deal with the issue for the moment and leave it until stage 2. However, if it is the committee's view that people should not lose rights, we should set that down.
I dissent from the word "approves" because I want to reserve my position.
We will come to that amendment in a second.
Notwithstanding the fact that I want to replace paragraph 35, I support Lord James because so much rests on what happens at stages 2 and 3. If what we want comes to pass, many members will be far more comforted. However, we do not know whether it will come to pass. Lord James has correctly identified the nub of the issue.
To clarify, I agree that there should be no diminution of existing rights, but I do not think that the bill will do that. Therefore, I am concerned that by putting such a statement in our discussion of the general principles we are implying that the bill somehow undermines existing rights. I agree entirely that we should not diminish the rights of parents whose children have additional support needs, but I do not believe that the bill will do that.
The final shape of the bill will perhaps determine whether it diminishes existing rights. If the committee stated that the bill should not do so, that would be a steer to the minister about what we expect the end result to be. That is Lord James's central point, although I do not know whether members agree with it.
I do not agree with it. The important point is that the right of the child to be educated, to meet their full potential and to have their needs met adequately is central to the bill. I agree with Ken Macintosh. I do not think that there is a diminution of the rights of the child in the bill. The bill ensures that children's needs are met more adequately. I disagree with the inclusion of the phrase "diminution of existing rights".
I agree with Lord James that we should keep the phrase in. We are not discussing the suggested amendments at the moment. The phrase is important, because children who do not get a CSP but who had a record of needs will lose rights.
I do not want the discussion to go round too much.
Many children will gain rights under the bill. The system should work better and more children will be brought into it. To say that there will be a diminution of existing rights is simply inaccurate.
I take a slightly different view. I do not think that there should be a diminution of existing rights; it should be the objective of the bill to ensure that there is not. From that point of view, I am inclined to go with Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's suggestion on paragraph 35. We might have a disagreement on that, but I do not know whether we have reached that point. It is a slightly academic discussion, because we are not at the point of making the decisions on all this. I suppose that the alternative to Lord James's suggestion is Elaine Murray's suggested wording in relation to services, which is a different concept; that is equally valid.
I agree totally with Lord James's take on this. It is unfortunate that the system to date has put the onus very much on the parent to enforce the law. Given the level of sensitivity that exists about the potential reduction in or loss of rights of parents of children who have a record of needs but who will not get a CSP, we are not doing our job properly if we do not address the issue. I agree that there should be no diminution of rights, but we have to express that.
Would it meet anybody's desires to say "rights and services"? Perhaps that is the worst of all worlds from some members' point of view. Would that cover members' views?
I would be happy with the wording "the right to have their children's needs met".
There could be vulnerable children in that category. I want there to be no diminution of their legal rights, or of their services. I wish to take a stand on that. I accept that four of us take one view and other committee members might take another view. If I were to agree to drop my suggestion altogether, it might be assumed that I supported or would vote in favour of the bill in the chamber. I am not necessarily prepared to do that while this matter is not dealt with satisfactorily. I am sorry, but I wish to insist on that.
You are perfectly within your rights to do so.
I am hoping that Wendy Alexander, who has rescued us so far with suggestions, will come up with another one. There is no need to disagree on this point. Nobody on the committee wants to see a diminution of rights, although there might be disagreement about how we are proceeding or whether we are moving in the right direction. The point is whether by including Lord James's suggested wording we are guaranteeing that or implying the opposite—that there will be a diminution of rights. I suggest that rather than deciding that right now, we discuss a couple of other points and come back to it. If we see our approach to the principles of the bill in its totality we might be clearer about—
I am not in favour of that, Ken. We have dealt with all the detail. We are now dealing with the generalities. We have got to kill this now, one way or the other, and move forward. It is not helpful to leave Lord James's suggestion to one side. Whether the phrase he suggests is included or not is an open question. We have an element of disagreement. Lord James made the clear point that he will not go with the bill altogether if that is not in the report, which he is perfectly entitled to do. That is not helped one way or the other by what happens with the other two or three bits that we have yet to look at.
It matters to me that Lord James—
Is on board.
Yes. It matters to me very much that Lord James—and not just Lord James, but everybody—agrees. That is why I want to see the issue in the round.
Can I suggest wording that might work? "The matter of whether there is a risk of some parents experiencing a possible diminution of existing legal rights depends upon the minister's response to matters we are raising with him in the course of this report. The committee, therefore, is unable to take a final view on this matter until his response is received." That would simply park the issue.
What do you think about that, Lord James?
If that was written in, the word "approves" would have to be left out, because I am not prepared to approve the general principles of the bill until I know how the minister is going to deal with the issue. It goes to the heart of the bill.
We could add, "However, a majority of the committee feels able to endorse the general principles, although this matter remains outstanding." You could then dissent from that sentence.
First, I am not sure that it is a majority of the committee, although it may be.
At the end of the day, that was helpful, but I am not sure that it resolves the issue. We might have to agree to disagree. Does anyone have a positive suggestion?
The bill must not in any way reduce the rights of children to have their additional support needs met. The bill extends the rights of children to have their needs met. That fundamentally underpins the bill. To talk in a bald way about the "diminution of existing rights" concerns me, because under the existing—
Lord James was clearly talking about legal rights.
But one of the problems with the existing record of needs system is that it is overly bureaucratic, and some children's needs are recorded unnecessarily while others' needs are not recorded at all, so some children do not have the rights under the present system that they should have.
Is it helpful to state, "The Committee, noting, however, that the majority of the Committee did not believe that the bill as they understand it diminished existing rights, nevertheless agreed with the objective"—this is a bit convoluted, but you see what I am getting at—"that there should be no diminution of existing rights"? In other words, we could qualify the statement about the objective being that there should be no diminution of existing rights with the majority view—which I think exists—that the bill in fact does not diminish existing rights. Does that have potential?
That has potential. We could state, "Seeks reassurance that the needs of all children are fundamental and the needs of all children will be met."
The trouble is that I have not phrased it right. The mind is getting blown by the events of the morning.
We are not agreed on the direction in which we are heading. There are existing rights. For example, there is a statutory right to assessment. Would you call that a legal right? We are getting rid of that statutory right, so are we, in theory, diminishing a right? I do not think that we are diminishing anybody's chances of accessing services. Currently, any child with a record of needs has a statutory right to a multidisciplinary assessment. That will change because, in future, all children will have a right to assessment, but it will no longer be compulsory. There will be no diminution, because the right will be extended to everybody. The bill will change rights in that way, but I do not think that there will be a diminution—I think that there will only be a change.
If a child had a record of needs, they would have certain statutory legal rights as a result. If they do not get a CSP, how would their rights change? I do not know whether that is the issue that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton is concerned about.
That is exactly the issue.
The issue is also about whether the child still has the fundamental right to have their needs met, whether or not they have a CSP.
There is a clear distinction between services and rights, which was the original point. There are services that a person should receive under the bill and there are legal rights to take matters forward in some way if there is bureaucratic awkwardness or whatever. I think that those rights are changed by the bill. There is a difference, but not necessarily a diminution.
The convener said earlier that the objective should be that there should be no diminution of rights and services. Certainly, the majority believe that there will be no diminution and I would not dissent from that view.
I thought that the convener made a subsequent suggestion that was more helpful.
I do not think that I did—I think that that was the suggestion that I made.
Approving the general principles of the bill is a bit premature at this stage, as we do not know how matters will be dealt with.
We are discussing our stage 1 report, however, and we must tell the Parliament whether members ought to vote for or against the bill.
It could be argued that the majority would agree, but I would not be prepared to put my name to that at the moment.
Are we not obliged to make a recommendation at this stage?
I think that we are.
It would be possible for any member or political group to vote against the bill at stage 3 if they did not think that they could support the final shape of the bill. We should recommend whether the bill should be rejected now or taken forward to stage 2 and be subject to line-by-line amendment.
My understanding is that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton is saying that, until he knows that the bill will be amended to ensure that legal rights are supported, he reserves the right not to support the bill at stage 3. He is not saying that the bill should not progress further than stage 1. Is that correct?
Everybody knows that the bill will go to the next stage and it is our duty to put it there, especially after taking all the evidence that we have taken.
Exactly. We must take a view and ask whether the committee thinks that the bill should progress beyond stage 1—I think that that is where the convener is coming from. I am sure that members will say that the bill should progress. I agree with the convener that we must take a view, and, like Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, I support his suggestion about wording that will allow us to progress.
Can we take out the part about existing rights and insert words that are not a subordinate clause, if you like, to the main business of approving the bill? We all agree that the bill will perhaps have to go a wee bit—or a significant bit—further to protect people and to ensure the rights of people who have records of needs but who will not have them under the new system. Can we reflect that earlier in paragraph 35 and then say that we approve the general principles of the bill?
We could say something along the lines that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton suggested. We could say, "The Committee believes that the Bill will not diminish existing rights for children with additional support needs. However, it is looking for further reassurance to this effect as the Bill progresses."
That is not quite right.
I prefer Robert Brown's suggestion.
I think that I referred to a majority of the committee—that was the point. We do not need to define what the majority is. We could remove the bit about approval of the bill and say, "The Committee, by a majority, took the view that there should be no diminution of existing rights in terms of the proposals in the Bill." The point that we are trying to capture is that there should be no diminution of rights, is it not? People should not lose rights as a result of bills such as this one.
I suggest, "The majority of the Committee believe that there will not and should not be any diminution of rights."
That is quite good.
As an alternative, I suggest, "The majority of the Committee believe that the Bill will not and should not diminish the existing rights of parents."
The problem is that, for some children, certain rights will be removed and others will come in. The issue is whether their existing rights will change.
That is a judgment, and it is part of the reason why I do not think that there is a diminution of rights.
May I suggest a way forward? There is a recognition that rights will change and parents are concerned about a diminution of rights. The right of the child to have their needs met is fundamental and underpins everything.
That is not the central point. The central point is the legal rights issue, which Lord James has raised. Your point is important, but the point that Lord James makes is different.
I suggest that we use the word "change". We should say, "We recognise that rights are changing under the Bill and we seek reassurance that the fundamental right of every child to have their needs met should be recognised."
Their rights should not be diminished.
Yes.
I think that that would get us most of the way there. Shall we go with that wording? We are still left with Lord James's point about the legal rights.
I thought that the convener had the right wording.
The problem is that I cannot remember what it was. The sentence that Martin Verity has written down is, "The majority of the Committee took the view that there should be no diminution of legal rights or services under the Bill." The word "should" is ambiguous in that sentence—helpfully so, if I may dare to suggest that. It could mean "should" as an objective or "should" as a likely result. Most of us could live with that, could we not?
I do not want to include any implication that the bill diminishes rights, because I do not accept that it does. Parents are looking for reassurance that they are not losing rights and I am anxious to give them that reassurance.
I suggest, "There should be no diminution of substantial legal rights or services under the Bill." Does that help?
I think that we are there, but I am trying to balance the fact that I agree that parents should not lose rights with the need to reassure them.
Could we add, "Some members, however, were of the view that further reassurance was required in this direction"?
No.
What is your objection to that?
I would like to propose an amendment and take it to a vote. I would like the report to say, "The Committee recognises that the legislation makes certain changes to existing rights but the Committee is of the view that any changes to existing rights must not in any way lessen the right that every child has to have their additional support needs met."
I do not think that there will be any disagreement about that. We can probably agree that wording, but it does not meet Lord James's point, which is about legal rights, not about the provision of services.
That is right.
Can we begin by agreeing to Rhona Brankin's formulation? It is not the whole story, but it gets us halfway.
We need a formulation of words that reflects the fact that although rights will change, that does not weaken parents' rights.
I suggest, "As indicated in detail later in the report, the Committee seeks reassurances from the Minister that the framework of legal rights, albeit changed, will not be diminished in practice."
Yes, that is it.
Is that suitable, James?
It comes back to the point about legal rights. It is a question of interpretation, and we cannot say that until we have seen how the bill's provisions will operate in reality.
We will read back over what we have got. The combination of Rhona Brankin's phrase and my addition will include the reference to legal rights, although it might not be in quite the form that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton wants.
So far, we have, "The Committee recognises that this legislation makes certain changes to existing rights but the Committee is of the view that any changes to legal rights must not represent any lessening of the need for adequate provision for the additional support needs of children to be met."
That is half of it. What is the other bit?
"The Committee seeks reassurances from the Minister that the framework of legal rights, albeit changed, will not be diminished in practice."
It should then say, "Subject to this, the Committee recommends approval of the general principles of the Bill."
I am not happy with the second sentence that you read out. That does not encapsulate what we encapsulated in the first part of it.
I know. That is because it is a different point. The first bit relates to services and the second bit relates to rights. I think that that is reasonably clear.
The point is that some young people will have new legal rights.
That is why I have said, "the framework of legal rights, albeit changed, will not be diminished in practice." That is the bottom line. At the moment, people cannot appeal decisions relating to their services under their record of needs. However, the bill will enable them to have at least an ADR. That might not be good enough, of course. That is the area on which we are seeking reassurance. We have said that later in the report.
What you have said is that the framework of legal rights will not cause the legal rights concerned to be diminished in practice. I am happy with that, but I would like to see the wording, just in case Rhona Brankin puts in a few more words.
The form of words that we have suggested seems to meet what we are after and it brings Lord James on board, which is not unhelpful. I accept that there is a vote to be had on whether we approve the general principles of the bill and we will have that in a minute.
We need to do more work on this point. I would be happy if we came back to this later, perhaps by e-mail.
I do not think that we can do that. We are either—
We are doing it with other wording.
We are agreeing either the general approach, subject to fine tuning of the wording, or some sort of generalised amendment to the wording. I do not think that we can come back to the principles that are involved. We have to get agreement on that today.
If Lord James is happy with that wording, which does not make the implication that I was worried about, I think that everyone will be happy with it.
I accept that we will have to see the final wording, but we should be clear that we are not coming back to the general principle.
Could the wording be repeated, please?
The wording that I have before me is, "The Committee recognises that this legislation makes certain changes to existing rights but the Committee is of the view that any changes to legal rights must not represent any lessening of the need for—"
—children's additional support needs to be met.
Yes, or "provision for children with additional support needs to be made", or "for the needs of children with additional support needs to be met."
But rights are changing—new rights are coming in.
It says that.
But what you are saying in the second sentence is that existing legal rights should continue to exist.
No, we are not saying that. We recognise that there is a new system and different rights, but the question is whether they are equivalent, and whether they are adequate to the need. That is the bottom line, and we want assurances from the ministers on that and on the other things that we are saying in the report. If we get those reassurances, we will be happy with the general principles. That involves a definition of alternative dispute resolution and what happens about tribunals, and in particular about transition.
I would move that the first sentence is adequate.
That is fairly straightforward. Let us take a vote on that. Do we need formal proposers and seconders?
You do not need a seconder.
On a point of order, convener. If four of us take the view that the wording that you have put in the second sentence is appropriate, do we have the right to dissent?
Yes.
What I do not understand is what you see as different about the second sentence.
With respect, the convener has explained it.
We have been round in circles on this. The essential difference is between "services" and "rights"—that is reasonably clear. We need to go to a division or we will be discussing the point all afternoon. I have proposed the text, and Rhona Brankin has suggested an amendment, which involves deletion of the second sentence. The question is, that the second sentence should be deleted. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 8, Abstentions 0. The amendment is disagreed to.
No.
There will be a division.
For
That was tricky—I am grateful for members' forbearance. We will come back in a minute to whether we approve the general principles.
You have to read out the result of the second division.
The result was eight for and one against.
It cannot be 8:4.
There are nine of us. Eight for and one against—that is nine. Eight in favour, and one against. I am just an apprentice convener.
I can make it easier and say that I am quite happy to withdraw my amendment and to support Fiona's.
That is helpful. It is amazing what the prospect of lunch does.
The clerks have done a sterling job in getting all the amendments together. However, I do not want to leave out paragraph 35 but insert a new paragraph. In our discussions, the concept of a single universal system is core. Although there is some reference to that on a practical basis later in the report, it should be at the nub of the general principles at the outset.
I suggest three ways in which we could tackle the matter. The first is to approve the amendment, as Fiona Hyslop suggests; the second is to leave it out altogether; and the third is to give a nod in the direction of the longer-term desirability of a universal system.
I hope that I can expedite the debate. I can live with the first paragraph, but I am fundamentally opposed to the second. It says that the committee is
Let us take some other views.
I do not want any of it in this section at all. Perhaps it is appropriate to note the views of some of the witnesses that we should have moved to a single universal system, but that does not form part of the discussion on the general principles of the bill. I reject all of it.
As I said, I am fed up with the fact that we have come back to the issue. I thought that we had discussed it and got an agreement last week.
No, we did not get an agreement last week. I left the matter open.
Well, let us discuss it again. The fundamental intention of the bill is to make provision for the children who are most vulnerable. I believe absolutely that additional support has to be made available for those children. Fiona Hyslop's amendment would fundamentally undermine the basic principles of the bill.
I disagree with Rhona Brankin. It is a great pity that courage was not taken when the bill was drafted initially to look at a universal system, which would be fairer and more equal. If members look at the good practice that is going on in schools, that is what is happening in many establishments. It does not matter whether the child has a record of needs; all that matters is that the child is planned for, the review process takes place and that families are involved in such things as the setting of targets for the young person. Co-ordination and good practice is happening through IEPs at the moment.
Can I make a suggestion? The minister's quote is not unhelpful and it should be included round about paragraph 26 or 27.
I was going to make the same suggestion. Rosemary Byrne has taken a stance throughout the discussion and several organisations made similar suggestions. However, we have debated the issue at length and, unfortunately, I do not think that the committee will take the view that is expressed in the amendment. Can Adam Ingram or Fiona Hyslop outline a basis for some unanimity or do they wish to stand or fall on the totality of this position? If so, I agree with the convener that we should vote now to reject it and be done with the matter.
The alternative is to reject the bill because it does not provide a universal system. The compromise is that we say that we recognise that the minister is being pragmatic and doing something in the short term. After all, even the minister acknowledges that we might end up with a universal system. My amendment simply recognises what the minister is trying to do in good faith but points out that the committee's discussion of the summary of evidence very much centred on our recognition of the desirability of a universal system. The question is whether that system can be established now. I want to take a longer-term view of the matter. As Wendy Alexander said, we have different views on the issue.
I do not think that we are in a position to form a long-term view in the context of this bill. We will have to see how the system works in practice.
The bill's long title is:
I disagree. After all, even the minister said that the bill should be seen in the context of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, which is about mainstreaming. We see this matter either through the prism of universality or through the prism of special educational needs for the few. If it is the latter, there have been a few deceptions along the way as far as some of the evidence is concerned.
Parents groups have expressed grave concern about such suggestions. The bottom line is that children are different. Some children need a greater level of support than other children, and the bill is all about ensuring that those children have their right to additional support needs met. More complex and enduring cases will have CSPs. Fundamental to the bill is the recognition that differences exist and that additional provision has to be made for those children.
I think that the committee has a divided view on the matter. I do not really want to go round the table—
You proposed a vote, convener. You should have taken it. We have been sitting here for more than four hours.
I want to make a brief comment. Different parties will obviously take a policy view on the practicability of the proposals. However, the first paragraph of the amendment is factual and simply notes some of the evidence that we received. I do not think that there is any harm in that.
But we mention most of the evidence, apart from the minister's statement, from paragraph 26 onwards. That is why if we reject Fiona Hyslop's amendment to paragraph 35—as I believe we should—I would still be happy to include that statement earlier as a nod towards and a reflection of Fiona's views. However, we have reached the point of division and should bring the matter to a head by taking a vote.
I move, that the following words be included in the report, "The Committee is of the view that a universal single system would be the most desirable method to improve the administration and support provided for children with additional support needs. It recognises that the Minister has taken a pragmatic short term approach but is disappointed that the Executive has not taken the opportunity to move to a universal single system."
Are members agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0. The proposal is disagreed to.
Do you mean, subject to the foregoing receipt of assurances?
Yes. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you. The meeting has been very long, but I think that our report is quite effective. [Interruption.] Oh, goodness. We still have to take item 4. We will have to do that at our next meeting.
Meeting closed at 13:50.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation