Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 22 Jan 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 22, 2002

Official Report 302KB pdf

---

Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils' Records) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

This afternoon we are taking stage 1 evidence on the general principles of the Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils' Records) (Scotland) Bill. I welcome Nicol Stephen, who is the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People, and officials from the Scottish Executive. Before we move to questions, minister, would you like to make any introductory remarks?

Yes, thank you, convener. First, I will introduce my team of officials. Sam Baker is responsible for the overall co-ordination of the bill in the Executive. Sam works in the special educational needs unit of the education department. She has a particular interest in the detail of the disability strategies element of the bill. Lindsey Wright is responsible for the access to the pupils' records element of the bill. She works in the teachers and schools division of the education department. Shirley Ferguson works in the office of the solicitor of the Scottish Executive and has special responsibility for the bill.

The two elements of the bill—the disability strategies and the pupils' records—are not related. In my opening remarks, I will pay more attention to the first element. The second element, on pupils' records, is intended to sort out what legal draftsmen like to call an "unintended effect" of a previous piece of legislation—the Data Protection Act 1998. That act removed a right from parents that no one, I think, wanted to be removed.

It is estimated that around 800,000 adults in Scotland have a disability. Many become disabled during their adult life but many others will have had a disability since birth or since a young age. The bill will be important in helping to ensure that everyone in Scotland gets the best possible start in life and can go on to make a significant contribution to our society.

Section 2 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 requires education authorities

"to secure that the education is directed to the development of the personality, talents and mental and physical abilities of the child … to their fullest potential."

The bill is needed to help education providers to deliver that requirement for children with disabilities. Although many examples of good practice exist throughout Scotland, in many areas a lot of work still has to be done.

The inclusion of pupils with disabilities will not happen simply by moving children from special to mainstream schools. We will need plans to remove barriers to participation in schools and nursery schools across Scotland to ensure that pupils can benefit from mainstream education. The bill will support the new duties not to discriminate against pupils on the ground of a disability. Those duties will come into force across Great Britain in September this year; they will make it unlawful for schools or education authorities to discriminate against any child. The Disability Strategies and Pupils' Records (Scotland) Bill will complement and support those duties.

The bill will require responsible bodies to take positive action, rather than simply not to discriminate. That positive action must involve proactively planning for the future of all pupils with disabilities in all the education establishments for which the bodies are responsible.

Accessibility strategies will consider accessibility in the broadest sense—I especially want to emphasise that point. Physical access to buildings will, of course, be an important part of accessibility strategies, but access to the curriculum and to information are equally important—some would say more important. Being able to get around a building is not, on its own, enough. Children should be involved in lessons and should be able to learn in ways that are suitable for them.

Some people seem to view the bill, and accessibility strategies, as being about physical disabilities only. That is not the case. The strategies include all pupils with all kinds of disabilities. Education providers must plan for pupils with problems such as dyslexia or autistic spectrum disorder. With the right support, those children should be able to get far more from their education than is sometimes the case at present.

Other disabilities are often not considered in planning. For example, children with severe disfigurements may not need physical adaptations or learning support, but they will need support and understanding from teachers, staff, pupils and others so that they can be happy in their school and can access their education fully.

Improvements in attitudes as well as in facilities are already being made. The curriculum is becoming increasingly accessible through work that is being carried out at a number of levels—in schools and in pre-school education, in local authorities, in voluntary organisations, in the Scottish Qualifications Authority, in Learning and Teaching Scotland, and, indeed, in the Executive.

The bill is not starting something new; it is not starting from zero. However, it will ensure, from now on, far greater progress and consistently high standards of accessibility across Scotland.

I will comment briefly on the pupils' records element of the bill. Through the bill, the Executive wants to take the opportunity to create the necessary powers to enable us to reinstate an independent right for parents in Scotland to access their children's school records. Parents were given that independent right back in 1990, but it was unintentionally removed when the Data Protection Act 1998 extended data protection legislation to manual as well as to electronic files. The bill intends to sort out that problem.

I will stop there. I am happy to answer questions.

Thank you, minister. Before we move to questions, I welcome Gil Paterson, who is here as a reporter on behalf of the Equal Opportunities Committee. You are very welcome, Gil, and I hope that you will be able to participate in our discussions.

A number of submissions to the committee have raised the issue of the format of information, and we will take further evidence on that issue. At least two or three submissions have mentioned references to information being in writing only. Is there a willingness to reconsider the matter to see whether we can find other accessible formats to suit people's needs?

The answer to that question is yes. It is important that the bill specifies that the information is to be provided in a written format. That does not exclude making information available in the other ways that we would expect from a bill that deals with individuals with disabilities. The only issue is whether those other ways should be defined in the bill or whether that can be achieved through regulation or guidance. Perhaps Sam Baker will say something about that.

We plan that the guidance will state that, although strategies should be prepared in writing, they should be made available in alternative formats as necessary. We felt that to stipulate such a requirement in the bill would be too complex, as the exact formats in which the information had to be made available would then have to be defined.

Forgive my ignorance, but how would that make the bill more complex?

The bill would be made more complex because it would need to include a long list of the different formats and languages in which the strategy should be provided.

Could a qualifying phrase such as "where appropriate" be included so that the bill would not need to go into the specifics? Would that be possible?

That would be possible, but it might lead to misinterpretation about what the responsible body considered appropriate.

Have there been examples of other bills in which such a presumed lack of precision has led to folk challenging the provision?

No one is suggesting that the strategy should not be set down in writing in the first instance. Everyone is agreed on that. We all want to ensure that the strategies are accessible to those such as the blind who would be unable to read the strategy. The issue concerns what extra work would need to be done.

I am happy to take further advice on the issue and to give assurances to the committee or the Parliament about what the regulations or guidance will specify. Alternatively, we might find a way in which some appropriate reference to other formats can be made on the face of the bill. However, as I sit here at the moment, I do not know whether any precedent has been set in other acts of Parliament of either the Westminster Parliament or the Scottish Parliament. I am sure that Shirley Ferguson will be able to assist us on that. We will report back.

That would be helpful, as a number of agencies have raised the issue with us. When we are out discussing things with people, the lack of materials in the appropriate accessible format is becoming an issue. It would be helpful to move that debate forward with a bill of this nature. The bill could then become a template for moving the debate forward in other areas. It would be helpful if the minister could come back to the committee before stage 2, when we might want to consider that issue further.

I will come back to the committee prior to stage 2. Obviously, we can discuss the issue at stage 2, if necessary.

Given our record with bills, I am sure that the minister will want to come back to us sooner rather than later.

Gil Paterson has some questions.

I thank the convener for welcoming me to the committee.

I have a couple of questions about the guidance. The intention appears to be that much of the meat of the provisions will be covered by the guidance. I understand that, before issuing the guidance, the Executive intends to consult widely on it—more widely than it did on the draft bill. Will the Parliament be able to scrutinise the guidance to assess its suitability before it is issued?

If the committee or the Parliament wishes to see the guidance, we will provide it at whatever stage members want. In the past, we have made regulations or guidance available at a draft stage, where that was helpful, or when the guidance or regulations were formally issued. I am happy to work with the committee and offer whatever most appropriately ties in with the committee's scrutiny and timetabling requirements.

It might be useful for us to see the draft guidance, so that we can feed into the process. We would do that whenever it was appropriate. I am sure that we can make time available on our agenda to consider the issue. We could also invite a representative of the Equal Opportunities Committee to consider the guidance with us.

I am told that the guidance will be ready at stage 2. If so, that will be useful.

I thank the minister for that. What powers will be available to deal with responsible bodies that do not comply with the guidance?

At the moment, we are exploring with Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education the powers that it has when it carries out inspections of schools and education authorities and whether it could also examine the implementation of accessibility strategies. We are still considering the level of detail that the inspectors should go into. The accessibility strategies will be linked to the quality indicators, which already refer to how well a school is implementing legislation on special educational needs and disability.

There is also the possibility that people may be able to complain directly to the Executive, which could investigate any concerns that were highlighted. Alternatively, if someone had a serious concern about the accessibility strategy of an authority or a school, they could initiate an appeal under section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.

Are you saying that bodies that do not comply will be dealt with by the powers that would be attached to section 70 of the 1980 act?

Those powers already exist.

We envisage that, as most appeals for individual children would be cases of discrimination, they would be brought under the new draft code of practice for Great Britain, which will be published fairly soon. Such appeals would therefore go to the sheriff court.

In effect, those appeals would be made under a piece of UK legislation.

Let me start by welcoming the bill. I also welcome the fact that the minister said that the bill is about more than simply providing physical access and that it is about providing access to the curriculum as well.

I want to ask about the curriculum and about activities that take place outwith the curriculum. The written evidence of several organisations, including Capability Scotland, suggests that the bill should cover extra-curricular activities that are organised by the school both within and outwith the school premises. Clarity on that point would be useful.

Others want to know whether the accessibility strategy will cover auxiliary services such as loop systems and interpreters. Are such things within or outwith the bill's scope?

On the first point, activities that take place outside a school but are managed or organised by the school fall within the scope of the bill.

In keeping with what I said in my introductory remarks, things such as loop systems and interpreters should be included in the consideration that a school gives to its accessibility strategy. That is not to say that every school must have all the facilities that might be thought of; schools should plan for appropriate access, which means access that is appropriate to the needs of the pupils in the school.

Physical access is a good example. Some schools might not be able to provide the sort of access that we might wish. Such schools might find it extremely difficult to provide access to part or all of the school. As long as that was planned for, the school would not necessarily be in breach of the legislation, provided that it had a sensible strategy to meet its pupils' needs. The same principle applies to the provision of interpreters and loop systems, for example. Sam Baker will confirm whether that is a reasonable explanation.

The minister is correct. You must remember that the bill will operate not on its own, but in the context of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the existing SEN framework, part of which is being reviewed.

Services are normally provided through the SEN framework, but it is clear that they would also need to be considered as part of an accessibility strategy. Auxiliary aides would need to be considered as part of such a strategy because improving access to the curriculum for children with particular disabilities implies the need for auxiliary aides.

Is that information helpful?

Yes. I was under the impression that such provision was subject to resources. That was not explicit in what you said, minister, but I took it as implicit.

Resources are being made available in 2003-04 to help local authorities to implement their accessibility strategies. The intention is that, when the bill receives royal assent, local authorities will spend their time preparing their strategies, which they will implement from 2003-04 onwards. Included in the grant-aided settlements for that year is £9 million to enable local authorities to implement those strategies.

I am conscious that the bill applies not only to local authorities, but to all schools in Scotland. At times there will still be difficult resource questions. It would be wrong to hide from that fact. There will be a need to balance resources to ensure that they are used most effectively to achieve the bill's maximum impact and that money is used widely to move forward all aspects of the bill. It would be wrong to think of the money being available only for physical adaptations. It is important that money is available for other aspects. There should be investment not only in access to the curriculum, interpreters and loop systems, for example, but in those issues that are sometimes forgotten, such as making education accessible to people with such problems as dyslexia or autism.

My final point relates to the bill's impact. Section 3(5) places a requirement on local authorities or schools to provide information about accessibility strategies when requested. Have you rejected the possibility of those authorities actively promoting that information? If you want to ensure equality of opportunity, publishing that information in some form and ensuring that every parent has it might be a useful mechanism for promoting awareness. I wonder whether your intention is to be proactive or simply to respond to requests.

The intention is to be proactive. However, our concern was that, if the information was to be published as part of a school report, for example, the length and perhaps the complexity of the strategy document—we want schools and education authorities to go into some detail—would be prohibitive.

I am happy to consider the notion of individual schools and responsible bodies indicating in some way to parents that an accessibility strategy exists or giving parents a summary of the strategy, rather than a full copy of the strategy document, as appropriate. Again, I could consider for stage 2 how we ensure that that information gets to not only teachers, but parents and others—including carers, health services and social workers—who have an interest in the issues and might be involved in the process.

That is important, as we do not want the exercise to be meaningless. People should feel involved and should feel that we have responded to their needs and aspirations.

That is a good point. Before stage 2, we will try to provide information to help the committee in its considerations.

That would be helpful.

The minister will be aware that, although many local authorities welcome the general principles of the bill, they are concerned about its financial implications. I would like to ask about pre-school provision outwith school premises, which is a very welcome part of the bill. Local authorities would appreciate some clarity about their responsibilities in respect of their partnerships with private and voluntary sector providers. I am thinking, for example, of a local authority that has commissioned places in playgroups in a rural area. In that situation, there would be concern over whether the voluntary sector would have the finances to implement everything that is required by the bill. What would you expect the local authority's involvement to be? Another concern is that if, to adhere to guidelines, the local authority has to take the lion's share of the responsibility for the financial provision, it may be discouraged from going into partnership with the other sectors. That would reduce the number of child care places available, which is not the outcome that you want. Will you comment on those complicated implications?

This is a very important area. If I may, I would like to take time to consider those detailed points and then respond in writing. Private and voluntary sector providers of pre-school education that operate in partnership with a local authority will not be required to prepare accessibility strategies. Such providers are defined as providers of a service—that is, child care—for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as amended. Part III of that act requires providers to make the physical environment accessible to children with disabilities.

It is important that I give the committee a clear idea of the complexities in this area. There is a move towards having a single integrated inspection of pre-school education by social work departments and HMIE. We will have to consider how such an inspection will link in with the requirements of the new bill. Sam Baker spoke earlier about the inspection role of HMIE for primary and secondary schools.

If I may, I will give Irene McGugan further information in writing on this whole area and consider the potential impact—not only on the voluntary groups but on the young children. We must ensure that everyone is clear about the proposals and satisfied with them.

That would be fine. Thank you.

Some groups have said that they are not happy with the lack of details on time scales for introducing and implementing strategies. They are also concerned about the appeals mechanism. What will happen if it appears that strategies are not being implemented and the local authorities are not carrying out their duties? How do the new measures tie in with the minister's consultations on the assessment of our children's educational needs?

As I have outlined, our intention is that the bill will allow strategies to be prepared in 2002-03. Implementation of the changes that we want to make to physical access and the curriculum should start in 2003-04. The intention is that the strategies will last three years. All this will be a lot clearer when you see the draft regulations, as they give more detail.

I think that Sam Baker has covered some of the points about the appeal mechanisms that Gil Paterson asked about and mentioned the ways in which parents and carers might be able to secure action on behalf of a child. Is that what you were referring to?

Yes. However, you are obviously involved in changing the special educational needs framework anyway. I am interested in how that work is progressing and what the time scale is for the consultation. I am also interested in aspects of the process such as funding and training.

In a few weeks, we hope to announce proposals on the review of the record of needs. We are considering the need for a national strategy for children with special educational needs. I have been closely involved in that through the special educational needs forum. The plan was to have a draft proposal to send out for consultation by or during the spring.

Much is being done. I wish that various complexities did not exist, but they do. One complication is the fact that disabilities tend to relate to reserved matters but special educational needs are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. Some aspects of disability legislation relate to the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament as well, hence the need to consider the Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils' Records) (Scotland) Bill today. I was anxious to proceed with a national strategy for children with special educational needs because I wanted to bring those threads together, as far as that is possible, in an attempt to ensure that there is good co-ordination and clarity. I sense that the spirit of some of the questions that have been asked today is that we should attempt to give greater clarity ahead of the announcement of the national strategy on special educational needs—we should make clear what rights parents have under which acts of Parliament and which of those rights are founded in disability legislation and which are founded in special educational needs legislation.

Does anybody else want to talk about disability strategies?

I would like to talk about associated services, which relate to what Irene McGugan mentioned. The Disability Rights Commission recommended that section 2 should be extended to cover access to the school environment where pre-school education has been provided by the local authority in a non-school centre. Is there any reason why that requirement should not be extended to cover other local authority premises, such as museums? It is not the intention of the bill that a child should be unable to go to a museum with his or her peers.

I think that Sam Baker will be able to answer that point, which relates to our powers and the interaction between reserved and devolved responsibility. We have clear responsibility for schools, but disability legislation is a reserved matter. There was much discussion about how the Scottish Executive could introduce a duty for responsible bodies to plan accessibility strategies in our schools and for our young people. Those are the limits of the bill. If we went beyond that, we might stray into reserved territory.

The bill is essentially an education bill—that is its scope.

I understand that if the bill were a disability bill, it would be outside the powers of the Scottish Parliament as set out in the Scotland Act 1998.

As service providers, places such as museums are covered under part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which covers access to goods and services.

If the visit was made to a local authority museum, and if it was part of the curriculum, would the visit not come under the scope of the bill? Surely, if it did not, it would increase social exclusion for some individuals.

There will be a duty on the education authority to plan for that aspect of the school's activities and to ensure that the provisions of the bill are taken into consideration. To place a duty on the museum to plan to improve progressively its access would stray outside the provisions of the bill. In drafting the Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils' Records) (Scotland) Bill, we could not place a duty on non-education—non-school—bodies or organisations.

Will the minister clarify that when the bill becomes an act, education authorities or schools will not plan to take people to buildings that are inaccessible and cannot be accessed equally by all those involved? Is it part of the strategy that education authorities or schools should not go to places that other people cannot access because of physical or mental disability?

I am not suggesting that schools should not plan to take children on trips including—for example—ski trips. However, if they do so, they should plan ways of including individuals with disabilities. People should not feel that the bill will prevent them from going to a museum. However, they should think about the routes to the museum, about accessibility for individuals with disabilities and whether individuals with disabilities will be able to hear or see the exhibits. Ways should be found of including those individuals. I do not want the bill to be seen as restrictive, but education authorities should, at all times, consider their responsibilities and the needs of young people with disabilities.

I want to ask for clarification of section 4. A number of groups have raised points with us about educational records. First, will you clarify what is the intention with regard to pupil records? Will those records of needs include records of attendance? It has been pointed out to us that informal face-to-face or telephone discussions are included in pupil records. What is the scope of the records that will be made available to parents?

The intention is to return to the situation that existed before the Data Protection Act 1998 came into force. We intend to give back to parents the powers that they had under the 1980 regulations.

We are not talking about the record of needs—that is a different term from different legislation. The reason for using the phrase "educational records" is that those are the words used in the Data Protection Act 1998—we are trying to reflect the wording of that act. I am not sure that I am the best person to give you a list of all the things that would be included in educational records. Perhaps Lindsey Wright can give you some indication.

I shall try. We are probably not in a position to give a list at the moment because we have not yet made the regulations. There is a definition of educational records in the Data Protection Act 1998, to which we will cross-refer. There are further provisions in the School Pupil Records (Scotland) Regulations 1990 that we can perhaps keep. Some circumstances and situations in which information need not be disclosed are defined in those regulations and we will be considering how much of that we can keep. One such situation is where the information is kept and intended to be kept by the employee of the education authority solely for that person's own use—a teacher's notes, for example. We will be considering that in more detail when we prepare the regulations. We hope to be able to provide a draft at stage 2.

The fact that some of the organisations that gave us evidence were concerned suggests that there may be some disquiet as to what was previously the understanding of educational records. That should be taken into consideration. Consideration should be given as to whether there may be any clear difference between educational records in England and those in Scotland under the Data Protection Act 1998. That may be worth investigating. If there is a difference in practice, it may throw up an irregularity that will need to be dealt with.

I undertake to examine both the practice and the terminology. It could be that some of the words used in relation to education in England might not be used in Scotland or might have a different meaning here.

Okay. The second issue I will ask about was raised by South Lanarkshire Council and relates to permission. How will the bill fit with section 15(5) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which allows children with legal capacity to control access to their records. There is concern that the new legislation might mean that parents will require their children's permission to gain access to their children's educational records. Can you clarify that issue?

As I understand it, the 1995 act will stand in relation to that point and the bill will not change the situation. If people have concerns about the 1995 act, the Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils' Records) (Scotland) Bill is not the legislative vehicle to address them.

Finally, we have received conflicting evidence on charging for records. Local authorities are concerned about the cost of providing records if it becomes popular for people to seek out school records. On the other hand, there is understandable concern that charges might be prohibitive. What approach do you intend to take when issuing guidance on charging?

We are going to consider the issue of charging, which is something in which I am sure the committee will take an interest. We believe that the situation that existed before 1998 was broadly satisfactory, but we will consider updating aspects where necessary and appropriate. We do not believe that reinstating that right of access to records will create any significant increase in demand for access to records, nor any significant cost implications for authorities.

Clearly, if there were a suggestion that significant fees would be charged, that would be a concern. We need also to consider the context of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill, in which the charging regime and structure has been an issue of controversy and is likely to remain so as the bill progresses. The appropriate way to handle that is through regulations, so that changes can be made if any problems arise that are viewed as significant or unfair on parents who are appropriately trying to exercise the right that the Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils' Records) (Scotland) Bill returns to them.

Will the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill have any impact on the Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils' Records) (Scotland) Bill?

I will write to you on that matter too. I think that the answer is yes. The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill will extend the right to information to a whole range of individuals and organisations, and it is likely that the whole presumption of openness will have an impact on education, as well as on every other department and service.

It is important that, through the Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils' Records) (Scotland) Bill, we remedy the consequences of the 1998 act and give back to parents a right that everyone broadly accepted in the 1990s was sensible.

I was not suggesting otherwise, but it would be helpful to have some guidance before stage 2 on the possible impact of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill on the bill before us and on education.

That is a good suggestion. In view of the commitments that I have made today, we will prepare a full document that addresses all your concerns. I am conscious that you will hear from other organisations after you have heard from my officials and me. If any other issues come up during the questioning of other organisations, please feel free to add those to your list of concerns, and we will ensure that they are addressed in the briefing that you will receive prior to stage 2.

I undertake to write to you with a full list of the points of information that we are seeking. You can come back to us in due course.

I am afraid that I will have to cut the questioning to the minister there, as we have run over time and need to move on to our next set of witnesses.

We will now hear evidence from Capability Scotland. I ask Frank McAveety to take the chair.

Karen Gillon has nipped off for a short time, so I welcome the witnesses from Capability Scotland. Sandra Kerley is the director of Capability Scotland and I presume that Kate Higgins is the senior policy officer.

I am the parliamentary manager.

I apologise—I did not have your proper title. Thank you for correcting me.

We received a submission from Capability Scotland. Sandra Kerley will go through the key points that Capability Scotland wants to make.

I thank the committee for inviting us to give evidence. As the deputy convener said, the committee has our written evidence, so I do not intend to go over it in detail.

Capability Scotland welcomes the Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils' Records) (Scotland) Bill and its intention to improve access to all aspects of education for children with disabilities. Capability Scotland is involved in the education of children with disabilities on several levels. We are a specialist education provider and, in partnership with local authorities, we provide specialist support for inclusive education. We also deliver out-of-school provision in specialist and mainstream settings.

We would like to focus on the accessibility strategies and emphasise access to extra-curricular activities. In particular, we want to focus on the definition of associated services; the need for meaningful consultation; the monitoring, evaluation and inspection of the strategies; and the means by which children, young people and their parents can have redress if strategies are not being fully implemented.

We were pleased to hear the minister say that there were on-going discussions with HMIE. However, we were concerned about the option of appeal to the sheriff as there are difficulties with that.

Unless the committee would like me to continue, we will now try to answer its questions.

The introduction to your submission says that Capability Scotland is consulting parents, children and young people. If it is easy to produce information on that consultation, it might be of interest to the committee as we move to stage 2.

We conducted a consultation with parents, children and young people at the Scottish Executive's request. As there was a fairly short time scale, we conducted it using questionnaires. We developed two questionnaires, one of which was appropriate for children and young people to fill in. A report is available and I can ensure that it is forwarded to the clerks for distribution. I think that we sent the report as part of our written submission, but we can send it again so that the committee has copies. We are happy to come back and talk about the findings at any stage in the passage of the bill.

I have a question that relates to what Sandra Kerley said. My recollection is that the minister said that the Executive is considering monitoring arrangements in respect of HMIE and that an individual could have redress through the Executive or section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which details rights of appeal—I think he said that there could be redress through either of those options. From a lay person's point of view, I think that requires an appeal to the sheriff court. Is that enough or are there still difficulties? What do you recommend?

Our concerns replicate those that we highlighted during the passage of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 at Westminster. As Sam Baker pointed out, under that act too, the right of redress in Scotland is to appeal to the sheriff court. There is no halfway house for parents or, which is important, for children and young people. There are duties that extend to children and young people and not to local authorities or parents. We are talking about children's and young people's rights—it is incumbent on all of us to remember that in discussing the bill.

We are keen to see some form of mediation service that could resolve concerns and disputes amicably, rather than have a parent, child or young person insist on one thing and an education provider insist on something else, with the only resorts being a direct appeal to Government or court action. Concerns exist about the ability of people to access legal aid to take up cases under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. There is no suggestion that accessing legal aid would be any less difficult for this purpose. We are keen to promote the idea of a mediation or conciliation service being available to resolve disputes adequately.

We are concerned that the strategies should be properly monitored and evaluated. We would be keen to find out what happens if monitoring reveals that the strategies are not being implemented. What possibilities are there to take action against local authorities or other education providers?

I note your comments about associated services and extra-curricular activities. Were you reassured by any of the minister's comments, or do you still think that there is a need for clarification and the inclusion of those activities?

Further clarification is probably required. It should be made clear which definition is being applied to associated services and whether it relates to what is stated in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 and the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000. There must be clarity in the definition, which must be stated clearly at the beginning of the bill, so that people know what to expect.

Are the definitions in the acts consistent?

Perhaps they are not entirely consistent.

We raised concern about definitions when education and associated services were defined in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, which was dealt with by the Department for Education and Skills. It was like being back in the Westminster days of Scottish issues being an add-on rather than built in at the centre. We were not convinced that the Department for Education and Skills had considered the definition of education—I think that it is referred to as school activities—in the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000.

The Disability Rights Commission has provided a helpful list of the activities that are covered by "associated services" in the code of practice, which states that extra-curricular activities and school trips are covered. We are not sure which legislation takes precedence in Scotland. Is it the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, which has a fulsome definition—to which the minister referred—of education and school activities or is it the UK act? It would be helpful for that point to be clarified and for the Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils' Records) (Scotland) Bill to contain a reference so that we all know what the relationship is.

We will seek clarification on that from the minister and will forward to you any information that we receive.

I do not want you to misinterpret my motive in asking this question. We are all on your side. We discussed with the minister at what point it would be wrong for a local authority or a school to organise a trip that would disadvantage disabled youngsters. When would a school be in breach of its duties in running such a trip? It might be a superb educational opportunity that would not otherwise be available to disabled youngsters.

Do you understand what I mean? There are dilemmas in making such decisions.

Our view is that education is for all and that, therefore, all attempts should be made to ensure that any opportunities that are offered to children and young people in schools are available to all those children and young people, not only to some of them. We would expect schools to do whatever they could to ensure that all children could be included.

The Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 contains a presumption to mainstream. When the bill was being scrutinised, everybody said that the presumption to mainstream must mean more than simply having disabled children in a mainstream school setting. That is why the Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils' Records) (Scotland) Bill is welcome. The extent to which it will cover the curriculum, information and the physical environment is very much welcomed, because that is an issue on which we have been campaigning for a long time. It is the whole education of the child that matters.

Our consultation found that the problems in mainstream school settings are to do with extra-curricular activities, outside school trips and even the less core facilities such as access to the dining hall, the playground and the playing fields. Those are important parts of children's education and childhood, and children with disabilities are missing out. If the accessibility plans address that, that is to be welcomed.

We should not view the changes in education in isolation. By 2004, all providers of services and goods will have to provide full access to those services and goods to people with disabilities. There should be some dovetailing, so that the providers of the trips that you mentioned will have had to make changes to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. If that is the case, it will be much easier for schools to facilitate such trips for children with disabilities.

Thank you. I hope that you did not misinterpret my question; I just wanted to clarify the situation.

In addressing that delicate issue, the minister specifically mentioned skiing trips as an example. Some children with disabilities would have no difficulty in skiing, but others would have profound difficulties. How would the strategy seek to resolve a situation in which a school's facilities were fine and its provisions complied with the strategy, but the school discriminated against a child's going on a skiing trip to Hillend or abroad?

Sometimes a change in attitudes is required to make a trip happen. There are ways to ensure that even children with severe physical disabilities can go skiing. The issue is about having the information to hand and finding out whether that is a possibility.

Children make different choices anyway, and not all children would choose to go on such trips. Schools must give children a range of choices to cover their broad range of interests. Schools should think about what kinds of activities might be offered that could interest a broader range of children.

Just over two years ago, my children went on such a trip. They had a say in where they went, based on the choices with which they were presented. One of the reasons their class decided to go to a certain activity centre was that it had facilities for disabled people. However, I think that, behind the minister's raising that specific example, there is a concern that people might seek to take legal redress if certain trips were ruled out. Do you have any view on that?

We should keep things in perspective. There is also the issue of choice. Just as not every child who is not disabled would choose to go on a ski trip, not every child who is disabled would choose to go on one. If a child wants to go on such a trip but is denied access to it because the school or education provider concerned has not anticipated the situation and refuses to ensure that the trip is accessible, that school or education provider will be open to challenge under the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 and the accessibility strategies.

Some people may feel that a levelling is taking place that will disadvantage other children. However, there are operators that organise ski trips and other winter sports activities for people with disabilities. We need to ensure that there is provision that benefits all children. By the same token, it would not be right for a school to offer a trip that was suitable only for children with disabilities; children without disabilities and their parents would be up in arms about that. We welcome the fact that legislation is now in place to redress the balance somewhat.

I would like to comment on the point that Mr McAveety made about the strategy being available only in writing. The Deputy Minister for Education and Young People, and Sam Baker, who is in charge of the bill, said that addressing that issue would be very complex. However, we suggest that the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill may offer a way round the issue. Capability Scotland campaigned successfully for an amendment to the provisions in the bill relating to pilot schemes. That amendment, which allows local authorities to pilot the provision of materials in accessible formats, was couched in language that was not complex. The form of words contained in the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill may be helpful.

That is a helpful suggestion, which we will consider. Thank you for your evidence.

Our next set of witnesses is from the Disability Rights Commission. I welcome to the committee Adam Gaines and Heather Fiskin, along with Catherine Cherrie and Margaret Reynolds, who will act as lip speakers in this evidence-taking session. I ask Adam Gaines to make some introductory remarks, after which we will proceed to questions.

I will try to keep my remarks brief.

I thank the convener and the committee for providing us with the opportunity to give oral evidence this afternoon on what we regard as a welcome and vital bill. We welcome the fact that the bill is being taken through with such vigour.

The bill will underpin the anti-discrimination duties in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, which takes effect from September this year. That act is important because it seeks to end discrimination against disabled people in education. The most important aspect of the Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils' Records) (Scotland) Bill is that it will lead to the development of strategies throughout Scotland to increase access to education for disabled pupils and play an important part in ensuring that those students have an education that is equal to that of their non-disabled peers.

The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 introduced a planning duty in England and Wales that is similar to the duty that is proposed in the Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils' Records) (Scotland) Bill. It is important that pupils in Scotland are put on an equal footing with their peers south of the border. Indeed, the provisions in the bill go slightly further than those in England and Wales. We should also note the many instances of good practice in the field throughout Scotland.

Before I comment on the detail of the bill, I will highlight a few examples of the impact that the bill is likely to have on people's lives. First, we support inclusive education for all. The best education for disabled pupils is the education that best suits their needs, meets their expectations and affords them social inclusion on a personal level. That applies equally to education in mainstream and special schools. The bill can help to achieve more inclusive education in Scotland by providing strategies for disabled pupils, over time, to gain further physical access to schools and access to the curriculum, and hence to better opportunities.

At the moment, some disabled pupils have no choice but to attend a special school facility some distance from home and either board there or travel long distances each day. That allows them less time with their families or social groups and fewer opportunities to form friendships or associations in their neighbourhoods. Alternatively, they may be striving to succeed in a mainstream setting where they are perceived as either extra work or unable to participate alongside their peers in all activities, because the curriculum or the school buildings are not fully accessible.

Another positive aspect of the bill is that benefits will not just be restricted to pupils. Planning and implementing strategies on access will also benefit staff, parents and possibly community education students who use the facilities. That will assist education providers in meeting their other duties under parts II and III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

I have highlighted the positive aspects of the bill, and now would like to comment on a few of the details. Three areas in particular could benefit from being extended and clarified: the provision of auxiliary services; the scope of the expectations on responsible bodies; and the mechanisms for review. As we indicated in our written evidence, the clarification and extension of those areas would strengthen the bill.

I ask members who wish to ask questions to indicate that to me.

We have received written submissions and we have heard from the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People. You strongly recommend a tribunal system, which I wish to tease out a bit further. You say that you

"would strongly support a single, independent and specific avenue for complaint, appeal, redress and remedy across the range of education provision"

and

"the early establishment of an Educational Tribunal System for Scotland."

Why do you feel so strongly about that? How does that fit in with other views that we have read or heard about finding a halfway measure?

The issue is about ensuring that students and parents are able to seek review of certain decisions. The difficulty is that there are different provisions in different pieces of legislation. For example, there is provision for access to the sheriff court under part IV of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. There are different provisions under the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 framework, under which there is access to appeal committees and potentially also to sheriff courts or ministers.

Our view is that it would be helpful for parents, disabled students, education authorities and others if those review processes could be brought together administratively in a straightforward form such as a tribunal. At the moment, people have to ask themselves which route they need to take in certain cases. That is not to say that there are no routes. Given our experience of working on the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, we thought that a single tribunal might be a way forward when it came to certain cases in the field of employment tribunals.

Could you expand on your concern about sections 1(2) and 2(1) with regard to the provision of auxiliaries? You mentioned the problem that the special educational records might say that certain auxiliary help is required but that there is no right to such help.

The bill does not say that auxiliary services are covered. The spirit of the bill is that it will improve education for all disabled people. If you do not specifically include support workers for those who need them, you are not improving education. That would create different types of access for people with different disabilities.

For example, loop systems are very welcome but we feel that support workers have to be included. Although they are provided for under the record of needs, there is no entitlement to them. Obviously, we do not know what the outcome of the review of the record of needs will be. There might be something in that to address the problem. However, we believe strongly that there should be an entitlement to a support worker where that is required by a particular disabled person.

The bill is welcome because it sets out the requirement to develop strategies. It would be helpful if those strategies included one to consider auxiliary aids and if there was consideration of auxiliary services elsewhere. It would be helpful if the strategy could be more encompassing. It would be easier for everyone concerned to know how developments will be implemented over time.

As there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.

Thank you.

I welcome the representatives from Children in Scotland and ask Susan Grant to introduce her colleagues because I cannot quite see their names from here.

At the far end of the table is Neil Todd from the Royal National Institute for the Blind Scotland. Kay Tisdall is the director of policy and research for Children in Scotland. I am senior policy and research officer for Children in Scotland. Martin Vallely is part of our team but he is with the City of Edinburgh Council education department.

Would you like to make introductory remarks, or do you wish to proceed straight to questions?

Kay Tisdall will make introductory remarks.

We promise to make the remarks short; I know that the committee is pressed for time.

I echo what I have heard others say: we strongly welcome the bill as an essential complement to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. As the committee will note from our written evidence, we think that there is a real opportunity to ensure that the bill delivers on its intentions.

We want to emphasise three points. First, it is essential that the bill fits in with education and other children's legislation. More could be said about how it might fit in with the existing educational planning framework. Secondly, we think that the bill should strengthen monitoring. On implementation, there are possibilities to explore within the educational planning framework. Thirdly, I emphasise dissemination, for which there are stronger requirements in the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000. There are examples of such requirements in primary legislation and we think that they should be in the bill as well. It is essential that children and parents are involved in and know about the strategies.

We hope that there will be improvements to the bill and that further commitments will be made on guidance and regulations to address some of those issues.

Monitoring is a recurring theme for the Executive. How would you strengthen monitoring in the bill?

In planning for education and schools, it is critical that we consider the issues that matter most and that we place the provisions within that framework. The bill needs to make it clear that monitoring is expected not just of local authorities, but of schools in their development plan processes. Monitoring must be more strongly integrated in the requirements for service improvement planning for local authorities than the draft regulations imply will be the case. It would then be the focus of HMIE inspections of schools and education authorities. By integrating the provisions of the bill more closely with that, more effective monitoring would be implicit in the planning carried out in schools and local authorities.

It is important to consider the role of the inspectorate in relation to the bill. The current wording of the section that refers to HMIE is vague. We discussed earlier whether the Executive could request to see the plans that have been drawn up. We would like the provisions to be strengthened so that there is more of an expectation that the Executive will see plans regularly and then pass them to the inspectorate. That would probably be for guidance, as Martin Vallely said. There are lots of opportunities for highlighting good practice and doing comparative studies, which would give momentum to the new planning requirement.

The Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, which highlighted educational priorities and inclusion, seemed to dovetail beautifully. There are plenty of reasons to examine monitoring. We believe that it is weak at the moment. If the inspectorate's role was stronger and was clarified in the bill, that would strengthen the bill significantly and would answer a lot of the questions that parents raise about the enforcement process. If things are not working satisfactorily, the inspectorate deals with them, but the bill does not say that clearly at the moment.

I would like to make a supplementary observation: it is important that the exercise is not just a paper one and that it does not just go through the formal planning processes in the Scottish Executive education department. It is important that the Executive takes the matter seriously. For example, the public-private partnerships that are being considered will become part of the criteria according to which local authorities' business cases are assessed.

Monitoring is another tool, as is good practice. Such tools help the Scottish Executive to identify gaps in need and in services, so that we can move forward to improve the lives of children with disabilities.

There are obvious enforcement issues at school level, but there are separate issues for parents and young people, such as the lack of a system of redress. The Executive witnesses spoke about the possibility of appeals being made to the Executive. They also referred to section 70 of the 1980 act, which gives a right of appeal to a sheriff. Are those mechanisms sufficient? If not, what system of redress would you recommend?

It has been widely acknowledged by those who assess children's needs that the present system is not sufficient. Few appeals are made to the secretary of state, let alone to the sheriff court. Until the situation is fully resolved through consideration of the SEN framework, we do not have a definite recommendation to make, although we believe that more might be made of local authority complaints procedures—Martin Vallely may want to address that point. At least those procedures are a little closer to children and young people.

It is important that all the readily available mechanisms are involved, including community planning, the role of elected members and authorities' complaints procedures, where we expect good practice. Every reasonable step should be taken to resolve matters as close to the ground as possible.

I have two supplementary questions. Would such mechanisms require to be spelled out in the bill? Would they apply to independent schools?

To be honest, I would like a legal opinion on whether the mechanisms should be spelled out in the bill but, in the meantime, I would like an assurance that they would be recognised. Education is ready for that approach.

On your second question, my understanding is that a local authority complaints procedure would not apply to independent schools.

Martin Vallely represents the City of Edinburgh Council and brings a particularly interesting perspective to the discussion. Earlier, he made a point about the importance to the community of local accountability. A central part of that approach is for authorities to ensure effective dissemination of summaries of local council plans in all formats and in community languages. Full copies of the plans should be made available to those who want them. Kay Tisdall addressed at the beginning of our evidence the key point about dissemination of information. At present, the bill makes no reference to effective dissemination of the plan, although that is important for accountability to the community.

On appeals, we are in a state of flux in relation to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's report on its inquiry into special educational needs and are waiting to see what emerges. It has been suggested that a tribunal should be established to consider all appeals that relate to special educational needs and pupils with disabilities. In the not-too-distant future, there may be a proposal to pull together the disparate pieces of legislation. It would be terrific if we could establish one appeal system to deal with all issues, but I am not sure that such a proposal could fit into the bill.

One of the first recommendations in your submission is that the title of the bill should be changed. I do not know whether you heard the minister's evidence that the Executive is using a particular phrase in the bill to restore the rights that were taken away by the Data Protection Act 1998. Were you satisfied with that explanation?

I was interested in the minister's explanation, which was that the Executive had to use the term "educational records". The term originated in the Westminster Parliament, where there is little understanding among most MPs, if not those from Scotland, of the use in Scotland of the phrase "record of needs". Because the bill's title refers to education disabilities, the immediate assumption is that the reference to pupils' records in the title is to records of needs, which it is not.

The ambiguity is unhelpful. I think that parents would assume that the bill refers to the record of needs, particularly as we know that that issue has been discussed and that there could be legislation soon on it. The ambiguity is unwelcome. The bill's title should be changed by using a word such as "information". Educational records could still be referred to in the text of the bill to cover the legal point. If the bill's title were changed in that way, at least the title would not be a misleading description of the bill, as it currently is.

Another important point is that perhaps a third of the bill is about accessible information. There is much reference to information in the bill, so the use of the term "information" in the bill's title would cover both that aspect and what is required for the Data Protection Act 1998.

I want to ask a bit more about the section in your written submission on how the accessibility strategy could connect to other planning requirements. What is the minimum that needs to be done to provide cohesion? Why do you think that the Executive did not attempt to provide such cohesion, given that schools' improvement plans, for example, must have regard to equal opportunities and that we are now all signed up to integrated services? Why do you think that no attempt was made to integrate the accessibility strategy with other requirements?

I understand that that is partially because the independent schools are being included, which we welcome. However, the policy memorandum says that the Executive "could" associate the accessibility strategy with school planning. We think that that should be expressed much more strongly for statutory schooling, to link accessibility strategies explicitly with the national priorities. Schools must produce annual statements and school development plans for their local authorities in any case, to consider equal opportunities issues. We suggest that, for statutory schooling, accessibility strategies should become part of that process. That would be a good way to go forward.

We have debated children's services plans, which are important and also deal with inclusive aspects. Therefore, we suggest that, for the sake of Scotland's children, we should consider how accessibility strategies can link effectively with other services.

Martin Vallely, who is engaged in cohesive planning, might want to come in.

The minimum requirement would be for the accessibility strategy to be considered alongside school development plans and the overall approach of the local authority. The bill says that accessibility strategies "could" be integrated. It would be more reasonable for the bill to say that accessibility strategies "normally would" be integrated or—even better—that they "should" be integrated.

What is the position of local authorities on those issues and how can we maximise the effectiveness of accessibility strategies, if the bill is passed? The evidence suggests that, because of resources, practices or structures, accessibility strategies are uneven.

Somebody from a local authority would mention resources, as it is an issue. Nonetheless, the question is how we best use and direct resources, regardless of the scale that is available. The key issue is that there is fatigue in education because there has been initiative after initiative and plan upon plan. The more we can integrate the accessibility strategy into one approach, the more likely it is to have an impact on people's perception of the relationships between different elements and their ability to give due weight to the implementation of the strategy, instead of fulfilling endless planning requirements.

We feel that, for the bill and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 to move forward meaningfully, it is important that awareness and training are part of implementation. That should be considered for in-service training, but should also be picked up during initial training for teachers and auxiliary staff. Without that, it will be difficult to shift attitudes, so that people think about how we can make schools more accessible, not only in relation to the physical aspects, but in relation to the curriculum and information. We feel that it is important that those elements be given equal emphasis. That could be achieved through training and by thinking about how to link that to training on equal opportunities and under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

On a practical note, providing such training would be one of the best protections for any school or local authority against a case being brought under the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. It is one of the ways for them to show that they have tried to make reasonable adjustments.

I thank you for your evidence. We will now hear evidence from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

I welcome the witnesses from COSLA. Councillor Helen Law is the COSLA education spokesperson, Lynn Townsend is the special educational needs manager for West Dunbartonshire Council and Maggi Allan is the executive director of education resources for South Lanarkshire Council.

Would Helen Law like to make some introductory comments?

We have given the committee a written submission and I know that members have had a long day, so I will be brief.

We draw attention to the funding consequences of the bill for councils. I know that £9 million has been announced, but that would be insufficient to make a big impact on councils. Funding is needed not only for access to buildings, but for access to the curriculum and extra-curricular activities. Although councils are committed to dealing with special needs and have, in the main, a good record of dealing with young people with special needs, there is still concern.

I also mention briefly the implications for councils of going into partnership with private and voluntary sector organisations. The impact could be particularly drastic on rural communities.

On the requirement to draw up written accessibility strategies, we are concerned that the new planning requirement should dovetail with other planning issues. The policy memorandum that accompanies the bill indicates that there will be flexibility, which we welcome.

I will end there, but I draw members' attention to our written submission.

Thank you. You said that £9 million was not enough. Have you received any indications of the figure that you would require? Have you done an analysis?

I will ask Maggi Allan to answer that. She has done some calculations based on the situation in her authority.

I am not in a position to speculate on the national figure, but to prepare for this meeting we looked at the figures for our primary schools. We have 124 primary schools, of which 40 would require a lift. We know how much it costs to put a lift into a primary school, so the total cost would be £3.2 million. We calculate that we will get something like £600,000 through GAE from the £9 million that has been allocated for 2003-04. The financial memorandum gives no indication whether that income will recur or whether it is a one-off payment.

Other schools would require amendments—ramps or new toilets, for example. The cost for that would be around £5 million. Installing induction loop systems or individual microlink systems for children would cost between £500,000 and £1 million. Considering only those ballpark figures, I can already account for the £9 million in one council's primary school sector.

The Executive's PPP initiatives mean that councils will have the opportunity to review provision and to promote inclusion. In the secondary schools in my authority, that is the means by which we hope to meet the requirements made of us by this bill and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

I know from talking to other directors of education that we are not unique. When our PPP consultants considered our 21 secondary schools, they identified two of them and said, "It really doesn't matter what you do, you will never make these schools truly accessible for disabled youngsters." The schools are built on a slope, include several buildings and have lots of stairways—to take account of only the physical environment. We welcome the fact that the bill considers not only physical accessibility but educational accessibility in the round.

Your area covers my constituency, which has large rural areas. You may not have this information to hand, but perhaps you could come back to us with it. Given that the bill places an emphasis on extra-curricular activities, what are the transport implications of ensuring that children with disabilities can take part in such activities on an equal basis with their peers?

Again, all of us welcome the bill's proposition that young people with disabilities should have access to extra-curricular activities. From experience, we know that all too often those children, unlike other children, go home at the end of the school day and do not have the opportunity to socialise with their peers.

You are right to suggest that the implications could be extensive. Depending on the extent of their disability, many young people may well need a helper so that they can access the curriculum or social activities. That would involve additional auxiliary support; so, in addition to transport costs, which will be above the norm because they are specialised, we would have to consider the cost of having helpers. We have not done costings for that.

Obviously, there are individual cases of local authority support for young people's extra-curricular activity—I was telling my colleagues this morning that a young person in our authority takes part in a skating activity with her class—but that clearly incurs a cost.

Are you aware of any member authorities being consulted on the estimate for the £9 million that has been provided?

I am sorry—I cannot answer that question.

So you are not aware that there has been any consultation.

No.

Was Fife Council consulted?

No.

So the figure of £9 million is not based on a survey of likely need.

That said, all local authorities have submitted a summary of the state of their school buildings. Although I do not have any details about the survey, it was a fairly recent exercise.

Yes, but it did not centre on this specific issue. Have authorities been asked how much it would cost to do the job?

I am not aware that they have been asked that. There might have been an inquiry about our property, but I am not aware of that either.

Maggi, are you also unaware of any consultation?

Yes.

Generally, we all support the bill. However, if it becomes law—as is likely to happen—and the funding falls far short of what you require, how will that affect South Lanarkshire Council?

We have a programme that allows parents to say whether they want their youngsters who are coming out of pre-school education to be mainstreamed. As a result, we already know what the likely costs will be, and have tried to meet some of them from our existing mainstream budget and our inclusion fund. We receive about £800,000 in the excellence fund for the inclusion programme. However, once the bill is passed and placed alongside the requirement to mainstream education in the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, we will have quite a different ball game. At the moment, we can say to parents that although we might not be able to meet all of a child's needs in a local school, there might be a school six or 10 miles down the road at which those needs can be met. However, if a parent were truly insistent and held the new legislation up in front of us, the authority would face difficulties.

In your assessment of primary and secondary schools' needs, do you have a scale of improvement strategies that ranges from a moderate to a maximum level and that contains a set of cost options? For example, you say that the Executive's figure of £9 million is nowhere near the right figure. Do you have an optimum figure that you could accept? Have you carried out any costings in that respect?

Not really. While preparing for this meeting, we carried out costings. Those costings were for primary schools that are not on one level and which therefore require lifts, primary schools that require ramps and toilets, and primary schools that need some minor improvements, because they are new and are therefore disability-friendly. We also carried out costings for making primary schools accessible to hearing-impaired children.

In any of your capital programmes over the past few years, have you drawn up any strategies, based on the bill's principles, for adapting schools or have you had other priorities to deal with?

Although, like other authorities, we have been developing such provision, we have generally done so on a needs basis. When parents have said that they want their youngster to go to the local school, we have tried to accommodate that as far as possible and have made the necessary physical adaptations.

In some areas, schools are very close together. People have been able to access schools fairly close to where they live, although the school might not be the catchment school for their area.

I want to pick up a small point about the costs that the convener was exploring. Insurance liabilities might have to be met for people who operate any lifts that must be installed. There might also be additional costs relating to the operation of lifts. I take it that you have priced only the capital costs of installing lifts, but there could also be running costs.

That is correct. The figures that we have cited refer to the cost of installing a lift in a building, not to the lift's running costs.

Would it be possible for South Lanarkshire Council to gauge the costs of items such as insurance for schools that currently operate lifts and to extrapolate from those costs a global sum?

We could attempt to do that.

What human resources—such as staff training and auxiliaries—would be needed to back up the provisions of the bill?

There are two main issues. Training is a big issue, as training and changing attitudes go hand in hand. In my experience, most teachers are very keen to welcome into their schools children who have disabilities or special needs, but they are also very apprehensive if they have not been in that position before or if they lack specific training and experience. It is very important for us to be able to offer training. Such training, in particular specialised training, can be problematic and costly. We need to be able to reach down to classroom teachers in preparation for children moving into a school. At the moment we do that on an individual, needs-led basis. If we know that a child who has special education needs will be going to a school, we can raise awareness in that school and conduct specific training with specific members of staff. However, doing that throughout an authority would be problematic.

The second issue is that of access to specialist staff. Good inclusion of children and their success in school often depends on there being at least access to a teacher who is a specialist in autism, visual impairment or hearing impairment, for example. Some of our successes with inclusion are attributable mostly to the availability of a specialist teacher who can offer both consultation to mainstream staff and direct input to the young person concerned and, possibly, their parents. There are difficulties not only with funding such a service, but with the availability and recruitment of trained staff.

My next question ties in with what Lynn Townsend just said, although it is not really in the mainstream of what we are discussing. How would you react to the suggestion that some adjustment should be made to maximum class numbers if youngsters with special educational needs are to be integrated into mainstream classes? Does a formula exist that could be used to adjust expectations of class sizes?

We have not to date considered that option, but I know that class sizes can be an issue. School boards have told us that, although they welcome the inclusion of children who have a range of special needs, they have concerns about the amount of time that an individual child might require from a teacher and about the impact that that might have on the other children and young people in the class. Adjusting class sizes is an option that we might need to consider alongside having additional adults in the classroom. We provide SEN auxiliary support for a range of children, which means having a second adult in the classroom. However, that person is not usually a second teacher.

I want to ask about three areas. First, I want to return to finance, so that I can be absolutely clear about the situation. I understand that the £9 million that has been referred to will be made available in local government revenue grants in 2003-04. However, that needs to be set against an increasing inclusion fund within the excellence fund, which will rise to £19.5 million in 2003-04 from £14.3 million this year. The amount of money that is available is increasing. We are talking not about just £9 million, but about the additional sum of almost £5.2 million between the current financial year and 2003-04, with an indication that more funding may be expected in future years.

If we factor in the public-private partnership considerations—to which you referred in a South Lanarkshire context—that presents us with a slightly different picture. Notwithstanding any anticipated further dialogue between COSLA and the Executive, do those considerations start to present councils with the necessary finances?

Those funds will certainly help. I was not aware of the significant increase in the inclusion fund within the excellence fund, to which you referred. South Lanarkshire Council currently receives £800,000 from that fund. My quick calculation is that our allocation would probably increase to £1.1 million. With the addition of the £600,000, we are looking at about £1.7 million a year to attack the problem. I am assuming that the £9 million is recurring funding. If that is the case, we could make the commitment to move towards the implementation and the development of accessibility strategies. In return for that, we would want flexibility in the time scale. Local authorities will obviously be at different stages. The ease or difficulty with which they can implement the strategy will depend on the size, age and condition of their properties. We would welcome an indication from the Executive about the period within which authorities would be expected to implement the bill.

Lynn Townsend will add to that.

It is important to bear it in mind that inclusion funding covers a wide range of projects and initiatives; it does not focus only on children who have disabilities. We are working hard to include children who have social, emotional and behavioural difficulties and who would not normally be considered in the disability category. Much of the inclusion funding might be directed toward that.

That is helpful. I will move away from finances completely.

I am keen to explore whether local authorities and schools can play a more proactive role. Section 3(5) of the bill leaves the onus on parents to request copies of the accessibility strategy. The strategy is over 100 pages long when the appendices are included, so I do not suggest that it should be sent out to people. However, I am conscious that the bill's impact will depend on the extent to which local authorities and schools proactively promote the bill's provisions. Will it cause too much difficulty to send a summary of the strategy to parents, as is already done for a number of strategy documents?

In our written evidence, we suggested that the strategy could be published every three years as part of the children's services plan. I see no difficulty in publishing a summary, but I doubt that a full strategy could be sent out every year.

Several organisations highlighted the fact that the bill seems to lack provisions for dealing with complaints or for any system of redress. I acknowledge that, despite the best efforts of schools and local authorities, there will be parents who will not be satisfied. Is there a need to spell out a clear and simple system of redress?

There is a need for a system of redress, but local authorities would not favour a tribunal system. Perhaps a better way forward would be for redress to be sought through HMIE.

Should parents be given the right to approach HMIE?

It might be advantageous to approach the matter using aspects of previous legislation. While giving evidence earlier the minister said that, ultimately, the opportunity would exist to apply for a default order under section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. It is clear that that would happen only at an extreme stage. For example, at the moment any challenge to the record of needs is automatically sent to HMIE. The inspectorate carries out an investigation on behalf of the First Minister—originally, the legislation stated that the inspection would be on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland—and authorities abide by whatever ruling HMIE makes.

Similarly, if section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 were applied, the appeal would be made to the First Minister. Perhaps we should consider current approaches rather than introduce a new system. That is how our thinking is shaping up

Do local authorities provide documents in appropriate formats in relation to their other their responsibilities? Would it be complex or difficult to meet the requirements of the bill?

We tend to provide documents in other languages, rather than in other formats. Like most authorities, we are developing our website, so information is available there. We do not provide information on tape. We occasionally provide large-print material, but that is generally on request.

Given the numbers that are involved, will the burden be excessive?

The burden will probably not be excessive, but it will depend on demand. I presume that material could be put on tape or drafted in Braille.

The submissions that we received contained different views about appeals. Some organisations expressed strong views about the frustration that individuals and families feel about the process in education directorates, on the enforcement of families' rights and the appropriateness of concerns, given the understandable powerplay between an institution such as a council or other body and an individual. How do local authorities achieve that balance?

We try not to deal confrontationally with parents. Many of us are conscious that, all too often for parents who have youngsters who have special educational needs, their entire life tends to be a struggle and a battle with the health services or, unfortunately, with local authorities. Increasingly, we try to ensure that that is not the case.

Difficulties can arise when different views are held about the provision that should be made. If authorities come into conflict with parents, it generally concerns that distinction. The parent prefers one type of provision and the local authority professionals—and often health professionals—might recommend another. In such instances, we try to resolve the matter without confrontation.

It has been suggested that a mediation service should be brought into play. Some authorities, including South Lanarkshire Council, have mediation services for housing, which deal with difficult housing cases. That might be an option, but we have not explored it in depth. I am not sure whether any other authority has done that.

A few authorities are piloting mediation. That would be a useful step in the process, but I agree that, for the most part, we try hard to work and remain in dialogue with parents. Sometimes, the situation can be difficult from the local authority perspective, because we might feel that we have engaged with parents, tried hard, met many of their needs and not had a struggle. However, parents describe the process as a fight and a struggle. Sometimes, it is a matter of different perspectives.

Do you feel more comfortable with exploring an option that involves mediation and arbitration, rather than one that involves a tribunal?

Yes—such an option would be a bit less formal.

Should funding for the provisions in the bill and other SEN provisions be treated differently from other funding? How do you react to ring-fenced money and grant-aided expenditure? Some people are making a case for a special way of treating that funding, because the size of its allocation significantly impacts on authorities and might not be determined relative to population size, for example.

Local authorities generally do not welcome the ring-fencing of funding; they seek funding that is adequate to carry out all their tasks, but they also want flexibility in the funding arrangements so that they can address local issues and needs, which vary between areas. My response to the question is therefore that there should simply be adequate funding for councils to do the tasks that are expected of them.

I will not get into a debate about that.

I thank the witnesses for their evidence.

I alluded at the start of the meeting to the bill's implications for rural areas and, if possible, I would like to ask Maggi Allan to elaborate on that, because no member has raised the matter.

You may do so as long as it is to do with rural areas in the broadest sense.

It is more to do with pre-school provision.

Including that in constituencies such as mine? [Laughter.]

Not at all, convener. We listened to what the minister said and to the questions that the committee put to him in respect of pre-school provision and the bill's potential implications for partner organisations. It is my understanding that, under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, if a local authority contracts with a partner to provide a service on behalf of the authority, it is still the local authority that is ultimately accountable, and legal redress could be taken against it. That has potential implications for our early-years provision partners.

That might have an impact on rural provision. We try to develop partnerships because of their impact on the local economy—they provide employment. It is worth considering what the bill's impact on partner organisations will be. That might well be something that the new Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care will want to consider. I am not sure whether it would be a requirement of registration that provision must comply with the 1995 act.

I think that that is worthy of further consideration, and I will take the matter up in my letter to the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People for further clarification. We will come back to you prior to stage 2 to consider the issue in more detail. Thank you for your evidence.