Official Report 211KB pdf
Item 2 is the committee's continued consideration of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I am pleased to welcome to the meeting Adam Ingram, the Minister for Children and Early Years. He is joined by Government officials Robin McKendrick, head of branch 1 in the support for learning division; Susan Gilroy, policy officer in the support for learning division; and Louisa Walls, who is a principal legal officer.
Yes, indeed—thank you, convener, and good morning, colleagues. I thank committee members for their work over the past few months in considering the bill. Some aspects of the bill and of the evidence that you have taken are technically quite complex, so I appreciate the committee's careful scrutiny.
Thank you for your opening statement, minister. I am sure that members will be more than happy for you to respond in writing. We have struggled with the technicalities of the bill over the past few months, so we understand. Every committee member will welcome your commitment to pay particular attention to three areas that have been raised with us repeatedly in our evidence taking at stage 1. I am sure that further questions will be asked on those areas today, but we welcome the Government's commitment and willingness to act before stage 2.
It is a question of equality, and rights under the law. You will be aware that a Court of Session ruling under Lord Macphail upheld a local authority's appeal against applications from parents with children with additional support needs for out-of-area placing requests. All other parents have that right, and we believe that children with additional support needs should have that right, too.
I have considerable sympathy with that view, as do a number of local authorities. However, Cameron Munro, who represented Glasgow City Council at the committee last week, said that he
Glasgow City Council and, I think, the City of Edinburgh Council, describe scenarios in which a parent can make an out-of-area placing request by submitting a request to their home authority to place their child in a school, but that is not really a parental placing request as such. In effect, the parent is asking one authority to enter into arrangements with another authority to place the child in a host authority area. That is quite different from a parental placing request. Even before the 2004 act commenced, parents could approach their home authority to do just that. It seems that Glasgow seeks to reduce parental choice in this regard; on principle, we do not think that that should be upheld.
Thank you for that clarification of the Government's views.
What safeguards are we talking about?
Mr Munro spoke about the process. He said that Glasgow proposed
The authorities are reiterating the argument about placing requests being made through home authorities rather than allowing the parent to be independent, to exercise their choice outwith their home authority and to apply to an independent school or a host authority. Again, we are not minded to go down that route.
Another aspect of the authorities' argument is that, currently, independent schools cannot be involved in the local authority's decision making and make representations along with the parents when they make their request. They think it right that those same procedures should apply when a parent whose child has additional support needs makes a placing request. Has the Government considered that?
I will come back to you on that point, because I have not considered it.
That would be helpful, because local authorities were seeking assurances on those issues. It is for the committee to decide whether we agree with them, but it would be interesting to receive more information on that.
Good morning, minister. You said clearly in your opening remarks that there is a fine balance to be struck between getting the legislation right and producing a code of good practice that is not enshrined in the legislation. That is central to a lot of the debate that we are having on the issue, as it raises questions about whether, just by making better legislation, we will be able to deliver better care for those who have additional support needs. That is a major issue to keep at the back of our minds.
You will be aware that there was significant debate on such definitions when the 2004 act was under scrutiny—Ken Macintosh will remember that—especially regarding who would be eligible for a co-ordinated support plan. Those would be children with multiple, complex and enduring needs of the type that you are talking about. The debate at that time centred on whether we were creating a two-tier system. Essentially, we were providing rights to children with additional support needs and their parents, so why should we single out children with enduring, complex and multiple needs? The answer was that the system fails most often in dealing with those children with multiple and enduring needs. That is why we were concerned to ensure that resources could be maintained and targeted on that group of children.
Those who have provided evidence for us feel quite strongly that, at present, it is too easy for different local authorities to have slightly different interpretations. They suggest that that is partly a problem of definition within the existing legislation. That is an important point.
I think that such matters would be better addressed in the code of practice. In my opening remarks, I mentioned that I am looking carefully at the term "significant". It is a very difficult issue, although Lord Nimmo Smith, of the inner house of the Court of Session, has given us a working definition that we can start with. As you rightly say, many of the stakeholders are concerned about the definitions of the term "significant" and other terms.
That is helpful. At a time when there are budget cuts and concerns about the availability of resources, it would be helpful to have some tightening up of the definitions. It has been a thread in much of the evidence that we have taken that there is a definitional problem, and that it is too easy for local authorities to have slightly different interpretations, which does not always best serve the child.
I think that the allegation is that the term "significant" has an extremely high threshold for local authorities.
I am sure.
The bill clarifies the position. In particular, we clarify that the child is the responsibility of one authority at a time. Iain Nisbet was concerned about the existence of a grey area as regards which authority was responsible for, and which authority we were asking to attend to, the needs of a child in a particular situation. We are tidying up the legislation in that regard so that it is clear which authority is responsible for a child in all the relevant circumstances.
Do you believe that that must be done in the bill, or could it be dealt with in the code of practice?
As regards the process, the code of practice will obviously need to be clarified in that respect, but with some of the amendments that we have proposed in the bill, we should be able to clarify that issue.
I want to take up the convener's point about independent schools—not independent special schools, but independent mainstream schools, a few of which offer special facilities. That is a consideration. The convener is right to say that it is important to ensure that the parents of any child who requires additional support have not only special schools available to them, but independent schools that are in the main stream, some of which have specialist dyslexic units or whatever. Although local authorities have no responsibility in that area, we want to ensure that that is not lost in new legislation.
Such schools would be defined as special schools, just as local authority schools that have bases for children with particular needs are defined as special schools.
Okay. Thank you.
I have a question about costs that picks up on the questions that the convener asked about the principles that underpin out-of-authority placements. The local authorities put up the argument that they are responsible for providing for the needs of all their children, so if parents and children apply to another authority, the decision on costs is taken out of their hands. Do you accept that that is entirely the case? Will you give us your thoughts on the principle of costs following the child and to what extent that happens at the moment?
The cost arrangements for interauthority transfers are well understood by the education community and especially by education authorities. The relevant legislation is section 23 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. We are talking about the additional costs that arise from additional support needs provision. The host authority can, rightly, send a bill to the home authority for the additional costs, which obviously must be justified. An incentive is built in to the system for home authorities to develop additional support needs provision in their area if they are concerned about the number of children who are going outwith the area to receive provision. It is incumbent on home authorities to provide a broad range of provision that satisfies the needs in their own areas. The system therefore reinforces the need for authorities to make provision in their own area.
To what extent do you think that funding follows the child—particularly a child with additional needs?
Do you mean funding for education authorities from the Government?
Yes.
My understanding is that the funding follows the child. There might be a year's delay in transferring funds because they are based on the school census figures, but my understanding is that that system works well.
Do the school census figures provide additional funding when a child is identified as requiring additional support that means additional costs?
No—what is transferred is the funding for the particular school place. Any additional costs for additional support needs provision must be paid for by the home authority when the child transfers.
Exactly, but the local authorities argue that they do not have a say in addressing the needs. In other words, a child's parent can apply to another authority for a range of services when additional needs might not have been diagnosed or recognised at that stage. Local authorities think that the principle of another authority providing a range of services but billing the entire amount to the home authority is problematic when the home authority is responsible for all the other needs.
I do not doubt that they think that. All I would say is that the provision for the circumstances that you describe has been settled for some 30 years now, so the system clearly works. I return to my point about the incentives in the system for all authorities to build up provision in their own areas. We hope that that would reduce the demand for out-of-area placing requests, which can be costly.
It is interesting that you suggest that there is an incentive for home authorities to develop their resources. The committee has heard the opposite argument—that the system introduces a perverse incentive to parents to apply to special schools because there is an appeal process for such schools.
We need to remember that checks and balances are built into the system. Obviously, host authorities can refuse placing requests. Schedule 2 to the 2004 act provides a number of criteria that apply in such circumstances, so any spurious or irrational requests should be sifted out of the system at that point.
I hate to think who might have voted against those amendments.
You did.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
To be fair, we are talking about a relationship between two authorities. Those are the only decisions that have come to Scottish ministers. The issue is something of a long-running saga, as you well know, given that East Renfrewshire and Glasgow City Council are the two authorities concerned.
Although the decisions have all been consistent, they have not all been observed yet. I suggest that the payment and cost issue needs to be resolved. Although only two authorities are involved, I think that other authorities are looking at the principle closely to ensure that they have the relationship right.
As I said, the situation that we are describing is anomalous. The fact that local authorities have made very few submissions to ministers under section 23 of the 1980 act—the only submissions have arisen from that specific interauthority relationship—suggests that the system is working and people understand how it operates. The lack of disputes, rather than their incidence, is remarkable.
Possibly. Would you be sympathetic to an amendment that tightened up the legislation on that issue?
I would need to see what the amendment said.
You do not think that there is a problem.
No, I do not see a problem.
Convener, if I may, I will come back later to my other question, which is on general issues rather than on costs.
In that case, we move on to Mr Gibson.
Good morning, minister. I welcome the fact that you have welcomed Ken Macintosh's welcome.
Yes, we are, in respect of out-of-area placing requests to special schools, extending the jurisdiction beyond children with CSPs.
How are you extending it and what will that mean?
A parent who applies to an authority for a place in a special school, but whose application is refused, can go through the dispute resolution process and can eventually appeal to the tribunal.
Do you believe that that will increase or reduce the number of appeals?
It will reduce the complexity of the system, which is an important—
It will also reduce the confusion that surrounds it.
Yes. There is significant demand, but there is also a natural ceiling on demand for places in special schools, so I do not anticipate a large increase, although we have factored in additional costs that will need to be taken into consideration in the financial memorandum to accommodate extra provision in special schools. The placing requests figures for 2006-07 show that 14 special school placing requests were referred to education appeal committees and none was referred to the sheriff. When we transfer cases to the tribunal, the cost is £2,000 per case, so we need to make available an additional sum—the total would come to something like £40,000.
Parents have expressed to us—in formal and informal meetings—considerable frustration about the time it takes to go through the appeals process and so on. Will the changes that are being made expedite decisions or will there still be the same long drawn-out process that some families have experienced?
As I said, clarification on such issues should expedite decisions and speed up things significantly.
What do you mean when you say that it should speed up the process "significantly"? We have heard that some cases have lasted for up to two years.
As Kenneth Gibson knows perfectly well from his constituency cases, there can be a long and weary wait before a conclusion is reached when cases go to a sheriff. Tribunals are much more responsive. Another benefit of referring cases to tribunals is that they will be dealt with by a body of people who have expertise in additional support needs and who understand the issues, so the quality of decision making could, and should, improve.
Yes. So—we are looking at improved decision making and decisions being made much quicker. I know that every case is different, but is there a time within which you believe cases should be resolved? Should they be resolved within three months or six months, for example? Will there be anything in guidance to ensure that cases are not dragged out for longer than necessary?
A timetable for tribunals is laid down in the regulations. We already have timeous dealing with cases—I have not heard evidence to suggest that there is anything wrong with the process just now. I refer to the education appeal committee route down to the sheriff and so on.
I know what you mean. You are saying that that is not necessarily where the bottleneck is.
Yes.
Given the changes that are being made, the other bottlenecks will hopefully be cleared, too.
Indeed.
I want to return to the adversarial nature of the process. In your opening remarks, you said that you are looking at representative advocacy services for parents, in recognition of the increasingly adversarial nature of the tribunals. That issue was raised by the ASNTS's president, who gave us figures on the increasing numbers of respondents and appellants who are represented by legal counsel. One suggestion from the tribunal chair was that parents could, at the discretion of the chair, receive legal support on points of law. However, local authorities tend to favour improvements to the tribunal to make it less adversarial, and suggest that the quality of decision making is part of the problem. How might representative advocacy support address some of the issues that have been raised with us?
A lot of witnesses suggested that there is an imbalance between local authorities and parents in the power of argument that can be brought to a tribunal with legal representation: local authorities are obviously better able to afford legal representation. How do we level the playing field? I do not want to make the process more adversarial and bring more lawyers into it. I want to neutralise the effect of local authorities employing solicitors. In essence, I want to try to make lawyers redundant—
Can we vote on that now, convener?
I want to make lawyers redundant in the tribunal situation, which we can do through the rules and procedures of the tribunal. We have three members on the tribunal who could be more interrogative of both sides and could limit the opportunities for legal representatives to advocate their side of the argument. The tribunal members could ask all the questions and we might not allow cross-examination by someone else's representative. I know that the president of the ASNTS has issued directions to encourage that type of thing in our tribunal conveners. I am planning to get together with the president to see how far we can take that and whether we can address the issue in that way.
Why do you think local authorities have moved towards increased legal counsel at tribunals?
Their approach is very conservative and defensive. When a local authority and a parent are at odds, the local authority wants to stack the odds in its favour and to ensure that its position is represented as effectively as possible.
It was good to hear, in your opening remarks, that you want to improve the quality of the information that parents receive about their rights regarding mediation and dispute resolution. The evidence that we have taken suggests that there is low awareness of those rights among parents. I would like to pursue the matter a wee bit further.
I accept that that is a significant and serious issue. HMIE's report also flagged up the need to improve the quality and extent of communication with parents and young people, including information about how to resolve disagreements and the like.
We have heard that. Lorraine Dilworth noted also that it is not possible to find the name of the director of education on one council's website. Such basic things need to be addressed.
On Traveller children, we have the Scottish Traveller education programme. There are clearly issues with interrupted learning and assessing where Traveller children are in terms of their education when they arrive at a school. There is the same sort of issue with the children of service personnel, so we are pulling together a forum, or seminar, of local authorities to discuss the issues. The Scottish Traveller education programme has come up with a series of recommendations for addressing the issues that relate to Traveller children.
The bill is necessary partly because of rulings that some sheriffs have made, which have not always been in tune with the spirit of the 2004 act. As you know, I have been particularly concerned about the sheriff's decision in one case in South Lanarkshire. I will not name the case publicly, but the minister is familiar with it. People who come into the system will benefit from the bill when it is enacted, but we also have a duty to people who find themselves in difficult positions as a result of court decisions that do not necessarily follow the spirit of the act. Will those people have the right to go back to the tribunal and have it reconsider their cases and, possibly, make a ruling that runs counter to a decision that a sheriff took some time ago?
I do not want to go into too much detail about the case that Alex Neil mentioned, but parents in such situations must come back under the aegis of the education authority. Parents have the right to make placing requests annually, so if they are refused one year, they can try again another year.
Under the present legislation, would the parents require a co-ordinated support plan for them to be able to go to the tribunal?
They will not require one now.
They will not require one once the legislation is passed.
No.
Will that be in the primary legislation or the code of practice?
It will be in the primary legislation.
Okay.
I have made this point to the minister before: even if we assume that the bill will be passed, it is clear, as far as I can tell, that in cases in which parents are still dissatisfied, for the few who know about section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and have actually used it, it has proved to be extremely unsatisfactory. Do you have any plans to improve the way in which section 70 applications are handled?
Yes. We have had very few complaints under section 70.
That is because people do not know about it.
Exactly—that is one aspect of it. When we get section 70 complaints, we need to pursue them vigorously. We should take them up on behalf of complainants in a way that encourages local authorities to respond. I have had a meeting with officials to that effect. As I pointed out earlier in response to Aileen Campbell's question on information during disputation, we have to get the message across to parents that that route is available to them.
That brings me to my final point on making parents aware of their rights. As a list member, my constituency covers four local authority areas. Two of those authorities not only do not tell parents their rights, but go out of their way to avoid doing so, as I could prove in relation to a number of cases. Even the authorities that do tell parents their rights do not tell them about things such as section 70. I welcome—and I welcome everybody else's welcomes—your proposed amendment in that area.
We support with around £400,000 the Enquire organisation and helpline, which produces leaflet packs and the like.
With all due respect, many parents do not know that they can contact Enquire.
I know—I spoke about that problem earlier. Local authorities are under a statutory duty to inform parents of what is available to them. I recently attended a meeting that was called by East Ayrshire Council, which brought groups of parents together to inform them of their rights under the 1980 act. We need more such activity. The support groups that exist to help parents, such as dyslexia and autism support groups, can spread the message and help inform parents, on top of anything that the Government or local authorities provide. However, we need to get our act together on that front. I am not satisfied that parents are being properly informed.
The minister partly addressed my point in responding to Aileen Campbell's question about mediation and dispute resolution. Is there a greater role for an independent element in that process? Could the voluntary sector play a bigger role in supporting parents? Aileen Campbell talked about looked-after children. Such an increased role would be a way in which to resolve the tension that exists when a local authority mediates with itself.
People have questioned the independence of the dispute resolution process because parents have to apply to the local authority to go through the process. However, I warn against removing from local authorities the duty to respond to the issue, because they are responsible for gathering together all the paperwork. It would be extremely burdensome for a parent to go through that process independently. It is important that local authorities retain the duty to provide support to parents during the independent adjudication process. Of course, the adjudication itself is absolutely independent—it involves people who are appointed by the Scottish ministers to consider individual cases. I do not see a case for tampering with those arrangements and would reject any such amendments.
We have heard, in formal and informal sessions, a great deal of concern from people about how the existing legislation is working. One of the dilemmas with which I came into the meeting was that, although there is a great deal of support for the bill, it is clear from the evidence that has been presented to us that the bill does not go far enough. We are reviewing the 2004 act, but we might be letting an opportunity slip by. However, at the risk of sounding dull and boring, I say seriously that I, like other members, welcome what you have said this morning, minister—your comments have been heartening. I am talking not only about the three items to which you alluded, to which I will return, but about what you said in your discussion with Alex Neil on the section 70 issues and the need for you to pursue that with vigour. Almost as important as the specific points that you mentioned is the need for all of us to pursue with vigour the issue that the Parliament's best intentions in the 2004 act have not seen the light of day when it comes to local authorities dealing with individual children and family circumstances. I very much welcome what you have said, minister.
I thank Margaret Smith for her questions. Lord Wheatley's decision was first brought to my attention by Iain Nisbet of Govan Law Centre, who made the points that Margaret Smith described in his submission to the committee.
I will ask for clarity about a couple of amendments that you said that you will lodge, although I appreciate that we will see more information about them in due course.
Yes.
Concerns have been addressed to us about the number of CSPs that are produced. The City of Edinburgh Council, from which we took evidence last week, believes that it has legitimate reasons for not having as many CSPs as people might expect it to have. I am not saying whether or not I agree with that position. Nevertheless, people have raised a concern that the number of CSPs in circulation is not what might be expected. How will giving parents the right to ask for an assessment at any time differ from the current situation?
At the moment, when a parent seeks a co-ordinated support plan for their child or asks a local authority to address their child's additional support needs, they ask for assessments at that time. However, education authorities tend to draw the line at that request—they will respond to that request but they will not respond at other times. We think that parents are in the best position to monitor the progress and needs of their child, and a child's needs change over time. In order that the parent can be satisfied that they are able to secure the best possible provision for their child's needs, they must be able to ask for an assessment at any time during the course of the child's progress through school.
That is prior to the production of a CSP.
Yes.
The parent will be able to do that whether or not the child has a CSP.
Yes.
As you say, circumstances change; therefore, assessments may or may not have been carried out previously and a CSP may or may not be in place.
Correct.
And the policy will apply across the board.
Yes.
Good. I have one final point to raise. You also said that you are minded to lodge an amendment that will allow the tribunal to say when a requested placing should begin. I welcome that. We have heard strongly in evidence that that would be a good move. We questioned the president of the Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland on whether, given that that would involve its having more of a monitoring role than it has had before, it feels that it has the resources to do that. I think that she said that it does feel that it has the resources that it requires. Have you evaluated whether the changes that we are talking about, which you have announced today, will require further resourcing of the current tribunal system?
We do not believe so. I do not think that there will be any substantial increase in the burden on tribunals. As you have pointed out, the president of the ASNTS helpfully suggested that she has enough resources to tackle the new requirements.
Quite right. I think that that is why we asked the question—to tee it up nicely for you.
Thank you.
Good morning, minister. One of the pitfalls of being the person with the last theme on the list is that by the time you get to it everyone else has asked all the questions. I therefore hope that my questions will be brief, as there are just a couple of things that I want to pick up from what you have told us this morning. Also, I join everybody else in welcoming; I do not want to be left out of welcoming the welcome to the welcome.
I was trying to make the point that every local authority is under a statutory duty to provide a care plan for every child who is looked after, which should address the educational needs of the child. That is the stage at which additional support needs ought to be identified. If assessments are required, it is the local authority's duty, as the corporate parent, to ensure that they are carried out. As I indicated, we are making significant progress on policy development and implementation in the area. We have designated managers in schools and educational and residential establishments to take the agenda forward. I detailed all the other steps that we are taking. Can you remind me of your second question?
It was about who will have responsibility for looked-after and accommodated children, but I think that you have answered it. Over the years, I have noticed that different local authorities have different ways of putting together care plans and educational support plans, and that some issues are prioritised over others. In many cases, I have seen quite poor results in identifying a child's educational support needs, because their social needs or the reasons that they are looked after and accommodated have become the priority. Will the code of conduct include direction on how local authorities should put together care plans to ensure that there is a holistic approach?
We are keen to emphasise the links between additional support legislation and the care planning process. We will ensure that the code of practice for the bill spells those out. I hope that that will reassure you.
Scottish vocational qualifications and higher national certificates for care staff address the issue in a positive way. One of the units is about care planning, and the children and young people qualification places a huge emphasis on educational support needs. I saw a huge change in one member of staff who was doing the qualification and who put a care plan together inappropriately at the beginning of the process but did so appropriately at the end. The most important point is that that was of real benefit to the child concerned. However, the status of the local authority as the corporate parent could still lead to conflicts of interest when cases come before tribunals. I hope that that can be addressed by the bill and by putting in place more vociferous advocacy for young people from their key workers. There is a real failing in how we support looked-after and accommodated children.
That was a worry in relation to the number of co-ordinated support plans. When the HMIE report on improving the education of our looked-after children made the situation plain, I asked education authorities to review their procedures. On the face of it, looked-after children are likely to be candidates not only for additional support needs provision but for co-ordinated support plans. I have tasked the short-term CSP working group to examine such issues and find out the precise number of co-ordinated support plans and what we need to do to ensure that, if there is a shortfall, it is dealt with. As I said, looked-after children will be a focus with regard to that provision.
Some submissions, particularly the joint submission led by the Govan Law Centre, have suggested that the bill be amended to give children the right to express their views during the process. As something of a champion of children's rights, I would welcome such an approach. How would the bill allow children to give their views?
Such a provision is built into the 2004 act, which gives children over the age of 12—young people, if you like—the right to be independently consulted on co-ordinated support plans, additional support needs and the provision that has been put in place for them. As I said, we do not need to reinvent the original legislation, but to ensure that it is properly implemented.
I agree that giving children the opportunity to express their views and rights is, like the issues that Aileen Campbell raised with regard to parents, more to do with awareness.
Although I understand the Government's commitment to the historic concordat, I would have thought that Mr Neil's point about forcing local authorities on certain matters might have sat at odds with the historic concordat's ethos. Does the Government have a view on the provision of independent advocacy services, particularly for looked-after and accommodated children? Are you confident that certain local authorities are not trying to reduce that provision in order to make savings in their budgets without being noticed?
I am committed to the agenda of improving the situation for looked-after children. I am certainly aware of the issue that you raise; indeed, I have asked officials to map current advocacy support with a view to reviewing our policy. That said, I have no proposals to discuss with the committee. As I indicated, we will address the issue of advocacy provision by additional support needs tribunals. Perhaps I can come back to the committee on how we will take forward advocacy for looked-after children.
I appreciate your personal commitment to the issue of looked-after and accommodated children. We need to pay particular attention to getting things right in this area and I believe that all parties are willing to work together on taking forward that agenda. I am sure that the committee will welcome your response to these questions.
Yes. Is that all right?
Yes, if you are brief. The minister has been giving evidence for an hour and a half now.
I will be brief as possible. I very much welcome the fact that, as usual, the minister has taken a particularly constructive approach to the committee's questioning.
The Wheatley judgment is definitely an issue. However, as the focus of the original legislation was additional support for education, removing references to education does all kinds of things to the potential scope of the bill, so I am not in favour of such a move.
It might make a difference in speech and language therapy, which is often provided by health authorities rather than by education authorities. Perhaps the minister might think about the issue and get back to the committee before stage 2.
I am starting to wonder whether you have been in the same room, Ken.
I appreciate that Margaret Smith raised the question earlier. I was raising the issue again simply because I was not quite sure whether I had heard the answer correctly.
We are not quite sure of the answer, either, Ken.
I have two other questions, the first of which, about assessment, has also been raised by Margaret Smith. I am not sure that I understood the minister's response. Am I right in thinking that you were suggesting that we do not need to change the law because parents have the right to on-going assessment pretty much at any stage?
I am suggesting that we need to ensure that those provisions are actually implemented. The practice in many local authorities is to offer and provide assessment only at the outset, either when additional support needs are identified or when a co-ordinated support plan is requested. We need to make it clear that assessment is available all through the child's journey through school.
The witnesses have suggested that that might need legal clarification, which might require the bill to be amended.
That is why we will address the matter in the primary legislation.
I welcome the minister's comment about getting rid of lawyers. However, I find it interesting how we can all change our positions. For example, I am not entirely sure that the minister held the same view when, during the passage of the 2004 act, he moved amendments on legal aid. I suppose that we have all moved with time, and I welcome the change.
I might be sympathetic to the suggestion but, given that we are talking about 12,000 people, it would be extremely burdensome and costly. As Ken Macintosh will well remember, we had this debate during the passage of the 2004 act and came to the view that we simply could not afford such a right.
Will the short-term CSP working group complete its work before the bill completes its passage through Parliament?
That is the intention. We want to feed in any outputs, outcomes and recommendations into the further stages of the bill's passage or into the revision of the code of practice.
That concludes our questions to the minister. I thank him for his attendance. The committee looks forward to receiving the further written information that he has indicated he will supply to us and, indeed, looks forward to seeing him at stage 2—if, of course, the Parliament agrees the bill at stage 1. I do not want to pre-empt anything.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—